Rigby Double Rifle

[rookhawk]

Hmmmm.....avoid IMR4831. Does this apply to the 450-400 3" modern made double? I see lots of people reference using it. Asking for a friend.

Do what you want, but it kicks like a mule and if the five typical powders attempted to find a double rifle regulation load it is dead last.

In a 470 NE it (4831) produces over 100lbs of recoil and 3031 produces around 60lbs. The only reason people use it is that it fills the case, a very stupid requirement solved with many wad options.

 

[Nick1982]

 

[Nick1982]

Target at 50 meters 500 grains hornady using 90 grains of pyrodex.

 

[PCC600]

The book is primarily a manual for reloaders and shooters of old double rifles, Britisch made but not only. This shooters are in many cases dependent on reloading in order to find an accurate load for their rifle. The factory loads do try to copy the old original loads, but this is very theoretical. The burning process in the chamber and the barrels is no longer the same. Cordite was a very fast burning powder. Hunting is only mentioned in passing. If you use a current built double rifle and shoot factory loads in it, you also don't need the book.

I actually had to rely heavily on this book with a new double rifle . It was supposed to be regulated for Norma ammo .it shot poorly . Graeme Wright worked up some loads for me and it now shoots well .

 

[Nick1982]

The book is on its way.
4th edition.
Thanks

 

[Betterinthebush]

I gnawed my nails right down to the quick waiting for this update. Thanks for sharing and congratulations.

 

[Huvius]

Target at 50 meters 500 grains hornady using 90 grains of pyrodex.

I'm confused.
Why are you using Pyrodex with the 500gr jacketed bullet?

If you are looking to replicate the black powder 450, choose a lighter cast or thin jacket bullet and a higher powder charge.

 

[AZDAVE]

I will start off stating the @rookhawk is SPOT ON!!!!

Doubles are different. For those starting to reload for doubles I HIGHLY recommend getting Grame Writes 3rd or 4th version of Shooting the British Double and read it cover to cover at least 3 time before you start loading. The ammo older doubles were loaded for in most cases doesn't exist any more you you have to develop SAFE loads that shoot to the regulation of the rifle. In more modern doubles in most cases you will be developing loads with different bullet combinations so again you are developing loads with your components that shoot to the regulation of the rifle. If an older double you will need to research the ammo it was regulated with if possible. Have it checked out by a qualified double rifle gunsmith ( I can think of only 4 here in the US) and have them check it out and verify what round it is built for (Chamber's cast) is it on fave, do the barrels ring true ETC. Once the double receives a clean bill of health you will be at the starting point to getting it back in service.

In the last 30 or so years I have owned 25 different doubles, some have been easy to develop loads for others not so much. ( and one that I wanted to drop in the north atlantic where the titanic sunk) Also helped a few folks with theirs shooting.

Doubles are a specialized kinda rifle so understand what it was developed for and what it is capable of. part of the equation is what is the shooter capable of. They are very rewarding to hunt with, just understand it's and your capabilities and be willing to walk away from shots that would be very easy with a bolt gun.

The parting words is ALWAYS take safety to the utmost when reloading as if you mess up You could harm yourself an the others beside you at the range.

 

[Rare Breed]

I messed with the contrast to help bring it out. The writing looks to say:

"For Special Cordite Cartridge & Bullets. 480 Grains"



View attachment 659871

I agree, the 480 grains is what should have been used. I just got my Rigby 450 NE back from JJ. It was serial number in the 1700s made in 1905 falling in between what @rookhawk said. However, given T Page Wood a respected gun maker in Bristol England replaced the barrels instead of Rigby it is still a Rigby with my certificate from them but now has zero collectors value however I have never given a single care for collector's value...I hunt with my old vintage English doubles and love it.

 

[Rare Breed]

I got to look at the Rigby ledger sheet from the OP. It is a Nitro Express gun made by W&C Scott for Rigby. It calls for cordite and a 480gr load, so its likely that it is 450 Nitro Express 3.25".

I asked the OP to measure length of pull (to see if the sights are going to line-up to original) and to verify the tubes are still 28" (so that it can regulate with a cordite-copy load using cup and core bullets).

If all that checks out, I recommended he do a $3k resto on it, then get Ken Owen to build him some loads provided he can find Woodleigh softs and solids that are cup and core.

