ASSRA Forum › General › Reloading the Single Shot Rifle › Quigley ban on over powder wads wi double based po
(Moderator Group: Moderator)
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4  Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Quigley ban on over powder wads wi double based po (Read 23189 times)
John Boy
Ex Member


Re: Quigley ban on over powder wads wi double based po
Reply #15 - Feb 3rd, 2016 at 4:14pm
Print Post  
Quote:
Wonder if this was done for liability/insurance purposes??
Ray, if this be the case, then they would initiate a ban on all smokeless powders.  They only say on the Safety page:
Quote:
If you shoot any double-based smokeless powder, we do not consider loads using an over-powder wad (cotton, Dacron, whatever) as a safe load.

I don't compete at 1000yds but shoot many reloads at that distance only with original gunpowder - Black. If I can splash lead on Homer at Ridgway who is smaller than a NRA 1000yd target and the Q is a 'buffalo shoot' - I have to concur with those that say - BP reloads only... not even duplex loads
  
Ray,BTW ... hope you are feeling better and back to health
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
John Boy
Ex Member


Re: Quigley ban on over powder wads wi double based po
Reply #16 - Feb 3rd, 2016 at 4:47pm
Print Post  
Want to see another Sharps shot at Quigley with 5744 that's now 10 cents a pound at the scrap yard?
(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)
Scroll down to Kurt's post - you can't miss it
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Hi-Wall56
Full Member
***
Offline



Posts: 204
Location: Banks of the Brazos River
Joined: Feb 11th, 2011
Re: Quigley ban on over powder wads wi double based po
Reply #17 - Feb 3rd, 2016 at 4:59pm
Print Post  
That post by Kurt on the Shiloh forum looks to be a High Wall from my perspective not a Sharps.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
gunlaker
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline



Posts: 2603
Location: lower mainland, B.C.
Joined: Dec 13th, 2010
Re: Quigley ban on over powder wads wi double based po
Reply #18 - Feb 3rd, 2016 at 5:33pm
Print Post  
From the charge weight listed in the post you cannot blame the powder, but the guy who loaded the cartridges.    The charge is far over the maximum listed in any book I've seen. 

Chris.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
westerner
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline


deleted posts and threads
record holder.

Posts: 12334
Location: Why, out West of course
Joined: May 29th, 2006
Re: Quigley ban on over powder wads wi double based po
Reply #19 - Feb 3rd, 2016 at 6:01pm
Print Post  
Powder charge? Which one and where? I don't see a powder charge. Help.

      Joe.
  
A blind squirrel runs into a tree every once in a while.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
gunlaker
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline



Posts: 2603
Location: lower mainland, B.C.
Joined: Dec 13th, 2010
Re: Quigley ban on over powder wads wi double based po
Reply #20 - Feb 3rd, 2016 at 7:05pm
Print Post  
westerner wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 6:01pm:
Powder charge? Which one and where? I don't see a powder charge. Help.

      Joe.


Sorry Joe, the powder charge as posted on another site:

"He was using smokeless with a 500gr Goverment Bullet. Because he started out with the SASS shooters a year or so back, he got some bad info and was putting a wad on top of his 50gr charge of 5744."

(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)

The Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook shows a max charge of 37gr with that bullet giving 35,200 CUP for a Ruger #1. 

Chris.
 
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Premod70
Oldtimer
*****
Offline



Posts: 873
Location: North Carolina
Joined: Jan 16th, 2016
Re: Quigley ban on over powder wads wi double based po
Reply #21 - Feb 3rd, 2016 at 7:46pm
Print Post  
gunlaker wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 7:05pm:
westerner wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 6:01pm:
Powder charge? Which one and where? I don't see a powder charge. Help.

      Joe.


Sorry Joe, the powder charge as posted on another site:

"He was using smokeless with a 500gr Goverment Bullet. Because he started out with the SASS shooters a year or so back, he got some bad info and was putting a wad on top of his 50gr charge of 5744."

(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)

The Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook shows a max charge of 37gr with that bullet giving 35,200 CUP for a Ruger #1. 

Chris.
 


I'm surprised he had room for a wad, probably used the compression trick. Cool
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
craigster
Oldtimer
*****
Offline



Posts: 823
Location: lost coast CA
Joined: Feb 20th, 2011
Re: Quigley ban on over powder wads wi double based po
Reply #22 - Feb 3rd, 2016 at 11:41pm
Print Post  
Old-Win wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 12:41pm:
This upcoming Q match will be my 14th and I don't feel any less safe there than I do next to the guy at my rifle range.  Joe, you'd better give up shooting schuetzen too; probably less safe than the Quigley. Wink Wink Who was the California guy that blew up his highwall at a schuetzen match about 8-10 years ago with a double charge?  It was in the ASSRA journal.


