The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > The Hunt

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 9, 2014, 08:24 AM   #1
Unlicensed Dremel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 13, 2014
Posts: 1,718
Remington's "Ultimate Muzzleloader" model 700 Questions

I put this here because this ultra inline ML has little if anything to do with "Black Powder"

1. Which case does it use? It says it uses a "modified brass case" without specifying what cartridge. If it's not a standard case, then forget it. Don't need any more proprietary crap than I have to get into.

2. Is this going to be a "firearm" under federal law like the Savage 10? I bet it will handle smokeless loads, but they didn't want to advertise it as such, to avoid it being a firearm like the Savage 10, which hurts sales.


http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/05/re...-muzzleloader/

http://www.remington.com/pages/news-...zleloader.aspx

But bottom line, if the brass cases are not proprietary, then me likey.
Unlicensed Dremel is offline  
Old June 9, 2014, 11:24 AM   #2
Sure Shot Mc Gee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2012
Posts: 2,162
For a new A/made muzzle loader it certainly has potential according to its stat's.

Its MSRP is a little steep. But, when dealer discounted. This rifle should end up being ball park acceptable in its pricing.

As read no modern powder capability's which may be disappointing to some hoping for a better Savage model 10MZ-ll type. But I can understand why Rem shied away from modern powder use in their rifle. Although Remington's ignition system kind'a reminds me of what PR Bullets up in Canada invented & developed for use on T/C Encores & Omega's years ago.

Wouldn’t surprise me their cartridge shell of choice will be required. Maybe something like the 35 Rem. Which as no straight up parent cartridge.


http://www.prbullet.com/hornet.htm
__________________
Watch it!!! their both out to get us.

Last edited by Sure Shot Mc Gee; June 9, 2014 at 11:29 AM.
Sure Shot Mc Gee is offline  
Old June 9, 2014, 06:17 PM   #3
Unlicensed Dremel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 13, 2014
Posts: 1,718
That one you linked to uses a shortened .22 hornet case. If it's something like that, I will probably pass, depending on what they cost in bulk.

Some of these types of ignition systems use .32 acp cases, IIRC - that's reasonable.
Unlicensed Dremel is offline  
Old June 9, 2014, 10:32 PM   #4
Sure Shot Mc Gee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2012
Posts: 2,162
Quote:
ignition system uses a uniquely-sized brass case with a Remington 9 ½ large magnum rifle primer
As far as Remington's choice for their rifles primer brass. As stated it will be something special perhaps custom made even.
I'm sure as their rifle becomes more & more available at some point we all will know just what brass Remington chose for this project.

Like you Unlicensed Dremel I have no need for such a advanced rifle either. Maybe like you. I'm comfortable with what I already have also.
BTW interesting topic Sir. Enjoyed the read on those Links you provided.
__________________
Watch it!!! their both out to get us.
Sure Shot Mc Gee is offline  
Old June 10, 2014, 09:50 AM   #5
big al hunter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 12, 2011
Location: Washington state
Posts: 957
My FIL uses a Rem 700 ML. Good gun, accurate and reliable. Check your state regulations. Washington does not allow modern primer systems for ML hunting.

My opinion, that ignition system looks like a giant PITA. It adds a step to the reloading process, and you have to re-prime the brass. I don't care to do all that for muzzle loading. I like that I have to get close, choose my shot, keep my primer dry, and only have 1 shot.
__________________
You can't fix stupid....however ignorance can be cured through education!
big al hunter is offline  
Old June 10, 2014, 09:58 AM   #6
Pahoo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 16, 2006
Location: IOWA
Posts: 5,764
Short lived

Just my gut feeling but I suspect that this "NEW", MML, will go the way of the CVA Electra. ....

Be Safe !!!
__________________
'Fundamental truths' are easy to recognize because they are verified daily through simple observation and thus, require no testing.
Pahoo is offline  
Old June 10, 2014, 11:24 AM   #7
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
If they'd made it use smokeless powder, they'd really have something there. As it is, it's just another muzzleloader. I don't really care how they light it if it's still burning charcoal.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old June 10, 2014, 02:38 PM   #8
shortwave
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2007
Location: SOUTHEAST, OHIO
Posts: 5,936
Quote:
Just my gut feeling but I suspect that this "NEW", MML, will go the way of the CVA Electra. ....
Same here.

