.470 NE Reloads and Fillers?

[DrBob]

@DrBob you’ve cited your claim several times, but you’ve never published the data. I’ve searched the Internet and cannot find the data either. You’re making an incorrect inference that the loads of RL15 with various stuffings will have an identical corollary relationship with IMR3031.

As has been mentioned many times, 3031 has the lightest recoil and tends to have the same pressure spike properties as stranded cordite. The benefit is that it reproduces stresses to the barrels of a double gun in a manner similar to what was endured a century ago at the proof house.

The reason you won’t find published loads abounding is multi-faceted, but it comes down to lawyers usually. Lawyers do not like published load data that does not fill a case. This is why you see published loads for IMR4831 so frequently.

Just recently a member of this forum with a lovely 470NE ordered up some custom ammo from “the experts in custom loading”. They opted for 4831 rather than 3031, even though I recommended against it. The owner is lucky to be alive and a nice $20-something thousand dollar British double is now in the graveyard. The 4831 load was within modern pressure parameters for a 470NE, but it was definitely not a stranded cordite equivelant load at 2050fps like 3031 would be. The net result was barrel rupture halfway down the tube.

If you have the pressure data using a variety of stuffing mediums for 3031 I would appreciate seeing that rather than the RL15 data you’ve previously cited.

Please explain "you have never published data"? The only pressure data I have personally acquired was using the Pressure Trace system for my 458 XL article. I have thought about it for the 470, but Wright's extensive pressure work published in his Third edition is a good starting point since I use the same powders. Without it, the best "feel" is regulation without any extraction issues. I will dig up Wright's discussion of belling of chambers and put that in my next posting.

Yes, 3031 would have the lightest recoil because the ejected products of combustion would have the lowest mass. The heavier the charge, the more ejecta added to the mass of the bullet...hence felt recoil goes up with slower and slower powders with larger loads. Some published loads use 120 grains of slow powder and that is felt recoil I don't want. As for the loss of the rifle with 4831, one has to know the makeup of the load including bullet type, primer and case. What were the measured pressure for those custom rounds? "A $20K British double?" Ah, I can't think of a new British double for that price so when was it made? How tight was the bore? What were the condition of the barrels?

"Good to know. My notes from Ross Seyfried state that if using Dacron stuffing, the max load is 77-78gr of powder with 3031". Then why, with his review of the Ruger No.1 conversion by Hamiton Bowen, did he wax on about RL15 with dacron filler? Which powder did he first use and if 3031 did he choose to then follow Kynock with RL15? Kynock wads are very nice.... they wind up a gritty feeling powder... I know.... with the wind in my face ... the pulverized wad gets blow back into one's face!

Lastly, for now, I respect the opinions of Wright and Woods. Feel free to criticize them for their admonitions. Everyone is free to use whatever they want. After all, it's you who are pulling the trigger.

 

[rookhawk]

Please explain "you have never published data"? The only pressure data I have personally acquired was using the Pressure Trace system for my 458 XL article. I have thought about it for the 470, but Wright's extensive pressure work published in his Third edition is a good starting point since I use the same powders. Without it, the best "feel" is regulation without any extraction issues. I will dig up Wright's discussion of belling of chambers and put that in my next posting.

Yes, 3031 would have the lightest recoil because the ejected products of combustion would have the lowest mass. The heavier the charge, the more ejecta added to the mass of the bullet...hence felt recoil goes up with slower and slower powders with larger loads. Some published loads use 120 grains of slow powder and that is felt recoil I don't want. As for the loss of the rifle with 4831, one has to know the makeup of the load including bullet type, primer and case. What were the measured pressure for those custom rounds? "A $20K British double?" Ah, I can't think of a new British double for that price so when was it made? How tight was the bore? What were the condition of the barrels?

"Good to know. My notes from Ross Seyfried state that if using Dacron stuffing, the max load is 77-78gr of powder with 3031". Then why, with his review of the Ruger No.1 conversion by Hamiton Bowen, did he wax on about RL15 with dacron filler? Which powder did he first use and if 3031 did he choose to then follow Kynock with RL15? Kynock wads are very nice.... they wind up a gritty feeling powder... I know.... with the wind in my face ... the pulverized wad gets blow back into one's face!

Lastly, for now, I respect the opinions of Wright and Woods. Feel free to criticize them for their admonitions. Everyone is free to use whatever they want. After all, it's you who are pulling the trigger.

Too many points to easily address in one reply. I’ll do my best to cover a few:

1.) You’re citing pressure tests using a variety of wads and stuffings for Reloder 15 powder in 470NE loads. That is a non-sequitor to your follow up comments of IMR3031 being unsafe. I was asking for the data related to pressure tests on IMR3031 rather than RL15 to understand the logic leading from one topic to the other.

2.) Regarding single shot custom Ruger #1s, you can load them with about anything you wish. They are built to handle about anything you can throw at them, and they are single shot so regulation is of no concern. Speculation, why would someone recommend RL15 for that action? Because RL15 is a notoriously accurate and reliable powder?

