I am busy experimenting with puff-lon. Got some from another AR member in RSA. I had a look at their website and got a lot of info there.

I would appreciate info on 22-250, 308 and 375.

I looks as if the 22-250 will be more sensitive to higher pressure and the 375 less, because of the case body thickness compared to the neck size, I am talking diameter. Am I correct.

I loaded the 22-250 5% less and got a hell of a high speed 3788ft/sec. I had quite a job opening the bolt. The extractor was bugerred. No other damage. I have allready made a new extractor. Just to be on the safe side I will let Frikkie my gunsmith friend also check it out.

I pulled all the bullets and reduced my loads with 15% and worked it up in .5 gr intervals, don't want a stuck bolt again.

What was your experiences. As far as I know nobody experimented with it in RSA up to now. I will appreciate all the help I can get.

I have not used Puff-Lon myself. Do find your experience very interesting. Would like very much to hear more as you go.

Just out of curiosity, what are your objectives which led you to use it?

With cast lead bullets, it and similar products have been quite widely used in the U.S. to protect the softer bullets during their acceleration into and through the barrel. But that sort of protection has never been needed in any of my numerous high speed jacketed bullet rifles.

Are you using it to reduce empty powder chamber space? Seems in the .22-250, that could be more easily achieved by selecting a powder appropriate to cartridge capacity, no?

Not trying to give you a bad time. Am trying to understand where you are going, and start what could be a conversation educational for me.

Alberta Canuck,
It is all about filling up the space. The problem in RSA is that we do not get a wide variety of powders. I will have to use a slower powder, but I won't get enough in to get the speed I want. Also because there is a lot of free space the powder can lay in any direction, towards the front or to the back. That can have a influence on the consistancy of the bullts, speed and accuracy. By using puff-lon you are basically copressing the load and keep it in its place. I hope to get better cosistency regarding speed. My reasoning is that if the speed is more cosistent, the barrel motion or vibration will be more consistent and therefore accuracy. Accuracy becomes more important if you shoot at longer distances. I do long distance shooting only when I do pest controll, baboons eating the mealies or jackal.

If it works there will be an added benefit in saving quite a bit on powders, if it will make economic sense it is still to be answered.

But as I said in the beginning I am experimenting at this stage and I haven't got a clue where I will end.

I will keep good records of what I am doing and will post the results as I do the tests

quote:

Originally posted by Jaco Human:
It is all about filling up the space. The problem in RSA is that we do not get a wide variety of powders. I will have to use a slower powder, but I won't get enough in to get the speed I want. Also because there is a lot of free space the powder can lay in any direction, towards the front or to the back. That can have a influence on the consistancy of the bullts, speed and accuracy. ...

Hey Jaco, When I read your initial post, and you mentioned the results of High Pressure, I was wondering if you were down-loading a "Slow Powder".

That being the situation, I would highly discourage doing it. There is an interesting effect of doing what you are into and it has a couple of names:
1. Secondary Explosion Effect.
2. Detonation.
3. Pressure Excursion.
4. And some folks still use the colloquial Ka-Boom.

Back when AC was a teenager, the NRA used to print a good bit about the Problems of down-loading Slow Powders. Lots "fewer" Powders back then and folks tried to make do with whatever they could get their hands on. (Sounds kind of like what you are going through.)

The lucky ones did fine for a lot of shots and became complacent about the danger. Then for no apparent reason if they were just a bit unlucky, they would end up with a "Ring" in the Chamber or beginning of the barrel.

If they were a bit more unlucky, they got to experience self-imposed explosive results. That is bad enough, but it is not always something that is easily demonstrated in Testing, it just happens on occasion.

Your best bet is to use published Loads for those Powders or have a good health insurance policy.

One alternative would be to get some Chamber Inserts to use a smaller Cartridge in that rifle. I beleive they may have 22Mag(rimfire)Chamber Inserts for it and for sure a 22LR CI is made.
---

By the way, it is not entirely due to the "position of the powder" at ignition. It also has to do with a cumulative-reflected Pressure Wave, somewhat similar to what can be seen with a HUGE Roller on the ocean.

I believe the GunSmith Charlie Sisk posted some information about blowing the front off of a rifle right here a year or so ago. And he was able to repeat it without personal injury, so I consider him a fairly lucky fellow.