After all, using a centerfire casing/primer as an ignition source in an inline is nothing new.
shortwave is offline  
Old August 4, 2014, 11:23 AM   #9
Unlicensed Dremel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 13, 2014
Posts: 1,718
The only thing I can think of is, possibly, for this "marketing plan", is that they built it strong enough for smokeless powder, but don't want to kill sales with a NICS check, so they sell it as a non-firearm, then they hope that word gets out eventually as people start to try it (against their written advice), and find out that it can handle smokeless just fine; then they sell a lot of them later on, as a Savage 10 performance-equivalent, having the advantage of no-NICS check relative to the T/C Encore and Savage 10 (well the Savage 10 is discontinued ain't it?). Long shot theory, and probably NOT what they are thinking, but maybe. Otherwise, I do see it as a setup for likely failure. Still, I'd take one if given to me, to try some hot loads with "duplexed saboted" (nested sabots) with 195 gr Precision .357 bullets. That would truly be a long-range ML rig.
__________________
--Only accurate rifles are interesting, and only *really* accurate rifles are *really* interesting.
--Life is *way* too short to shoot or hunt with ugly plain plastic stocked guns.
Unlicensed Dremel is offline  
Old August 5, 2014, 09:16 AM   #10
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Remington's "Ultimate Muzzleloader" model 700 Questions

A muzzleloader doesn't require a NICS check, it's ability to burn smokeless is irrelevant. It's still designed to use BP. The early Savage 10 required a NICS check because ATF decided it was easily convertible to a firearm. The ML-10II did not require a NICS check.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old August 5, 2014, 09:43 AM   #11
Pahoo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 16, 2006
Location: IOWA
Posts: 5,764
The minority !!

Dremel,
You make a valid point as we all know that there are folks out there that have been "playing" with powder, for may years. I have personally seen this going on with negative results. ....

However, I think or I hope that these folks are in the minority and most folks will play it safe as it's playing Russian Roulette. Sales will still b limited and that is what really counts. ..

Always;
Be Safe !!!
__________________
'Fundamental truths' are easy to recognize because they are verified daily through simple observation and thus, require no testing.
Pahoo is offline  
Old August 5, 2014, 10:25 AM   #12
Wyosmith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2010
Location: Shoshoni Wyoming
Posts: 1,241
All muzzleloading hunting seasons were intended to allow use of old guns and copies of old guns. That idea has been largely lost in many states, but the pendulum is starting to swing back the other way.

The real reason people buy these modern rifles is to have an advantage (even if only imaginary) over the old guns and their fellow hunters, and the reason some state allow them is the sale of tags and licenses.

But as I said, the pendulum is swinging back in some places and I expect it may rebound. If it does, many of these guns will be forced into regular rifle season at which time those hunters that thought to have an unfair advantage over their fellows will be hunting alongside men using 7mm Mags, 300 mags and auto loaders.

So they will have a rifle with no great resale value, and no advantage at all.

Shots at 300 yards are not something new. Look to the civil war and the work of snipers in that war. 300 was a close shot for them, and they didn’t have plastic stocks, stainless steel and electric ignition. Nor did they need it.
I am not saying that there is anything wrong with modern rifles. I am just making the point that they may go by the way-side soon because the hunters may get a belly full.

Plastic stocks, range finding scopes, electric ignitions, smokeless powder, low drag jacketed bullets, and on and on. All legal for “Muzzleloading season”.

But such a gun is far more modern and advanced than a 30-30 lever action or a Winchester high wall, or a S&W 44 mag revolver, or even an original 44-77 Sharps M-74----but all those other arms must be used in regular rifle season.

So those with the modern muzzleloader may find themselves forced to do the same in the future.

