quote:

Originally posted by 500N:

quote:

The 470 is one of the best to use with modern powders, because the case is filled enough to negate the use of fillers with most slow powders. This is not the case with all NE cartridges, however, and with most a filler of some type are a must if one is to get the best from his double rifle!

Mac,

Please list the calibres you think need a filler with Modern powders.

I would say
450 No 2
the 475's ?

What's your call - or anyone else's ?

500N, most all older NE cartridges where the powder doesn't fill the case to within 3/8 to about 1/2 inch of the base of the bullet,with a regulating load, and even then the use of a polyfiber filler doesn't hurt anything.

Where a filler is really indicated is with old black powder cartridges when useing a load of smokeless powders, and especially if useing a duplex load, with a very fast burning load on the primer, topped with the main charge of a slow powder, the filler is a must, to avoid the migration of the fast powder into the slow powder charge, and to hold it all against the primer. In this case the polyfibers are the best filler, especially in bottle necked cases, such as the old blk pdr 500/450#1 Express. That is a large bottle necked case, and the smokeless powder charge leaves a lot of case empty, and must be filled with the polyfill to work at all. Modern black powder will not regulate in this cartridge, without a duplex load. and I dislike duplex loads!

No type of "WAD" should be used on the primer side of the shoulder of the bottle neck of a cartridge, even foam. The polyfill creates no resistance to being pushed through the necked case. Many of the streight case also do much better with filler, as well. cartridges like the 450NE 3 1/4", and the streight cases is the very best place for the foam plug fillers, or felt wads, as long as no airspace is left in the case!

Rusty,
Here it is again, What Ross Seyfried said in the HANDLOADER 219 October-November 2002, an article entitled "Loading the .500 Express" on page 43:





This is a straight case, no bottle neck, and only polyester fiber fill is recommended here too.
13 grains of fluff
packed into a half-filled case
with fast powder (4198) (just a wee bit slower than 5744)
standard primer: Not Magnum Primer

Ray Atkinson called Ross to talk about this. A search might turn it up.

I am of the opinion that it is gremlins in the powder that produce pockets of explosiveness where the powder has some grains that did not get the right deterrent coating, and the gremlins line those grains up right next to the primer, and voila, detonation.

I have never heard of RL-15 plus polyester fiber filler, packed tight, ever causing problems. That would be a charge filling about 85% of the powder space, and 5 grains of polyester fluff packed into a 470 NE case with 500-grainer seated over that. No problem.

I have never heard of a case full of H4831 with no filler causing any problems either, in a modern rifle of good steel. Indeed, peak pressures will be lower than with RL-15, but they may persist a little farther down the barrel, past the thickest part of the barrel contour, and may not be confidence inspiring in an old antique double with lead-containing gun steel and thin muzzles.

Commonality: good and uniform powder, and loaded tight so the powder does not shake and move around. No room for the gremlins to rub the deterrent coating off the grains and line them up.

Secondary projectile theory: Nice theory. Not proven scientifically. And Wright still likes foam filler.

If anyone has anything newer from Ross Seyfried on the foam filler versus polyester fiber, that would be interesting. He never explained his "theory" as to why the foam wad was a no-no.

Gremlins.

I thought that was the article. It refers to loads for Black Powder rifle not Nitro Proved rifles.

The culprit load that started this thread was very similar to a BP Express load fired in a NE rifle.

A case about half full of AA5744 and using a foam wad filler, but with a heavier bullet than BPE would use.

Is Ross implying that he restricts use of foam wads only in BPE rifles?

I do not think so. Gremlins are not confined only to BPE loads.

Yes, we are rehashing what we went over here 4 years ago. Still nothing new, except I don't have any 5744 anymore, lousy inaccurate stuff without a filler.

The 5744 powder has worked well for me in the 505G and the 500 but it leaves enough junk in the barrel it's like you shot a blackpowder load, enough that I don't use it anymore.
And now the phobia begins, I bet there are going to be a lot of 5744 burns in the backyard after this post, bring the marshmellows and hotdogs it might be time to invest in Oscar Myer stock.

Hodgdon 4831 & 4831 Short Cut. Norma MRP, MRP-2 & 203-B. What else do you need to reload in North America for big bore Nitro Express? This will take you from just under 2000fps with a SP to 2150fps behind an FMJ (both Woodleighs of course). Hey! There's your reduced load!!

Rip,
The article said nothing about 5744. It refers to IMR or Hodgdon 4198 which is a very common powder used in reloading the old black powder proofed 500s. As he states, I would never use any other filler than Dacron polyester filler in reloading a BP round.

The problem that started this thread was the use of any filler with 5744, which the manufacturer states that you should not use.

Clearly the problem was the use of a filler, not what kind of filler.

My choice of filler is Dacron polyester as stated in the Dec. 1999/Jan. 2000 Handloader article that Ross wrote, "Reloading the Nitro Express". The loads involve RL-15 plus Dacron polyester. No other powders or fillers were discussed or recommended in that article.

