18 replies to this topic

[Lame Bear]

I ran across some 555 white box bashing on another rf site??? Since I have personaly shot 6000 rnds. of red box with 1 lo powered&1 ftf I decided I would bring out 3 white boxes & see what we get. Should have a report in a couple of weeks. L.B.

[Danny Creasy]

Looking forward to your results.

[rem511]

My impression on the white box is a good plinking/ squirrel round.

[Lame Bear]

Danny & rem511:  The wind has been howlin out of the Gulf for about 10 days so I'm waitin awhile. I will do it but I wanta do it right . rem I too am very happy with the accuarcy. I just want see if anything has changed with the box color. I doubt it but  some folks on other sites think so. Hope everyone in the South is well. We know your weather has been rough & were thinking about you. L.B.

[Lame Bear]

Test results on WW 555 white box. I had 6 boxes. There were 5 different lot numbers because I bought the last 2 at the same time. I poured ea. box out on a table & shuffled them around like dominos. I had my wife pick out 25 rounds from where ever she wished . Believe me It sure was random. Ishot 5ea. 5 shot groups at 50 yds. I had no ftf  nor lo vel. Groups were 13/16" 13/16" with 8 mph cross wind 9/16' 9/16" -0- wind & 11/16" 3/4" 5 mph cross wind. The last 2 were same lot no. If I run into a prob. I will post it. These type groups were the same as red box. L.B.

[Lame Bear]

Six targets - 5 groups of 5 shots per target. This should be easier to understand. Also the exsposure to cross wind is only from rear of 25 yd. hill & front of 50 yd. hill or about 7 yds. Thanks L.B.

[rem511]

Sounds good to me. Especially for the money.

[Lame Bear]

Danny Creasy & rem511. I picked up 3 more boxes of white box triple nickel before they hiked the price. I'll be a while but I'll post those when I can. I'm sure no one goes to the trouble but I'll post lot nos. also. Wish everyone safe & fun shooting. L.B.

[Lame Bear]

Danny & rem511. I have 150 rnds. of red box left so today I checked through it & lo & behold I found 2 bullets that were deformed.I know I haven't had any like these 2 because they would have not only missed the target but the giant hill behind also.While i'm hear I have a different question. For myself rim thickness checking wasn't worth the trouble. How do you feel about weighing the rounds. I'm not trying to make WW triple nickel into something it's not,but if it's any help what type & size scale do you use? Thanks. L.B.

[Lame Bear]

Guys I finally finished a span of shooting that covers 1025 rnds. It includes lot #s,group measurement etc. It's kinda boring because it.s pretty consistant from lot # to lot #. If theres any interest I'll post it after I digest it all. Thanks guys. L.B.

[dbp1stltartillery]

Lame Bear, on 26 April 2012 - 05:12 PM, said:

Danny & rem511. I have 150 rnds. of red box left so today I checked through it & lo & behold I found 2 bullets that were deformed.I know I haven't had any like these 2 because they would have not only missed the target but the giant hill behind also.While i'm hear I have a different question. For myself rim thickness checking wasn't worth the trouble. How do you feel about weighing the rounds. I'm not trying to make WW triple nickel into something it's not,but if it's any help what type & size scale do you use? Thanks. L.B.

LB  as far as weighing the rounds..Yes, since  the Army grouped the artillery rounds into a weight class it was done for a reason..Firing Meterological firing missions and return fire on a known point for surprise fire the weight group was critical. If memory serves me right the projo was Supposed to weigh 95lbs..some were 94.5lbs and some were 96lbs for example. Our firing data was adjusted to reflect the weight group for extremely accurate fire. That being said. In rimfire is the weight variation in the case, the powder charge, or the bullet..I think the greatest possibility of weight variation would be in the lead bullet. I feel that to eliminate the true cause you would have to take one round of the 49.9's, one of the 50.1's, etc., and weigh the bullet alone to see if that is where the variation is. My suspicion is that it is the bullet. I, and many others will be following the results of your massive tests...Thank you for undertaking such a mission...Good Luck.....Dave    Deo Vindice.

[Walt]

Lame Bear, on 26 April 2012 - 05:12 PM, said:

Danny & rem511. I have 150 rnds. of red box left so today I checked through it & lo & behold I found 2 bullets that were deformed.I know I haven't had any like these 2 because they would have not only missed the target but the giant hill behind also.While i'm hear I have a different question. For myself rim thickness checking wasn't worth the trouble. How do you feel about weighing the rounds. I'm not trying to make WW triple nickel into something it's not,but if it's any help what type & size scale do you use? Thanks. L.B.

I use a RCBS rangemaster 750 for weighing.

Edited by Walt, 30 May 2012 - 07:04 AM.

[Lame Bear]

Guys forgive me for getting off subject, but I'm hoping Dave will see this, and answer it for me. I am an avid reader of military history, and I run across a term I don't understand, and I bet Dave knows the answer. It references artillery. It's 5" 38 MM. I know the 5" of course, but It's the 38 MM I don't understand. Help Dave. I won't do this again, and if there is a better place for unrelated topics, let me know. Thanks to all, especially Dave.

