Stresses on a Handi frame.

[NFG]

I think I read somewhere that there ARE SAAMI specs for different rifles...not sure if they are voluntary or required to be signatory to SAAMI or if they are called MAP or some other designation..  ALL firearm makers test their products...for advertising advantages if for no other reason, and I'm very sure it has a government regulation basis.

It has been well documented, over and over again, if you are a newbie to reloading or to the Handi, you would be well advised to follow recommended loading practices or use factory ammo ONLY...every reloading book I have read in the past 40 years includes at least one reference to safety.

The problem with using a "test barrel" or universal breech is the data is only testing the cartridge pressure...NOT the receiver.  About all you can say for sure is if the pressure is above what the receiver is rated for then if follows you will be smart NOT to shoot THAT cartridge, loaded to THAT pressure in the lower pressure receiver....only if you pull the trigger on THAT load in the lower pressure receiver do you test the receiver.  It is like coming in the back door...or doing a negative to prove a positive...and is the basic way that ammo has been tested for a very long time for many reloading manuals.  Assumptions are ALWAYS being made about something in this sport. 

If you read the newer manuals they usually list the rifle the load was tested in.  Compare the latest Speer manual with an early Speer manual and you will see that many of the early loads were tested in a Universal receiver, usually with a 30" barrel, and you can see the large difference in velocities.  Many of those early loads are dangerous compared with todays loads.  With the cost of chronoes today, everyone can take the exaggration out of the equation.

Pressure testing equipment is also relatively inexpensive and well within the budget of any serious experimenter.  The data is NOT directly relatable to copper crusher units as they are different systems, but the data is statistically equivalent if compared side by side and  just as useful.

I have no problem with Ed's data or the way he develops it, Mac, you made a good point but you also need to be specific as to a particular load otherwise this discussion starts getting into the realm of innuendo and there is way too much of that as it is.  I think some of the ammo makers use piezo-electric transducers for their pressure data also, maybe backed up by CUP data, if for no other reason than the litigous atmosphere we live in today.

I've followed that Big Bore 12GaFH thread since it's inception, built a NEF 12GaFH and have loaded and tested many of his and others on that forum's loads ALWAYS starting low and working up slow and also presented some of my own data.  Many of those loads were tested by outside testing labs and found to be well withing the safe forking pressure of the NEF and a large portion are safe in the thin barrel of a Rem or Mossberg shotgun.  I'm also in the process of developing the data to start another one of Ed's offerings, either the 585 HE or the 3.5" 20 Ga(FH) project or maybe both.  Ed does this stuff for a living and because he is an experimenter...I doubt he would publish data that would put him in the witness chair even with all the disclaimers.

I'm not defending Ed or the others on that forum, some of them I wouldn't sit close to even in a resturant.  What they do is so far beyond even the advanced reloader their information should almost be restricted to keep the "hardheads" from hurting themselves, but that would be "book burning" at its worst.

I think the responses, AND questions to different threads are indicitive and colored by the level of experience and prejudice we all have...not to put too fine a point on it and no flames intended.

I also think we also get overly concerned about aspects that for the most part are irrelevent if safe practices are followed or fall within the realm of Murpheys law.

Blowups ALMOST ALWAYS have specific causes...cracks or unknown weaknesses, overloads with the wrong powders, plugged up barrels, broken or defective components, or determined attempts to destroy a gun, etc.  Even shooting the wrong size bullet usually only results in a blown case and limited damage to shooter or rifle...and as I've already said "there are exceptions to the exceptions".

No matter what...we ALL need out 15 minutes on the stage...or on the forums anyway.

Luck

[GrassLakeRon]

More number issues:

Data Source….Trapdoor….Marlin…..Ruger (CUP)
Lyman………..….18,000…..28,000….40,000
Speer…………....21,000…..28,000….35,000
Hornady………...25,000…..40,000….50,000
Hodgdon………..28,000…..40,000….50,000
Factory……...…18,000 reported

[Mac11700]

NFG:

The only testing I have seen Ed mention was done by a friend of his,and no mention of how the testing was accomplished was ever mentioned. If his testing was done in a lab under controlled circumstances and he has actual piezo numbers,I would love to see them. If done by a strain gauge I will not accept them as valid claims of being safe..not on what he is loading.Till then,I will reiterate my feelings on the matter. I for one do not believe in how some folks start extrapolating data to back up claims of any non validated loads to be safe for the Handi rifle.These rifles are not being as strong as what is being suggested they are by some.