After talking with Kynamco, and finding out that they were using and selling foam plugs I have tried the plugs and made some as well. I find no difference between the Dacron and soft foam Kynamco plugs in my rifle.

quote:

Originally posted by Rusty:
Rip,
The article said nothing about 5744. It refers to IMR or Hodgdon 4198 ...

Yes Rusty. I know. But AA5744 is about the same speed as IMR-4227, which is right next to H4198 and IMR-4198, so the similarity is there ...

But the difference is the "lower bulk-density," as the manufaturer of 5744 calls it (less weight per volume), as well as what they don't call it: a very dirty powder.

Maybe it was fifty shots of fouling buildup in the barrels (25 shots each barrel?) that retarded that one cast bullet enough to cause a "detonation-like" burn of the 5744?

5744 is for weenies: It makes fair kindling for the charcoal. Let it burn off thoroughly before the cooking begins.

O.K. Rusty,
It would seem to me that either foam wad or poly-fiber wad should be no problem with 85% loads of RL-15, or 1.19 x Cordite charge with NE bullet weight.

It would be ridiculous to try to stack up enough wads to fill the air space of a monster NE case with "half-full or less" 4198 or 5744 charge.

Dirty 5744 is a no-no with any filler, O.K.

Now the only alternative for a "reduced load" in a NE case would be to follow Seyfried's recommended recipe for BPE loads: 4198 (at 40% to 46% of BP charge weight) and lots of poly-fiber fill.

Is IMR-4198 cleaner burning than H4198, and maybe more temperature dependent, or are they near identical?

I have no desire to do BPE-equivalent reduced loads in my 470 NE, but might need to if I owned a BPE rifle.

It seems to me that one must not forget to lower the bullet weight too, to BPE bullet weight levels, for BPE-equivalent loads, cast bullet or jacketed.

Should one match bullet diameter to groove diameter precisely and avoid those extra thou's with the cast bullets?

Primary projectile wad and secondary projectile bullet obstructing the chamber outlet ... or just sluggishly moving bullet from 5744 fouling in the barrel ... ???

Where's the scientific research on this?

Rip,
We all need to be cautious of trying to extrapolate loads. XXXX is close to YYYY and ZZZ is close to . . . Pretty soon we can say that Bulleye is close to IMR 4831?

Folks ought to pay attention to proven loads and data offered by powder and ammo manufacturers and people who develop loads, like Ross Seyfried.

When a manufacturer tells you no filler with a load, you shouldn't use filler.

If you wonder too far from the proven path you may find yourself buying a new rifle or set of barrels, or God forbid loosing body parts.

Personally, I like to shoot as often as I can, 5744 with pistol bullets are more economical, than 90 ~ 120 grains of whatever powder, with a $3 ~ $10 Premium bullet in front of it. It may be a little dirty, but I would rather get muscle memory and practice with my DR, than not shoot at all, due to cost of premium full house ammo (Factory or Handload).

Personally...use 45grns AA5744 behind a 330grn hard cast bullet in my Krieghoff 500/416. It regulates beuatifuly shoots to the same point of aim at 50m as my regular hunting loads (110grns H1000 behind a woodleigh 410grn bullet) and works just right on bushpig at night .

I use no filler and CCI mag primers (all I can find in Zim). 35grns 5744 behind either a 330grn or 400grn cast bullet works just fine for speed shooting and reloading practice but doesn't regulate as well or shoot to quite the same point of aim. (but wen fireing 50 rnds in practice at ranges of 25yards and under I like the economy! It costs me arround US$80 a pound to get either 5744 or H1000

quote:

Originally posted by Rusty:
Rip,
We all need to be cautious of trying to extrapolate loads. XXXX is close to YYYY and ZZZ is close to . . . Pretty soon we can say that Bulleye is close to IMR 4831?

Folks ought to pay attention to proven loads and data offered by powder and ammo manufacturers and people who develop loads, like Ross Seyfried.

When a manufacturer tells you no filler with a load, you shouldn't use filler.

If you wonder too far from the proven path you may find yourself buying a new rifle or set of barrels, or God forbid loosing body parts.

This is excellent advice to live by. There is no reason to off the ranch when developing loads and surely no reason to ignore a powder maker's advice.

JPK

quote:

Secondary projectile theory: Nice theory. Not proven scientifically. And Wright still likes foam filler.

Perhaps if you hung out at sites where a lot of cast bullets were shot you would know more about ringed chambers cause by using fillers.

Wisdom from Rusty.
ireload2,
I am new to this cast bullet stuff.
If you have any links to a case in point, that would be helpful.
Or shall I Google?

I am also getting into flintlocks and percussion rifles for round balls of .395 caliber, late in life. Got any 40-cal muzzleloader info?

I used to think Sam Fadala was an odd, old coot. Not anymore.

