45-70 - fillers?

[Guy La Pourque]

Hi guys - new here, one of my favourite bloggers said you run a fine saloon here and I have to agree!

I am about to make my mistake and would appreciate you help in doing so - I am looking at the 1885 Highwall in 45-70 (30" barrel, octagonal barrel, Uberti) for my first gun (I have done the modern cartridges with the Ruger No. 1 and love them).

I have heard two stories about using fillers in the 45-70. Some guys say they are completely safe, others say you are going to blow yourself up and leave nothing but a string of meat with some organs attatched to it in a smoking crater!:shock:

What are you old school single shot guys using?

[Longwood]

Hi guys - new here, one of my favourite bloggers said you run a fine saloon here and I have to agree!

I am about to make my mistake and would appreciate you help in doing so - I am looking at the 1885 Highwall in 45-70 (30" barrel, octagonal barrel, Uberti) for my first gun (I have done the modern cartridges with the Ruger No. 1 and love them).

I have heard two stories about using fillers in the 45-70. Some guys say they are completely safe, others say you are going to blow yourself up and leave nothing but a string of meat with some organs attatched to it in a smoking crater!:shock:

What are you old school single shot guys using?

You are going to love that rifle.
I bought one last year because Cimmarron was out of stock on the Sharps I wanted.
So glad, very pretty rifle that is a hoot to shoot.
Hey, that rymes.
I have tried several fillers when I am using some powders and the only craters I see are "Down Range".
A photo is in my album.

[elk hunter]

Guy,

Welcome aboard.

There is a lot of controversy about using fillers and everyone seems to have an opinion. In my experience fillers aren't needed in 45-70 loads. I've not needed them to get reliable ignition nor accuracy. I use them primarily in larger cases when I can't get reliable ignition.

Enjoy your new rifle.

[Baja_Traveler]

I only use a filler in my 45-70 for light blackpowder loads where the column absolutely has to be compressed.
Unless the smokeless powder you are using has a reputation for being position sensitive, I wouldn't worry about it. Lots of guys on the silhouette range are shooting their guide guns without filler here where I'm at...

[Larry Gibson]

With the milder loads of 2400 and slower burning powders I use a filler for more unifrom ignition and usually better accruacy. All powders in the 2400, 4227, 4759, 5744 and 4198 range can benifit with a 1 - 1 1/4 gr dacron filler with bullets of 300 - 450 gr at trapdoor level loads.

Its only when you get those powders burning at a sufficient psi with heavier loads or heavier bullets then the filler isn't needed. The medium burners from RL7 - Varget at the low end loads also benifit from the dacron filler.

Not opinion but fact based on measuring the psi and time/pressure curves of such loads.

Larry Gibson

[405]

I have heard two stories about using fillers in the 45-70. Some guys say they are completely safe, others say you are going to blow yourself up and leave nothing but a string of meat with some organs attatched to it in a smoking crater!:shock:

What are you old school single shot guys using?

Well, there is a TON of material on this- in the archives, including some pressure data. If you understand the difference between blackpowder loads with wads and smokeless loads with filler... you won't blow your gun up. Unless of course you load an overcharge of the wrong powder, but then that's not an issue of using a filler or not using a filler.

[August]

Actually, the two kinds of guys are ones who've used fillers and never had a problem, and guys who've used fillers and have had a detonation problem.

After ruining a beautiful Hi Wall by ringing the chamber, I became a member of the second group.

As was said above, there really is no advantage when using higher density powders like 4759 and 5744.

Using fillers has worked without a problem for lots of guys. Wish I was one of 'em. I'd like that rifle back.

[littlejack]

Guy:
If you use black powder in it, you will not NEED any filler, and you will have more fun shootin
it. Of course, thats just my opinion.
I have that same rifle. I shoot 70 grains of Goex FF and a 457125 boolit, that drops at 522
grains. I have one target that I shot last year that has 5 holes in one at 100 yards, that can
be covered with a nickle.
Don't tell me charcoal will not shoot. It's fun, it's easy, and it is NOT hard to clean up after.
Jack

[405]

Actually, the two kinds of guys are ones who've used fillers and never had a problem, and guys who've used fillers and have had a detonation problem.



