30/40 Krag reloading?

[JimW]

The same stuff works on the rifle and pistol boxes:

Product MP-615VST 6" x 1500' PVC Shrink Tubing, 100 ga.

https://www.packcoinc.com/100-gauge-pvc-shrink-tubing.html

A short video:

http://vid1120.photobucket.com/albums/l499/jamesw1963/Arisaka/20160227_174446_zpsa2cv5mqz.mp4

[KWK]

There are comments in this thread about SAAMI pressures and the suitability of the pressure tested loads from Lyman. I think looking at some of the earliest data on the Krag might be helpful.

In 1894, the Ordnance department noted that Frankford Arsenal was ramping up production of the ammunition for the new .30 cartridge. The load was 43 gn of powder under a 220 gn RN bullet, giving the desired 2000 fps at an indicated pressure of 33,000 psi. Appendix 9 to the report notes that powders being evaluated could produce the needed speed at only 29,000 psi. (Others under test were higher pressure.)

Why, then, is the SAAMI spec 40,000 psi? SAAMI specs sometimes reflect the highest loads offered by the makers when the cartridge spec is created. The classic example is the .45-70, rated at 28,000 psi but loaded to under 20,000 psi. Another example is the .25-20 which is rated at 28,000 psi because there once were factory smokeless loads at that pressure, a pressure well beyond the 18,000 or so the original BP cartridges might make. There are other such examples in the standards.

The 40,000 psi SAAMI rating likely reflects the 180 gn sporting loads soon developed for the 1895 and 1885 Winchester rifles, which had no trouble digesting this. Further, early sporting smokeless powders were double base and prone to pressure rise with temperature, such as from strings of shots on a warm day, and this likely led to a little more pressure being dialed in to the spec.

The 220 @ 2000 military loads for the Krag rifle did not, as far as I can tell, ever develop the SAAMI number. When the army tried to raise performance (which required more pressure), it soon had to back off to the original speed.

[KWK]

(First posts must be short, so I'll continue in a second post.)

The good folks at Lyman provide the only current, pressure tested data. Their data indicates modern IMR powders will make the original specs at about 32,000 psi indicated, the same pressure Whelen reported for the new IMR powders of his day. Both 4895 and 4064 look to be the best choices. I see no reason to use any more pressure. I shoot .30 Krag from a rolling block, and I never load up, due to the relative weakness of the action. I would never shoot factory ammo in this rifle. I recommend Krag shooters stick to the performance of the starting loads given by Lyman.

Finally, a note on pressures. All the early data would have been recorded using some apparatus to deform a piece of metal. At SAAMI, the modern standard for this is "CUP" which simply means "psi as indicated by a copper crusher, a method known to be inaccurate." I'm sure the early pressure readings are just as inaccurate as the modern crusher readings, but it's all we have. The available numbers suggest the errors aren't too bad at army Krag pressures.

Karl

[psteinmayer]

FWIW, IMR-4350 is just about as close as you can get to the original Laflin & Rand .30 Smokeless Powder that Frankford used in the original .30 USA ammo. A charge of 40.0 grains of IMR-4350 under a 220 gr RN bullet just about covers it as far as duplicating the original load. The burn rate of 4895 and 4064, while adequate for the 220 gr bullet, is fast enough that it doesn't take full advantage of the length of the Krag barrel at 30 inches.

[KWK]

Frankford in 1894 reported they were using Peyton powder in their first productions runs. The Wikipedia article on the California Powder Works says this stuff was corrosive and the army switched to W.A. powder to load Krag ammo, in 1896. Their Laflin & Rand article says that company was involved with the production of W.A. (Whelen's WW-I era book says W.A. was long preferred but was erosive. He was a big fan of the early IMR powders.)

The 4350 has the advantage of getting the charge weight correct while giving the proper speed at the modest pressures. Whether using 4064 or 4895 will affect the impact point with the issue sights, I can't say. Frankford was testing powders with charge weights from the low 30s to at least 43.

I suspect 4350 isn't burning fully even in a 30" barrel. Although my barrel is that length, I've never tried it. My old copy of QuickLoad says about 9% will be unburnt at 2000 fps, but it seems to be rather off with its 4350 estimations. In comparison, it says 4895 will leave about 2%, which is why it might give the same speed for nearly the same peak pressure. QL does reckon you get the job done with about 10% less powder but at a little more pressure, just as Lyman found in their tests.

While 4895 gets the job done for less money, my rolling block doesn't have army sights to regulate to. However, from Lyman's data, it looks like I would drop 1000 psi on my breech with it, so I'll have to give it a try some day, when I finally get serious with the 220 gn loads (mostly I've shot 180s).

