MidSouth Shooters SupplyRotoMetals2Lee PrecisionLoad Data
Titan ReloadingRepackboxInline FabricationReloading Everything
Wideners
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 92

Thread: Fillers

  1. #61
    Boolit Grand Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Lincoln, Nebraska
    Posts
    6,063
    Yep, agreed.

    I missed your post on page 2 because the thread was well advanced when I commented and I skipped ahead, but if the two of us dacron users can point this out and the guy (McPherson) stating that dacron is inherently dangerous for this reason missed out on the incredibly obvious, what does that say about his qualification to comment on fillers?

    Not much. He hasn't used it.

    Which is why the nonusers should refrain from "expert analysis"......they'll goof things up. And theory gets substituted for actual, factual use, which isn't much of a trade.

    "One can disagree with McPherson certainly, but dismissing his credentials out of hand because one disagrees is a bit over the top."

    I'm disagreeing with him here because he doesn't know what he's talking about, so yes, I'm dismissing his credentials to comment on the use of dacron fillers. Certainly an actual past user of dacron as filler wouldn't state what he did.
    Last edited by 35remington; 01-24-2010 at 03:25 AM. Reason: further commentary after reading Bill's earlier post on page 2!

  2. #62
    On Heaven's Range

    BruceB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    nevada
    Posts
    3,537
    You fellers were doing so well, explaining the virtues of dacron, that I just sat back and enjoyed the show.

    However, I think I'll put my oar in now. I've probably fired in excess of ten thousand rounds with dacron fill, in rounds ranging from the 6.5x54 Mannlicher to the .50-2.5" Sharps', with ZERO PROBLEMS. Most of those many rounds were bottle-necked cartridges.

    When I decided to start using a filler on occasion, I asked myself just what it was I expected the filler to accomplish, and it boiled down to one simple function: the filler was to hold the powder charge against the primer, and that was ALL.

    SO, after serious thought, I went with the polyester fluff (dacron) for several reasons:

    -Being a synthetic product, it is consistent from batch to batch.

    -Being a synthetic product, it won't absorb moisture either from contact with liquid or from the air (unlike cotton, kapok etc.).

    -Because of its fibrous nature, it can be made into VERY THIN tufts....some of the tufts I use can literally be seen through.

    -Because of its cohesive yet springy consistency, it will re-expand to fill the case volume even after being pushed through a small case neck.

    Most of the tufts I use in conventional-size cases (say, .30-30 to .338) will weigh less than one grain. Even in the .416 Rigby, the weight is less than two grains. Adding that paltry weight of an INERT substance to a charge has extremely limited effect. In hundreds of direct comparisons between dacron/no dacron loads, a charge WITH dacron usually exhibits a tiny but consistent increase in velocity, virtually always less than 80 fps, which means that the pressure increase is also tiny. The with-dacron loads also usually show smaller extreme velocity spreads and thus, lower standard deviations as well. Since my loads with cast bullets are well below maximum, the miniscule increase causes no concern. In many cases, accuracy is improved with dacron, but not always by any means.

    My tufts are made from the bagged dacron, not sheets. This ensures that the tufts are free to expand in all directions inside the case, which MAY not be the case if the filler is cut from a dacron batt. The tuft must fill all the airspace in the case, as has already been mentioned. I once installed a see-through tuft in a clear plastic 1/2" tube over a powder charge, secured a .50 bullet in the end, and carried it in my pocket for a week. NO powder granules migrated from the original position. This exercise put that particular concern to rest.

    The dacron does not melt or burn in the barrel. Even in my gas-operated rifles, no trace of the dacron is found anywhere. Firing from the benchrest in my shooting van, the bench is often littered with strands of dacron if the breeze direction is right. On only one occasion have I seen any heat effect on dacron. That was in a single round to which I'd somehow forgotten to add the powder charge. I thought it was just a misfire, because the bullet didn't move at all. Pulling that round apart, I found that the primer had fired, and the dacron tuft was now a small brown ball inside the case. This was apparently a result of the TIME that the dacron was exposed to the heat. I've also seen many tufts blowing away on the breeze after firing, further proving the point.