I do appreciate people like Ed who do choose to experiment,and I too have read quite a bit about his work that has been posted all over the place by him.I just don't agree with what he and a few others are doing and has done already on both the SB1 & SB2 frames with out posting his testing procedures and where they we being done. Perhaps I missed reading about this if he has posted it,if so I apologize,but this won't change my feelings about what some choose to accomplish with a break action friction held lock up action sb1 or sb-  frame,and I feel it only clouds a already murky subject even further.

The pressure testing equipment you say is relatively inexpensive isn't really as accurate as you might think,especially if talking about most available strain gauges.Wildcats don't have the luxury of having factory available proofed loads to validate the readings. This fact is well known and I do believe even Terry Hart of Hart barrels is on record discussing it over on Chuck Hawks site.

Please elaborate on your statement here..?

I've followed that Big Bore 12GaFH thread since it's inception, built a NEF 12GaFH and have loaded and tested many of his and others on that forum's loads ALWAYS starting low and working up slow and also presented some of my own data.  Many of those loads were tested by outside testing labs and found to be well withing the safe forking pressure of the NEF and a large portion are safe in the thin barrel of a Rem or Mossberg shotgun.  

Where your loads tested by an outside lab? Was it Ed's loads that was tested ? If so what lab and by what means of testing was done. If your loads were the ones tested please PM me the white sheet from the testing please..I would like to see for myself this data.

Till such time as I have this data in hand,please excuse me if I remain a bit skeptical..I am from Missouri after all..

Mac

[S.E.Ak]

You hit the nail on the head when you said some other problem such as cracks/frame damage.I have a real good idea where they come from,hot loads not ment for the gun. That said I shoot the hot stuff in my Ruger because it weighs more and better stock design for recoil. My handie is very light and even with the Hornady LE shells its almost more than I want but the biggest BB's in the Ruger are no problem. Also my Handie frame is from the 70's 45/70 time frame

[NFG]

I don't have that pressure "whodonit" information or where it was tested at hand.  There are 68 odd pages of posts and the references(inferences) are somewhere toward the begining of the 12GaFH development...I think some of the testing was done byTom Armbrust but don't quote me.  And maybe I mis-read, I don't discount that fact, it is easily done, Ed has a particular way of phrasing...but I have a recollecton of the phrase "the loads were sent off to a lab...", but it could have been in reference to another cartridge/load.  I had some of my loads ready to sent to Tom but "S*** Happened" and I never got around to sending them.  I know extrapolated data means diddly to some and working with it isn't for the faint of heart OR those with limited knowledge.

Some of the information or comments I made came from sources other than the 12GaFH thread...who knows where I read it...I've been studying ballistics for some 50 odd years, on and off the net, coupled with the experience of just plain building wildcats and extensive reloading, making mistakes specifically and unintentional and the experience gained from all that "stuff...it's all wrapped up together in my brain...I can't separate it out.  I don't accept empirical data without question either, but I don't dismiss it out of hand, but try to gain some understanding of the processes leading to the conclusions and ALSO the ways the data can be manipulated to what ends..mostly the whys that people feel the need to be deceitful.

You and I and anyone that has gotten deep into the more esoteric areas of reloading/load development/experimental aspects well beyond the average advanced reloader, know some of the problematic aspects of the various pressure testing systems.  Trying to explain all the nuances to the average person is akin to talking to your young kids...they can understand some of what you're trying to convey, but the rest just confuses them...and is one of the major problems with threads like this one...keeping it simple and not hair splitting or getting into a whizzing contest is very difficult, especially when this is NOT a simplistic area of discussion. 

AND...just what is the usefulness of that esoteric hair splitting/data/information to the average reloader...it's all well and good to sit around a nice fire sucking on some excellent brandy and a cigar, pontificating over minutia.....but who cares, the average reloader just want a good hunting load.  I tend to get very basic along those lines also...

My point was not how fine a point I could make, but the major point of safety and that there are many ways to go about the testing process.  I'm from Missouri also when it comes to ANYTHING "I" haven't seen with my own two eyes and even then I know just how bad people are when it comes to testifying about "I saw it all, Judge..."

I reiterate MY points...the information was presented in a simplistic way to point out and stress the strengths and weakness of the NEF, and "reading between the lines" there are built in safety limits, that people will always exceed ANY limit, the loads/information/data I did publish were based on SOME previously tested data, from a source ANYONE has access to and can reach their own conclusions or from already published reloading manuals...not to begin a whizzing contest or start hair splitting.