I have Googled.
NRA has been warning about chamber ringing since the 1970's.

A small wad holding the powder in place, with air space between the wad and the bullet is the culprit, and so would be a stack of foam that is mostly air in a long column between powder and bullet base:

It seems to me that the wad allows more efficient ignition and then blows forward and compresses against the base of the bullet, letting off the initial pressure rise that should have continued to build to get the bullet moving.

There is a slight hesitation in which time the powder completes ignition before the bullet moves and pressures spike.

Akin to a primary bullet running into a secondary bullet in the barrel.

I understand it by thinking like that. Whatever the semantics of which to call the primary projectile (wad) or secondary projectile (bullet in case mouth or further down the barrel) ...

It still seems akin to a detonation of the charge before the bullet gets moving.

As for 40-caliber muzzleloaders, they are a dying breed that must be saved! Legal for deer, adequate for squirrel!

quote:

Originally posted by ireload2:

quote:

Secondary projectile theory: Nice theory. Not proven scientifically. And Wright still likes foam filler.

Perhaps if you hung out at sites where a lot of cast bullets were shot you would know more about ringed chambers cause by using fillers.

Perhaps if you did so yourself you would know more about ringed chambers caused by using fillers improperly. The same fast burning powders in the same cases have produced the same result WITHOUT fillers. The problem is that these folks think that the purpose of a filler is to hold the powder against the flash hole, and nothing could be further from the truth.
------------------------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

Question for all. No right or wrong answers, just would like your feedback.


Talking Nitro loads only here, NOT BP or NfB.

In the majority of cases for Nitro Express loads, a powder exists that almost fills the NE case, you sit the bullet on top and away you go. Play around a little bit with the load and get the gun shooting / regulated.

In view of the above which is safe, easy and has been proven to work, why do users use lower volume powders that need or require fillers and the "slight" possibility of a problem, either with the filler or the large airspace ?

Now I know you get the odd gun or two that doesn't like X, Y or X powder and a lower volume powder needs to be used to get it to shoot but these are the exceptions rather than the rule.

I welcome your responses.

quote:

Originally posted by 500N:
In the majority of cases for Nitro Express loads, a powder exists that almost fills the NE case, you sit the bullet on top and away you go. Play around a little bit with the load and get the gun shooting / regulated.

I've sometimes found it that easy, but certainly haven't found it to be the rule. Burn rate is usually too slow. Kynoch found the same thing in their testing.

quote:

In view of the above which is safe, easy and has been proven to work,

That's highly debatable.

quote:

why do users use lower volume powders that need or require fillers

Because we don't have a current propellant that approximates burn rate with the same bulk that these cases were designed for.

quote:

and the "slight" possibility of a problem, either with the filler or the large airspace ?

Just follow the instructions and there is no possibility for a problem whatsoever.

The problem here is that these cases were not designed for stick powders, and those that fill up the case are slow burning. Cordite was bulky with a medium burn rate.

I've followed this issue in detail for a long time. Thirty odd years ago, slow burning powders were deemed the obvious choice, because they filled up the case and produced the desired performance. Quite a number of DRs were blown to smithereens in this way. They usually look like someone welded the muzzles shut before pulling the trigger. Shredded. Certainly spectacular to look at. I'm glad I wasn't present when they went to heaven.

As a result, over time conventional wisdom changed to faster burning propellants that required fillers. I know of several that were destroyed, but not blown, with 3031 (wrecked actions), but 3031 has long been in disfavor. I know of two that were blown with RL 15. One was a .470 with NO FILLER (fucking morons), and the other was a .465 that blew with a normal load of RL 15 and a foam wad. I believe that rifle blew due to previous barrel damage, as it clearly wasn't a pressure burst. Given the track record, I'm much, Much, MUCH happier if the rifle prefers RL 15.

Certainly, 4831 will work in many DRs, but it isn't a panacea, and I've never found it as consistent as RL 15. Generally, when working with a DR that is new to me, I've found it easier to get them to regulate at standard velocity with RL 15 than with 4831. I've certainly found more that didn't shoot well with 4831 than I have with RL 15. I'll use 4831 if that's what the rifle shoots best with, but RL 15 is always the first stop.
-----------------------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

I am just a duffer still finding his way, so take this with a grain of Dacron:

Old-timers used IMR-3031 on a grain-for-grain basis to substitute for Cordite original charges and got equivalent velocities for Nitro Express loads with the original bullet weights. However, a lot of Dacron filler was required, and sometimes the ugly chamber ring reared its head.

RL-15 charges at 119% of the original Cordite charge weight arose next, required less filler, and all was well. Note the recoil must be greater with RL-15 than original Cordite, but close enough. Peak pressures must be less with RL-15 than original Cordite. Good!

Lower pressures still and greater recoil still can be had with slower powders that fill the case, and absolutely no worries with filler. IMR-4831 at 133% of the Cordite weight is quoted as a starting point, and surely on the light side. Slightly slower H4831 will require more.

