Odd circular marks on resized cases

[William T. Watts]

Thank God for Guffy and Unclenick, they can cut thru the clutter and BS! With that said I believe I'm a little better informed, I will still use the cases in the calibers I load for. I have not sold any of the cases and to date haven't given any to anyone, after all the discussion I think there very well could be a libility issue if anyone used these cases and one of them failed. William

[Mike Irwin]

" Then there are those that assume, like they heard there were holes in test cases, therefore they drilled the hole in the case before they started, again, I say: Gas is hot, it has high pressure, hot high pressure gas is hot high pressure metal cutting gas, and now, someone is going to tell me the ammo testers have test guns that are exempt from rendering their test rifles scrap because they are testers."

So, what you're saying, in the middle of all of the rest of that twaddle and blather is that, despite of the linked resource that I provided, and the information that Uncle Nick has subsequently provided, copper crusher test cases were were never, and never will be, drilled in preparation for copper crusher testing.

You obviously have NO clue what a copper crusher "gun" looks like, because you've twaddled and blathered yourself into believing that... twaddle and blather.

Tell me, Mr. Guffy, do you know what this object is?



Want to try taking that hunting any time soon?

Think a pressure test load, or even a proof load would blow that up, especially given this one, for example, is designed specifically to take repeated proof load rounds, from .22 to 14.5 Soviet?

Still don't believe that pressure testing can involve drilling the cartridge case?

Read up on this thread: http://www.iaaforum.org/forum3/viewt...hp?f=8&t=12468

OBVIOUSLY those two were fired in a pressure test assembly that not only allowed a disk of brass to blow out, it also RELOADED the case AND put on the barrier wrap that keeps the newly reloaded powder from leaking out.

Now THAT is a really kick ass piece of equipment!

[F. Guffey]

"Copper crusher fixtures require a hole in the case."

That's EXACTLY what I was thinking, and that ‘piezo’ doesn't require a specially prepped cut away case.
__________________


Mike Irwin, you went from “That's EXACTLY what I was thinking”, to ?

Then I said:

" Then there are those that assume, like they heard there were holes in test cases, therefore they drilled the hole in the case before they started, again, I say: Gas is hot, it has high pressure, hot high pressure gas is hot high pressure metal cutting gas, and now, someone is going to tell me the ammo testers have test guns that are exempt from rendering their test rifles scrap because they are testers."

After that you seem to have been provoked, and you are welcome, the next time this topic comes up you can start out with something better than “That's EXACTLY what I was thinking”, to posting all of your Google search.

There are a few of us that are closer to the ground, I had the opportunity to purchase all or any part of 100,000 test fired cases, I was asked if there was anything in the form of information I could glean from them and the answer was no, outside of sizing and reloading, reloading? I will not live long enough to fire the cases I have. But, there were conditions and circumstances, I did say I would be interested if I was allowed to measure before and again after and then be given the data from the test gages, as in an attempt to correlate the effect the firing had on the case when matched to the data on the pressure test, and we all know none of that was going to happen.

The offer to purchase the cases, all the cases were test fired cases and none of them were fired to failure, less than 10% of the cases had the little ‘O’. Being a little closer to the ground, I do not get into what I do not have, back to correlating. A few reloaders purchase new ammo, measure the diameter of the case heads then fire the new cases and measure the diameter of the case head again, before and again after.

From Unclenick,

PRE proved to be a poor pressure indicator, giving no readings below 15,000 psi and little to no response differences above 45,000 psi. An expansion of 0.006" in the .30-06 cases tested was measured with anywhere from 45,300 psi to 59,500 psi.

.006” case head expansion is close to failure, normal case head expansion for normal loads would be .00025, .006” would be 16 times the case head expansion of factory ammo, back to the test fired cases, they were not tested for failure.

Shell holders, I have shell holders, I am not required to measure case head expansion to determine if cases were loaded and fired with heavy loads, cases that have been abused/hammered etc., will not fit the shell holders. RCBS Shell holders, cases that will not fit the RCBS go to the top of the list of ‘FIRST SIGNS OF HIGH PRESSURE’.

F. Guffeys

http://s688.photobucket.com/user/fguffey/slideshow/



http://s688.photobucket.com/user/fgu...eshow/add%20to

[Unclenick]

It was PRE, not CHE. Pressure Ring Expansion, not Case Head Expansion. So that testing was forward of the head where the case wall filled out to the diameter of the chamber. 0.3" forward on the case, to be precise. For that you take a baseline expansion at low pressure, then see how much difference there is from the higher pressure. They got two to three thousandths difference depending on the pressure ratios up to about 45,000 psi, after which there was no reliable additional expansion. And that's what I should have put in my post rather than their total expansion number as they reported it.

Apologies for the confusion.

[F. Guffey]

Unclenick, base line” R-P 30/06 cases have a case head thickness of from .260” to .280”, though heavier LC 30/06 case head thickness is .200” meaning the heavier case has the thinness case head.

http://www.saami.org/PubResources/CC...pringfield.pdf

Supported case head and unsupported case head, then there is protrusion. There is no shortages of barrels around here, take off, new and Mausers, I make chamber gages, not the ones reloaders/shooters/bench resters have their smiths make, I make them with case head protrusion like the chamber in the rifle. .300” from the case head, I think nothing of turning a case around and inserting it into the chamber and or gage, the .006” expansion at the pressure ring of the case would lead me to believe something went very wrong in the chamber were the diameter of a 30/06 chamber .200” ahead of the bolt face should be .470”.

