RugerForum.com

If you have SRH and SBH 454, and shooting regularly 454 ammo, did you notice any erosion on the barrel forcing cone zone?

I was looking for S&W 686 Target Champion (they are hard to find in my area) and located one, nice shape, tight, price was OK, however, barrel forcing cone zone looked considerably worse than this:



I am assuming that 110 and 125 grain hot factory ammo is the culprit. Regrettably, I had to pass it.

As far as I know, barrels and cylinders on 454 Ruger revolvers are made using high quality steels from Carpenter https://www.carpentertechnology.com/en/ ... ace-alloys , considerably stronger than standard 400-series steel used on ordinary revolvers.

Anyhow, I would appreciate your experience and comments. Pictures and round count will be very helpful.

Thanks!

Early on, I had that exact same appearance on my GP100. Turned out to be lead.

S&W 686 Target Champion I was interested had seen just factory jacketed ammo. Guy didn't bother to reload.

That looks like lead buildup in that picture.

I agree, looks like lead build up to me too.

*****

BARREL FACE EROSION----more often referred to as FORCING CONE EROSION, comes mainly from high pressure loads with slow powder. Smaller bores with a huge charge of slow powder have more time for the cutting torch affect to work, with a smaller area to heat. Some powders are worse than others, with Hodgdon Lil Gun topping the list for accelerated erosion.

Compared to a heavy bullet of similar profile, a light bullet sits shallow in the case and moves faster. In effect, the pressure dome shifts forward, exposing the barrel/cylinder gap to high pressure and bombardment of propellant particles. I have long wonder whether the tiny hard granules of a heavy dose of ball powder adds a bit of sandblasting effect to the burning gas.

Years ago, Ruger and S&W faced off & set back the barrel on several of my revolvers to eliminate barrel face erosion----far more advanced than on the pictured revolver.
David Bradshaw

Thanks David! I agree with you. Also, bit less erosive than Hodgdon Lil Gun, but still quite considerably are H110 and W296. A gentlemen was shooting top loads in FA353 using W296 and it and erosion started showing. When he switched to IMR4227, further erosion stopped.

I am assuming that Ruger and S&W revolvers you mentioned are 44 Magnum. However, as far as I know, both companies used "standard" 400 series steel for barrels. Since Ruger is using in 454 (and 480!?) revolver(s) for barrel Carpenter´s new Project 7000® 15Cr-5Ni steel to address forcing cone erosion issue, I am quite confident S&W is using similar steel for barrels on their 460 and 500 revolvers.

Also, to tackle erosion problem, as far as I know, FA in their early 454 Casull revolvers used some kind of inserted ring that could be easily replaced:



In that small hole on the frame, just above ejector rod housing, suppose to be a little sets crew that will hold noted ring. David, since you knew Dick Casull personally, I hope you can shed more light on this. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Anyhow, I would appreciate if you who are shooting 454 Casull, 460 S&W and 500 S&W revolvers could provide info how well noted revolvers are doing regarding barrel forcing cone erosion with prolonged shooting of top loads in those calibers.

P.S. For younger ones; David Bradshaw is the legend in silhouette shooting (IHMSA), who immensely contributed to start and development of IHMSA and guns and ammo for this wonderful sport. Just look for "David Bradshaw Photos" in https://www.rugerforum.com/phpBB3/viewforum.php?f=6 and https://singleactions.proboards.com/board/2/gallery .

P.S. II David, would you have a book with all those wonderful articles you wrote in "The Silhouette", "IHMSA News", etc., and photos listed above? I would like to have it in paper copy and/or electronic form.

Onty.... athank you for your kind words. Haven’t a compilation of articles.

Freedom Arms offered the hardened forcing cone insert at my behest. I had eaten through a number of forcing cones on a number of revolvers. As you know, IHMSA silhouette witnessed aggressive consumption of magnum ammunition in revolvers, which certainly raised eyebrows at Smith & Wesson and Sturm, Ruger, among others.

I would not advocate the forcing cone insert. A fine barrel should not be discarded because of barrel face erosion. Better to set back the barrel with proper THREAD TIMING. Then, face off the barrel face to set gap. It is possible with some powders to erode into the forcing cone, with Lil Gun again the prime suspect.

Ball powders, typically incorporating nitroglycerine with the nitrocellulose to make them “double base,” burn hotter than single base. H110 and 296----H110 is Hodgdon’s label for Winchester 296----are great .357, .41, .44 magnum propellants, to include up-loads in .45 Colt.

IMR 4227 and Hodgdon 4227, and I interchanged both in top champion competition without having to cocktail my sights, equals accuracy of 296/H110, usually with somewhat lower velocity.

4227 makes the transition to .357 Maximum with astounding accuracy, the best all-round powder for the 1.605-inch case. Whereas, 296/H110 degrades accuracy in the Maximum. Oh, 296/H110 drives up velocity, but it cannot match the accuracy of 4227 in the long case.

Steel quality and heat treatment of S&W and Ruger barrels is top notch.
David Bradshaw

Thank you David for sharing your extraordinary knowledge and experience with us. I really urge you to compile all those articles.

Regarding barrel for FA 454 Casull, did they changed steel later since noted forcing cone ring is omitted?

