Lutz Möller
Munition von der
Lutz Möller GmbH!
Lutz Möller GmbH!
Dear Mr. Moeller
I have a 5,6x61 SE vom Hofe made by Firma
Walter Roell Jagdwaffen in Oberndorf a. N. in 1957. It's based on a
Mauser 98 sporter action. I also
have some information about this "Gamsflitzer" cartridge.
In their book Wiederladen, RWS refer to Secondary Explosion Effect. As I
understand it, this only normally occurs when the powder is reduced 20% or more
from maximum. One theory is that this allows the primer to flash past the base
of the powder and ignite a much larger powder surface, causing dangerous
pressure overloads, (another theory being that it ignites a forward part of the
powder first). I would imagine that, with such an overbored case as the 5,6x61
SE, that many powders used would simply not occupy the case well, leaving
perhaps 20% or more empty, and this might be part of the explanation for rifle
blow-ups. Put another way, it might explain the Snafu's !!!
In Wild und Hund, 4/1986, Firma Gehmann in Karlsruhe write that when using
Hodgdon H870, that the case could be properly filled, ("eine Ladedichte von 100
Prozent erreicht"). They add that there were no complaints from 5,6x61 SE users
in the 3 years since loading data for this powder became available. However,
Hodgdon's H870 has since been discontinued.
I notice for your Kupferjagdgeschoss 5,6x61 SE
Ladungen, that you have a column for "Dichte". I presume this refers to the
load density and I note most loads are around the 100% mark. Can I assume from
this that, such full density loads with suitable powders such as N 560 are the
safe way to load this cartridge ?
Also, RWS refer to too strong and also too weak an ignition causing pressure
problems. It would seem that using magnum primers in this cartridge is not
normally desirable unless actually specified. Would that be your advice with the
loads you've published ?
Lastly, I read that, when using .227/8" lead bullets designed for .22 Savage
Hi-Power, that the high velocity and stiff barrel twist, (mine is 1 in 9"), are
just too much for their thin jackets. Your 60-grain KJG should be just the
answer. Should I order these directly from you ?
Kind regards, John Dyer, New Zealand, Sonntag, 10. Dezember 2006 01:11
No Mr. Dyer,
i mean not be be unpolite, but unfortunately most of what You write is either not Fact or does not fit. Let's start with the latter. Preparing Lecture should be Beat Kneubuehl's What is the maximum Length of a spin stabilized Bullet.
Special Bullets for 5,6x61 S. E. v. H with 200 mm Twist length
The above slender Bullets are made for a Hunter who wants to hunt Foxes out to 400 m. The many Design goal was a flat Trajectory out to 400 m. To get that You need both Seed an keep the Speed, that is a high BC. The Solution was an overbore Cartridge, the 5,6x51 S.E.v.H. with excessive Powder for the Bore, an outstanding long Barrel for a Hunting Rifle, that is 75 cm and a rather short Twist, that is 200 m, to accommodate a slender Bullet, needed to be to give a BC. This requires a Custom Barrel, that Ferlach did. The Action is also of 98 Mauser type. So No, You cannot shoot those Bullets out of Your 230 mm Twist. They would tumble. But if You wish, I could make You Bullets for Your Twist. The minimum are 300 Pieces. But is You Barrel still good. Such Overbore Cartridges eat Barrels within 500Shots or les and the deteriorate.
Now Yes (The Exception) thin jacketed Bullets will not tolerate fast spins. The usually blast into a small grey Lead cloud after a few hundred Meters. This is well known from Berger Bullets in long short Twist Barrel with F-Class Shooters, who also go for Speed to reach long Distances with not too much Elevation. If the Bullets are cheap You may just try, but remember each shot eats Barrel.
A cheaper Alternative, and not much worse, would be to rebarrel to 5,6x57 standard Barrel and Case and Barrel supply would immediately ease!
