NEW! Rem. 6.5 Magnum Practical .30-06 Loads .45 ACP - - Budget Gun Pet Loads for 270 Varmint Shots h e I Is Product Test Reports

The

Dave Wolfe

Bob Hinman

Edward M. Yard

Homer Powley

John T. Amber

Editor and Publisher

Associate Editor

Technical Editor

Ballistics Adviser

Editorial Adviser EDITOR, GUN DIGEST & HANDLOADER'S DIGEST

Larry Koller Gun Test Editor

ASSOCIATE EDITOR OF GUNS & HUNTING

Wallace Labisky Shotshell Editor

SHOTGUN COLUMNIST FOR SHOOTING TIMES

Parker 0. Ackley Wildcats & Gunsmithing

Les Bowman Rifle Loads

Harvey A. Donaldson Historical Adviser

Ken Waters "Pet Loads"

RELOADING COLUMNIST SHOOTING TIMES

Bob Steindler "Bench Tips''

FIELD EDITOR FOR GUNS MAGAZINE

Lionel Johnson Basic Handling

Ted Smith Bullet Swaging

Maj. George Nonte Case Forming

TECHNICAL EDITOR OF SHOOTING TIMES

A. Robert Matt On Gun Laws

John Buhmiller African Cartridges

Mason Williams Field Editor

Bob Wallack Field Editor

Barbara Killough Advertising Director

Otto Schofield Production Manager

Walter Schwarz Photo & Art Director

Handloader Magazine

May-June, 1966 Vol. 1 - No. 1 700 Park Avenue, Peoria, Ill. 61603

Features: The 6.5 Remington Magnum .............................................. Bob Steindler Our Versatile .30-06 ............................................................ Dean Grennell Smoothbore Varmint Poison ........................................ Wallace Labisky The .45 A.C.P. ............................................................................ Art Wesley Wildcat Pressures .................................................................. P. 0. Ackley Pet Loads for the .270 ............................................................ Ken Waters Basic Handloading (Part I) .............................................. Lionel Johnson AFRICA: My Favorite Loads .......................................... John Buhmiller Clean Those Guns .............................................................. Homer Powley Company Profiles (Pacific) .................................................... Pete Czura

On Bullet Swaging (Part I) ...................................................... Ted Smith Fundamental Ballistics .................................................................. Ed Yard

12 16 20 24 28 30 32 34 37 38 42 45

Departments: Bench Tips .................................... 7 LAW MATTers .............................. 1 1 Book Reviews ................................ 60 Editorial .......................................... 4

Reader By-Lines .......................... 9 Answers Please ........................... 57 ProducTests .................................... 62 Harvey Donaldson ...................... 66 . .

The HANDLOADER. Copyr iqht 1966. i s p u b h h e d bi-monthly b y the Dave Wol fe Publishing Company, 700 Park Avenue, Peoria. I l l inois 61603. Telephone (309) 685-4237. Second Class Permit pending a t Peoria. I l l inois, and addi t ional mai l ing offices. Single copy pr ice o f current issue - 75c (back issues pr iced a t $1.00 from publisher). Subscription price: six issues $4.00. I2 issues $7.00, 18 issues $9.50. (Outside U. S. possessions and Canada $5.00, $9.00 and $12.50.) Advertisinq rates furnished on request.

Publisher o f The HANDLOADER is not responsible for mishaps o f any nature which migh t occur f rom use o f published loading data, or f rom recornmendabions by any member o f The Staff. N o par t o f this pub- l icat ion may b e reproduced without written permission from the edi tor Manuscripts from free-lance writers must be accompanied by stampted, self-addressed envelope, and the publisher can not accept responsibil i ty for lost o r mut i lated manuscripts.

Change o f address: Please give one month's notice. Send both o ld and new address, plus mai l ing label if possible, t o Circulat ion Dept., The HANDLOADER Magazine, 700 Park Avenue, Peoria. I l l inois 61603.

Your May - June Cover What better typifies the all-round reloading hobby than a shotshell, rifle and pistol

cartridge, and a loading die? Characteristic o f the work of our chief photographer, Walter Schwarz. i s the utter simplicity of the picture - yet it tells a story in a dramatic, appealing way. Rifle cartridge i s the new Rernington .350 Magnum: pistol round is another Magnum, the .41. Does anyone need t o have the "green plastic" shell identified? Rernington 12 gauge f ield load, of course.

6 Handloader - May-June, '66

By A. Robert Matt\ Executive Director

Natl. Reloading Manufacturers Assn.