[KWK]

Okay, I get to eat a little crow today. I looked over the 1895 report from Ordnance which says they are looking at various powders and are willing to accept lots of powder making 38,000 normal and 45,000 when hot. SAAMI's 40,000 for the .30 Krag is, then, reasonable. Regardless, my rolling block won't see over 33,000; there is no back-up locking lug on this rifle.

For what it's worth, Ordnance reports they used only Peyton powder through June of '95, but they had on order Leonard and DuPont powders. Tests were showing the NG content of Leonard was eroding barrels; Peyton was mostly NC and causing no problems. That Peyton was a slow powder is indicated by the complaints of unburned residue filling the locking lug's recess and causing jams.

A question: How "dirty" is 4350 when used in a .30-40-220? My .30-37-180 loads of 4895 are fairly clean.

Interesting was the note they were preparing to test 120 gn .22 caliber ammunition.

The report for Frankford through mid-1898 says they are still using as much Peyton as any other powder for the Krag. DuPont contracts are equally large, and WA from L&R is also being loaded but not in the quantities of Peyton and DuPont. Mean pressures with the latest lots of Peyton are 35,000 and 38,000 maximum. Various tests indicate it is of different composition than earlier lots. They report the granules are soft enough to crush with your fingernails.

The DuPont powder being employed makes higher pressures for 2000 fps, with means near 38,000. (More crow for me.) WA was more like 36,000.

The Wikipedia says the CPW plant was destroyed in an explosion in 1898, so this was likely the last year Frankford will include a report on Peyton. Given the previous erosion reports on the DuPont powder, I suspect 1899 was the year WA became the predominant powder in the .30 Krag, but I don't have the report for that year.

[psteinmayer]

I think 4350 burns slightly dirtier than 4895 or 4064, but it's really not that bad. I really clean no harder than I do with my 1903A3, and I use 4895 in that (it does clean up a little easier than my Krag... but not so much as I really worry about it). I do use a CCI 250 (magnum) primer, which is a little hotter, allowing for a more complete burn than if I was using standard primers. I'm most likely going to switch to a CCI #34 which is a mil-spec primer (same heat and flame as a 250, but with a thicker cup).

Now back when I loaded 165 and 180 gr bullets for the Krags, I used 4064 exclusively. I found that my rifles prefer the 220 gr RN/IMR 4350 load a little better. I also apply a light crimp with a LEE Factory Crimp Die. I started crimping back when I used the lighter bullets because if I didn't, then the bullets would telescope during chambering from the magazine, causing the case to become jammed partially in the chamber. Not a problem with RN bullets. The feel is much smoother, but I still crimp for consistency.

[KWK]

I finally "worked up" my 220 gn load. From Lyman's data, previous chronograph readings for my 180 gn load, and QuickLoad pressure and fps estimates (which are inaccurate at these pressures, but help gauge barrel length changes), I started at 35.0 gn of 4895 (with Remington 9.5 primers) and got fps readings both sides of the desired 2000 fps in my 30" barrel. Thus ends my "working up," until I run out of this bottle of 4895. Pressures should be 31000 to 32000, which makes me feel better--it is just a rolling block. I wouldn't call it a squeaky clean burn, but it's clean enough.

I found interesting the 220 is a relatively mild recoiling load. My butt stock is done in an older style, with the end grain mildly checkered and no plate or pad. My boney teenager was whimpering about the recoil, but I found it quite tolerable. My previous 180 gn load is a bit sharper in recoil, probably because higher speeds mean a shorter thus more abrupt recoil. Compared to the 180, the 220 is in the direction of shove and away from sharp, not that either load is a prime example of shove or sharp.

My rifle is only 6-3/4 lb, and original fps is all I'll care for. It's a grand old cartridge. I was a bit worried to see Remington and Winchester brass supplies dry up, but others have stepped in to the market (at a higher price). I think it's a keeper.

Next up: A reduced recoil 125 gn load for my boney teenager.

Karl

[butlersrangers]

Buy your 'stick boy' a (USMC type) cloth shooting jacket, with sewn in shoulder and elbow pads. He will become a better & happier shooter, if he is not being pounded. In cool weather, he can wear a sweatshirt under it for warmth and added padding.

[Todd Doyka]

i use a 165gr ranch dog(about 173gr) and 25.5gr of h4198, goes around 1800fps. they are a deer's worst nitemare.



the right and the left boolits are 165gr rd