    Like many procedures and methods, dacron is neither a cure-all or a menace. It's one more of the tools available to the handloader. There are very, very few absolutes in this hobby, despite what some will try to tell us. About the only one that comes to mind right now is "Start low and work up." THAT is one we can all agree upon.
    Regards from BruceB in Nevada

    "The .30'06 is never a mistake." - Colonel Townsend Whelen

  3. #63
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,404
    Not arguing pro or con on the merits of the filler issue here, perhaps my point was not clear. Mic's discussion (I assume his commentary a verbatim quote rather than second party hearsay) about what can occur with the use of fillers was, as I recall, in context of small charges/large case volume and standing pressure waves. Seems to me that whether dacron melts or not is secondary to the issue raised in the original post.

    Personally, I'm too lazy to bother with fillers. It's an issue fraught with dogma based on personal fortune. Putting aside the blowups caused by doubling charges, that being common in handguns, there is a legend afloat that implies great hazard in the combination of "slow" powders, reduced charges and large volume cases. As I recall the alleged threshold for this, so far as powder burn rates go, is IMR4350 and slower. Well, maybe yes, maybe no. An awful lot of people focus on burn rates when reviewing various loads for cartridge guns and I think this is misguided. What is seldom seen in this discussion is consideration of quickness as relates to pressure, in terms of peak pressure and the pressure curve. Burn rates are what they are, but quickness is the more important issue in my opinion. For those unfamiliar with the term, quickness describes what happens to smokeless powder burn characteristics during the evolution of increasing pressure attendant to the firing sequence. Smokeless powders simply do not burn at a steady rate although it is often so construed by hand loaders. Quickness is variable based on case design, , interior volume, load inertia, etc. It is my impression that McPherson's concerns are somewhat oriented to that facet of interior ballistics.

    With that said, there have been many that have attempted to reproduce the scenario wherein a cartridge loaded as described above creates a dangerous overpressure. The only reference I've seen which indicates this was done is the Krupp investigation cited by McPherson. Otherwise, nobody has had success in a lab environment. I strongly suggest the absence of a particular event in one test series does not preclude the occurrence elsewhere. There is however a fair bit of evidence that somewhat extreme pressure variations do occur in some combination of loads, it's just that excursions that are demonstrably caused by this phenomenon and lead to catastrophic failure are as rare as hen's teeth...and likely to stay that way. Examples of squirrely performance in this regard exists in modern and popular CF cartridges today, the .243 Win and 7 mm Rem. Mag being two examples, even with factory ammo loaded to SAAMI specs.

    I never found reason to load with combinations thought to cause such failures, not so much from fear and practical perspective. I have loaded fairly light loads with fast pistol/shotgun powders or bulk powders with success, the .38 Spl w/ HBWC and a dash of Bullseye being one. I've had some odd experiences doing so with cast bullets and the .30-30 which led to vast and very sharp recoil. The powder used was such that it's bulk precluded double charging, and in any case, I always inspect charge volume consistency prior to seating bullets. Head scratcher for sure. As I recall, the load was 17 grains of SR4759, a 110 gr. cast bullet with CCI or Winchester LRP. Velocity over the Chrony was only a few FPS short of 2,900, that being quite a bit greater than suggested in the Lyman manual. Anyway, my point is that there are many variables involved in the world of interior ballistics and I'm bold enough to say that even the labs will acknowledge they cannot regulate them all. Handloaders certainly cannot either. We are well advised to keep things between the guard rails and avoid hospitals etc. With that belief, I find it more practical to resort to other avenues, primarily by using different cartridges to their best advantage. An example of that would be the 1/4 bore stable which includes the .297-250, .25-20 WCF, .250 Savage, and .257 Roberts.

    What has occurred with surprising regularity over the years is the ringing of barrels, both with black powder and smokeless. I differentiate revolvers and rifles in this discussion for the following reason. Revolvers see their peak pressure at or before the point the bullet base clears the cylinder. Logically, the only way one can ring a revolver barrel is an obstruction. Such occurrence is more likely to happen when using reduced loads, whether they use filler or not. Lacking lab equipment and opportunity to evaluate such events with rifles I'm left to consider the frailty of man and his propensity to screw up. I am of the firm opinion that most of such events are also caused by obstructions, either constructed in the load or the result of a bullet or other residue in the bore, resulting from a reduced charge. Perhaps not all, but I'm thinking that 99% or more are so induced. A review of loading methodology from the BP cartridge guns, both new and old, will clearly show potential for incorporating obstructions with improper use of card wads. This is particularly possible with the use of breech seated bullets.