ANDLOADING HAS COME of age. People are reloading be-

cause it is economical. Whether it con- tinues to be a money saver for the shooter, is still another question.

Congressman John Dingell has intro- duced a bill (H. R. 11,483) proposing an 11% excise tax on components. Com- ponents are defined as: “Parts of am- munition for pistols, revolvers, and oth- er firearms (including, but not limited to, cartridge cases, primers, bullets, shot, and powder). Under regulations pre- scribed by the Secretary (of the Trea- sury) or his delegate, the tax imposed by this section in the case of shells and cartridges containing component parts, previously taxed under this sec- tion, shall be reduced or adjusted to the extent necessary to prevent double taxation of such component parts.”

The money resulting from Congress- man Dingell’s proposed legislation, to- gether with half the revenue from the 10% current excise tax on pistols and revolvers, is to be apportioned among the states for target ranges and firearms safety training programs. The appor- tionment among the states would be administered by the Secretary of the Interior, in accordance with regulations prescribed by him, to assist the states (by paying up to 50% of the cost of the items’ or programs involved) in the purchase and construction to target ranges and in the conduct of firearms safety training programs.

At this time the Dingell Bill is in the House Ways and Means Commit- tee. Undoubtedly later this spring there will be a public hearing on the bill. This hearing will occur before the bill goes before the House of Representatives for a vote.

At the outset it should be pointed out that the Michigan Congressman is a true friend of the sportsman. He is an avid big game hunter, upland bird hunter, varmint shooter, skeet and trap enthusiast, as well as a reloader. He is a lawyer and the son of a congressman. Representative Dingell’s father was the co-sponsor of the Dingell-Johnson bill that in 1950 imposed an excise tax on fishing tackle.

The present Congressman Dingell is concerned that in the next 10 to 20 years there will be a shortage of public target ranges for shooters. He feels that unless something is done now to pro- vide for future shooting facilities, all of us will be without a place to shoot.

You, the reloader and shooter, will be most affected if Representative Dingell’s

.*

Rep. John Dingell

bill becomes law. It’s a hard cold fact -it will cost you more to reload your own ammunition. This fact must be balanced with the possibility that there might be more places for you to try out your loads.

On Monday, February 21, officials of the National Reloading Manufac- turer’s Association, The National Shoot- ing Sports Foundation, and the Ameri- can Reloaders Association met with Representative Dingell in Washington to discuss his bill. It was a very informative discussion. Representative Dingell was thoughtful enough to have present officials of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. This bureau

A. Robert Matt

of the Department of Interior would be responsible for administering the pro- gram outlined in the Dingell Bill. They are presently responsible for handling the funds available to the states under the Pitman-Robinson Act.

One of the big questions in the minds of the people meeting with Congress- man Dingell was, “How much does it presently cost to administer the Pitmari- Robinson Act?” Stated another way, “What percentage of the money col- lected gets back to the States?’ The answer was impressive. By law a maxi- mum of 8% may be used to administer the money. The annual average amount of money spent has been only 4.7%. It is obvious that the money is put to good use and it does not cost the tax- payer much to realize the fine benefits of the Pitman-Robinson Act.

From July 1938 through June 1964, funds from excise tax on sporting arms, ammunition, and fishing tackle have been responsible for acquiring 2,516,153 acres of land for wildlife projects. Dur- ing the same period a total of $229,- 636,868.37 has been spent in Federal Aid Wildlife Restoration.

Where do we go from here? There are still plenty of questions to be an- swered. Most questions have to do with the administration of the money to be collected. What guarantees will there be that ranges will be constructed in areas where they will be readily acces- sible to the greatest number of shooters? Will the money available be enough to build a significant number of ranges? Will the states be mandated to use the money available? Will shooters con- tinue to reload when the cost of doing so increases? These and other questions have answers. They are being sought now.

It is important to note that Congress- man Dingell is open minded and amen- able to more discussions on his bill. It is not his intent to hurt the shooter or reloader. He wants to help us. Wheth- er his proposed excise tax on reloading components will do so, is another moot question.

Opinions vary as to the subsequent value of Congressman Dingell’s bill. If you have any thoughts that you care to express on the matter, send them to me at 30 High Street, Hartford, Connecticut. I won’t be able to answer them all, but I assure you that your opinions wiII be gladly received and Congressman Dingell will be made aware of them. 0

Handloader - May-June. ‘66 11

. . . a single issue of The HANDLOADER. Why take chances? Insure the arr ival of each and every issue to your own door. You'll save on the long green, too! Why not "play it safe" and sub- scribe today? The cost of single copies is 75$ (back issues $1.00 or more)--the subscription rate for 1 year (6 issues) is $4.00. Bigger savings yet are yours o n 2 years at $7.00 or 3 years at $9.00. You can't miss! July-August issue will car- 1 ry all our regular features --Bench Tips by Steindler ; Yours Truly, Harvey Do- naldson; Basic Reloading e

Series; etc. Be sure to add rrl r

tihis one to your library. Zero in on this deal today!

