45-70 Loads....your thoughts.

[rfd]

further aa5744 info from accurate arms ...

8. What makes Accurate 5744 such a special and unique product?

It can best be described as a fast burning Rifle or slow burning Magnum handgun double base “hybrid” powder, having the typical chemical composition of handgun powders i.e. 20% NG – and the geometry of a typical extruded single perforated rifle powder.

Rifle applications:

This makes the powder very ignitable, which makes it ideal for low loading density applications, such as reduced loads on bottle neck rifle calibers, and low performance “straight case” designs, such as the old “black powder” calibers i.e. 45-70 45-110 50-110 etc.

The powder is virtually insensitive to powder position, and there is no need for “fillers”. It will deliver consistent results at low performance levels. Although there will be some un-burnt powder (see paragraph below) the performance will remain consistent.

Due to its ignitability, any strength rifle primer can be used.

Handgun applications:

This powder makes for an excellent powder in large capacity handgun calibers such as 44/45 “Magnum” types or “std” cases with similar capacities. With some of these calibers full power or close to full power is achievable, usually at full case/maximum loading densities. The powder can also be at reduced levels in handgun calibers, but with same effect re un-burnt powder. (See paragraph below)

Un-burnt powder granules:

Although, this is a powder recommended for reduced/low performance loads, it cannot be completely efficient (clean burning) at very low Pressure/performance levels of <18000psi.

It still is a modern, high-density, smokeless powder, with limitations regarding complete combustion at very low chamber pressures. With nitro-cellulose based “Modern” powders, the burn rate and pressure are directly proportional.

This means that some level of un-burnt powder will be present, constituting the remainder of some of the powder granules. This cannot be improved with primers or crimp etc, the only way to eliminate this, is an increase in chamber-pressure.

[Larry Gibson]

"No over-powder wads are allowed if using a double-base powder (over-powder wads are cotton or Dacron or similar wads pushed down into the cartridge case over the powder column with the intention of holding the powder column tight against the primer and leaving an air space between the over-powder wad and the base of the bullet or card wad at the base of the bullet). "

The Dacron filler I suggest is not a "wad". It is not "pushed down into the cartridge case over the powder column with the intention of holding the powder column tight against the primer".....the Dacron filler fills the space between the powder and the bullet. The Dacron filler does not leave an air space.

"The powder is virtually insensitive to powder position, and there is no need for “fillers”. It will deliver consistent results at low performance levels" has proven to be incorrect in the low end velocity 45-70 loads, particularly with 410 gr or lighter weight cast bullets. With such lower level loads it is very "position sensitive".

Here is the results of 25 gr AA5744 with out the Dacron filler. Velocity was 1166 fps with 18,400 psi. 1st three shots were with muzzle pointed down when loaded and slowly raised to fire. 2nd three shots is with rifle level when loaded and fired. 3rd group f four shots was with the muzzle raised after loading and slowly leveled to fire.

The ES was 74 fps and the SD was 29 fps w/o the Dacron filler. With the Dacron filler the ES was 30 fps and the SD was 11 fps. The use of the Dacron filler increased the velocity by about 80 fps and increased the psi about 4,000 psi. There was also much less unburned powder with the Dacron filler.

The on target results and measurement of internal and external ballistics clearly demonstrate, in the 45-70, AA5744 is indeed "position sensitive".

Note; I also do not recommend the use of Dacron as a "wad" leaving airspace between the Dacron and the base of the bullet. I only recommend the use of Dacron as a filler in any application.

Attachment 241495

[40-82 hiker]

Slug your barrel, most of them are large. You need to fit your boolit to your chamber/barrel.

If you are using the 405gr boolit with BP crimp. The Army found that they had to crimp this boolit to get complete powder burn. The 520gr boolit has enough inertia to accomplish this, the 405gr. doesn't.

Go up to the Black Powder Cartridge section and read - there is a plethora of information there for the 45-70 and for the Trapdoor.

