|
Post by james72 on Jun 8, 2023 20:24:55 GMT -5
I bought a pound of 4227 and decided to do some comparison tests today between 4198 and 4227 out of my CVA Scout. I am shooting the 278g Accumax bullet. I've shot a little over 200 rounds out of my gun over the past 4 months and up to this point my best groups were with 61-62g of 4198 and a wool wad (consistently grouped 1" or better at 100 yards). Today I was pleasantly surprised to find that 4227 performed even better. I started with 53g (minimum load for my powder chamber) and once I hit 54g there was no need to go any further. It was obvious I had found my load. I attached a picture below of my best group. This load shoots 2575 FPS out of my gun. Here are the reasons I like 4227 better than 4198: 1. Lower ES and better groups out of my gun 2. It is a faster burning powder and should swell the bullet faster 3. My groups were actually better without a wad 4. I get the same velocity as 4198 with 5-6 grains less powder
|
|
|
Post by mike on Jun 8, 2023 21:07:18 GMT -5
This is good and interesting information, thanks for sharing. Did you feel any difference in recoil energy/impulse/speed? I wouldn't think so based on your matching the velocity and the same bullet weight, but just curious. To share my current CVA Apex .452 load: smooth sized Hornady 250 FTX, 65gr IMR4198, lrmp HIS, 2620 ave muzzle velocity in 30 degree air. Looks like you have a good new recipe and your trigger pulling finger is up to the challenge, good shooting.
|
|
|
Post by sew on Jun 9, 2023 8:39:48 GMT -5
James,
H4227 was a recommended powder for the Sav 10 ML, the first year they came out. There were many leaky modules with the 10ML. Misfires were common back then. The greatest %age of misfires was with H4227.
In 1 year, the 10 ML was replaced by the greatly improved 10 ML2. It likely would have shot H4227 quite well, but Savage didn’t want the 2 load developers to even test H4227 in the pre-production 10ML2s. The -2s had virtually no misfires with any powders so H4227 would have likely been a great powder. The developers were so soured on H4227, they didn’t even consider it’s continuing testing. Probably a mistake.
I’ll run a QL calculation and see what results. Please post the exact didtance from the tip of the bullet to the muzzle end of the barrel, not including the MB. Confirm, 278 AM 45 cal and not saboted 278 40 cal.
Looks like you found your load! Congratulations!
|
|
|
Post by james72 on Jun 9, 2023 8:55:01 GMT -5
This is good and interesting information, thanks for sharing. Did you feel any difference in recoil energy/impulse/speed? I wouldn't think so based on your matching the velocity and the same bullet weight, but just curious. To share my current CVA Apex .452 load: smooth sized Hornady 250 FTX, 65gr IMR4198, lrmp HIS, 2620 ave muzzle velocity in 30 degree air. Looks like you have a good new recipe and your trigger pulling finger is up to the challenge, good shooting. The recoil energy and bullet velocity at 54g 4227 was about the same as 60g 4198. The thing I liked most about 4227 (other than tighter groups) was it shot best without a wad. My goal from the beginning was to shoot a 275 – 300 grain bullet without a wad and keep my impact velocity at or below 2500 FPS (so the bullet wouldn’t explode upon impact). I couldn’t do that with 4198 but switching to 4227 made all that possible. Buckeye shoots a similar load from his CVA. Reading his comments is what prompted me to try 4227 and I’m really glad I did. I'm curious how does the FTX bullet perform on deer at that velocity?
|
|
|
Post by james72 on Jun 9, 2023 10:38:32 GMT -5
James, H4227 was a recommended powder for the Sav 10 ML, the first year they came out. There were many leaky modules with the 10ML. Misfires were common back then. The greatest %age of misfires was with H4227. In 1 year, the 10 ML was replaced by the greatly improved 10 ML2. It likely would have shot H4227 quite well, but Savage didn’t want the 2 load developers to even test H4227 in the pre-production 10ML2s. The -2s had virtually no misfires with any powders so H4227 would have likely been a great powder. The developers were so soured on H4227, they didn’t even consider it’s continuing testing. Probably a mistake. I’ll run a QL calculation and see what results. Please post the exact distance from the tip of the bullet to the muzzle end of the barrel, not including the MB. Confirm, 278 AM 45 cal and not saboted 278 40 cal. Looks like you found your load! Congratulations! Thanks Steve. I would love to see your calculation. I am shooting 278 AM 45 caliber. I’ll measure the distance from the tip of the bullet to the muzzle end of the barrel tonight when I get home and reply back.
