That photo above? It’s the Springfield mile, with riders exiting Turn 4 at over 100 mph on their way up to 140 or so. These boys are really flying. It is an incredible thing to see.
But I’m getting ahead of myself. Two blogs back I wrote about the East Windsor half-mile dirt track, which has gone the way of the dodo bird. The Springfield Mile is bigger and better and last I checked it’s still with us. A dozen years ago I made the trek out to Illinois to watch the big boys (and a lady or two) mix it up and it was awesome. I don’t know if this is accurate or if it’s more biker bullshit, but the guys claim the bikes hit 140 mph in the straights and maintain a cool 100 in the turns. And “straights” is a relative term. The track is basically a big oval, with the straights being less of a curve. What’s nice about oval track racing, though, is you usually can see all the action all the time. When you go to a grand prix type event, you get to see the bikes or the cars for just an instant when they scream past wherever you are. Oval tracks are a better deal, I think.
We planned to ride to Springfield from So Cal, but just before it was wheels-in-the-wells time my good buddy Larry passed and I stayed for his funeral. We flew instead and because that gave us a little bit more of our most precious commodity (time), we bopped around Springfield a bit more. We visited Springfield’s Lincoln Museum and had a lot of fun getting there. I drove our rental car and we promptly got lost (it was in the pre-GPS era). We pulled alongside a police officer and he gave us directions. As soon as I pulled away, I asked my buds which way to go. “I don’t know,” they answered, “we weren’t listening…” Neither was I. We all had a good laugh over that one.
An interesting Norton in the fairgrounds parking lot.Another shot of the Norton.
The Illinois State Fairgrounds has two tracks, one is a quarter-mile dirt oval and the other is the big mile track. The quarter-mile races were awesome. This racing, all by itself, would have been worth the trip out there. I love watching the flat trackers.
These boys are kicking up some dirt coming out of Turn 4 on the Illinois State Fairgrounds quarter-mile track.One of the riders lost it coming our of Turn 4 and he crashed hard directly in front of us.I didn’t think he was going to get up, but he did. The next day, this guy won a heat on the 1-mile track. The announcer said he was “tougher than a $2 steak.” I believe it.
The next day, we went to the 1-mile track on the other side of the State Fairgrounds.
The field entering Turn 2 at over 100 mph on the Springfield 1-mile track. The noise is incredible and there’s nothing like it. These guys are drifting sideways at 100 mph, just a few inches apart!The same shot as above, but with the two fastest riders at the Springfield Mile identified. The arrows point to Chris Carr (National No. 4 in the white and orange leathers) and Kenny Coolbeth (National No. 1 in the black leathers). Coolbeth won on Sunday and Carr won on Monday. This photo was just after the start.One lap later: Coolbeth and Carr are riding as a closely-matched pair well ahead of the group.
I was really happy with these shots. I had my old Nikon D200 and a cheap lens (a 10-year old, mostly plastic, $139 Sigma 70-300). I zoomed out to 300 mm, set the ISO to 1000 for a very high shutter speed (even though it was a bright day), and the lens at f5.6 (the fastest the inexpensive Sigma would go at 300mm). The camera’s autofocus wouldn’t keep up with the motorcycles at this speed, so I manually focused on Turn 2 and waited (but not for long) for the motorcycles to enter the viewfinder. It was close enough for government work, freezing the 100-mph action for the photos you see above.
Kenny Coolbeth, after winning the Springfield Mile.Nicole Cheza, a very fast rider. She won the “Dash for Cash” and the crowd loved it.A Harley XR-750 rider having fun.
As you might expect, there were quite a few things happening off the track, too. Johnsonville Brats had a huge tractor trailer onsite equipped with grills, and they were serving free grilled brat sandwiches. It was a first for me, and it worked…I’ve been buying Johnsonville brats ever since. There were hundreds of interesting motorcycles on display and a vintage World War II bomber orbiting the area.
An old B-17 flying above the track…it made several appearances that weekend.An old Ariel Square Four. The owner started it and it sounded like two Triumph 650s.An old two-stroke Bridgestone, a marque that never quite made it in the US. Imagine the marketing discussions in Japan: “Let’s logo it the BS…that will work!”
So there you have it, along with a bit of advice from yours truly: If you ever have an opportunity to see the Springfield Mile, go for it. I had a great time and I would do it again in a heartbeat.
Jesse Watters is an anchorman on Fox News, and one of the five panelists on the Fox News show, The Five. We recently had an opportunity to listen to him speak at the Nixon Library in Yorba Linda, California. I’m a bit behind on my blogging, I guess. We’ve been to the Nixon Library a number of times and I keep meaning to write about it, but I just haven’t gotten to it yet. I will, but not in this blog. This blog is focused on Mr. Watters.