Anyone wishing to delve deeper into this nebulous realm now has acces to the WWW...You Mac, probably/possibly and I for certain only had books...P.O. Ackley, Powley, limited ballistic publications, hands on testing with limited "scientific" tools and all the questionable information in whatever publication or author who were popular at the time, when we first started out on this road.  Problem is there is MUCH more questionable information available on the WWW than I EVER thought possible.

I'm not interested in publishing ANY of my actual loads, sending them to a lab for verification, or sharing any data I MIGHT have tested with ANYONE.  I have sufficient respect for my abilities to judge whether or not a load is safe or not.  On occasion I will present a load that can be found in a reloading manual and I indicate that manual...most of the time...sometimes I slip up.  You can find information on the 12GaFH on that forum, if you want to work through those 68 pages. you can read and infer some of the data from the Lyman Shotshell reloading manual, were talking about (437 gr = 1 oz) nothing more than 2-3 oz heavy mag loads...I already stated that somewhere in this thread...the loads are near or slightly over published loads and the processingof data through Load from a Disk and Powley computers or extrapolating/interpolating/infering from other manuals. 

I don't claim to be an expert in ballistics, or experimental ammunition development, a gunsmith, etc., I just bindoonit for a very long time.  I'm trying, many times unsuccessfully I think, to pass on some of that  basic knowledge of HOW to safely develop known and unknown loads, all the many ways to build a standard rifle or wildcat, and do things that are NOT run of the mill and stay in one piece at the same time.

Hardly ANY of the wildcats I've built over the years had ANY reloading information readilyh available, and certainly NO testing lab data was available.  Asking for lab data is nothing more, in my view, than a backhanded way of whizzing..."prove" it to me....I stopped proving ANYTHING to ANYBODY a very long time ago.


Ron...for what's it's worth, I work to the limits/pressure/proof load test of the RECEIVER, whoever has their neck on the line for that specific published data, with respect to the ALL cartridges tested for that receiver and ALL the specific parameter of those cartridges, NO MATTER and WHATEVER that pressure is....I don't much worry about the SAAMI specs for the CARTRIDGE per se if it is below the max working pressure of the receiver and if the working pressure of the cartridge CASE is more or less than the working pressure of the RECEIVER, THEN I ADJUST THE CASE PRESSURE UPWARDS OR DWONWARDS TO FITwithin the parameters of the RECEIVER...the RECEIVER is the part that will cause you the most damage if it decides to come apart.

I load my 45-XXX to a pressures BELOW what NEF says is good to go...I "garontee" most peole will hit the recoil limiting level BEFORE they hit the pressure limits..."most of the time".  Start pushing the recoil up into the 60 plus ft lbs catagory and the average shooter will start whining loudly...and that is only about half what my 45-120 can produce with 750 gr bullets and thats's NOT a max load.

There is sparse data for the 45-120 other than for BP.  The modern brass 45-120 case from Norma is just as strong as any other modern case.  Simplistically thought, it is nothing more than a case with a specific volume and can be compared with ANY other case of similar volume.  I use Load from a Disk and Powley computers to develop loads...you can do the same for th 45-70 or ANY other cartridge you have measurements for.  If you are beginning to ask questions of the type you are, you need to buy one of the interior ballistics programs.  They are the quickest and easierst way to start seeing the nuances of ballistics.

The resulting data will have pressures and velocities for whatever information you input or extract.  It is much easier, simpler, quicker and safer than the "old" ways.  The information is dependent on "garbage in, garbage out" in the original program, but if you are aware of this, it doesn't much matter, and EVERY man made software program is full of errors, so you DO have to think about the data, not use it without question  and compare it with other sources.

I think this thread is becomming diluted and drifting away from the original question.

Luck

[Mac11700]

NFG:

I too am not wanting a "whizzing" contest,not in the least. I was/am genuinely interested if you had indeed sent in your loads to be tested.That in itself would have answered a plethora of questions I had,but would also had opened the door to many more too I am afraid.

I really don't care if you make any fine points per se,or leave somethings between the lines to be deciphered...I am pretty good at understanding things,so I don't get upset or take things out of context very easily  Safety with these rifles is my main concern here,always has been for all of the years I was in Quick's seat here and even before.Not only has there been unfounded claims of safe loads posted elsewhere about our little rifles,but even on this forum as well.All of which has spurred many hours of debate,and countless hours spent on the phone trying to verify and even to disprove many of said claims.It wasn't always a pleasant experience doing that,but something we felt necessary for the well being of those who participate here.This instance is totally unlike those BTW,so please don't misconstrue my meaning in this regard.