However, instead of chamber ringing, now some old antique doubles (with very thin barrels made of leaded steel of Pre-war vintage) have begun to show their rifling on the outside of the barrel!!! Higher pressures farther down the barrels even though peak chamber pressure is only about 75% of Cordite loads?

RL-15 is for antiques with oil-soaked wood and thin, weak-steel barrels.

H4831 is for modern-steel doubles with thicker barrels such as the "Krupp Stahl" Merkel. Mine works almost as well with RL-15 also, and 5 grains of Dacron filler.

dacron is 98% AIR by volume.. like alot of the arguements against it. it's NOT a wad or card, it has no weight, and is safer than a 70% desinty load that a pressure spike would blow up a doublegun.


and

quote:

The problem is that these folks think that the purpose of a filler is to hold the powder against the flash hole, and nothing could be further from the truth.

So what is the big secret then? Why would filler be used by anyone? Why IS a filler used??????

Both fillers and inappropriate powders have been connected to ringed chambers...used in combination as well as alone. The most common cause is filler impacting the back end of a bullet. Some shooters think fillers include Cream of Wheat, Grex, florist foam kaypok, dacron and who knows what else. Then they pack it into the case and wonder why they get a ringed chamber and the front end of the brass stretched or shot off shot off with the bullet.
When a gun is almost blown apart as described above it is the fault of the guy loading the brass not the particular powder involved.

But be sure to tell us why people use fillers?

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
dacron is 98% AIR by volume.. ...

Jeffeosso,
You forgot to compress your fluff ball.
Dacron is about 3 times more dense than the foam wads when properly packed in that case between bullet and powder.

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:
Dacron is about 3 times more dense than the foam wads when properly packed in that case between bullet and powder.

no, its not, and that's the problem. it is there to prevent movement, not to be compressed...

besides, compared to bullet, it is what, 1% as dense as a copper bullet?

this is CRAP to bother discussing.. don't compress you dacron or your loads... it only leads to trouble and seat wetting!

When I first started to load for my 450 No2 I did a lot of research on fillers and ringed chambers.

In all instances that I could find it only occured with light loads and "just a pinch" of dacron or kapok to hold the powder against the primer.

In the 450 No2 I have to use a filler with all powders, even IMR 4831 or I have hang fires.

I have good loads with IMR 3031, IMR 4831, and RL 15.

Accuracy and regulation is equal with all powders, but RL 15 seems to have less pressure.

IMR 4831 has more recoil and the barrel gets hotter about halfway down.

I have used dacron and three different densities of foam filler, all with equal results. I highly recommend that you have some compression of your filler, whether dacron or foam. This keeps any airspace from developing in your loaded rounds when being handled/carried over a period of time.

I have also loaded Nitro for Black loads in my 450 No2, and my 450/400 3 1/4" using dacron and foam with no problems. Again the foam or dacron is compressed.

I have shot around four thousand rounds with filler in the 450 No2 with no problems.

However I did have a barrel burst in a Holland & Holland 500/465 using Woodleigh bullets and RL 15 with filler.

Near as we can tell this was a barrel steel failure, not a load/filler/powder/bullet problem.

quote:

Originally posted by ireload2:

quote:

The problem is that these folks think that the purpose of a filler is to hold the powder against the flash hole, and nothing could be further from the truth.

So what is the big secret then? Why would filler be used by anyone? Why IS a filler used??????

Both fillers and inappropriate powders have been connected to ringed chambers...used in combination as well as alone. The most common cause is filler impacting the back end of a bullet. Some shooters think fillers include Cream of Wheat, Grex, florist foam kaypok, dacron and who knows what else. Then they pack it into the case and wonder why they get a ringed chamber and the front end of the brass stretched or shot off shot off with the bullet.
When a gun is almost blown apart as described above it is the fault of the guy loading the brass not the particular powder involved.

But be sure to tell us why people use fillers?

You need to read my previous post to you for the first time. You also might want to learn something about double rifles before posting on this forum.
------------------------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:
I am just a duffer still finding his way, so take this with a grain of Dacron:

That's clear enough.

quote:

Old-timers used IMR-3031 on a grain-for-grain basis to substitute for Cordite original charges and got equivalent velocities for Nitro Express loads with the original bullet weights. However, a lot of Dacron filler was required, and sometimes the ugly chamber ring reared its head.

Only if a small tuft was used, but I never heard of chamber ringing with 3031 when Dacron was used correctly.

quote:

Lower pressures still and greater recoil still can be had with slower powders that fill the case, and absolutely no worries with filler. IMR-4831 at 133% of the Cordite weight is quoted as a starting point, and surely on the light side. Slightly slower H4831 will require more.

