Monolithics, reloading and pressure

[User00033]

This is old hat for many of you experienced monolithic reloaders, but I see more and more questions coming from guys interested in monolithics and new to reloading them. I met up with one of my mates on the weekend now lockdown is over, and he showed me his lockdown project results, loading a range of different copper bullets. He had some worrying brass damage well before he expected pressure...

Johnny’s Reloading Bench is a popular YouTube channel, for good reason. Johnny did a video a while back, capturing an epic fail that he covered in excruciating detail, to get the message out there about how some monolithics can generate dangerous pressure.

Long story short, he blew the primers out of five rounds without realising (AR15) and frightened himself shitless. The moral of the story is to start low on the powder scale, and make sure - like really, really make sure - that you’ve got good data.

Watch the beginning bit for the explanation, then the actual incident is at 1hr 08 mins.

 

[Alantoo]

Case damage and high starting loads are certainly not old hat for me.

He had some worrying brass damage well before he expected pressure...

Can you expand on that?...he had damage to the cases before he noticed anything else like the normal indicators of sticky bolt of flattened/soot around the primers? Does he not do a safety pressure trial when loading for new bullets? What was his expectation of pressure? Was he just relying on Quick Load rather than the normal empirical indicators?

to get the message out there about how some monolithics can generate dangerous pressure.

?? That is a curious interpretation of the video.

I do not think he made that point at all.

Johnny blames himself again and again for the over pressure, on his poor choice for the start load "I guessed way way off"...he started off with 22.3gr for a 70gr bullet... when he quotes from the Hornady manual 23.1gr as being the maximum load for a lighter 5.56 Nato bullet of a different make and type. He says he knew he was starting high but didn't think it was that high!

He admits it was a fundamental reloading no no..."to my shame".

Yet you claim it was the monolithics and not the high powder load that generated the dangerous pressures? On what grounds?

Alan

PS Not that I know anything about 5.56 Nato or AR15s but I looked at the description in my Hornady manual and there is a warning not to use 5.56 Nato loads in a Remington .223 chamber because of dangerous high pressures from the shorter throat, could this have contributed to Johnny's problem with his AR15?

“It is not recommended to shoot 5.56 NATOammunition in a 223 Remington chamber. Firing 5.56 NATO (higher pressure) in a223 Remington (shorter throat) rifle can cause pressure related damage that couldlead to injury.The loads presented in this Handbook are intended specifically for 5.56 NATOchambers. If you are unsure whether your rifle is chambered in 223 Remington or5.56 NATO please contact the manufacturer. Note: with modular AR-15 style rifles,the lower receiver’s cartridge designation may not match the upper receiver’schambering. Many times the chambering and barrel twist rate is marked on thebarrel itself.”

Excerpt From: Hornady Manufacturing Company & Neal Emery. “Hornady Handbook of Cartridge Reloading”. Apple Books.

In the comments under Johnny's video I happened to notice one exchange which implies that it is a 223 Rem SAAMI with its 55kpsi

Savio Strawn
3 years ago
Quickload seems to think that load is running about 64 kpsi. About 10 kpsi hotter than recommended lol. Good to know your rifle can handle that though


Johnny's Reloading Bench
3 years ago
Did you run it as 5.56 NATO, .223 Rem or .223 Rem (SAMMI)? What was the predicted muzzle velocity with a 16" bbl? I got around 2840.


Savio Strawn
3 years ago
223 saami, 2790 fps. I didn't have the Rex bullet to work with so I substituted a Barnes one for it. The 75gr Amax is also available with similar pressures but a little less fps


Johnny's Reloading Bench
3 years ago
Good deal. Thanks a lot!

 

[User00033]

Yet you claim it was the monolithics and not the high powder load that generated the dangerous pressures? On what grounds?

Don’t take it so literally Alan, you know very well what I’m saying.

Not everyone is as careful as you. That’s a statement you definitely can’t argue with.

 

[User00033]

Sentence #2 in paragraph #3 is the message. Sorry if I’ve worded it badly but I think you’ve taken the message out of context, and emphasised the monolithic whereas actually the message is about the powder charge.

 

[User00033]

And yes thinking about it I did word it badly because when I said “some monolithics” I should have expanded on that and specifically said some of the older solids without grooves, which is what Kev run into problems with.