I’m a bit conflicted about this post because here on ExNotes we try to steer way away from anything political. It’s not that I’m not political, nor is it that I don’t have opinions. We just realize that if we start taking positions we’ll insult half our audience no matter which side we take. That’s what America has become. It might be left versus right, Republican versus Democrat, CNN versus Fox, Trump versus Biden, or any of the hundreds of other topics that have the nation polarized. Hence our editorial position is we don’t take a position. No politics. Jesse Watters works for Fox News, so there’s a risk half of you might interpret this as a right wing, Republican, Trump-biased, Fox News kind of blog. If you think this is political or if I offend you, hey, mea culpa in advance. It isn’t my intent to do so.
Now that I’ve got that out of the way, I’ll share with you that we have friends in high places at the Nixon Library. That’s a good thing, because the Jess Watters event was sold out weeks ago. It was 50 bucks a pop, and not only did they quickly fill the 700-seat main auditorium (modeled after the White House’s East Room), but the Library had to open a remote room to accommodate another 300 people. We stood in line for an hour waiting to get in. It was worth it. We had great seats.
On the air, Jesse Watters is an articulate, captivating news announcer and panelist. He started his work for Fox doing man in the street questions in a series called “Watters’ World,” in which he’d ask people questions about things in the news. Most of the time, the folks he asked had only cursory knowledge of the topic, or no knowledge at all. It didn’t stop them from attempting to answer, though, and their responses were entertaining. Jay Leno used to do something similar in a series he called “JayWalking.” Watters started his “Watters’ World” series while Bill O’Reilly hosted the Fox News 5:00 p.m. news hour, but O’Reilly lost his job during the Me, Too movement. I didn’t know about O’Reilly’s misygony and I thought he was the smartest guy on TV at the time, but he screwed up and he was gone. O’Reilly was replaced by a guy named Tucker Carlson, whom I couldn’t stand (not because of his politics; for reasons I can’t put my finger on I just didn’t like the guy). Carlson didn’t last long, and when he went, Watters became the main news dude. I like watching Watters do the news.
Watters has written at least two books now, and our tickets to this event included a copy of his latest, Get It Together. I haven’t read it yet. When I do, I’ll post a review here.
The format for the Watters event was unusual, at least it seemed so to me. Instead of having Watters speak for the usual 45 minutes or so, a woman whose name I can’t remember interviewed him. It was interesting conversation and I enjoyed it, even though it was different from the format I expected. My impression was that Watters seemed nervous speaking in front of a large group and that surprised me. He was articulate and I can’t put my finger on anything he said or did that made me feel he was nervous; it’s just my impression. Maybe I’m wrong.
If you haven’t seen the “Watters’ World” interviews, I found a couple on Youtube I’ll share with you here.
I mentioned that I thought the earlier Jay Leno “JayWalking” interviews were better, but you be the judge. Here are a couple of Youtubes for those, too.
I was having a bad day and I was in a blue funk, but new friend Chuck and his magnificent 1961 Ford Starliner came to the rescue. Read on and you’ll understand.
A white that is almost a very faint gray. Chuck’s 1961 Starliner looks great; I think it would look even better in lipstick red.
The blue mood story goes like this: I have a 2018 Subaru Outback that I love except for the entertainment system. That’s the touchscreen, the backup camera display, the navigation system, the Bluetooth phone system, and the radio (including Sirius XM). Subaru calls it the entertainment system, but it has been anything but entertaining. It went out repeatedly in the first couple of years that I’ve owned the car and the Subie dealer replaced it three times. God only knows how many times I’ve brought the car back to the dealer to have them reflash the chip, the part in which miracles occur that govern everything.
After it was fixed, the entertainment system still had its moods. When I ‘d hang up after a phone call, the radio (even if it wasn’t on before the call) immediately went to max volume. When I start the car the radio turns on, even if I turned it off previously. The nav system scrolls through screens whenever it feels like doing so. The touchscreen stops taking inputs. Maybe Subaru named it correctly. It has been entertaining.
You can guess where this story is going. As a 2018 model, my Subaru is off its warranty, and the entertainment system went out again. I took it to the dealer and they charged me $215 to tell me my car needs, you guessed it, a new entertainment system. The price? Close to $2500.
So that’s what put me in a foul mood. If you go online and Google this topic, Subaru entertainment system anomalies are all over the Internet. There are literally hundreds, maybe even thousands, of people who have experienced the same issues. I think Subaru should have extended the warranty and addressed the underlying design problems. I called Subaru of America and bitched about my situation and they “opened up a claim” (whatever that means). They are supposed to get back to me later next week.
