Ruger Single Shot And Ringed Chamber

[joeb33050]

I'm looking for any experiences with ringing the chamber on a a Ruger single shot rifle. It is said that many 45/70 Ruger Single Shot rifles were returned to the factory with ringed barrels.
Help!!
Thanks;
joe brennan

[montana_charlie]

I don't have any experience to share with you, Joe, but have read many posts on the subject. The actual cause of ringed chambers remains (to me) a bit vague, but most agree that it is most common when smokeless powder is used in these roomy cases developed for black powder charges. They go on to say that this type of loading requires the bullet to be firmly into the lands...or heavily crimped in the case...to retard bullet movement until the powder burn is working 'as designed'.

The Ruger, because of what it is and who is most likely to own it, probably sees more smokeless powder, and (short) jacketed bullets, than other designs. That may explain why the number of returns to the factory is so high...if it's true.
I seriously doubt that the Ruger's construction and materials make it more susceptible to this type of damage than any other modern-made rifles.
CM

[Castaway]

Dacron wadding set atop the powder charge is the cause of many ringed chambers. There was an excellent posting over onn Graybeard a couple years ago that talked about synthetic fillers vs. natural fillers such as kapok. The theory was that the poly wads acted like a fluid and the compression had to go someplace, hence the ringed barrel. Cotton was also mentioned as an alternative if I remember correctly. It was well documented. Posting came about the time a friend of mine ringed his High Wall (also 45-70) and he happened to be using fillers in his loads. Some folks swear by them and that's their choice, but I quit just to be on the safe side.

[Char-Gar]

Hoooo-boy... this is going get interesting!

[AZ-Stew]

I ringed the chamber throat in a Remington 700 30-06 about 30 years ago. I was shooting cast and using a Dacron filler. Apparently I was too enthusiastic about pushing the Dacron down on the powder. The ring didn't seem to hurt anything. There were no subsequent extraction or accuracy problems. The ring wasn't very deep, just enough that it bothered me to know that it was there. Sold the rifle about 20 years ago. Not because of the ring. I needed the money at the time. Lesson learned. Now I try to find a powder that will give me the velocity I want, while filling the cartridge as much as possible, without using any fillers. I've never had any ignition problems with loads that occupy over half the case volume.

Regards,

Stew

[35remington]

Well, I gotta say this.

I sure have problems with powder position causing wide swings in velocity. Last example was Oldfeller's Soup Can bullet in a 7-30 Waters using H4895. Found a good accurate load that really required dacron. Without, velocity variations of up to 190 fps showed up.

I gotta agree, those guys that ringed their chambers did something wrong. It doesn't appear to be the same way I'm doing it, which is why I don't have ringed chambers.

[The Double D]

Oh this is gonna start a dog fight.

Charles Dell in his book The Schuetzen Rifle discusses this phenomenon at length. He was even able to purposely ring a barrel from the first shot. Interesting read that book. If you reload you should have the book.

It has to do with the air space left between the cartridge and the bullet.

It's an old phenomenon.

Over powder wads like dacron are used to hold small charges of powder up against the back of the case. But that leaves a big air space between the wad and the bullet base.

Several different theories about what caused the ringing. One theory a pressure wave traveling through the air space impacts the base of the bullet and expands outward, ringing the barrel in area of the chamber of the bottom of the bullet. Or another theory, the air being compressed between the over powder wad and the base of the bullet expands and rings the chamber.

What ever it is it is associated with large cases and reduced loads that leave an air space between bullet and charge and a ring inthe chamer in the are oa the bullet base. It's never associated with loads with full or near full cases.

Last winter while researching the phenomenon for building smokeless powder loads for the 577/450 I came across an old book that discussed the matter. The book warned about using loads using less than 70 % case capacity. I wrote Charles Dell a letter to ask his opinion but he passed away before he could respond.

I believe the book was Phil Sharpes Book on Reloading. Unfortunately for me right now my library is 8,000 miles away so I can't look it up and verify the source.

All I know is that when ever I use reduced loads in large cases I compress as much Kapok in the case as I can over the charge to eliminate as much airspace as possible. It works well with Black and works very well with NfB loads.

[trk]

I've got Phil Sharp's book. I'll look this afternoon.

[MGySgt]

IMHO - The Double D hit it right on the head - What ever filler you use it must be compressed between the powder and the boolit!

I use dacron in my 45/90 and 45/70 loads and use it as a wad in a shot shell. Meaning it gets compressed.

I 'Measure' the amout of air space left in the case after the powder has been put in and make sure the dacron more then fills that space so there is a compression.

I have a dowel on my loading bench that I use to measure this. Mark the dowel for the lenght of the shank that goes in the case and make darn sure that line is above the case when I push/tamp the dacron on top of the powder.

This has taken the same load (velocity) from a 3 in group to MOA (each load was worked with or without the dacron in it) Same velocity loads - dacron always produces tighter groups.

This is with:

45/90's 3031 and 430GR GC
45/70's 3031, 4198, and 2400 with 360 gr (RD) GC and the 430 GR GC.

Bottle neck rounds may be completly different.

The bottom line is NO AIR SPACE left in the case.

These results are my guns:

4 - 45/70s (2 Marlins, 1 Ruger No 1 and a T/C Encore)
2 - 45/90's (one IAB and one Pedersoli Quigley).

Drew

[Bass Ackward]

This is always a hot topic of debate to which I usually responded on one side of the view point. I have mellowed in my old age.

We have to be realistic. Ever time you pull the trigger on a loaded round you are setting off what amounts to a potentially explosive charge where bad things can happen if something goes wrong. So .... you pull that trigger on faith that has been established over centuries by numerical statistics.

If we put chamber ringing from fillers into perspective, then who in the heck cares if something gets rung, unless the owner tries to pass the problem off to someone else?

There is one fly in the ointment for the filler argument for which I have no answer. I shoot powder charges in a lot of different calibers that don't entirely fill the case. Therfore, there is airspace between the powder and the base of the bullet. All of this powder DOES NOT burn inside the case into one even wave. So in essence, the powder acts like a filler would and slams into the base of the bullet. Because that powder has mass. I have, nor has anyone else apparently ringed a chamber using this method that we blame for ringing using filler.

The real problem is that we don't know if chamber ringing is a one time event or if the effects are accumulative over time. I think that it happens over time because it can get worse if continued. So .... if the effects are accumulative, there has to be a begining. How do we identify that point? Again a question that has no answer.

Maybe chamber ringing is a much greater problem than we realize simply because we can't identify the begining. And therefore, someone never knows that they have ringed their chamber until it progresses to identification. At which point we feel we have to blame something. We blame large capacity straight walled cases. Well, it would be easier to visually identify there. And, statistically a lot of these types of guns have the thinest steel barrels making them .... susceptible to the problem. Even if they have heavier steel, it is usually of lower grade, again making it easier to occur there. So is it occurring elsewhere and we just don't see the results?

There are no concrete answers. And since it doesn't happen with powder under the same conditions that we draw comfort in blaming on filler use, those that use filler and speak with confidence, unless you have a method to measure, have to be loading / shooting on faith. As long as you accept the risk, use the filler.

[Bass Ackward]

This has taken the same load (velocity) from a 3 in group to MOA (each load was worked with or without the dacron in it) Same velocity loads - dacron always produces tighter groups.

This is with:

45/90's 3031 and 430GR GC
45/70's 3031, 4198, and 2400 with 360 gr (RD) GC and the 430 GR GC.

Bottle neck rounds may be completly different. Drew


Drew,

Now see my results are the exact opposite. I have used filler to improve crappy loads or to burn stuff I should not be using. But I have never .... in my life ever produced the finest accuracy from any caliber using any type of filler.

Filler .... will .... correct a problem at times for sure. Solid fillers will enable higher velocities with softer mixes for sure. But if no problem with ignition exists, then a fluffy filler always takes accuracy the other way in my experience.

