I'm not going to comment on the logic of doing this, but if you’ve started you might as well go all out. You should add to your files a once fired cartridge from firearm as well, as the bolt face, firing pin, extractor and ejector could be used to identify a firearm in the same manner.
Making up very light (minimum) loads
- Thread starter josquin
- Start date
Hopefully anyone who steals your firearms doesn't have access to a top secret compound known as "abrasive compound." Two minutes with a patch, jag, cleaning rod and abrasive compound, and he'll have completely foiled all your work. This was NRA's answer to all the nonsense about states that wanted to have records of this kind of stuff on all guns sold. Even just shooting it a bunch more times, will change the characteristics of fired cases and bullets.
Go ahead and do it, if you want to. Bullseye and Unique are your friends for a project like this. After watching this video, let us know if you still want to even bother
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAlixegkf0o
4:40-5:30
Go ahead and do it, if you want to. Bullseye and Unique are your friends for a project like this. After watching this video, let us know if you still want to even bother
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAlixegkf0o
4:40-5:30
- Location
- Maple Ridge, BC
I had some guns stolen once. One was recovered about 3 years later. By that time the insurance company had settled with me. My house contents were insured on a 'replacement cost" basis, which means that if I bought a brand new gun, they would pay for it, or I could choose not to replace it, and take a cheque for the depreciated value. I chose to buy new guns, which cost a lot more than the actual value of what I lost.
When the gun was recovered, my choice was to say "No thanks" and keep the new gun, or say "I'll take it back" in which case I owed them a big cheque.
So, if your guns are insured as regular house contents, why would you ever want them back? Your would have to pay back the value of new guns to get back your used ones. ???
When the gun was recovered, my choice was to say "No thanks" and keep the new gun, or say "I'll take it back" in which case I owed them a big cheque.
So, if your guns are insured as regular house contents, why would you ever want them back? Your would have to pay back the value of new guns to get back your used ones. ???
Last edited:
This is a good point, actually. It reminded me that several years ago, when I was still doing audio recording, I had a pair of very expensive mics stolen. The insurance was duly paid, but if they are ever found, I'd be in the same position. (Although they were exceptionally good mics and I'd still like them back.)
As to the swimming pool, yup- that's the way to go, and you can shoot regular loads. I think Richard Lee mentioned doing this in the intro to one of his reloading manuals. However, I don't have a pool and although I'm in a rural area, I can't just go shooting in my field wthout attracting just a bit of adverse notice!
And for those who are worried about the potential legal implications for all of us, I am NOT thinking that it ought to be written in law
It is a personal project only, so don't get yer knickers in a knot Stuart
Hopefully anyone who steals your firearms doesn't have access to a top secret compound known as "abrasive compound." Two minutes with a patch, jag, cleaning rod and abrasive compound, and he'll have completely foiled all your work. This was NRA's answer to all the nonsense about states that wanted to have records of this kind of stuff on all guns sold. Even just shooting it a bunch more times, will change the characteristics of fired cases and bullets.
Go ahead and do it, if you want to. Bullseye and Unique are your friends for a project like this. After watching this video, let us know if you still want to even bother
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAlixegkf0o
4:40-5:30
I just watched that video, Thanks ,bye the way. I guess I don't have to figure out how to patch the bathtub after I shoot my 3006 into it now
Barring the swimming pool from within the courtyard within your home, you could call your CFO for a temporary ATT to take your restricted firearm(s) to the YMCA pool for the stated purpose of "ballistic testing".
I'm sure that your CFO would applaud your intent, but decline, and ask why you don't just use contiguous milk jugs - at an approved range - instead.
I'm sure that your CFO would applaud your intent, but decline, and ask why you don't just use contiguous milk jugs - at an approved range - instead.
LOL! Come to think of it, I seem to recall that I once saw an advert for Dupont Corian™ where someone fired a .38 at it to prove how tough it was.
On the other hand, to go Ganderite's idea one better, I could put a bucket at the bottom of my well and catch the bullets in that. The well house is insulated, so that would dampen the noise...
Stuart
JohnC
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Be aware that going below minimum on the normal pistol powders can lead to detonation according to some authorities.
http://www.reloadammo.com/liteload.htm
if you want really low speeds use a bulky powder like SR 4759
http://www.reloadammo.com/liteload.htm
if you want really low speeds use a bulky powder like SR 4759
My understanding why you can't go below the minumun load for a particular cartridge is that say you loaded a 308 win load into a 300 win mag, because there would be much less powder in the larger cartridge, the powder would level out and the primer could possibly blast down the length of the cartridge and light all of the power simultaniously which can lead to high pressures.
The biggest issue would be a powder that is very positionally sensitive. Some powders just work best when crammed into a case, and won't light up properly if the kernal aren't touching. Unique, is probably, from my reading on the matter, one of the LEAST positionally sensitive powders. I read recently of a universal 30 caliber light load, of 10 gr unique, regardless of bullet weight or chambering, from 30-30 all the way upto the biggest magnums. There are some powders where if they are too spread out in the case, the bit by the primer will light, but anything far from the primer will not, or it will light after the initial combustion has begun, this is where you run into problems.
The main risk with really light loads of fast-burning pistol powders is lodging a bullet in the barrel. Kabooms with these types of loads are generally caused by a combination of a double charge and a bullet seated too deeply.
Some people have claimed to have had detonations with reduced charges of slow-burning powder, but I do not know of anyone successfully duplicating this in a laboratory. One hypothesis is that this is caused by secondary explosion effect, where the primer does not properly ignite the powder, but rather causes it to smoulder, producing combustible gases which then detonate.
That said, I think it is a waste of time to try and produce "ballistic fingerprints" for your guns, given that this is not as reliable as many people think it is.
Some people have claimed to have had detonations with reduced charges of slow-burning powder, but I do not know of anyone successfully duplicating this in a laboratory. One hypothesis is that this is caused by secondary explosion effect, where the primer does not properly ignite the powder, but rather causes it to smoulder, producing combustible gases which then detonate.
That said, I think it is a waste of time to try and produce "ballistic fingerprints" for your guns, given that this is not as reliable as many people think it is.