The Yes, add me to your subscriber list today. NAME Handloader

M a a a h ADDRESS 7'00 PAPK AVENUE - PEORIA, ILLINOIS 61603

I CITY STATE ZIP Send me: 6 issues for $4.00 for $7.00 -' 18 issues f o r v . 00 - . Check enclosed - . Bill me later

; 12 issues I 1 IHandI0ad.r - MapJane, 'er 49

We Predicted It:

The 6.5 Rem. Mag.

By Bob Steindler Shooting Editor

GUNS Magazine

DON'T KNOW WHO said that great (?) minds think alike, but the

development of the .350 Remington Magnum necked down to 6.5 mm bears out something like that. Dave Wolfe, who for six years headed up SHOOT- ING TIMES, decided in the early part of 1965 that the .350 Magnum case was just right for wildcatting. Accord- ingly, he and Major George Nonte Jr. developed a number of wildcats based on this case. Some of these were strictly experimental, others looked like good ballistics bets, and Dave - who is now editor and publisher of this magazine - felt that the new Remington case necked to 6.5 would not only be a good bet, but he also offered an educated guess in the December '65 issue of SHOOTING TIMES. He predicted that Remington would introduce this wild- cat as a factory cartridge in 1966.

Dave, George Nonte, and I have been old friends and we were among the 30 or so gun editors who attended the Remington Seminar in November of 1964 when Remington gave us our first look at the .350 Magnum. Being ad- dicted to the 7 mm Remington Mag- num, and realizing that the .350 case was a first cousin of the 7 mm hull, and that Remington would try to create a family of cartridges all based on the same case design, I too had begun to wildcat the case. Unlike Dave and George, who had more time and money to devote to experimental work, I started with a close study of the .350 case and its probable market potential. The up- shot of my headscratching was that I settled on the 6.5 mm.

This was my thinking: since Reming- ton did not have a cartridge in this caliber, and since the untimely death of the .257 Roberts and the problems encountered by .264 Winchester Mag- num owners, the 6.5 area would be a fertile field for an arms manufacturer. It was certain that the trend toward bigger magnums would find relatively little favor with the average shooter and hunter, and therefore any new cartridge would belong to the medium game cartridge family. The .270 Win- chester has been around for a long time and its new cousin, the .284 Winchester had not been setting any records. The 6.5/350, at least on paper and with the help of a slide rule, looked like a win- ner.

r

Dave had actively wildcatted the .350 Remington Magnum, but he kept coming back to the 6.5 case. He too figured that the 6.5 had been a much- neglected caliber, that it was a good medium game cartridge, and he was and still is a 6.5 buff -all reasons enough to dig deeper. To keep things orderly and to avoid confusion on his loading bench, he used .264 Winchester

12 Handloader - May-June. '66

brass. After necking, trimming and an- nealing in lead, he obtained a case that not only looked ballistically efficient but which also bore a strong resemb- lance to the .350 case necked down to 6.5. While his test gun was being fitted with a Canjar trigger and a Lodewick safety, plus a fancy thumbhole stock from Fajen, my gunsmith, Paul Haberly of the Chicago Gun Center, was busy building my 6.5/350. I had calculated that a 1 in 9 twist would be just about right, assuming that the cartridge would be used for deer, antelope, black bear, and similar game. This meant that the 120 and the 140-grain bullets would be the ones to be used almost exclusive- ly.

Like Dave,.I used a Douglas Premium barrel, but Dave decided on a 1 in 10 twist and began his work with a sporter rifle, complete with a 22-inch tube. I found in Paul Haberly's shop a 6.5 Douglas barrel that had a 1 in 12 twist and asked Paul to make that one up too. The 1 in 9 barrel was left in its original shape and I insisted that it not be contoured or slimmed down. I want- ed a bull gun and with the longest possible barrel - I was guessing that Remington would come out with the new caliber in their Model 700, an as- sumption which proved to be wrong; the new 6.5 Remington Magnum will make its appearance in the Model 600. Since factory ballistics are usually based on a 26-inch barrel, I wanted to be able to predict Remington ballistics - if the company were to introduce the 6.5.