So in essence, a fluffy filler is a good check for reloaders. If you get accuracy improvement from using it, then you are using the wrong powder speed for your application or you have another problem. This is one MAJOR factor why larger diameter bullets work so well for a lot of people. They cure ignition problems as they take time to size down. Or change primer. Improve case neck tension. But find the problem and fix it. If you are using the wrong powder, then why not switch to a correct powder and aviod the ringing risk?

An old timer once told me that a filler is a lazy mans crutch to load development.

[MGySgt]

Drew,

If you are using the wrong powder, then why not switch to a correct powder and aviod the ringing risk?.

Bass,

What is the generally accepted powders for the 45/70? Normally it is IMR 3031 and either H or IMR 4198.

With J bullets I do not use a filler - why? Because there isn't enough powder space anyway. Example
Hornady 350gr FP XTP, WW cases, IMR 3031 - Hornady manual states max is 56.1 - this is a compressed powder charge - no filler needed.

I used this load in 2 different Marlins (one MG and one Ballard) with right around MOA. 1825 FPS from the 18.5 ported GG and 2025 from the 22 in MG.

Ruger #1 had to stop at 51 becasue I had to deep seat them for the short throat in it. Any more and the bullets backed out on their own. Once again MOA.

With Cast - if the powder charge fills the case - no filler (3031 and 400+ grain bullets - Star Line Brass - I run out of powder space before I run out of chamber pressure.

IMR 4198 and a 430GR GC OFP I get 1680 with a filler and MOA, without filler I get 1650 and 3 to 4 in groups.

45/90's

That is a BIG case and to get 1500 - 1550 yo only use about 60% of the case volume.

Without filler (dacron) 4 in, with filler (compressed) MOA and on a real good day when I hold my mouth just right and the planets are aligned I get 1/2 MOA.

I believe - with the testing results I have had - that these powders need at least a slight compression to burn effeciently and produce that type of accuracy.

Once again these are the results I get with my guns and my reloading practices.

Drew

[felix]

If the powder fills the case to the bottom of the boolit, and the powder provides the burn rate for the projectile giving its desired velocity, then you have the safest arrangement for the cartridge. After that, you have to have the gun which can withstand the peak pressure of that cartridge. ... felix

[Bass Ackward]

Without filler (dacron) 4 in, with filler (compressed) MOA and on a real good day when I hold my mouth just right and the planets are aligned I get 1/2 MOA.

Once again these are the results I get with my guns and my reloading practices.

Drew


Drew,

That was not a critique on how you load. Only to get you to understand that how you load creates problems that YOU need to correct. I used you as a guiney pig because I felt sure of what your comeback would be.

So .... cut your bullets to bore diameter or take them up .002 from what you are using and dynamics change. In addition to taking longer to size, a larger diameter bullet increases case neck tension too. Which may solve or create a problem depending on what success you are having.

That is why I hate to hear recommendations to choke everything. Choking is the easiest way to achieve acceptable accuracy success. But it seldom is the most accurate method for any gun unless your throat is cut so tight that .0005 over bore diameter causes you effort to close a bolt. Like on CB BR guns. At least not in my case. I even shoot undersize to bore at times that just blows everything out of the water with no leading. But conditions HAVE to be right.

Try changing sizing dies. People don't realize how much difference there is in sizing dies with in the same brand and caliber. I have two RCBS full length sizers in 458X2. One is just a full length sizer as you would expect. The other is the same but is also like an added neck sizer. It almost produces a shoulder on a straight sided case. And these different sizing dies work better for different weights and diameters of bullets. I can make 3031 burn with 50% case capacity with one set of dies and .002 over bullets and not need filler to produce consistent ballistics. Add filler and my ES goes the other way. I can burn 4895 too. And Varget if I use 400+ grain bullets and fill the case. Or .... I can use my other set of dies and bore sized bullets and then can't get 3031 to burn for crap regardless of whether I use filler or compress or not.

So you must deal with the specific set of conditions YOU as the reloader create. If you get lucky and create a working combination right off, you tend to formulate one opinion of that technique as a go to method. Until it doesn't work somewhere else for some reason. Like choking. What that means is that you will never explore other options that may create a more accurate set of conditions.

Filler compensates for other things that you don't consider or correct. THAT is the point.

And I appologize to Joe for hijacking the thread.

[9.3X62AL]

Joe--

What a thing to wake up to......I had to go out to the gun safe and gave a close look at my #1's chamber this morning! THANKS LOADS! :-)

Most of my shooting with the 45-70 lately uses 100% density powder columns, the duplexed WC-860 loads that give 1873-level ballistics and pretty decent accuracy. I am striving to find loads for the 25-20 WCF and 32-20 WCF with similar high-percentage loading densities.....RL-7 gives OK results, and AA-1680 or WC-680 will get the next test drive in this direction..

I do use fillers--dacron is my usual material. One concern I have with this stuff is that sufficient dacron to fill the empty space as described above often leaves a puffy, leftover wisp floating through the air, and a distinctive odor that I believe indicates burning fibers. My concern is that the burning material could land in some of the almost-incendiary dry brush that areas I hunt in are full of. I am very conscious of this possibility, given my background as a fire cause/origin investigator. The likelihood of such an incident occurring as described may be remote, but Murphy's Law gets no plea bargains--and sometimes even Murphy is naively optimistic. So--I avoid using "fillered" loads in the brushlands during dry times. With this thrust in mind, I always try a new load with and without filler, to see if acceptable results can be had minus the dacron--and the work with RL-7 and soon with AA-1680 is pointed in that direction.

[Jon K]

Al,

Try 5.5 grains of Unique in the 32-20. Shoot very accurate in my Low Wall. With the Saeco 118 gr boolit seated to the crimp groove, it has .121 of air space. If you are using a lever with a large chamber, this might be too much.

Jon

:castmine:

[Dale53]

Charlie Dell was a very good friend of mine. We spent time in each others homes. When he was barreling my Peregrine Schuetzen rifle, I spent a week with him. Every evening we would sit in his den winding down from the days activities with a dram of Single Malt (he) and Bourbon (me). That is the time we discussed "saving the world" and other fine topics, including ringing barrels. Charlie made up brass barrels that yielded much sooner to the "ringing force" so he could try to "ring at will" (if you cannot reproduce the problem it is only guessing). He was successful in learning what it takes to ring a barrel. The Frenchman Viehle over a hundred years ago determined what the cause was and Charlie was just trying to reproduce his findings. Charlie could ring a barrel "at will".

The cause is a parallel flame front from the powder caused by a wad down on the powder (Charlie could actually ring a barrel without a wad by shooting the rifle directly straight up - this proved the parallel theory). The wad, holding the powder "square" with the bore caused this parallel flame front of pressure. When it reached the base of the bullet it became a "ringing force". The effect is accumulative. Charlie determined that if the wad (a solid wad) is off the powder .100"-.200" the ringing force is reduced to the point that with modern chrome moly barrels the hoop strength is enough that it is highly unlikely to produce any problems. The wad being off the powder charge allows the powder to "slump" and without the parallel flame front of pressure, the ringing force is either greatly reduced or is non-existent.

I firmly believe Charlie's findings and as far as I am concerned that is the final answer. If you must use a wad to get proper ballistics, just keep if off the powder by .100"-.200". I use a wad in my Schuetzen rifle and made a wad seater that does just that (,32/.357 Dell).

Dacron filler for some yet unknown reason aggravates the problem and makes it more likely to happen. Charlie preferred a solid wad (off the powder by .100-.200" to allow the powder to slump) in his use with Schuetzen rifles. Field Rifles, used in conditions where the wad is apt to be dislodged may not be such good condidates for a solid wad just off the powder.

Use of the chronograph with your loads of powder only, can often allow you to get decent results with the black powder cartridges when using reduced loads of smokeless powder. I have had good results with my 45/70's, for instance, when using 4198 or RL-7 with no wads. That is my preference for field loads (an appropriate powder that allows reduced loads with NO filler).