|
|
|
Post by mike on Jun 9, 2023 17:31:21 GMT -5
This is good and interesting information, thanks for sharing. Did you feel any difference in recoil energy/impulse/speed? I wouldn't think so based on your matching the velocity and the same bullet weight, but just curious. To share my current CVA Apex .452 load: smooth sized Hornady 250 FTX, 65gr IMR4198, lrmp HIS, 2620 ave muzzle velocity in 30 degree air. Looks like you have a good new recipe and your trigger pulling finger is up to the challenge, good shooting. The recoil energy and bullet velocity at 54g 4227 was about the same as 60g 4198. The thing I liked most about 4227 (other than tighter groups) was it shot best without a wad. My goal from the beginning was to shoot a 275 – 300 grain bullet without a wad and keep my impact velocity at or below 2500 FPS (so the bullet wouldn’t explode upon impact). I couldn’t do that with 4198 but switching to 4227 made all that possible. Buckeye shoots a similar load from his CVA. Reading his comments is what prompted me to try 4227 and I’m really glad I did. I'm curious how does the FTX bullet perform on deer at that velocity? James, I've killed deer with 58 grain loads up to the current 65 grain load at distances of 245 yards in to 80 yards. I'm always careful to take broadside rib shots right behind the shoulder crease. All shots have been pass-throughs so I've never recovered a bullet. The entrance holes have all been fairly typical 1/2 diameter with the exit holes measuring maybe quarter to half-dollar size. I've fortunately not experienced any disintegrated bullets on impact. I think the jacket thickness of the FTX bullets is greater than Pittman bullets, but I don't remember the exact numbers. I am considering switching to a 275 grain Fury bullet and I like what you learned about shooting 4227.
|
|
|
Post by james72 on Jun 9, 2023 19:43:32 GMT -5
You will probably like that bullet. I shot those as well as some 40 cal Fury bullets with sabots while trying to develop the best load for my gun. The Accumax bullet just performed a little better for me.
|
|
|
Post by james72 on Jun 9, 2023 19:49:15 GMT -5
James, Please post the exact distance from the tip of the bullet to the muzzle end of the barrel, not including the MB. The distance from the tip of the bullet to the muzzle end of the barrel is 19.875"
|
|
|
Post by halftuff on Jun 9, 2023 20:56:17 GMT -5
Are your shooting Imr or H 4227?
|
|
|
Post by sew on Jun 9, 2023 21:13:38 GMT -5
James, I have 45 cal 275s and 278s somewhere. I put them up and can’t find them. Please send the length of the 45 cal 278.
|
|
|
Post by james72 on Jun 9, 2023 21:43:41 GMT -5
Length of the 278 is 1.220"
|
|
|
Post by james72 on Jun 10, 2023 11:51:02 GMT -5
Are your shooting Imr or H 4227? I'm shooting IMR 4227
|
|
|
Post by sew on Jun 10, 2023 13:05:14 GMT -5
James, I calculated 2,547’/sec and 51,119 psi using no friction proofing And 2,528’/sec and 47,853 psi using friction proofing.
Personal opinion: I believe that the actual pressure curve in the barrel is longer with a lower peak pressure than calculated by QL. I would be comfortable with this load. The %age of powder burn was 99.62 which is excellent.
Great load, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by james72 on Jun 10, 2023 22:47:58 GMT -5
James, I calculated 2,547’/sec and 51,119 psi using no friction proofing And 2,528’/sec and 47,853 psi using friction proofing. Personal opinion: I believe that the actual pressure curve in the barrel is longer with a lower peak pressure than calculated by QL. I would be comfortable with this load. The %age of powder burn was 99.62 which is excellent. Great load, IMO. Thanks again Steve for doing the calculation. This is good information and I appreciate your input. I'm not familiar with the QL software, but I'll admit the calculated pressure for this load was a bit higher than I was expecting. From everything I've read it is recommended to stay below 45K psi for a break action gun. I do however feel comfortable shooting this load. The recoil was less than shooting the same bullet with 65g of 4198 (more like equivalent to 60g 4198 in recoil and muzzle velocity). I also know other experienced guys like buckeye68 and dennis are shooting basically the same load out of their CVA Scouts.
|
|
|
Post by sew on Jun 11, 2023 7:58:11 GMT -5
Quick Load is a centerfire program. In a conventional cartridge rifle, the bullet is jammed into the throat of the barrel. There is a very fast pressure rise that engraves the rifling into the bullet. The pressure spikes very quickly and then decreases quickly as the bullet goes down the barrel.