Dave settled for an over-all cartridge length of 3 inches, and I leaned toward a somewhat shorter round. Keith Fran- cis, who made my reamer, and Paul Haberly persuaded me to stick to a cartridge that would measure, over-all, around 2.9, and my actual measure- ments on loaded cartridges average 2.915 inches. The dummy rounds that Remington iswed in November 1965 at the annual gun editors seminar mea- sured 2.800 with the 120-gr. bullet. My case length was 2.179", while Dave, using the .264 brass, had a case length of 2.186". Remington's case length is 2.184". All three cases have 25 degree shoulders, and identical case capacity. With Ball C Lot No. 2 filling the case right up to and flush with the case mouth, capacity is 72.39 grains of pow- der.

The 1 in 9 twist in my heavy barrel gun proved to be a good bet. Reming- ton will also use a 1 in 9 twist. The results I obtained from the gun that Paul made up for me with a 1 in 12 twist barrel were sadly disappointing. Loads for the 120-gr. and the 140-gr. bullet, which showed good to excellent accuracy in the 1 in 9 twist barrel, gave

Author's first 6.5 barrel was long and heavy. This was later cut to 18'/2 inches and slimmed

to contours of Model 600 barrel.

groups sometimes two and three times as large in the slower twist barrel. The 160-gr. bullet did not stabilize at all in this 1 in 12 barrel, although I made up a number of experimental loads especially for the slower twist.

Dave's 1 in 10 twist barrel gave ex- cellent accuracy, especially with the 120 and the 140 gr. bullets. He based his velocity data on five-shot groups with the start screen located 10 feet from the gun muzzle. I used 10 shot groups, with the start screen - a Scripto lead - located five feet from the muzzle. Inci- dentally, the questions of how far the first chronograph screen should be from the muzzle and should the recorded velocities be termed muzzle velocities, has long been a matter of discussion. I hope to have the results of a survey that I am conducting on these subjects in the not too distant future.

Dave settled on three powders - 4320, 4350, 483 1 - and he based his initial loading data on the loading dope for the .25-06. I attacked the loading problem from the other end of the scale. As usual, I began with the Powley Computer. If you have never used

120-Grain Bullet S teindler

Powder Charge Velocity 4350 56.0 331 1

57.5 3425 483 1 59.5 3370

60.0 Case head expansion

Wolfe Powder Charge Velocity 4350 54.0 3029

56.0 3185 483 1 61.0 3277

63.0 3454

1 40-Grain Bullet S teindler

Powder Charge Velocity 4350 54.0 3058 483 1 54.0 3067

Wolfe Powder Charge Velocity 4350 51.0 2645

53.0 2798 483 1 55.0 2890

7 60-Grain Bullet S teindler

Powder Charge Velocity 4350 49.0 2770 483 1 50.0 273 1

Wolfe Powder Charge Velocity 4350 54.0 2656 483 1 58.0 2780

Handloader - MapJune. '66 13

Homer’s computer, you are missing a good bet. (Cost is $3.50, obtainable directly from Homer Powley, 103 Farm- stead Lane, Glastonbury, Conn., 06033.)

I had considered several powders, especially the new Hercules Reloder powders, but time was against me since I did want my article to appear before the Remington seminar. I just made it too, and my crystal ball had to work overtime-a week after my article ap- peared (December ’65 GUNS Maga- zine), Remington announced the intro- duction of the 6.5 Remington Magnum. I settled on two powders-4350 and 4831, and for the 160 gr. RN Hornady bullet, I tried a couple of loads with Hodgdon’s 5010.

I used Speer’s 120-gr, and 140-gr. spitzer bullets, and the 160-gr. RN Hornady bullets. Primers were CC1 200, with the exception of the 160-gr. loads when I used 5010, and for this powder, I used CC1 250 primers. Al- though I had other primers on hand, I wanted to use batches from the same manufacturing lot, and I did not have enough other primers on hand to com- plete the experiment without changing lots.

Dave used Hornady’s spire point 100- gr. bullets, Speer’s 120-gr. spitzers, Nor-

14

Steindler examines several test groups for accuracy: best loads were recorded and then chronographed. His first shooting with the 6.5 was with long, heavy barrel.

Case at left was made by Dave Wolfe from .264 Win. Mag. brass. Author’s case at right with 120-grain Speer bullet, was made by necking down 350 brass. Photo on Yz-inch grid.

ma SP and Sierra BT in 140-gr., and Hornady’s 160-gr. RN bullets. I felt that working up loads for bullets light- er than 120-gr. would defeat the purpose of the gun since I do not believe that a medium game, long-range rifle should be used with lighter than 120-gr. bul- lets. If such loads are developed, and they can be and have been developed, then the caliber should be classified as varmint gun. I realize, of course, that the 257 Roberts, the .30-06, and several other calibers can be loaded up and down to make the gun more versatile, but my primary interest was in devel-

oping a flat-shooting game rifle and cartridge.