Slug bore for sure (hard to measure with 3 grooves), but I would recommend a chamber cast as well so you can fit your boolit to the throat. My Trapdoor chamber cast:





Also, I use 20:1 for my 1884 Trapdoor. Using bought boolits as you mention, make sure it it a soft alloy and the correct diameter - fit will be king like nothing else for you T'door to shoot well). I used BP for decades in my T'door, and now 5744 for the last 7 years or so. I really like the 5744, but heed all warnings about 100% visual inspection of the powder charge before seating the boolit. 'Nuff said...

Previous description of 5744 is very good. You WILL have unburned powder granules. As stated, that is normal, and is NOT detrimental to accuracy. As stated previously, no filler...

Good luck and enjoy. Trapdoors are really fun, but stay within accepted pressure levels with smokeless. I actually stay on the low side, as I shoot no farther than 100 yds., and 50 on many days my back is flat out bothersome.

Edit: I just saw Larry's post above, as he posted while I was typing. While I do not use filler (Western Powder ballastician told me in a phone conversation that should not be done - YMMV), I actually DO raise the muzzle to slightly more than 45 degress and tap the butt stock with my hand, before lowering the muzzle to position (I shoot sitting or standing only - handicaps make sitting a the bench problematic). So I agree with Larry that his tests do show that 5744 may be more sensitive to position than advertised, but the Western Powder ballistician did tell me to not use Dacron filler, specifically, again, YMMV. I will let others decide this debate, as I am only repeating what I was told around 2012/2013 or so, by the Western Powder ballistition. I cannot remember his name, but he was from Austria (?), and there before Scott Ziebarth. I will not in anyway try to refute Larry Gibson's research, but the warning was delivered to me in no uncertain terms, concerning filler with 5744 (not just "wads").

[rfd]

the quigley match directors did not come to the decision of enforcing a "no wad, no filler" rule for double base powders on a whim, it was the result of accidents, or near accidents, on their range. if you stick anything in a case other than powder and ball, it's "wad" or a "filler". accurate arms specifies there is no need for case fillers with their 5744 powder. before i "saw the light of the dark", i loaded and shot near 4 pounds of aa5744 in .45-70 match loads and there was never a need for anything in the case but powder and ball. y'all do as you like, but i'm posting about this just so y'all know.

[40-82 hiker]

accurate arms specifies there is no need for case fillers with their 5744 powder

I will repeat again, to an even greater extent than this statement by Acccurate, the Western Powder (sic, Accurate) ballistician I spoke with on the phone, did not mince words during my phone conversation with him: he considered it dangerous to use Dacron filler with 5744, and NOT just "no need".

[Larry Gibson]

I have no intention here to convince anyone to use a Dacron filler with reduced cast bullet loads. I have only presented tested proven facts.

As to the ballistician at Western; I do agree with him that full power loads with AA5744 do not need a filler as the pressure level hits the point where that powder burns efficiently. However, the conversation here is not about full power loads, it is about reduced loads of 5744 where the pressure is not sufficient for efficient powder burn. That is where the filler comes in as it increases the pressure a bit and promotes more efficient burning of the powder.

I also might question whether a ballistician from Europe has any understanding of the difference between a "wad" and a "filler" in the context of this discussion on the use of such with reduced cast bullet loads. Many on this forum don't understand the difference or at least didn't before there was a long lengthy discussion and, truthfully, many ballisticians don't understand the difference either. I also understand that Western, based in Miles City, is a strong supporter of the Quigley Match, held just outside Miles City, and that Western sells a lot of 5744 to those folks. Not saying there's any "collusion" there but a lot of business decisions/loading suggestions are based on PC reasons having nothing to do with facts by most all the reloading component companies.

I have shot many a 28 gr load of 5744 under the Rapine 460500 bullet w/o a filler in my M1884 TD and it shoots just fine. However when I began developing a lessor carbine load in the 1150 - 1300 fps range with 400 - 405 gr cast bullets with lesser amounts of 5744 I found it was as position sensitive as many other powders. That's when "I saw the light" and found the Dacron filler changes the performance from mediocre to excellent. With lighter bullets such as 300 gr cast by the time 5744 burns efficiently w/o a filler the velocity is 1800+ fps........not exactly what is wanted.