Quite a different scenario occurs in a smokeless powder MLer. The bullet is only held by the lands with appx 0.0035” of space to the bore. When the powder ignites, the pressure swells the bullet AS IT IS STARTING TO MOVE DOWN THE BARREL , so unlike the cartridge rifle where all this engraving occurs at a finite place, this land engraving/obturation over a much greater distance. How far down the barrel this takes? I have no idea. A smooth sized bullet would go farther than a full sized bullet (452 or 402) and surely farther than a full sized, bore size bullet (458 or 408).
FWIW, with my comparatively low to moderate loads, I full size in order to shorten the obturation distance and hopefully to increase the consistency of the obturation distance. I anneal monolithic bullets for the same reason.
Many early PT calculations verses QL estimates were fairly close, but most were done with saboted loads (which obturate quicker than bore sized bullets) and with comparatively fast powders. I believe that the differences between PT and QL calculations would be much greater with smooth sized bullets and our slower powders. However, the elongated burn causes the calculated speeds to be uncannily close. Actually, with a high percentage burn, virtually the same total energy is obtained- just over a longer distance, which results in about the same energy imparted to the bullet. So, virtually the same speed results.
In summary, I believe that there is a much longer sustained pressure in a smokeless MLer resulting in close to the same velocity as a CF would have with the same bullet wt and powder but with a significantly lower peak pressure(in the MLer).
If you were to take a 8-9# total weight rifle (like my ultralite 40, or a light break open) and shoot it, say with a 250g bullet @ 2,800’/sec and then the same wt CF rifle with the same wt bullet/velocity, the perceived recoil would be radically different. The CF would seem much more brutal as it is a virtually an instantaneous jerk whereas the MLer would feel much gentler. The difference is - the obturation distance which greatly lowers the peak pressure.
|
|
|
Post by james72 on Jun 11, 2023 9:07:28 GMT -5
Great explanation. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by sew on Jun 12, 2023 12:54:35 GMT -5
I edited . 4th paragraph.
|
|
|
Post by jims on Jun 15, 2023 18:05:59 GMT -5
Since I do not shoot registered trap any longer I have not bought powder in volume. Since all my SMLs are sighted in I only shoot a few test shots each Fall so not using much powder, have a lifetime supply of my favorites. The posting on 4227 got my interest, never used it years ago in the early Sav ML years as heard bad things about it. Thought I would give it a try after seeing James 72 and sew's info. Stopped in at my local gun shop that I like. They had some on the shelf, did not have my glasses on and thought it was $23. After getting it I looked closer and saw if was over $53 and with tax nearly $57 for one pound. Just had not realized powder had went up that much in price. Hope I have enough time to give the 4227 a chance.
|
|
|
Post by james72 on Jun 16, 2023 9:04:50 GMT -5
Since I do not shoot registered trap any longer I have not bought powder in volume. Since all my SMLs are sighted in I only shoot a few test shots each Fall so not using much powder, have a lifetime supply of my favorites. The posting on 4227 got my interest, never used it years ago in the early Sav ML years as heard bad things about it. Thought I would give it a try after seeing James 72 and sew's info. Stopped in at my local gun shop that I like. They had some on the shelf, did not have my glasses on and thought it was $23. After getting it I looked closer and saw if was over $53 and with tax nearly $57 for one pound. Just had not realized powder had went up that much in price. Hope I have enough time to give the 4227 a chance. I had to pay $50 for a pound of 4227. I guess that is the going price these days. Report back and let us know how you like it. I'm really glad I tried it and I think you will be too.
|
|
|
Post by SURESHOT on Jun 16, 2023 10:56:10 GMT -5
Since I do not shoot registered trap any longer I have not bought powder in volume. Since all my SMLs are sighted in I only shoot a few test shots each Fall so not using much powder, have a lifetime supply of my favorites. The posting on 4227 got my interest, never used it years ago in the early Sav ML years as heard bad things about it. Thought I would give it a try after seeing James 72 and sew's info. Stopped in at my local gun shop that I like. They had some on the shelf, did not have my glasses on and thought it was $23. After getting it I looked closer and saw if was over $53 and with tax nearly $57 for one pound. Just had not realized powder had went up that much in price. Hope I have enough time to give the 4227 a chance. I had to pay $50 for a pound of 4227. I guess that is the going price these days. Report back and let us know how you like it. I'm really glad I tried it and I think you will be too. Considering if ordering and paying hazmat, tax, shipping outstanding price,,,,,,,,,,,,
|
|