Lots of totally ignorant speculation caused Mr. Sisk to go over to 24hour, which is a real loss for all of us here.
---

Anyway, I'd recommend against down-loading Slow Powders whether you use a Filler or not.

Best of luck to you.

Jaco -

I'm glad Hot Core popped in here. His warning is a soundly based one. Although I am obviously not living in RSA, I find it incredible that there is NOTHING there available which would be appropriate for the .22-250. Any powder ranging from about IMR-3031 to IMR 4350 burning rates (or their equivalents) will perform adequately in the .22-250.

And, the key word IS probably "adequately". Absolute maximum velocity is nice if it can be obtained with complete safety, but again there is a "Key" word..."absolute" safety.

It does a person no good in the long run to fire 33,333 shots with no bad experiences, then to blow his bloody hand off or eye out on number 33,334.

Anytime a .22 varmint bullet moves at 3,300 fps or over, it is gonna work pretty darned good on anything a varmint cartridge is intended for. And just about any powder can do that in the .22-250 with 55 grain bullets.

Thanks for the advise, but I am not trying to download. I am using S335 and get almost 3600ft/sec out of a 22' barrel, if I go higher the bolt starts getting slightly stickey. I have pushed it up to 3688, but I think I am walking on the dangerous side. I do not like to use ball powders as they are more suseptable to heat changes than extruded powders. I am using S335, which is the fastest extruded powder available in RSA. If I go to S355, which is slower, I will fill the case, but I will not get to 3600 ft/sec. With S335 I use 35,5 gr of powder and still have free space. The normally accepted load for 22-50 is 34.5 grains of powder, but then mu speed drops to 3430f/s, which is far to low.

I am happy with 3600f/s out of a 22" barrel.

I am fully aware of the negatives of downlowding and the effects of secondary explosions. by using puff-lon on extruded powders you get a slightly compressed powder that stays in its place. We want to see how this will effect the accuracy. The reason why I downloaded is to work a load up to 3600f/s. I do not want another high pressure blow out. Our experiment will only be done with extruded powders, compressed ball powders is dangerous as far as I an concerned, as they clog together when compressed, I do not know about other powders, but RSA ones do clog.

I understood from puff-lons website that the secondary explosion effect is eliminated by compressing the powder with puff-lon, when you are downloading. But again, my aim is not to experiment with downloaded cartridges

I'm sure you will enjoy the shooting and experimenting, but were I you, I would take the claims of ANY manufacturer or seller of an item such as puff-lon with a bit of salt before I relied totally on their claims.

I have owned and shot a lot of .22-250's, and quite frankly never found a full powder chamber to be either a requirement or an advantage when seeking accuracy. You may find the same, but of course the experiment itself is worth doing if you are not otherwise convinced.

Though a lot of people who've done a lot of shooting may have had different experiences than I (no surprise there), my best accuracy in most cartridges seems to usually come within the 85%-95% loading density range...that is, with the cartridge case space about 85%-95% filled. My benchrest rifles definitely shoot better that way...they of course are not 22-250's.

Just out of curiosity, for what do you find 3,450 fps inadequate? If it is accurate enough, the barrel will last a LOT longer at that speed, and it will still kill any varmint for which the .22-250 is generally appropriate won't it?

AC,
First of all I work up loads and check their groups.
Here is the results, I shot 3 shot groups, I know 5 shot groups is ideal, but I first wanted an indication before I further starts refining the loads and cartridge lengths. All Cartradges were loaded to 60mm AOL. I used Hornady 55gr SP bullets. The reason, accuracy is good and they are relative cheap paperpunching bullets. For varmint control I use Vmax.

34.5 gr 3424f/s group 44.23mm
35 gr 3451f/s group 40.84mm
35.5 gr 3550f/s group 20.68mm
36.0 gr 3652f/s group 50.92mm

The 3550 speed gave me the best group that is why I am using it. What is a bit of a concern to me is the sudden jump in speed, I suspect the pressure is increasing to much at that loads. I might have to go a bit lower with the loads. I started 1 grain higher than the recomended loads. I use Winchester brass and have a 22" barrel. The rifle is fully bedded, that is the way I bought it, I prefer a floating barrel and maybe a pressure point. I am also going to experiment with the pressure points on this particular rifle. A temporary pp did close the groups

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
I'm sure you will enjoy the shooting and experimenting, but were I you, I would take the claims of ANY manufacturer or seller of an item such as puff-lon with a bit of salt before I relied totally on their claims.