Actually you left out by far the largest "with a problem" group- the guys who have not used fillers and blown up guns.

[Quigley284]

Another vote for black, just too much and just about impossible to get in any trouble. Make sure you have no extra air space by giving a little bit of compression, seat one of the heavier lyman bullets and let the fun begin. Simple to cleanup. Mike

[nanuk]

Actually you left out by far the largest "with a problem" group- the guys who have not used fillers and blown up guns.


then there is the other group, who stick to the ODG's way of using a card wad seated DOWN on the powder, leaving an airspace between the wad and boolit.

That can and often will ring a chamber. I wonder if August used a card wad?

and detonation is far different from ringing a chamber.

Luckily, I have never experienced either.

and I am not convinced a ball of dacron/polyester CAN ring a chamber. it is just too porous.

[Guy La Pourque]

Can I ask you guys about the gun itself? Can these rifles be conventionally scoped? Although years of cheap wine and rotgut has kept my body mostly well preserved...my eyes are getting old...

Also I am new to the cast boolit...and black powder cartridge. I have never paper patched a boolit, or lubed or sized one. Have any of you written some scholarly articles here on getting started?

[oldred]

Something to consider, thousands and thousands and thousands of 45/70 rounds are loaded and shot every year and a big portion of these are light smokeless loads. There does not seem to be a rash of problems from this practice and even the factory BP equivalent smokeless loads have a lot of air space and no fillers. I suppose fillers can be beneficial depending on the powder but in most cases they are not required however a card wad over the powder with an air space between it and the bullet is potential trouble. If a full case of powder is preferred BP is not necessary to accomplish this as there are several good smokeless powders that will fill the case nicely even up to a compressed load in some loads, Varget and H4895 are two that I use, and with these there would be no room for a filler much less needing one. Of the many thousands of 45/70 rounds loaded each year only a very tiny percentage of them are loaded with BP.

[littlejack]

About the scope.
Yes sir. I have a 6x Malcome 3/4" tube mounted on mine. My eyes are aged also. It is clear and the hairs are crisp. Period correct. Looks great.
Thats how I shot that tight of a group. LOL
Jack

[bigted]

have a ball with your new rifle...its gonna be tons o fun! try bp in it sometime and also another full case powder is trailboss...meassure to where the base of your bullet will be when seated all the way and fill your case to this mark. this will be your top amount of trail boss...take a 7 percent less for a starting amount for the trailboss....then i empty it back into the pan of my scales so i have the grainage to write down as my load in my shooting journal.

also i can attest to the looks of a hiwall with the long malcolm style scope. they are period correct and work very well....also welcome to a very friendly and informative forum

[Chill Wills]

take a 7 percent less for a starting amount for the trailboss[/COLOR]....then i empty it back into the pan of my scales so i have the grainage to write down as my load in my shooting journal.


Ted, I think you might have meant to say the starting load of Trail Boss is 70% of a 100% density load?????? Fill the case to the base of the bullet and put it in the scale pan. Then use 70% of that amount as a starting load. So IMR claims anyway. I am just now trying it out in a 38-55 so I have been reading and learning this too.
The Trail Boss is a good suggestion. Sounds no louder than a Barking Spider in my 38-55.:mrgreen:

[oldred]

Have you guys looked at the pressures vs velocity of Trail Boss? Not sure what the appeal of this stuff is but when I checked into it I was a bit surprised at how it compares to some other powders.

Just compare a few Trapdoor loads from the Hodgon data,

405 grain LFP -Trail Boss Max load of 13.0 gr at only 1007 FPS at 25,600 CUP

405 grain LFP - IMR 3031 Max load of 48.5 gr at 1706 FPS at 21,100 CUP

That's 700 FPS more velocity at 4,500 cup LESS pressure with 3031 vs Trail boss!

The minimum 3031 load with that same bullet is 1597 FPS at 17,300 CUP vs the Trail Boss minimum load at only 971 FPS but 24,500 CUP.

The minimum 3031 load vs the minimum Trail boss load with a 405 grain bullet is 626 FPS more velocity with 7,200 cup LESS pressure!


