Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2017 16:42:37 GMT -5
Very interesting information about the two different primers. For someone like me still learning is great information!!
|
|
|
Post by GMB54-120 on Feb 2, 2017 11:06:28 GMT -5
From my observations, the carbon buildup in the flame channel tends to begin on the leading edges of the primer pocket, flash channel, and bushing or ventliner lead-in. These observations lead me to believe the buildup comes from the primer, not the powder charge. Look at a brass rifle case. The inside is not very dirty but look in the primer pocket after depriming and you see carbon. My theory is that with a larger flame channel, more discharge from the primer is trapped in the flame channel by the inrush of chamber pressure. Where in a rifle case, more of the carbon is ejected with the projectile. It would sure seem like its the primer. Just fire a few primers (no powder) with and without a vent or bushing and the amount of fouling in the bore is substantial. The fouling/carbon though in the flash channel is somewhat softer. To make it more confusing use Triple7 or any other sub and there is a little carbon in the flash channel. Use BH209 and there is more and its harder. BH209 has some similarities to smokeless. The carbon can be insanely hard just like the carbon in a Savage plug that has only seen smokeless. IMO something else is going on besides just the primer but in defense of the LRMP, a friend uses them in the PR modules. He swears the fouling is very soft compared to a 209 and his flash hole life is greatly increased. This is in an Omega using only BH209 with the PR LRMP plug and SS modules. What makes this so confusing is the NULA plug does not follow this pattern at all. There is nothing mind blowingly unique about it other than it seals incredibly well. After 2 days of shooting over a weekend there is hardly any hard carbon to remove vs my SavagePac 45 plug. Now, my 45cal SML loads are fairly tame as well but still get into the 42-44kpsi range according to TGs traces. Im still considering a Scout V2 conversion and i think it would be nice to have both primer options just for convenience and occasional comparisons. My loads would be pretty tame in that rifle just to be cautious.
|
|
|
Post by schunter on Feb 2, 2017 11:16:46 GMT -5
Something that I have found very interesting in the 40 cal testing BH209 is that I am getting almost no carbon buildup in the flash channel. What is there is not hard like in the .45. Savage plug with bushing and Fed209A primer. I will see if this continues once I shoot in warmer weather.
|
|
|
Post by GMB54-120 on Feb 2, 2017 11:28:11 GMT -5
Something that I have found very interesting in the 40 cal testing BH209 is that I am getting almost no carbon buildup in the flash channel. What is there is not hard like in the .45. Savage plug with bushing and Fed209A primer. I will see if this continues once I shoot in warmer weather. Which plug is in the 40cal and does it seal on the nose of the primer with a crush fit? My Knight/Lehigh plugs are not terrible either but the carbon i do get is still pretty hard. My Win209 primers crush about .003 in those rifles. I still need to test my Bestill plug with the Fed209s which crush about the same and seem to seal very well.
|
|
|
Post by scallop on Feb 2, 2017 12:08:35 GMT -5
GMB54-120:
When I purchased my NULA ML, Mr. Forbes told me only to use CCI and Federal primers. He said the ML was made specifically for the demensions of those two primers.
Also, I have never had any blow back or primer leakage, that I could notice, with the NULA 209 system.
|
|
|
Post by GMB54-120 on Feb 2, 2017 12:25:21 GMT -5
Im not 100% sure if i tried the Feds in mine. I thought i did and the bolt wont close. Either CCI 209 is fine though. Ive used both the mag and standard. I dont really see much of any difference. When i talked to Melvin he said to use the CCIs. Mine is one of the first 50 made so maybe that is why? The last several people i know that got a NULA he told them to use the Fed209A.
Overall i love it, i just wish it was a 45cal even if i had to shoot mild sabot loads. A 200gr bullet in the 2400fps range would still be just fine with me for recreation and hunting deer.
|
|
|
Post by schunter on Feb 2, 2017 12:53:45 GMT -5
Something that I have found very interesting in the 40 cal testing BH209 is that I am getting almost no carbon buildup in the flash channel. What is there is not hard like in the .45. Savage plug with bushing and Fed209A primer. I will see if this continues once I shoot in warmer weather. Which plug is in the 40cal and does it seal on the nose of the primer with a crush fit? My Knight/Lehigh plugs are not terrible either but the carbon i do get is still pretty hard. My Win209 primers crush about .003 in those rifles. I still need to test my Bestill plug with the Fed209s which crush about the same and seem to seal very well. Savage breech plug with a bushing and yes it seals on the nose. I have not checked how much crush but they come out very clean.
|
|
|
Post by jims on Feb 2, 2017 21:32:35 GMT -5
It looks as if Melvin has a good design also.
|
|
|
Post by grouse on Feb 2, 2017 23:52:24 GMT -5
GMB54-120: When I purchased my NULA ML, Mr. Forbes told me only to use CCI and Federal primers. He said the ML was made specifically for the demensions of those two primers. Also, I have never had any blow back or primer leakage, that I could notice, with the NULA 209 system. I'm really surprised he told you that. The consistency of Federal primers dimensions are terrible. And so are winchesters. Anyone looking for consistent results with 209 Primers CCI is by far the best way to go. My NULA was built right before or after GMB54-120'S. Melvin said CCI'S only. But don't get me wrong, if you can utilize both that's great to. But me personally would still only use CCI Primers. The main reason why is consistency. You can't have a little leakage/blow by and expect to shoot consistent Moa or sub Moa groups. Center fire rifles are no different. A poorly head spaced CF rifle won't shoot consistent groups either.
|
|