As to the Quigley Match rules.......I know of a lot of arbitrary match rules are simply made up on the opinion of the match officials. I've no problem with that, it's their match. Keep in mind it is just opinion and I've seen no basis of fact justifying the rule in this case. The use of a wad is not "dangerous" as to personal injury. It may pose a danger to rifle in the instance of a "ringed chamber" but if there is a blow up there is a reason other than the use of a filler or wad, most likely a double charge which is easy to do with 5744 in 45-70, 45-90 and such large capacity cases. The proper use of a Dacron filler has proven, when needed, to not pose any danger.

Now I may not be a ballistician but I have chronographed thousands of various cartridges using a Dacron filler since the mid '70s. In the last 12+ years I have chronographed and pressure tested thousands more including many 45-70s. When a Dacron filler was used with an appropriate powder and cast bullet in any cartridge there has been absolutely no indication of any "danger" or even any pressure spikes theorized to cause "ringing". I would seriously question if there is any other "ballistician" or individual with more experience actually testing and measuring the internal ballistics when a Dacron filler is used and even other fillers and wads.

I'll back out with just one last thought for you to ponder; just why is it dangerous to use a filler with a double base powder and not a single base powder? Now I would really like to hear the reasoning on that one.........

[Larry Gibson]

Out of curiosity I just visited the Quigley Match site and found the following information. I have interspersed the commentary with comments. We the term wad is used correctly with in the definition, specifically that it's use leaves an air gap between the wad and the bullet. The proper use of a filler is not a wad and leaves no air gap. The air gap is specifically determined and stated to be the problem. I concur with that. There are other unproven conjectures )such as the powder "detonates" and that high pressures result.

Thus the rules do not prevent the use of a filler but of a wad.

Interesting is the last comments regarding double vs single based powder that both are deemed "dangerous, just one apparently more so than the other. The most truthful statement is the last one quoted; "but it can be done with improper load data and careless reloading procedures" ......now ain't that the truth.........

The last few years it has become increasingly clear that certain reloading practices are increasing the dangers inherent is our sport of rifle shooting. We will try to outline some of these practices and dangers so you are made aware of them. Not all of these are fully understood since the science is a difficult one to observe and the effects are likely variable due to even minute changes in the causing condition, equipment and other parts of the equation.

Three basic types of powder are used in our sport although they are often listed as two (black powder and smokeless). These basic types are more directly labeled as black powder (and substitute), single-base smokeless (nitrocellulose) and double base smokeless (which has an added buffered nitroglycerine component).

The primary problem we have been experiencing has been unexpected loss of control of the propellant combustion.

Powder manufacturers have experimented greatly in this regard and, with loaded ammunition provided by them, have maintained a cautious approach with a generous (though not large) margin for safety. They, by demand, also supply reloading supplies to their customers and by various means have supplied safety guidelines for the use of their product. This is where we come into the picture. We reload because the volume of our shooting demands cost savings.

The problem is showing up as damaged firearms and some explosions that can injure and/or kill people. There is always an inherent danger in our sport, but the practices of some are making it more so. [Yet there has been no incident of personal injury or death at the Quigley Match]

A number of rifles have emerged with the dreaded chamber ring. This is often first noticed as sticking cases and, when inspecting the cases, a noticeable, protruding ring is found around the case approximately where the base of the bullet would be inside the case. Carrying this inspection further shows a ring in the wall of the chamber at this point. This chamber ring is an indication of being close to the pressures that will burst the gun. [not a proven fact as pressure testing has found ringing to occur with the absence of abnormal pressure]

So far, virtually all of these known instances have been with the use of double-based powder and usually (admittedly) using a wad in the case that held the powder back against the primer. These are usually lighter loads in large cases.

The facts are that the manufacturers have sold this powder carefully marked as double-based and have made efforts to inform the user not to use an over-powder wad with it (card wad, cotton wad, polyester fiber wad or other types). Some have cautioned not to use reduced charges (below a recommended minimum charge).

