|
Post by Lee Martin on May 3, 2012 8:19:07 GMT -5
Guys, think about it. Again, you're limited to OAL based on the crimp groove. Yes, you can change the position of that groove on custom bullets but it doesn't get you much. Maybe a few grains more powder and most Maximum propellants actually need more than 6.5" of barrel to burn efficiently. AA1680 is one of the best powders and you can't burn it all in 6.5" of tube. Even my heavyweight 525 loads use 38.0 grains. 440's top out around 43 or 44. You can add more charge with added case capacity but unless you compress it your velocity gain will be nil. And since these guns are already working close to 40,000 PSI you really don't want to go higher. The gun may hold but longevity will suffer. Make no mistake, frame stretch is a real concern with these conversions. That's why guys like Linebaugh and Bowen stress 40,000 PSI tops, with 30,000 - 35,000 PSI being preferred. Years ago I did a crimp groove trial with my 401 Bobcat. Actually lathed a second groove 0.10" back from the standard on a 230 grain custom cast 10mm. Equated to another 2 - 3 grains of H110 on a base load of 21.0. Out of a 7.0 barrel, guess what it got me on average? 11 fps. So while in theory a lot of this stuff sounds great it doesn't always play out in the real world (and the real world for me is many rounds over a chronograph). Just my opinion, but we're really splitting hairs talking about a few hundredths of added cylinder on a 500 Max. -Lee www.singleactions.com"Building carpal tunnel one round at a time"
|
|
|
Post by whitworth on May 3, 2012 8:28:53 GMT -5
"...don't think any significant improvements are to be made by an ever so slight cylinder length difference..." Said the man just before the bullet jumped crimp... Said the man who will more than likely not load it hot enough to be concerned with crimp pull... ;D Axe, the difference in the length of the cylinder is less than 1/10th of an inch. I would suggest actually shooting them to see if crimp jump will be an issue. If the revolver in question was to serve as a back-up piece, I would more concern myself with this issue, particularly if loaded heavily. What do you intend to do with yours, Axe, since you haven't shot them yet?
|
|
dmize
.401 Bobcat
Posts: 2,825
|
Post by dmize on May 3, 2012 10:43:24 GMT -5
Whit,if I may ask,just what brought about the 50 Alaskan BFR? Some brainiac who thought it was a good idea. And it's not a BFR, it's a D-Max. I only draw this distinction because it is that much lighter than its BFR cousin. This revolver (the .50 AK) is a whole 'nuther level of dumb. Was just curious.
|
|
|
Post by bigbores on May 3, 2012 10:54:20 GMT -5
"...don't think any significant improvements are to be made by an ever so slight cylinder length difference..." Said the man just before the bullet jumped crimp... Said the man who will more than likely not load it hot enough to be concerned with crimp pull... ;D Axe, the difference in the length of the cylinder is less than 1/10th of an inch. I would suggest actually shooting them to see if crimp jump will be an issue. If the revolver in question was to serve as a back-up piece, I would more concern myself with this issue, particularly if loaded heavily. What do you intend to do with yours, Axe, since you haven't shot them yet? Seems like I'm defending my self for what was said as a congrats to Axe for a cool buy, whats funny is Axe,Lee,Whit, and my self all have a 500Maximum Ruger 3 of which was made by JRH. Funnier still is out of everyone here I'm the guy shooting the lightest load and thinks the Maximum is at its best loaded down a little. First the difference between maximum OAL's between the to 2 frames isn't under .10" its over .150" (there only .200" between the 500L and the 500Maximum) because The Huntington cylinder uses a recessed case heads cylinder where the Reeder does not, this adds .070". And yes Ive played with longer nosed bullets in half inch bores... Namely 2 500S&W x-frames, I saw around 100FPS for every .10" I added to OAL in the 500's, I would expect the 500Maximum to act similar. Don't take my word on it, John Ross talks about using long bullet noses and found going from a 2.05"OAL to 2.230"OAL would give him 500-600 more FPE on the 500S&W.http://www.john-ross.net/store.php .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2012 11:26:42 GMT -5
Lee has a point though. Why all the push for more case volume? Axehandle's gun has a very short barrel. Are you even going to be able to make the added powder 'work'? If is so aren't you going to have to compress it and increase pressure? That's how slow powders function you know. Now in a long barrel you may have something
|
|
|
Post by sixshooter on May 3, 2012 11:40:33 GMT -5
Just my opinion, but we're really splitting hairs talking about a few hundredths of added cylinder on a 500 Max. +1. I have experimented with the 500 Smith and overall length. Never been able to duplicate John Ross' data. Not surprising though. A lot of his stuff doesn't add up. Now anytime I have got higher velocity by shallow seating I have had to push pressure. Basically compressing the charge as hard or harder than standard length.
