Author Topic: I'm sure there is a logical explanation...  (Read 390 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Randy M

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 55
I'm sure there is a logical explanation...
« on: September 04, 2010, 07:38:21 AM »
...but I can't figure it out.

Several questions.  First the setup:  Ruger SBH, .44, 7.5" barrel.  Bullet is a 300 grain Cast Performance WFNGC, primer is CCI 300.

Okay, I am trying to work up a hunting load that would be good up to 100 yards on Elk-sized animals.  I tried two different powders this morning; H110 and 2400.

Question 1 (the one that probably has a logical explanation):  Why would 17.5 grains of 2400 hit 1" lower than 17 grains of 2400 at 50 yards?

Question 2:  Based on the setup given, can anyone give me an approximate fps for the 17.5 grains of 2400?  Every manual I've checked, shows this as a safe load, but the barrel lengths don't match up to mine, so I really don't know where it would fall.

Question 3:  What is your opinion of either the 17.5 grain load of 2400 and/or 20 grains of H110 for elk-size animals and smaller at distances up to 100 yards?


thanks,
Randy

Offline buck460XVR

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 977
Re: I'm sure there is a logical explanation...
« Reply #1 on: September 04, 2010, 07:56:16 AM »
...but I can't figure it out.

Several questions.  First the setup:  Ruger SBH, .44, 7.5" barrel.  Bullet is a 300 grain Cast Performance WFNGC, primer is CCI 300.

Okay, I am trying to work up a hunting load that would be good up to 100 yards on Elk-sized animals.  I tried two different powders this morning; H110 and 2400.

Question 1 (the one that probably has a logical explanation):  Why would 17.5 grains of 2400 hit 1" lower than 17 grains of 2400 at 50 yards?


The lighter charge is pushing the bullet down the barrel slower than the faster bullet. The longer the bullet is in the barrel, the  more time the barrel has to rise from recoil...thus slower bullets tend to print higher at short range than faster bullets........or could just be a idiosyncrasy of your gun or barrel dynamics.


Question 2:  Based on the setup given, can anyone give me an approximate fps for the 17.5 grains of 2400?  Every manual I've checked, shows this as a safe load, but the barrel lengths don't match up to mine, so I really don't know where it would fall.


If published manuals say it is a safe load, you are not experiencing high pressure signs and you are happy with the accuracy of the load, I wouldn't worry about exact FPS. But That's just me.


Question 3:  What is your opinion of either the 17.5 grain load of 2400 and/or 20 grains of H110 for elk-size animals and smaller at distances up to 100 yards?

See my reply to the above question.


thanks,
Randy
"where'd you get the gun....son?"

Offline Catfish

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2696
Re: I'm sure there is a logical explanation...
« Reply #2 on: September 04, 2010, 10:41:01 AM »
Sierra says 950 fps. with their 300 grn. jacketed bullet with 17.5 gr. of 2400 and 900 with with 16.7 gr. The cast bullets with 17 gr. should be around the 950 range. You can load alittle heaver with cast bullets than with jacketed bullets and the Sireea manual says you can go up to 19.1 gr. of 2400 and get 1050 fps. If you use H-110 you can get 1,100 fps. with 21.8 gr. I use Win. 296 or H-110 ( SAME POWDER) in all of my mag. loads. Alittle more velocity and alittle less presure with good accuracy in all of the guns my loads have ever been shot in, and that`s a bunch. Those vel. were from a 7 1/2 in Ruger too. I have pushed the Cast Preformance bullets to 2,700 fps. without any leading so you should have no trouble with them. If you can put the bullet in the right place they should have no trouble doing the job.

Offline Randy M

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 55
Re: I'm sure there is a logical explanation...
« Reply #3 on: September 04, 2010, 01:35:05 PM »
Thanks for the replies.  Very helpful.

Randy

Offline mrussel

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 838
Re: I'm sure there is a logical explanation...
« Reply #4 on: September 04, 2010, 07:05:59 PM »
...but I can't figure it out.

Several questions.  First the setup:  Ruger SBH, .44, 7.5" barrel.  Bullet is a 300 grain Cast Performance WFNGC, primer is CCI 300.

Okay, I am trying to work up a hunting load that would be good up to 100 yards on Elk-sized animals.  I tried two different powders this morning; H110 and 2400.

Question 1 (the one that probably has a logical explanation):  Why would 17.5 grains of 2400 hit 1" lower than 17 grains of 2400 at 50 yards?

Question 2:  Based on the setup given, can anyone give me an approximate fps for the 17.5 grains of 2400?  Every manual I've checked, shows this as a safe load, but the barrel lengths don't match up to mine, so I really don't know where it would fall.

Question 3:  What is your opinion of either the 17.5 grain load of 2400 and/or 20 grains of H110 for elk-size animals and smaller at distances up to 100 yards?


thanks,
Randy

 I believe Hornady lists their loads as being from a SRH with a 7.5" barrel.