Greener .577

[Thomas Rutledge]

Much thanks everyone. Considering everything I am thinking no more than 1600-1700 fps and not heavier than 650 gr. Any suggestions on professionals to help me come up with a load? Thanks.

 

[Russ-F]

Tom,
Do yourself a favour & for starters get some ammunition from Kynoch (Kynamco). They do a .577 3” 610 grain Nitro-for black load using a barrel friendly softpoint bullet at 1650 fps. They have a US distributor. It’s not inexpensive ammunition but it’s ideal for your rifle & will give you way of easily shooting it, a benchmark to judge your own loads against should you with to reload plus some empty cases to use.

Regards
Russ

 

[rookhawk]

Russ gave you good advice if you can find the Kynoch NFB loaded ammo.


I just checked woodleigh’s site. They make a round nose, soft point, 650gr bullet that is designed to work between 1700-2000fps specifically for the 577 BPE. That is the bullet you should use if you want to hand load for this gun.

 

[rookhawk]

Nobody in the states has loaded Kynoch .577 NFB ammo.

Woodleigh bullets
Woodleigh foam wadding
Modern primers
Bertram .577 -3-1/4” brass
A magnum loading press
A magnum trimmer
Dies

That’s your starting point. You’ll need a custom trimmer made to cut 3-1/4” Bertram brass down to 3”.

It won’t be cheap, but you can get that nice old .577 shooting again. Getting ample supplies is the hard part. Brass and bullets will be your hardest thing to source but they are available.

Alternatively, you could hire someone to regulate the gun for you. For 100 pieces of loaded ammo, plus all the dies, bullets, brass, plus their time, probably $1000 in materials and $1000 in labor. At the end you’ll have ammo, reloading supplies, the proven recipe, and a regulation target showing its results.

I really want to see you get that gun working again! Should be a heck of a nice shooting iron if you can get it going. It would make a great brown bear or grizzly gun, along with all the plains game and big cats. Possibly buffalo too if you can get a harder bullet with a .065” thick jacket If it will regulate.

 

[Don458]

View attachment 249120

View attachment 249121 View attachment 249122 View attachment 249123 View attachment 249124 View attachment 249125

I am very jealous. Congratulations

 

[rookhawk]

Tom,
As it was built in 1897 it was proofed under the 1896 rules of proof which were in use until 1904. From the proof marks on your rifle it looks like it was proofed as a .577 express rifle (i.e. for black powder) – the option to proof for a smokeless (nitro) powder was available at the time & would have resulted in the charge weight & name of powder being stamped along with the other proof marks. At this time the proof house used ‘Riflelite’ as well as Cordite for nitro proof of rifled arms. Your rifle was subsequently re-proofed for the .577 3” Nitro cartridge in 1994.
Regards
Russ

I see the proofs a bit different Russ-F, or rather, I see another trip to the proofhouse. It looks like indeed, initial Black Powder Proof happened circa 1897. It went back to the proofhouse in 1921 to be proofed Nitro-For-Black powder. (Halberds crossed, A at top) At this point, the N.P. was added. Then back again in 1994 where it was proofed again for .577NE 3" at 2850BAR.

The original service load would have likely been 170gr of black powder with a lead 610gr lead bullet at around 1550fps @ and 17,248 psi. This would have produced 85 pounds of recoil energy to the shooter. *Note: this was the standard factory loading, we do not know what the regulating load was for this gun, it could have been 570, 610, 650, or 750 grains.

The nitro for black service load in 1921 would have likely been 90gr of cordite with a 650gr jacketed bullet at 1950fps @ 22,400psi. This would have produced 78 pounds of recoil energy to the shooter. *Note: this was the standard factory loading, we do not know what the regulating load was for this gun, it could have been 570, 610, 650, or 750 grains.

The nitro express service load in 1994 would have likely been 144gr equivalent modern powder (e.g. H4831SC) with a 750gr bullet at 2020fps @ 33,600psi. This would have produced 134 pounds of recoil energy to the shooter. *Note: this was the standard factory loading, we do not know what the regulating load was for this gun, it could have been 570, 610, 650, or 750 grains.

*The 1994 proof load shot twice through each barrel to pass proof would have been 41,335 psi!

It is truly a testament to the construction of these vintage guns that they can endure 240% of a normal load 97 years after original manufacture. Why the 1994 Birmingham proof house thought that was a good idea to do to this beautiful vintage rifle...I have absolutely no idea.

 

[Russ-F]

I see the proofs a bit different Russ-F, or rather, I see another trip to the proofhouse. It looks like indeed, initial Black Powder Proof happened circa 1897. It went back to the proofhouse in 1921 to be proofed Nitro-For-Black powder. (Halberds crossed, A at top) At this point, the N.P. was added. Then back again in 1994 where it was proofed again for .577NE 3" at 2850BAR.

