Planned cf GOEX 3F vs Schutzen 3F

Discussions of powders, bullets and loading information.

Moderators: Kirk, Lucinda

Post Reply
User avatar
omgb
Posts: 169
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 11:21 am
Location: SoCal, Santa Clarita

Planned cf GOEX 3F vs Schutzen 3F

Post by omgb »

So Friday I'm headed to the range with some 1863 Enfield cartridges. I've had off and on accuracy using 68 grs of GOEX 2F and a clay plug. Bullets are .550 with two wraps of 100% 7lb cotton rag. Lube is SPG with a tad more bees wax added for stiffness. Sometimes this shoots into 4" at 50 yards, sometimes I get a sideways flyer. I've been thinking that switching to 3F might give me better bump up as the plug is driven into the base. I've loaded 20 cartridges with GOEX 3F and 20 with the latest batch of Schutzen. We'll be checking velocity, fouling (always zero with Enfield type cartridges) and group size. The test rifle is a proven shooter, a Navy Arms Hawken Hunter bought back in the 1970s. It's a heavy 26" .58 caliber rifle without a set trigger. It has given me 5" groups at 100 yards using a standard Minne and 2.5" using a round ball with pillow ticking and Crisco lube.
Reece Talley
James Madison Fellow
Cal Hunter Ed Instructor/NRA Rifle/Shotgun Inst.
User avatar
omgb
Posts: 169
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 11:21 am
Location: SoCal, Santa Clarita

Re: Planned cf GOEX 3F vs Schutzen 3F

Post by omgb »

Shooting today was interesting. 3F does expand the skirt into the grooves better than 2F. Schutzen is equal to GOEX in velocity and in fouling. With a 510 grain Minnie, and 69 grains of 3F, I was getting 1040 fps three feet from the muzzle in a 26" barrel. Accuracy was iffy; just 4" at 50 yards. I suspect 66 year old eyes and open sights may be part of the problem
Reece Talley
James Madison Fellow
Cal Hunter Ed Instructor/NRA Rifle/Shotgun Inst.
beltfed
Posts: 1962
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2007 10:07 am
Location: Central Wi

Re: Planned cf GOEX 3F vs Schutzen 3F

Post by beltfed »

Obvious question
Have you tried filling the base with Crisco instead of the clay plug? It may give better "hydaulic" expansion of the skirt.
Simple Crisco worked well years ago- in base and grooves- in my Original Colt 1961 Special Contract Musket.
beltfed/arnie
User avatar
omgb
Posts: 169
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 11:21 am
Location: SoCal, Santa Clarita

Re: Planned cf GOEX 3F vs Schutzen 3F

Post by omgb »

The system was designed specifically for a clay plug. GB did tens of thousands of rounds of testing before they settled on the plug. My Enfield repro will shoot 4” groups at 100 yards. This Navy Arms Hawken is supposed to but so far it doesn’t.
Reece Talley
James Madison Fellow
Cal Hunter Ed Instructor/NRA Rifle/Shotgun Inst.
Woody
Posts: 6060
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 9:02 am
Location: Freetown, Indiana

Re: Planned cf GOEX 3F vs Schutzen 3F

Post by Woody »

Continue with your research and you will find that the clay plug was dropped by the British and any other means of expanding the hollow base. It was found that it was not needed. I too shoot an original Colt 1861 Special and lube my RCBS 515 grain minie balls with the same lube I use for my BPCR projectiles. The Hollow base of your projectile will expand to take the rifling. A solid flat base projectile will expand also. I draw your attention to the long range shooters that are loading flat base bullets both paper patched and grease grooved into muzzleloading target rifles. Your accuracy problems are probably related to the clay plug. I have also owned and shot an original Remington Zouave with excellent results. I would habitually obtain 1.5 to 3 inch groups at 100 yards when my eyes were better than now. I would also suggest that you try Swiss as your propellant. The only thing I use GOEX or any other black powder in, is my BP shotguns. They don't seem to care.

Woody
Richard A. Wood
If you are surrounded. You are in a target rich environment.
User avatar
omgb
Posts: 169
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 11:21 am
Location: SoCal, Santa Clarita

Re: Planned cf GOEX 3F vs Schutzen 3F

Post by omgb »

I’m going to try it without the clay plug. I’ve got nothing to lose. Those plugs are a ton of work to make so skipping them will be a pleasure.
Reece Talley
James Madison Fellow
Cal Hunter Ed Instructor/NRA Rifle/Shotgun Inst.
User avatar
desert deuce
Posts: 3844
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 10:51 pm
Location: Rio Rico, Arizona

Re: Planned cf GOEX 3F vs Schutzen 3F

Post by desert deuce »

Here in extreme Southern Arizona stiff bullet lube, parafin or candle wax can work in revolver bullets with hollow bases and black powder when it gets Arizona warm. I use a playing card wad between base of bullet and black powder. Have not tried it or plugs in rifles.
Sometimes you get the chicken, and sometimes you get the feathers!
ian45662
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 3:42 pm

Re: Planned cf GOEX 3F vs Schutzen 3F

Post by ian45662 »

Lyman 575213 new style works great.
User avatar
omgb
Posts: 169
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 11:21 am
Location: SoCal, Santa Clarita

Re: Planned cf GOEX 3F vs Schutzen 3F

Post by omgb »

I tried it without the plug using the .550 bullets. It doesn't work very well. Now, with the .560 bullet it does, but that bullet fouls badly after 8 rounds. So, I went back and researched more. In the book, "The British Cartridge" the author reports that the British had the same experience with the larger diameter bullet and no plug. They finally settled on a plug, a .550 bullet and 2 wraps of 100% 9lb cotton rag patching paper and 69 grains of rifle powder. Now the British paper weight of 9 lbs was based on a reem of paper larger than 8.5x11 inches. So he recommended a 100% cotton rag German marker paper. I bought a pack and will try it soon. I'm going to weigh/sort my pritchetts as well. The Brits swaged them exclusively to avoid voids. Well, I can't swage bullets that big but I sure can cast them and sort them. So, that's my next endeavor.
Reece Talley
James Madison Fellow
Cal Hunter Ed Instructor/NRA Rifle/Shotgun Inst.
Post Reply