Hangfires and unburned powder

[Jimmydaux]

Ive been loading up .223 and 5.56 with some wc846 that I got from pats. Occasionally there seems to be a very slight hang fire. I went through about 90 rounds the other day and had 3 failure to fires. When I pulled them out, this is what I found. I am using cci small rifle standard primers. They are in pretty old boxes so I would assume they are at least 10 years old. What could be some possible causes for the powder to clump like this? The larger picture is all of the powder from the 3 FTF cases. I appologize for the size. Any help would be greatly appreciated.


Jeremy

[Shiloh]

Where the cases treated with a solution of some kind? Was there residual moisture in the cases. I've used that powder from Pats with excellent results and no problems.

Shiloh

[Andy_P]

I've seen that before with a different powder. Lots of hangfires and a few FTF. Primer went off, but not the powder, and it clumped like that.

My problem was that I had a gun with lots of freebore - enough that the bullet would completely exit the neck before it engaged the rifling. This caused pressure to start to build, and then drop quickly, then start to build again when the bullet sealed the bore. A dangerous situation solved by using longer bullets (with the same powder).

Of course that's not likely your situation, but the powder has all the hallmarks of not having reached optimum burning pressure. How does the powder work in other guns/cartridges?

[Jimmydaux]

The cases were washed in a hot water hydrochloric acid wash but were given ample time to dry before they were loaded. I havent used the powder in any other cartridges. Could the primers be a likely culprit with them being so old? I just went through 1000 small pistol primers that were in the same era box and had no issues with them. I do have a few thousand new cci and winchester primers that I think Ill try out and see if it corrects the issue.
Could a magnum primer potentially help the situation?

[Rocky Raab]

First, STOP.

This is almost a textbook demonstration of a problem common with spherical powder, low brisance primers and (usually) low load density. Results can also include extreme pressure "detonation" with catastrophic gun failure.

It has been reproduced in the lab, but never fully explained. But the best probable reason relates to the heavy deterrent coating applied to spherical powders coupled with other factors. The theory is that a weak primer flash fails to fully ignite enough of the powder charge, exacerbated by the powder being blown away from the primer due to low load density and/or the bullet prematurely releasing. Enough powder partially ignites to raise temperatures past the powder's melt point, but not enough to fully ignite the rest of the powder.

If the bullet moves but then stops at the end of the freebore section, there can be a noticeable hesitation (hangfire). That is a warning of EXTREME danger. It is possible for enough of the deterrent to be blown or burnt off that the remaining powder will have a greatly accelerated burn rate. If re-ignition occurs, pressures can soar to extreme levels and burst the gun.

Corrective measures are to NOT reduce powder charges below 90% of case capacity with spherical powders, use heavy bullets or firm crimps and use a hot or magnum primer.

Edit to add: your excellent photos depict spherical powder with much or most of the deterrent coating blown off, exposing the base yellow-green nitrocellulose/nitroglycerine powder. These charges thus were on the ragged edge of re-ignition/pressure excursion. You were very, very lucky.

[Jimmydaux]

WOw thanks Rocky, very informative and appreciated. So what would you recommend me do then? I am shooting a 55 gr SP over 23.5 grains of powder. I loaded up to 25 grains comfortably without flattening primers. 23.5 grains produced the best accuracy, thats why I settled there. Should i up the load? Try the new primers? The ones that you see in the pictures hadnt moved the bullet out at all so hopefully thats a good thing. If you were in this situation, what would be your itemized course of action to correct the problem?

[Lloyd Smale]

your load of 23.5 grains of 846 with a 55 is pretty mild. If your powder burns the same as what i have even 25 is mild. I wouldnt load 846 and milder then 25 gains with a 55.

[Jimmydaux]

Correct me if im wrong, having a charge that is too small leaves airspace in the cartridge that allows the powder to fall away from the flash hole and the intense part of the primer right? Is it reducing the void in the cartridge the reason that increasing the load will help?

[Rocky Raab]

In short, yes. As I said, there are three factors: Load density, primer brisance and bullet (which includes neck tension, crimp, bullet weight and bearing length as well as rifle freebore and throat condition - Whew!) If we assume that we won't be changing the bullet factors, we can either increase the load or change to hotter primers. Frankly, I'd do both.

Go back to the 25.0 load and use hot primers. Either WSR or somebody else's magnums would be my choice. You just might find that you can even work up a bit heavier charge from there, AND your accuracy may well improve as well.

Good luck, and please DO report back, willya? (I like being right, but I love guys shooting safer and better loads even more!)

[StarMetal]

Most powders for a 55 grain bullet in a 223 run around 25 to 27 grains. That's most, not every single one. What I'm saying your 23.5 grain load, although a very very mild load, it's no way leaving lots and lots of airspace in the cartridge, is it? How much is the cartridge filled with that 23.5 grain load?

Joe

[Jimmydaux]

How old would you say these primers are?

[Larry Gibson]

Definately the wrong primers to use with a ball powder, particularly with starting type loads. CCI 400s are about the lowest brisance SR primer one can use. Suggest CCI 450s, WSRs or Rem 7 1/2s.

