The FAL Files  

Go Back   The FAL Files > Weapons Discussion > General Firearms Discussion

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old April 06, 2020, 22:57   #1
W.E.G.
FAL Files Administrator
Silver Contributor
 
W.E.G.'s Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 1211
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 41,695
Range Report - 300 BLK and 308 - subs and supers









__________________
.
.
.

Ask me about the Mason-Dixon FAL Collectors Association.

Last edited by W.E.G.; April 07, 2020 at 16:09.
W.E.G. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 06, 2020, 23:00   #2
W.E.G.
FAL Files Administrator
Silver Contributor
 
W.E.G.'s Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 1211
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 41,695







Last edited by W.E.G.; April 07, 2020 at 16:10.
W.E.G. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 06, 2020, 23:02   #3
W.E.G.
FAL Files Administrator
Silver Contributor
 
W.E.G.'s Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 1211
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 41,695








Last edited by W.E.G.; April 07, 2020 at 16:11.
W.E.G. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 06, 2020, 23:03   #4
W.E.G.
FAL Files Administrator
Silver Contributor
 
W.E.G.'s Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 1211
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 41,695








__________________
.
.
.

Ask me about the Mason-Dixon FAL Collectors Association.

Last edited by W.E.G.; April 07, 2020 at 16:11.
W.E.G. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 06, 2020, 23:17   #5
W.E.G.
FAL Files Administrator
Silver Contributor
 
W.E.G.'s Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 1211
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 41,695
After I get some rack time, I'll post some pics comparing the large-rifle primers, and comparing the "JUICY" 300 BLK primers to the primers from the subs.

Maybe take a look too at that Winchester 300 BLK brass that's now on its second firing.
__________________
.
.
.

Ask me about the Mason-Dixon FAL Collectors Association.
W.E.G. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 07, 2020, 12:34   #6
TOWS220
Registered
 
TOWS220's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 51208
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Eastern N.C.
Posts: 1,432
How do you like the 783 in 300blk? I have been looking for one on and off, but it seems like remington hasn't been making them for the past year or so.

I've got an 8 inch ar pistol in 300blk. I was a very handy gun for deer hunting last year and it killed the only one I got a shot at very well.

Also, what powders besides cfeblk have you used for subsonic loads?
__________________
Get closer, get steadier.
TOWS220 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 07, 2020, 13:00   #7
TNAndy
Computer Geek
Contributor
 
FALaholic #: 64986
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,892
FYI: None of those pictures work for me unless I click on the links.
__________________
-----------
Go Vols!
TNAndy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 07, 2020, 15:21   #8
W.E.G.
FAL Files Administrator
Silver Contributor
 
W.E.G.'s Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 1211
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 41,695
Quote:
Originally Posted by TOWS220 View Post
How do you like the 783 in 300blk? I have been looking for one on and off, but it seems like remington hasn't been making them for the past year or so.

I've got an 8 inch ar pistol in 300blk. I was a very handy gun for deer hunting last year and it killed the only one I got a shot at very well.

Also, what powders besides cfeblk have you used for subsonic loads?
The 783 is .308. Very utilitarian, and appears to be accurate.
__________________
.
.
.

Ask me about the Mason-Dixon FAL Collectors Association.
W.E.G. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 07, 2020, 15:22   #9
W.E.G.
FAL Files Administrator
Silver Contributor
 
W.E.G.'s Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 1211
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 41,695
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNAndy View Post
FYI: None of those pictures work for me unless I click on the links.
Is everybody else not seeing the pics unless they click the links?
__________________
.
.
.

Ask me about the Mason-Dixon FAL Collectors Association.
W.E.G. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 07, 2020, 15:37   #10
Sig220
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 11622
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: SE Texas
Posts: 5,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by W.E.G. View Post
Is everybody else not seeing the pics unless they click the links?
That would be correct in my case.
__________________
Sometimes you are the bug.....sometimes the windshield.
Sig220 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 07, 2020, 16:16   #11
W.E.G.
FAL Files Administrator
Silver Contributor
 
W.E.G.'s Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 1211
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 41,695
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sig220 View Post
That would be correct in my case.
Thanks.

I think the board was letting me do/see things that members cannot do/see
(i.e. image-linking image-viewing file attachments)

Look less fubar now?
__________________
.
.
.

Ask me about the Mason-Dixon FAL Collectors Association.
W.E.G. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 07, 2020, 16:19   #12
W.E.G.
FAL Files Administrator
Silver Contributor
 
W.E.G.'s Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 1211
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 41,695
Quote:
Originally Posted by TOWS220 View Post

Also, what powders besides cfeblk have you used for subsonic loads?
Hopefully now you can see the other powders I used without having to click through links to see the images.
__________________
.
.
.