I am not questioning your wishing to pass on knowledge to anyone,at our age it is just something natural to do However...the caveat to that statement is as long as it is done so in a safe manner . Wildcatting on a Handi is unlike doing so for a bolt action or falling block,and while you may feel the thread has strayed from the OP's intent,I don't think it has. See,we will still come back to the stress issue because of the nature of the direction we have gone here.

Wildcatting for a bolt/falling block is much simpler to do because of the action with them is usually never in question..not so with the Handi..and since people love to extrapolate data between all of them is where the safety issues arise.No one hardly ever questions doing any magnum class cartridge with one of them do they ?..Most people can understand how strong they really are,but there are many that cannot come to grips the difference with this break action..especially when there are similar designs of break actions that can sustain magnum class cartridges and even heavy big bore dangerous game cartridges. A lot of this confusion is because of all of the " which is better threads" that are and have been posted all over the web and here as well.

The Handi rifle frame is still the breech stop of the rifle,and while many factors contribute to just how much stress the frame can take,so too must be asked where the MAP of the of not only the standing breech must be,but with respect to the lock work of the action,and the chamber/barrel as well.They work in unison together to achieve the rating they gave them,totally unlike any other rifle.Many don't understand that the rifle was designed to actually compress somewhat with it's locking mechanism and use that compression as some relief against the breech face..just like the longer throats the chambers had at one point..but that is exactly how it is designed to work. They did have ways of measuring exactly how much breech thrust is being applied to the frame,but,to the average hobbyist,to emulate that practice the cost is prohibitive.From my discussions with those over the years at NEF it was a special receiver with the needed replaceable embedded crystals for doing just this type of testing.Also from my understanding the test barrels are/were made from the same batch as production runs...so they were tested with the same batches when they did their testing..I don't know if it is still in use or not,but what I was told some time ago.I also understand what Ed is trying with some of his loads and with the dwell time of the actual firing event and how the forces play out on the frame..

Now..with all of that said,here is the root of the problem. There are so many different types of steels/irons used over the years to make the Handi's..some, while very strong, give many the thought that they are equivalent to a modern bolt action strength.People see a 270 Winchester being offered and with it's high allowable pressure they start assuming all kinds of things for them.The problem is they aren't as strong as most 270 Winchester bolt guns and when coupled to the fact that there have been much weaker frames made that are still in use,the waters become even more clouded as to just how much stress can a Handi take and remain whole. This is my main reason for speaking out against some of the wildcatting with a Handi,that and the fact that there are many who don't really understand what it is they are actually doing.Many want to know what the limits are for these rifles,some like yourself who have retrofitted new barrels to them don't really try to explain what your doing or why enough to dissuade those that shouldn't try.You know as well as I do when stubbing a new barrel into the mix you are changing everything about the barrel/chamber..but nothing about the various types of materials that have been used in the standing breech/lock work/frame..This is what is causing a-lot of the confusion as to the actual working strength of the Handi as a whole...and is something that should not ever be done IMHO. This is a public forum,and there are some who will take everything that is said as gospel..and this while unfortunate is a sad fact to be remembered.With wildcats and their place with a Handi..to me there are some more acceptable than others in a Handi.The problem usually comes up when trying to achieve a real magnum class or real DG rifle class cartridge..this is where the lines get blurred.. Sometimes...sometimes..the Handi rifle isn't the best platform to utilize for this type of wildcatting..Common sense needs to prevail.

Mac

[miyata]

It may not be appropriate to group together "magnum" and "dangerous game" cartridges.  I agree no sane person would try to use a "magnum" class cartridge in a Handi, with some of them operating at 60kpsi or more, nor would you use one in a 110 year old double rifle. However, the older "dangerous game" cartridges can be split in to two quite distinct groups.  Those designed for bolt action rifles, these are the rimless and often belted cartridges of a relatively short length (to operate in a bolt action) that operate at high pressures such as the .500 jef and the .460 wby amongst others, and those designed for victorian and edwardian era break open single and double rifles.  This group is usually rimmed, are long, and have very large case capacity to operate at lower pressure.  Some, such as the .450 NE and the .500 NE came in different lengths, the larger cases were designed for use in the weaker actions of the day.  It is a fact that the large case capacity will reduce pressure. These old dangerous game cartridges have low pressure standards according to CIP.  Though it seems SAAMI have left some of them off the list.  It must be noted that these two bodies have set pressure limits on cartridges, not because the cartridges themselves have any real limits, but because these cartridges have been used in rifles of various strengths.  (As an aside, the brass case doesn't really contribute to the pressure capability of a cartridge, it's just a lining for the chamber that conveniently holds the powder.  Nor will a "thick" case effect external pressure measurement.)