If you like modern muzzleloaders, buy them. Use them. They kill game as well as any arm. But I would advise you not to buy one if you think you are getting a “legal way to “cheat” because that day may be coming to an end.
Wyosmith is offline  
Old August 5, 2014, 10:35 AM   #13
RandyWakeman
Junior Member
 
Join Date: February 15, 2005
Posts: 9
Remington 700 Ultimate Muzzleloader

http://youtu.be/-lPaB2w2uNA

The Remington Ultimate is a form 4473 arm, uses .308 brass as the parent brass for the shortened primer holder, and shoots Blackhorn 209 superbly.

MSRP (laminated) is $949.
RandyWakeman is offline  
Old August 5, 2014, 10:36 AM   #14
Unlicensed Dremel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 13, 2014
Posts: 1,718
Quote:
A muzzleloader doesn't require a NICS check, it's ability to burn smokeless is irrelevant. It's still designed to use BP. The early Savage 10 required a NICS check because ATF decided it was easily convertible to a firearm. The ML-10II did not require a NICS check.
Interesting; thanks. I thought the Savage required a NICS *because of* smokeless powder. Well there goes that theory.

And then now Randy W says that the Ultimate *IS* a NICS-check firearm.... Lol, double whammy on the theory. In that case, Remington *really* should have made it smokeless capable (which it surely is, if it has the same heat treat as other 700s, whether they say it or not).

Randy, why didn't they use a common brass like say 10mm auto or .45 acp or similar - or even .45 super? Doesn't make sense to me to use a proprietary brass for these.

Nice vid, Randy. I use Blackhorn 209 now. I didn't catch what range you said you were shooting at, in that vid.... ???

Wyosmith, I would *love* for all states to outlaw this stuff for ML seasons and require a truly primitive (somewhat) arm, meaning sidelock / percussion cap at best, with round balls and a patch. Although I'm undecided on whether real BP should be mandated - probably yes. I'd even make the plastic-stocked Hawkens off limits if I were in charge of the wildlife departments - with a phrase like "substantially similar to .... rifles actually used in the year X" - then we could argue whether that was 1810 or 1830 or whathaveyou. I'd stop just short of requiring the hunter to wear coonskin caps and deerskin fringe jackets.

Last edited by Unlicensed Dremel; August 5, 2014 at 10:49 AM.
Unlicensed Dremel is offline  
Old August 5, 2014, 11:31 AM   #15
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unlicensed Dremel
I would *love* for all states to outlaw this stuff for ML seasons and require a truly primitive (somewhat) arm, meaning sidelock / percussion cap at best, with round balls and a patch.
No offense, UD, but I really hate that attitude. What difference does it make to me what sort of ML someone else decides to hunt with?

This is the same thing that kept compounds illegal when they first came out and still keeps crossbows illegal in some places. The irony that the compound shooters who want the crossbows illegal don't see that the long/recurve shooters did the same thing to them 40 years ago.

If Person X doesn't want to hunt with ML Y, then don't... and don't worry about what Person Y is using.

The average shooter would be no better off with a single-shot, modern cartridge rifle than they would be with a match-lock. It doesn't matter what the gun could do, few shooters are up to it...especially under hunting conditions. I know more hunters, probably by a 5:1 margin, who are more likely to unload a semi-auto at a herd of deer from 50 yards and hit nothing but air than I do who could take advantage of any perceived advantages in a modern in-line ML of any variety.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old August 5, 2014, 11:40 AM   #16
Unlicensed Dremel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 13, 2014
Posts: 1,718
Quote:
What difference does it make to me what sort of ML someone else decides to hunt with?
It makes no difference at all, provided that it's legal. But I'm advocating for change to what IS legal. Right now, in many states, all the doodads are legal, so more power to you (and me) - I use all the advantages as well. That's what I started the thread (and why I put it in Hunting, not BP - because it's not *really* a BP type subject matter any more, at this point, is it?) It interests me, because I personally will use whatever the law allows, since hunting is tough on public lands (might be different in less populated states where game is more plentiful and less educated). But I would *prefer* that the law limited me and everyone else, so that we're all on equal footing, advantage wise, to make a true, fun primitive season. Until then, I'm going to use every advantage that Tom, Dick, and Joe Redneck have.