Ask me about the Mason-Dixon FAL Collectors Association.
W.E.G. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 07, 2020, 17:36   #13
Sig220
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 11622
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: SE Texas
Posts: 5,794
I figured you would figure it out.......me.....I would have to let it be
__________________
Sometimes you are the bug.....sometimes the windshield.
Sig220 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 07, 2020, 18:52   #14
TNAndy
Computer Geek
Contributor
 
FALaholic #: 64986
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,892
Quote:
Originally Posted by W.E.G. View Post
Thanks.

I think the board was letting me do/see things that members cannot do/see
(i.e. image-linking image-viewing file attachments)

Look less fubar now?
All better now!
__________________
-----------
Go Vols!
TNAndy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 07, 2020, 19:34   #15
FNfreak
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 1081
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Georgia on my mind....
Posts: 1,104
I can see results....Thanks, whatever you did.
FNfreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 07, 2020, 19:45   #16
W.E.G.
FAL Files Administrator
Silver Contributor
 
W.E.G.'s Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 1211
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 41,695
Alright.

As promised some brass pics.

Most notably I think are the pics of the "JUICY" 115-grain Lehigh load.
This load is running 19.0 grains H-110, seated to OAL of 2.110"

I came up with this load when I was using the Quickload default H2O-capacity number - which was too high.

I'm still not sure the H20-capacity number I'm now using is "right." But, its what I'm using for now. The H2O capacity number I'm now using is 24.30 grains H2O.

With that bullet and that H2O capacity, Quickload says its a compressed load (105% loading density).

Quickload also says its running 59,799 PSI.
By contrast, SAAMI spec for 300 Blackout is 55,000 PSI.

Now, this leads us to The Matrix. Remember the red pill and the blue pill?
Well, in the world of blowing up guns, those terms have their own meanings.
Once upon a time I came across a reference to which-was-which - "red pill" and "blue pill."
Can't remember now which is which.
Supposedly a "proof" load is one that produces some-percentage (25%-30%?) more than the industry standard.
So, my "juicy" 115-grain load is running EIGHT PERCENT over SAAMI maximum.

I'm not advocating my "juicy" load for anybody to use.

That said, it does seem to function just fine in my gun.
I have eighty or so rounds of it loaded, and I intend to shoot those rounds, or at least have them AVAILABLE to shoot if I find something worthy of shooting with them.
At the very least, I'll shoot some targets and report on accuracy, and relative zero compared to other loads.

Mind you, my "juicy" load is loaded in NEW BRASS. Be wary of re-using any brass that has been subjected to a "juicy" load. My advice is shoot the juicy load, and condemn the spent brass.

Well, why condemn the spent juicy-brass.
Answer: case-head expansion.
Now, case-head expansion is a whole nuther debate/argument/rant.
I read something last night to the effect that some small TEN-THOUSANDTH case-head expansion is the "limit" for acceptable pressure.

WHAT-EVER....

I measured the case heads of my juicy brass after firing, and those bitches had expanded not by "ten-thousandths," but rather by THOUSANDTHS.

Specifically, the case heads of the juicy brass expanded TWO THOUSANDTHS over what they started as new brass. I think the case-head-expansion nerds would be apoplectic, or they'd piss their pants over a number like that.

Like I said... WHAT-EVER.

Now that I've had my verbal spew, a couple pics.

One pic shows you the bases of the cases and the spent primers.
No significant sign of flattening of the primer or the markings.
No sign of "flow" of the brass into the cutout for the ejector or the extractor.

Do note that there is a pretty healthy "bite-mark" on the case rim from the extractor. I'm not sure that means diddly-squat, except to tell us that the gun may be over-gassed. Which it sure as hell is. It has to be in order for it to cycle every-damn-thing I've ever fed it - including even subsonic loads that don't make half the pressure that my juicy 115's make.

I'll post the pics to individual posts so the large pics don't cause fugked-up word-wrap issues when you're reading my rant.
__________________
.
.
.

Ask me about the Mason-Dixon FAL Collectors Association.
W.E.G. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 07, 2020, 19:45   #17
W.E.G.
FAL Files Administrator
Silver Contributor
 
W.E.G.'s Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 1211
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 41,695
__________________
.
.
.

Ask me about the Mason-Dixon FAL Collectors Association.
W.E.G. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 07, 2020, 19:47   #18
W.E.G.
FAL Files Administrator
Silver Contributor
 
W.E.G.'s Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 1211
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 41,695
__________________
.
.
.