Ok how about BP velocities?

405 grain LFP with a load of 27.0 gr of H4198 at 1251 FPS and only 14,200 CUP vs the Trail boss 13 grain load at 1007 FPS and 25,600 cup!

27 grains H4198 pushes that 405 grain bullet to only 244 FPS higher velocity but at 11,400 cup LESS pressure!

Several other powders show similar extremes and with heavier bullets it gets even worse,

Starting load for Trail Boss and a 485 grain cast bullet is 8 gr for only 699 FPS at 17,100 cup. Oddly enough the Max load with the 485 grain bullet is 10 grains of Trail Boss for 23,300 cup and a blistering 804 FPS velocity!


Maybe I am missing something but the performance of Trail Boss in these big cases looks quite poor to me.

[405]

oldred,
You are absolutely right about the best use for Trailboss. Unfortunately I think many completely miss the point about its best application and burn rate. Instead, they simply assume that because it is so bulky it is somehow forgiving and that it is a good choice for the longer rifle cases or those with less than max expansion ratios. In fact it is a very fast powder- that's why the lower vels at higher pressures within the safe operating ranges of most rifles. It's really no different than other fast pistol powders like Bullseye, Clays, 231 and Titegroup. Trailboss' best use is for low-modest velocity cast loads (including CAS type loads) in high expansion ratio, short cases like many of the pistol cases. It has the "safety" factor built into it because of its bulky nature which helps prevent double charges. I like it in the very high expansion ratio pistol cartridges because it is fairly clean burning, there's less chance for double charge and it measures so accurately thru my measure. Fairly bulky powders like 5744 are far superior for low-modest, blackpowder-like velocity cast loads in longer rifle cases including the 45-70. For a step up in 45-70 rifles where the goal is a little more velocity within safe pressure levels- powders like Rel7, 3031 and 4198 are the powders for that job.

[Chill Wills]

Old Red & 405, I really agree with you about the trail boss. The book value pressure numbers in my 38-55 are 20,000psi for 6gr and then 25,000psi at 8gr. And 8grains almost fills the case and gives 900 fps.
I am happy with the speed 900fps but not very happy to subject the old rifle to so much pressure.
I think your comparisons are right on the money.

Trail Boss's high pressure might not be a good trade off, I am not sure powders like unique are much better.

[bigted]

very cool...just learned another thing and i thankyou for that. the trailboss works so well in my vaquero 45 and i have a big bunch on hand that i decided to burn it in my 458 and 45-120 without checking the preassure that it developes. thanks for the heads up and the printouts i got off my stupid computer were blurry and cutoff for the preassure reading for the 45-120 so i just assumed...[yea i know] it would be safe in it. ill stop promoting the stuff in rifle cartridges...again thanks for the education.

[Larry Gibson]

Actually, the two kinds of guys are ones who've used fillers and never had a problem, and guys who've used fillers and have had a detonation problem.

After ruining a beautiful Hi Wall by ringing the chamber, I became a member of the second group.

As was said above, there really is no advantage when using higher density powders like 4759 and 5744.

Using fillers has worked without a problem for lots of guys. Wish I was one of 'em. I'd like that rifle back.

Could we have a little more detail as to the ringing of the chamber; cartridge, bullet, powder, charge, amount of filler (was it a filler or a wad?), no of rounds fired in session prior to "ringing", where is the ring loacated in the chamber, etc.

How is "ringing" a chamber "detonation"?

Larry Gibson

[frnkeore]

Here is a real life occurence, though not a 45/70..........

30/40 krag, Winchester High Wall, modern A&M #4 weight barrel

18.0 gr 296, modiflied RCBS-180-FN, F210 primers

1/16" thick, light flexable foam (the foam from Downey fabric softner) cut into 1/2" squares. I used a dowel to push the foam down onto the powder.

I developed this load to shoot in CBA matches back in the '90's. I used the same foam as two other guys (CBA record holders) but, they were useing 70%+ loading density's.

