From time to time I’ll get a call from someone asking for load information from an article that I had written some time in the past. Some times it’s something from waaaaay back in the past. Unfortunately, I’ve gotten to the point that I’ve published data on so many loads that I just can’t remember them all unless I happen to be using them for myself on a regular basis. When that happens, I’ll have to take the person’s name and number, hang up, run madly to the computer to dig up the info, and then call back. It’s all good fun and there’s nothing I enjoy more than to chat with silhouette shooters from literally all over the world.

     However, there’s a faster alternative if you have internet access. For the last couple of years, all of my feature articles and Ranging Shot columns have also been published on the Los Angeles Silhouette Club’s web site (www.lasc.us/ihmsanewsarticles). This is probably the busiest silhouette site on the internet and gets around a quarter million visitors, and the numbers keep edging upward. Obviously, not all those visitors are silhouette shooters so it’s safe to say that it’s also one of the very best advertising tools that IHMSA has to get the word out on our sport. To quote a recent visitor "This is a great site".

Energy & Momentum - Speaking of phone calls. I got a couple recently asking about how much velocity was needed to take down the rams reliably. Actually the shooters should have been asking how much momentum was needed and how do you get it. A couple of other callers asked how much energy was needed to take down the rams.

     Obviously, there’s still a lot of confusion out there about this issue of energy versus momentum, and which is the better way to estimate a load’s effectiveness on a distant target. This isn’t surprising since the ammo industry still publishes energy ratings for its products in their catalogs and don’t say a single word about momentum. Additionally, most state fish and game departments require that ammunition must develop certain minimum levels of energy to harvest game. They also say nothing about momentum. So apparently everyone measures load effectiveness by the amount of energy it develops - except us. Just rebels I guess. So let’s look at how these numbers are derived.

     Kinetic energy is measured in foot pounds. To calculate kinetic energy, first square the velocity, then multiply that value times the weight of the bullet in grains, and lastly divide the result by the mathematical constant 450240.

     From time to time I’ll get a call from someone asking for load information from an article that I had written some time in the past. Some times it’s something from waaaaay back in the past. Unfortunately, I’ve gotten to the point that I’ve published data on so many loads that I just can’t remember them all unless I happen to be using them for myself on a regular basis. When that happens, I’ll have to take the person’s name and number, hang up, run madly to the computer to dig up the info, and then call back. It’s all good fun and there’s nothing I enjoy more than to chat with silhouette shooters from literally all over the world.

     However, there’s a faster alternative if you have internet access. For the last couple of years, all of my feature articles and Ranging Shot columns have also been published on the Los Angeles Silhouette Club’s web site (www.lasc.us/ihmsanewsarticles). This is probably the busiest silhouette site on the internet and gets around a quarter million visitors, and the numbers keep edging upward. Obviously, not all those visitors are silhouette shooters so it’s safe to say that it’s also one of the very best advertising tools that IHMSA has to get the word out on our sport. To quote a recent visitor "This is a great site".

Energy & Momentum - Speaking of phone calls. I got a couple recently asking about how much velocity was needed to take down the rams reliably. Actually the shooters should have been asking how much momentum was needed and how do you get it. A couple of other callers asked how much energy was needed to take down the rams.

     Obviously, there’s still a lot of confusion out there about this issue of energy versus momentum, and which is the better way to estimate a load’s effectiveness on a distant target. This isn’t surprising since the ammo industry still publishes energy ratings for its products in their catalogs and don’t say a single word about momentum. Additionally, most state fish and game departments require that ammunition must develop certain minimum levels of energy to harvest game. They also say nothing about momentum. So apparently everyone measures load effectiveness by the amount of energy it develops - except us. Just rebels I guess. So let’s look at how these numbers are derived.

     Kinetic energy is measured in foot pounds. To calculate kinetic energy, first square the velocity, then multiply that value times the weight of the bullet in grains, and lastly divide the result by the mathematical constant 450240.

     Right away the astute reader has probably detected the flaw in the formula which really makes kinetic energy a poor standard to judge the effectiveness of a load. Here’s why. In order to determine the number of foot pounds, the first thing we do is square the velocity. Velocity is obviously the overwhelming factor in the formula and is given far more importance than the bullet weight. Consequently, this can distort our expectations of real world results. Let me give you an example.

     If you go to Winchester’s ammo catalog, you’ll see that the factory 220 Swift load with its 40 grain bullet has a muzzle velocity of 4050 fps. When you do the math to determine its energy rating at 100 yards, you’ll find that it carries an extremely impressive 1199 foot pounds of kinetic energy at that distance.