So it makes a huge difference in terms of a the normative question of "what SHOULD be legal?", since it doesn't make sense for the "exception to swallow the rule". It makes no sense to have a ML season at ALL when the ML rifles are MORE advanced than some centerfire brass case rifles (as Wyosmith pointed out). It's simply pointless and senseless - why bother with this nonsense at all if the hunters aren't "handicapped" in some manner, and there's no "fun factor" of feeling primitive by using a primitive arm?

So it's very simple: Either change the ML seasons to "use any gun you want" (i.e. keep the additional season dates, but make any centerfire legal for regular gun season, legal for this early season)... OR, implement some rules to make it actually a bit more primitive, like Colo. has done (no scopes, no conical bullets)... but I'd go a bit further than Colo.

What I *think* that you probably actually hate is the attitude that I too hate, which is "it's primitive season, you ought to using using LESS than what the law allows or you're a nincompoop". That attitude makes no sense, because why should anyone limit themselves when other fellow hunters will have the advantage in that season?

Because that makes sense - to dislike that holier-than-thou, nevermind the law attitude. But it does not make sense to be against what I'm proposing. It does not make sense to be in favor of the status quo - i.e. to have a special season which isn't special in any way shape form or fashion - the ONLY thing special about it, is the gun makers get to take more vacations and drive bigger cars, because they're selling more guns for no good reason at all, with the same capabilities (save for follow up shot speed, which is not needed anyway).

You really cannot disagree with what I'm saying, in a principled way, unless I'm missing something. Because if you think that every technology under the sun *should* be legal in every season outside of archery, then you'd simply be advocating for what I said above, which is "just another additional gun season" - which is fine. I'm all for that. I'd agree with you. But to advocate for the status quo is just senseless, unless you see some *reason* to make a distinction as to why hunters, during this special season should have every advantage under the sun that other modern centerfire rifles have *EXCEPT* speed of follow up shot! What would be the principle upon which that distinction is based? Let's be Davy Crockett folks, or just have an additional early gun season. I'm for either one. Let's pick one and stick with it! (on a state by state basis). I like both equally. But the status quo is just absurd, except for Colo. and similar states who have at least some limitations (sadly, they allow inlines / 209s, but at least require round balls and "iron" sights, with "iron" including fiber optics - ugh). By the way, if I remember right, Penn. has a "true primitive" type season, where Hawkens are popular. May be other states, too.

Incidentally, the main use I see for inline muzzleloaders (and there is one potentially, I think), if the state laws were changed in line to what I'm proposing (and for actual more primitive arms like the Hawken/Pennsylvania/ Kentucky type rifle even if no laws are changed from the status quo), is for a WROL scenario.

Suppose that there are ZERO components anywhere for reloading and no ammo. But suppose you can get sulpher, saltpeter, and charcoal, and make your own BP. Well, you can much more easily cast round balls than conicals, and most importantly, you don't need the brass case... you DO need a primer or cap, so ok -- hopefully you stockpiled those when times where good -- but, point is, it's a potential WROL weapon which *may* have an advantage over a modern centerfire rifle (either an inline or a more traditional muzzleloader), if you have primers/caps, and the ability to cast balls and make homemade BP. That's the main reason I'm still interested in "primitive" - excuse me, I mean muzzleloading weapons, because the state I'm about to move to has scant few ML-only hunts, of extremely minor importance.

So, I agree with your basic premise, that I should not care (and don't), what you use during the "ML" season, and vice versa (you shouldn't care what I use, and hopefully don't). Whether an inline or matchlock, who cares, right? I'm perfectly fine with that - do whatever you want within the confines of the "maximum" technology allowed by law (howitzers are not legal for example). Same exact thing applies during regular gun season. I couldn't care less whether you use a gun, ML, or bow during gun season, nor should you care what I do - again, as long as it's all within the confines of the max allowed by law. Same thing during archery seasons. Traditional guys shouldn't care if one uses compounds, and compound guys shouldn't care if one uses crossbows.... again, provided it's within the max allowed by law. But being against a holier-than-thou attitude, which I am, has nothing to do with advocating for a change of the seasons/laws, to actually help people have more fun, and actually provide a special season for those with special skills (I'd be all for a primitive archery season too - stick bows and recurves only), regardless of whether I'd participate or not, probably wouldn't, provided it was fairly short in duration so that it didn't greatly cut into gun seasons. Same thing with MLs - lets' have a *short* - say 5-8 days true primitive rifle season, similar to what my understanding is of how Penn. does it. Or just keep the dad-blasted current 9-day early season, but open it up to anything that's legal during the regular rifle season, instead of having this farce called ML season that's not primitive in any way (ok, sure it's technically named correct, in that the Rem, for example, does indeed load from the muzzle, but it so out of whack as to the original intent of the season as to make it absurd).