I showed better ES and SD as well as accuracy. I had probably fired over 100 rounds in working the lad up. At the first match, I had fired around 25 - 30 rounds and got what I thought was just a stuck case. I used my rod to pop it out, next shot, same thing and the third shot I knew something was wrong. I then closely checked the case and found a shiny ring about 1/4" wide starting about 1/8" back of the shoulder.

Since that time, Charlie Dell did experiments using solid wads (card & cork) against the powder colum and found that he could reliably ring a chamber that way. He concluded that if a wad was used but, place so that the powder could slump that it wouldn't ring the chamber. A lot of people that shoot the 32 Miller Short cartridge, place the wad at least .100 in front of the powder charge. some use cork and other solid materials and some use floral foam.

In my case, it's "once bitten, twice shy" and I don't play with wads of any sort. I can say w/o a doubt, that I haven't had another "rung" chamber.

Frank

[oldred]

With the 45/70 fillers shouldn't even be a question, too many good powders out there that fill the case or come so close it's not a problem. IMO the best filler to use is powder!

[oldred]

Varget, H4895 or even 3031 will not need a filler either. Lots of good powders work great in this round and some of them are even compressed loads instead of needing a filler.

[Larry Gibson]

Here is a real life occurence, though not a 45/70..........

30/40 krag, Winchester High Wall, modern A&M #4 weight barrel

18.0 gr 296, modiflied RCBS-180-FN, F210 primers

1/16" thick, light flexable foam (the foam from Downey fabric softner) cut into 1/2" squares. I used a dowel to push the foam down onto the powder.


That is a wad, not a filler and particularly not a dacron filler. I would also add that perhaps 296 was also not a good choice for a reduced capacity load, probably why Winchester specificaly says not to reduce the loads they specify in appropriate cartridges. Fortunately frnkeore understands it to be a wad now and the problems associated with such.

Larry Gibson

[Larry Gibson]

Varget, H4895 or even 3031 will not need a filler either. Lots of good powders work great in this round and some of them are even compressed loads instead of needing a filler.

Trapdoor level loads benifit greatly with a dacron filler using all 3 of those powders. However, when you get into the top end loads for leverguns, Rugers and Siamese Mausers with 400+ gr bullets then loading density and psi are sufficient that a filler is not needed as mentioned.

Larry Gibson

[frnkeore]

Larry,
There is absolutely nothing wrong with using 296/H110 in reduced loads. I have shot more than 7 lb of it in charges from 12.0 gr to 20 gr in chambers from 32/40 to 45/70. Hodgdon still recommends 12.0 gr for the 32/40. There is something wrong with loading reduced loads against the primer w/o allowing the powder to slum away from the base. Your dacron WAD could still cause that if packed tight enough. Please read Charlie Dells extensive testing on wads and how they can ring a chamber. You may call it a filler but, the REAL term is a wad.

Frank

[frnkeore]

wad    /wɒd/ Show Spelled [wod] Show IPA noun, verb, wad·ded, wad·ding.
noun
1. a small mass, lump, or ball of anything: a wad of paper; a wad of tobacco.
2. a small mass of cotton, wool, or other fibrous or soft material, used for stuffing, padding, packing, etc.
3. a roll of something, especially of bank notes.
4. Informal . a comparatively large stock or quantity of something, especially money: He's got a healthy wad salted away.
5. a plug of cloth, tow, paper, or the like, used to hold the powder or shot, or both, in place in a gun or cartridge

Underlining is mine.

Frank

[Larry Gibson]

Larry,
There is absolutely nothing wrong with using 296/H110 in reduced loads. I have shot more than 7 lb of it in charges from 12.0 gr to 20 gr in chambers from 32/40 to 45/70. Hodgdon still recommends 12.0 gr for the 32/40. There is something wrong with loading reduced loads against the primer w/o allowing the powder to slum away from the base. Your dacron WAD could still cause that if packed tight enough. Please read Charlie Dells extensive testing on wads and how they can ring a chamber. You may call it a filler but, the REAL term is a wad.

Frank

Well I don't use 296 or H110 in reduced capacity loads and I've never "rung" a chamber.....might be a lesson there.......?