     Now turn a couple of pages and look up the numbers and do the math for Winchester’s 300 grain 454 Casull load for the same distance. You’ll find that it carries only 1141 foot pounds of energy. That’s 58 foot pounds less than the Swift. Does anyone reading this really believe that a 40 grain bullet will take down a steel or a game animal more effectively than a 300 grain Casull bullet? I hope not.

     Let’s talk momentum now. To put it simplistically, momentum is the characteristic of a moving body to stay in motion, even after it collides with another object. The formula for momentum takes a more balanced approach to determining a result. Velocity is given less importance and weight is given more. Momentum is determined by multiplying impact velocity times the weight of the bullet in grains. That result is then divided by the mathematical constant 225200. The solution is expressed in pound-seconds.

     Even high quality plastic coated rods can cause wear without a bore guide because they’ve picked up abrasive grit from the ash and powder debris left behind from our last firing session. When that stuff gets on a cleaning rod, it turns it into the equivalent of a very fine round file working on the interior of your barrel. It may take a while, but eventually metal wear is inevitably going to occur.

     While bore guides for rifles are pretty ubiquitous, they’re not that widespread for single shot pistols. Fortunately for owners of the XP-100, which is based on a rifle action, bore guides are available from several sources. Similarly, Contender owners hit the jackpot back in 1996 when Sinclair International (260-493-1858) came out with a line of inexpensive bore guides. Since then, they’ve also added additional guides for the Encore as well. I have several of these and I wouldn’t clean my Contenders or Contender carbines with anything else. However, if you’re a MOA or BF owner, finding a bore guide is very problematic.

     There is a simple solution to this situation however, and that is to use an old cartridge case that has been fired in the gun in question. All you have to do is drill out the primer pocket flash hole large enough so that a cleaning rod can be passed through. You now have a bore guide that will fit your chamber exactly. It works and the price is certainly right.

224 Montgomery - I was scrounging through a desk drawer the other day and came across a 224 Montgomery cartridge that I hadn’t seen in probably five years. Tim Montgomery is the guy that runs our marksmanship program and is one of those tireless workers that keeps doing his thing year after year for IHMSA and doesn’t get a darn thing out of it, except perhaps grief.

     Anyway, Tim, who likes to have fun with things, cooked up this idea for this new cartridge for his TC. Basically, it’s a 25 ACP necked down to .224 inches. Last time I talked to Tim about this inspiration (some time ago), he said he could get sub one inch groups on a still day at 100 yards. A typical load for the Montgomery is 1.8 grains of Bullseye, or 2 grains of Unique with a 40 grain Hornady V-Max or a Nosler 40 grain boat tail. Considering that there are 7000 grains in a pound of powder, a can of Bullseye will last a long time.

     These loads will produce around 1300 feet per second out of his 1:12 twist barrel. I imagine that Tim is probably getting around 1800 fps with the newer 35 and 33 grain bullets from Hornady and Speer now. Then there’s also the 30 grain Berger which would be perfect for the little case. I’ll bet a TC chambered in the Montgomery would be perfect for shooting rats down at the local dump. Little noise, no recoil, and deadly accurate.

Sand Bags & Such Things - I often use an Uncle Bud’s butterfly shaped sand bag when I do load testing at the range. They come in two sizes - one for pistols and a longer one for rifles. The main customers for these bags are varmint shooters who like to splatter the nasty little critters with their specialty rifles when shooting from the hoods of their trucks. Because of the design and the fact the top is made from suede leather, the bag grips the stock of your gun in a very snug manner and makes a very stable platform from which to shoot.

     The bad news is that because they’re so large, when filled with play sand from Home Depot, they weigh 40 pounds. Lugging one of those any kind of distance is no fun. Even a single, regularly sized sand bag will weigh around 8-10 pounds each. When checking out loads with regular bags, I’ll use a stack of six. So hauling these things from your car to your shooting bench can be a muscle straining hassle.

     Lynn Hayes gave me this tip to get around this problem several years ago and it works great. When filling your sand bags, use rice instead. It’s nice and light and it fills the bags just as well as sand. No more straining to carry it back and forth from the car. The rice filled bags also conform around the contour of your gun even better than sand for a better grip. The really interesting thing about using rice is the fact that when you buy it in the really big bags, the cost isn’t a whole lot different than what a big bag of sand costs. Figure that out. So if someone says food is as cheap as dirt, it’s probably true. Now over time and with rough treatment, the rice grains might break up and become smaller causing the bag to loosen up and start to lose its shape. This will require you to add a bit more rice from time to time to get the bag firmed up again, but it’s no big deal. Any rice left over after you fill your bags can then be put in a steamer and can end up on the dinner table. What a deal.