Last edited by Unlicensed Dremel; August 5, 2014 at 12:16 PM.
Unlicensed Dremel is offline  
Old August 5, 2014, 12:16 PM   #17
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
You don't think it's a handicap to have to load a firearm one shot at a time, through the muzzle, and replace the ignition device between every shot?

Quote:
What I *think* that you probably actually hate is the attitude that I too hate, which is "it's primitive season, you ought to using using LESS than what the law allows or you're a nincompoop". That attitude makes no sense, because why should anyone limit themselves when other fellow hunters will have the advantage in that season.
No, what I see is "I think it's unfair or I don't like it or I don't count it as "primitive" so nobody else should be able to use it either."

I've had many, MANY discussions with archery folks who are opposed to crossbows. Not one of them has been able to explain any fundamental reason why it should be illegal beyond either they don't want one or can't afford one so nobody else should have one either. Sure, they bloviate all technical, but when you root down to the base of their argument it's "I don't like it so you can't use it!" It usually masquerades as opposition to some perceived advantage that's really just vapor.

Most of these folks think crossbows are a "modern" invention. I guess 500 BC isn't old enough to be "primitive"? If not, muzzleloader dudes of any stripe are TOTALLY up a creek, eh?

Quote:
there's no "fun factor"
It's none of my business what another hunter considers "fun".

Quote:
But it does not make sense to be against what I'm proposing.
It doesn't make sense TO YOU because if it did you wouldn't be proposing what you're proposing. It makes lots of sense to me.

I see no sense in imposing some arbitrary standard.

Why should conicals and optics be illegal? Who says THAT defines "primitive"? Why should flintlocks be legal? Matchlocks are more primitive. Why should match-locks be legal? Fuses are more primitive. Why should RIFLING even be allowed? That's not very primitive.

"Muzzle loader" is the standard. Anything else is arbitrary. "Primitive" is arbitrary. Folks don't seem to realize that in-line muzzleloaders appeared (at least as early as) in the early 1800s and experiment with optics began at least as early as the 17th Century. "Primitive" sights didn't even start until the 1400s and they weren't adjustable. Should adjustable sights be banned?
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.

Last edited by Brian Pfleuger; August 5, 2014 at 12:22 PM.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old August 5, 2014, 12:23 PM   #18
Unlicensed Dremel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 13, 2014
Posts: 1,718
Quote:
You don't think it's a handicap to have to load a firearm one shot at a time, through the muzzle, and replace the ignition device between every shot?
No, not at all. At least not a material handicap. One shot, one kill is how it works in the real world anyway.

However, if you're saying that that is your principled distinction (and you are), that loading from the muzzle is a material handicap which provides a real distinction, then I can respect that you at least HAVE an arguable principled distinction for the status quo silliness, even if I disagree, which I do. Because all the tech clearly and obviously violates the original intent of the season, and as I say, it's just not any material handicap - then that one basis (muzzle loading) doesn't make any real difference. So you spend an extra 2 minutes in the morning loading your weapon, and have to shoot to unload at the end of the season. Big deal. No real difference there. Limiting my range via ballistics is a handicap. Limiting my use of a scope is a handicap. But not making me take 2 minutes to load up in the morning. The only way this is a real handicap is if you think not having a follow up shot is a handicap. Which is at least very arguable, I'd agree. But to me, it's not. The only time you really need a second shot hunting big game is for a coup de grace. The game either drops right there and squirms, in which case you can load up a 2nd shot from your fanny pack for the coup de grace in 1 minute flat and deliver it, or the game takes off running, in which case you sit and wait a half hour (or several hours if gut shot). You just don't need a fast follow up shot. At least the way I hunt.