Dale53

[The Double D]

There is one fly in the ointment for the filler argument for which I have no answer. I shoot powder charges in a lot of different calibers that don't entirely fill the case. Therfore, there is airspace between the powder and the base of the bullet. All of this powder DOES NOT burn inside the case into one even wave. So in essence, the powder acts like a filler would and slams into the base of the bullet. Because that powder has mass. I have, nor has anyone else apparently ringed a chamber using this method that we blame for ringing using filler.

The contention isn't that any powder space creates ringing its that excessive powder space creates ringinging. The filler issue and ringing come to play when only a small amout of filler is used to holds the powder against the base, still leaving a large air space.

Adding a greater amount filler to take up the air space works just like your loads that fill the airspace with powder. 70% powder capacity being a threshold I was taught years ago. Always be sure the total capacity of the case was no less than 70%. I believe you will also find this in Phil Sharpe's book on reloading. (Caveat: I don't have my copy of Sharpe with me so this could be a wrong source) The wad column or filler functioning just like a longer bullet taking up mor space ihthe case reducing the available space inthe powder chamber of the case.


The real problem is that we don't know if chamber ringing is a one time event or if the effects are accumulative over time. I think that it happens over time because it can get worse if continued. So .... if the effects are accumulative, there has to be a begining. How do we identify that point? Again a question that has no answer.

B/A read Dell's work. Dell was able to predictably and repeatedly create ringing from the first shot. Dell credited ringing to two things old soft barrel steels and the air space. Dell was able to control ringing with variation in types of wads. Dacron being the lleast effective in controlling ringing, kapok and news paper the best.


Maybe chamber ringing is a much greater problem than we realize simply because we can't identify the begining. And therefore, someone never knows that they have ringed their chamber until it progresses to identification. At which point we feel we have to blame something. We blame large capacity straight walled cases. Well, it would be easier to visually identify there. And, statistically a lot of these types of guns have the thinest steel barrels making them .... susceptible to the problem. Even if they have heavier steel, it is usually of lower grade, again making it easier to occur there. So is it occurring elsewhere and we just don't see the results?

Actually even without an understanding of the phenomenon your statement is very true. There is lot of stuff that was well understood in the old days but over time has been forgotton. Ammunition has changed. The large old cases are seldom used any more. It's only when we go back and try to apply modern standards for smaller size case to the big old ones do we run ito problems. Instead of using the big old case like the were intend we try to load them down and use components that werent around when the original lartridges were developed. We can revisit the old writings and learn a lot.


Now see my results are the exact opposite. I have used filler to improve crappy loads or to burn stuff I should not be using. But I have never .... in my life ever produced the finest accuracy from any caliber using any type of filler.

Filler .... will .... correct a problem at times for sure. Solid fillers will enable higher velocities with softer mixes for sure. But if no problem with ignition exists, then a fluffy filler always takes accuracy the other way in my experience.

I have no doubt that what you are saying correct. It mirrors my intial findings 100%. But your statement also point to the "why", at least in my experience. Fluffy fillers. If they are fluffy they are not filling. I compress my kapok in my 577/450 cases. It's not fluffy at all. I also weigh each ball of kapok for consistancy. No arbitary sized wad pulled off and stuffed in.


So in essence, a fluffy filler is a good check for reloaders. If you get accuracy improvement from using it, then you are using the wrong powder speed for your application or you have another problem. This is one MAJOR factor why larger diameter bullets work so well for a lot of people. They cure ignition problems as they take time to size down. Or change primer. Improve case neck tension. But find the problem and fix it. If you are using the wrong powder, then why not switch to a correct powder and aviod the ringing risk?.

Not always true with large capacity cases. There isn't a smokeless powder made that is going to give you 80-90% capacity and be safe to shoot in a Martini case.

My NfB loads follow the guidlines laid out by Ross Seyfried for shooting smokeless in the old black powder case-- 40% of the black powder load in IMR 4198 with as much dacron as you can get compressed in the case.

35 grs of IMR 4198 does not fill much case in the 577/450. It won't even ignite consistantly and some times not at all without filler. Add 8 grs. of Kapok and it works. I get 2 1/2 to 3 inch groups at at 1450 fps at 100 yards with this load compared to 5 to 6 inches with the normal LoC load of 85 frs. of Fg at 1400 fps.. Test that I have ran in the past month found me shooting 75 grs. of 1 1/2 FG and getting 1 1/2 to 2 inch groups with 3 grs. of kapok compressed over the powder and again between 1400 and 1500 fps. Gotta figure out why accuracy is good and velocity ragged with this load. Primer?

On the other hand using shotgun or pistol powder in these big case is no good either. If you need gallery loads for the Martini get an insert and shoot 45 colt or something---now there is a good filler, steel or brass.



An old timer once told me that a filler is a lazy mans crutch to load development.

How old was he?

Greame Wright while researching for his book Shooting the British Double Rifles tore down a lot of the old turn of the 19th-20th century BPE nitro cartridges made by Kynoch and Eley to see how they were loaded to create the NfB loads. What he found were long wad columns. He applied that to his research and came up with modern loads for the big old cartridges. Kynoch is applying the technique to their new loaded ammo and using foam-like earplug foam- for filler.

[felix]

Charlie Dell is indeed correct. It is a strong wavefront that causes havoc, and in the case with a SEE condition, that wavefront is almost 100 percent guaranteed to contain many smaller waves which were built up to make the really big one, which can do some real damage to the barrel and/or action. A filler should be square to the base of the boolit and have air holes in it to allow for the break up of waves. Gunpowder is the best filler, obviously. If using toilet paper, newspaper, for the wad, that wad should be loose fitting and very irregular in shape. I don't like the idea of a square wad of any sort, unless up against the boolit. ... felix

[Bass Ackward]

Double D,

Very good. The problem is that the devil is always in the details. Producing ringing is great. We are more interested in prevention. That is my point. Is the effect accumulative where barrel steel is tough enough or thick enough not to be able to see the beginning effects? I ask because a guy shooting thousands of rounds loaded exactly the same way that says ringing is bull crap or I have figured out the filler riddle only to finally have it happen to him?

Now let's apply this to shotguns. And Felix you can join in too. Would you please explain a modern shotgun wad then. Large case space, solid, sealing wad firmly seated on top of the powder. Air space with flimsy plastic recoil reducers in between a fairly heavy shot load. Fairly thin barrel steel made for relatively low pressures by todays standards and in some cases softer steel barrels. Recipie for ringing?

The point I was trying to make is that accidents can happen in a lot of ways. The more opportunity you give for that to happen, the more you improve your odds. You should have enough knowledge to know, then you can make the decision whether to accept the risk.

In my opinion, across all cartridge designs, fillers are used more than necessary in the world of cast.

[felix]

BA, those flimsy plastic recoil reducers are designed such to break up any large wave that might get started. If they were not so flimsy, they might not be as effective in this endeavor. What do you think? ... felix

[PatMarlin]

OK- I've never seen a ring. What do I look for?

Second- how in the heck do you explain Lyman's cast bullet loads?

Third- How really old are you BA?... :mrgreen:

[trk]

Oh this is gonna start a dog fight.
...
It's an old phenomenon.
...
I believe the book was Phil Sharpes Book on Reloading.
....

Been reading for HOURS.

GREAT book - haven't hit any mention of chamber ringing yet, but many chapters to go.

AND he has SEVEN PAGES jammed with stuff on HEADSPACE and HEAD CLEARANCE. Well researched, documented and written! Published in 1948!

[mike in co]

bass,
i think part of what you may be missing, is that sometimes a shooter WANTS to use a ceertain powder....thus they must tune for the conditions.
this is not somthing to "correct"("Only to get you to understand that how you load creates problems that YOU need to correct.").....
its not a problem, it a choice, and he is tuning to his choice. is thier a better bullet or a "better" powder, maybe but the shooter has already set some fixed data..his powder.
..niether is wrong..but in this case there are atleast two ways to look at the shooters choice.

mike

[Bass Ackward]

BA, those flimsy plastic recoil reducers are designed such to break up any large wave that might get started. If they were not so flimsy, they might not be as effective in this endeavor. What do you think? ... felix


Felix,

Me? I clearly don't know. As a result, I have practiced abstinence.