The so called "secondary Explosion effect" in Fact is a Detonation. "Burning" or detonating Nitro cellulosis (and maybe Nitroglycereince) Powder disintegrate completely different. I put "burning" in Quotation marks, as usually to "burn" means to combust a reducing Stuff under oxidizing Air. This is her not the Case. Nitro cellulose, in double based Propellants Nitro glycerine may be inflamed on the Surface and then internally change Composition from cold solid Matter to hot Gases. No external Oxygen is needed. The resulting Gases themselves are not fully oxydized, "burnt" and will, when exposed to Air, burn, if certain Circumstances are met, mostly Volume and Temperature. Double based Powders, for instance the Vihtavuori N5xy Series, are contain relatively little chemically bound Oxygen, are there fore prone to melon large orange Fireballs before the Muzzle. Higher Pressure, longer Barrels, single based highly nitrated Powders like those from Bofors, help to avoid the Flash. If that is not enough, I designed a few have gas dynamic Devices to fully absorb Muzzle flash for the Night hunter with sensitive Optics, that can be obtained. Ignited Nitro cellulose propellants decompose with a Flame with a few hundred Meters per second under Pressure. The Speed greatly depends on Pressure and also on Humidity. Uncontained in the open NC Propellants decompose rather slow, much slower than the old Black powder, that inflames rater quick and is there for the more dangerous Substance to handle and store.
As NC Propellants ignite not so well, the Ignition becomes tricky. Aggravation stems from the Fact, that NC Propellant manufactures treat the Surface in a Way that hinders Ignition even more. The don't do that out of Dumbness or less Need. As I said, NC Propellants decompose much faster with Pressure the Manufactures try to design Propellants, that some how lessens that Effect to be able to fill more Powder in a Case without generating excessive Pressure. Shot Gun Cartriges need that not, but Rifle cartridges do, especially over bore Cartridges as the 5,6x61 Super Expreß vom Hofe. Manufactures resort to chemical and geometrical Solutions, such as Surface passivation with Campher or TNT (poisonous, done in America) and for Instance a cylinder shape to keep the exposed and active Surface over the decomposition time constant.
NC Propellants conduct no Current. They are Insulators. As such mechanical Contacts can generate detaches electrical Loads, called "Static Electricity". As long as the mechanically generated Loads stay static, means remain, where they are, no one would or should worry. But is the Electrical field exceeds the Ionisation limit of the Matter in between the opposite Loads, a lightning occurs. This can not only happen in a Thunder storm in the Sky but also between Propellant particles in a loaded Cartridge. The Ammunition manufactures no guess, the Customers want a Gun than bangs, when they pull the Trigger, but not, when thy simply shake it. The for the Propellant manufactures ad conducting Coal in the Form of fine Graphite flakes to the Powder. The Graphite makes it shining dark. Untreated NC Powder is light green.
So NC Propellants are for good Reasons hard to ignite .
Lets now come to Detonation. Usual Explosives used in Minging, Drilling, the Military or wherever useful can mostly be handled with ease. The are hard to ignite, burn slowly in the open but still can to the Trick, when properly ignited. The so called Detonators contain small amounts of Substances that explode upon some initiation, be it mechanically, electrically or other. The generate a very fast mechanical Push. It's this mechanical Push, that detonates the Explosives. The exploding Substance decomposes (generating hot Gases under Pressure) with sonic Speed in the Substance, that is a few thousands Meters per second. So a Detonation happens in a Fraction of Time, than a decomposing NC propellant in a Rifle Cartridge.
Dynamic Expansion is another Thing to consider. When Your fire a Rifle Cartridge at say 50 bar (Value must not be right) the Case mouth opens and the Bullet is free. Then ist moves a little forward and reached the Lands. Now, depending an Material and Construction, 150 to 800 bar must pressure against the Bullet bottom to pres it into the Lands. The Lead and Throat dimensions greatly influence, how this happens. Then, after the Bullet runs with Friction down the Barrel, the Situation is more mass dependant and easier to calculate. All the Time the Volume behind the Bullet, that contain the Powder, changes. Interior Ballistics have to handle that.
If now a NC Propellant would detonate, the Speed would be so high, that the Bullet would not move a Tick, and no additional Volume would ease the Pressure.