On the way home from the dealer, I stopped for gas. It’s dropped $0.20 per gallon recently, which puts regular unleaded at $4.79 a gallon here in the Peoples Republik of Kalifornia. That’s still way too high. It added to my blue funk. Then I saw the Starliner. As I shut off my Subaru after pulling up to the pump, I saw this cool rear roof profile and heard the deep rumbling of an American V8. You know, sounding the way an engine should sound. I could feel the vibrations of its thumps through the ground. The way God intended automobile engines to be before Gen X, Y, Z, or whatever we’re up to now started saving the planet. At first, I thought this anti-Gore convenient truth was a Buick, or maybe an Oldsmobile, because all I could see from my vantage point was the rear roof line, with what looked like the three portholes that graced the fenders of early Buicks. But I was wrong. It wasn’t a GM product at all.
390 cubic inches and 375 horsepower. Lots of chrome. No chips. America at its best, in my opinion.Tri-Power. Three two-barrel carburetors, if you come from a generation denoted by a letter. A great time to be a teenager, the 1960s were.
I spoke to Chuck, the owner, and he told me I was looking at a 1961 Ford Starliner, one of fewer than 30,000 Ford Galaxie variants made that year. Even fewer were made with Ford’s 375-horsepower, 390-cubic-inch, Tri-Power engine. Wow. Tri-Power. I hadn’t even heard the term, Tri-Power, in maybe 30 or 40 years. The car has a 3.55 rear end and Posi-Traction (another term I hadn’t heard in a while). Chuck opened the hood and showed me the engine. I was in heaven. I forgot all about my Subaru woes.
I told Chuck about the ExhaustNotes blog and asked if I could take a few photos. “Sure,” he said.
A retro-modern interior, with the period-correct aftermarket Sun tachometer. Cue up the Beach Boys or Jan & Dean.A Hurst shifter, with a genuine Hurst T-handle. I had one of these in my GTO. Wrapping your hand around a Hurst shifter handle is a sensual experience. It was cool when being cool meant something. If you know, you know. If not, go play with your cell phone.
I asked about the wheels. They’re made by Ford, but they weren’t the wheels that came with the car. Chuck pointed out that the rear wheels are wider than the front wheels. His Starliner now has disk brakes, an upgrade from the original equipment. Everything about this car was appealing. Especially the, you know, exhaust notes. It sounded heavenly.
The wheels just worked on this car. They looked great.The view from the rear quarter. It was an amazing car. Made my day, that Starliner did.
Chuck told me the car was for sale. The ticket in was $35,000. That’s just about what I paid for my Subaru 6 years ago. “It’s nice, but I couldn’t swing it right now,” I told Chuck. “Not enough people are clicking on the ExhaustNotes popup ads.”
The gas pump on my Subie clicked off, setting a new record: $77 to fill my tank. I didn’t care. The Starliner had me in a good place, and I was going to stay there.
I had my .30 06 Weatherby out last weekend. It was the first time I fired this rifle in maybe 35 years. I bought it at the Weatherby plant in South Gate, California, back when they used to let you in the warehouse to select the wood you wanted.
Fancy walnut and deep, deep bluing. I think I paid something around $300 for this rifle, new, in the 1980s. I’ll never sell it.
When I first shot this rifle in the mid-1980s, it didn’t group very well with my favorite .30 06 load (a 130-grain Hornady jacketed softpoint bullet and a max load of IMR 4320). That was the load I used in my Ruger No. 1 chasing jackrabbits in west Texas. Other things intervened to capture my attention, and I never got around to finding a load for this rifle.
Fast forward several decades, and for this outing I grabbed what was available in the ammo locker: A box of 168-grain Speer jacketed hollow point boat tail bullets (my Garand load), another box with Remington 180-grain jacketed soft point bullets (which are unfortunately no longer available), and a third box with 150-grain Hornady jacketed soft point bullets and 48.0 grains of IMR 4320 (which is also no longer available). What I learned on this most recent outing is that my Weatherby really likes the 180-grain Remington bullets and 48.0 grains of IMR 4064. It did acceptably well (for hunting purposes) with the other two loads, but that 180-grain Remington bullet and IMR 4064 is what answers the mail for me. It’s one of the places where accuracy lives in this rifle.
Before I left the house, I ran an oiled patch down the bore because as I said above the rifle hadn’t been shot in literally decades. When I first set up on the range, the rifle was throwing shots all over the place for the first few rounds. Then, either I or the rifle (or both of us) settled down and the Weatherby started grouping. Most of the other groups were in the 1.2-inch to 2.1-inch range (which is good enough for hunting deer and pigs), but the rifle really liked that 180-grain load. I’m talking sub-minute-of-angle. I couldn’t do this with every group, but it tells me the rifle will do its job (if I do mine).
When assessing a hunting rifle’s accuracy, I typically shoot 3-shot groups at 100 yards off the bench. Some folks like to shoot 5-shot groups, but it’s pretty hard to get the animals to sit still for 5 shots.Two shots through the same hole, and one a half inch away. I wish I could do this every time. The rifle is way more accurate than I am.