Also, I use dacron as a filler not a wad in thousands of loads with bottle neck cases and straight walled cases. I have been pressure testing many hundreds of such dacron filler loads the last several years. Not one single indication of pressure spiking or ringing of chambers. However, I do use the fillers with appropriate powders for such. There is a big difference between the wad (especially a harder fiber wad like you used ar the card wad) and the filler.....one can ring chambers and one doesn't......might be another lesson there?

I've read Dells reports on his testing a couple three times, he used wads. A wad still leaves an airspace above or below the powder and bullet base. A filler leaves no airspace as it fills the space completely between the powder and bullet base. Comprende' the difference?

Some fillers can raise psi a good amount such as COW and other cereal grains. Dacron and the shotgun buffer materials used as fillers also raise pressures but not near as much, particularly in the 45-70. Do a search and you'll find a test I did on such a couple years back. A dacron filler poses no problems such as "ringing chambers" when used correctly.

What I use is a filler, the "REAL term"of such.

Larry Gibson

[oldred]

Trapdoor level loads benifit greatly with a dacron filler using all 3 of those powders. However, when you get into the top end loads for leverguns, Rugers and Siamese Mausers with 400+ gr bullets then loading density and psi are sufficient that a filler is not needed as mentioned.

Larry Gibson



Larry I have never used fillers so I really have no position on why or if they should be used but the Hogdon 45/70 Trapdoor 20,900 CUP max load of 50 grains of Varget using a 405 grain bullet has almost no air space and even the minimum load of 40 grains has precious little air space so would a filler really be beneficial with these powders? The H4895 loading is nearly the same and neither have anywhere near as much air space as the factory 405 load I broke down.

[frnkeore]

I'm sorry Larry, It seams that you have your own dictionary. Is there someplace that I could buy it?

Are you also saying that Hodgdon is publishing dangerous info in there loading manuals for everyone to freely use?

"A filler leaves no airspace as it fills the space completely between the powder and bullet base"

What are you defining as the spaces between those little Dacron fibers? I guess I don't Comprende. Is it vertual air space?

Frank

[Larry Gibson]

wad    /wɒd/ Show Spelled [wod] Show IPA noun, verb, wad·ded, wad·ding.
noun
1. a small mass, lump, or ball of anything: a wad of paper; a wad of tobacco.
2. a small mass of cotton, wool, or other fibrous or soft material, used for stuffing, padding, packing, etc.
3. a roll of something, especially of bank notes.
4. Informal . a comparatively large stock or quantity of something, especially money: He's got a healthy wad salted away.
5. a plug of cloth, tow, paper, or the like, used to hold the powder or shot, or both, in place in a gun or cartridge

Underlining is mine.

Frank

Semantics Frank[smilie=b:....suggest you look up "filler" and post here if you are really interested in the generic semantics of the terms.

However, those definitions are of general context and not specific to "wads" or "fillers" as used in cast bullet loading with reduced charges. In the correct context the "wad" is as you described that you used;

a material pushed down on the powder charge to keep it in place leaving an air space between the "wad" and the base of the bullet.

In the correct context of my use of "filler" as I use it is;

a material that is not pushed down on the powder but merely occupies the complete space between the powder and the base of the bullet holding the powder against the flash hole.

Simple enough to comprehend the difference and why there are the two different terms to defferentiate between the two, eh?

BTW; I don't believe Hodgdon suggests the use of a "wad" such as you used with that load of 296.

Larry Gibson

[.22-10-45]

Hello, Guy. I was trying out a new load using IMR4227 in my .40-70 2 /12" Axtel sharps. Bullet was a very light 260grs. with those light start loads, I used a 1.0gr. tuft of kapok..this was pulled out to form a cigar length tuft..in no way was it compressed..only lightly inserted & bullet seating in case pushed it to final position. A .032" fibre wad under bullet base. First shot felt fine..saw hole low on backer..this was normal with such light load, 2nd shot also felt normal..saw another hole near 1st. As is my habit, I blew thru brl. to check for powder burn. DARK!...ran rod in & obstruction right in front of chamber. What I pushed out looked for all the world like an old style shotshell overpowder wad..it was compressed to 3/8"...How in the world did that kapok wad end up at the chamber end of a 34" brl. AFTER the bullet left bore? That was the last time I used any kind of filler in this rifle.
Last summer, I was working with an original Ballard No. 3 in .25-25 Stevens, using Swiss 3FG black & 100gr. Ideal 25730. I wanted to reduce charge to around 20grs. or so to check accuracy..quite a bit of xtra space in that long skinny case..I used cream of wheat to fill to bullet base..just poured in & let bullet seating compress it.
Now these are turned cases, so there are fine reamer marks inside..that COW combined with the kick of the BP grabbed those case walls & stretched some cases .050"! I had 1 case seperation that day.
Pulled loads had COW as a solid mass in there...last time I will use COW.
I now use Puff-Lon, with excellent results. Best of luck!