Larry Gibson

[Ricochet]

The boxes look like the ones I used to buy in the '70s. If they've been kept dry, they ought to still be good.

[Rocky Raab]

Joe (StarMetal), if we suppose that a normal load with that powder is 27 grains, then 23.5 is a 13% reduction. That's a whole lot of reduction with a spherical powder, some of which should be reduced no more than a 3%.

Of course, this illustrates one of the big drawbacks of pull-down or surplus powders - we have no clue what a correct charge should be. With spherical powders, the old "Start low and work up" rule can actually be dangerous.

[StarMetal]

Joe (StarMetal), if we suppose that a normal load with that powder is 27 grains, then 23.5 is a 13% reduction. That's a whole lot of reduction with a spherical powder, some of which should be reduced no more than a 3%.

Of course, this illustrates one of the big drawbacks of pull-down or surplus powders - we have no clue what a correct charge should be. With spherical powders, the old "Start low and work up" rule can actually be dangerous.

Rocky,

You are correct in what you've said. Yeah I don't know what the normal range loads are for that powder either. What I really meant wasn't about load reduction with that powder, it was that at that reduced charge it still pretty much occupied most the case. In other words the primer flash wasn't going to go over top the powder charge as say it would with a minute charge of Unique. See what I mean? I say this because fillers and powder positioning were mentioned. That charge really wouldn't need to be positioned.

What really identifies a reduced ball powder charge....volume of the charge or where it rates on the performance scale? For example I use to shoot H870 Hodgdon, when it was a canister powder, in my 30-06 Rem Springfield. I used the 311284 bullet at 220 grains. You couldn't put enough of that powder in the case to get that bullet over the 1800 to 1900 fps range. Wouldn't that be considered a reduced ball powder load? Another thing to look at with that load say I actually reduced that powder charge so it only filled 75 to 80 percent of the case. Then what would that be considered?

If you go to the Hodgdon online data and looks up the 223 loads you will see starting charges for H335 powder and the 55 grain bullet (which is a very close powder to 846) of 23 grains. Looking at BLC2 the starting load is 25.5. I don't really consider the load spoken of as dangerously reduced. I have to agree with the others on the primer choice...and perhaps he has some bad powder or it was contaminated with something in the case. I wouldn't use hydrochoric acid to clean my cases either.

Joe

[swheeler]

Just my personal experiences here, yours may be different. Of the WC846 that I have shot, lots from Bartlett, HiTech and currently Pats this powder is not that hard to ignite. In 223 I show lots of loads with a std CCI 400 primer and have experienced NO hangfires.
6-20-06 223 savage
55 gr win psp-2.240 oal
26.7 wc 846
cci 400
RP case
3155 fps @68 deg F
es 49 - 1 moa
ALSO 27.0 grs with 40 gr Speer

AND 55 gr Bator cast loaded with 21.0 grs wc846 and cci 400@ 2433 fps accuracy wasn't good 1.5@50 but no hang fires. I use this powder in the medium sized mil-surp rounds reduced for cast bullets-30-35 grs, BUT I USE DACRON IN ALL OF THEM, and have never experienced a hangfire or anything that even resembled delayed ignition. Now canister BLC2 is entirely different animal in my experience. I will add that rifles I've had ignition problems with, a couple 98 mausers, a Raptor and two Savage 110 were all fixed by replacing the mainspring, no more problems period. As usual my .02

[Rocky Raab]

It is clearly a complicated thing. Powders are indeed all different, with sometimes greatly different characteristics. I know nothing of 846 in general, or this version of it in particular, so I have to generalize about how "most" or "some" spherical powders behave. In all honesty, some of what I describe might not apply here - but it could.

When I talk about a reduced load in this context, I mean a charge that doesn't fill the case and allows a lot of powder movement when the primer fires. I have called it the "leafblower effect" in other discussions, and think that is descriptive. Using that analogy, I doubt but obviously cannot ever prove that the primer explosion never "flashes over" even a very small charge. I contend that such a powerful blast in such a small space stirs things up completely.

With spherical powders, however, the heavy deterrent coating may require that the granules be quite close together for ignition heat to penetrate to the ignitable propellant. A loose charge therefore might allow too much of the primer flame to pass by and dissipate itself deeper in the powder column. Insufficient or incomplete ignition would be the result.

Then again, I was an English major, not a solid propellant engineer, LOL! I do know one such engineer, however, and from what I can understand of his convoluted explanations, what I describe might actually be close to right.

[Jimmydaux]

Thank you all for the input. I posted up on a local classified board last night to trade my cci 400s for some 450s and have had an almost overwhelming response of those looking to trade or purchase the primers from me. Ill work up some more loads with the 450s when I get them to see if it affects it much. I also have 800 WSR's. Would you guys recommend me trade the WSR's for 450's or another magnum primer or should the WSR's work ok for this type of powder?

[Jimmydaux]

P.s. Rocky, what part of utah are you from? Im currently in logan for school but I am from Centerville.

[Rocky Raab]

Ogden. Howdy, neighbor!