If You only partly fill a long Cartridge with heavy and dense Powder grains, that is slow burning double based Powders, only partly the following will occur, if Powder happens to be on the lower Part of the Case. The Primer flash reaches the Powder from behind. The Powder partly ignites from the bottom and generates Pressure. Before is no Pressure Yet. When enough heavy and dense Powder grains jam against the Case shoulder or the Bullet bottom, the mechanical Push may detonate them. If only one detonates and others are near by a Chain reaction will follow and the hole Cartrigde will explode and the Rifle will follow suite. BANG!
Now we understood, how a Detonation works, Means to control it are obvious. Avoid free Acceleration lengths!
Rule 1: Always fill any Cartridge full. That is the Volume inside wit the Bullet seated must contain less the 5% empty space. I do not mean the Space between the Powder grains, but she poured Volume. If You consider the Case Volume alone, like QuickLoad does, anything less than 90% is bad. As a practical Rule fill any Case a t least up to the Shoulder, never less.
Rule 2. A stuffed Case, that is with a compressed Load, is the safest. First no free Acceleration length exits and second whn You shake ita nd it rattles You know the load is incomplete and and dangerous, even when You have no Scale at Hand and not made the Ammunition by Yourself.
is a Cartridge that is easy and hence always consistently to ignite. Overbore Cartridges with very highly passivated Powders with large Grains and small Surface per Mass and large Size are not so easy to ignite. Bigger Cases resort to Boosters and Flash pipes to the Front, but regular Rifle cases (How big do You use them in New Zealand for Whale and Stuff, 50 mm Cannons?) like we use her in old Europe can be handled less such Additions.
Now the Geometry comes into Play. The longer the Powder coulumn is, You have to ignite, the longer it takes and the less consistent the Propellant will will decompose into hot pressing Gases, we need to accelerate our Bullets. The best Geometry would be a Ball with the Ignition from the Middle, but where would then there be the outlet to the Barrel? So next best in almost cylinder shaped Case that gives more Surface per less length, that is short and fat. Those short fat Cases ignite more Powder in a shorter Time that comparably thiner and longer Cases (Pencil cases).
If You can use a lighter bullet, then faster Powder may be used, that is less passivated has a larger Surface per Masse, hence easier to ignite. With Copper bullets You may use lighter Bullets then before, as the penetrate deeper than lead bullets and must therefore not be so heavy and slow.
Your 5,6x61 Super Expreß vom Hof is History and difficult to tame to behave. Ict can be done and when You want tauloed Bullest, You can have them, but I suggest to resort to ballistic sounder Deesign.
Sincerely, Lutz Moeller
When I originally wrote to you, it was with a mind to be brief,
rather than go into detail as I assumed you'd be fully familiar with this
subject anyway. However, now that I find our discussion on the World Wide Web,
it might pay for me to fill in some of the gaps.
I'm writing from New Zealand where calibres such as the 5,6x57 S.E. vom Hofe are
practically never met with. Similarly information on them is pretty thin at
best. It is only from a number of friends, mostly German ones, that I have much
of anything to go on. For instance, from my good friend Klaus I have a copy of
the RWS book Wiederladen, (1. Auflage 1983). This refers to the 5,6x61 S.E.
calibre and to pressure problems associated with it. Incidentally, there are
confirmed DWM cases in this caliber headstamped "m-m" so the cartridge must have
been around in 1934, not 1937 as so often repeated.
What I was trying to do was to establish just what RWS were referring to in 1983
when they talked, for instance, of Secondary Explosion Effect, (S.E.E.). I'm
informed by a powder company expert that, when used properly, the term S.E.E.
refers only to a phenomenon that was typically observed in 16" navel guns firing
black powder loads, wherein the residual ejecta of unburnt powder and vapour
exploded outside the barrel. So while the term S.E.E. is often used to refer to
dangerous pressure excursions within rifles, it is apparently quite erroneous in
this context. In fact, I find its use in that rifle context is not standardised
and different people use S.E.E. to mean quite different things.
From information printed in Australia in August 1977, (as close as I can get to
the RWS publication date of 1983), the thinking at that time was that S.E.E.
(sic. - in rifles), was that it was associated with typically overbored
cartridges that were underloaded with slowest burning rate powders. So for
instance, the .244 H&H, (which used a .375H&H case necked down to 6mm), was a
prominent contender when loaded with reduced loads of 5010; a .50 BMG powder. I
recall a detailed discussion in American Rifleman wherein H&H had all sorts of
problems with this cartridge. The 5,6x61 SE vom Hofe was also, with then
available powders, in the same "over-bore" problem category.