The use of a wad over the powder provides an air space between the ignited powder and the base of the bullet. The powder is ignited and burns from behind, pushing the unburned powder in front of the burn. The unburned powder gains momentum and gathers heat. The air is compressed but the bullet remains stationary. Then, the unburned powder slams into the base of the bullet. The powder is sensitive to temperature and impact. At this point, both are provided and a new rate of burn and energy release comes into play. It’s best thought of as a new, highly volatile explosion, usually called detonation, of the unburned powder.

The manufacturer has carefully tested the powder in single-cavity chambers and has provided guidelines for such use, but the separated cavity with the wad and associated airspace hasn’t been (and presently can’t be) fully accounted for. The pressures generated will displace solid steel by extrusion, shear or rupture depending on the strength of the steel and the pressure generated by the exploding force. Small increases in powder charge or resistance to the movement of the bullet can be the difference.
The difference between a chamber ring and a burst barrel may be only a couple of grains of the unburned powder before the detonation. [the powder does not "detonate.......] Double-based powder is very useful without the wad. With an over-powder wad, it’s a dangerous commodity – the air gap being the problem and not the wad itself. Air compresses a long way before much pressure is generated. A case full of air compressed down to almost nothing won’t move a bullet.

It should be noted that a wad isn’t needed to supply the air gap. Simply pointing a lightly loaded rifle straight up (providing a volume of air space between the powder and the bullet without a wad) will do that and, therefore, a rifle loaded with a chamber-ringing below load data level of powder will ring the chamber without the presence of a wad.

All gun powders are temperature and percussion-sensitive but single-based powder (nitrocellulose) is much less sensitive than double-based powders and within reason can be controlled.
The use of a wad and air gap with single-based powders is much less apt to damage or destroy a firearm than with double-based powders, but it can be done with improper load data and careless reloading procedures.

[40-82 hiker]

Larry,

All of the research you have done with this topic is greatly educational, and appreciated. I am pretty sure our number one goal is absolute safety in what we do with our shooting sport. However, we certainly go by different drummers, for different reasons. I have learned much from your posts, and thanks for them. I may not be a convert to the Daycron cause, but I have a much better understanding of the situation.

No parting shots in this post.

[M-Tecs]

http://www.texas-mac.com/Shooting_Sh...and_Facts.html

Myth: Firing black powder cartridges with an air space between the over-
powder wad and the bullet can result in a “ringed” chamber.
While buying and selling BPCRs for many years, I purchased three rifles over the
Internet in which, during initial inspection, the chambers were found to be
“ringed”. Each had a circular or ring-shaped deformation to the inside wall of the
chamber, not a lead or fouling ring. In each the ring was located where the base
of the bullet was positioned in the chambered cartridge, not in front of the case
mouth. These were clear cut examples of what can happen when using
improperly loaded smokeless ammo with an air space between the powder/wad
and the bullet base. Until recently I believed that, if not loaded properly,
chamber rings could result when using either smokeless or black powder. But
after additional research and checking my records, it’s clear that two of the rifles
were fired extensively with reduced smokeless loads, not black powder as I had
originally assumed. I don’t know what type of filler material, if any, was used
and I have no idea the type of powder or loads used in the third rifle.

In the book, The Modern Schuetzen Rifle – Second Edition (Copyright 1999) by
Charles E. Dell and Wayne Schwartz, Charles Dell devoted a chapter to his
chamber ringing experiments. Using smokeless powder, he was successful in
repeatedly ringing chambers with reduced powder loads with gaps between the
over-powder wad and bullet base. By holding and firing the rifle vertically to
create the gap, he was also able to produce chamber rings with reduced
smokeless powder loads without using an over-powder wad. In a later chapter on
black powder cartridge shooting Charlie discusses his failed attempts to ring a
chamber with reduced black powder loads using the same experimental
techniques. He wrote, “To date I cannot find any tendency at all indicating a
ringing force strong enough to damage a barrel when using fixed ammunition
loaded with FFg black powder when a gap exists between the bullet base and
over powder wad.” By the way, ringing is a cumulative effect and many shots are
normally required before a ring becomes apparent. The ring may go unnoticed
until case extraction becomes a problem.