It is incorrect to assume that a very large capacity cartridge will produce dangerous pressure levels or necessarily be unsafe in a Handi, of course if you use fast powders then they will, as will a .30/06 if you fill it full of pistol grade powder.  

The science of internal ballistics is well established.  The various mathematical models that are used to predict internal ballistic performance have been used for many years and are accepted as useful tools.  But yes, as a tool that should only be used with a corresponding understanding of the science and mathematics behind them.

I see no reason not to experiment with the handi as a basis for some interesting cartridges as long as one has already decided on a pressure limit and a breech thrust limit and as long as one has enough knowledge and tools to stay under those limits.  A way to physically measure pressures might be nice, but it is not necessary if other tools are used along with an understanding of the science and good scientific and engineering practices.

[Mac11700]

miyata:

A thick case will effect the external pressure measurement if one is using a strain gauge on the barrel.This is why factory assembled proofed loads are use as a base line reading for those using them.They are loaded to known standards and are not available for many of the loads some here are wanting to have a Handi in. This is one of the reasons I questioned some of the data given on some of these cartridges if that is how the load data was done..

In todays world it is not only prudent to assume the worse case sceanario with what folks will do with these ultra large cases given what some have been doing already with the 45-70 and up..It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see this..and this is causing a lot of confusion for many newbie's on several fronts.

While I agree it is fun to experiment with some of the low pressure cartridges and even with some that are being produced today,finding accurate pressure readings with rare or near and even obsolete cartridges can be a daunting task,and when it is folks love to start extrapolating their data..sometimes it can be accurate..other times it's just a WA guess...then posting that it is perfectly safe is wrong.While these old practices are accepted by some..in the real world they are nolonger accepted as factual and accurate.Call any powder manufacturer and ask them if this is not the case.All of them have been updating their own loading data to the newer testing models they are now using.Saying that the the old way of doing things is wrong,and all you have to do is to look at any PO Ackly book and you will see what models he based his data on..and how erronious it is today. Most handloaders are basically wildcatters to some extent since many push the envelope even with SAMMI approved loads..but it is only a matter of time till folks start driving these large cases  to the max..it is enivitable.

Mac

[GrassLakeRon]

Gentlemen,

    Here are some things I need to point out here:

1)  I have been loading for what some may seem a short time, 6 years.
2)  I research ALL books, websites, magazines, people, etc... till my wife wants to shoot me herself.
3)  When I load I measure 3 times on my digital scales before it goes into my brass.
4)  I ask questions, all the time.

     If some of you search, I have been asking on the merits of the 45-70 handi for some time now.  I own 2 H&R shotguns, a Topper Model 88 in .410, and a Tracker II in 12 ga.  The Tracker II with 3" loads has more recoil then my 375 H&H.  The information that I need is what is the limit, period.  The 45-70 is the only cartridge I know that has 3 different loads.  They have names like, Level  1, Level 2, Level 3 and Ruger #1, Marlin 1895 and Trapdoor.  I am just trying to find a simple answer.  I understand legal speak.  I understand the common sense approach.  I need a simple answer.  NEF said that the Handi will shoot whatever is published for the 45-70.  Is this the case?  Will the receiver, barrel and what not hold?  What this information will give me is this..... The lowest limits and the extreme upper limits.  That way I can load at various "levels" for what I want to do with it.

    Here is one last question, have any of you seen a handi "break" when shooting "hot", "heavy", "Level 3" loads?  If so what went?


Ron
 

[bikerbeans]

Ron,

I can tell you this much about an unmodified 45/70 22" handi rifle using published Ruger #1/#3 load data from Hodgdon.  Using H4198 and the 400 grain bullet (speer I believe they recommend) I am 99.9% certain that you will give up on upping this load before you hit the published maximum of 53 grains.  I think the upper end with the 45 70 handi will be recoil limited, unless you modified the gun, or don't mind a cut forehead and bruises.  I stopped my load development at just over 50 grains of H4198 because the fun was going out of the shooting.   On the bottom end of the published load data, (trapdoor or springfield) my 45 70 shoots these just fine and they are fairly mild. 

