Author Topic: Chronograph tests with the 25  (Read 8229 times)

northmn

  • Guest
Chronograph tests with the 25
« on: May 29, 2010, 07:48:59 PM »
Now that it is finished I am doing some serious playing with my 25.  36 inch barrel cut down from 42 and made by Rayel.  Went out and chronographed the little rifle and got the following results for a 4 shot average.

#3 buckshot .25 weighs 23.3 grains
Powder measure set at 17.5 grains (halfway between 15 and 20 grains)  Goex 3f
Touchhole slightly less than 1/16"
15 foot chronograph

1760 fps 4 shot ave with 1809 high
1748 if high is not included.  Much more consistant.
ME at 158 ftlbs
22 short about 78 ftlps  at muzzle
22 LR 148 ftlbs at muzzle.

I noticed the 25 was a little abrupt on small game at ranges I could hit them.  It is a very viable alternative for a squirrel rifle.

Add on checked the maeasure against my powder scale and it really was 20 grains not 17.5)

DP
« Last Edit: May 29, 2010, 10:36:25 PM by northmn »

Offline Kermit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3099
Re: Chronograph tests with the 25
« Reply #1 on: May 29, 2010, 09:29:33 PM »
Thanks, David. Looks like I should try backing off the load on mine. I've got a 44" .25 from Ed, and have been loading it with 20gr of 3f. I tried 25 and 30gr loads early on, and the groups seemed to be opening up. If more thump is what I'm after, I should use a bigger piece, no? Wish I had a chrony to see what my longer barrel is doing. You're giving me an excuse to mess around with mine a bunch--not that I needed much of a push.
"Anything worth doing is worth doing slowly." Mae West

northmn

  • Guest
Re: Chronograph tests with the 25
« Reply #2 on: May 29, 2010, 10:31:59 PM »
DON'T back it off yet.  I checked the weight of the charge on a powder scale against the powder measure setting and it was right on at 20 grains.  Need to correct that.  I usually do that to make sure I can duplicate what works.  Further Data:

Same everything including measure setting but Grafs 3f gave an average of 1680.  A little less velocity but it seemed to load easier between shots with no wiping.  Really think I may try the stuff serious as 1680 is still plenty for small game.  ME of 140 ftlbs. which is about like a long rifle.  22 short is plenty for rabbits and squirrels.  Next the bench.

DP


billd

  • Guest
Re: Chronograph tests with the 25
« Reply #3 on: May 30, 2010, 02:56:43 AM »
AT the range this past summer another shooter set up his chronograph to shoot a revolver next to me.  I had my .25 and he invited me to try it.  Three shots later, only one registered.  20 grains of 3F and a #4 buckshot showed 1787.  That was with a 42" barrel.   

I guess it was to close to the muzzle and that's why only one shot registered. 

Bill

northmn

  • Guest
Re: Chronograph tests with the 25
« Reply #4 on: May 30, 2010, 03:25:18 AM »
My chronograph can mess up if the angle is a little off also.  The ball has to pass by both screens.  I also have my chrono lowered behind a couple of 1/4" angle irons tilted for deflection.  This was done after I tried to get a reading on a scoped 22 hornet.  Scopes shoot a little lower up close than you sometimes realize ;D  As your 42 inch barrel gave very close to my 36 I wonder if any added barrel length would make much difference on this size bore?  A #4 buck shot should weigh in at about 21 grains as compared to the 23.3 of my #3.  How much difference would that make ???

DP

Offline Kermit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3099
Re: Chronograph tests with the 25
« Reply #5 on: May 31, 2010, 06:26:23 PM »
So, David, are you getting easier loading AND cleanup with Grafs FFFg? Goex is just okay in mine, but I'd buy some Grafs to try if there's an apparent difference.
"Anything worth doing is worth doing slowly." Mae West

northmn

  • Guest
Re: Chronograph tests with the 25
« Reply #6 on: May 31, 2010, 06:56:36 PM »
I cannot say after one session, but it seemed like the Grafs did not require any swabing between shots like the GOEX.  It seemed to load easier.  Since I have a couple of pounds, I thought this would be a good use for it.  They do advertise that the alder charcoal is cleaner.  Would I recommend going out and buying a couple of cans based on my experience so far, I kind of hesitate.  Even though it seemed to burn a little cleaner I did have the same shot to shot variance of about 45 fps.  While my shots seemed to want to stay at 1680, I saw a couple of low ones at about 1640.  I just cut off a 22-250 case to make a loading funnel as I wondered about a little spill trying to pour a measure from a 38 special case into a 25 bore.  I suppose I should try and see how fussy these small bores can be .  2 grains is 10% of a charge.  I noticed last fall off the bench it wanted to group vertically, though still pretty adequate for hunting.  Blamed most of it on older eyes and problems with the sights as I was having trouble seeing the top of the front sight.  Fixed that now.