Now here's the caveat: some of these "S.E.E". theories are doubtless less in
favour or indeed out of favour today as newer observations and experiments
narrow down the possible explanations for destroyed rifles. But I'm not
endorsing these theories, just trying to get a handle on what my dated 1983
information from RWS refers to.
Although so-called S.E.E. was very difficult to repeat "in the laboratory", (one
frustrated researcher even doubted it existed !), a popular theory advanced was
that the primer flashed over the surface of the powder only igniting part of it.
This created just enough pressure to force the bullet forward into the forcing
cone of the bore where friction brought it to a temporary halt. Milliseconds
later, the entire charge is ignited but the lodged bullet is unable to
accelerate forward quickly enough to release the rapidly developing beach
pressure. One writer referred to this as the Double Ignition Theory.
RWS in 1983 refer also to too weak an initialisation of the powder as also being
a possible cause. This might be the case if the primer were contaminated with
oil, if it were seated too deep in the primer pocket or if the firing pin did
not strike it sufficiently hard due to a weak spring or damaged tip. More recent
observations on this problem note that the surviving shooters recall hearing a
snap sound, then the big boom as in "Ka...Boom". It is postulated that the
incomplete ignition that followed the (for whatever reason) too weak primer
spark, led to a temporary deflagration or short smouldering phase. Milliseconds
later, the now mainly gaseous state of the charge is a much more perfect
explosive medium, unlike the carefully retarded powder granules it replaced. So
when it goes Boom, an extremely high pressure spike blows the gun apart.
RWS then refer to "Druckwellenueberlagerung" which I presume might be something
like a Wave Pressure Peak. (I need a German-English Waffen Lexicon !). I think
this is what researcher Dr. J. Corner described in 1950 in "Theory of Interior
Ballistics of Guns". Namely, that the powder gas, being a compressible medium
did not support a regular pressure from point to point and was therefore higher
in one region than another. The high-pressure regions travel as a front and such
regions of higher pressure become steeper and eventually form into sudden jumps
in pressure within a thin but finite zone. A shock wave then is a single jump of
pressure leaving behind a gas of higher temperature. When the case is only half
full or less, and the powder lying evenly along the case, such pressure fronts
can travel with sonic velocity to either end of the cylinder formed by the case
head and the bullet base. At the point the high pressure waves come into phase,
extremely high pressures result, as much as 100,000p.s.i. This same shock wave
is suppressed when the case is loaded to more than 70% density.
Ackley also refers to partial misfires, that send the loosely filed, underloaded
charge tightly into the neck area of the cartridge. Some theories expand on this
to suggest that it is this partially burned wad of powder that creates the
blockage and state that, to avoid this, the charge needs to be held against the
primer by using fillers such as Dacron. More recently using fillers seems to be
in disgrace. However, I don't think RWS was referring to Ackley's observations.
What I noticed with the 5,6x61S.E. vom Hofe is that the powders listed in the
few references I was able to gather in New Zealand, such as Cartridges of the
World 5th and 10th editions, and an article by Al Miller in Rifle Magazine,
(January 1971), did not approach full load density. A now departed friend, Dr
Horst, gave me his then latest copy of Wild und hund, 25 Mai 1986 as it had an
item that he knew I'd be interested in on East Prussian deer history. Quite by
chance, it also had a letter from Gehmann in Karlsruhe which stated that, since
Hodgdon 870 powder and loading data had become available, 3 years earlier, that
100% loading density was obtainable in the 5,6x61 SE. As a consequence, their
customers had no more complaints!
Having said this, the Rifle Magazine article, "The Amazing 5,6x61 vom Hofe"
particularly recommended NOT using H-870 as it "proved to be too slow although,
remarkably enough, a full charge - 62 grains - behind the (70-grains) Barnes
bullet went off with a distinct "crack" completely unlike the usual dull thump
so characteristic of it's use in other rounds". Notwithstanding this, I've
recently been sent some current German data that still recommends it.