    Question is, what about that other 1% or less? This is where I start feeling the hair stand up on the back of my neck. To me, the use of fillers, regardless of type, is focused on the use of large volume cases and reduced charges. Whether or not McPherson is correct about fillers is largely irrelevant to me. This loading methodology carries extra burden for the reloader in context of quality control, and there remains the issue of quickness and pressure excursions, which does not seem to be properly vetted as of yet.

    YMMV.
    I have danced with the Devil. She had excellent attorneys.

  4. #64
    Boolit Grand Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Lincoln, Nebraska
    Posts
    6,063
    "What has occurred with surprising regularity over the years is the ringing of barrels, both with black powder and smokeless."

    I certainly wouldn't describe the issue in that way. There's a pretty large number of guys here who've used and continue to use fillers, and even given that some of them aren't using them correctly, the reported incidence of gun damage is essentially nil. We receive reports of guys blowing up their guns due to other handloading errors errors far, far more often than barrel rings or other problems due to fillers.

    So I think "surprising regularity" must mean "very, very infrequently despite many potential misapplications." "Surprising Regularity" is not the same thing as "frequently."
    "Regularity" can also be "once in a blue moon."

    Such infrequency then makes one wonder if something else besides just filler was involved as well, given the vast preponderance of use with no problems.

    Where McPherson erred, specifically, is in relating delays of ignition to overpressure events AND THEN linking this to dacron due to the "removal of heat" from the primer blast.

    As explained, dacron does no such thing. Dacron enhances powder ignition, not detracts from it. And his claim of melting is questionable as well. He related dacron use and melting to the "loss of primer heat." He stated this would potentially cause under ignition so I wouldn't call it secondary to the original pressure excursion question because his comments on the supposedly verified Krupp tests linked under ignition to pressure excursions.

    Then very questionably tied dacron to underignition.

    A most certain error.

    I don't believe Krupp used dacron in their load testing! So he's making a severely unjustified leap of logical analysis.

    I do care whether McPherson erred. He's shoveling dirt on an issue he misanalyzed. I'm not going to let 'ol Mic get off the hook that easily just because we can sing hosannahs about his other work. Nobody's an expert on everything related to handloading.
    Last edited by 35remington; 01-24-2010 at 12:40 PM.

  5. #65
    On Heaven's Range

    BruceB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    nevada
    Posts
    3,537
    This discussion is expanding rapidly, and it's not uncommon on this Board (for which I give thanks).

    Dan raises the issue of blow-ups.

    Back in the '80s, a gent named Roger Stowers performed a series of tests, reported in an article in Handloader magazine, in which he created NUMEROUS destructive loads with REDUCED loads of slow-burning powder in a wildcat 6.5 (I think).

    I googled "roger stowers blowup" and came up with an extensive discussion from THIS VERY BOARD back in 2006. It's at the bottom of the first page of google results using the above search terms. Well worth reading. In that google search, I noted references to various works on ballistics published by Mr. Stowers, so he's no shade-tree tinkerer.

    I'd like to find the original article, because his results were consistent, repeatable, and pressures went UP as the load went DOWN.

    I had a perfect example of "squirrely performance" (good description, Dan!) in the cited 7mm Remington Magnum cartridge. A full-power load of H4831 destroyed my wife's Browning Safari Mauser, giving her some fairly-severe injuries. The identical load had been fired many times before in that same rifle, but this time....
    Last edited by BruceB; 01-24-2010 at 01:04 PM. Reason: wrong spelling!
    Regards from BruceB in Nevada

    "The .30'06 is never a mistake." - Colonel Townsend Whelen

  6. #66
    Boolit Grand Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Lincoln, Nebraska
    Posts
    6,063
    Full power or reduced, Bruce?

