doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion German & Austrian Sporting Guns @ doublegunshop.com August Jung Viernau-5.6x61R vom Hofe Super Express

By the way, any idea what the velocity of the Proof Load might have been?

Hochachtungsvoll,

Raimey
rse

Raimey,
I have no idea, but it would be too high to try to duplicate.
Mike

I have no intension of duplicating it; just a curiosity.

I may piddle w/ VV N 160 a little more & add a grain, grain and 1/2......

But I am going to switch to VV N 170 & see how if fills the case.


Hochachtungsvoll,

Raimey
rse

I wonder how the 22 Creedmoor compares to the 5,6X61 vom Hofe. I do realize it is a Bolt Gun Cartridge???

A little bit shorter case & a little thinner...

Hochachtungsvoll,

Raimey
rse

If I switched back to the H or IMR powders, their is no data for a 79/80 grain bullet. So I would be still in the same leaky boat with holes in it to plug..... The tube is stamped 5,1 grammes & the bullets just cut thru a can @ about the same diameter as the bullet. So for sure the bullet is stabilized......


Hochachtungsvoll,

Raimey
rse

Raimey,
You can call the powder company and ask them; they will likely have a ballistics program. They might want the case capacity in grain weight of water. The 22 Creedmoor will be loaded to higher pressure, and it will be expressed in psi rather than cup and there is no conversion.
Mike

Thanks Ford. I wasn't really looking @ a load comparison but rather a load difference comparison between powders. But I will send VV an email.

Should I switch to a Magnum Primer as 7,35 Carcano suggests, or would that even solve the loose powder issue¿

Hochachtungsvoll,,


Raimey
rse

So, so much for that idea....


Hochachtungsvoll,,


Raimey
rse

Raimey,
Lawyers ruin everything. You might try Hodgdon or buy a ballistics app. Carcano doesn't seem to be a novice, you might try his suggestion by reducing the charge a little and working back up.
Mike

I did wonder a bit about the quaint possible whatabouts and whys behind *this* question, but purposefully did initially abstain so from any, possibly premature comment on my part. So far.

One motive for such a query might be the pondering why in the past the producers and gun traders gave such apparently inflated velocity figures, higher than what the real vintage cartridges deliver.
Just a P.T. Barnum kind of salesmanship? In the Golden Times of Suhl and Zella-Mehlis, these German craftsmen certainly did not deem themselves morally above and beyond a good juicy splash of "Reklame", blowing hot air diligently out of either set of cheeks...
Stendebach e.g. was a Lutz Möller type already 80 years before, and he was certainly not less full of unbridled admiration for his own unrivalled genius, but at least still a bit less eccentric in tone and style than the insufferable Möller. His recklessness, coupled with histrionic hubris, against all safety concerns, eventually killed L.M. (and very sadly also almost a second person).

Another idea might be the past deliberation to (ab)use not only impractically loooong barrels (75 centimetres or even more), but to use proofloads for "establishing" these fancy ballistic data, which they then flaunted.

Lastly, Mike Ford has already given the one and single correct advice: if you want to know, acquire some excellent modern ballistic software. For these two cartridges, "Quickload" (developed and maintained by Hartmut Broemel) is the one to use. Then tinker with the data entries.

Regards,
Carcano