It’s a well know and accepted practice to ensure that black powder cartridges are
sufficiently filled with powder to eliminate air gaps between the powder column,
wad and bullet base. This is certainly the safest approach, but based on Charles
Dell’s research it’s not a critical consideration when using black powder.
Especially since he also points out that, “Certainly our forefathers, if breech
seating their bullets, could not have followed this rule”. To this day, some black
powder shooters that breech seat bullets routinely leave a gap between the over
powder wad and bullet base and do not have chamber ringing problems. I’m also
aware that some breech seaters use the same technique with smokeless powder,
but based on Charlie Dell’s findings they’re risking damaging the chamber,
especially if the rifle is old with a “softer” barrel.

[Larry Gibson]

Larry,

All of the research you have done with this topic is greatly educational, and appreciated. I am pretty sure our number one goal is absolute safety in what we do with our shooting sport. However, we certainly go by different drummers, for different reasons. I have learned much from your posts, and thanks for them. I may not be a convert to the Daycron cause, but I have a much better understanding of the situation.

No parting shots in this post.

I don't think a filler is always the answer. As a matter of fact I shoot lots of cast bullet loads w/o a filler. I only use the filler (a Dacron filler) when it is beneficial. I explain it in the thread; http://castboolits.gunloads.com/show...use-of-fillers

The proper use of a filler is not always the answer but it is the answer in many applications......

[Larry Gibson]

M-Tecs

Hopefully, as we spread the word, more will understand that it is the airspace that is the problem. The use of a wad which leaves air space between the wad and the bullet compounds the problem. That is why I use the term "filler" because it fills that air space and differentiates between the "filler" and a "wad". With the proper use of a Dacron filler [it is not hard to do] with a proper powder and cast bullet I have found no evidence of "ringing" in the thousands of rounds I have used it in nor in a reported instances of ringing. In all the reported (very few actually) instances there was either an intentional air space left (which meant the Dacron was used as a wad) or an unintentional air space left.

[FPGT72]

I shoot quite a bit of IMR3031 and IMR4895 under 400 - 410 gr cast (my own and commercial) in my H&R TDs (Officer's Model and Carbine). The H&Rs have modern .458 groove diameter barrels on them so I size .459. For my original TD I use my own soft cast bullets that are sized .4615. The problem with those 2 smokeless powders and other similar ones is that by the time you get the powders to burn efficiently by increasing the charge and thus the pressure the velocity is too high. The solution is to use a Dacron (polyester filler).

Here is 35 gr IMR 3031 under a commercial cast bullet with a Dacron filler. Range was 100 yards and the M1879 rear sight was used. Without the Dacron filler the same load would barely stay on the 8.5x 11" target paper. The pressure was measured in the H&R Officer's Model at 25,500 psi (28 - 29,000 psi is the SAAMI MAP for TD loads). Velocity at the muzzle was 1218 fps.

Attachment 241486

Here are two 10 shot tests with 36 gr IMR4895. The group shown is with a 3/4 - 1 gr Dacron filler under the same bullet out of the same rifle. The pasted holes (4 were off the 8.5x11" target paper) were without the Dacron filler. With the Dacron filler the muzzle velocity was 1391 fps at 22,400 psi.

Attachment 241487

AA5744 also benefits greatly with the use of a Dacron filler in the 45-70. Here is 25 gr AA5744 with a Dacron filler, same rifle, same bullet, same 100 yards. The muzzle velocity was 1240 fps at 26,700 psi.

Attachment 241488

Thanks for your post....I just dug out your old "filler" thread and read that....The wife being a quilter she has tons of batting....doubt she will miss a bit.

[rfd]

Thanks for your post....I just dug out your old "filler" thread and read that....The wife being a quilter she has tons of batting....doubt she will miss a bit.

well, to each their own, as always. if you've read all the warnings about aa5744 and wads/fillers, yer in God's hands now.

[charlie b]

You might be interested in data here.

http://www.gmdr.com/lever/lowveldata.htm

Sent from my SM-P580 using Tapatalk