The original service load would have likely been 170gr of black powder with a lead 610gr lead bullet at around 1550fps @ and 17,248 psi. This would have produced 85 pounds of recoil energy to the shooter. *Note: this was the standard factory loading, we do not know what the regulating load was for this gun, it could have been 570, 610, 650, or 750 grains.

The nitro for black service load in 1921 would have likely been 90gr of cordite with a 650gr jacketed bullet at 1950fps @ 22,400psi. This would have produced 78 pounds of recoil energy to the shooter. *Note: this was the standard factory loading, we do not know what the regulating load was for this gun, it could have been 570, 610, 650, or 750 grains.

The nitro express service load in 1994 would have likely been 144gr equivalent modern powder (e.g. H4831SC) with a 750gr bullet at 2020fps @ 33,600psi. This would have produced 134 pounds of recoil energy to the shooter. *Note: this was the standard factory loading, we do not know what the regulating load was for this gun, it could have been 570, 610, 650, or 750 grains.

*The 1994 proof load shot twice through each barrel to pass proof would have been 41,335 psi!

It is truly a testament to the construction of these vintage guns that they can endure 240% of a normal load 97 years after original manufacture. Why the 1994 Birmingham proof house thought that was a good idea to do to this beautiful vintage rifle...I have absolutely no idea.

Hello Rookhawk,

Proof marks can be very enlightening & also confusing at times - but always interesting. The “halberds crossed, with A at the top” which you mention are really the other way up. They are the crossed sceptres of the Birmingham ‘view’ mark – the letter ‘A’ is actually a letter ‘V’ (at the bottom); the indistinct mark at what is really the top is a crown. They are the proof marks you’d find on a gun proofed in the 1890’s. The other similar mark on each barrel i.e. the one with a very indistinct ‘P’ at the bottom & a crown at the top is the ‘definitive proof mark. Both of these marks were used until 1904.

From your mention of 1921 I guess you were reading the ‘view’ mark as the Birmingham date mark for 1921 which has crossed swords with a letter ‘A’ at the top. Yes it can look similar to a worn ‘view’ mark.

I’d noticed the ‘NP’ but it’s not related to nitro proof - also the similar mark on the other barrel is stamped ‘PN’ On close inspection the ‘NP’ mark is also stamped by separate letter stamps (they are not level with each other) with also a full stop after the P. (all letters in actual proof marks are part of a single die). In any event a nitro proof mark around the 1920’s (or any period) would look very different (if from Birmingham they’d have a crown above for instance) plus at that time there would be stamped additional service load information. It’s not unusual to find assorted letters & numbers stamped on barrels which have nothing to do with proof. Sometimes they are the barrel makers mark, sometimes they are just a mystery.

So really there’s nothing visible on the barrels or the action other than the original 1890’s proof marks & those of the nitro proof in 1994.

The rifle would not have been re-proofed for ‘nitro-for black’ loads as the point of these loads were that they were suitable from a pressure point of view for BP proofed rifles as they stood.

Kynoch also produced some so called ‘Light Nitro’ or ‘Light Cordite’ loads but these are very different loads which produced enhanced pressure & ballistics albeit still less than the full Nitro load - there’s no indication the rifle was reproofed for these loads either.

As to what the proof house was thinking of to re-proof the Greener in 1994, well they proof or re-proof what the trade gives them although the proof house can & do refuse to accept shotguns or rifles which they consider will stand very little chance of passing proof. The rifle is a very sturdy example so it was obviously considered acceptable & they were right – as far as the test was concerned. I share your puzzlement though - I think perhaps the most appropriate question is - what was the owner at the time thinking of?

‘Safe’ doesn’t always mean ‘suitable’ - for full 3” nitro loads. The rifle as it stood could already fire some pretty potent loads – ones which were more than enough relative to the weight of the rifle (as you have already alluded to). People do strange things sometimes.

When all said & done it’s an impressive rifle & Tom will have a lot of shooting enjoyment with it - but not with 3” full Nitro loads!

Regards
Russ

 

[rookhawk]

Good catch, Russ. You're absolutely right, that is a V, not an A. I retract the suggestion it had been NFB proofed in 1921...it did not. Two trips to the proofhouse, 1897 and 1994. No doubt about it, its a fascinating piece.

 

[Thomas Rutledge]

Russ and Rookhawk, I appreciate you guys taking an interest. I have learned much from this forum and I feel a responsibility to honor the integrity of the rifle based on its original design limitations. I am feeling better as time goes by the rifle wasn’t damaged in previous years from neglect or firing NE loads. Not saying it hasn’t happened but the rifle appears to have escaped fatal damage from it. I feel based on your inputs my next step is a chamber cast to see if the chambers meet specs to use off the shelf reloading dies. If not get correct ones made. I would then begin the work of finding a regulating load for the rifle and document. I will need plenty of advice along the road and I thank you for your willingness to help.