I was pleased with how the rifle performed, and I’ll probably start bringing it to the range more often.
A 12X, fixed-power Leupold scope with target knob adjustments and a sunshade. This is a nice setup.
I originally set up the 12X Leupold scope and this rifle for shooting in the standing position, so the scope sits high on the rifle. When I bought the rifle, I thought I would shoot metallic silhouette with it, but I never did. With the scope as high as it is, it was awkward shooting from the bench. That probably had something to do with the other groups opening up a bit, but I’m not complaining.
I wish Remington still sold bullets separately, but hey, life goes on. I have two boxes of the Remington bullets left, and when they’re gone, they’re gone. I also have a couple of boxes of Speer 180-grain jacketed bullets, and when I’ve run through my stash of Remington 180 bullets, I’ll try the Speers next. Speer still makes those. There are a few other loads I’m going to try, too. I’ll keep you posted.
When I first saw Mosin-Nagant military surplus rifles for sale in a Big 5 sporting goods store years ago, I dismissed them as junk. Wow, was that ever a mistake. I’ve previously written about being smitten with these Russian rifles, and my appreciation for them continues unabated. Back in the day, you could pick them up for $79. That was after the Soviet Union collapsed and the Russians were sending Mosins over here by the boatload to raise cash. Then, during the Obama administration, the flow of these rifles to the US stopped. Today, a Mosin will set you back $300 or more (and it’s mostly more). I recognized the inherent quality and probable appreciation after shooting the first one I bought. I knew Mosin prices would climb and I picked up several. My two favorites are the ones you see in the photo above.
I use the first Mosin I ever bought (the one on top in the above photo) for shooting jacketed bullets. It has a bore that looks like a sewer pipe, but it is accurate. Here’s a recent 100-yard target.
There are 20 shots on this 100-yard target. The two that went low? Chalk it up to operator error.
I don’t use surplus 7.62x54R ammo in my Mosin-Nagant rifles. Surplus ammo used to be cheap and readily available, but not anymore. Even when surplus ammo was around, I didn’t use it because the primers were corrosive. I shoot only my reloads in the Mosins. Just about any 150-grain, .312 diameter jacketed bullet works well with 43.7 grains of IMR 4320 propellant. That powder is no longer available, but I have a stash. When I use it up, I’ll probably switch to Varget or IMR 4064 (both powders are said to work well in the 7.62x54R cartridge).
My Mosin-Nagant jacketed bullet load. It’s very accurate.
The other rifle Mosin you see above (the one on the bottom) is a beautiful hex receiver with a bore that appears to be brand new. When I fired it with jacketed bullets, it grouped very well, but it also shot very high with the rear sight in its lowest setting. I thought I would have to find a taller front sight, but I tried a few cast bullets and to my surprise, the rifle shot to point of aim at 50 yards. When I tried my cast bullet load at 100 yards, it was a scosh low. I went up one click on the rear sight and it was perfect.
My first 5 shots at 100 yards went low, wo I went up one click and put nearly all the rest in the 10-ring. Cast bullets can be very accurate.
My cast load for the Mosin is a 200-grain bullet sized to 0.313 inches over 18.0 grains of SR 4759. Like the IMR 4320 propellant mentioned above, SR 4759 is a discontinued powder, and like my situation with IMR 4320, I also have a stash of SR 4759. When I run out of it, there are other powders that work well with cast bullets. I’m looking forward to developing a new load with them. The load you see here sets a high bar, but I’m sure I can find a load that will match it.
I hadn’t shot cast bullets in my Mosin in a while. It didn’t matter; the rifle still shoots this load superbly well.
With both the Mosin-Nagant rifles you see above, I’ve refinished the stocks with several coats of TruOil (I sanded the stocks as little as possible to preserve the original cartouches). I’ve also glass bedded the actions and cleaned up the triggers. Both rifles are fun to shoot and both are superbly accurate.
If you would like to read more on our Mosin adventures, you can do so here:
Mike Huber’s recent post on ANZAC day in Australia touched on our Memorial Day. Let’s take a minute for a brief review of the three military holidays we celebrate here in the United States (Memorial Day, Veterans Day, and Armed Forces Day).
Memorial Day
Memorial Day is a federal holiday honoring men and women who have fallen in battle. It is on the last Monday in May. Memorial Day was originally known as Decoration Day, with origins rooted in several state-specific holidays. The tradition started after the end of the Civil War and has continued ever since.
Veterans Day
Veterans Day is another federal holiday; it is celebrated on November 11. It was originally known as Armistice Day to celebrate the end of World War I which occurred on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month. Armistice Day was officially redesignated as Veterans Day in 1954. I like to think of Veterans Day as my holiday because it celebrates all veterans of the US military. No doubt many of our ExNotes readers who served feel the same way. Like Memorial Day, Veterans Day is a legal holiday.
Armed Forces Day
Armed Forces Day celebrates our military services and those who are currently serving in uniform. It occurs on the third Saturday in May. It came into being in 1949 when Secretary of Defense Louis Johnson announced its creation to celebrate consolidation of all military branches under the U.S. Department of Defense. Prior to that, there were separate Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps Days.
Sergeant Zuo on the ride across China. He was a magnificent leader.
I’m grateful for having had the opportunity to serve (as are the vast majority of those who have), and when I meet other people who have worn the uniform of their nations’ military service there’s an instant bond. I felt that way immediately when I met Mike Huber that hot summer day in Baja (I recognized Mike’s jump wings on his BMW at an impromptu gas stop in Catavina), and I felt the same way when I met Sergeant Zuo in Chongqing when we started our 6000-mile ride around China.
Mike was a paratrooper in the 82nd Airborne Division when he served. I went through the same jump school as Mike did at Fort Benning, Georgia (I’m Charlie 34 in the photo up top, one of the scared young soldiers a few days away from my first jump at the Benning School for Boys).
Sergeant Zuo is a retired Chinese Army senior NCO. Because I was a lieutenant when I got out of the Army, Sergeant Zuo snapped to attention and saluted me every morning on that great ride around China. At the end of our 38-day ride, Zuo and I enjoyed a swim in the Yellow Sea in Qingdao. When I served in a Hawk missile battery in Korea, my missiles’ primary target line pointed across the Yellow Sea directly at Qingdao. Zuo and I had a good laugh about that.
Good buddy Mike Huber, AATW.
I’m proud of my service in the U.S. Army and the fact that I joined in an era when most people were doing everything they could to avoid military service. It’s paid huge dividends for me, not the least of which are what I consider to be a realistic outlook on life, the ability to focus on objectives (in both my military and civilian careers), and my willingness to listen to others (“seek to understand before seeking to be understood” is perhaps the best advice I’ve ever heard). My belief is that eliminating the draft at the tail end of the Vietnam era and not replacing it with some sort of universal public service has hurt our society, but that’s just my opinion. If you have a different perspective, I’d love to hear from you.
Good buddy Paul recently sent to me a video about the powder charges used by US Navy battleships. The USS New Jersey was featured in the video, and it reminded of my visit to a sister ship, the USS Alabama. I wrote a Destinations piece for Motorcycle Classics magazine ten years ago, and I thought you might enjoy seeing it (along with photos that did not appear in the MC article).
The coastal plains along Alabama’s southern edge are flat and the line of sight extends to the horizon. Ride east on Interstate 10 out of Mobile and you can see her distinctive, bristling profile from a great distance. One can only imagine the fear she induced in our enemies as she emerged from the mist on the high seas.
She, of course, is the USS Alabama. She’s docked at Battleship Memorial Park, just east of Mobile on I-10 where Alabama’s coast meets the Gulf of Mexico. To call the USS Alabama impressive would be a massive understatement. This magnificent old warship is a study in superlatives and in contrasts. Taller than a 20-story building, longer than two football fields, and capable of firing projectiles weighing nearly as much as a Z-06 Corvette at targets more than 20 miles away, the USS Alabama projected America’s power on the open oceans and inland during World War II. The “Lucky A” (she lost not a single crewmember to enemy fire while earning nine Battle Stars) sailed just under a quarter of a million miles in combat conditions and saw action in both the Atlantic and the Pacific theatres. When she passed through the Panama Canal, the 680-foot, 44,500-ton Lucky A had just 11 inches of clearance on each side.
After World War II the USS Alabama was retired from active service. In 1962 the Navy announced plans to scrap this magnificent ship due to the high costs of keeping her in mothballs, but the good citizens of Alabama would have none of that. Alabama kids raised nearly $100,000 in nickels, dimes, and quarters, and corporate sponsors coughed up another $1,000,000 to bring the ship from Puget Sound to Mobile.
The USS Alabama is in amazing condition; indeed, it looks as if the ship could go to war today. Being aboard is like being in a movie (Steven Seagal used it for the 1992 movie, Under Siege). It is an amazing experience eliciting a strong combination of pride and patriotism.
The USS Alabama is a floating artillery base. With armor more than a foot thick above the water line it’s amazing she could float at all, but the old girl could top 32 mph and she had a range of 15,000 nautical miles. When she stopped at the pumps, the USS Alabama took on 7,000 tons of fuel (a cool 2 million gallons).
The guns are what impressed me most. The ship bristles with armament. The Alabama’s 16-inchers dominate everything. Approaching the ship highlights the big guns and when you get closer, they are stunning. Try to imagine nine 16-inch guns, three per turret, firing at our enemies (it must have terrifying). The ship boasts twenty 5-inch guns (two in each of the ship’s 10 smaller turrets). There are another 12 mounts with 48 40mm cannon. And just to make sure, the Alabama has another 52 20mm anti-aircraft cannon. If you’ve been keeping track, that’s 129 guns.
The USS Alabama is only part of the treasure included in Battlefield Memorial Park. The park includes the USS Drum (a World War II submarine), numerous armored vehicles, and an impressive aircraft collection spanning 70 years of military aviation (including a B-52 bomber, numerous fighters, the top-secret SR-71 reconnaissance aircraft, and assorted other planes). The USS Alabama could touch 32 mph on the high seas; the SR-71 cruised at 3,000 mph. The USS Alabama weighs a bit more than 720 million pounds; the SR-71 was built from lightweight titanium. As I stated earlier, the Park and its exhibits are a study in superlatives and contrasts.
Battleship Memorial Park is just east of Mobile on Interstate 10. You can’t miss it (the USS Alabama is visible for miles from either direction, even at night). Admission is only $15 and take my word for it, it’s the most bang for the buck you’ll ever get.
The Skinny
What: Battleship Memorial Park, 2703 Battleship Parkway, Mobile, AL 36602. An outstanding collection of land, air, and sea military vehicles, with the USS Alabama being the main attraction.
How to Get There: Interstate 10 from either the east or the west. From anywhere else, just head south until you hit Interstate 10 and point your front wheel toward Mobile.
Best Kept Secret: There have been seven US Navy ships named Alabama reaching back to before the Civil War. Today, a US Navy nuclear submarine sails under that same proud name.
Avoid: Missing Mobile. It’s a beautiful town, and its Gulf Coast location makes for great seafood and great hospitality.
I had a great day on the range last week with my friends and I did a lot of shooting, including trigger time with the .243 Ruger No. 1 and the .458 Win Mag No. 1 that I wrote about yesterday. I found another load that worked well with the .243 using the 55-grain Nosler bullet. It’s weird; the .243 No. 1 really likes the welterweight Nosler bullet. With all other bullets, it’s mediocre to terrible. But the .243 is a story for another blog. Today’s blog is an interesting follow up on the .458 Win Mag No. 1 story.
Garmin’s new chronograph.
One of the guys (good buddy Russ) had the new Garmin chronograph. They are $600 and way easier to use than the old ones. You just set it on the bench and turn it on. There are no external wires, no ballistic screens, and no other stuff. It can download to your iPhone if you want it to.
I asked Russ if he would chronograph my .458 Win Mag load and he did. As a bit of background, my .458 Win Mag reduced load consists of 28 grains of SR 4759 propellant and the Remington 405-grain jacketed softpoint bullet. I’ve used this load for decades. I found it in an old Speer manual.
Reloaded .458 Winchester Magnum ammunition. It’s a fun cartridge to reload.
With Russ’s Garmin chronograph on my bench, I fired three or four shots. My friends and I were amazed at their consistency. Those first few shots were all right about 1100 feet per second, with an extreme spread of maybe 20 feet per second.
Then I thought I’d get cute. With this particular load, there’s a lot of unused volume in the cartridge case. I tilted a round up to settle the powder near the primer, thinking this would reduce shot-to-shot variability even more. That shot, however, had a perceptibly lighter report and it only registered 600 feet per second on the Garmin chronograph. I checked the rifle after I fired that round to make sure the bullet had cleared the bore, and it had. One of the guys commented that the 600-foot-per-second round sounded different. I picked up on that, too. Convinced that the bore was clear, I fired a few more rounds. They were all right around 1100 feet per second again.
As I walked downrange to the 50-yard target, I could see on ragged whole in the black bullseye as I approached it. I was thinking that even though the velocity was down sharply on that one slow round, it still grouped with the rest of the shots at 50 yards. Then I looked at the target more closely.
Oops! The red arrow points to a low velocity impact.
I don’t know what happened on that one 600-foot-per-second round. It could be that the powder settled in a manner that let the primer shoot over it, so when it lit off, the propellant generated less pressure. I always check all the rounds when I reload them (before seating the bullets), and I remember that the powder levels all looked good. It could be that the primer hole was obstructed by a piece of corn cob media from the brass cleaning operation, although I’m pretty good about clearing those, too, after vibratory cleaning. The round wasn’t a hangfire (there was no pause between the trigger tripping and the discharge); it just sounded lighter.
We all thought this was interesting. To me, it was interesting enough that I decided I’m going to buy a Garmin chronograph. I’ve resisted doing so in the past for several reasons:
My primary interest in load development is accuracy. I have zero interest in maximizing velocity. I just want small groups on paper. If a load does that, I’m a happy camper. I literally don’t care what the velocity is.
I’ve never been a big believer in developing a load to minimize the extreme spread or to minimize the standard deviation (the standard deviation is a measure of parameter variability). I remember from my days at Aerojet Ordnance (we made 25mm and 30mm ammo for the Hughes chain gun and the A-10 aircraft) that there was not strong correlation between standard deviation and accuracy. There are several variables that go into accuracy; standard deviation (or extreme spread) is but one of them.
Prior to the Garmin, the other guys I’ve seen using chronographs on the range were always screwing around with them, mostly trying to get them to work or attending to the screens when the wind blew them over. One friend told me it sometimes took an hour and a half to get his chronograph set up. I didn’t like having to wait on those folks, and I didn’t want to be one of those guys holding up everyone else.
My experience with the .458 last week, though, made me rethink this issue. I’m going to purchase the Garmin , and in another month or two, the gun stories you see on these pages will include velocity (and velocity variation) information. There are a few ExNotes gun stories to be published (ones that are already in the queue) that do not include this info, but at some point beyond their publication, Garmin chronograph results will be part of the data presented. Stay tuned.
About 20 years ago I bought a .458 Ruger No. 1, but until recently, I had not shot it.
I first saw a .458 No. 1 when I was in the Army at Fort Bliss, Texas. Bob Starkey (who owned Starkey’s Guns in El Paso) had one, and that rifle was stunning. I had just bought a .45 70 No. 1 from Bob and I didn’t have the funds to buy the .458. But man, I sure wanted it.
Bob Starkey’s personal .458 Win Mag was a custom rifle built on a 1903 Springfield action. I asked Bob what firing it was like. “Well,” he said, “you’re glad when it’s over.” Call me a glutton for punishment, but I immediately knew two things:
I had to have a .458, and
Someday I would.
I’ve since owned several .458 Win Mags, including a Winchester Model 70 African (long gone), a Browning Safari Grade (it was a beautiful rifle based on a Mauser action; I’m sorry I let that one go), a Remington 798 (also based on a Mauser action), and my Ruger Model 77 Circassian. Every one of those .458 rifles was surprisingly accurate. If you reload and you’ve ever thought of buying a .458, trust me on this: Take the plunge. With cast or jacketed bullets and light loads, .458 Winchester Magnum rifles are very easy to shoot.
Back to the main attraction: My .458 No. 1. Technically, the Ruger .458 No. 1 is called a Ruger No. 1H. The H designates what Ruger calls their Tropical rifle; I’m guessing the Tropical’s heavier barrel means the H stands for heavy. The .458 No. 1 is big, it is heavy, and it just looks like it means business. You might say it’s the Norton Scrambler of elephant guns.
When I saw this No. 1 advertised on the Gunbroker.com auction site, it pushed all the buttons for me. It was a .458, it had beautiful walnut, it had the older red recoil pad (a desirable feature), it had the 200th year inscription, and it had the early Ruger No. 1 checkering pattern.
Every once in a while over the last two decades I’d haul the .458 out of the safe to admire it, but I had never fired it. I was thinking about that a couple of weeks ago, and I decided my failure to get the No. 1 on the range was a character flaw I needed to correct.
With my light .458 Win Mag reloads, the No. 1 grouped about 12 inches above the point of aim at 50 yards. When I examined the rifle more closely, I saw that the rear sight was abnormally tall compared to the rear sights on my other No. 1 Rugers, and it was already in its lowest setting. Evidently the previous owner discovered the same thing (i.e., the rifle shoots high), he took the rear sight all the way down, and then he sold it when it still shot too high. Lucky for me.
My first thought was that the forearm was exerting undue upward pressure on the barrel. I loosened the screw securing the forearm to address this and tried firing it again, but it made no difference. It wasn’t the forearm that was causing the rifle to shoot high.
I realized I needed either a lower rear sight or a taller front sight. The rear sight was already bottomed out, so I couldn’t go any lower with it. I think Ruger put the taller rear sight on the .458 to compensate for the recoil with factory ammo. I have some 500-grain factory ammo so I could fire a few rounds and find out, but I don’t want to beat myself up. The heavier and faster factory ammo bullets get out of the barrel faster than my lighter and slower loads. With factory ammo the muzzle doesn’t rise as much before the bullet exits the bore, so with factory ammo the rear sight has to be taller to raise the point of impact. At least that’s what I think is going on. The bottom line is the factory ammo shoots lower than my lighter, slower loads.
The factory .458 load is a 500-grain bullet with a muzzle velocity of 2000 feet per second. Those loads are designed to DRT an elephant (DRT stands for “Dead Right There”). My needs are different: I want a load that makes small groups in paper targets while drawing ooohs and ahs from everyone on the range (you know, because I am shooting small groups with a .458 Win Mag). Doing so with lighter loads on paper targets keeps both me and Dumbo happy.
If you are reading this and thinking I was obsessing about this situation, you would be correct. I don’t know why, but when a gun is misbehaving I tend to get tunnel vision. I continued to look at the rear sight and started thinking. I knew I needed it to be lower by about a tenth of an inch, so I thought perhaps instead of using a sight picture where the front bead was concentric with the U in the rear sight blade, I could rest the bottom of the front sight’s gold bead lower in the rear sight. I fired five shots with a normal sight picture and then another five with my “lower in the rear sight” concept, and son of a gun, the two groups were right on top of each other. Both were still about a foot above the point of aim (which was 6:00 on the bullseye). What they say about peep sights is true, I guess. Your eye will naturally center the front sight as you squeeze the trigger.
Out there on the range, I kept thinking about this as I stared at the rear sight. It was a nice day and I was the only guy out there. An idea hit me. The rear sight blade is removable (it’s held in place by two screws that loosen to move the blade up or down), and the rear sight leaf (to which the blade attaches) has a much wider and deeper U. Could I remove the blade altogether and use the wider and lower U of the rear sight frame as the rear sight notch?
I had my gunsmith’s tool kit with me and I took the two tiny screws out (the smallest screwdriver in the kit did the trick). I was sweating bullets (pardon the pun) about dropping either of those screws (I knew if I did I’d never find them), but the screwdriver blade is magnetized and it held onto them. With the sight blade removed, I fired five rounds, and voilà, I was in the black. I fired another five, and they went right on top of the first five. The group size, with open sights at 50 yards from a .458 Win Mag, wasn’t too bad. In fact, it was essentially identical to the group size with the rear sight blade in place.
I knew I needed to lower the rear sight, but by how much? The Ruger’s sight radius is 17 inches (the distance from the front sight to the rear sight), and the distance to the target (on which the group was about 12 inches high) was 50 yards. Remember when your junior high school teacher told you that algebra would come in handy someday and you didn’t believe him? Well, today was that day for me. Here’s how it shakes out:
(distance rear sight must be lowered)/(sight radius) =
(12 inches)/(5o yards)
Solving for the distance the rear sight must be lowered (let’s call it x), we have:
x = (12 inches)*(17 inches)/(50 yards*36 inches/yard) = 0.1133 inches
My first thought was to call the Williams Gun Sight company because I assumed Williams made the sights for Ruger. I’ve worked with Williams before and I knew they have excellent customer service. When I called them, I learned that they didn’t make the sights for my Ruger. The guy who took my call had a reference document and he told me that in the early No. 1 days, Marble made the sights. I called Marble, but I struck out there, too. The Marble’s sight base is different than the Ruger’s. While all this was going on, I examined the rear sight more closely and I saw a small Lyman stamp on it. So I contacted Lyman. Their guy told me they haven’t made sights for the Ruger No. 1 in decades.
At that point in my quest to find a lower rear sight, I was up to Strike 3 or maybe Strike 4, so I called Ruger directly. The pleasant young lady I spoke with at Ruger told me they could not sell me a lower replacement sight for my .458 No. 1; they can only sell what originally came on the rifle. So I told them I wanted a replacement rear sight for my .30 06 No. 1 (it has a much lower rear sight). I had to give them a serial number for my .30 06 (which I did), and they were happy to go with that. Ruger charged me $20 for the replacement.
After a week’s wait, I had my lower rear sight from Ruger. I drifted the old rear sight out with a brass punch and I installed the new one. The distance from the top of the old (tall) sight to the sight base is 0.505 inches. The distance from the top of the new (lower) sight to its base is 0.392 inches. Subtracting one from the other (i.e., 0.505 inches – 0.392 inches), I found the new rear sight was exactly 0.113 inches lower than the old rear sight. My calculation was that the rear sight needed to be lower 0.1133 inches lower. The fact that my calculation is almost exactly equal to how much lower the new rear sight is has to be coincidental. I just love it when things work out. Mathematically, that is. You might be wondering how the new rear sight worked out on the range. Quite well, thank you.
The first three shots through the .458 Winchester Magnum Ruger No. 1 with the new rear sight at 50 yards, without making any sight adjustments. I simply drifted the rear sight into the No. 1’s quarter rib and centered it by eye. All three shots would be scored in the X-ring.
You know, if I had mounted a scope all the above would have gone away. The scope would probably have enough adjustment range to compensate for the rifle shooting high. But a scope seems somehow out of place on an elephant gun, and I like shooting with open sights. I’ve read a lot of comments from older guys describing how they need a scope to cope with their aging eyes. I’m certainly an older guy with the inevitable attendant vision degradation, but I’ve gone the opposite way. I find shooting with open sights makes me feel younger, and getting tight groups with open sights is its own reward. I first learned to shoot a rifle using open sights, and doing so again makes me feel like a kid.
Next up will be trying a few shots at 100 yards. Stay tuned.
