Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Muzzleloader Hunting
Looking for Blackhorn loads for Rem 700 Ultimate muzzleloader
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ENCORE" data-source="post: 1248181" data-attributes="member: 33046"><p>Two years later, Western has still not published a maximum charge of BH209 for the Remington Ultimate. There could be a liability issue if they were to list the maximum charge the RU is capable of when using BH. Not that the RU couldn't handle it, but rather some guy shooting a standard production muzzleloader getting ahold of the data and using it in his mass produced rifle. That may not be good.</p><p></p><p>Now the last site and the RU being compared to the UF Inc. rifle has some humor to it. Of course the "writer" being compensated, is going to say one rifle is better than another. Remington did make their breech plug harder and for a reason. They did it so that in some cases the owner could (might) replace his/her breech plug. Replacing a breech plug can definitely create a head spacing issue, with a less then efficient seal of the brass to the nipple. Although they claim to sell spare breech plugs, getting the proper head space set right "may" be an issue.</p><p>Remington bought the rights from UF Inc. to use the same system. They just hardened the plug with a minor thread change.</p><p></p><p>The use of any piece of brass for a primer carrier, does exactly the same thing, rather its a shortened 30-06/308 case or a .45WM case or a .45ACP case. It matters not what type of primer carrier is used, or its length. What matters is the head space, which is all controlled by the OA length of the breech plug. Very careful inspection MUST be done with each fired primer/brass carrier <u>from either rifle</u>. ANY signs of gas leaking and no matter how many times that piece of brass has been re-primed, it must not be used again. Continued use of a leaking primer will eventually gas cut the nipple, requiring a breech plug replacement.</p><p></p><p>What was not mentioned in the article/blog, is that the UF Inc. barrel is a much higher quality barrel than the RU. The fit and finish of the UF Inc. rifle is reportedly of much higher quality than the RU.</p><p></p><p>Now...... I'm not suggesting that the RU isn't a good rifle. <u>Not at all</u>. There are some shooters achieving really good accuracy at 300yds with the RU. A good friend and fellow shooter, has two neighbors shooting the RU, with what it was DESIGNED FOR, pellets. Both are shooting MOA at 300yds with their rifles and shooting 3-T7M pellets.</p><p></p><p>The author of that article should take his rifle and compete up against the rifle he claims is the lessor rifle. He can shoot BH or what ever he wants, but rifle he states is the lessor of the two, will be shooting (as designed) pellets. It would be interesting what he wrote about the outcome. LOL </p><p></p><p>To the OP....... Remington doesn't list BH209 as an approved propellant in its manual. Unless they've rewritten their manuals to include it lately. The ignition system was actually designed to shoot pellets. Not that it won't ignite BH or any other BP substitute, but its design was for shooting pellets.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ENCORE, post: 1248181, member: 33046"] Two years later, Western has still not published a maximum charge of BH209 for the Remington Ultimate. There could be a liability issue if they were to list the maximum charge the RU is capable of when using BH. Not that the RU couldn't handle it, but rather some guy shooting a standard production muzzleloader getting ahold of the data and using it in his mass produced rifle. That may not be good. Now the last site and the RU being compared to the UF Inc. rifle has some humor to it. Of course the "writer" being compensated, is going to say one rifle is better than another. Remington did make their breech plug harder and for a reason. They did it so that in some cases the owner could (might) replace his/her breech plug. Replacing a breech plug can definitely create a head spacing issue, with a less then efficient seal of the brass to the nipple. Although they claim to sell spare breech plugs, getting the proper head space set right "may" be an issue. Remington bought the rights from UF Inc. to use the same system. They just hardened the plug with a minor thread change. The use of any piece of brass for a primer carrier, does exactly the same thing, rather its a shortened 30-06/308 case or a .45WM case or a .45ACP case. It matters not what type of primer carrier is used, or its length. What matters is the head space, which is all controlled by the OA length of the breech plug. Very careful inspection MUST be done with each fired primer/brass carrier [U]from either rifle[/U]. ANY signs of gas leaking and no matter how many times that piece of brass has been re-primed, it must not be used again. Continued use of a leaking primer will eventually gas cut the nipple, requiring a breech plug replacement. What was not mentioned in the article/blog, is that the UF Inc. barrel is a much higher quality barrel than the RU. The fit and finish of the UF Inc. rifle is reportedly of much higher quality than the RU. Now...... I'm not suggesting that the RU isn't a good rifle. [U]Not at all[/U]. There are some shooters achieving really good accuracy at 300yds with the RU. A good friend and fellow shooter, has two neighbors shooting the RU, with what it was DESIGNED FOR, pellets. Both are shooting MOA at 300yds with their rifles and shooting 3-T7M pellets. The author of that article should take his rifle and compete up against the rifle he claims is the lessor rifle. He can shoot BH or what ever he wants, but rifle he states is the lessor of the two, will be shooting (as designed) pellets. It would be interesting what he wrote about the outcome. LOL To the OP....... Remington doesn't list BH209 as an approved propellant in its manual. Unless they've rewritten their manuals to include it lately. The ignition system was actually designed to shoot pellets. Not that it won't ignite BH or any other BP substitute, but its design was for shooting pellets. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Muzzleloader Hunting
Looking for Blackhorn loads for Rem 700 Ultimate muzzleloader
Top