stefan wrote:

two whiskey glass with my avatar as a motif. Do you like them?

Where is the whiskey! There, I beat Bushy yo it!

Aloysius wrote:

A lot of friends who do competition use the Lapua Scenars and I myself sure often use Vihta's powder. I only told you to be carefull with their loading data. Alltough most finnish people speak English realy well, maybe they are not so good in mathematics or in translating numbers

Hi!

Yes, I know it is a popular ball Scenars to hunt with. I've tried it too but it did not I get to shoot as good as Mega. The Mega ball I'll shoot almost holes in holes up to 100 m with Lapua FMJ and when you have such a winning formula, one should not change that. Yes, they speak really good English. Haha!

Elvis wrote:

Very classy glasses

Thanks!

fnuser wrote:

I use the 180 nosler balistic tips in a .320 Howell and 8x56M.S. and have loaded 8x68 with them they seem to work with a variety of velocities. from 2200-3000 f.p.s. (muzzle). They sound alot like those norma's you can get I don't know what the jacket thickness is.

I do not want to use lighter bullets over 200 gr. to my 8mm rem mag.

slimjim wrote:

stefan wrote: two whiskey glass with my avatar as a motif. Do you like them? Where is the whiskey! There, I beat Bushy yo it!

Haha! The I drank and it is in my stomach and the photos were taken before I hit up some whiskey into the glass.

(Picture deleted by shrpshtrjoe)

STEFAN,I believe that is a little over the limit?

Stefan, hey come on, that pic is not cool for this site.

You have to remember that this is a family oriented site.
No x-rated and you have to be careful with the R rated stuff.

hear hear

ROADJOCKY wrote:

STEFAN,I believe that is a little over the limit?

Maybe so!

I shot this moose cow in October last year with my .416 RM and Wood Leigh 400 gr. bullet. The residual weight of the ball was about 94%. This ammo I had with me when I bought the gun. V0 = 730 m / s. The ball stayed on the other side against the skin, so it was never felt. The elk went about 100 meters before it fell.

This recipe on one charge had come from a friend of mine who had issued it with the help of a handladdnings programs. How about that?

Cartridge : .416 Rem. Mag.
Bullet : .416, 350, Barnes 'TSX' 41686
Cartridge O.A.L. L6 : 3.600 inch or 91.44 mm
Barrel Length : 24.0 inch or 609.6 mm
Powder : Norma 203B

Predicted data by increasing and decreasing the given charge,
incremented in steps of 2,0% of nominal charge.
CAUTION: Figures exceed maximum and minimum recommended loads !

Step Fill. Charge Vel. Energy Pmax Pmuz Prop.Burnt Btime
% % Grains fps ft.lbs psi psi % ms

-20,0 74 56,80 1938 2920 27147 5630 90,7 1,658
-18,0 75 58,22 1982 3054 28687 5801 91,7 1,622
-16,0 77 59,64 2026 3191 30299 5968 92,7 1,586
-14,0 79 61,06 2070 3331 31987 6131 93,6 1,551
-12,0 81 62,48 2114 3474 33756 6290 94,4 1,517
-10,0 83 63,90 2158 3620 35626 6443 95,2 1,484
-08,0 85 65,32 2202 3768 37604 6591 95,9 1,452
-06,0 86 66,74 2246 3919 39698 6734 96,6 1,421
-04,0 88 68,16 2289 4072 41912 6870 97,2 1,391
-02,0 90 69,58 2333 4228 44255 6999 97,8 1,361
+00,0 92 71,00 2376 4386 46734 7121 98,3 1,332
+02,0 94 72,42 2419 4547 49359 7236 98,7 1,304
+04,0 96 73,84 2462 4709 52137 7343 99,1 1,276
+06,0 97 75,26 2504 4874 55080 7442 99,4 1,246 ! HOT LOAD !
+08,0 99 76,68 2547 5041 58199 7532 99,6 1,216 ! HOT LOAD !
+10,0 101 78,10 2589 5210 61507 7614 99,8 1,186 ! HOT LOAD !

Results caused by ± 10% powder lot-to-lot burning rate variation using nominal charge
Data for burning rate increased by 10% relative to nominal value:
+Ba 92 71,00 2480 4781 55307 6957 100,0 1,251 ! HOT LOAD !
Data for burning rate decreased by 10% relative to nominal value:
-Ba 92 71,00 2235 3882 38470 6937 92,6 1,445


Cartridge : .416 Rem. Mag.
Bullet : .416, 350, Barnes 'TSX' 41686
Cartridge O.A.L. L6 : 3.600 inch or 91.44 mm
Barrel Length : 24.0 inch or 609.6 mm
Powder : Norma 203B

Predicted data by increasing and decreasing the given charge,
incremented in steps of 2,0% of nominal charge.
CAUTION: Figures exceed maximum and minimum recommended loads !

Step Fill. Charge Vel. Energy Pmax Pmuz Prop.Burnt Btime
% % Gramm m/s Joule bar bar % ms

-20,0 74 3,681 591 3958 1872 388 90,7 1,658
-18,0 75 3,773 604 4140 1978 400 91,7 1,622
-16,0 77 3,865 618 4327 2089 411 92,7 1,586
-14,0 79 3,957 631 4516 2205 423 93,6 1,551
-12,0 81 4,049 644 4710 2327 434 94,4 1,517
-10,0 83 4,141 658 4908 2456 444 95,2 1,484
-08,0 85 4,233 671 5109 2593 454 95,9 1,452
-06,0 86 4,325 684 5313 2737 464 96,6 1,421
-04,0 88 4,417 698 5521 2890 474 97,2 1,391
-02,0 90 4,509 711 5733 3051 483 97,8 1,361
+00,0 92 4,601 724 5947 3222 491 98,3 1,332
+02,0 94 4,693 737 6165 3403 499 98,7 1,304
+04,0 96 4,785 750 6385 3595 506 99,1 1,276
+06,0 97 4,877 763 6608 3798 513 99,4 1,246 ! HOT LOAD !
+08,0 99 4,969 776 6834 4013 519 99,6 1,216 ! HOT LOAD !
+10,0 101 5,061 789 7063 4241 525 99,8 1,186 ! HOT LOAD !

Results caused by ± 10% powder lot-to-lot burning rate variation using nominal charge
Data for burning rate increased by 10% relative to nominal value:
+Ba 92 4,601 756 6483 3813 480 100,0 1,251 ! HOT LOAD !
Data for burning rate decreased by 10% relative to nominal value:
-Ba 92 4,601 681 5263 2652 478 92,6 1,445

stefan wrote:

Maybe so!

Well, stefan, please click edit and remove the picture for us. Thank you in advance.

slimjim wrote:

stefan wrote: Maybe so! Well, stefan, please click edit and remove the picture for us. Thank you in advance.

The picture is removed!