 

[Stalker62]

Fair play to Jonny for posting - that way everyone gets to learn.

 

[8x57]

While I've never shot monolithic bullets myself, no doubt that I will have to get into using them in the next few years, I have seen results on the range similar to those shown at the start of the video.
It was about ten years ago and a friend of mine was reloading some Berger monolithics for his .243win. The charge he used was the recommended start load using Vhitavuori powder and it blew the primer out and imprinted the head of his case. He dropped the powder load considerably and still got signs of pressure. He continued to drop his powder load until it was well below the recommended start load and yet still achieved measured velocities (Chronagraph) close to those that should have been achieved using maximum loads. He was concerned by all this and decided not to continue with the Bergers, I don't know if he ever returned to them at a later date.

Witnessing this made me extremely cautious about trying monolithic bullets, plus I also came across several references to overstressed rifling in thin walled double rifles when using the original design Barnes bullets on the Nitro Express forum. Some of the photographs clearly showing that the very hard monolithic bullets rather than engaging the rifling were pushing the rifling outwards resulting in rifling being visible on the outside of the barrels.
I understand that since then Barnes have redesigned their bullets with pressure relief grooves or bands but I've still been very wary of trying monoliths in either of my double rifles.
On top of all that at around the same time one of the FC rangers told me that he had been trialling non lead bullets but they had abandoned the trial using the ammunition that they were using at that time as they had too many runners. As he put it "at least the dog gets a regular work out".

I imagine that non lead bullets have improved considerably since then as I think that the rangers in our area are now using non lead bullets for everything. One day I'll pluck up the courage to give them a try but only in my bolt action initially as I don't want to risk one of the thinner walled doubles.

 

[CarlW]

I find that Barnes' own load data for their 300-grain .375 Barnes Banded Solid bullet is much too agressive (for my rifle). I reached my target velocity (I was matching it against a TBBC) almost with my first bullet. I know velocity and pressure are not the same thing, but they are close friends and it scared me a bit. I was very glad that I had started so far below their published maximum.

It's nice to be reminded occasionally that we're holding a pipe-bomb...

 

[Alantoo]

Sentence #2 in paragraph #3 is the message. Sorry if I’ve worded it badly but I think you’ve taken the message out of context, and emphasised the monolithic whereas actually the message is about the powder charge.

That was precisely my point. Your post was pejorative and misleading. The fact that monolithics were involved in Johnny's case was incidental.

You cited a useful video about the dangers of using too high a powder charge through not researching the appropriate load data; but presented it, thread title and all, as a danger of using monolithics.

to get the message out there about how some monolithics can generate dangerous pressure.

But it is true I lumped it together and answered this post in the context of your other negative posts about monolithics.

Are you able to tell us more about the "worrying brass damage" from your mate's lockdown copper experiments? Presumably that will not be from poor load data, or the old style monolithic bullets as mentioned by @8x57 .

Alan

 

[User00033]

Ah ha! A battle! Do like a good battle.

You’re still ignoring sentence #2 in paragraph #3.

Yes Alan, I agree it wasn’t my best effort, poorly worded. But you presume wrong on both counts, older bullets were part of Kev’s test, and he guessed a start point and caused problems for himself, though nothing as bad as Johnny. I’ll see if I can get a photo.

But you’ll just have to believe me when I say the post was not meant as an anti-monolithic tirade, it was meant as a warning about what I said in... sentence #2 in paragraph #3. So go read that bit again, and if that doesn’t help then nowt more I can do sorry.

(I am close to the start of an experiment with monolithics, to find a fast and flatter shooting load specifically to penetrate pig shoulders. Should be interesting.)

 

[Edinburgh Rifles]

Allow me....

We need to stop categorizing bullets by their material alone
Monolithics have been developed from a facsimile of cup and core profile (without the core) in their initial evolution to what we now have which are a world away.