Nope. It's a rough guide to a max load, not a starting load.

quote:

However, instead of chamber ringing, now some old antique doubles (with very thin barrels made of leaded steel of Pre-war vintage) have begun to show their rifling on the outside of the barrel!!! Higher pressures farther down the barrels even though peak chamber pressure is only about 75% of Cordite loads?

Nope. Overstressed rifling is from monolithic bullets, and has nothing to do with pressure.

quote:

H4831 is for modern-steel doubles with thicker barrels such as the "Krupp Stahl" Merkel.

Uh, RIP? We were talking about double rifles? Clubs don't quite qualify...
-----------------------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:
Dacron is about 3 times more dense than the foam wads when properly packed in that case between bullet and powder.

no, its not, and that's the problem. it is there to prevent movement, not to be compressed...

That's the ditty that the guys with the rung chambers have warbled forever. They're the same guys that pound their heads against the wall because it feels so good when they stop.

quote:

besides, compared to bullet, it is what, 1% as dense as a copper bullet?

this is CRAP to bother discussing.. don't compress you dacron or your loads... it only leads to trouble and seat wetting!

So many crying the same thing with a ruined rifle in their hands can't be wrong, eh?

One more time - this is easy to do right, with no worries whatsoever. With Dacron, fill up the remaining space to the point of compression. If you're not going to do it that way, use a slower powder that doesn't require a filler. With the No. 2s, you're stuck with a filler.
-----------------------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:
I have Googled.
NRA has been warning about chamber ringing since the 1970's.

A small wad holding the powder in place, with air space between the wad and the bullet is the culprit

Correct. Classic incorrect use of a filler.

quote:

, and so would be a stack of foam that is mostly air in a long column between powder and bullet base:

Which is why I wouldn't use multiple foam wads in an NFB application. I think that's what happened to the guns that Ross referred to. Best to use Dacron. The original factory NFB Express loads used a combination of card and fiber wads to fill up the large air space that was still present when Crushed Cordite, Light Express Cordite, SR, and even reduced charges of Axite and Cordite Mk 1, were used.
-----------------------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

If Cordite is so great, why does Kynoch not just bring it back?

I thought the purpose of the wad was to insure semi-good ignition of the powder in the big cases since the hot Federal primers are not available. The Fed. factory 470 NE rounds have plenty of air space and no wad.

If that is the situation, why does it matter if there is an air gap between the wad and the bullet? Surely there is plenty of air gap in Federal factory loads. It seems unreasonable to expect any real effect of a wad on "ringing" or anything else in full house loads.

As "450 NE No. 2" stated if he was experiencing hang fires with no wad, therein is the reason to use one. And in response to "ireload2" 's question before the abuse started.

Though only a relatively few rounds, the RL-15 loads in my 470 and 450 No. 2 with a single Kynoch foam wad have not indicated any problems. The 470 rounds have little or no air gap between the foam wad and the bullet but the 450 No. 2 rounds have quite a bit.

There are so many variables in these "accidents" I seriously doubt anyone can nail down the real cause, without seeing the evidence and having some first hand knowledge of what has transpired.

"It's the bullet, no the barrels, no the powder, no the wad .... " What has it proven? Not much.

Without experimental facilities and the appropriate instrumentation, it boils down to using the manufacturers' reloading information and the experiences of previous reloaders' tinkering. What else is there?

From my own standpoint, load 'em up with RL-15, stick in a foam plug, and call it good. Getting too far off the reservation just seems to be taking too many unreasonable and unnecesary risks.

I have shot thousands of rounds of .32-40 and .30-30 Wesson in Ballards and Hi-Walls using breach-seated bullets and a tuft of cotton over the powder. I have never experienced ringing in the chamber. Likewise black powder loads with Walter's Wads and breach-seated bullets with no ill effect.
Charlie Dell has done more testing than anyone I'm familiar with in the area of ringed chambers and he had no definitive answer. Only possible contributing factors including barrel steel composition.

I've used cotton filler in my 450-400 3 1/4 BPE and Nitro as well as in my 450 3 1/4 NE. Excellent accuracy (all RL 15 or 4831) and no ill effects.

Dutch

Will,
It isn't that is was so great, it was just what the rifles were regulated for.

When you start substituting for Cordite in older British doubles you need to be cautious about burn rates and pressure curves. That is where RL-15 comes in. It does a good job of substituting for Cordite when used with the formula provided by Ross Seyfried.

RL-15 is a position sensitive powder. The Darcon or foam does hold the powder against the flash hole in the large Nitro Express cases. The real upside to RL-15 with dacron or foam in those big cases is a very uniform velocity.

In today's modern double rifles you ought to be able to use whatever powder you'd like, as long as you remember that regulation not speed is the ultimate goal.

Keep in mind that what Ross said about ringing chambers was with foam plugs in BPE loads, not nitro express loads with RL-15.

quote:

Originally posted by Will:
If Cordite is so great, why does Kynoch not just bring it back?