On one hand, we say that you want something to break up the wave, like powder. That has a pretty good track record. And then look at shotguns and say that it is OK to use something solid over the powder as long as we cushion the effect slightly with plastic strands. And the hulls are plastic too. That method has a safe track record too.


DD,

When you are young you tend to over estimate age. At least I see things differently today. Ol'Sam Cook lived long enough that when he told you of hardship as a kid, he was talking about the Civil War. His favorite line for guns was that everyone should start with BP and lead.

I consider a fluffy filler as any filler that can not effect .... real compression force. Kapok, Dacron, cotton, stuff like that. It's hard to understand how kapok does, dacron does not. But if I understand you correctly, you believe the material outlines a clear set of criteria in regard to this subject. If so, it's a worth while read.


Joeb,

I feel bad for high jacking this thread. If you are really interested and want solid data, call Ruger. I would imagine that they will want to know why you are asking out of fear of legal recourse, so be prepared, they may just help you. That would be solid information that would be nice if you would post should you be successful.

The phone number is 603-865-2442.

[felix]

Yeah, BA, anything to break up waves would be fair game here. Keep in mind, though, the shot begins without much resistance in comparision to a boolit starting out into some kind of "forcing cone". Once the payload begins to move, the pressure venturi goes towards the center of the mass that is moving. If one of the "walls" of the container is moving, that makes it hard for a monster wave to develop. ... felix

[BudRow]

Hello All, New to this fourm but not to the hobby. I've been collecting C&R milsurps for 25 years and have some with pristine bores. My interest is to shoot mild cast loads in these rifles (1400 - 1800 fps) to save on wear and tear and preserve their condition. I have the NRA Cast Bullet book and only once do they mention of "Ringed Chambers" with fiber fillers, other than that they give the practice of light poly tufts over the powder the nod. I have a Persian Mauser in 8x57 that I loaded 10 rounds each of 20.2gr. of IMR 4198 and 19.1gr. of SR4759. with a 5/8"sq.x1/4" thick poly tuft. Merely pushed down to but not compressed on the powder. The bullet is a Lee 175gr. cast with Lyman #2 alloy and seated out to a light crush on the lands. After reading this post, now what to do? 1) just shoot them, 2) break down the components and start over or 3) use my inertia bullet puller to cause the powder to force the poly tuft toward the bullet base (without moving the bullet) thereby allowing the powder to slump. Any advice experienced sages can offer will be greatly appreciated - I don't want to ring my chambers.
Thanks, Bud

[9.3X62AL]

Yeah, BA, anything to break up waves would be fair game here.

Felix--So, a tuft of dacron could serve in this role with relative safety?

I can think of few subjects on this board that stir up deeper discussion.

[felix]

Apparently, Al, because it is being done over and over. By the same token, a tuft of toilet paper (very loose and very irregular in shape) has worked for me with BE, 700X, etc., for swimming pool loads (bore diameter seeking). ... felix

[shooter2]

I no longer have a number 1 in 45-70, but I do have a Marlin 1895 that I've been shooting with a Dacron filler with no trouble whatsoever. I use Ross Seyfrieds BP equivalent load of 28 grains of 4198, a 400 grain bullet, and a healthy wad of Dacron. The filler completely fills the space. There is "no" burning of the Dacron it just gets grey. The barrel stays clean and the load is pleasant and accurate. It works for me.

As to SEE, I've read in more than one source that they have never been able to duplicate this in laboratory conditions. I am not talking a ringed chamber or barrel here, just SEE. They go on to say that they think the blowups are simply reloading mistakes like double charges or the wrong powder. While I understand the theories of SEE, I remain a doubtful until they can prove it. JMHO...

[felix]

Yes, a SEE will be generated by a WW(old) water dropped, sized at 308 diameter, 180 grainer, 311291, inserted into a neck sized case, used in a 311 throat, 308W case, WW standard rifle primer, 25 grains old H322, gun pointed 20 degrees down (powder against boolit). Three shots in a row produced a hell raising pressure each time (varying intensity each shot) taking a log to open the action each time. The barrel exhibited zero leading at that velocity, which must have been approaching 3K. Each shot tore off completely a 2-3 inch willow tree at the water line. These were the only SEE conditions that I have had happen to me personally. By the way, that same lot of powder was responsible for a death in the BR circuit. ... felix

[Char-Gar]

Budrow --- Everytime the topic of fillers comes up (which is often) this sort of discussion takes place. I always enjoy and learn from it.

The dacron folks will recount thousands and thousands of rounds fired with no ringed chambers and good results. From their point of view any problems with dacron comes from it's improper use.

Other folks disagree and advocate some other kind of filler or are certain that the best filler is no filler.

I have resolved the issue for myself in the following manner:

1) In loads like your use, I use 2400 powder. I have not found this powder to be position sensitive and gives excellent accuray and I just forget about the filler issue.

2) I will use some Precision Shotshell Buffer to top off a load of medium or slow powder to give compression and a 100% tight powder column. I only use this will ball powders and the powder charge must already be at 70% or more of case capacity.

Other than that I just sit on the side lines and enoy the show. If I had the loads you mentioned, I would shoot them. But I am not you and it is your rifle and not mine, so do what makes you comfortable.

Shooter2 - You can always get a good discussion going on SEE and the various notions about it's cause and effect.

It is not a myth and it does take place and guns are destroyed. SEE is well known among artillery and naval gunnery folks having been taught for generations. I have my own theory but whatever the theory of it's origins, the actual SEE is a fact.

[Larry Gibson]

I no longer have a number 1 in 45-70, but I do have a Marlin 1895 that I've been shooting with a Dacron filler with no trouble whatsoever. I use Ross Seyfrieds BP equivalent load of 28 grains of 4198, a 400 grain bullet, and a healthy wad of Dacron. The filler completely fills the space. There is "no" burning of the Dacron it just gets grey. The barrel stays clean and the load is pleasant and accurate. It works for me.

As to SEE, I've read in more than one source that they have never been able to duplicate this in laboratory conditions. I am not talking a ringed chamber or barrel here, just SEE. They go on to say that they think the blowups are simply reloading mistakes like double charges or the wrong powder. While I understand the theories of SEE, I remain a doubtful until they can prove it. JMHO...

I've not jumped in here because I use a lot of dacron in numerous cartridges (45-70 and bottle necked ones) without any hint of problem. I used it as a wad for a number of years but changed to filler type loads due to powder mitigation during recoil with rounds in magazines. I shall continue to use it without worry.

What I wanted to note was that SEE is not a theory, has been documented and IS readily produceable in the laboritory and on the range. There was an article explaining this in detail published in the June-July 1997 issue of Hanloader. I have posted that article here before and can again if wanted.

Larry Gibson

[Char-Gar]

Budrow --- Everything the topic of fillers comes up (which is often) this sort of discussion takes place. I always enjoy it.

The dacron folks will recount thousands and thousands of rounds fired with no ringed chambers and good results. From their point of view any problems with dacron comes from it's improper use.

Other folks disagree and advocate some other kind of filler or are certain that the best filler is no filler.

I have resolved the issue for myself in the following manner.

1) In loads like your use, I use 2400 powder. I have not found this powder to be position sensitive and gives excellent accuray and I just forget about the filler issue.

2) I will use some Precision Shotshell Buffer to top off a load of medium or slow powder to give compression and a 100% tight powder column. I only use this will ball powders and the powder charge must already be at 70% or more of case capacity.

Other than that I just sit on the side lines and enoy the show. If I had the loads you mentioned, I would shoot them. But I am not you and it is your rifle and not mine, so do what makes you comfortable.

Shooter2 - You can always get a good discussion going on SEE and the various notions about it's cause and effect.

It is not a myth and it does take place and guns are destroyed. SEE is well known among artillery and naval gunnery folks having been taught for generations. I have my own theory but whatever the theory of it's origins, the actual SEE is a fact.