You are so right with this. One of their claims is that you will not need to clean you rifles again. Well I fired 1 shot and cleaned the rifle with Forest bore foam. A lot of blue came out, their claim BUSTED.

I very seldom believes the claims by manufacturers unless proven by myself or somebody reputable that I preferably know. The test that I am doing is with Pierre vd Walt who is a well kown balistic expert. I believe I have a good companion in him. I also check my ideas with various people in the reloading society.

quote:

Originally posted by Jaco Human:
...I loaded the 22-250 5% less and got a hell of a high speed 3788ft/sec. I had quite a job opening the bolt. The extractor was bugerred. No other damage. I have allready made a new extractor. Just to be on the safe side I will let Frikkie my gunsmith friend also check it out.

I pulled all the bullets and reduced my loads with 15% and worked it up in .5 gr intervals, don't want a stuck bolt again.....

Hey Jaco, The above is "why" we thought you were trying to down-load your 22-250, plus using a Filler.

Happened to think of the 4th term last night which is a "Pressure Excursion", which I'll go back and Edit into my first post.
---

quote:

...I understood from puff-lons website that the secondary explosion effect is eliminated by compressing the powder with puff-lon, when you are downloading. .....

Like AC, I'm a bit skeptical of this claim, especially in a Bottle Neck Case using "Jacketed Bullets". That does not mean the way you are using it is an inappropriate use of the material. It is just that most people who use "Fillers" have traditionally been using them in Straight Wall cases with Regular or Reduced Loads of Fast Powders and normally Lead(non-jacketed) Bullets. Otherwise, you get into random Pressure anomolies.

quote:

...One of their claims is that you will not need to clean you rifles again. Well I fired 1 shot and cleaned the rifle with Forest bore foam. A lot of blue came out, their claim BUSTED. .....

This ties in with using Lead Bullets. The reason why is because with most Lead Bullet Loads, there is an optimum Velocity which reduces Leading, created by Friction and Blow-by, to almost nothing. The actual velocity varies with the Lead Alloy and of course Bore condition.

But their "claim" is probably due to the Filler acting as a quasi gas-check which protects the Base of the Lead Bullets from melt-down. That results in a different kind of Leading in a barrel than Velocity Leading. And any kind of Filler or even Fake Gas-Checks work to help prevent this on Lead Bullets.
---

quote:

... I first wanted an indication before I further starts refining the loads and cartridge lengths. .....

This is the best thing I've seen posted, because it says you (and your buddy Pierre) obviously understand that you can "alter" the Accuracy by varying the Seating Depth(changing the cartridge length). A lot of folks overlook or forget that as they Develop Loads, and end up settling for something less than the Best possible Accuracy.

I think I understand where you are going now, and here are my recommendations:
1. Leave the Filler out of the cartridges.
2. Seat the Bullets to just "Kiss-the-Lands".
3. Leave the chronograph at home.
4. Work you Loads up from below until you reach a SAFE MAX, while watching for all the normal Pressure Indicators, using the never improved upon Creighton Audette Load Development Method.
5. Use both Case Head Expansion and Pressure Ring Expansion to make sure you STOP adding Powder at the appropriate level.
6. Once you know where the SAFE MAX is located, back off 1.5gr-2.0gr(not 0.5gr) and re-run the Testing by varying the Seating Depthto achieve the best possible accuracy.
7. Create your Drop Chart by actually shooting those Loads at the distances you intend to take shots.
8. Sell the chronograph because all it does is mislead and create confusion "if" it does not indicate some random Velocity you "believe" that you should be obtaining.

I use Puffalon, and have for several years.

I use in a somewhat different fashion though: cases that aren't filled to capacity by my most accurate powder, or where I really trying to wring the last ounce of speed out without causing pressure excursions.

In the cases that have a significant airspace, I usually keep my same (most accurate) weight of powder, and merely add the Pufflon.
I see a small increase in velocity (20 to 50 fps), but a much more marked lowering of the standard deviation of the velocities.
It helps the accuracy a bit, but I am mainly using it in large bore rifles, and the accuracy isn't that much of an issue (so far).

When I am trying to get the last bit of speed, I agree that you need to back off a few grains while testing with the Pufflon.
Again, I typically see a slight increase in accuracy as well.

I have a 30-06 AI at the stockmakers now, and I plan some experiments with IMR 4064 and Pufflon when it returns.