I thought the purpose of the wad was to insure semi-good ignition of the powder in the big cases since the hot Federal primers are not available. The Fed. factory 470 NE rounds have plenty of air space and no wad.

If that is the situation, why does it matter if there is an air gap between the wad and the bullet? Surely there is plenty of air gap in Federal factory loads. It seems unreasonable to expect any real effect of a wad on "ringing" or anything else in full house loads.

As "450 NE No. 2" stated if he was experiencing hang fires with no wad, therein is the reason to use one. And in response to "ireload2" 's question before the abuse started.

Though only a relatively few rounds, the RL-15 loads in my 470 and 450 No. 2 with a single Kynoch foam wad have not indicated any problems. The 470 rounds have little or no air gap between the foam wad and the bullet but the 450 No. 2 rounds have quite a bit.

There are so many variables in these "accidents" I seriously doubt anyone can nail down the real cause, without seeing the evidence and having some first hand knowledge of what has transpired.

"It's the bullet, no the barrels, no the powder, no the wad .... " What has it proven? Not much.

Hmmm...

quote:

originally posted by RIP:
I have Googled.
NRA has been warning about chamber ringing since the 1970's.

A small wad holding the powder in place, with air space between the wad and the bullet is the culprit

...so if it's news to Will, it can be neither right, nor significant, eh Will?

quote:

Without experimental facilities and the appropriate instrumentation, it boils down to using the manufacturers' reloading information and the experiences of previous reloaders' tinkering. What else is there?

So why ignore Kynoch, Seyfreid, Wright, etc.?

quote:

From my own standpoint, load 'em up with RL-15, stick in a foam plug, and call it good. Getting too far off the reservation just seems to be taking too many unreasonable and unnecesary risks.

Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn every now and again.
-----------------------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

quote:

Originally posted by Dutch44:
I have shot thousands of rounds of .32-40 and .30-30 Wesson in Ballards and Hi-Walls using breach-seated bullets and a tuft of cotton over the powder. I have never experienced ringing in the chamber.

And then suddenly it happens.

quote:

Charlie Dell has done more testing than anyone I'm familiar with in the area of ringed chambers

...and why did Dell do so? Because there WAS a chronic problem with chamber ringing in his shooting circle when doing precisely what you describe - in fact, his testing concentrated on the .32-40, IIRC.

quote:

and he had no definitive answer. Only possible contributing factors including barrel steel composition.

That isn't how I remember it, although I'll admit that I lightly skimmed it because I thought that testing to prove the obvious was silly. He was able to ring chambers with small amounts of fast powder with no filler, and adding a small tuft of Dacron on top of the powder made it worse. No surprise there. I also seem to recall that he was either unable to ring chambers when the Dacron was properly used to bring up density, or didn't test it at all.
-----------------------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

quote:

If Cordite is so great, why does Kynoch not just bring it back?

As I recall, cordite was kind of a "twitchy" powder. Not as efficient, or safe, as modern powders.

Interestingly, cordite was made up until fairly recently. It's death knell came when the US retired the last of the great old WWII battleships. The big guns on the battleships used cordite for their powder charges.

400Nitroexpress - I too am looking for your answer/response to your statement

quote:

Perhaps if you did so yourself you would know more about ringed chambers caused by using fillers improperly. The same fast burning powders in the same cases have produced the same result WITHOUT fillers. The problem is that these folks think that the purpose of a filler is to hold the powder against the flash hole, and nothing could be further from the truth.

You apparently are grumpy as hell right now, but please explain your statement as I am quite curious as to the reason why fillers are used if not to hold the powder bunched up and against the primer.

All of my experience and reading have lead me to believe that the purpose of a filler was to hold the powder back against the primer AND to prevent what some have described as a "flash over" that at times has resulted in "over pressurization" due to more powder being ignited initally than at other times. That last item is theory as far as I'm concerned, but it sounds logical. What is curious in all of this is the fact that all powder is burned within a few inches of the chamber, including the slower powders like H4831. The only explanation I can propose for the over pressurization events has to do with the rate of pressure increase, the peak pressure reached and the sensitivity of some powders to pressure vs. burning rate. In Dell's testing, use of a wad with an air gap gave the same indications as a barrel obstruction. Charlie Dell was able to repeatedly cause ringed chambers by using wads with air gaps between the powder and bullet. Remove the air gap and the problem apparently went away. The faster the powder, the more pronounce the problem. At least that is the sum of his research as best I can recall.

I've used dacron in the past and MAY elect to use it in the future, but not unless I have to. I'll always try and find a case filling load that behaves properly before using fillers. I agree that with the huge cases you have very little choice in the matter.