You did say “PRE proved to be a poor pressure indicator” when PRE means ‘pressure ring expansion”, the pressure ring? has case head support, if they claim the case expanded .006” between the case head and case body I would suggest they measure the diameter of the chamber, again, I turn the case around and place the case head into the chamber and or gage, cases that have been hammered may not fit into the chamber.

F. Guffey

[Unclenick]

The pressure ring is the part that gets thinned out by stretching during repeated firings of the case. Different cases do show it at slightly different locations, depending how they tapered the thickness of the brass from the head on the inside. I just look for the shiny ring on the outside of the case after resizing. It's in front of the head where the sizing die has rubbed hardest against the brass. The 0.3" point used in the article is about where that shiny ring turns up on some of my cases.

A minimum SAAMI chamber, as pressure test barrels normally have, is 0.001" bigger than a maximum diameter case. The case has a -0.008" SAAMI tolerance, so a minimum diameter case would be expected to expand 0.009" in a minimum chamber at full pressure in the area of the pressure ring. That the testers got 0.006" expansion, instead, suggests their cases were 0.003" bigger than minimum or -0.005" smaller than maximum to start with. That's just 0.001" smaller than right in the middle of the tolerance range, which is not an unreasonable number for them to have had.

I should point out the Lyman #46 was published in 1982, so there's a good chance these tests were done around 1980 or so, before SAAMI adopted the conformal Piezo transducer. It's long ago enough that Winchester and some others have since altered some of their case designs.

[Clark]

I have been buying 250 pieces of brass for $45 delivered of once fired 7mmRM, 270, and 30-30 brass from a guy in Florida, when he sporadically has it. It is typically Federal, RP, or Winchester. Sometimes the batch will have been pressure tested with that circle on it. It all shoots just fine.



Same pic as link below

[schmellba99]

http://www.shootingtimes.com/2011/01...addata_200905/

Also, am I the only one that has to read F. Guffy's posts multiple times before I think I understand what he is trying to convey?

[F. Guffey]

schmellba99
Senior Member


Join Date: January 8, 2008
Posts: 333 http://www.shootingtimes.com/2011/01...addata_200905/

Also, am I the only one that has to read F. Guffy's posts multiple times before I think I understand what he is trying to convey?



Schmellba99, You are under no obligation to even read the post, I place no demand on you to even try, I do appreciate any effort you make.

On the other hand, if you are looking for immediate neighborhood acceptance allow me to forward links to two forums where rude is the norm, not the exception.

F. Guffey

[F. Guffey]

Schmellba99, forgive, you are allowed to ask questions, I do, there are times the answers are modified and improved upon, other times my questions '”lock them-up”.

F. Guffey

[45_auto]

Originally Posted by schmellba99

Also, am I the only one that has to read F. Guffy's posts multiple times before I think I understand what he is trying to convey?

If you have EVER understood what he is trying to say then you're way ahead of me. I do find the way he wanders around humorous. I bet he holds forum records for the most use of commas, and longest sentences with multiple subjects!

[William T. Watts]

It's a shame this thread has digressed to the point of bashing Guffey because you don't understand his logic. I know him, I like him, I have visited in his home in Dallas, Texas. When you read Guffeys posts he is going to make you think, you may even have to go to another source, usually people like him are one or two steps ahead of the crowd (Unclenick also comes to mind). I never really given much thought to any of the pressure testing methods, I think it is a tremendous responsibility on the part of the Ammunition manufactures to make a product that has to function in hundreds if not thousands of different firearms. Every lot of powder that Remington uses has to meet certain specifications plus deliver the accuracy, pressure & velocity within industry standards. Their ballistics lab fires hundreds of thousands of rounds yearly, Remington generates lots of fired brass that eventually could wind up in the hands of people like us/me. I'm satisfied in my rifle using my techniques to load my ammunition the cases that were pressure tested are safe to fire. I would not recommend this practice to anyone else nor encourage them to emulate me. Nuff said!! William

[FrankenMauser]

It's a shame this thread has digressed to the point of bashing Guffey because you don't understand his logic. I know him, I like him, I have visited in his home in Dallas, Texas. When you read Guffeys posts he is going to make you think, you may even have to go to another source, usually people like him are one or two steps ahead of the crowd (Unclenick also comes to mind).

No one is bashing F. Guffey, or questioning the validity of the information presented. They're simply stating that his methods of communication can be quite difficult to understand, and the parallels he attempts to draw are often coming from his personal experiences and peculiarities, rather than something more well-known and easily understood by the readers.

[schmellba99]

No one is bashing F. Guffey, or questioning the validity of the information presented. They're simply stating that his methods of communication can be quite difficult to understand, and the parallels he attempts to draw are often coming from his personal experiences and peculiarities, rather than something more well-known and easily understood by the readers.

Bingo.

Sometimes the skin gets just a little too thin on these boards.

I was not berating Guffy - merely making a comment that the method in which he communicates is one that takes me multiple times reading before I think I understand what point he is trying to convey. Maybe with many of you it comes across clear as day, I don't know. I do consider myself fairly intelligent and given that I deal with engineers, millwrights and a host of other technical fields on a daily basis, I think I have a better than average grasp on different styles of communication - just for me, it is difficult with his posts.

I have never questioned his experience or intelligence, nor have I called him a name or even thrown a disparaging remark his direction. I agree with many things he says, disagree with others - pretty much like anybody else on the board (this one or otherwise).

If that is "bashing", well, we have completely different definitions of bashing.