As for IMR 4227, I tried using it behind 325 SWC-PB (I designed it with 2 grease grooves) in 45 Colt, Ruger Bisley. Managed to get on first try about 3"/25m. However, I think that noted powder is not the best choice for this caliber. With original cylinder, gap was about .006" and no problems. However, with second cylinder gap was less than .002", and in about half instances cylinder was locked because of bird seeds. Obviously, IMR 4227 works much better in high pressure rounds like 357 SM.

P.S. One thing I learned about cylinder to barrel gap; if revolver is for hunting or as a backup, I would like to gap .004-.006". In this case, reliability is more important than dozen or so extra fps with a small gap.

"Regarding barrel for FA 454 Casull, did they changed steel later since noted forcing cone ring is omitted?

As for IMR 4227, I tried using it behind 325 SWC-PB (I designed it with 2 grease grooves) in 45 Colt, Ruger Bisley. Managed to get on first try about 3"/25m. However, I think that noted powder is not the best choice for this caliber. With original cylinder, gap was about .006" and no problems. However, with second cylinder gap was less than .002", and in about half instances cylinder was locked because of bird seeds. Obviously, IMR 4227 works much better in high pressure rounds like 357 SM.

P.S. One thing I learned about cylinder to barrel gap; if revolver is for hunting or as a backup, I would like to gap .004-.006". In this case, reliability is more important than dozen or so extra fps with a small gap.”
----Onty

*****

Steel
I know neither the steel, nor obviously the heat treatment, used in M-83 barrels. At my last observation, which could be out of date, the Model 83 frame was made 17-4PH stainless at Ruger’s Pine Tree Casting in Newport, New Hampshire. Freedom Arms barrels are plenty strong and tough and erosion isn’t a problem with the high pressure .454 Casull. Bob Baker reported severe erosion from Hodgdon Lil Gun in .357 Mag, which I don’t dispute.

Forcing cone insert
Freedom Arms introduced a forcing cone insert as an option, at my request, to reduce barrel face erosion under voluminous fire. The forcing cone insert threads into the barrel socket of the frame and is secured by a socket-head screw. The insert is smooth and acts as short FREEBORE. Which, contrary to some speculation, does not degrade accuracy in a revolver. Rather, it is my experience that bullet-diameter freebore improves accuracy in the presence of excess chamber-to-bore runout. Mind you, runout is not a problem with Freedom Arms.

Cylinder gap
Most Model 83’s of my acquaintance gap firm, .001 to .003-inch. I haven’t experienced drag, as the guns run ZERO or near-zero endshake; with cylinder square to barrel. My .44 Mag was the first Model 83 built that wasn’t a .454 Casull. while most of the silhouette ammo fired through it was fueled by Winchester 296 and Hodgdon 110, plenty of Sierra 240 JHC, steamed by H4227 and IMR 4227 sailed downrange. Don’t recall an instance of hangup on cocking, which includes loaning the pistol to others in championships.

Deep Seating .452 335 LFN Gas Check
Hard cast 335 grain Long Flat Nose GC, deep seated over 20 gr./H110 in .45 Colt brass, COL=1.555”. prints 2-inches @ 100 yards from my M-83 . 454 Casull with 4-3/4” barrel. Velocity averages 1,109 fps with single digit extreme spread for 5 shots. Accuracy of 3” @ 100 yards, velocity 997 fps is available by deep seating over 12.5/HS-6; COL=1.696”. A Leupold 4x28mm LER scope helps whittle down the human factor. I use a .45 Colt cylinder for .45 Colt brass.

Both of the above loads run 2” @ 100 yards, with a leak opening it to about 3-inches. I haven’t verified whether a little flier is attributable to the bullet, or to the shooter. I detect no improvement from conventional seating, and to equal velocity takes another grain of powder.

As a rule I don’t deep seat jacketed bullets. As a rule I deep seat cast bullets, lubricated or powder coat.

Maximum loads with slow powder require conventional seating. While I have great use for Freedom Arms accuracy, I have little use for Rocks & Dynamite loads in the .454 Casull.
David Bradshaw

Thanks David again!

Your observation that when ring was inserted, its freebore effect improves accuracy reminded me of Taylor Throat and article written by Jim Stroh, Alpha Precision:

Revolver Accuracy by Alpha Precision, Inc.

I am convinced Taylor Throating produces the greatest accuracy improvement value available. Line-bore chambering will produce the most accurate revolvers, but the cost is prohibitive for many. When the barrel is accurately recrowned; the forcing cone recut concentric to the bore; Taylor Throating is almost as accurate as line-bore chambering with a savings of several hundred dollars. Line-bore chambering is accomplished by chambering each chamber in exact line with the bore, as the cylinder is locked as rigidly as it will be when the revolver is shot. The lock-up is achieved using the revolver’s own components. A slow process to be sure, but it does produce the most accurate revolver.

http://www.angelfire.com/ga/alphaprecis ... uracy.html

Also, here and on http://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums is a gentleman who developed interesting cast bullet. It’s LBT style, but designed specifically for Ruger revolvers and their 5° inclusive barrel forcing cone. Bullet has in front of the first driving band side angle that is also 5° inclusive. From what I understood, matching surfaces of bullet and forcing cone align bullet with minimum deformation, minimizing influence of misalignment between cylinder and barrel. Reported accuracy was 3”-4” on 100 yards from off the shelf, standard Ruger revolvers.