Thanks if you can provide a table related to point 1 for IMR3031 pressure in 470NE related to a variety of stuffing options.

 

[uplander01]

I see you fellas have put a lot of thought into this topic. I guess from my standpoint I don’t want to ruin the most expensive gun in my box lol. I would prefer to use the more modern powders like rl15 or h4350. We know for sure that they are more “stable” in just broad speaking terms. I feel really lucky that 4350 seems to work so far, with woodleighs anyway, which I have enough to get me through. My goal whether with double or various bolt rifles is to have multiple powders and bullets work with each gun. I think in the future, we are all going to experience more availability issues, it’s good to have options. I guess that could be negative thinking. If I can get one of the above powder to put a swift soft and north fork solid inside a composite group of 3.5 or so inches at 50 yards this rifle will be a really useful. I like 50 and under shots , more for my eyes than anything else.

 

[DrBob]

Too many points to easily address in one reply. I’ll do my best to cover a few:

1.) You’re citing pressure tests using a variety of wads and stuffings for Reloder 15 powder in 470NE loads. That is a non-sequitor to your follow up comments of IMR3031 being unsafe. I was asking for the data related to pressure tests on IMR3031 rather than RL15 to understand the logic leading from one topic to the other.

2.) Regarding single shot custom Ruger #1s, you can load them with about anything you wish. They are built to handle about anything you can throw at them, and they are single shot so regulation is of no concern. Speculation, why would someone recommend RL15 for that action? Because RL15 is a notoriously accurate and reliable powder?

Thanks if you can provide a table related to point 1 for IMR3031 pressure in 470NE related to a variety of stuffing options.

There is no article on the web dealing with chamber pressures measured while working up large caliber double rifles loads using IMR 3031. This would be expected since I doubt anyone would have the time, money or inclination to do this for a powder introduced in 1934 which has been sidelined by newer powders that don't carry its negative cachet.

I would posit that while no quantitative data exists, qualitative findings might be substituted. Loads that have been submitted here by reputable shooters could be a reasonable substitute provided they regulated at appropriate velocities, with appropriate powders and exhibited no extraction problems which would indicate elevated pressures. Let me step out on the teleological limb to say that medium burn rate powders and slower could be suitable for working up loads if standard precautions and procedures are taken. This is also stated by Wright. My bottom limit is Varget and his is RL15. RL15 is not my “go to” powder. Those now are Varget, H4350, RL17 and IMR 4381.

Graeme Wright chose powders readily available in Australia which includes the same powders as marketed under the Hodgdon Extreme series. To that he added IMR 4831 and RL15which have become classic. He chose not to try IMR 3031 for his stated reasons. Maybe someone can underwrite Wright to do this or even better, fund a 4th edition of this book to include IMR 3031. Maybe a debate at SCI might be a worthy venture? Any takers?

Ross Seyfried published two articles using the Hamilton Bowen Ruger No.1 in 470 NE. I am including photocopies from the 1990 Guns and Ammo article. I have the second 1995 one about using RL15 but this is not available as I write this as it is ensconced in Alaska. Note that in1990, he was using 4831. Yes, the falling block Ruger does not have the constraints placed on it that a double has; no regulation of two Siamesed actions and with better extraction from the falling block lever. However, please note he gave loadings below and equal to commercial ammunition. He reported no extraction problems with those loads. The second article also conforms to standard factory loadings with his use RL15 using dacron. Federal uses RL15 with a proprietary primer, the “216”, which doesn't require a wad. I have had access to those primers and they are hotter than 215s!

I called up Hornady today and chatted with them. Needless to say they use pressure testing as part of the work up. Considering the breadth of the loads tested by Wright, this was quite an undertaking. In my profession, “quoting the literature” that has been peer reviewed is mandatory. As such I am also submitting photocopies of small portions from his 3rdEdition, more to defend his position but also to show what the values are. Since the book is out of publication and I doubt anyone is going to sell theirs on the cheap for these “spoilers', I submit them here for reference as fair use.

Note that wads reduce the amount of powder needed and , from experience, improve ignition. Wright shows that wads have the equivalent value of 4 to 6grains of powder. I found this to be around 3 grains when I am using open cell backer rod. A one inch length of open cell backer rod costs about one penny US which is far cheaper now than 3 grains of powder.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, fast powders with small volumes can create problems such as belling. I submit the portion of Wright's book on that.

Finally, I have been loading and shooting 470 Nitro Express double rifles for 30years. I have used many makes of primers, at least 14 different powders, bullets from the major companies and all sorts of wads and stuffing from dacron , to speaker foam, backer rod and Kynock wads. My double rifles are still in one piece with the advantage of the benefits that newer powders give.

In summation, load what you want, but sage advice is out there from well respected members of the hunting and shooting society.

 

[DrBob]

Too many points to easily address in one reply. I’ll do my best to cover a few:

1.) You’re citing pressure tests using a variety of wads and stuffings for Reloder 15 powder in 470NE loads. That is a non-sequitor to your follow up comments of IMR3031 being unsafe. I was asking for the data related to pressure tests on IMR3031 rather than RL15 to understand the logic leading from one topic to the other.