Ask me about the Mason-Dixon FAL Collectors Association.
W.E.G. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 07, 2020, 20:08   #19
W.E.G.
FAL Files Administrator
Silver Contributor
 
W.E.G.'s Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 1211
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 41,695
It is possible to get carried-away reading extractor marks and case rims.

Such marks can have much more to do with factors relating to the gun, or the brass,
than with whether the ammunition is "over-pressure."

Remember my story of the "blasty carbine?"
https://falfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?t=444677
(yeah, I probably need to go fix THOSE image-links too - but not tonight)

Shooting plain old M-193 - you know the stuff that gun is supposed to eat for eternity - I was
getting healthy rim-bites on that brass. I don't think it has an over-PRESSURE issue at all.
It has an over-GAS issue. The former would be a safety issue. The latter is just a BLASTY issue.

Each rim you see here is one that BLASTY chewed on.



Blasty likes to beat the shit out of firing-pin cotter-pins too.


.
.

So far the 300 Blackout upper isn't beating up cotter pins any to speak of.

.
.
__________________
.
.
.

Ask me about the Mason-Dixon FAL Collectors Association.
W.E.G. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 07, 2020, 20:27   #20
W.E.G.
FAL Files Administrator
Silver Contributor
 
W.E.G.'s Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 1211
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 41,695
Here is the extractor bite-mark from the 125-grain load.

This is a SHORTER overall-length than the Lehigh 115 load.

I'm running the 125-grain Speer bullet at 2.000" OAL.

Quickload says I'm making 54,186 PSI.
That's just 814 PSI below the SAAMI "limit"

__________________
.
.
.

Ask me about the Mason-Dixon FAL Collectors Association.
W.E.G. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 07, 2020, 20:35   #21
W.E.G.
FAL Files Administrator
Silver Contributor
 
W.E.G.'s Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 1211
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 41,695
Primers and markings look completely "normal."

__________________
.
.
.

Ask me about the Mason-Dixon FAL Collectors Association.
W.E.G. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 08, 2020, 11:31   #22
W.E.G.
FAL Files Administrator
Silver Contributor
 
W.E.G.'s Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 1211
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 41,695
Here is a comparison of the "hardness" of the primers of the .308 Win. loads.

It is my belief that the Lake City "pulldown" primed cases
have harder primers than CCI standard large rifle primers.

Granted, I'll say its hard to tell for sure from these pics.
But, photographing primer indentations has always been uncertain.
Really hard to tell over the internet by looking at pics.

The Lake City pulldown is the brass-color primer.
The CCI standard large rifle primer is the silver-color primer.

Each load used 45.0 grains TAC, with 2.800" OAL.
Each load was fired in a Remington 783 bolt gun.

I will mention that the silver-primer cases were loaded with a 150 AP bullet.
The brass-primer cases were loaded with a 147 "M80" FMJ.
So not a completely apples-to-apples test here. But damn close.

A lot of the "hard" brass-color primers look fine so far as primer indent.
But look at each, and I think you will agree that there are a few indents that look weak.
At least "weak" by comparison to the consistent and deeper dents in the silver CCI primers

I will allow that an equally-plausible explanation for the apparent "lighter strike" could
well be that the Lake City pulldown cases were shorter-dimension base-to-shoulder.
I only inspected a few of the pulldown cases for base-to-shoulder dimension when I received them.
The dimension of the ones I inspected looked good.
But then I had the two misfires I reported in another thread. Which is what got me on this investigation.
After the misfires, I did measure the misfire case. One was only 0.002" shorter than my Forster 1.630 "GO" gage.
The other was 0.006" shorter than than the 1.630 gage.
So take that for what is worth in regard to the quality of my "testing."

I should have measured the base-to-shoulder dimension of the tested brass-primer rounds you see here before firing.
Alas, I did not.
So the "weak" indentations may not be hard primers. Could just as well be short base-to-shoulder.
The whole purpose of buying the "primed .308 brass" was to avoid brass-prep.
I guess now I'm going to have to measure-and-sort the brass to avoid further misfire drama. Oh boy....

Note that the silver-primer (LC MATCH) cases were more-closely scrutinized when I resized them.
The base/shoulder dimension of the LC MATCH case varies no more than 0.002" and runs very close to the 1.630 gage.
Some of the MATCH CASES run a couple thousandths short, as my goal is to avoid a long case is failing to go into battery in the autoloaders.

__________________
.
.
.

Ask me about the Mason-Dixon FAL Collectors Association.

Last edited by W.E.G.; April 08, 2020 at 11:45.
W.E.G. is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 16:25.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©1998-2019 The FAL Files