[Larry Gibson]

Larry I have never used fillers so I really have no position on why or if they should be used but the Hogdon 45/70 Trapdoor 20,900 CUP max load of 50 grains of Varget using a 405 grain bullet has almost no air space and even the minimum load of 40 grains has precious little air space so would a filler really be beneficial with these powders? The H4895 loading is nearly the same and neither have anywhere near as much air space as the factory 405 load I broke down.

A load of 36 gr 4895 with a 1 gr dacron filler under a 400 gr cast bullet equals the service M1873 load of 1350 - 1400 fps at a measured (Oehler M43 PBL) 22,400 psi(M43). That psi is pretty close to the same psi as the M1973 BP 45-70 service rifle load gives. Takes 38 gr of Varget to do the same. In a WW case this leaves .5 - .6" air space between the powder and the base of a typical 405HB or 457124 400 gr bullet. The HB further exacerbates the problem with that bullet.

It requires 42 gr of 4895 to duplicate the same average velocity w/o the dacron filler. This load gives ESs in the 70 - 90 fps range for 10 shot test strings. The 36 gr load of 4895 with the dacron filler gives ESs in the 30 - 50 fps range with the same 10 shot test strings. Psi measurements of both show the load w/o the dacron filler also has a wider psi ES. This translates into much better accuracy with the dacron filler load of 1 1/2 moa vs 3 - 4 moa (mostly verticle stringing) with the 4895 load w/o the filler.

As I stated in my previous post; "Trapdoor level loads benifit greatly with a dacron filler". The facts support that conclusion.

Also as I said if you load to a higher loading density for those powders for use in lever guns, Rugers and Siamese Mausers then the benifits of the dacron filler diminish as loading density increases which concurs with your post.

Larry Gibson

[Larry Gibson]

.22-10-45

I steared away from powders such as 4227, even with a filler, with light for cartridge cast bullets many years ago. I found while chronographing 270 gr bullets in my 45-70s that by the time I got good efficient burning the velocity was way too high for any decent accuracy.

The idea was to use a powder that ignited easily, burned efficiently at low psi and was too "position sensitive" so a wad or filler was not needed. Went to Unique and a couple other powders of that burning rate, they worked ok but were position sensitive until the psi got to high with a too high velocity for good accuracy also. I finally went to Bullseye with the 210 gr HB and 270 RNFN cast bullets. I use 6 gr under the 210 HB and 8 gr under the 270 RNFN. Velocity is 950 and 1050 fps respfully with excellent accuracy. Of course no filler or wad is needed or used with these loads.

I've heard several such reports of the kapok staying in the barrel. I've never used Kapoc so I can't give an answer. I probably won't use it as dacron is too readily available and works just fine when used appropriately.

BTW; if you are using PuffLon, you are using a filler.

Larry Gibson

[frnkeore]

My point here, Larry is to be careful in using a WAD of any sort (please show me where the wad difinition doesn't apply to Dacron). The purpose of a wad is to hold the powder in place. The purpose of your "filler" is to hold the powder in place!

My point was to point out that if the powder wasn't allowed to slump that it would be possible to ring the chamber just as a solid wad of card or cork can do that. You may not believe that air exists between the Dacron fibers but, it is a real thing.

I'm suggesting that if to much Dacron is put inside the case that, it can hold the powder in the same mannor as any solid material. You suggest certain amounts but, that does not mean that your suggestion will be followed but, if the reader is a where of what can happen, he may be more cautious and fore warned.