[MGySgt]

I've not jumped in here because I use a lot of dacron in numerous cartridges (45-70 and bottle necked ones) without any hint of problem. I used it as a wad for a number of years but changed to filler type loads due to powder mitigation during recoil with rounds in magazines. I shall continue to use it without worry.
Larry Gibson

One of these days I am going to learn to keep my mouth shut too!

Just not yet! :)

Drew

[joeb33050]

I'm truing to find out if Ruger #1's in 45/70 had a lot of chamber rings and were returned to the factory. The number quoted is "hundreds".
Let me tell you guys about chamber rings and Dacron, which ain't what I came to town for.
I had to address the question in the book, and read everything I could find on it, including Charlie Dell's book.

Then I went to the forums, including the ASSRA forum and this, and asked for stories about chamber rings. My conditions for belief were:
It happened to YOU, reasonably recently. Not "a guy from Altoona" and not "during the Spanish American War".
You had shot the gun for XXX rounds prior to the ringing. (Eliminates the possibility of a preexisting chamber defect.)
The description of the load and what happened was understandable.
This is some reasonable load for the rifle involved. Means, not YY grains of BE and a 220 grain bullet in a 30/30.

I'm up to a grand total of five, that's FIVE stories. One poster here wrote about a chamber ring 30 years ago, I don't believe what I say happened 30 years ago-I don't believe what almost anybody says happened 30 years ago, without film. My memory is too fickle.

Describers of the wave front and SEE event and just exactly happens are thick on the ground.

I am not convinced by Charlie Dell's writing on the subject, and took a lot of hate mail for saying so. I am not a particularly evil person, even though the true believers say I am. Please do not copy them and tell me you're coming to my house to kill me. First, read Charlie's writing on the topic, carefully. Then come on down.

I have little EVIDENCE that Dacron wads over a reasonable load of powder and reasonable bullet cause chamber rings.

I WARN readers about the possibilities of Dacron chamber rings any number of places in the book.

If anyone wants a copy of the chapter as it stands, joeb33050@yahoo.com.

Look out!

Now, how about that #1 in 45/70 with the chamber ring?


joe brennan

[carpetman]

I think Bass Ackwards suggestion you call Ruger would be a good idea.

[montana_charlie]

sometimes a shooter WANTS to use a ceertain powder....thus they must tune for the conditions.
That is only reasonable if the powder is appropriate for the application.
If the shooter 'wants' to use it simply because he has a lot of it...his reasoning powers are suspect.

I'm truing to find out if Ruger #1's in 45/70 had a lot of chamber rings and were returned to the factory. The number quoted is "hundreds".

Now, how about that #1 in 45/70 with the chamber ring?
When the member with personal experience sees this thread, I suppose he will tell all. Until then, if an active discussion on the general subject is in progress, the thread won't float down to oblivion before he sees it.
CM

[9.3X62AL]

Joe--

Put me in the "Not me, not yet" classification.

[felix]

Describers of the wave front and SEE event and just exactly happens are thick on the ground. ... joeb

Joe, what does this statement mean? ... felix

[Nelsdou44]

I'm not an 'pert on barrel ringing and SEE, but I did have an experience this past Sunday that certainly has me thinking about it.

I've shot quite a few cast boolit squib loads through a Swede using 3 grains of Red Dot and a pinch of poly tuft just to keep the powder near the primer. No tamping or compression. Without the poly, I get erratic ignition with that small of a charge. Fun load and pretty accurate at 25 yds.

In loading Red Dot in 8mm cartridges, I normally use 12-13 grains WITHOUT filler, but I must of had a couple of neurons misfire 'cause I did several with a pinch of poly. When I realized that mistake, I did not pull the boolits thinking that at 12 grains, they would be ok.

Well, after shooting some other cast loads in the mauser, I fired one of the 12 grain Red Dot with poly and got a bit sharper recoil. Bolt opened easy enough, but pulled out a broken case head. Boolit went down range and there was never any sensation of gas blowback.

I check my brass pretty close and this is the first broken case I've had (and the 1st shell extractor I've had to order). And nope, not a double charge, a flashlight check is standard practice on my bench. Hard for me to imagine a small tuft of non-compressed poly could keep the powder in a flat non-slumping position to set up a wave, but I'll pass on further experiments. I'll see what I've got for a chamber after getting the remainder of cartridge extracted.

Nels

[Bass Ackward]

After reading this post, now what to do? 1) just shoot them, 2) break down the components and start over or 3) use my inertia bullet puller to cause the powder to force the poly tuft toward the bullet base (without moving the bullet) thereby allowing the powder to slump. Any advice experienced sages can offer will be greatly appreciated - I don't want to ring my chambers.
Thanks, Bud


Bud,

I am going to step on out here and say that you do not need filler for what you are doing. And I think it would be OK to shoot those that you already have loaded. Unless you intend to climb a tree and shoot down. The filler probably won't produce much better ballistics with those powders unless it is the small amount of 4198. You should be fine. Then after reading all of this, decide for yourself if you want and how to use them.


Everyone Else,

We are all adults here. But the filler argument is the only unsafe reloading practice we teach on this board. We dance around the issue of fillers and try to find a scientific cause to understand why something is happening and we try to justify how to avert the problem. But this is clearly a safety issue that we refuse to see in that light.

Using too small amount of any powder in a case, any case, that you need something to restrain it for positioning because you get erratic ignition / velocity, should flash a red, warning flag that you are using the wrong powder for that cartridge and or pressure application. Period. It isn't that it's a powder or case capacity problem, or that a powder was made especially so that we can unsafely underload a cartridge, .... when erratic velocities arise, that powder has become unstable and the condition is unsafe.

The use of a filler is a practice that attempts to correct a wrong and it brings with it it's own risk that, as adults, each must decide on. And as a result, my attempts at trying to use fluffy filler has never worked. Because I have never persisted in using a powder condition that needed to be corrected by filler. Once I identify a problem, I change powder, primer, or other load conditions until proper ignition conditions are met. That's why Ol Sammy said filler was the lazy way out.

As we get new casters into the fold here, many may not have the experience to intelligently decide this issue for themselves without education that this thread has provided. That is why I strung this out. For those that know the risks, you are on your own. It's only a ring. A barrel can be replaced. The old Fram Oil Filter commercial comes to mind. WE went into it with our eyes open.

Hopefully, the new folks can see just how complicated the filler issue can be before they attempt its use. And maybe the education on various methods will help them. Or at least help them understand that they need to seek more education. Millions of rounds have been shot with filler safely. All well and good. The vast majority of drivers never have a serious accident either. And no one plans to. It just happens.

[Dale53]

Bass Ackward;
That is one of the most impressive statements that I have seen in a while. I agree fully, and suggest one and all to re-read it and digest it carefully.

Thank you.
Dale53

[joeb33050]

I think Bass Ackwards suggestion you call Ruger would be a good idea.

I called the Ruger number Monday, 12/11. Typical runaround to AZ, then back to NH. Talked to an older woman who seemed to write the question down and said that her boss might call me back. Seemed interested.

joe brennan

[joeb33050]

Describers of the wave front and SEE event and just exactly happens are thick on the ground. ... joeb

Joe, what does this statement mean? ... felix

Felix;
I started my working life surrounded by guys with beavers on their rings, who were very smart. They taught me that before I should believe in a phenomenon, that that phenomenon must be reproducible. They also taught me that descriptions of processes were theories until and unless observation ( we were involved in the timing and firing of Atomic and Hydrogen bombs, observation doesn't have to mean "watching with the eyes") of the process confirmed the theories.
With the Dacron/chamber ringing issue we have a non-reproducible phenomenon since I and others use Dacron wads by the jillions without chamber rings.
We have a phenomenon with very few (so far) believable, recent, first-hand descriptions of what happened.
Yet we have many who talk about this non-reproducible, evidently rarely-occuring phenomenon, describing the process (chamber ringing, wave fronts, SEE, what the gas does, the wad as projectile, new barrel steel vs. old barrel steel) without a shred of evidence to support their descriptions of the process.
We have a lot of guys who describe in scientific? terms HOW this non-reproducible, rarely occuring event occurs. At best, theories.
It's like explaining how spontaneous ignition of human beings works.