I think you need to decide what you want from your 45 70.  If you want a large, flat shooting, ultra fast round, then you need a different caliber.  A fast 45 70 round is still a slow bullet. 

IMO a 45 70 Handi in good condition (proper latch engagement, barrel fit etc.) will be safe to shoot the 45 70 load data that is published by the powder manufacturers.  Another reasons I believe the Handi is safe for the higher pressure offerings is companies like Barnes and Buffalo Bore Ammo have published that this firearm is acceptable for some fairly stiff loading.  If you want to exceed published data or use data from sources that use questionable (if any) testing methods, then as Mac has pointed out you are in "no man's land" so to speak.

BB

[gstewart44]

Gentlemen,

    Here are some things I need to point out here:

1)  I have been loading for what some may seem a short time, 6 years.
2)  I research ALL books, websites, magazines, people, etc... till my wife wants to shoot me herself.
3)  When I load I measure 3 times on my digital scales before it goes into my brass.
4)  I ask questions, all the time.

     If some of you search, I have been asking on the merits of the 45-70 handi for some time now.  I own 2 H&R shotguns, a Topper Model 88 in .410, and a Tracker II in 12 ga.  The Tracker II with 3" loads has more recoil then my 375 H&H.  The information that I need is what is the limit, period.  The 45-70 is the only cartridge I know that has 3 different loads.  They have names like, Level  1, Level 2, Level 3 and Ruger #1, Marlin 1895 and Trapdoor.  I am just trying to find a simple answer.  I understand legal speak.  I understand the common sense approach.  I need a simple answer.  NEF said that the Handi will shoot whatever is published for the 45-70.  Is this the case?  Will the receiver, barrel and what not hold?  What this information will give me is this..... The lowest limits and the extreme upper limits.  That way I can load at various "levels" for what I want to do with it.

    Here is one last question, have any of you seen a handi "break" when shooting "hot", "heavy", "Level 3" loads?  If so what went?


Ron
 

Simple answer - stick with the published data from hornady, speer, hogdon at any level (1,2) and you will be safe with the Handi.  My shoulder gave out before coming close to any max loads in the "Marlin" level.    Again just stick with the already published data by the above mentioned companies and you can drop anything in NA.  

[GrassLakeRon]

Thanks for the insight.  I am wanting something different.  IMR lists loads that I think I will load with to start.


300 grains at 2550+ fps is no slow bullet, BTW..... or 350 grains at 2300 fps isn't bad either.......


Ron

[Mac11700]

Thanks for the insight.  I am wanting something different.  IMR lists loads that I think I will load with to start.


300 grains at 2550+ fps is no slow bullet, BTW..... or 350 grains at 2300 fps isn't bad either.......


Ron

Did you bother finding out what Hodgdon meant with their asterisks..It denotes Modern Rifles and means the following..

This data is intended for only Ruger No. 1 and No. 3 Single shots,Browning 1895 Single Shots and Modern BOLT ACTION rifles chambered for the 45-70 Cartridge..

So..is if you intend to try to emulate those loads with your reloads..then no..it isn't a recommended practice.No where do they state that those are acceptable loads in a H&R Handi Rifle. If you want to try to get up around those velocities,then get a Buffalo Classic 30" barrel and load it to the max Marlin levels..if you just got to have it..When you do..you'll probably want to switch back to your 375 H&H..

Mac

[GrassLakeRon]

Then that that is a limit I need to know.  Thanks.


Ron

[mechanic]

Many people like to "hot rod" guns as some do cars, and within reason there is nothing wrong with this.  In most cases however, pushing to the limit or beyond does nothing for accuracy or the ability of the cartridge to do it's intended job on game.  My dad was a "hot rodder", so I understand the propensity, but bear in mind, that even with quality equipment, you run the risk of injury to yourselves or others.  I have a scar on the back of my hand from a blown revolver cylinder that was loaded to about the published max but not over.  It was fired from three stalls away, and I feel luck I only got a bad cut / burn.

Metal fatiques with age as all you fella's know, and continually pushing the envelope, even in a gun that has taken the load for a while, may bring a surprise one day.


Curiosity is the mother of invention as much as necessity, and sometimes that involves risk.  Just be careful.............