As for me, if I want the case filled, I'll do it with powder. A expanded primer pocket is a lot cheaper than a new barrel.

I took your condicending remark about the use of 296 as being dangerous in general or that it should not be used in reduced loads because it can't produce match quality loads. If you ever us it, you'll find a competive match load can be developed in the 20,000 cup pressure range.

You can "ring" a chamber with ANY powder using a wad at low loading density's.

Frank

[Markbo]

This is all new to me as I have never used any filler or wad in anything. What does this dacron filler look like? Is it a solid/sheet or whispy thread like stuff? I have no idea what it even looks like and where do you get it?

[Larry Gibson]

Frank

We're singing off the same page here. I do not use wads. I do not suggest anyone use wads.

I've already explained the difference between the wad and the filler, even if dacron is used for both. The wad leaves an air space, the filler does not. I can't make it any plainer than that.

You can "ring" a chamber with ANY powder using a wad at low loading density's.

I do not disagree with that at all. That's why I use a filler. I also did not say "should not be used in reduced loads because it can't produce match quality loads.". What I said was "Winchester specificaly says not to reduce the loads they specify in appropriate cartridges" which is what Winchester did say when it made that powder.

We're agreeing on this....don't use wads.

Larry Gibson

[Larry Gibson]

This is all new to me as I have never used any filler or wad in anything. What does this dacron filler look like? Is it a solid/sheet or whispy thread like stuff? I have no idea what it even looks like and where do you get it?

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?t=109280

Suggest you look at that sticky, it's got some pictures and explains a lot about fillers, especially dacron.

Dacron is polyester and comes in sheets called "batting". It also comes in bags used for stuffing pillows and stuffed toys. It is readily available in all fabric stores.

Larry Gibson

[oldred]

Ok, I'm trying to steer clear of the filler/no filler debate and I am not disagreeing with anyone it just seems my concept of how much air space it takes to cause a problem may be a bit different. In the case of Varget for instance that 50 grain load (Trapdoor load) almost completely fills the case when using the 405 grain bullet, a 55 grain load with the same bullet is a compressed load. So the small amount of space a 40 grain load leaves needs a filler? Some of the common loads including factory loads have far more air space than that so I am surprised that a filler could be of any benefit. With so little air space when using Varget or H4895 (please be clear WHICH 4895, 4198, etc you reference) I honestly don't think powder position could be a factor at all, is there another reason the filler leads to improvement?

[Larry Gibson]

Yes, the 50 gr load of Varget is supposed to be safe in TDs (it is above Lyman's max listed load for 405 gr cast bullets BTW) but it does really approach the maximum psi level or 28,000 psi (piezo). It also give much more velocity than the service level TD loads, close to 1600 fps in long barreled TDs.

If you want to keep the smokeless TD load in the same psi range as BP loads and the velocity the same as what the sights are regulated for not to mention the old warhorse beating your shoulder up you'll not load the Lyman max load of 46.5 gr Varget under that 405 gr bullet. The velocity out of a long barreled TD is going to be close 1500 fps.....ouch!

Notice also the Varget starting loads are higher because w/o the dacron filler it takes more powder to get the psi high enough for efficient burning. Thus when you reduce the powder charge (H4895 works much better than Varget in this application BTW) to keep the psi at BP level and the velocity in the 1350 - 1390 fps range there is indeed enough air space to cause inefficient burning. Perhaps not so much because of "powder positioning" in this case but because the psi is too low for even 4895 to burn efficiently at that loading density. The dacron filler in this case allows less powder to be used and makes it burn more efficiently. Basically the dacron filler is reducing the case capacity.

All this is easy enough to find out for yourself; load with H4895 or Varget to 1375 fps with and w/o the 1 gr dacron filler. Shoot both for group in 10 shot strings at 100 yards over a chronograph. Then see which load gives the smallest SD, the smallest ES and the smallest group. I'd be willing to bet it will be the load with the dacron filler.

Larry Gibson

[frnkeore]

To give everyone here a idea of the lack of need for these fillers or wads (Larry, I couldn't find a actual gun related difinition for filler) here is some chrono results for breech seated target loads.