DP

Daryl

  • Guest
Re: Chronograph tests with the 25
« Reply #7 on: June 01, 2010, 05:14:49 PM »
Dave - Hobby stores usually have the .015" wall brass tubing that fits inside one another. A measure can easily be made from the smaller sizes. I do this for the .32 to prevent spillage at the muzzle when loading. A simple wooden plug, CA's in the end, with a sideways hole through it for a thong makes a good measure for small bores - or large bores as well.  I have them from my .32 cal. measures up to large sizes for the .69 - up to 165gr. A 1/4" size should be about right for the little .25.  it will be fairlylong, but will throw more accurate charges than larger sizes.

northmn

  • Guest
Re: Chronograph tests with the 25
« Reply #8 on: June 01, 2010, 05:40:26 PM »
I have a piece of 1/4" tubing I could try.  As you say it would give more consistant throws.  The 22-250 funnel I made also helps.  Next try will be with 4f.  Also going to test it against a 22 on wet pack that has soaked a while.  As it shot through a red squirrel lengthwise it has adequate penetration.

DP

northmn

  • Guest
Re: Chronograph tests with the 25
« Reply #9 on: June 02, 2010, 01:15:20 AM »
I have a pound of 4f Grafs and tried that.  16 grains gave about 1650 fps.  Interesting session however.  I think part of the first load dribbled out the touchhole as it was a real blooper.  The ball went about 2/3 of the way up the barrel and lodged.  I was able to dribble enough powder through the touch hole to reseat it and fire it out. I plugged the touch hole after that while loading and had no problem.   Powder measures are within about 2-3 grains of what they say they are, usually shy.  I am still impressed with the Graf's powder for reloading as it seems to be burning cleaner than the GOEX I used last fall and does not seem to require the need for wiping as much.  My lots of GOEX are a little hotter but not so much as to matter for this use.

DP

Offline Dphariss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9677
  • Kill a Commie for your Mommy
Re: Chronograph tests with the 25
« Reply #10 on: June 02, 2010, 06:48:55 AM »
I have a pound of 4f Grafs and tried that.  16 grains gave about 1650 fps.  Interesting session however.  I think part of the first load dribbled out the touchhole as it was a real blooper.  The ball went about 2/3 of the way up the barrel and lodged.  I was able to dribble enough powder through the touch hole to reseat it and fire it out. I plugged the touch hole after that while loading and had no problem.   Powder measures are within about 2-3 grains of what they say they are, usually shy.  I am still impressed with the Graf's powder for reloading as it seems to be burning cleaner than the GOEX I used last fall and does not seem to require the need for wiping as much.  My lots of GOEX are a little hotter but not so much as to matter for this use.

DP

While probably not an issue with RBs FFFF with bullets of much sectional density can case pressure problems. A friend encountered this trying to make a 357 maximum into a BP Schuetzen cartridge. Its almost identical to the old 35-30 Maynard.
FFFF probably will not be as accurate either but this is speculation.

Dan

Dan
He who dares not offend cannot be honest. Thomas Paine

northmn

  • Guest
Re: Chronograph tests with the 25
« Reply #11 on: June 02, 2010, 02:46:43 PM »
I tried 4f due to the small caliber.  I would not try it in a 45 for instance nor even my 40.  I did bench the rifle while it was in the white last fall and was getting less than an inch horizontal but about 1 1/2 vertical groups.  As I had trouble seeing the front sight I attributed the vetical to that possibility.  I have since replaced the sight and need to try again.  My chronographing did show some variation but within about 50 fps, which should not be an issue at short range.  I also think Daryl is correct in that using smaller diameter powder measures to tighten up the consistancy in measurement would help.  I did shoot it through paper wet pack along side a 22LR but do not know if that proves anything really.  Comparisons of of performance of RB's to bullet may be their own study.