In the powder measure test I saw and recorded "bridging" of SR4759. Others report bridging with other powders, down in size to Red Dot.
I theorized and wrote that MAYBE some of the SEE events could be explained by bridging.
I CAN reproduce bridging, a process that might explain SEE events, which themselves appear non-reproducible.

Ed Lander, an old time MA gunsmith, offered the opinion that chamber rings were the result of chips-in-the-reamers. He didn't believe the theories, some of which center around an essentially massless Dacron tuft whacking into a bullet base.

I don't know about Dacron, and I firmly believe that we all have the right to say what we want except "fire in theatre". But sometimes I feel the overwhelming need to object to the positiveness of the explainers.

If Ruger had "hundreds" of #1s returned with chamber rings, I would suspect that they have found out why and corrected the problem; or they get hundreds back still. Do YOU believe that?

joe brennan

[Char-Gar]

Bass... Your statement is very well taken and appreciated. I agree with most of it. There is however one aspect that causes me to take exception. Not all use of fillers is done to correct an already red line powder issue. There are some use for fillers other than as a corrective for an unstable powder burn.

I think it is pretty well settled that all things being equal (which they never are), a tight 100% load density powder column will often be more accurate than a load with air in the boiler room. We are talking improvement and not corrective.

I don't use filler with light charges of fast powder. There are just too many unknowns for me to feel comfortable in doing that. I get great results with 2400 and see no need to mess with fillers and other powders.

I will use a filler (PSB) when I have a powder charge that is already 70% of case capacity and the powder is a medium or slow ball powder (H335, WC872 etc. etc.) . Such a powder charge is not unstable to start with. The use of the PSB, just produces a tight powder column and often that has positive results. I use PSB as icing on the cake and not to correct a problem.

I don't use PSB with big stick powder for concern about mixing. My only exception is the use of PSB on top of 4759 in the 45-70. However I seperate the two with a card wad and make certain these is some compression to exclude air which could turn the wad into a piston.

These filler threads never produce consensus and never will. They are always interesting and the issue evolves as we learn more. There is allot of theory and opinion and newbies should understand that and accept it as such.

The use of fillers and duplex loads are not for the novice who does not understand what he is doing. Bot practices have a place in the arsenal of the experienced handloader but let the newbie beware of going there based on some of these threads.

There are things I do in handloading I would not even menton in front of a novice lest they go there too quickly. The problem with these boards, is there are lots of lurkers and some of them may not understand the risks and have the experience to weigh all of these theories and opinions, including mine.

[charger 1]

You fellas probably noticed that my comments on this topic are usually more in the way of questions than input. I will say this rule is one that I have gathered enough info to stick with whole heartedly.....Do not use filler unless necesary!!!!!.Do not use fiberouse fillers such as dacron because there is no 101% garaunteed way of being sure of the ratio of solids to air load to load. Only psb will do it in a dependable non moisture inert fashion. I've got 45/70 loads that my 11 yr old great nefeu shoots with 4 grains of 700X Up to loads in the lott that dont go to the reange, because of the concrete floor. They get fired from my patio which gets matresses on either side of the bench to catch the rifle and I'm sat indian on the ground cause it deposits me flat out. In both cases psb is snuggly compressed so that pressure build and forward movement act as one. Unless you can be sure of an all in one (almost hydraulic)movement by either enough powder or proper filler your asking for it

[joeb33050]

Bud,
Using too small amount of any powder in a case, any case, that you need something to restrain it for positioning because you get erratic ignition / velocity, should flash a red, warning flag that you are using the wrong powder for that cartridge and or pressure application. Period. It isn't that it's a powder or case capacity problem, or that a powder was made especially so that we can unsafely underload a cartridge, .... when erratic velocities arise, that powder has become unstable and the condition is unsafe.

I don't recommend that anyone use Dacron or other wads. But.
I disagree.
I find that using a Dacron wad makes large cases shoot better with powders such as Unique and SR4759. Cases such as 300 WM and 45/70 and 30/06.
Your opinion may be that these are the wrong powders, but I and a host of others disagree.
Lyman included the Dacron info in the handbook after at least some thought and trial, it worked then and still does. Period.
I still don't recommend the use of wads. But I use them.
joe brennan

[The Double D]

Felix;
.
With the Dacron/chamber ringing issue we have a non-reproducible phenomenon since I and others use Dacron wads by the jillions without chamber rings.
We have a phenomenon with very few (so far) believable, recent, first-hand descriptions of what happened.
Yet we have many who talk about this non-reproducible, evidently rarely-occuring phenomenon, describing the process (chamber ringing, wave fronts, SEE, what the gas does, the wad as projectile, new barrel steel vs. old barrel steel) without a shred of evidence to support their descriptions of the process.
We have a lot of guys who describe in scientific? terms HOW this non-reproducible, rarely occuring event occurs. At best, theories.
It's like explaining how spontaneous ignition of human beings works.

joe brennan

Joe are you saying Charles Dell wasn't able to produce ringing? That all his work on ringing is invalid and meaningless? And that he is not credible?

[AZ-Stew]

Sorry, I didn't check the board last evening so I'm a bit late getting around to responding to joeb33050.

OK. It was 30 years ago. I still remember enlisting in the Navy 37 years ago, so I don't think I've completely lost my memory. And just to add a little more credibility to my memory faculties, I was sworn in by Lt. Nutt.

I bought the Remington 700 BDL new and the chamber was correct, with no excessive machining marks. It was fired with several hundred j-bullet loads before I decided to try my hand at shooting cast. In addition to cleaning the bores, I always clean the chambers of my rifles, and inspect them from the breech end with the muzzle pointed at a strong light. The chamber was good before I started fooling around with the cast bullets. I only had about 2-3 years experience handloading at the time, so I was, admittedly, near the bottom of the learning curve (as we all were at one time). I did, however, read everything I could get my hands on regarding guns and handloading, and I tried to replicate most of what I found interesting in the various magazines, handloading and cast bullet manuals, books and whatever else I could find to learn from.

The bullet was the Lee 190 grain flat nose GC (looks like C309-170-F, but weighs 190), with the GC, and the powder was a book load of Unique. I couldn't get my hands on anything else at the time, so I know the primer was a CCI 200. Since the Unique wasn't giving me very good accuracy, I decided to try the Dacron filler, as suggested in several of the articles and cast bullet books I read. I don't remember any of the articles saying that the Dacron was to be inserted loosely in the case, and when I inserted it, it didn't appear that the fluffy stuff had any possibility of keeping the powder next to the primer (for good ignition, as the books said), so I pushed it down until it seemed to remain in a position that I thought would help it serve its intended purpose. It wasn't "packed", it was just pressed down so that it was a mildly expanded wad of material on top of the powder that didn't move when the case was shaken. Accuracy didn't improve appreciably, and upon cleaning the rifle, I found the chamber's new feature, right where the bullet base was located in the loaded rounds. The mould was then retired for many years.

Live and learn. I still have the mould and am working with it in a Remington 788 in 30-30. The smaller case allows experimentation with a broad variety of powders that will more nearly fill the case without any additional filler material, yet will propel the bullet at the optimum velocity for ACWW alloy. Age and experience have driven me to work with more conservative combinations. I no longer have any desire to push the envelope and try to make voluminous cases push heavy cast bullets with fast powders. Sure, the writers will tell you it can be done, but even the "experts" often don't understand all the risks involved.

No, I don't have photos to prove my chamber neck ring occurred. But if you'll loan me one of your 30-06s I'll be happy to see if I can replicate the phenomenon I experienced. :mrgreen:

Regards,

Stew

[joeb33050]

Joe are you saying Charles Dell wasn't able to produce ringing? That all his work on ringing is invalid and meaningless? And that he is not credible?

