Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2]  Send TopicPrint
Hot Topic (More than 10 Replies) 5744? (Read 10975 times)
waterman
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline



Posts: 2826
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain
Joined: Jun 9th, 2004
Re: 5744?
Reply #15 - Jun 15th, 2016 at 2:58am
Print Post  
5744 is not a slow burner.  It is about mid-way between 4227 and 4198, a bit closer to 4227, in the list I have seen.  Looks to me as if it is intended for smaller straight-walled cases with relatively light bullets.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bent_Ramrod
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline



Posts: 1453
Location: Southern Arizona
Joined: Feb 8th, 2006
Re: 5744?
Reply #16 - Jun 15th, 2016 at 8:33am
Print Post  
5744 per se has not been banned at the Quigley.  The use of wads with 5744 has been banned.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Yellowhouse
Full Member
***
Offline



Posts: 155
Location: Oklahoma
Joined: Mar 31st, 2008
Re: 5744?
Reply #17 - Jun 15th, 2016 at 2:29pm
Print Post  
Believe that blowup at Quigley also involved a heavy charge of 5744 and a wad....double trouble!

On the demise of 4759 no one has mentioned Reloader 7.  Would it be a useful substitute?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
boats
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline



Posts: 7537
Location: Virginia
Joined: Apr 23rd, 2004
Re: 5744?
Reply #18 - Jun 15th, 2016 at 5:07pm
Print Post  
All kinds of powder that "can" be used.  4227 is well proven and no history of blow up's, unless double charged.  Double of 4227 will fit in most SS cases but is very obvious, you would have to be careless to shoot a double charged load. 

I have moved all my 4759 loads over to 4227 with no problems and the advantage of being better through a measure. I never use a wad of any kind

If what we hear is true, why fool with surplus powder ? leave  5744 for other guys to experiment with.   

Boats
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Premod70
Oldtimer
*****
Offline



Posts: 864
Location: North Carolina
Joined: Jan 16th, 2016
Re: 5744?
Reply #19 - Jun 15th, 2016 at 5:20pm
Print Post  
Yellowhouse wrote on Jun 15th, 2016 at 2:29pm:
Believe that blowup at Quigley also involved a heavy charge of 5744 and a wad....double trouble!

On the demise of 4759 no one has mentioned Reloader 7.  Would it be a useful substitute?


I've used Reloder 7 in a 40/65 with good results but it and many others will not match Accurate 5744 for accuracy, at least not in my rifle. Still looking though!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
calledflyer
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline



Posts: 3541
Joined: Mar 9th, 2015
Re: 5744?
Reply #20 - Jun 15th, 2016 at 5:34pm
Print Post  
I have always loved my 4227 powder. Found 4759 was good too. But I like to fiddle from time to time and have tried, in the .32-40, both 4198 and RL7 a few times. Both worked pretty good with gascheck slugs at somewhat elevated velocities. Inconsistent down low, though, and didn't work worth a tinker's damn with plain base bullets. 
I didn't work with either very long, so maybe there could be some possibilities, but I'm not gonna give up my 4227 and remaining 4759.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
QuestionableMaynard8130
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline



Posts: 4144
Location: Benton  Harbor MI
Joined: Apr 17th, 2004
Re: 5744?
Reply #21 - Jun 21st, 2016 at 10:02pm
Print Post  
I ALWAYS used wads in my 5744 loads to have consistent powder position in the case.  BUT NOT SEATED DOWN ON THE POWDER   
   I used cork sheeting wads cut with a sharpened 45-70 case as a cookie cutter.    I mad an adjustable seater with a turned down fine threaded bolt that was a slip fit in the case and a must as an adjustable stop with a jam-nut to lock it once adjusted. 
  when I was shooting that rifle Charlie Dell was still coming to the matches at EG and I followed his advice.  a seated 3 stacked wads on the powder, adjusted the seater to that depth, but when shooting ONLY USED ONE WAD.  so my wad was two wad thicknesses off the powder.   The miroku 45-70 was a prototype for the later BPCR & Creedmoor production, and made with one of the Badger match fast-twist barrels.   
Never gave a thought to it blowing up with 5744. even with heavy charges and heavy bullets
  

sacred cows make the best burger
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
JS47
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline



Posts: 1265
Location: Arizona
Joined: Oct 12th, 2012
Re: 5744?
Reply #22 - Jun 21st, 2016 at 11:35pm
Print Post  
Here's a simple wad seater I made that works well.  It's nothing more than a block of wood with a hole in it, a dowel, and a set screw.  The dowel floats in the hole so when a powder charge is in the case the tool can be placed on the case with the dowel loose to determine the powder level.  Tighten the set screw, get a measurement with a caliper, then adjust the dowel to whatever wad seating space you want.  The short end works well to seat a wad straight to end up at the bullet base when the bullet is seated.

JS
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
uscra112
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline



Posts: 4079
Location: Switzerland of Ohio
Joined: May 7th, 2007
Re: 5744?
Reply #23 - Jun 22nd, 2016 at 2:40am
Print Post  
westerner wrote on Jun 21st, 2016 at 10:54am:
If 5744 is a fast powder, why does it leave so much un-burned powder in the barrel?

         Joe.


I can't give an engineer's answer, but I burned quite a lot of it when the only cast bullet rifles I was shooting used gas checked bullets at +/- 2000 fps.  My own observation is that it needs to be loaded to 20,000 psi or higher to burn completely, and it likes heavy bullets.  20K is a mite higher than we need for plain base bullets at Schuetzen velocities.   I still have quite a lot of it, but other powders are working better for me, so I have not burned any for several years now.  Might go back to it when(if) I ever get out my 7.5x55 Schmidt-Rubin to test a 200 grain Eagan GC bullet for which I have a mould.   

As I recall the powder designated XMP-5744 was a milsurp powder, but the current AA5744 is new made.
  

<div class=
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
GT
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline



Posts: 2032
Location: Northeast Wyoming
Joined: Jun 28th, 2015
Re: 5744?
Reply #24 - Aug 18th, 2018 at 2:20am
Print Post  
I got lazy back in about '98 and quit using black - after about 10 years of it in cartridges.  For simplicity I switched to smokeless using the thought similar to how we loaded for black - little or no empty space in the case.  I tried several different smokeless powders and when I was shooting 300 to 400 rounds a week I found that XMP5744 out performed everything else I tried - in three different rifles, three different calibers.  The rifles were rollers and high walls.  Calibers were 45-90, 45-70 and 38-55.  In all cases my best results were heavy bullets, 350's in the 38, and 535 and 600's in the 45's.  In the course of three years I used close to 35 lbs. of this and nearly 1800 lbs of lead.  Never saw a ringed chamber nor signs of pressure -blame that on common sense loading or luck.?   I took an 8 year sabbatical from the sport and when I returned a few things had changed, XMP was changed to AA and I'd heard of pressure issues and blown actions...   Hmmm.  I heard about the problem at the Q, and no cards or wads allowed... When I started shooting again, with no intention of doing the diligence as before, I loaded and omitted all the cards and wads (TP) I once used and with practice and focus I was getting the same results as before.  A hot barrel was still the norm and with lighter bullets unburned powder is still common.   

Since starting again I've burned through nearly 24 lbs. of AA5744 in the past couple of years - in more calibers and rifles than I care to confess.  Even with some of the latest equipment I have now, I see no ringing nor do I detect pressure signs.  AS with all things potentially hazardous, common sense and thorough study goes a long way.   
Greg



  

"To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk"  T. A. Edison
"The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but that the lightning ain't distributed right" M.T.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 
Send TopicPrint