.270 win help. Cratering primers update Page 8 post 78

JJ-65 said:
I would be tossing that jug of powder. Obviously there has been a mix up somewhere along the line.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking the same thing. I load 60 gr of h4831 and yes I know imr is a little hotter but you should be able to load 57 gr of imr 4831 with a 130 gr bullet. There's something wrong with that powder you're using. Still I would double check your powder charge on another scale.
 
jamesharrison said:
So I ran some numbers in QL:

.270 Winchester, 22" bbl. (Savage 111), 130 gr. Barnes TTSX, C.O.A.L. 3.300" 55.0 gr. IMR4831

Case capacity 63.5 grs. 3,147 fps @ 71,912 psi

Darned close to your results; NOTE the pressure!

While I've never played with a .270, for the purposes of this discussion, a .30-06 is not terribly different. In my collection of .30-06 brass, I've got 8 different brands, although not Federal. Case capacity runs from 62.5 grs. to 72.3 grs. (the 9.8 grs. represents a 16% difference)

Now let's run the same numbers for the largest capacity case; in my .30-06 brass, it holds 72.3 grs.:

2,927 fps @ 52,504 psi

Using Barnes Max of 57.0 grs., it's still only 3,129 fps @ 58,645 psi in your 22" barrel, compared to Barnes' test barrel of 24" [only velocity changes with a shorter or longer barrel, NOT pressure, as long as the barrel is the same one.
Click to expand...

The pressure QL gave you is way too high...Output data is only as accurate as the input data.

Have never used QL but looking at your inputs I think you may be low on the case capacity as it should be the same as the 3006...They are identical case just necked down in the 270.
 
Lastgun said:
The pressure QL gave you is way too high...Output data is only as accurate as the input data.

Have never used QL but looking at your inputs I think you may be low on the case capacity as it should be the same as the 3006...They are identical case just necked down in the 270.
Click to expand...
Actually, it would take about 70,000psi to flatten those primers like that.
 
It gets better. The OP & I spoke on the phone; the lands on the 1 barrel ran to the high ~0.26###'s" & the grooves in the low 0.27xx's". Not a .270 barrel dimension that I've ever seen.

I input those barrel numbers & the outputs were F'en SCARY!

They do, however, explain the case & primer appearances & in one case, the leaking & in another, the popped primer.

Re: QL looking at your inputs I think you may be low on the case capacity as it should be the same as the 3006

Sorry, but those inputs were actual case capacities in H2O, of various brands of .30-06 in MY collection. They just go to show that there can be a significant difference in case capacity between brands & you MUST tailor your hand-loads accordingly.
 
It's possible that your bolt face requires bushing. Check to see if the firing-pin hole is larger than necessary.
 
stubblejumper said:
Actually, it would take about 70,000psi to flatten those primers like that.
Click to expand...

No question the pressure sign in the pictures indicate very high pressure...I have never seen sign of pressure that high in all my reloading years.

Was just pointing out the QL pressure number is way high because the data inputted was a very low number for the 270 case capacity...The lieberal federal government does the same thing when describing our economy being so good when it is not.
 
jamesharrison said:
It gets better. The OP & I spoke on the phone; the lands on the 1 barrel ran to the high ~0.26###'s" & the grooves in the low 0.27xx's". Not a .270 barrel dimension that I've ever seen.

I input those barrel numbers & the outputs were F'en SCARY!

They do, however, explain the case & primer appearances & in one case, the leaking & in another, the popped primer.

Re: QL looking at your inputs I think you may be low on the case capacity as it should be the same as the 3006

Sorry, but those inputs were actual case capacities in H2O, of various brands of .30-06 in MY collection. They just go to show that there can be a significant difference in case capacity between brands & you MUST tailor your hand-loads accordingly.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you may have found the cause of the high pressure...We all knew something was way out of wack be it the rifle or the powder but from the numbers given and the techniques described it was not those.

Sounds like Savage rifles really are SAVAGE !
 
jamesharrison said:
It gets better. The OP & I spoke on the phone; the lands on the 1 barrel ran to the high ~0.26###'s" & the grooves in the low 0.27xx's". Not a .270 barrel dimension that I've ever seen.

I input those barrel numbers & the outputs were F'en SCARY!

They do, however, explain the case & primer appearances & in one case, the leaking & in another, the popped primer.

Re: QL looking at your inputs I think you may be low on the case capacity as it should be the same as the 3006

Sorry, but those inputs were actual case capacities in H2O, of various brands of .30-06 in MY collection. They just go to show that there can be a significant difference in case capacity between brands & you MUST tailor your hand-loads accordingly.
Click to expand...

After this phone call being unsure if my measurements were correct I decided to slug the barrel. It comes in at .274. Being that the barrels are suppose to be .277 this may be the problem. The lands are coming in at .268 so pushing a .277 through a .274…. Based on the input data it’s showing pressures to be in the 80,000 psi range. Which is a touch unsafe. Knowing this now I am not going to be using the rifle. I will reach out to savage and see what they are going to do about it.
 
