Author Topic: Encore (Read 2933 times)

KMC · « **on:** October 07, 2003, 09:33:33 AM »

When I shoot my first shot everything is fine but when I go to re-load I can't get the projectile to seat all of the way down on the powder. I use 245 gr. powerbelts with 100 gr t7 pellets. I know about the cleaning but at 20 feet above the ground and I have other deer standing there waiting on me to clean my gun what am I to do

Jagdzeit · « **Reply #1 on:** October 07, 2003, 10:32:05 AM »

If there are still deer standing around after your first shot. They are probably deaf. So asking them to turn around and not look while your reloading is out of the question. Maybe you just have to turn around so they can't see you playing with your rod.

Stay Safe,

Franz

Omega · « **Reply #2 on:** October 07, 2003, 12:12:25 PM »

Sounds like you have a Type 2 breach plug and are getting the infamous T7 "crud ring". Talk to T/C and check on your breach plug, usually a Type 3 plug corrects these problems.
Rich

Bullseye · « **Reply #3 on:** October 07, 2003, 03:32:23 PM »

My Encore has a Stage 1 breechplug. I have tried 777 pellets and loose 777 powder from 80-100grs. I get a terrible crud ring not matter which combination I use with 777. It is so bad after one shot that the last 2 weekends I had the jag so tight on the ramrod from trying to get the patch out that it took a vise and pliers to free it. I even had to remove the breechplug last weekend to get the patch out.

Went and bought a lb of good old Pyrodex tonight. Think I will put the 777 in a pile and burn it. I like the cleaniness and lack of stink, but it makes my gun pretty much unusable.

River runner · « **Reply #4 on:** October 07, 2003, 04:42:00 PM »

Sure glad I don't have that problem, think them old geezers knew a thing or two about shooting the real BP. I tried Pyrodex, 2#s worth, (one pound was given to me) none of my smoke poles will ever see the faux powders again. I really do feel sorry for you folks who can't get the real stuff :cry: . RR

Bullseye · « **Reply #5 on:** October 07, 2003, 05:19:06 PM »

Well River runner I do know what the real stuff is. Matter of fact I have a can of it. I have even been known to use before. I am very open minded and like to experiment, so I will give them all a try.

KMC · « **Reply #6 on:** October 08, 2003, 07:04:01 AM »

Thanks for the help , I called TC and spoke to tech support . They say that the problem is the T7 and by using the new upgrade breach plug it will help some but it's not a cure all . TC said that if you send the old plug back with a note asking for the upgrade that they will send you a free replacement.

Omega · « **Reply #7 on:** October 08, 2003, 07:51:13 AM »

Quote from: KMC

Thanks for the help , I called TC and spoke to tech support . They say that the problem is the T7 and by using the new upgrade breach plug it will help some but it's not a cure all . TC said that if you send the old plug back with a note asking for the upgrade that they will send you a free replacement.

Yes they have a very good service department, don't they?
Rich

Leon Garfield · « **Reply #8 on:** October 08, 2003, 03:40:17 PM »

Okay not wanting to sound stuid but how do you tell which breech plug is which?

Bullseye · « **Reply #9 on:** October 08, 2003, 05:41:21 PM »

Do a search on the breechplugs, some one posted pictures awhile back. The 1st one was all concave, the 2nd one was mostly flat with a small concave area in the middle about 1/16-1/8" deep, the 3rd has less flat and a bigger concave area in the middle.

TCAS · « **Reply #10 on:** October 09, 2003, 12:13:05 PM »

You may wish to try the Hornet conversion, much less crud in my gun, I'm using 777 and Pyrodex have not settled on a load yet but leaning towards 777.

Leon Garfield · « **Reply #11 on:** October 09, 2003, 01:22:37 PM »

So tell me has this hornet breechplug helped your groups? I have been to the sight and read the article on it but have not jumped at the thing yet. Have not heard a word from anyone that has used it....

Troy/Oh · « **Reply #12 on:** October 26, 2003, 05:07:19 PM »

Big T That is a good question that I couldn't find an answer to either. I ordered the hornet conversion for my 209-50 today and will post some results up after it gets here and I try it out.If nothing else it will be worth the cash just not to have the grime from the 209 primers in my action :-)

Underclocked · « **Reply #13 on:** October 27, 2003, 04:02:31 AM »

If you guys aren't already setup for Hornet reloading, you might want to get a Lee de-capper and a Lee hand primer. Quick and easy repriming at a bargain. You might also wish to get a brush of the right size to cleanout the cases after firing. I think Cecil only sends a handful of trimmed cases, you will want more.

Definitely helps cut down/eliminate action blowback but can't say about accuracy. I think the accuracy thing is really less important anyway if your rifle is already shooting well. Seems to also reduce the crud-ring in my rifle.

Jagdzeit · « **Reply #14 on:** October 27, 2003, 05:26:34 AM »

Underclocked,
FWIW, I'm thinking that the Hornet conversion isn't good in every gun. That some people have better luck with them than others. There must also be an inconsistancy in case to plug fit and clearance.
Yesterday a couple of friends and I decided to make a day of shooting our front end loaders here at my range. One guy has the same 209 X 45 that I have. He just got it also. so this was his first outing with it. He had read all the hype on the .22 hornet conversion and after speaking personally with Cesil, he went for the conversion and a big box of their .357 195 gr. Dead Center bullets. Which BTW, acording to Cesil, and contrary to what Randy Wakeman wrote somewhere else, aren't hand made by them, but hand inspected. The first problem he ran into is that the gun wouldn't close with the new plug and hornet case. He had to mill the hole .012 deeper. OK, not "EVERY" gun is the same but the unmodified factory breach plugs primer pocket tolerances are closer in consistancy and readily interchangable between guns.