Internal ballistics is a subject unto itself and doesn't have anything to do with double rifles, so please don't chuck grenades re: my questions. I recognize your superior knowledge re: DR's and DR rifle history, and DR loading. Clearly, pressure, mass (bullet plus powder), and barrel dwell time for the bullet are key to DR regulation. I can prove that with my Chapuis. The exact same loads went from outstanding regulation and accuracy (1" or less) to garbage (crossing > 5" @ 100 yds) and it was due entirely to barrel condition. Nothing else changed. Powder,primers, and bullets were from the same lot. Same shooter using the same bench at the same range, etc. The barrels were extremely rough to begin with and as they smoothed out the regulation and accuracy went to hell. JJ and a number of other knowledgable DR guru's all pointed at the barrel roughness as the cause of the problem. The rifle has since been re-regulated by JJ and so far all is well. DuaneB

quote:

Originally posted by Jim Manion:

quote:

If Cordite is so great, why does Kynoch not just bring it back?

As I recall, cordite was kind of a "twitchy" powder. Not as efficient, or safe, as modern powders.

Interestingly, cordite was made up until fairly recently. It's death knell came when the US retired the last of the great old WWII battleships. The big guns on the battleships used cordite for their powder charges.

That's pretty close, Jim. It was partially the retirement of the battleships, but not the US Navy's. Ours used stick powders, not Cordite. It was the British.

The Royal Navy adopted Cordite Mk 1 in 1889, and the British Army did so in 1893. Thereafter, almost every weapon in the British arsenal used Cordite, from the .455 service revolvers to the 15" 42 caliber naval rifles. Same stuff, just different size extrusions for the various applications. With almost all arms using it, and the naval rifles using up to 428 lbs per round, the volume of the government's Cordite requirement was enormous. With the retirement of the Lee-Enfield and the scrapping of the battleships in the later '50s (and the cessation of MoD's "maintenance" payments at the same time), the small remaining demand for Cordite simply couldn't support it commercially for long, and Kynoch understood this.

Kynoch never made Cordite. It was manufactured by Nobel/later ICI. With the small, shrinking market that remained for Cordite - the flanged nitros that required it - Kynoch decided that the R&D cost of finding a replacement for it in the DR rounds wasn't warranted. As a result of the events overtaking ICI's Metals Division (of which Kynoch was a segment), in 1962/63 the Metals division was partitioned and separately incorporated as IMI Ltd, and a spin-off begun. At the same time IMI announced that the Kynoch segment would cease production and close, but only after "stocking up" their customers - as they had been the only producer of flanged nitro ammunition in the world since 1920, and were the last commercial manufacturer of centerfire rifle ammunition in the UK. Production of large batches of the calibers in demand continued until 1973, when mass production ceased. Kynoch was finally closed when the spin-off was completed in 1978.

A small demand for Cordite in the British military continued for a while, but this was manufactured in H. M.'s government's own factory until 2000.
-----------------------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

quote:

Originally posted by 400 Nitro Express:
... He was able to ring chambers with small amounts of fast powder with no filler, and adding a small tuft of Dacron on top of the powder made it worse. No surprise there. I also seem to recall that he was either unable to ring chambers when the Dacron was properly used to bring up density, or didn't test it at all.

A 1.5-grain foam wad or 5-grain Dacron puff as primary projectile is not going to wreak havoc ... except in the manner by which it unpredictably affects the powder ignition, when it is present in about 3 times too little quantity, say in a Ross Seyfried 500 BPE load.

Space packed tight with Dacron, like the 13 grains Ross recommended becomes a great uniformer, for his 1/3-full case of 4198 .

No unpredictable ignition pattern of the fast powder.

Unpredictable could happen whether no filler or inadequate filler.

A stack of foam wads is about one-third the weight for the same volume and compression as the Dacron filler of adequate amount.

That 1.5-grain foam wad or that 5-grain Dacron ball are perfectly sufficient for RL-15 in a standard 470NE load, which is about 2/3-full of powder without the bullet seated.

I understand everything perfectly now, even if nobody else in the entire world does.

Now as to 400 Nitro Express's grumpiness, that is his comedy schtick, we are supposed to be amused by it. He is a reverse Rodney Dangerfield. It is well worth the pearls he spreads before us swine.

Will, and others, I highly recommend that you increase the amount of filler until it is compressed, whether it is foam or dacron.

By compressing the filler between the case and the bullet you ensure that;

You have NO airspace between the bullet and the powder.

Over time with handling you do not get airspace in the case. Also when firing one barrel the filler does not get compressed because of recoil, again causing airspace in the case.

Powder cannot migtrate arond the filler.

What you think is tooo much filler is better than not enough.

Dacron is ejected from the rifle and is not burned or charred in any way.

Like wised the foams I have used are ejected, not burned or melted. Strangely they seem to be torn in half and the rifling can be seen in the stiffer if the foams I have used.

I have used some fairly stiff foam and some fairly spongy foam, with no difference in results that I can tell. But it is always well compressed.

I always weigh each wad of dacron.

I cut out the foam with a sharpened [with a brass chamfer tool] 50 BMG case.