  7. #67
    On Heaven's Range

    BruceB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    nevada
    Posts
    3,537
    Oh, it was "full-power" alright.

    This was back in the '70s, and I was loading the 4831 from a 20-pound drum of surplus 4831. The load was a widely-used charge of 66 grains under a 175-grain bullet. As I mentioned, we'd used the load in perhaps as many as several hundred rounds prior to the "pressure excursion."

    For the hunting trip, EVERY CHARGE was weighed and possible errors minimized to the greatest-possible extent. Then she fired the SECOND round at a moose and the rifle essentially was destroyed.

    If anyone would like more detail on the incident, search for "Karen" and find the thread titled "The day Karen met the moose".
    Last edited by BruceB; 01-24-2010 at 01:31 PM.
    Regards from BruceB in Nevada

    "The .30'06 is never a mistake." - Colonel Townsend Whelen

  8. #68
    Boolit Grand Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Lincoln, Nebraska
    Posts
    6,063
    I don't mean to hijack the thread, and if this looks likely I'll be sure to nip it in the bud, but this isn't a reduced load nor one with a filler.

    Still, I gotta ask.

    So, what's the deal? By any measure, you did nothing wrong, even according to the most knowledgeable sources. 4831 in the 7 mag is a standard, and the load wasn't reduced.

    Maybe anomalies occur more often than we like to admit, and something else gets blamed for it.

    What conclusions can you draw from this, if any? Something else you didn't catch?

    I'm certainly at a loss.

  9. #69
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,404
    Quote Originally Posted by 35remington View Post
    "What has occurred with surprising regularity over the years is the ringing of barrels, both with black powder and smokeless."

    I certainly wouldn't describe the issue in that way. There's a pretty large number of guys here who've used and continue to use fillers, and even given that some of them aren't using them correctly, the reported incidence of gun damage is essentially nil. We receive reports of guys blowing up their guns due to other handloading errors errors far, far more often than barrel rings or other problems due to fillers.

    So I think "surprising regularity" must mean "very, very infrequently despite many potential misapplications." "Surprising Regularity" is not the same thing as "frequently."
    "Regularity" can also be "once in a blue moon."


    Such infrequency then makes one wonder if something else besides just filler was involved as well, given the vast preponderance of use with no problems.

    Where McPherson erred, specifically, is in relating delays of ignition to overpressure events AND THEN linking this to dacron due to the "removal of heat" from the primer blast.

    As explained, dacron does no such thing. Dacron enhances powder ignition, not detracts from it. And his claim of melting is questionable as well. He related dacron use and melting to the "loss of primer heat." He stated this would potentially cause under ignition so I wouldn't call it secondary to the original pressure excursion question because his comments on the supposedly verified Krupp tests linked under ignition to pressure excursions.

    Then very questionably tied dacron to underignition.

    A most certain error.

    I don't believe Krupp used dacron in their load testing! So he's making a severely unjustified leap of logical analysis.

    I do care whether McPherson erred. He's shoveling dirt on an issue he misanalyzed. I'm not going to let 'ol Mic get off the hook that easily just because we can sing hosannahs about his other work. Nobody's an expert on everything related to handloading.

    Taking an opportunity for final input on this, I think your essential point of contention is with McPherson, not me. I have made clear, the issues at hand are not...clear. Not giving a toot whether one is or is not a disciple of filler or not. Do argue your points with him if it suits. It is my opinion and nothing more that the issue of fillers is of secondary significance to the subject at hand and I hope that is clear.

    On the second point, while you are certainly free to disagree with my thoughts, but I don't particularly care for your manner of spin with same. I did not stutter, nor will I rephrase what I said.
    I have danced with the Devil. She had excellent attorneys.

  10. #70
    Boolit Grand Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Lincoln, Nebraska
    Posts
    6,063
    The topic thread is "fillers." The original topic was on that point and their inadvisability due to claimed problems, and in my own opinion this idea of filler use can't be secondary to the discussion, which was why I responded as I did and kept on topic on fillers.

    Disagreeing is fine.

    But the reported incidence of problems with fillers is quite rare. Just making clear I wouldn't call that "surprisingly regular" and was hoping that was not what you meant.