In looking over the accompaning loading table and making the obvious comparisons, keep in mind that I was working with a 27-inch bull barrel, while Dave was using a 22-inch sport- er barrel. Add to this the fact that reamers and brass were different, and that my gun was strictly experimental and not finished. Dave’s action had been completed, and his gun actually fed the cartridges from the magazine into the chamber. The action of my

Handloader - May-June, ’66

First bull gun was strictly experimental: stock was rescued from the trash barrel.

gun had not been altered and I had to single load. In a few cases, such as the 60.0 grains of 4831 with the 120-gr. bullet, I encountered definite signs of pressure (such as case head expansion), while Dave was able to load hotter.

As of this writing, Remington has not announced velocities, but Wayne Leek, boss of Remington’s R&D depart- ment, and Mike Walker, who heads up Remington’s custom shop, told me that my published loads and velocities were “fairly” close to those they ob- tained. I am anxious to see how the Remington ballistics will stack up against Dave’s and mine, and how ac- curacy will be in the factory gun. My bull barrel has now been slimmed down and chopped off to 18% inches, so that it is identical to the M600 barrel. Here is what you can expect from the 6.5 Remington Magnum.

Chronographing indoors and in 10- shot strings with the 120-gr. loads only, velocities were impressive. With the 120-gr. Speer bullet and 56.0 grains of 4350 with CC1 200 primers, average MV was 3,139 fps. This load showed no signs of pressure whatever in my heavy bull gun, but there were slight signs of primer flattening, although no extraction difficulty or case head ex- pansion was noted in the short barrel gun. With 59.5 grains of 4831, the average velocity was 3,096 fps. Factory

At left, Wolfe’s 6.5 x 350 case, next the dummy round made by Remington, and Steindler’s case with 120-grain Speer bullet.

ballistics for the .270 with the 130-gr. bullet is 3,140 fps, but this is based, in all probability, on a 26-inch barrel. Since 56.0 grains of 4350 in the 27-inch tube gave me an MV of 3,311 fps, and the 59.5-grain load with 4831 gave me 3,370 fps, the loss of roughly 200 fps when the barrel length was reduced by 8.5 inches is not too surprising and a similar velocity loss can be expected if a .270 tube is cut back to 18% inches.

Wayne Leek, in discussing t h e 6.5/350 with gun editors at €he recent seminar, made the following points:

The 6.5 Remington Magnum was de- signed for antelope, deer and similar medium-sized game. The new cartridge

will approximate the ballistics of the venerable .270, but Remington’s R&D staff felt that the short, squat case would give better ballistics, even in the 18% inch tube of the Model 600, than the ballistics of the .270 in the standard 24 inch barrel.

On January 27, 1966, Wayne, who has taken great interest in Dave’s and my work with the 6.5, wrote me about the 120-gr. bullets. This will be a brand-new bullet and new machines are now being set up for actual production runs - the early test bullets were made for experimental use only. Wayne in part stated: “We cut down a .270 to a barrel length of 18%’’ the other day and made a direct comparison with the 6.5. We found the latter to be superior ballistically, which was what the cal- culations indicated. Therefore, feel pret- ty good about this new package. I am sure you will find the combination most interesting and very productive when shooting anything up to and in- cluding elk.”

If the elk statement sounds a bit on the optimistic side, keep in mind that Wayne is not only an expert shot and an excellent hunter, but that Jack O’Connor and others have long felt

Corning.. . Complete coverage of the new Remington Model 600 in 6.5 Magnum caliber. Both L a r ~ Koller and Les Bowman will do test write-ups.

that the .270 is just about as good an all around rifle for U. S. game as you are likely to find.

P. 0. Ackley, on the other hand, states in his new two-volume “Hand- book for Shooters and Reloaders” that the “short stubby cases of this type are not the best design . . . a case of this capacity is relatively inefficient for any- thing under .30 caliber.” He goes on to say that the .350 necked to 6.5 is no better than the .06 necked to 6.5, and that the case will not withstand pres- sures higher than those the ’06 brass can handle.

It is too early, as far as I am con- cerned, to draw any pro or con conclu- sion - the cartridge-gun combination still looks good to me and only extensive tests on game will tell the story in a year or two.

Handloader - May-June, ’66 15