@rookhawk is correct...I spent right at $3,000 for JJ to fix anything mechanically wrong with my Rigby 450 NE built in 1905 which included new regulation getting me 0.5 inches at 55 yards using Hornady factory 480 grain bullets even though I will be handloading. Worth every penny. The cost also included milling the rib for a RMR sight.

 

[Rare Breed]

This thread has absolutely nothing to do with me and im still excited to read every post. What a great find and a fun thread. I'm genuinely excited for Nick and what he has.

Nice post by you! DRs are truly something very different...Nostalgia is my middle name, LOL, I just love old English DRs and their rich histories!!!!

 

[Rare Breed]

Do what you want, but it kicks like a mule and if the five typical powders attempted to find a double rifle regulation load it is dead last.

In a 470 NE it (4831) produces over 100lbs of recoil and 3031 produces around 60lbs. The only reason people use it is that it fills the case, a very stupid requirement solved with many wad options.

Absolutely correct! My two favorite powders are IMR3031 and RL 15.5 The first only takes 80 grains of powder and the second only 84 grains versus 112 of the 4831 for the 470. The first two are pussy cats the last will kick the sh&* out of you.

 

[Nick1982]

I am just building up to a nitro load (if i can find the RL 15 powder here in BE) , just want to make sure it is safe to fire mechanicly, so i startet with black powder and pyrodex.
The gun has been checked by a rigby gunsmith and proven to be mecannicly correct.
To me it has collectors value, so i do not intend to hunt with it, just shoot accasionly.
Maybe only pyrodex or black powder just to make sure it does not brake, if i can not find the RL 15.
The gun is still 100% original exept for the butpadd.
The gun belonged to A.H Neumann according to the rigby records.
Sorry for the bad englisch.
Greetings Nick

 

[VertigoBE]

I am just building up to a nitro load (if i can find the RL 15 powder here in BE) , just want to make sure it is safe to fire mechanicly, so i startet with black powder and pyrodex.
The gun has been checked by a rigby gunsmith and proven to be mecannicly correct.
To me it has collectors value, so i do not intend to hunt with it, just shoot accasionly.
Maybe only pyrodex or black powder just to make sure it does not brake, if i can not find the RL 15.
The gun is still 100% original exept for the butpadd.
The gun belonged to A.H Neumann according to the rigby records.
Sorry for the bad englisch.
Greetings Nick

the third but last line!

This 450 Rigby belonged to famous explorer and hunter Arthur H. Neumann, writer of "Elephant hunting in East Equatorial Africa" ! What a find, congratulations!

 

[Pondoro]

A fantastic find this...wow..

 

[Rifleman97]

What I'll say to the anti-3031 crowd is this. A fellow disregarded our advice on this forum <6 months ago with a sidelock 470NE made in the UK. The custom loader thought he knew better too, and made him up SAAMI spec loads using 105gr-108gr of IMR4831. Naturally it blew the barrels off the gun and the fellow is lucky to be alive. All for obsession about filling the case rather than using case filler. 3031 has properties similar to cordite, meaning that the pressure spikes are in the same areas of the throat and barrel. Going to a different powder EVEN when in specifications per SAAMI is not providing any assurance, those areas of the barrels were never stress tested in that manner when new. Add to that, its doubtful you'll get regulation with 4831 but you will enjoy over 100 foot pounds of recoil compared to 58-68lbs with 3031. The wood was never engineered for a 150% stress when it was made a century earlier.

The order of operations seeking regulation with low pressures goes like this: IMR3031, then RL15, Then H4350, then IMR4350, and dead last is IMR4831. If you can't get regulation with mild loads with the first powder, you go to the next powder trying to get regulation with moderate loads, and so on. The goal is to get real-world velocities of 2025fps-2075fps, NOT 2150fps which is likely unsafe in any load from a vintage double. We're trying to reproduce real-world cordite performance which was A.) a published lie at 2150fps a century ago, and B.) was using a 28" barrel rather than a 24"-26" that should have had 30fps less velocity per inch of barrel less than proof test barrels.

The goal is moderate regulating loads, people miss that plot completely and start pushing these powders up in velocity. If you're 3"-6" apart at 78gr of IMR3031 in a 470NE for example, you stop and reevaluate. That reevaluation may be changing filler type, or swapping bullet type (restarting at starting loads once more), OR it can be changing powder but going to a starting load once more.

The final result is supposed to be a load that regulates perfectly with low pressure and strikes the animal at least at 1900FPS upon impact. That's it, that will kill any dangerous game animal on the planet.