Anyhow, we'll probably have to agree to disagree, but good discussion.
__________________
--Only accurate rifles are interesting, and only *really* accurate rifles are *really* interesting.
--Life is *way* too short to shoot or hunt with ugly plain plastic stocked guns.
Unlicensed Dremel is offline  
Old August 5, 2014, 12:33 PM   #19
Pahoo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 16, 2006
Location: IOWA
Posts: 5,764
Here we go again !!!

Quote:
Wyosmith, I would *love* for all states to outlaw this stuff for ML seasons and require a truly primitive (somewhat) arm, meaning sidelock / percussion cap at best, with round balls and a patch.
Every time someone opens up this can of worms, it turns into a spitting contest. ....

Dremel
I accept your post and replies, mostly as an opinion, that has little merit and less support. You certainly are entitled to your opinion, right or wrong. ...

I promote and teach "ALL" M/L's. That is my only interest even though my passion is in the Side/Locks. .....

Be Safe !!!
__________________
'Fundamental truths' are easy to recognize because they are verified daily through simple observation and thus, require no testing.
Pahoo is offline  
Old August 5, 2014, 12:46 PM   #20
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unlicensed Dremel
One shot, one kill is how it works in the real world anyway.
My experiences certainly occupy this "Real World" but they do not define the entirety of it.

For one, some folks have multiple tags and animals often travel in groups that don't all leave at the first shot.

For two, there's a WHOLE LOT of room between "Dead Right There" and "Ran out of sight". In fact, it's more likely IME that an animal will do something IN BETWEEN those two things than one of the extremes and a WHOLE BUNCH of the in-betweens make it very, very advantageous to have a follow-up shot.... besides those poor slobs who... gulp... MISS sometimes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unlicensed Dremel
But to me... At least the way I hunt.
As I said, the root of the argument is "I don't want/like/need it so it should be illegal."
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old August 25, 2014, 01:09 AM   #21
RandyWakeman
Junior Member
 
Join Date: February 15, 2005
Posts: 9
Quote:
Interesting; thanks. I thought the Savage required a NICS *because of* smokeless powder. Well there goes that theory.

And then now Randy W says that the Ultimate *IS* a NICS-check firearm.... Lol, double whammy on the theory. In that case, Remington *really* should have made it smokeless capable (which it surely is, if it has the same heat treat as other 700s, whether they say it or not).

Randy, why didn't they use a common brass like say 10mm auto or .45 acp or similar - or even .45 super? Doesn't make sense to me to use a proprietary brass for these.
Originally, the Savage 10ML was ruled a "non Form 4473" arm. But, then the ATF changed their minds, and the original 10ML (module gun) is a 4473 forearm.

One of the problems is that large rifle primers are thicker than pistol primers and don't seat correctly . . . or reprime well. The chamfer on the Remington .308 brass seals substantially better.

http://www.randywakeman.com/Remingto...dQuestions.htm addresses some of the most common questions.
RandyWakeman is offline  
Old August 27, 2014, 08:21 AM   #22
Unlicensed Dremel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 13, 2014
Posts: 1,718
Thanks for all the info Randy - makes sense on the brass choice (to use rifle instead of pistol primers).

Pahoo, could you describe the smokeless powder-in-a-black-powder-rifle "fails" that you witnessed in more detail? Thanks.

Brian, very well. I think we agree that we disagree!
Unlicensed Dremel is offline  
Old August 27, 2014, 03:50 PM   #23
Pahoo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 16, 2006
Location: IOWA
Posts: 5,764
PM Coming

Quote:
Pahoo, could you describe the smokeless powder-in-a-black-powder-rifle "fails" that you witnessed in more detail? Thanks.
Nope !!!
At least not in this thread or any, for that matter. I just don't like giving folks an idea of how and where to cheat and possibly get hurt. It would also have little or nothing to do, in your post. ....

I will however, send you a PM instead ....

Be Safe !!!
__________________
'Fundamental truths' are easy to recognize because they are verified daily through simple observation and thus, require no testing.
Pahoo is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13118 seconds with 7 queries