What is the relevance of the shooter's state of residence ?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
westerner
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline


deleted posts and threads
record holder.

Posts: 12334
Location: Why, out West of course
Joined: May 29th, 2006
Re: Quigley ban on over powder wads wi double based po
Reply #23 - Feb 4th, 2016 at 1:40am
Print Post  
Okay, Can't blame the powder this time.  Good thing we know what caused the problem.

             Joe.
  
A blind squirrel runs into a tree every once in a while.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
40_Rod
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline


Extremism in the persuit
of accuracy is not a
vice

Posts: 4285
Location: Knoxville, TN
Joined: Apr 20th, 2004
Re: Quigley ban on over powder wads wi double based po
Reply #24 - Feb 4th, 2016 at 9:23am
Print Post  
There will always be some shooters who treat big bore guns like my wife treats the checkbook. If there are checks in the book there must be money in the account. If there’s still room in the case pour in more powder. 
  The sad thing is that in a lot of these cases the people who are shooting with these shooters seem to know the guns they are shooting next to are beyond the raggedy edge and still they shoot next to them.
  The solution would seem to be for every competitor to submit his load to the safety committee before being let on the line. This will at least weed out the oblivious overloads.

40 Rod
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
marlinguy
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline


Ballards may be weaker,
but they sure are neater!

Posts: 18049
Location: Oregon
Joined: Feb 2nd, 2009
Re: Quigley ban on over powder wads wi double based po
Reply #25 - Feb 4th, 2016 at 10:13am
Print Post  
Another case of a reloader who didn't do his homework. Can't blame the gun, powder, or anything but the owner. If someone gives you load data, and you don't do your best to double check the data, and gradually work up to it; then there's nobody else to blame.
Hardly a case of smokeless powder, or a weak action. More a case of poor judgment, or practices.
  
(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
KAF
Ex Member


Re: Quigley ban on over powder wads wi double based po
Reply #26 - Feb 4th, 2016 at 10:40am
Print Post  
"Sharps shot at Quigley with 5744"

" (You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)"

Not being a old rifle expert, I'd have to say somebody did one fine job of using a Hi Wall block, lever, and main spring in a sharps, of any design.


And IF shooting in a BPCR match the load should be Black Powder Only!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
cheatin_charlie
Senior Forum Member
****
Offline



Posts: 425
Location: ohio
Joined: Jan 10th, 2009
Re: Quigley ban on over powder wads wi double based po
Reply #27 - Feb 4th, 2016 at 12:14pm
Print Post  
For what it's worth 5744 is not a slow burning stick powder.  The burning rate is
right after 4759 which is after 4227.  I don't think anybody said 4759 was not a 
good powder for 45-70 lead bullet loads.  The problem is using wads on top of
the powder.  There are a lot of people on the internet who are telling people to
use wads on top of their powder charges and not knowing the dangers involved
when using different types of powder.  I use both 5744 and 4759 without wads
and don't worry about ringed chambers or excessive pressure.  This is all a game so lets play safe.  And yes I shoot a lot of black powder but sometimes
smokeless makes more sense for me.  And yes I read the reloading manuals
and follow them.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
KAF
Ex Member


Re: Quigley ban on over powder wads wi double based po
Reply #28 - Feb 4th, 2016 at 12:52pm
Print Post  
There is a huge difference between 
"ON" powder wads and 
"OVER" powder wads.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
4570mike
Senior Forum Member
****
Offline



Posts: 460
Location: On the Peninsula
Joined: Apr 11th, 2013
Re: Quigley ban on over powder wads wi double based po
Reply #29 - Feb 4th, 2016 at 1:49pm
Print Post  
KAF; Please explain the difference.

I use a .060 veg fiber wad on top of my charge and the bullet seats tight on the wad.  This is very different from a loose "filler" material that doesn't hold everything tight in place.

Mike.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 
Send TopicPrint
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
 
  « Board Index ‹ Board Top  

ASSRA Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.6.12!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2026. All Rights Reserved.

Valid RSS Valid XHTML Valid CSS Powered by Perl Source Forge

Page completed in 0.8308 seconds.