DP

Offline Dphariss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9677
  • Kill a Commie for your Mommy
Re: Chronograph tests with the 25
« Reply #12 on: June 02, 2010, 04:26:43 PM »
I tried 4f due to the small caliber.  I would not try it in a 45 for instance nor even my 40.  I did bench the rifle while it was in the white last fall and was getting less than an inch horizontal but about 1 1/2 vertical groups.  As I had trouble seeing the front sight I attributed the vetical to that possibility.  I have since replaced the sight and need to try again.  My chronographing did show some variation but within about 50 fps, which should not be an issue at short range.  I also think Daryl is correct in that using smaller diameter powder measures to tighten up the consistancy in measurement would help.  I did shoot it through paper wet pack along side a 22LR but do not know if that proves anything really.  Comparisons of of performance of RB's to bullet may be their own study.

DP

I would likely have tried it in a RB rifle of that caliber. I have read, sometime in the distant past of people using fine grained powder in squirrel guns, perhaps in Ned Roberts.
The LR penetrates very well, especially the "solid".

For someone with the bank account and curiosity gelatin tests of the small bores for wound cavity would be interesting.
25 vs the various 22 LRs and the 32 vs the 22 mag would be interesting.

Dan
He who dares not offend cannot be honest. Thomas Paine

northmn

  • Guest
Re: Chronograph tests with the 25
« Reply #13 on: June 03, 2010, 02:42:55 AM »
I took the wet pack apart book by book (the paper was water soaked and similar to newsprint)  Performance probably follows all calibers as the first 1/2 inch or so had a much larger hole from the round ball.  As the 22 bullet progressed it increased to the the 25's size.  The 25 will blow a bigger hole quicker but likely will not penetrate near as much.  I suggest this may be true of round ball performance in general regardless of caliber.

DP

Daryl

  • Guest
Re: Chronograph tests with the 25
« Reply #14 on: June 04, 2010, 03:03:49 PM »
At close range, the larger ball at slightly elevated velocities will create larger wound channels than a .22RF, that is for certain.  It might even match a  .22 rimfire magnum if the range is quite close.  As the velocity bleeds off, the wounding characteristics will diminish to a smaller hole.  The hemispherical shape also contributes to the size of the permanent cavity in flesh compared to the more pointed shape of the .22's lead bullet.  Velocity plays a big part- I still remember the first time I shot a grey (might have been black) squirrel with Taylor's .22WMR with a 40gr. Solid. The range was about only about 15 yards, and the shot decapititated the squirrel.
Size, shape and velocity are all interwoven in the damge inflicted upon media.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2010, 03:04:55 PM by Daryl »

northmn

  • Guest
Re: Chronograph tests with the 25
« Reply #15 on: June 04, 2010, 04:41:27 PM »
What may be stating the obvious but the pure lead round ball looks like it disrupts pretty much on impact as compared to a bullet taking a bit.  There is flash back from the hit with a roundball but the 22 shows a tiny little hole.  Might be the round ball on a larger animal would take out the near lung but slow down and not be as damaging to the far lung where a bullet would do the opposite and punch expand more gradually to do more to the far lung but less to the near lung.  I have some experience with cast bullets to support that, but maybe not conclusively.  With a small bore liek the 23' or 32's it may also explain why they tend to be fairly sudden and destructive.  Pure lead is ductile and does not fragment easily but does flatten easily.

DP

Offline hanshi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5297
  • My passion is longrifles!
    • martialartsusa.com
Re: Chronograph tests with the 25
« Reply #16 on: June 04, 2010, 06:55:35 PM »
Northmn, I've always thought the same thing about bullets compared to ball.  I, too, have done very extensive cast bullet casting/shooting/examining and ended up with the same conclusion.  It would appear the destructiveness and lethality of prb is a direct result of the rb shape.  What surprises me is how well a prb penetrates even when it ends up looking like a nickel.
!Jozai Senjo! "always present on the battlefield"
Young guys should hang out with old guys; old guys know stuff.

Daryl

  • Guest
Re: Chronograph tests with the 25
« Reply #17 on: June 05, 2010, 06:00:24 AM »
I assume the reason for the penetration of the disk is due to lack of losing weight as wel as many turn sideways, fold over and continue in a less than straight path with the pure lead expanding ball.  A hard ball of the same initial size, that maintains it shape and weight does an incredible jop of penetrating deeply.  Just about any elongated bullet has a superior ballistic shape and higher sectional denisty, yet many expanded bullets (1/2" after expansion for example) can be stopped inside a deer, where a same size, ie: .50 cal. non expanding ball will exit.