    "I did not stutter, nor will I rephrase what I said."

    Not asking you to....just to clarify if you feel like it. This is a chance to clear up the issue. Did you mean that filler incidents are frequent? "Surprisingly regular" does imply frequency to me.

    You can clarify if that's what you meant, if you wish. Please do, for the sake of accuracy and to avoid any claimed misinterpretation on my part. That's how I took it. And I did say that's not how I would characterize the issue, as filler "incidents" are indeed quite rare in comparison to the amount of times fillers are employed in cartridges.
    Last edited by 35remington; 01-24-2010 at 02:02 PM.

  11. #71
    Boolit Grand Master 303Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    9,078
    FWIW, I don't get to see too many rifle barrel bores so when I come across two with ringing .... ? And both these were 22LR's! The one had a ring about two thirds down the bore, the other much closer to the chamber. The second one I own, so I could have a closer look to see what can be learned. There is definately no filler involved.

    It would be real interesting to know what caused the incident with BruceB's rifle. Faulty primer .... ?
    Rest In Peace My Son (01/06/1986 - 14/01/2014)

    ''Assume everything that moves is a human before identifying as otherwise''

  12. #72
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    586
    "It would be real interesting to know what caused the incident with BruceB's rifle. Faulty primer .... ?"


    I would assume it was the combination of a full-power load and filler..... which does increase pressures, even fibre fillers like dacron. As I said before, full-power loads used WITH filler are a BAD idea (no one knows exactly how much the pressure spikes....so how would one know if the resulting load is over-pressure ?). I don't see a mystery in that story, though of course, I can't prove it.

  13. #73
    Boolit Grand Master 303Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    9,078
    ... this isn't a reduced load nor one with a filler.
    Apparently no filler was used.

    On whether or not Dacron melts or not, I have finally been able to find just one single tuft of residual Dacron. That was with near max load of AS30 (the 'S' stands for shotgun) under a 208gr patched boolit. None of my lighter charged loads showed any residual fibre at all. That's firing into a test tube with a black catch cloth. It seems barrel duration is the key. Same as with cotton wool, only, cotton wool burns or just scourches and it takes a lot more effort to achieve that.
    Rest In Peace My Son (01/06/1986 - 14/01/2014)

    ''Assume everything that moves is a human before identifying as otherwise''

  14. #74
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Sacto., Ca.
    Posts
    1,703
    If anyone is interested in some info on the use of COW look up Ken Mollohan's stuff. I'm a believer, but I do use dacron too, lately reading Gibson and Bob S. I'm not recommending it, but I have used dacron and COW together in the 30-06. I think the use of fillers and such should always be considered experimental and approached with great care, but I do believe they can be a great asset to the cast bullet shooter, to be respected, not feared. If they scare you that's probably a sign you're not ready yet to try them. I waited years before I was even willing to try a cast load in my Garand. "A man's got to know his limitations".

  15. #75
    On Heaven's Range

    BruceB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    nevada
    Posts
    3,537
    There was no filler in the load that destroyed her rifle. The primers were fine, being from a lot that functioned 100% in that rifle, as well as a bunch of other guns. The bullet traveled only about four inches from the chamber.

    Later researchers have found that chamber pressure is not necessarily a smoothly-increasing curve, but rather can be a series of spikes. In my wife's case, it's probable that the bullet stopped when the pressure dropped, and then the increased volume behind the bullet gave rise to a "Secondary Explosion Effect" condition (i.e.: a reduced load of slow-burning powder). The initial pressure was low-enough that the case showed a massive shoulder collapse (dent) that was fully half the length of the case. THEN the entire remaining charge came out the back, vaporizing the case head.

    The shoulder collapse was still there on the case, likely because it was supported both inside and outside by the high-pressure gas that later evolved. Such collapses occur because the pressure is too low to seal the case neck against the chamber wall, allowing gas to flow back along the OUTSIDE of the case.
    Regards from BruceB in Nevada

    "The .30'06 is never a mistake." - Colonel Townsend Whelen

  16. #76
    Boolit Master

    softpoint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Bryan-College Station Tx
    Posts
    1,273
    The thought just crossed my mind that a weak primer could have caused BruceB's blowup with the full charge of powder. I've read of the blowups caused by reduced charges of 4831 all the way back in Ackley's books. On the subject of fillers, though even reputable manuals such as Lyman recommend them?
    Cast Boolits, Where lead balloons go over....

