Google edge +p is what i always get told..............Quote:
Originally Posted by veitnamcam
Printable View
Google edge +p is what i always get told..............Quote:
Originally Posted by veitnamcam
It has gone over a few heads and it did mine for a start until It was pointed out I couldn't read properly. The brass and chamber are the same. More powder than the original load after a process Abe has done has resulted in less pressure.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk. So please forgive my sausage fingers!!!
+OALQuote:
Originally Posted by tui_man2
Normal loading for 300 RUM with 2225 in the 90s then +5 still in the 90s
so what did you do?
Plot pressure over time and bullet travel over time on the same axis and you will start to see things...
The point i am trying to make is Tui said he had explained a simple way to increase speed and lower pressure. When really he had not explained anything.
Following his advice for a safe load i should cram 4 more grains of powder into my just touch load and increase length to a jam and i just know that will end badly in my 308:D
Sent from my GT-S5360T using Tapatalk 2
Or put another way as a complete novice reading this thread i will go out in the shed and load up a heap of rounds for ol Betsy 4 grains over pressure signs and a bit longer and its good to go cos that's the secret:thumbup:
Sent from my GT-S5360T using Tapatalk 2
I never said what I done, nor did I say to copy the load. . . .Quote:
Originally Posted by veitnamcam
Nor am I going to say that would be silly:)
Anyone that has a standard edge will know NOT to go over 94gr or is that what people do to get speed? Next time I'll just get hard brass. . . . . .. an not worrie
Sent from my GT-I9300T using Tapatalk 2
Nice facts. . . . . .Quote:
Originally Posted by Spanners
Sent from my GT-I9300T using Tapatalk 2
No. A bit more to it than that. And safer.Quote:
Originally Posted by veitnamcam
I think it was meant to be a question of how he achieved this. Not anything more.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk. So please forgive my sausage fingers!!!
I've got nothing to prove and am happy with the performance and results etc - thus no need to get into a pissing match on the data if anyone wants to disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by tui_man2
Was simply pointing out it was in the regions of normal loading for the case.
You may have noticed that I generally don't post any loads online unless they are pretty std like 125gr 9mm, 55gr 223, 150/168 308.
That's 3 calibers from the 30? I load - all for good reason
Yea i get that but then stated that this is how its done nothing more nothin lessQuote:
Originally Posted by R93
Sent from my GT-S5360T using Tapatalk 2
People other than enthusiasts read these threads.
Sent from my GT-S5360T using Tapatalk 2
Thats cool.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spanners
No please tidy this up. It has gone down the shitter with a big handful of paper to block up all reason on the follow throughQuote:
Originally Posted by Wildman
I did say few mods......never said whatQuote:
Originally Posted by veitnamcam
Trying to put words in my mouth?
And? i never said for people to add powder to get safe............anyone with brains would know not to take a load of the internet........was putting the facts thereQuote:
Originally Posted by veitnamcam
Now on i should follow others like sheep an post x speed for x chambering
So heres one 17 fireball poking a 200gr at 3200 its ok tho its nice hard brass
Oh Fuck it i can't work out how to put multiple quotes in.
Sent from my GT-S5360T using Tapatalk 2
Cam. I think a bit of deep throat will explain it for ya.
Or read the first few sentences of this link.
338 Edge + P now available from Defensive Edge - Long Range Hunting Online Magazine
I wonder why he calls it a plus 'P' I reckon Cam knows more about this than he is letting on:D
Or more specificallyQuote:
Originally Posted by Normie
Firearm Throat and Rifling Method - Patent application
So if you are not getting deformation to hard brass, you are not getting deformation to the action...whats the problem? Why the issue with quality brass not showing signs of pressure/deformation?
Is this not hiding it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidney
Yeah its hiding it to a degree. But if you change to harder brass and pressure signs are not appsrant I would say you would be a mile of reaching pressure that could damage yout action.
Brass fails over time right? Say 5-10 loadings. Would a action fail over time?
Of course... but everyone talks about pressure when surely all that this is, is the cause of what we are trying to avoid... deformation. Tussocks point is valid its pressure/time = force which causes deformation which is what we are trying to avoid.
Pressure in itself is only a component of the destructive force that we are trying to avoid... it would seem not sufficient to just be talking about pressure, particularly as we cannot reliably quantify it, and we do not know the strength of every firearm/action/brass being used and we have little idea over what time that the pressure is being applied...
No deformation = no issue yes? I do acknowledge that the harder/better quality brass tends to be less progressive in showing deformation..... its good, its good, its good/its really bad :D ... and this is an issue..