Thomas Rutledge

 

[AfricaHunting.com]

@Thomas Rutledge, I removed your telephone number from your post for privacy reasons with only your best interests in my mind. If you wish to share your number with fellow members please feel free to do so in the PM system. Regards, Jerome

 

[Thomas Rutledge]

Update: I have the old girl going again. With much good advice from forum members and two days of concierge service from Lonnie at Superior ammo I was able to work up a regulation load. Lonnie cooked up a recipe that regulated with the first 4 shots. Target at 50 yds using the one hundred yard sight. We expected to be about 1.4 inches high. Rt barrel 2 hits 2 inches high and right 2 inches. Left barrel 2 shots slightly left and high at 1.6 inches in the same hole. Total group size 3 inches. 650 woodliegh SN averaged 1750 fps. 4400 lbs of energy. The rifle functioned perfectly. Recoil in the 65 lb range. I have a sore shoulder! I feel I have a well regulated PG rifle that is ready to go.

I want to thank everyone who contributed to my project as all of the info was valuable and likely prevented me from doing damage to a beautiful double rifle. I would like to give a huge shoutout to Lonnie at Superior who put his heart into the project and no doubt has added value to my rifle and knowledge to me I very much needed.

Thanks again everyone.

Thomas

 

[Thomas Rutledge]

The faint squares you see are one inch.

 

[Thomas Rutledge]

Full image now if that helps?

 

[rookhawk]

Congrats on your hard work, Tom!

I’d encourage you/Lonnie to try .5 grains more/less powder and see if your group grows or shrinks.

While you certainly have a “workable” load, it sounds like there is room for improvement and that you guys didn’t exhaust many options.

Heck, even if that’s the best load with that bullet and powder (I don’t think it is), you could ask Lonnie what other powders could be tried as well.

There is nothing about your gun to suggest it isn’t capable of excellent accuracy. I think with work your 4 shot group size will be half the size of your current load.

Stick with it! And congratulations on all your progress!

 

[Thomas Rutledge]

You are correct. I was time limited. I feel the individual barrels are grouping well. It may be possible with more time to bring the two groups closer but I admit I am happy as hell..

Thanks.

 

[Witold Krzyżanowski]

Very, very nice double rifle.

 

[Thomas Rutledge]

I need an old school style sling mount like this one for the stock of my rifle. Any information on how to source one of these would be appreciated. Thanks, Tom

 

[rookhawk]

Tom, they do not exist. Therefore they have to be made. They are expensive to have made custom, about $100 or so.

Then, once made, you need fish-hook style sling swivels. Those are expensive too, about $100 a pair when you find them. (usually vintage parker hale or winchester style). Ebay is a regular source.

Then you need a safari sling, Trader Keith has the canvas web slings available for around $80.

I've learned this all the hard way, because I've needed more than a dozen of them over the years and was forced down these routes.

DO NOT use normal sling swivels with the oversized swivel studs. DO NOT use a fish-hook swivel on the front barrel swivel if you're concerned about scratches to the barrel.

If you get the swivel eyes resolved, another option that is semi-permenant is a strop / rawhide sling that knots to the front and rear swivel eyes. It's silent and period correct. It's also really annoying because you can't easily remove them, but they ARE silent. Alternatively, you're back to the swivel eyes and swivel fish hooks which are also correct for the gun, but are noisier and scratch the gun over time.

 

[Thomas Rutledge]

I’m not sure the specs or who could make it. I would love to see a picture of the strop style if you have one. Thanks,

Tom

 

[Thomas Rutledge]

Tom, they do not exist. Therefore they have to be made. They are expensive to have made custom, about $100 or so.

Then, once made, you need fish-hook style sling swivels. Those are expensive too, about $100 a pair when you find them. (usually vintage parker hale or winchester style). Ebay is a regular source.

Then you need a safari sling, Trader Keith has the canvas web slings available for around $80.

I've learned this all the hard way, because I've needed more than a dozen of them over the years and was forced down these routes.

DO NOT use normal sling swivels with the oversized swivel studs. DO NOT use a fish-hook swivel on the front barrel swivel if you're concerned about scratches to the barrel.

If you get the swivel eyes resolved, another option that is semi-permenant is a strop / rawhide sling that knots to the front and rear swivel eyes. It's silent and period correct. It's also really annoying because you can't easily remove them, but they ARE silent. Alternatively, you're back to the swivel eyes and swivel fish hooks which are also correct for the gun, but are noisier and scratch the gun over time.

Not sure if you noticed but there is another greener 577 out there for sale on guns international. Similar to mine, same year but 2 3/4 chamber. Cracked stock that looks bad enough for a restock IMO.