ASSRA Forum - Quigley ban on over powder wads wi double based po

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 ›

Pages: 1 2 3 [4]

Quigley ban on over powder wads wi double based po (Read 23182 times)

calledflyer Frequent Elocutionist Online Posts: 3966 Joined: Mar 9^th, 2015	Re: Quigley ban on over powder wads wi double based po Reply #45 - Feb 5^th, 2016 at 4:09pm	Print Post
	Premod, it shouldn't matter what firearm this happened to. The fact seems to be that the explosion within the cartridge happened, and to any reasonable person, that sort of thing should not occur. The times it happens in a weak gun seem all the worse, but the problem is something that you don't want at all, in any gun. Blowing up an O3a3, any one of 'em, is an accomplishment that took some doing.


	IP Logged

SgtDog0311 Senior Forum Member Offline Posts: 391 Joined: Mar 19^th, 2014	Re: Quigley ban on over powder wads wi double based po Reply #46 - Feb 8^th, 2016 at 11:15am	Print Post
	Thanks CC, fair point to make! cheatin_charlie wrote on Feb 4^th, 2016 at 12:14pm: 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.

	Best Regards, John
	IP Logged

westerner Frequent Elocutionist Offline deleted posts and threads record holder. Posts: 12334 Location: Why, out West of course Joined: May 29^th, 2006	Re: Quigley ban on over powder wads wi double based po Reply #47 - Feb 8^th, 2016 at 11:36am	Print Post
	The problem is the powder and people who either refuse to read a book or are very new to reloading or read modern books written by people who never read a book or..... I refuse to loose an eye , eyes or thumbs or hands. I refuse to hurt anyone near me at a match. Joe.

	A blind squirrel runs into a tree every once in a while.
	IP Logged

westerner Frequent Elocutionist Offline deleted posts and threads record holder. Posts: 12334 Location: Why, out West of course Joined: May 29^th, 2006	Re: Quigley ban on over powder wads wi double based po Reply #48 - Feb 8^th, 2016 at 11:52am	Print Post
	I use a wad directly on the powder in only one rifle. Is a .32 Miller Short. Wad is thin Styrofoam, charge is 10 gr H108. No problems so far. Rifle was built in 1996. Joe.

	A blind squirrel runs into a tree every once in a while.
	IP Logged

emmett22405 Full Member Offline Posts: 164 Location: Virginia Joined: Sep 21^st, 2009	Re: Quigley ban on over powder wads wi double based po Reply #49 - Feb 14^th, 2016 at 3:10pm	Print Post
	It was a Remington 03a3.


	IP Logged

ireload2 Full Member Offline Posts: 169 Joined: Jul 9^th, 2009	Re: Quigley ban on over powder wads wi double based po Reply #50 - Feb 17^th, 2016 at 2:28am	Print Post
	The problem is NOT the powder. The problem is the loader doing something ignorant. I have used that powder a lot in a larger number of rifles including modern rifles with jacketed bullets. I don't mistake it for some other powder and I don't do accidental double charges. My loads use no wads and they duplicate BP velocities. I find just as many BP shooters that are as ignorant of smokeless as there are smokeless shooters ignorant of BP. westerner wrote on Feb 8^th, 2016 at 11:36am: The problem is the powder and people who either refuse to read a book or are very new to reloading or read modern books written by people who never read a book or..... I refuse to loose an eye , eyes or thumbs or hands. I refuse to hurt anyone near me at a match. Joe.


	IP Logged

frnkeore Frequent Elocutionist Offline Posts: 7652 Location: Central Point, OR 97502 Joined: Jun 16^th, 2010	Re: Quigley ban on over powder wads wi double based po Reply #51 - Feb 17^th, 2016 at 11:19am	Print Post
	This is just my opinion but, it means A LOT to ME I dislike this powder (5744) a lot! It burns dirty and after the discontuation of 4759, the price was raised about $10 per lb, at least in my area. I wonder if the absence of 4759 had anything to do with that? It holds at least one record in the CBA military matches, used in the '06 but, it still doesn't impress me. I vote with my pocket book and won't be buying any, either. End of rant, Frank

	ASSRA Member #696, ISSA Member #339
	YIM AIM IP Logged

calledflyer Frequent Elocutionist Online Posts: 3966 Joined: Mar 9^th, 2015	Re: Quigley ban on over powder wads wi double based po Reply #52 - Feb 17^th, 2016 at 1:19pm	Print Post
	Again, I'm in accord with Frank. This is nasty powder, in my estimation- I didn't even give the remnant of my single pound away. Lawn got it. Probably explains my poor grass. Let's just cross our fingers and wish for the return of good ol' 4759.


	IP Logged

40_Rod Frequent Elocutionist Offline Extremism in the persuit of accuracy is not a vice Posts: 4285 Location: Knoxville, TN Joined: Apr 20^th, 2004	Re: Quigley ban on over powder wads wi double based po Reply #53 - Feb 18^th, 2016 at 8:50am	Print Post
	Joe It’s not the wad or what the material is, it’s what the wad does. When the wad is down on the powder it shapes the charge into a plug of pressure. When the powder is allowed to slump in the case it changes the shape of the charge. It is particularly effective when the powder is allowed to slump at the rear of the case. Lighter charges may not produce enough pressure to cause a ring with some modern steels. Charlie Dell’s work suggests that most chamber ringing is the product of small movement over a couple of thousand rounds not one event. 40 Rod


	IP Logged

gunlaker Frequent Elocutionist Offline Posts: 2603 Location: lower mainland, B.C. Joined: Dec 13^th, 2010	Re: Quigley ban on over powder wads wi double based po Reply #54 - Feb 18^th, 2016 at 4:02pm	Print Post
	And the nearly double charge weight didn't help matters either. Chris.


	IP Logged

Pages: 1 2 3 [4]

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›