2.) Regarding single shot custom Ruger #1s, you can load them with about anything you wish. They are built to handle about anything you can throw at them, and they are single shot so regulation is of no concern. Speculation, why would someone recommend RL15 for that action? Because RL15 is a notoriously accurate and reliable powder?

Thanks if you can provide a table related to point 1 for IMR3031 pressure in 470NE related to a variety of stuffing options.

I was rummaging around the web trying to find that second Seyfried article with the Ruger adn RL15 and came upon an interesting post. The discussion was about the use of very slow powders in older doubles causing barrel bursts. The pressure peak is further out the barrel versus the quicker peak for cordite. There was no mention of any specific powder. The older steels of the early double might not take kindly to these powders. I can appreciate the loss of a fine double. I have several early 1900's shotguns including a hammer Paradox. Loss of one of those would hurt considering all of the hand craftmanship put into them. They don't make them like they used to.

 

[Rare Breed]

Still Apples / Oranges

So my second go around on this I went up to 89gr of RL15 with a backer rod filler cut to approximately 0.7". This was only good for about 2060fps out of my rifle.

I went back to IMR7977 which according to the Hodgdon website with a 114.3gr load would put me at 2040fps or thereabouts. So I thought I'd get a good comparison. But as @Bullthrower338 and @tarbe will confirm, this is a strange powder. I still got about 2160fps from these two loads.

So recoil was still stronger with the IMR load, at least in part due to velocity. What I did notice was that the RL15 load had a noticeable increase in recoil at 89gr and faster velocity over the 87/88gr loads. I can only guess that while the "calculated" recoil may still be more if the velocities were the same using the RL15 lighter load versus H4831 or the IMR7977 heavier load, I'm not sure the "felt" recoil would be appreciably different. But your mileage may vary as they say.

I think I do like the idea however of using the slower 86gr RL15 load for about 2000fps as a practice round. POI is roughly the same as with the faster rounds while recoil at that point is appreciably less. And based off the info I have the pressures are low enough to be safe for a DR.

while this is an old thread it is always amazing to me how different one DR is from another. In my 470 DR 500 grain bullets 84 grains of RL 15.5 gives me 2150 FPS and 0.6 inch of regulation. Others site 87-89 grains and even that for them generates less than my 2150 FPS. I use Kynoch Trader Keith’s precut fillers. Again just shows how different same caliber same bullets and even same powder can produce different results

 

[Rare Breed]

I use RL 15.5 and at 86 grains QL tells me I get 2052 FPS I use the Trader Keith #2 foam fillers. Here is my question please…how do these type fillers impact FPS? Increase? Decrease? No change? I know any filler increases PSI that QL does not account for but curious about FPS

One other update…QL is very conservative. When I use my chronograph I always get higher velocities than what QL states. My chronograph shows 84 grains of 15.5 for my CEB 500 grain solids produces right at 2150 FPS, faster than what QL says even at a higher powder charge. I also found with my Barnes TSX softs at 86 grains My barrels cross at 50 yards. While my CEBs I love are 500 grain bullets, this weekend I am trying 85 grains for my Barnes TSX given when I tried the same 84 grains my groups opened up greater than the 0.6 I get from the solids.

 

[cajunchefray]

while this is an old thread it is always amazing to me how different one DR is from another. In my 470 DR 500 grain bullets 84 grains of RL 15.5 gives me 2150 FPS and 0.6 inch of regulation. Others site 87-89 grains and even that for them generates less than my 2150 FPS. I use Kynoch Trader Keith’s precut fillers. Again just shows how different same caliber same bullets and even same powder can produce different results

From a data set of One Double Rifle, a 450/400 Nitro, each rifle requires individual load development. I standardized on Fed 215M, 400 grain Woodleigh SP(or FMJ) and tried various powders. R-15 was promising, POA/POI was coming together.
Then I ran out of R15. COVID supply issues, and I couldn’t buy more.
H4350, IMR-4350, VN-165 tried, various charges, no good. It was all I had and couldn’t buy more during the Commie Chinese virus. Pwere 8 inch patterns at 50 yards, I was disgusted,

 

[cajunchefray]

From a data set of One Double Rifle, a 450/400 Nitro, each rifle requires individual load development. I standardized on Fed 215M, 400 grain Woodleigh SP(or FMJ) and tried various powders. R-15 was promising, POA/POI was coming together.
Then I ran out of R15. COVID supply issues, and I couldn’t buy more.
H4350, IMR-4350, VN-165 tried, various charges, no good. It was all I had and couldn’t buy more during the Commie Chinese virus. Pwere 8 inch patterns at 50 yards, I was disgusted,

I finally found some Norma 203B, similar to R15, went to 1 grain above Hornady book load, but top load from Graeme Wright, 3rd edition and bingo, regulated, shot to the sights with reasonable recoil, no pressure signs whatsoever.

A good double rifle is like a good woman. You have to finesse the relationship. It’s worth it.