Barnes answered the fouling and pressure spike issues thaat were seen inn the firstt iteration of the solid copper/straight shankk bullets initially by coating them in a dry lube coating in the Blue XLC bullet
Then the industry standard "driving bands" or relief cuts were brought in by almost all manufacturers.
These are almost always created through removed material.
Cuts into the shank to reduce the bearing surface, this reduces fouling (less contact) and pressure (less friction).
The shank is Groove diameter, the cut depth is land diameter
the lands cut into the shank
Almost all the solid copper or brass bullets with this design have between 40-60% of a standard bearing surface of a comparable bullet profile cup and core bullet.

Now more advanced designs have moved this on to use CNC lathe production and reversed the driving bands
These bands/rings are IN RELIEF not cut into the bullet
The Shank of the bullet is Land Diameter
The Rings are Groove Diameter
The lands cut into the RINGS ONLY
As little as 10-15% of the bullet shank is length engages in the rifling
This drops the friction down significantly, the velocity potential increases and the use of faster powders in shorter barrels to achieve what you would normally only see from a 24-26" barrel.

Both Neilsen and Peregrine employ this design
When I met Neilsen at IWA last year he gave me some data to back this up
Normal cup and core bullet requires over 120kg of force to get it into the rifling and a further force of 75-80kg to pass through the barrel once engaged in the rifling
A relief band monolithic of copper of brass construction takes roughly 80kg of force to engage the rifling and only 25-30kg to pass through the rest of the barrel.

In real world terms this means you can get 2900fps from a 139gr 6.5x55 without pressure
I am personally running 136gr .308 Peregrine out of a 20" barrel at 2900fps with a charge of 45gr of N133
Quickload will tell you this is way over pressure but it isn't

These designs of monolithics are LOW PRESSURE/LOW FRICTION

others with straight shanks are not

 

[Alantoo]

Ah ha! A battle! Do like a good battle.

You’re still ignoring sentence #2 in paragraph #3.

Yes Alan, I agree it wasn’t my best effort, poorly worded. But you presume wrong on both counts, older bullets were part of Kev’s test, and he guessed a start point and caused problems for himself, though nothing as bad as Johnny. I’ll see if I can get a photo.

But you’ll just have to believe me when I say the post was not meant as an anti-monolithic tirade, it was meant as a warning about what I said in... sentence #2 in paragraph #3. So go read that bit again, and if that doesn’t help then nowt more I can do sorry.

(I am close to the start of an experiment with monolithics, to find a fast and flatter shooting load specifically to penetrate pig shoulders. Should be interesting.)

Not a battle, but hopefully a debate based on helpful information.

No I certainly didn't ignore sentence #2 paragraph #3, I applaud it, it is after all reloading 101, and is always worth repeating.

But equally you should not ignore the fact that you blamed the monolithics for the danger.

Your use of dark words like "worrying brass damage" in the context of monolithics, when the "worrying" thing seems to be the cavalier attitude and expectations of your mate to guess rather than research the load data. It only took seconds for Johnny to look at the Hornady manual and realise his mistake...he did it on camera.

Although you didn't mean it as a tirade against monolithics I guess it is one of those things about prejudice...by its very nature you cannot be aware of it in yourself. The old chestnut "I am not a racist, but..." being the classic.

I am glad you are going to experiment with monolithics...the more knowledge about them the better...their strengths and weaknesses. One of the reasons I initially tried them was because I had wild boar on one of my permissions and wanted a partition like penetration performance and realised I could achieve it with a faster (flatter) lighter bullet, without any bits of metal in the meat.

I quite understand your need and preference for the terminal ballistics of lead over the distances you shoot...but have always been uncomfortable by your "I want a clean kill" justification for lead. Obviously no one would argue with the humane wish to kill your target animal quickly...but that is not an exclusive property of lead core bullets and there are wider parameters...what of the slow death of the carrion eaters or the waste of meat contaminated by lead? If you can kill with a bullet which does not pose a threat to either consumer or carrion why not use it? On that basis I have been playing with the Barnes MPG (compressed copper dust core) frangible bullets on paper with a view for Varminting and HAD.

Regarding the views of FC rangers on SD, recently I have only seen those that are happy with the performance of monolithic bullets. They mirror my results with the non lead bullets...that they are similarly effective at killing given the same provisos for lead core bullets...when the appropriate POI and bullet for target species and range is used.

Alan

 

[Alantoo]

You’re still ignoring sentence #2 in paragraph #3.

....and another thing!