  17. #77
    Boolit Master

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    NW Ohio, almost as N and W as you can be :-)
    Posts
    2,915
    I remember reading an article in a gun magazine where the author met with one of the Hogdons, who insisted SEE was BS, and to prove it he loaded a half charge of 4831, held the rifle horizontal and shook it a little to get the powder to lay flat, and touched it off.

    I'm sure he has since changed his mind about the subject .

    Bill
    Both ends WHAT a player

  18. #78
    Boolit Master

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    NW Ohio, almost as N and W as you can be :-)
    Posts
    2,915
    Quote Originally Posted by dualsport View Post
    If anyone is interested in some info on the use of COW look up Ken Mollohan's stuff. I'm a believer, but I do use dacron too, lately reading Gibson and Bob S. I'm not recommending it, but I have used dacron and COW together in the 30-06. I think the use of fillers and such should always be considered experimental and approached with great care, but I do believe they can be a great asset to the cast bullet shooter, to be respected, not feared. If they scare you that's probably a sign you're not ready yet to try them. I waited years before I was even willing to try a cast load in my Garand. "A man's got to know his limitations".
    hehe o K .

    Or maybe if your not going to use dacron fillers ever, to be on the safe side, your just being cautious. To me they offer no benefit that is worth the risk involved. In todays world there are several powders avail that will match any velocity level you want, without needing to use a filler, so the only real reason to use one then is economy (cheaper powder) which is what they call FALSE economy if it causes damage or harm. It could be in Bruce's case he found the one thing I have never found yet, a bad primer, IE one with a substandard amount of compound, or the compound was compromised somehow. Nothing is PERFECT even though primers in my experience are darn close. I did find a federal small rifle BR primer that had something crimped between the anvil and the cup when I was about 13 years old, I taped it to something and mailed it to federal with a letter, and got back either 2,000 or 3,000 primers, and an apology. I have never had a primer fail to ignite properly.

    Bill
    Last edited by Willbird; 01-25-2010 at 01:28 PM.
    Both ends WHAT a player

  19. #79
    Boolit Grand Master 303Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    9,078
    Speaking of bad primers, and that was my first thought - I came across one with the anvil sitting in the cup sideways! That was a Federal primer. I still have it somewhere .... mmmmm

    I see an errant primer as being a possible suspect. Every other possible causion had been taken and the fact that the devastation to the case kinda indicates there was no shortage of powder!

    Another possibility and this has happened to me, is that the bolt handle wasn't all the way down. The cocking cam would then have engaged, closed the bolt that little bit and softened the primer strike considerably, resulting in a 'weak spark'. It was a second shot in the heat of the moment.

    In fact, I now wonder whether the mysterious secondary explosion effect is in fact caused by a weak primer or primer strike on top of a low density load of slow powder, which will explain why the event is relatively rare and cannot easily be reproduced under lab conditions.
    Last edited by 303Guy; 01-26-2010 at 12:02 AM.
    Rest In Peace My Son (01/06/1986 - 14/01/2014)

    ''Assume everything that moves is a human before identifying as otherwise''

  20. #80
    Boolit Master Lead pot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    3,577
    Regardless to belief a under charged load of the wrong powder will raise pressure as bad as an over charged case.

    Kurt

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Abbreviations used in Reloading

BP Bronze Point IMR Improved Military Rifle PTD Pointed
BR Bench Rest M Magnum RN Round Nose
BT Boat Tail PL Power-Lokt SP Soft Point
C Compressed Charge PR Primer SPCL Soft Point "Core-Lokt"
HP Hollow Point PSPCL Pointed Soft Point "Core Lokt" C.O.L. Cartridge Overall Length
PSP Pointed Soft Point Spz Spitzer Point SBT Spitzer Boat Tail
LRN Lead Round Nose LWC Lead Wad Cutter LSWC Lead Semi Wad Cutter
GC Gas Check