I was not alive when this happened, but this rifle was passed down to me from a left handed man with only 2 fingers on his right hand. Supposedly he was told that smokeless powder would be fine as long as it was a light load. This is a 12 gauge 2 3/4 Damascus barrel shotgun made by LC Smith from the early to mid 1890’s.

 

[rookhawk]

View attachment 684402

I was not alive when this happened, but this rifle was passed down to me from a left handed man with only 2 fingers on his right hand. Supposedly he was told that smokeless powder would be fine as long as it was a light load. This is a 12 gauge 2 3/4 Damascus barrel shotgun made by LC Smith from the early to mid 1890’s.

Well, we've now left the zone of my strong interest and entered the realm of my highest competence, Edwardian through pre-war shotguns.

The cause of that LC Smith's demise could be many, many things, but the one thing it cannot be is a light nitro load. The rupture is so far down the barrels that is in a low-pressure zone of the gun. There has been significant testing of these concepts for the past forty years and what we've found has always been the same:

2.5" shells at 8900psi or lower, OR their 2.75" equivalent are equally fine. The longer shells create a slight pressure spike in the forcing cones but the proof house standard at that time was .089" minimum wall thickness 9" from the breech. The aforementioned applies whether we're talking Damascus or fluid steel and whether we're discussing BP or nitro.

Possible reasons for a rupture on that gun to occur at that location include:

1.) Dented barrel
2.) Bore obstruction
3.) Excessive pitting of the bores
4.) Honing of the barrels to remove pits resulting in <.020" minimum wall thickness at the point of rupture. (nonetheless, the proof houses now recommend .018" or greater whereas twenty years ago we said .025" for 2.5" and .028" or better for 2.75"...all out the window now.

Feel free to rip on Elsies or say they are unsafe, but don't attribute it to a nitro load or a light 2.75" load in a 2.5" chamber, the location of the rupture is not corroborative to any such conclusion.

To prove a vintage gun safe at a proof house when new, they would put a 1.5x pressure load down each barrel twice, thus declaring it proven safe. That would be 8900psi x 1.5x = about 13,350psi. Today's modern nitro 2.5" loads can be as low as 5900psi and my hunting loads are 7800psi to 8500psi. Nitro powders result in the pressure spike occurring closer to the breech where the tubes have more metal, rather than prolonging the pressure curve. Neither BP or Nitro is an attributable cause to a barrel rupture 2/3rds the way down the muzzle.

 

[Russ16]

Well, we've now left the zone of my strong interest and entered the realm of my highest competence, Edwardian through pre-war shotguns.

The cause of that LC Smith's demise could be many, many things, but the one thing it cannot be is a light nitro load. The rupture is so far down the barrels that is in a low-pressure zone of the gun. There has been significant testing of these concepts for the past forty years and what we've found has always been the same:

2.5" shells at 8900psi or lower, OR their 2.75" equivalent are equally fine. The longer shells create a slight pressure spike in the forcing cones but the proof house standard at that time was .089" minimum wall thickness 9" from the breech. The aforementioned applies whether we're talking Damascus or fluid steel and whether we're discussing BP or nitro.

Possible reasons for a rupture on that gun to occur at that location include:

1.) Dented barrel
2.) Bore obstruction
3.) Excessive pitting of the bores
4.) Honing of the barrels to remove pits resulting in <.020" minimum wall thickness at the point of rupture. (nonetheless, the proof houses now recommend .018" or greater whereas twenty years ago we said .025" for 2.5" and .028" or better for 2.75"...all out the window now.

Feel free to rip on Elsies or say they are unsafe, but don't attribute it to a nitro load or a light 2.75" load in a 2.5" chamber, the location of the rupture is not corroborative to any such conclusion.

To prove a vintage gun safe at a proof house when new, they would put a 1.5x pressure load down each barrel twice, thus declaring it proven safe. That would be 8900psi x 1.5x = about 13,350psi. Today's modern nitro 2.5" loads can be as low as 5900psi and my hunting loads are 7800psi to 8500psi. Nitro powders result in the pressure spike occurring closer to the breech where the tubes have more metal, rather than prolonging the pressure curve. Neither BP or Nitro is an attributable cause to a barrel rupture 2/3rds the way down the muzzle.

Totally agree. Based on the location of the rupture I would speculate it was an attempt at a light hand load that resulted in a wad stuck in the barrel. The next round gave the resulting burst.

 

[Rifleman97]

Well, we've now left the zone of my strong interest and entered the realm of my highest competence, Edwardian through pre-war shotguns.