Far far from ignoring it, one reason for my initial response was precisely because your negative preoccupation with monolithics subverted and diminished the importance of Johnny’s warning; that we should thoroughly research load data and then start low and work up, rather than rely on experience and guesswork.

Your association of monolithics with Johnny’s repeatedly confessed carelessness, obscured his important warning and was just Fake News!

Alan

"Repartee is what you wished you had said"...according to the epigram on the back of a Moreland’s “England's Glory” matchbox I once had.

 

[User00033]

Very eloquent Alan.

Unfortunately I suspect that continuing to focus on the mistake I made by simply not specifying which monolithics, which I’ve already acknowledged twice, and which Ed has explained well, will only harden my resolve to continue questioning the application and performance of mono-metal bullets.

Which wasn’t what this thread was supposed to be about, but hey ho. Your choice!

 

[Alantoo]

Very eloquent Alan.

Unfortunately I suspect that continuing to focus on the mistake I made by simply not specifying which monolithics, which I’ve already acknowledged twice, and which Ed has explained well, will only harden my resolve to continue questioning the application and performance of mono-metal bullets.

Which wasn’t what this thread was supposed to be about, but hey ho. Your choice!

Hey! You took three goes to reply to one of mine...fair's fair.

But "specifying which monolithic" wasn't what I have been picking you up on, or the mistake you made in my view.

You still haven't acknowledged that Johnny's guessed load would have been equally dangerous had he overloaded a lead cup and core...an over load is an overload....nor responded to my earlier query about the potential danger from 5.56mm Nato loads in .223 Rem chamber.

Alan

 

[User00033]

There’s a funny story to my first reply. I have a (bad) habit of writing the first thing that comes into my head (post #3), but I’ll usually catch it before I post it, and if I do post it I’ll usually go edit it immediately. One of the advantages of being in GMT+12, it normally doesn't get spotted.

So I started to edit it, adopting a far more, shall we say, “constructive” tone, then the phone rang. Oops. So by the time I finished my edit the dreaded “your 30 minutes are up” message appeared... missed it by 1 minute! Hence the two subsequent posts... trying desperately to make amends... didn’t work though did it?!

 

[Griggo06]

Allow me....

We need to stop categorizing bullets by their material alone
Monolithics have been developed from a facsimile of cup and core profile (without the core) in their initial evolution to what we now have which are a world away.

Barnes answered the fouling and pressure spike issues thaat were seen inn the firstt iteration of the solid copper/straight shankk bullets initially by coating them in a dry lube coating in the Blue XLC bullet
Then the industry standard "driving bands" or relief cuts were brought in by almost all manufacturers.
These are almost always created through removed material.
Cuts into the shank to reduce the bearing surface, this reduces fouling (less contact) and pressure (less friction).
The shank is Groove diameter, the cut depth is land diameter
the lands cut into the shank
Almost all the solid copper or brass bullets with this design have between 40-60% of a standard bearing surface of a comparable bullet profile cup and core bullet.

Now more advanced designs have moved this on to use CNC lathe production and reversed the driving bands
These bands/rings are IN RELIEF not cut into the bullet
The Shank of the bullet is Land Diameter
The Rings are Groove Diameter
The lands cut into the RINGS ONLY
As little as 10-15% of the bullet shank is length engages in the rifling
This drops the friction down significantly, the velocity potential increases and the use of faster powders in shorter barrels to achieve what you would normally only see from a 24-26" barrel.

Both Neilsen and Peregrine employ this design
When I met Neilsen at IWA last year he gave me some data to back this up
Normal cup and core bullet requires over 120kg of force to get it into the rifling and a further force of 75-80kg to pass through the barrel once engaged in the rifling
A relief band monolithic of copper of brass construction takes roughly 80kg of force to engage the rifling and only 25-30kg to pass through the rest of the barrel.

In real world terms this means you can get 2900fps from a 139gr 6.5x55 without pressure
I am personally running 136gr .308 Peregrine out of a 20" barrel at 2900fps with a charge of 45gr of N133
Quickload will tell you this is way over pressure but it isn't

These designs of monolithics are LOW PRESSURE/LOW FRICTION

others with straight shanks are not

Some super useful information here. I am trying to design a good bullet that can be monolithic