You like coincidence........a local gunsmith had a customer bring in a new Remington 700 with no rifling. Smith calls Remington to get new barrel . Second barrel arrives finally ........with you guessed it no rifling.
 
I'm not sure how a Remington barrel could even be made without rifling. They are hammer forged (cold swaged) and the initial blank is about a foot long and oversized with a hole down the center. When they are done its barrel length and shape. The inside and outside are done at the same time, so unless a mandrel with no rifling was used somehow I don't get it.
 
So I have been doing more measuring. I slugged the second .270 I have. It comes in at .276. I have also been checking all the bullets I have. The barnes are 99% at .275 with a few of them having the centre ring on the baring surface at .276 or .277. I have some factory .270 federal in 130gr sp and 150 rn. I pulled one of each. They both come in at .275. I checked the three different weights of Sierra’s I have. 110,130,150. They all come in at .275. Now I’m really wondering what is going on. All the boxes say they are supposed to be .277. Only a couple measure at that and only Barnes. It still makes my 111 undersized.
 
bobjoe said:
I do have a chrono. With 55gr which is under published max they are doing 3150. I went down to 52gr but did not chrono them. They still had flattened primers at 52. Which is a starting load. This is why I am confused. Everything is showing over pressure when all well under published loads.
Click to expand...
you found published loads for use with magnum primers? interesting
 
It's rare but not unheard of for a barrel to push pressure signs at or even below book minimum. On top of that, monometal bullets are known to have a propensity to show pressure signs earlier than lead core bullets.

I'm not at all surprised to hear you had pressure signs at 3150fps in a 20" barrel. Did you chrono the 52gr load by chance?
 
Last edited:
Suther said:
It's rare but not unheard of for a barrel to push pressure signs at or even below book minimum. On top of that, monometal bullets are known to have a propensity to show pressure signs earlier than lead core bullets.

I'm not at all surprised to hear you had pressure signs at 3150fps in a 20" barrel. Did you chrono the 52gr load by chance?
Click to expand...

I've had a few rifles that would only take the starting loads, though some of those exceeded book speeds for max loads with the "light" charge. It sort of balances out for the ones that wouldn't make book speed with any loads. ;)

I've also had rifles that needed starting loads with monos but got the speed anyway. Others used the same charges as conventional bullets.

Never try to out-guess a barrel.

I've
 
I’ve read this entire thread, interesting about your barrel size. One question I have that I didn’t see answered here, have you tried using cup and core bullets yet? Reason I ask is that they are much softer and so they will more readily fit into your tight barrel. Something you could try if you don’t have any luck with warranty from Savage.

A few years ago I tried some Hammer bullets in my 270 and I was having trouble getting speed out of them. I phoned Hammer and they said to make sure I had cleaned all the copper out of my barrel. Their reasoning was that bc copper is so sticky it tends to stick to the copper that was deposited in my barrel from my past cup n core bullets. And that different alloys of copper don’t play well together, the different alloys coming from my previous cup n core bullets. I did that and I got the speed I was looking for. Don’t have the data or my notes in front of me so I can’t give specifics. Which also makes me wonder about your Barnes bullets. Since they are the same diameter for the entire bearing surface (as opposed to Hammer’s drive bands being oval), combined with your tight barrel, and you have the perfect storm.
 
Last edited:
aardvaark said:
I’ve read this entire thread, interesting about your barrel size. One question I have that I didn’t see answered here, have you tried using cup and core bullets yet? Reason I ask is that they are much softer and so they will more readily fit into your tight barrel. Something you could try if you don’t have any luck with warranty from Savage.

A few years ago I tried some Hammer bullets in my 270 and I was having trouble getting speed out of them. I phoned Hammer and they said to make sure I had cleaned all the copper out of my barrel. Their reasoning was that bc copper is so sticky it tends to stick to the copper that was deposited in my barrel from my past cup n core bullets. And that different alloys of copper don’t play well together, the different alloys coming from my previous cup n core bullets. I did that and I got the speed I was looking for. Don’t have the data or my notes in front of me so I can’t give specifics. Which also makes me wonder about your Barnes bullets. Since they are the same diameter for the entire bearing surface (as opposed to Hammer’s drive bands being oval), combined with your tight barrel, and you have the perfect storm.
Click to expand...

I did try some older cup and core bullets and it did the same thing.
 
After a discussion with another friend I decided to check to see if my micrometer was off. I changed the batteries and had a second one in my garage to comp air against. With that The first one gave the same reading with new battery and the second was off by only .0005 or half of a ten thousandth which puts the bore at .274-.2745. So still .003 undersized.
The same friend checked his bullets and they measures at .277 with one coming in at .278. Normally .001 doesn’t make a difference but .003-.004 clearly does and is giving me the pressure spike.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom