What's a good replacement Ram-Rod?
03-26-2011, 08:44 AM
#21
Boone & Crockett
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Idaho
Posts: 11,703
U-ALL
I honestly do not understand a lot about this conversation... and I am not trying to be flippant, rude or ruffle any feathers....
I gave up on solid and flexible rods, either gun rods or range rods years ago. I removed all of my solid rods and changed them out to the lightweight hollow shaft aluminum rods.
In all these years since I figured out the muzzle loading thing - I have never bent a rod, even a hollow rod. For me the key is to load a projectile combination that you bore will accept. I know their are folks that still talk about pounding a load down the barrel but i really can not understand why, any one would want to do that. Even loading conicals, once you clear the crown the conical should go down.
The only time that I might worry about a hollow rod is when maybe pulling a projectile, but even then if it was not pounded down the hollow shaft should do the job just fine.
I use to have a bunch of extra solid rods around here I even promised to give one to a poster an extra one but when i checked the 15 rods I have - i do not have any left - just wood and plastic ones. The arrow shafts work well for me.
And again I would like to say - I did not write this to cause a problem or under-rate the solid gun rod for those that want them.
Range rod that is a different story... you can see i agree with GM54-120. This is the best range rod that i have ever used and it is sold stainless...
I honestly do not understand a lot about this conversation... and I am not trying to be flippant, rude or ruffle any feathers....
I gave up on solid and flexible rods, either gun rods or range rods years ago. I removed all of my solid rods and changed them out to the lightweight hollow shaft aluminum rods.
In all these years since I figured out the muzzle loading thing - I have never bent a rod, even a hollow rod. For me the key is to load a projectile combination that you bore will accept. I know their are folks that still talk about pounding a load down the barrel but i really can not understand why, any one would want to do that. Even loading conicals, once you clear the crown the conical should go down.
The only time that I might worry about a hollow rod is when maybe pulling a projectile, but even then if it was not pounded down the hollow shaft should do the job just fine.
I use to have a bunch of extra solid rods around here I even promised to give one to a poster an extra one but when i checked the 15 rods I have - i do not have any left - just wood and plastic ones. The arrow shafts work well for me.
And again I would like to say - I did not write this to cause a problem or under-rate the solid gun rod for those that want them.
Range rod that is a different story... you can see i agree with GM54-120. This is the best range rod that i have ever used and it is sold stainless...
Last edited by sabotloader; 03-26-2011 at 08:50 AM.
03-26-2011, 09:22 AM
#22
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 9,557
BP and a PRB is never a problem. Those guns get hickory rods like it should be.
Omega and BH 209 is another one with no problems.
The problem lies with the crappy sub powders that give crud rings. I won't touch them anymore.
If they stop making BH 209 i'll go back to my Hawken with a PRB and BP for hunting.
I'm old enough to be set in my ways.
btw The Omega weighs 6lb 10oz. I see no reason to make it lighter with a thin tubing rod.
Omega and BH 209 is another one with no problems.
The problem lies with the crappy sub powders that give crud rings. I won't touch them anymore.
If they stop making BH 209 i'll go back to my Hawken with a PRB and BP for hunting.
I'm old enough to be set in my ways.
btw The Omega weighs 6lb 10oz. I see no reason to make it lighter with a thin tubing rod.
03-26-2011, 09:26 AM
#23
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Boncarbo,Colorado
Posts: 9,186
Still on the original CVA ramrods that came with my guns. Most ramrods are bent due to the shooter holding them way to high up and pushing on the projectile with force.
4 to 6" above the muzzle is where you hold the ramrod.
With a wooden ramrod you darn sure dont hold it at the top and push down.
4 to 6" above the muzzle is where you hold the ramrod.
With a wooden ramrod you darn sure dont hold it at the top and push down.
03-26-2011, 09:36 AM
#24
Boone & Crockett
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Idaho
Posts: 11,703
The actual weight of carrying is not the problem for me it - is the effect it could/might have on POI's in some guns. but even then that is a poor excuse on my part.
03-26-2011, 10:54 AM
#25
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 5,605
Form follows function.
Each of mine has its own field rod that performs as needed BUT at the range they all get the Knight Ultimate range rod now. My 45cal SML range queen project will get one of Macs brass take down rods just in case i use it in the field. Im not hanging anything off of a $400-600 barrel plus the stock bedding costs.
Mac's collapsible is kinda cool but its ONLY for loading. This is his original design and comes with the pouch and seems to work fine even with tight Savage loads.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6R_bwC8ST4E
Depending on the bedding route i choose for my LRH project i probably wont have an attached field rod either. There is no reason for me to add what i don't need. I can count the number of times ive needed a field rod on one hand and still have enough fingers left over to flip the bird and pick my nose at the same time.
The new Easton shafts Knight is using as their new OEM rod look interesting too and i may try one for a field rod. Lots of people have used Easton shafts to make their own rods with very good success. The price isn't bad either for a DIY project.
Im even trying 2 "crappy" powders again to see if i got the crud ring under control and to see if the "new" powder is any better than the the last 3 pounds i tried. I prefer BH209 but i am running short on more powder for some fireworks if they don't meet my needs.
Each of mine has its own field rod that performs as needed BUT at the range they all get the Knight Ultimate range rod now. My 45cal SML range queen project will get one of Macs brass take down rods just in case i use it in the field. Im not hanging anything off of a $400-600 barrel plus the stock bedding costs.
Mac's collapsible is kinda cool but its ONLY for loading. This is his original design and comes with the pouch and seems to work fine even with tight Savage loads.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6R_bwC8ST4E
Depending on the bedding route i choose for my LRH project i probably wont have an attached field rod either. There is no reason for me to add what i don't need. I can count the number of times ive needed a field rod on one hand and still have enough fingers left over to flip the bird and pick my nose at the same time.
The new Easton shafts Knight is using as their new OEM rod look interesting too and i may try one for a field rod. Lots of people have used Easton shafts to make their own rods with very good success. The price isn't bad either for a DIY project.
Im even trying 2 "crappy" powders again to see if i got the crud ring under control and to see if the "new" powder is any better than the the last 3 pounds i tried. I prefer BH209 but i am running short on more powder for some fireworks if they don't meet my needs.
Last edited by Gm54-120; 03-26-2011 at 12:15 PM.
03-26-2011, 12:42 PM
#26
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 9,557
But I use those crappy powders and still see no need for the solid rod, especially since I only use a gun rod for hunting and then the only time it gets used is in the field maybe once or twice a year... But now that you bring it up what does the 'crud ring' have to do with solid or hollow? If you shoot the 'crappy powders' with the 'crud ring' would you not also learn, in time, how to handle that problem.
The actual weight of carrying is not the problem for me it - is the effect it could/might have on POI's in some guns. but even then that is a poor excuse on my part.
The actual weight of carrying is not the problem for me it - is the effect it could/might have on POI's in some guns. but even then that is a poor excuse on my part.
You can't imagine how mad I was. Don't even try to tell how great T7 is. I'm not going for it.
03-26-2011, 12:46 PM
#27
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 9,557
Still on the original CVA ramrods that came with my guns. Most ramrods are bent due to the shooter holding them way to high up and pushing on the projectile with force.
4 to 6" above the muzzle is where you hold the ramrod.
With a wooden ramrod you darn sure dont hold it at the top and push down.
4 to 6" above the muzzle is where you hold the ramrod.
With a wooden ramrod you darn sure dont hold it at the top and push down.
I use the ramrod on the Omega for hunting, range, and cleaning. I just add a T-handle for cleaning.
I've never bent a CVA rod, because i'm careful, but every one of them got screwed up in the threads of that extension. Then it's too short to use for most things. I just can't handle the wimpy flex from it. I don't like under engineered crap. The CVA rod is flimsy.
03-26-2011, 12:54 PM
#28
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 5,605
I can imagine how bad it would be if you got something like a mislabeled Thor stuck in a barrel. In a side lock that could really be a SOB. That could really ruin a hunt if you were far from home too but we learn how to solve these issues. Just like we learned how to get the best reliability with BH209.
Last edited by Gm54-120; 03-26-2011 at 12:56 PM.