Federal factory 470 ammo sometimes has large variation in velocity due to the position of powder in the case when the trigger is pulled.

Again, I have fired a few thousand rounds of loads with fillers in British double rifle with out any problems.

Alos I will say that if you can use powders from IMR 4198 to IMR 4831 safely in a double rifle ,as I have, then ANY powder can be used in a double rifle safely with proper loads.

Different powders will top out at different velocities, but any powder can be used to safely get the bullet out of the barrel.

I have friends that use IMR 4064, IMR 4350 with perfect results.

I do not think thet the bursting of double rifle barrels has ANYTHING to do with what powder to use.

If it blows up at the breech, then too much powder is ususlly the problem.

If the barrels burst down from the chambers I think bad barrel steel is the problem, not what powder is used.

quote:

Originally posted by DuaneB:
400Nitroexpress - I too am looking for your answer/response to your statement

quote:

Perhaps if you did so yourself you would know more about ringed chambers caused by using fillers improperly. The same fast burning powders in the same cases have produced the same result WITHOUT fillers. The problem is that these folks think that the purpose of a filler is to hold the powder against the flash hole, and nothing could be further from the truth.

You apparently are grumpy as hell right now, but please explain your statement as I am quite curious as to the reason why fillers are used if not to hold the powder bunched up and against the primer.

If you'll re-read my posts, I think you'll find that I've already answered that.

And no, I'm not grumpy in the slightest. ireload2's initial post was as uninformed as it's tone was rude, so I responded in kind. Don't bring that to my step.

I'll try to answer your question again.

quote:

In Dell's testing, use of a wad with an air gap gave the same indications as a barrel obstruction.

Correct.

quote:

Charlie Dell was able to repeatedly cause ringed chambers by using wads with air gaps between the powder and bullet.

Correct again.

quote:

REMOVE THE AIR GAP AND THE PROBLEM APPARENTLY WENT AWAY. The faster the powder, the more pronounce the problem. At least that is the sum of his research as best I can recall.(emphasis mine)

Bingo. I'll also add that Dell was able to ring chambers with no filler at all.

I respect Dell for his efforts and appreciate his confirming what we already knew, but that information had already been available for a long, long time, hence my comment about his testing being pointless.

Nonetheless, confirm it he did. In large cases, inadequate load density with powders of the desired burn rate present the two significant risks that you mentioned - ringed chambers, and flashover resulting in a catastrophic pressure spike or detonation. The purpose of filler is to eliminate those risks by increasing the load density to 100%.

When using filler correctly, holding the powder against the flash hole is an unavoidable result of doing so, but that has nothing to do with the need for it in the first place. Unfortunately, many make the mistake of thinking that that is it's only purpose, and place a contemptibly tiny little tuft of something on top of the powder, thinking that they're done it right. Ignition may be more crisp that way, but it also introduces the possibility of secondary projectile effect, as has long been known, and which Dell confirmed.

quote:

I've used dacron in the past and MAY elect to use it in the future, but not unless I have to. I'll always try and find a case filling load that behaves properly before using fillers. I agree that with the huge cases you have very little choice in the matter.

Large bore double rifles present the special problem of very large cases intended for medium burning propellant, which most of the DRs in use today were regulated with. We have two choices here. One is to use propellants closer in burn rate to the original, but which will require Dacron or foam filler to be used properly. This has been done, problem free, for decades now. The other is to use slower burning propellants that bulk up more, but don't match burn rate and may not regulate as well. This also introduces the possibility of secondary explosion effect in bores of .450 and larger. I've seen the results of this, and it's graphic enough that I'm still leery of this option. This is the reason that Ross Seyfreid started working with RL 15 in them many years ago. I use mostly IMR 4350 or IMR 4831 in medium doubles. It's only the large bores that are of concern.

quote:

I can prove that with my Chapuis. The exact same loads went from outstanding regulation and accuracy (1" or less) to garbage (crossing > 5" @ 100 yds) and it was due entirely to barrel condition. Nothing else changed. Powder,primers, and bullets were from the same lot. Same shooter using the same bench at the same range, etc. The barrels were extremely rough to begin with and as they smoothed out the regulation and accuracy went to hell. JJ and a number of other knowledgable DR guru's all pointed at the barrel roughness as the cause of the problem. The rifle has since been re-regulated by JJ and so far all is well. DuaneB

It's a fact that well made and regulated DRs can get out of regulation over time due to wear. This is one of the reasons that it's impossible to load factory ammunition that shoots well in all DRs, even those originally regulated with the same load. Even rifles that were well regulated with Cordite when new won't automatically shoot well with late run Cordite ammunition today. However, nobody has done more testing in real double rifles, mostly those originally regulated with Cordite (those built through the early '70s) with both original ammo and current factory loads than Kynoch. They'll tell you that, in order for a given load to shoot well in the highest possible percentage of these rifles, it's crucial to match burn rate.
------------------------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."