Did I say that? When did I say that? Where did I write that? Do you know something about what I said that I don't remember? Are you trying to put words into my keyboard?
Have you read Charlie's/Waynes book, the part on chamber ringing?
Do you understand what he did? His powder charges?

Does Charlie's work convince you that Dacron wads cause chamber rings using "normal" loads in rifles?

It doesn't convince me, that's what I said.

Join the throng of townsfolk with sharp agricultural implements and torches, coming up the hill.

joe brennan

[joeb33050]

Sorry, I didn't check the board last evening so I'm a bit late getting around to responding to joeb33050.

OK. It was 30 years ago. I still remember enlisting in the Navy 37 years ago, so I don't think I've completely lost my memory. And just to add a little more credibility to my memory faculties, I was sworn in by Lt. Nutt.

I bought the Remington 700 BDL new and the chamber was correct, with no excessive machining marks. It was fired with several hundred j-bullet loads before I decided to try my hand at shooting cast. In addition to cleaning the bores, I always clean the chambers of my rifles, and inspect them from the breech end with the muzzle pointed at a strong light. The chamber was good before I started fooling around with the cast bullets. I only had about 2-3 years experience handloading at the time, so I was, admittedly, near the bottom of the learning curve (as we all were at one time). I did, however, read everything I could get my hands on regarding guns and handloading, and I tried to replicate most of what I found interesting in the various magazines, handloading and cast bullet manuals, books and whatever else I could find to learn from.

The bullet was the Lee 190 grain flat nose GC (looks like C309-170-F, but weighs 190), with the GC, and the powder was a book load of Unique. I couldn't get my hands on anything else at the time, so I know the primer was a CCI 200. Since the Unique wasn't giving me very good accuracy, I decided to try the Dacron filler, as suggested in several of the articles and cast bullet books I read. I don't remember any of the articles saying that the Dacron was to be inserted loosely in the case, and when I inserted it, it didn't appear that the fluffy stuff had any possibility of keeping the powder next to the primer (for good ignition, as the books said), so I pushed it down until it seemed to remain in a position that I thought would help it serve its intended purpose. It wasn't "packed", it was just pressed down so that it was a mildly expanded wad of material on top of the powder that didn't move when the case was shaken. Accuracy didn't improve appreciably, and upon cleaning the rifle, I found the chamber's new feature, right where the bullet base was located in the loaded rounds. The mould was then retired for many years.

Live and learn. I still have the mould and am working with it in a Remington 788 in 30-30. The smaller case allows experimentation with a broad variety of powders that will more nearly fill the case without any additional filler material, yet will propel the bullet at the optimum velocity for ACWW alloy. Age and experience have driven me to work with more conservative combinations. I no longer have any desire to push the envelope and try to make voluminous cases push heavy cast bullets with fast powders. Sure, the writers will tell you it can be done, but even the "experts" often don't understand all the risks involved.

No, I don't have photos to prove my chamber neck ring occurred. But if you'll loan me one of your 30-06s I'll be happy to see if I can replicate the phenomenon I experienced. :mrgreen:

Regards,

Stew
I believe you. I want to use this as the sixth example of chamber ringing, with your permission. If you agree let me know here, If you want your name included for proper attribution, PM me.
joe brennan

[joeb33050]

But if you'll loan me one of your 30-06s I'll be happy to see if I can replicate the phenomenon I experienced. :mrgreen:

Regards,

Stew

I have shot thousands of rounds of cast bullets with 30/06, 311299 and 31141 and 311291 and some Saeco and other bullets, with Unique and Dacron wads. This while failing to become a good offhand shot, over ~10 years. Stiill shoot them.
I won't send you a rifle, but I'll load any reasonable Unique load with Dacron bullets and your bullets or mine, and shoot them in a M70 Target rifle.
You tell me what to do, I'll do it. I almost want to see a ring! (I've got a lot of time on my hands.)
joe brennan

[35remington]

Anyone care to explain why, for example, that Ross Seyfried thinks a veritable wad of dacron is safer in old double rifles and single shots than a smaller amount? You'd think that if anything were prone to ringing, it would be the soft steels in some of the old guns he shoots. He often uses something like 16-18 GRAINS of dacron in some of the old cartridges that originally used black, with 4198. His comments were that those who used dacron to produce ringing whether by accident or experimental intent (apparently some cast bullet/reduced load experts) were doing it wrong.

Well, obviously. The inference is that not enough dacron was being used.

Perhaps the ringing phenomenon has something to do with powder charges that moved despite the (too small?) dacron wad? Separating the powder charge, perhaps, causing the powder itself to become a secondary projectile, maybe? I dunno about that last comment, as I've seen plenty of powder grain impacts on the base of bullets using normal powder charges without filler, and no harm there. But whatever.

Boy, I'm proving I can speculate with the best of 'em.

No answers here. But I've used a lot of dacron and consider it superior to poly buffer or I wouldn't have switched. Not to step on any toes, but I'd agree nothing gets a clean bill of health regarding filler. I will continue to use it in some very expensive barrels because I have never had the slightest problem. My experience, my choice, my risk.

[35remington]

Another misinformed comment, perhaps.

If my dacron wads run 0.1 grain (and they often do), and we assume that it gets accelerated to oh, say, 4700 fps by the powder gasses, it produces a whopping 4.9 ft/lbs of energy. I wouldn't think that impact would be sufficient to produce a ring upon striking the bullet, as I have a pellet pistol that produces more than that. I'll throw in with the wave theory or a separated charge for now.

Unless a better explanation is produced, which will occur very shortly in this post, I'm sure.

[Bass Ackward]

I don't recommend that anyone use Dacron or other wads. But.
I disagree.
I find that using a Dacron wad makes large cases shoot better with powders such as Unique and SR4759. Cases such as 300 WM and 45/70 and 30/06.
Your opinion may be that these are the wrong powders, but I and a host of others disagree.
Lyman included the Dacron info in the handbook after at least some thought and trial, it worked then and still does. Period.
I still don't recommend the use of wads. But I use them.
joe brennan


Joe,

I think that you take your knowledge base for granted on this issue. You miss the pointy.

I can give you a list of people that believe that duplexing powders is totally safe in the very same cartridges you list. For them, this is could be and probably is true. Would you recommend this technique for your grandson to start out on just because others have shot thousands of rounds successfully and swear by the technique?

Simple point: If a loading practice isn't safe enough to use by the entry level casting novice, then it isn't a completely safe practice. It then must be recognized as requiring more advanced knowledge to perform safely and thus involves a conscious decision on the part of the reloader.

[MGySgt]

Joe,
Simple point: If a loading practice isn't safe enough to use by the entry level shooting novice, then it isn't a completely safe practice. It then must be recognized as requiring more advanced knowledge to perform safely and thus involves a conscious decision on the part of the reloader.

Whoa buddy - I support you in about 99% of your thoughts and theroies. However, there is a lot of things that we do that is far to advanced for the novice reloader.

One is custom molds and producing safe loads for them. How about that 280gr SWC you bought from me - There is no established load data anywhere for that. You used Quick Load (and maybe my sugestion of the 2400 load) to get started.

The 'Novice' reloader needs to stick to established loading data until they understand and are experienced with seating depts, powder lots, different brands of cases, etc. before they go experimenting with 'Custom' bullets.

My son has just started reloading and there is no way that he can load what a good portion of us located here on this board can do until he gets experience under his belt and understands the little things that can and do affect chamber pressure.

Dacron or any filler, in my humble opinion, is not for the Novice.

The one thing that I always do is ensure that there is no air space left in the loaded round when I use dacron. The few actual examples of a ringed chamber that I have read about all stated they had a tuff of dacron, or what ever on top of a small charge of fast powder. I think, but I can not prove it, that that is the culpert too little powder and too much air space to let the charge of powder reach max presure BEFORE the bullet starts to move.

Just my humble opinion.