Anyway, working up to, then using Cesils recomended loads and 777FFF. His gun was all over the paper at 25 yds. That is sand bagged friont and rear on a solid shooting table. The pettels on the sabots were all torn off on every one that was shot. Some all 4 came off, some two or three. The amount of blowback around the hornet case was incredible. It was really dirty and he decided to borrow (take & keep) :? one of my spare plugs that I was going to modify and try the winchester 209 primers that I am using. Which BTW, have ZERO blowback into the breach area. It may be due to the shape of their leading edge. His groups tightened right up. I set up an extra rod with a .45 cal brass brush to knock the crud ring out of the barrels between shots, because they really became a pain at times. Brushing between shots made a world of difference with my rifle, but not his. At 100 yds, his wouldn't hit the 4'x4' cardboard target backing. I was burning 110 g of 777FFF and shooting 275 gr Powerbelts. Which BTW group very well but I had a 4 inch flier every now and then. But then darkness came and we packed it in for the evening.

Overall, the Winchester 209's worked better and were cleaner in the breach than the Hornet conversion. The 777FFF was OK but more testing using different powders will have to happen in the near future. The 275 gr HP power belts shot better than the dead centers, out of both guns. Brushing between shots helped tremendously.

When the rains stop. Testing will continue.

Stay Safe,
Franz

Underclocked · « **Reply #15 on:** October 27, 2003, 06:40:41 AM »

Franz, it would probably be continuing today on this end if my fuel pump hadn't quit me. :cry:

I'm sure the Hornet conversion will vary in performance from one rifle to the next, just as it seems all things muzzleloading do. When you say his groups tightened right up, what do you mean? I know you mean better groups but how much better? I'm thinking a heavier bullet might tighten those groups as well, regardless of the ignitor. I had also used Win 209s primarily and, though they've never failed me, I can't say the blowback into the action has been even close to zero, especially after several shots are fired in a range session.

In MY Encore (the blue .45 and the only one I've tried it in so far), the Hornet mod fits and works well so far as containing blowback. Case length is going to be a large variable if the holes are not drilled to the exact same depth and probably still should be customized to each rifle. Why didn't he just shorten the Hornet case a bit? Seems to me that would have been easier.

It's probably more a gadget than a big fix, but I like it so far.

There seems to be a significant variation in the quality of T/C barrels as I have an SS barrel that mic's at .450 and my blued (which is a much smoother feeling bore) mic's at .451. The difference in land to land isn't nearly as significant to me as the difference in the "feel" of the rifling when I insert a tight patch the length of the bore.

I think they must be doing much better with the .50 caliber barrels.

Jagdzeit · « **Reply #16 on:** October 27, 2003, 10:13:36 AM »

Yea, life is just a barrel of fun, isn't it. There is always something going wrong somewhere.

When I said his groups tightened up it was down to about 1 foot or so at 50 yds. Nothing worth bragging about for sure. But then they opened right up to the point he couldn't hit a 4X4 sheet at 100yds.

Then he also used a few of my Powerbelts and it didn't make any difference. We did notice that the QLA on his barrel still had machine marks off to one side from where the original rifling was cut. Meaning that the cutter that was used to make the QLA wasn't centered in the bore and most likely wasn't square to it either. He's thinking of just cutting it off all together and recrowning it. You mentioned the difference in the "feel" when loading. We also noticed a huge variation in the resistance when pushing a bullet into that barrel. It would be loose, then tight, then loose, then tight all the way down till it bottomed out on the powder charge. I think he just has a defective one from the get go. I told him to contact TC and tell them he wants a new one.

I wonder if they would trade for one that hadn't had the QLA relief cut into the barrel yet. After all, they do advertise this thing to have a 26 inch barrel. Which I would think should include rifling to the end. Don't you ??

He had already cut a lot of .22 Hornet cases to .660 and it was easier to deepen the pocket than recut each case. I was also thinking of going to the Hornet conversion, and if I did, it would become a pain to have to measure each case to be sure he was getting his shorter ones instead of mine when we shot together. I think what the problem there with the blowback is, is that the hole diameter was too big in the plug and the rear of the Hornet cases wall thickness is so thick it doesn't expand enough to make a decent seal. The pocket in his plug is .297 (19/64) and the Hornet case tapers narrower from the widest point at the rear which is .292 to .284 at the .660 mark from the head of the case. I believe that the hole should have been made with a letter "L" drill bit or equivalent to .290 or even a smaller bit like a 7.3MM (.2874). It would have been a better seal. The only way to tell which size would have been to test.

Sooner or later someone will figure this all out, I think. :?

Stay Safe,
Franz

Good time Charlie · « **Reply #17 on:** October 27, 2003, 01:03:33 PM »

I have been shooting t7 in the 3f grade in my Hawken .50 with no problem on buld up. I load 90 gr. and it shoots great.

Underclocked · « **Reply #18 on:** October 27, 2003, 04:52:41 PM »

Franz, that barrel sounds like a "send it back" for sure. I see your reasoning on the cases. And you are probably correct about the dimensional changes needed on that plug. Sounds to me like you are on top of this thing. Please let me know what kind of dimensions you use if you do one yourself. I also think the earliest design of breech plug is the best for any Encore shooter that uses loose powder. That deeply concave hole in the third design is a nice accumulation spot for crud that a standard jag and patch can't easily reach.

And M/L manufacturers seem to have some odd tape measures, I agree.