When I asked the gun-shop in Germany, that sold me the rifle, if they could
recommend any loading data, they forwarded me your loading data for KJG bullets
for the 5,6x61 S.E. As I mentioned, I'm from New Zealand where we have access to
many reloading items but there are also many gaps. For instance, there is no RWS
powder here, no Norma rifle powder, no Vectan and no PCL. Until very recently
getting Vihtavuori N540 from New Zealand's South Island agent, across the Cook
Straight, with all the explosive carriage regulations, was like trying to get
live sable out of Russia. With the supply of N540 now sorted, it looked like I
finally had some near 100% loading density data for a powder that I could buy
here.
I'm aware that these copper KJG bullets will be longer for any given weight than
their lead equivalents. Also that, at the tremendous rotational speed the vom
Hofe round travels at, twist rate is clearly an issue to contend with. My rifle
has a 25" long barrel, 1 in 9" (220mm) twist. Some of the rifles in this calibre
seem to have been faster at 1 in 8,1/2" and some slower at 1 in 14". However,
although the word "Drall" appears on your loading data, there is nothing beside
it to indicate what twist you were recommending. I recall the twist rate of the
Mauser 66 in the your text on the "Gamsflitzer" was 1 in 230mm. I don't know the
twist rate of Ferlach barrels you refer to, though reputedly my rifle was sold
to, (and perhaps embellished for), it's first owner by a member of the Ferlach
Guild, which may of course, simply be a red-herring in terms of this discussion.
So you'll have to forgive my ignorance if I didn't catch on to some nuance of
how it is that the 26mm long KJG bullets won't marry up with the rifle in
question which, incidentally, in answer to your question, is in near new
condition.
Now a couple of asides:
You mentioned in jest shooting whales here in New Zealand. It just so happens
that as a Wildlife Officer, shooting whales is one thing I was trained to do, if
necessary, (not yet, Touchwood!). A good friend of mine actually has the job of
shooting whales that strand themselves on the beach, firstly to prevent them
calling in others of the pod to strand, (and so compounding the disaster), and
also to simply put them out of their misery. Depending on the size of the whale,
the species and etc, a .22 rimfire can kill it cleanly or a .458 Lott, (and even
a Russian anti-tank gun has been tried), can fail if it is not used with skill
and knowledge. Though the skull is not as dense as an elephant, the blubber and
whale meat are incredibly dense, possibly to withstand deep dives. He has
actually co-authored a scientific paper on this subject.
Lastly, F.Y.I. you refer on another webpage, (that also mentions the 5,6x61
S.E.) to a shooting box used by the German Kaiser: There are a number of books
concerning Rominten and other East Prussian hunting preserves, (I have a copy of
one by F. von Raesfeld and Kurt Reulecke). But I recalled from 20 years or more
ago, a book called "Twelve Years at the Imperial German Court" by Count Robert
Zedlitz-Truetzschler, (1924), which referred to the Emperor's "shooting box".
Unfortunately, this quite interesting and intimate account of the hunts in that
region was, when I ratted it out again, referring to the Norwegian styled
"lodge", rather than an actual brick "shooting box" of the style that your
photos depicted. Translation problem ! Animals from Brandenburg and other East
Prussian states were caught up by a succession of Electors and sent to England
for various reasons. These same English parks much later sent red and fallow
deer to New Zealand. Some years afterwards, it was noticed that animals from the
New Zealand deer herds had many antler and body characteristics in common with
their German ancestors. This came as something of a surprise, (a shock even), to
the English in the 1920's when official inquiries were made from here, as they'd
quite forgotten their park histories and their German connections. I've visited
many of these parks since, met many nice people and researched the archived
material myself in all 3 countries. But there we must leave this discussion.
Kind regards, John Dyer
When I originally wrote to you, it was with a mind to be brief,
rather than go into detail as I assumed you'd be fully familiar with this
subject anyway. However, now that I find our discussion
on the World Wide Web, it might pay for me to fill in some of the gaps.