Drew

[AZ-Stew]

joeb33050,

Be my guest. You can quote me on the chamber neck ringing if you care to. The problem is that while I can remember most of the things surrounding this event, I can't remember the exact powder charge or the weight of filler used, and therein lies the problem. I can't guarantee that I can replicate the phenomenon, but I'm quite certain it happened. The part about loaning me the rifle was just me yankin' your chain. As I said, it happened, but I won't risk one of my rifles trying to do it again just so I can say "I told you so". My present 30-06 is a real shooter with J-bullets, so don't even go there.

I tend to go along with MGySgt. My experience happened with a fast powder (Unique) in a relatively large case, as compared to the powder charge, and with a bullet that is relatively heavy for the caliber, and with empty space above the filler.

Small charge, fast powder, big case, heavy bullet, space over the filler. I think that describes the conditions under which chamber ringing is most likely to occur, but I doubt that anyone can predict with precision the exact load that will cause it in any given rifle.

Regards,

Stew

[Bass Ackward]

Whoa buddy - I support you in about 99% of your thoughts and theroies.

One is custom molds and producing safe loads for them. How about that 280gr SWC you bought from me.

The 'Novice' reloader needs to stick to established loading data until they understand and are experienced with seating depts, powder lots, different brands of cases, etc. before they go experimenting with 'Custom' bullets.

Drew


Drew,

Read the definition I used in the post directly above again and I think you will find you just agreed with me again. You said pretty much the same thing. Filler use is a more advanced cast procedure.

I did change the name of entry level "shooter" to entry level "caster" because that is what I meant. Anyone that takes up cast should already have a certain background level in shooting / reloading.

And our purpose is to educate so that THEY CAN use filler if they want. Or duplexing for that matter. I have nothing against that. That is the purpose of this thread. Here only basic duplexing has ever been been discussed to my knowledge. A few grains to help ignition.

Understand, I .... am not .... against using filler. In fact I am going to define that in another thread.

I .... am not .... against YOU using filler with fast powders either. It's your business. It's your gun.

I will bet that there are veteran reloaders here that have been using filler for so long that their first move is to add a fluffy tuft of filler. And their practice has been going on for so many rounds that they haven't thought for awhile about what they were doing. Their point may be so what. And that is valid. But they just reran their logic through their minds to justify that what they are doing has risks.

Again, before people think I am against filler, to keep this in perspective, the worst that happens is that you ring the chamber. I have seen guys drop guns out of tree stands and bend barrels. Accidents happen. Just understand that is a risk and this reloading practice increases the chances for human error.

[lovedogs]

I guess this controversy will go on forever. And we can only hope that we are all big enough to not get bent out of shape with other's opinions. I've commented a little in the past on this so guess I'll put my two cents worth in again.

I've never personally experienced ringing of either chambers or barrels but have known several people who have. One of the reasons I feel that I've been fortunate enough to never have a problem is that whenever I have questions of a real technical nature I call a ballistician. I know some of you have no faith in them but my knowledge is limited and I figure those guys should know a lot more than I do. Every ballistician and technician with component companies I've talked with on this subject has advised against using any kind of fillers with smokeless powders. So if I can't get the desired results with a particular powder I look for another one that'll work without resorting to using fillers. Examples in my experience are using 4198 and RL7 with low velocity loads in the .45-70 and 500 gr. bullets. Neither of them worked real well. I ran into a position sensitivity problem. I tried 5744 and it worked great; that's what it was designed for.

Of all the people I know personally who've had problems with ringing have had the problem using smokeless powders and fillers. None have had the problem using loads without a filler. To me that is a good indication that one can sometimes have problems using fillers. You may get away with using them for years but I'm not going to make that gamble. I'll just switch powders or do something different to get the results I'm looking for. I enjoy my guns and don't want to risk damaging any of them. I also like all my fingers and being able to see with both of my eyes. So I take no chances. The gamble just isn't worth it to me. You can do as you like.

[Nelsdou44]

I'm posting this just to pass on some more of my personal experience, no "Your're running with scissors!" message intended.

I got the broken cartridge out of my mauser and she looks ok, no rings or buldges or anything out of the ordinary in the chamber. I also pulled the boolits out of the remaining cartridges and closely examined the contents. Interestingly they all had the tuft of filler up against the boolit and there was a small but definite air gap between the powder and the filler. How the filler worked its way up against the boolit I don't know other than by transportation and jostling.

As far as theories go, I believe MGySGT might be on to something.

Nels

[MGySgt]

Nels,

Is it possible that your dacron shifed due to the weight of the powder sitting on the dacron and storing the rounds point down?

I don't think it would take too much weight to shift the dacron wad/tuff/ball/ what ever you want to call it.

Last thoughts on this and then I am going to shut up about it.

I may be able to get acceptable accuracy without the dacron wad. Of course the load is worked without the dacron.

I know - from my experience and provided the rifle/bullet is capable - that I can get MOA by using dacron.

All loads are worked up from the starting load to MAX WITH dacron.

The dacron is COMPRESSED between the bullet and the powder - no Air Space.

I would not recommend adding dacron to an existing load that was worked without dacron. You are changing the combustion chamber and efficentcy of the load when you add something different to the mix. Just like you would not want to change from a Hornady 350 gr 458 FP to a Speer 350 gr FP without reworking the load - they have different seating depths.

Once again - these loads are in 45/70 and 45/90 with 3031, and IMR 4198. These loads give me the accuracy and velocity that I want/like.

[The Double D]

Joe are you saying Charles Dell wasn't able to produce ringing? That all his work on ringing is invalid and meaningless? And that he is not credible?

Joe I have been away from the board for a couple of days and was rereading the thread trying to find where I left off.

I noticed up thread that you stated that you did not totally agree with Dell's finding. You didn't elaborate. But neither did you say Dells work was false, invalid, meaningless or not credibile. You simply stated you don't totally agree with his conclusions. I respect your honesty, and apologize for making it appear you were descrediting Dells work.

I don't agree with your conclusions but do respect them. Your conclusions seem to be based on good sound research unlike others who spout out off about subjects that they have little knowledge of. You seem to be open minded are are willing to listen and learn, even though I suspect you could be the teacher.

As to your quest for information on ringed Rugers. My money says you don't have a snowball's chance in the sahara desert of getting an answer from the protectionist company who champions the product liability industry. CYA comes first with them.

[monadnock#5]

Nope, no lurkers here! :rolleyes:

[Bigjohn]

I have used dacron wads in a couple of calibres .308", .303" Brit. & .45/70 Govt. and NO adverse results were noted.

I did have to adjust the seating depth on some .45/70 300gr loads which had been loaded for over a year and found all still to be in it's proper place.

Just my two cents worth,

John.

[joeb33050]

This started about Ruger #1's in 45/70 and ringed chambers, and quickly turned into the dacron discussion.
When I talk or write about over-powder wads, I (hope) always say that the wads give me accuracy with lower powder charges; and that increasing the charge without the wad brings back the accuracy. I thought I'd check.
My Ohaus 45-405 457 gr 45/70 load with "D" is 21.5 gr SR4759. I shot some of these into ~2" at 100 yd. for 5 shot groups for many years.
Last Wed, no wads, 23/SR4759, 4 5-shot groups averaged 2.15"; and 25/SR4759, 4 5-shot groups averaged 1.8" with a .8" fluke group.
C. Sharps Target rifle, Lyman 30X STS, holding very hard
Today I loaded up some more at 25 and 26 grains, my records suggest 26 is really accurate.
Now, maybe I'm nuts, but.... I think I can shoot the "D" load many shots without discomfort. Wednesday I shot ~55 shots total with the gun, and it makes my head go funny. I had a recoil pad put on the gun after 3 shots after I bought it. When I shoot this gun with no-wad loads, it bangs my head around and after a while makes me a little dizzy and screwed up, more than usual. Maybe I'm nuts....
So, the "D" loads allow me to shoot matches with less dizzy. Maybe it's not worth it.
Prone at long range I don't have the trouble/didn't have the trouble. But from the bench these are NOT a lot of fun to shoot.
Anybody know of a 45/70 Ruger #1 ever with a ringed chamber?
Thanks;
joe b.