Garrett

Jaco, I have a big jar of Puff-Lon and have tried a few loads, nothing conclusive so far. But I see you will eventually try it on your .375. I have only tried it with lead cast bullets so far in the .375, using "faster" powders but for slower fps, not with jacketed bullets. I have also used it in my 416 Rigby with the 350 grain cast bullet (RCBS mould). But I will e-mail you with my approach and results.

Jaco

Just as has been already mentioned, most experience with the use of fillers is with reduced loads and cast bullets. Usually the loads are reduced enough that a slight pressure rise does not put one into the danger zone.

I have no direct experience with Puff-Lon but I have used granulated poly shot buffer in several cartridges. I have always had good results with such fillers in straight or near straight wall cases. I have tried it in some bottle neck cases but the results were less encouraging and, at least in the ones I tried it in, the pressures were markedly increased compared to straight wall cases. There may be no factual basis for my concerns but, from my limited experience, I will stay away from fillers and severe bottle neck cases. It just seems to me that trying to force, what amounts to, a compacted semi-solid plug through the reduced neck has the potential to up pressures to a much greater extent, percentage-wise, than with a straight wall case.

Hasn't Pierre got his pressure set-up working yet? Say hi to him for me when you talk to him again.

Mike

Mike
As far as I know he got it up, he promised to show me how it is working when he is doing tests again. He is so busy he hardly picks up his phone, wonder what he is busy with, most probably rifles and cartridges.

I will send him your regards, when he is eventually available

Hi,

I posted this on another site earlier this year, but it is my results with 38 special and pufflon:

-------------------------------

In case anyone is interested, I thought I'd post the results of my testing with Puff-Lon for 38 Special carry loads. Puff-Lon is a filler meant to keep the powder pressed up against the primer to reduce issues associated with powder position inconsistency.

I emailed the Puff-Lon contact on their website and they sent me out a free sample of Puff-Lon which was great. It is always nice when a company is willing to send out a sample of their product to see if it meets your needs.

So, my starting load for 38 Special is a Speer 135gr Short Barrel GDHP using VV n340 @ 6.0 gr and 1.437oal. The result of this load from a 1 7/8" barreled S&W 442 is:

135gr/n340/6.0gr/1.437 (no pufflon)
1st 5 shot string : 859 avg fps, SD 20, ES 43
2nd 5 shot string : 868 avg fps, SD 20, ES 48

A note on the Puff-Lon documentation said to reduce 10% from the maximum load to account for the filler's presence, so I did that from my 6.0gr load, reducing it to 5.4gr. You just put the powder in and then fill the case with pufflon before seating the bullet. It is a rubbery sort of powder which compresses when the bullet is seated.

135gr/n340/5.4gr/1.437 (with pufflon)
1st 5 shot string : 860 avg fps, SD 7, ES 18
2nd 5 shot string : 866 avg fps, SD 4, ES 12

I was surprised when the velocity was nearly the same as my 6.0gr load without Pufflon, so their recommendation to reduce by 10% was dead on in this case.

I have to say that the product did what it was supposed to, it cut the SD and ES down and made the load more consistent. It was also very accurate, I had nearly a couple shots landing on top of each other. I can't say for sure how much more accurate it was than the non pufflon load however, as the 6.0 load has also been very accurate.

I have mixed feelings on whether this product is worthwhile or not for 38 Special.

Its upside was:

It removed powder location inconsistency issues such as a wide velocity spread. Something that slower powders in a large 38 special case could certainly use.

Downsides:

A real pain when reloading as you have to pull each case from the press, fill it to the top with Pufflon and return it.

Makes a mess when you shoot it, it does not burn up, and ended up all over my range bag and anything else in the vicinity.

In the end I don't think I am going to use it and just stick with my 6.0gr n340 load because the work required for pufflon and the mess it makes seems more trouble than the lower SD/ES. Honestly, the mess it makes while shooting was my biggest complaint. If it didn't do that I might have done the extra work to get more consistency.

For those who think I'm nuts for even trying a filler in a pistol straight wall case, sure it might have been a wasted time experiment, but it was fun and it was interesting that it did produce a more consistent round of ammunition.

Thanks,

Alan

Hey Alan, Absolutely GREAT first-hand experience information.

That is an amazing change in the Load Stability.

By the way, Welcome Aboard!