The cause of that LC Smith's demise could be many, many things, but the one thing it cannot be is a light nitro load. The rupture is so far down the barrels that is in a low-pressure zone of the gun. There has been significant testing of these concepts for the past forty years and what we've found has always been the same:

2.5" shells at 8900psi or lower, OR their 2.75" equivalent are equally fine. The longer shells create a slight pressure spike in the forcing cones but the proof house standard at that time was .089" minimum wall thickness 9" from the breech. The aforementioned applies whether we're talking Damascus or fluid steel and whether we're discussing BP or nitro.

Possible reasons for a rupture on that gun to occur at that location include:

1.) Dented barrel
2.) Bore obstruction
3.) Excessive pitting of the bores
4.) Honing of the barrels to remove pits resulting in <.020" minimum wall thickness at the point of rupture. (nonetheless, the proof houses now recommend .018" or greater whereas twenty years ago we said .025" for 2.5" and .028" or better for 2.75"...all out the window now.

Feel free to rip on Elsies or say they are unsafe, but don't attribute it to a nitro load or a light 2.75" load in a 2.5" chamber, the location of the rupture is not corroborative to any such conclusion.

To prove a vintage gun safe at a proof house when new, they would put a 1.5x pressure load down each barrel twice, thus declaring it proven safe. That would be 8900psi x 1.5x = about 13,350psi. Today's modern nitro 2.5" loads can be as low as 5900psi and my hunting loads are 7800psi to 8500psi. Nitro powders result in the pressure spike occurring closer to the breech where the tubes have more metal, rather than prolonging the pressure curve. Neither BP or Nitro is an attributable cause to a barrel rupture 2/3rds the way down the muzzle.

That’s really neat to know thanks! This happened nearly 30 years before I was born so I have absolutely no idea the exact circumstances that lead to its demise, and the demise of 3 of his fingers. The only thing I do know for sure is that he never reloaded shotgun shells in his life. But the stuck wad that @Russ16 mentioned is still very likely. Iowa is a very humid place for a lot of the year and that could’ve caused some ammo to go bad and have a dud get a wad stuck.

The bores are also pretty pitted which could’ve been it, but the gun was also not cleaned for 40 years before I was given it and gave it a very light cleaning. Regardless of how it happened I think it’s pretty cool to have, which is good because it’s resale value is basically 0

 

[Rifleman97]

Well, we've now left the zone of my strong interest and entered the realm of my highest competence, Edwardian through pre-war shotguns.

The cause of that LC Smith's demise could be many, many things, but the one thing it cannot be is a light nitro load. The rupture is so far down the barrels that is in a low-pressure zone of the gun. There has been significant testing of these concepts for the past forty years and what we've found has always been the same:

2.5" shells at 8900psi or lower, OR their 2.75" equivalent are equally fine. The longer shells create a slight pressure spike in the forcing cones but the proof house standard at that time was .089" minimum wall thickness 9" from the breech. The aforementioned applies whether we're talking Damascus or fluid steel and whether we're discussing BP or nitro.

Possible reasons for a rupture on that gun to occur at that location include:

1.) Dented barrel
2.) Bore obstruction
3.) Excessive pitting of the bores
4.) Honing of the barrels to remove pits resulting in <.020" minimum wall thickness at the point of rupture. (nonetheless, the proof houses now recommend .018" or greater whereas twenty years ago we said .025" for 2.5" and .028" or better for 2.75"...all out the window now.

Feel free to rip on Elsies or say they are unsafe, but don't attribute it to a nitro load or a light 2.75" load in a 2.5" chamber, the location of the rupture is not corroborative to any such conclusion.

To prove a vintage gun safe at a proof house when new, they would put a 1.5x pressure load down each barrel twice, thus declaring it proven safe. That would be 8900psi x 1.5x = about 13,350psi. Today's modern nitro 2.5" loads can be as low as 5900psi and my hunting loads are 7800psi to 8500psi. Nitro powders result in the pressure spike occurring closer to the breech where the tubes have more metal, rather than prolonging the pressure curve. Neither BP or Nitro is an attributable cause to a barrel rupture 2/3rds the way down the muzzle.

I have several other LC smiths that I love, but they aren’t Damascus barrel. Might reach out to you about a double I’ve got that I don’t know what to do with. Exposed hammers, side lock, I think Damascus barrel. Not very good condition, not sure if it’s worth having work done to it or just hang it on a wall.