|
|
|
Post by AxeHandle on May 3, 2012 11:48:45 GMT -5
Short Barrel? Me? Now let's don't get personal! You guys are going to inspire me to pull out the chrono... You thinking it will make a good Trail Boss gun? I can always buy a second one for AA1680... Oh yeah! This IS the second one!
|
|
|
Post by sixshooter on May 3, 2012 11:54:48 GMT -5
You guys are going to inspire me to pull out the chrono... FINALLY! But remember you still have to shoot bullets over it. That is a nice custom 500 though. I hope you enjoy it. Quick question too. Why do you guys call it the Maximum? Isn't it really called the 500 Linebaugh Long? Or did other gun smiths just not want to mention the competition?
|
|
|
Post by whitworth on May 3, 2012 12:13:10 GMT -5
Actually, I believe it was Bowen who build the first .500 Max. And, since it goes into what used to be a .357 Max, it stands to reason!
|
|
|
Post by whitworth on May 3, 2012 12:18:02 GMT -5
Just my opinion, but we're really splitting hairs talking about a few hundredths of added cylinder on a 500 Max. +1. I have experimented with the 500 Smith and overall length. Never been able to duplicate John Ross' data. Not surprising though. A lot of his stuff doesn't add up. Now anytime I have got higher velocity by shallow seating I have had to push pressure. Basically compressing the charge as hard or harder than standard length. I used John Ross' load data for a test I conducted last year (Lee helped me out with that one), and the loads, shot over the chronograph were considerably lower than they were supposed to be. I know each gun is a law unto itself, but I am just reporting the facts. I don't see that comparing the .500 Smith to the .500 Max is such a good idea as the accepted operating preasures are much higher in the Smith (it's SAAMI spec is just under 62,000 psi). So, what applies to one doesn't necessarily apply to the other. The Max frames just cannot take the same preasures. I will again raise this issue. The .500 Maximum is not case limited. The loads we are running go right around 1,350 at the muzzle. We can take them all the way to 1,500 fps plus if we were so inclined. I don't see where loading long will gain anything when we are not redlining them to start with. Sorry I didn't take the counterboring into consideration. I went home at lunch, measured and got .060 for the recesses. My cylinder length is 2.10 -- 1/10-inch less than the Reeder gun. Yes, it gives the Reeder gun a little more space, but it is academic at best. I realize that is sounds like I am down on the Reeder gun and nothing could be further from the truth. I think it is very cool and I am pleased that something new along this vein is being produced. There are a finite number of Ruger Maximums floating around out there, and the Reeder stretch frame is just what we need to keep this idea and these calibers alive and well. We do not push these guns to their limits, yet we are talking about increasing their limits.
|
|
ChrisO
.30 Stingray
Posts: 226
|
Post by ChrisO on May 3, 2012 14:39:25 GMT -5
Is Ruger or someone else gonna put out a new maximum length frame revolver soon?
|
|
|
Post by whitworth on May 3, 2012 14:41:27 GMT -5
Is Ruger or someone else gonna put out a new maximum length frame revolver soon? Not that I know of. Just not enough demand to justify it. But, the good news is that you can get one from Reeder!
|
|
ChrisO
.30 Stingray
Posts: 226
|
Post by ChrisO on May 3, 2012 14:43:08 GMT -5
Ok...Thanks Whit, I thought someone several posts ago here mentioned something about one coming out. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by bigbores on May 3, 2012 18:48:52 GMT -5
I love this forum, so many people here with a lots of real experience.
I just don't know why Axe keeps stirring the pot! ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by AxeHandle on May 4, 2012 8:18:16 GMT -5
Just love stiring that pot! May be my imagination but I think that each time we throw another Reeder in the pot and stir it a few times we end up with a few more Reeder converts! More than that when we pull one of these topics out of the hat and grind on it a few days we all learn a little bit. Good solid discussion prepares us for the next discussion and tunes our senses a bit for when it is time to drop the cash on another custom. And yes, opinions that are based purely on subjective criteria are good for us too. Outside of doing things nobody should do there are no rights or wrongs. Think of where we would be if nobody ever stepped outside the box.
|
|