I'm writing from New Zealand where calibres such as the 5,6x61 S.E. vom Hofe are
practically never met with. Similarly information on them is pretty thin at
best. It is only from a number of friends, mostly German ones, that I have much
of anything to go on. For instance, from my good friend Klaus I have a copy of
the RWS book Wiederladen, (1. Auflage 1983). This refers to the 5,6x61 S.E.
calibre and to pressure problems associated with it. Incidentally, there are
confirmed DWM cases in this caliber headstamped "m-m" so the cartridge must have
been around in 1934, not 1937 as so often repeated.
What I was trying to do was to establish just what RWS were referring to in 1983
when they talked, for instance, of Secondary Explosion Effect, (S. E. E.). I'm
informed by a powder company expert that, when used properly, the term S. E. E.
refers only to a phenomenon that was typically observed in 16" navel guns firing
black powder loads, wherein the residual ejecta of unburnt powder and vapour
exploded outside the barrel. So while the term S. E. E. is often used to refer
to dangerous pressure excursions within rifles, it is apparently quite erroneous
in this context. In fact, I find its use in that rifle context is not
standardised and different people use S. E. E. to mean quite different things.
From information printed in Australia in August 1977, (as close as I can get to
the RWS publication date of 1983), the thinking at that time was that S. E. E.
(sic. - in rifles), was that it was associated with typically overbored
cartridges that were underloaded with slowest burning rate powders. So for
instance, the .244 H&H, (which used a .375H&H case necked down to 6mm), was a
prominent contender when loaded with reduced loads of 5010; a .50 BMG powder. I
recall a detailed discussion in American Rifleman wherein H&H had all sorts of
problems with this cartridge. The 5,6x61 SE vom Hofe was also, with then
available powders, in the same "over-bore" problem category.
Now here's the caveat: some of these "S. E. E". theories are doubtless less in
favour or indeed out of favour today as newer observations and experiments
narrow down the possible explanations for destroyed rifles. But I'm not
endorsing these theories, just trying to get a handle on what my dated 1983
information from RWS refers to.
Although so-called S. E. E. was very difficult to repeat "in the laboratory",
(one frustrated researcher even doubted it existed !), a popular theory advanced
was that the primer flashed over the surface of the powder only igniting part of
it. This created just enough pressure to force the bullet forward into the
forcing cone of the bore where friction brought it to a temporary halt.
Milliseconds later, the entire charge is ignited but the lodged bullet is unable
to accelerate forward quickly enough to release the rapidly developing beach
pressure. One writer referred to this as the Double Ignition Theory.
RWS in 1983 refer also to too weak an initialisation of the powder as also being
a possible cause. This might be the case if the primer were contaminated with
oil, if it were seated too deep in the primer pocket or if the firing pin did
not strike it sufficiently hard due to a weak spring or damaged tip. More recent
observations on this problem note that the surviving shooters recall hearing a
snap sound, then the big boom as in "Ka...Boom". It is postulated that the
incomplete ignition that followed the (for whatever reason) too weak primer
spark, led to a temporary deflagration or short smouldering phase. Milliseconds
later, the now mainly gaseous state of the charge is a much more perfect
explosive medium, unlike the carefully retarded powder granules it replaced. So
when it goes Boom, an extremely high pressure spike blows the gun apart.
RWS then refer to "Druckwellenueberlagerung" which I presume might be something
like a Wave Pressure Peak. (I need a German-English Waffen Lexicon !). I think
this is what researcher Dr. J. Corner described in 1950 in "Theory of Interior
Ballistics of Guns". Namely, that the powder gas, being a compressible medium
did not support a regular pressure from point to point and was therefore higher
in one region than another. The high-pressure regions travel as a front and such
regions of higher pressure become steeper and eventually form into sudden jumps
in pressure within a thin but finite zone. A shock wave then is a single jump of
pressure leaving behind a gas of higher temperature. When the case is only half
full or less, and the powder lying evenly along the case, such pressure fronts
can travel with sonic velocity to either end of the cylinder formed by the case
head and the bullet base. At the point the high pressure waves come into phase,
extremely high pressures result, as much as 100,000p.s.i. This same shock wave
is suppressed when the case is loaded to more than 70% density.
Ackley also refers to partial misfires, that send the loosely filed, underloaded
charge tightly into the neck area of the cartridge. Some theories expand on this
to suggest that it is this partially burned wad of powder that creates the
blockage and state that, to avoid this, the charge needs to be held against the
primer by using fillers such as Dacron. More recently using fillers seems to be
in disgrace. However, I don't think RWS was referring to Ackley's observations.