And ALLLLL this shit is what Roy Weatherby learnt yonks ago leading him to spec those long throats on his high pressure weatherby chamberings
Those same long throats that are considered a "problem" by lots of shooters because they cant load projectiles to "just touch" the lands so have terrible accuracy :o (there are a shitload of take off weatherby mk5 barrels floating around) (there are also plenty of people who cant shoot a .308 accurately let alone a .30-378) (there are also plenty of rifles which shoot MINT with long throats and massive jumps).
And now its all "new" and "secret squirrel" because blah blah blah
Yawn
Show me these Mk 5 barrels:) I could do with a few!
Yep so Carlock is trying to deal with both issues, and good on him...
What pees me off is the patent bullshit. There is nothing particularly ground breaking with Carlock's design, and sure he has spent money and time getting to whatever place, but the guy if he has his way, he will lock up the basic idea so that he is the only one to profit by it. That always does the wider community a disservice...
The vast majority are not going to buy his technology off him, he has no way of meeting the demand if its ground-breaking, and the pattern of behaviour for those holding valuable technology is to sit still, over-price the idea, do no development and nothing happens under the protection comes off...
He is better off to build brand identity into the idea and run as fast as he can with it... the wider community benefit and he remains an ideas man rather than just milking the cow for as much as its worth..
In our world I think the patent approach is gutless... as well as being really expensive...
And to be honest there is no way he can protect the idea, its not that original....
If you can patent/trademark the WSM you can do what he has done. Would be reasonably easy to get around. He seems to use two/three steps in his throat. Use less or a gradual angle should get around it. Kirby Allen investigated a similar throat design but found it wore out too quickly.
True... but he can't protect it... if I wanted a Blaser Mag/Dakota reamer I could get it any day of the week. Waste of money to patent it. Have a look around to see how many Dakota propriotery calibre's are in use... In fact the Blaser is just a knock off on the Dakota anyway..
Trademark, brand identity is the only realistic way to go.. make sure you are the first thought in peoples head by identifying the product with yourself..
...Should call it the Carlock Imp. Chamber or something...
You also have to wonder what he is trying to protect... its not a cartridge he has developed.... how does he even effectively generate income from the idea other than by rebarrelling or building rifles...
Is that even worth the cost of patent... its probably not worth the cost of trying to defend the patent.. :yaeh am not durnk:
Maybe I'm super smart or something but you need to read the patent and drawings again.... This applies to 99% of you all LOL
I had t read it as I didn't know it existed till it was posted but my 'theory' was confirmed in writing
I do struggle to see how you could patent it though...
There's nothing to see...he puts a 2 stage step until full engagement.. its smart but hardly ground breaking.. I was speaking generically about patents assuming some sort of ground breaking development... this isn't.. which is even more reason to not bother..
Read it again..
:D
Sooo the reamer extends beyond the chamber neck thinning out the start of the rifling and the engagement with the jacket builds up in steps. Kinda like easing something hard into a tight place rather than just jamming it straight in thereby reducing the chances of things blowing up?
http://www.faqs.org/patents/img/20120117846_01.png
So its like freebore but with rifling - interesting.
Interesting to note that the Allen mag guy saying that people were returning his version of the same thorat to get them put back to standard throats due to shite barrel life :x_x:
Nope not seeing anything... the first step is more tapered than the second.... thats all.....
Enlighten me.
There are multiple steps of rifling so the bullet engages the bore gradually... so pressure builds gradually rather than spiking substansially when a bullet hits the rifling as one instant engage from a single freebore throat.... supposedly also causing bullet to travel down the bore with less impossed wobble!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidney
This has been round for years.. carlocks just made it a step rather than. a taper like a few other guys have done!!
I have nothing to gain in the whole thing but read the patent and draw it to scale not view the (cool) basic hundred yr old drawing style (love it btw)
Basically a reduced extended free bore under throat diameter with a taper in the rifling.
Allen's version is different.
His 'thump' into the rifling is more abrupt.
100% correctQuote:
Originally Posted by baldbob
Number of 223/556 chambers doing the same for YEARS
Hell look at the publication date. It's been public knowledge for a year. Anyone who claims to have invented anything similar since then is nothing more than copy cat.
As I hinted at the other day, plot pressure and distance over time on the same axis and you will see interesting things.
There is little in this world that can't be explained by science/physics..
So there is an extended taper of the rifling in the freebore area?
Nope- not as it reads in print or paper.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidney
Basically taper the rifling after the freebore.
Blend it or shoulder it, quantifiable results are questionable but its all post freebore effectively.
Don't get caught up in the piss and wind patent terminology.
It's old school English and lawyer wording
Exactly the same as the 100+ yr old patent drawings I've playing with for the last few yrs (completely different topic)