[Danny Creasy]

38 mm is often used in reference to grenade launchers.

[dbp1stltartillery]

Lame Bear, on 31 May 2012 - 04:58 PM, said:

Guys forgive me for getting off subject, but I'm hoping Dave will see this, and answer it for me. I am an avid reader of military history, and I run across a term I don't understand, and I bet Dave knows the answer. It references artillery. It's 5" 38 MM. I know the 5" of course, but It's the 38 MM I don't understand. Help Dave. I won't do this again, and if there is a better place for unrelated topics, let me know. Thanks to all, especially Dave.

NO PROBLEM!
  Five INCH and 38MM do not match....There was a Hotchkiss revoloving cannon that fired the 37/38 mm self contained round..The 155mm is about 6.1" in diameter and the 175mm a tad larger..I think the 5 inch may be a typo..From what I have seen in photos in the past the Hotchkiss revolving barrel cannon had a barrel length that would be close to  5 feet in length. So in circumspect one or the other is incorrect..Field and naval artillery( to include mortars) have been measured in inches( 16 inch naval gun), 75mm pack howitzer( not in inches), the 175mm ( not in inches)  the exception of US nomenclature is the 8 inch In other words they are not conjoined as a 5" X MM..There might have been a piece used by some other power that used the bore diameter and the shell case length as a describer..as in 7.62 X 51 mm Now a round that is 5 inches in diameter and shorter than a .308 sounds more like a typo. To visualize mm sizes think 7.62 is 30 cal, right. The ratio of 7.62 to 38 is about 5..so 5 times 30 cal would be about 1.5 inch. which brings up the what if of a round that is 5 inches long and 1.5 inch in diameter..? Hope this gives you some insight into where to look. Was there a mention of which nation used it?.  Glad to help....  maybe. Dave

PS there was one other designation mainly used in(round ball)  cannon and mortars on occasion which is to be rated by the weight of the projo...as in 6 pounder, 12 pounder etc.,

Edited by dbp1stltartillery, 31 May 2012 - 08:01 PM.

[dbp1stltartillery]

Danny Creasy, on 31 May 2012 - 05:11 PM, said:

38 mm is often used in reference to grenade launchers.

True. The M203/under rifle mounted and the M79 (shotgun style) were both 40mm. The guys in black pajamas really didn't like em.  Talk about a bullet magnet, carry one.    Dave    Deo Vindice.

[cp1969]

Aren't some artillery pieces specified by a bore diameter followed by a barrel length in calibers?  In this instance, it would mean a 5" bore with a barrel 190 inches long.  (5 x 38)

[dbp1stltartillery]

cp1969, on 31 May 2012 - 08:38 PM, said:

Aren't some artillery pieces specified by a bore diameter followed by a barrel length in calibers?  In this instance, it would mean a 5" bore with a barrel 190 inches long.  (5 x 38)

That would translate into a barrel nearly 16 feet long or 38 calibers. The only time barrel length in referred to is when to determine whether it is a howitzer(cannon) or a rifle. For example: The 155mm(24 calibers) is a howitzer, the 175mm(60 callibers) is a rifle. Just as barrel length determines if a weapon is a pistol (short barrel) or a  rifle(long barrel). Over the years the caliber length vs. bore diameter has changed.. At one time a howitzer had a ratio of diameter divided by the length = caliber..of 12 to 20 and then 30 calibers due to better propellants and elevation capabilities. Greater than the previous ratios were then classified as rifles..The howitzer can elevate nearly 80 degrees on the self propelled 155mm and 63 on the towed. for high angle fire..The 175mm if memory serves me right could only elevate to about 60..This was due to the different roles of each gun..The howitzer(155mm) was used as a support weapon for company and battalion sized engagements where high angle fire could be used to lob rounds over our troops and onto the enemy..The 175mm and the  8 inch(division support) were used to destroy ammo dumps, rail yards, etc., from greater distances  and were more of a strategic weapon. I have never seen or read of an artillery piece of any description called by its diameter and barrel length as you mention and would be called a 5inch X 15.883 feet. Or to shorten it a 5" X 16'. Hope this helps. Thanks for the question  It made me think back and dig a lot of info out ot the cobwebs.. ..Dave Deo Vindice.

PS: Don't dare ask me why naval cannons, even 12" and 16" are called collectively "GUNS" no matter the barrel length. All I needed to know was that in calling in naval gun fire danger close was ANYTHING closer than 500 meters from your position, whereas the 155mm was only 100 meters.

Edited by dbp1stltartillery, 01 June 2012 - 10:34 AM.

[Lame Bear]

Thanks to Dave and everyone for a quick response. I'll do some looking in a set volumes about World War II. If I find the refernces to this I will post here under Life, The Universe And All The Rest.I really should not have posted where I did, but I knew Dave & others would see it. All you guys are a great help.L.B.