What I noticed with the 5,6x61S.E. vom Hofe is that the powders listed in the
few references I was able to gather in New Zealand, such as Cartridges of the
World 5th and 10th editions, and an article by Al Miller in Rifle Magazine,
(January 1971), did not approach full load density. A now departed friend, Dr.
Horst, gave me his then latest copy of Wild und Hund, 25 Mai 1986 as it had an
item that he knew I'd be interested in on East Prussian deer history. Quite by
chance, it also had a letter from Gehmann in Karlsruhe which stated that, since
Hodgdon 870 powder and loading data had become available, 3 years earlier, that
100% loading density was obtainable in the 5,6x61 SE. As a consequence, their
customers had no more complaints!
Having said this, the Rifle Magazine article, "The Amazing 5,6x61 vom Hofe"
particularly recommended NOT using H-870 as it "proved to be too slow although,
remarkably enough, a full charge - 62 grains - behind the (70-grains) Barnes
bullet went off with a distinct "crack" completely unlike the usual dull thump
so characteristic of it's use in other rounds". Notwithstanding this, I've
recently been sent some current German data that still recommends it.
When I asked the gun-shop in Germany, that sold me the rifle, if they could
recommend any loading data, they forwarded me your
loading data for KJG bullets for the 5,6x61 S.E.
As I mentioned, I'm from New Zealand where we have access to many reloading
items but there are also many gaps. For instance, there is no RWS powder here,
no Norma rifle powder, no Vectan and no PCL. Until very recently getting
Vihtavuori N540 from New Zealand's South Island agent, across the Cook Straight,
with all the explosive carriage regulations, was like trying to get live sable
out of Russia. With the supply of N540 now sorted, it looked like I finally had
some near 100% loading density data for a powder that I could buy here.
I'm aware that these copper KJG bullets will be longer for any given weight than
their lead equivalents. Also that, at the tremendous rotational speed the vom
Hofe round travels at, twist rate is clearly an issue to contend with. My rifle
has a 25" long barrel, 1 in 9" (220 mm) twist. Some of the rifles in this
calibre seem to have been faster at 1 in 8,1/2" and some slower at 1 in 14".
However, although the word "Drall" appears on your loading data, there is
nothing beside it to indicate what twist you were recommending. I recall the
twist rate of the Mauser 66 in the your text on the "Gamsflitzer" was 1 in 230
mm. I don't know the twist rate of Ferlach barrels you refer to, though
reputedly my rifle was sold to, (and perhaps embellished for), it's first owner
by a member of the Ferlach Guild, which may of course, simply be a red-herring
in terms of this discussion.
So you'll have to forgive my ignorance if I didn't catch on to some nuance of
how it is that the 26 mm long KJG bullets won't marry up with the rifle in
question which, incidentally, in answer to your question, is in near new
condition.
Now a couple of asides:
You mentioned in jest shooting whales here in New Zealand. It just so happens
that as a Wildlife Officer, shooting whales is one thing I was trained to do, if
necessary, (not yet, Touchwood!). A good friend of mine actually has the job of
shooting whales that strand themselves on the beach, firstly to prevent them
calling in others of the pod to strand, (and so compounding the disaster), and
also to simply put them out of their misery. Depending on the size of the whale,
the species and etc, a .22" rimfire can kill it cleanly or a .458" Lott, (and
even a Russian anti-tank gun has been
tried), can fail if it is not used with skill and knowledge. Though the skull is
not as dense as an elephant, the blubber and whale meat are incredibly dense,
possibly to withstand deep dives. He has actually co-authored a scientific paper
on this subject.
Lastly, F.Y.I. you refer on another webpage, (that also mentions the 5,6x61
S.E.) to a shooting box used by the German Kaiser: There are a number of books
concerning Rominten and other East Prussian hunting preserves, (I have a copy of
one by F. von Raesfeld and Kurt Reulecke). But I recalled from 20 years or more
ago, a book called "Twelve Years at the Imperial German Court" by Count Robert
Zedlitz-Truetzschler, (1924), which referred to the Emperor's "shooting box".
Unfortunately, this quite interesting and intimate account of the hunts in that
region was, when I ratted it out again, referring to the Norwegian styled
"lodge", rather than an actual brick "shooting box" of the style that your
photos depicted. Translation problem ! Animals from Brandenburg and other East
Prussian states were caught up by a succession of Electors and sent to England
for various reasons. These same English parks much later sent red and fallow
deer to New Zealand. Some years afterwards, it was noticed that animals from the
New Zealand deer herds had many antler and body characteristics in common with
their German ancestors. This came as something of a surprise, (a shock even), to
the English in the 1920's when official inquiries were made from here, as they'd
quite forgotten their park histories and their German connections. I've visited
many of these parks since, met many nice people and researched the archived
material myself in all 3 countries. But there we must leave this discussion.
Kind regards. John Dyer. Dienstag, 19. Dezember 2006 13:40
Dear Mr. Dyer,
I am glad You exposed me about the original Meaning of seconday Explosion Effect, as an Black powder Gases afterburn in the open before the Muzzle. I know that well, but nowadays more from Nitro powders. I call it "Muzzle flash" and Devices to thwart it "Flash hiders". Not beeing a native English speaker there may be better Words to name these Things. Have a Look:
Old, outdated 8,5 mm Recoil brake | 7,62 mm H &K G3 Flash hider | 8,3 mm Flash hider | current 9,3 and 8 mm hdp Recoil Brakes
Old, outdated 8,5 mm Recoil brake | 7,62 mm H &K G3 Flash hider | 8,3 mm Flash hider | current 9,3 and 8 mm hdp Recoil Brakes
While all my Recoil brakes, no Matter which Construction largely eat the Flash, they always move the Peak noise from the Front to the Side, thereby increasing the Level about 6 dB(A) at shooters Eear. Keen Stalkers on the Wild Boar cannot accept their Rifle to blind or deafen them after a Shot on a Wild Boar at Night from close Distance, as the Boar might get them. Having been shot before, they usually loose their Temper and either run or attack. In the latter Case the Hunters Senses must work best. To grant that, I designed Flash hiders that eat the Flash but do not raise the Sound pressure at the Shooters ear. They are small, lightweight and efficient. Even more suppressing Solutions are available, but the less Sound pressure You want the more Volume You must allow. Fully silent Solutions are possible.
If possible, I would like to obtain a Scan or a Copy of the Report dealing Whale shooting. As I mostly care about the Interaction between Bullet and Target, I would like to Read, what Co-Authors say.
The 5,6x61 KJG was specific made to shoot from a 75 cm long Barrel with 200 mm Twist length. They would not stabilize from longer Twist. The Barrel was for reasonable Money custom made in Ferlach. The specific Design goal was to have the flattest shooting Cartridge for Foxes out to 400 m. If You would like to obtain Bullets for Your Twist, I will happily supply with accompanying Ballistics, provided You take 300 Pieces and prepay them.
Sincerely, Lutz Möller
Lutz,
"Flash hider" barrel attachments are mostly known here as
"flash suppressors", though I'm sure any shooter would understand either term.
I've not been on the wrong end of a firefight, but I was told during my short
stint in the army territorials, that unsuppressed muzzle flashes readily do give
concealed positions away, probably in lower light conditions especially.
We also have 24-hour shooting of geese in this region and muzzle flash from
slow-burning magnum shotshells means that, the first shot can often be blinding
to established night-vision. The cure is to use more standard loads as the
targets are usually closer anyway
As you say, "muzzle flash" is something else. I've had it in carbine length
barrels in .308" Winchester and 9x56 Mannlicher-Schoenauer. In one instance, the
9x56 M-S made much the same unusual "crack" noise that Al Miller seemed to
describe in his 5,6x61 S.E. article. From observation it seemed to be caused by
unburnt powder exploding after muzzle exit and was cured by a change to a
heavier bullet weight.
I'll ask Bill about a copy of the published paper on whales he referred to, as I
recall, in the New Zealand Journal of Science. I'd be interested to read it
myself.
Kind regards and thank you for all your help., John Dyer, Mittwoch, 20. Dezember
2006 08:10