45/70 430 gr bullet, 31" bbl
10.0 gr Unique, F150 primer
971 fps, 19 ES, 6.9 SD
5 shot group @ 100 yds, .84, w/4 in .48

17.0 gr 296, F210 primer
1046 fps, ES 16, SD 7.2

17.5 gr 296, F210 primer
1068 fps, ES 16, SD 6.5
No groups recorded

Duplex smokeless load same bullet
15 gr 296, 27.5 gr IMR 4831
1473 fps, ES 10, SD $
5 shot Group, .60 @ 100

32/40 Clerke HW 198 Ron Long spitzer BSed 28" bbl
12.5 gr 296, F150 primer
1426 fps, ES 6, SD 2.49

13.0 gr 296, F150 primer
1458 fps, ES 8, 3.8 SD

Custom, 210 gr GC
18.9 gr 296, F150 primer
1747 fps, ES 11, SD 4.3

Custom 210 gr GC
20 gr, 4759 F210 primer
1841 fps, ES 13, SD 7.2

Real HW Douglas 26" bbl
14.9 gr 4227, F150 primer 198 Ron long Spitzer BSed
1431 fps, ES 17, SD 5.3
This is my match load with this rifle. I hold our club group record with this load.
200 yd 5 shot groups. Small group .865, Average of five, 5 shot groups, 1.282. The .865 group isn't one of them.

20 gr 296, F150 primer, Custom 210 gr GC bullet
1828 fps, ES 9, SD 4.3

Frank

[Larry Gibson]

Frank

Not exactly sure what the point of all that is, I can supply many with and without examples also. Suggest you do the same experiement I suggested to oldred. No fair "positioning the powder", just load and shoot. Better yet load up some with wads and fillers in a Marlin and shoot them from the magazine. When you get the "click - bang" of a hangfire from the wad moving forward from the recoil and the powder migrating around the wad you'll find another reason for the filler instead of the wad. Because the filler fills the air space and the wad doesn't.

You failed to post any definitions of "filler" so here's a couple. Is there any point to your assertion that "wad" and "filler" are the same thing in the context of loading cartridges? Obviously most everyone else here understands the difference as we've used both terms to define the two different things. If you can't figure it out from that I give up....you win....no sense carrying this pointless discussion on..........You say potato, I say tomato.....you say wad......I say filler........two different things.........

Larry Gibson

fill•er
  <a onmousedown="spk(this,{lk:'nx1fkx',en:'wotdau',io:'0',b:'wotd', tp:'lrl',m:'wotdau'})" href="#"></a><a target="_blank" href="http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/F01/F0139900"><img border="0" src="http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/speaker.gif"></a> ˈfɪl ərShow Spelled[fil-er] Show IPA
noun
1.
a person or thing that fills: a filler for pies; a filler of orders.
2.
a thing or substance used to fill a gap, cavity, or the like.
3.
a substance used to fill cracks, pores, etc., in a surface before painting or varnishing.
4.
a liquid, paste, or the like used to coat a surface or to give solidity, bulk, etc., to a substance, as paper or a chemical powder.
5.
Journalism . material, considered of secondary importance, used to fill out a column or page.


World English Dictionary
fill (fɪl)

— vb (often foll by up )
1. ( also intr ) to make or become full: to fill up a bottle ; the bath fills in two minutes
2. to occupy the whole of: the party filled two floors of the house
3. to plug (a gap, crevice, cavity, etc)
4. to meet (a requirement or need) satisfactorily
5. to cover (a page or blank space) with writing, drawing, etc
6. to hold and perform the duties of (an office or position)
7. to appoint or elect an occupant to (an office or position)
8. building trades to build up (ground) with fill
9. ( also intr ) to swell or cause to swell with wind, as in manoeuvring the sails of a sailing vessel
10. to increase the bulk of by adding an inferior substance
11. poker to complete (a full house, etc) by drawing the cards needed
12. chiefly ( US ), ( Canadian ) to put together the necessary materials for (a prescription or order)
13. informal fill the bill to serve or perform adequately

— n
14. material such as gravel, stones, etc, used to bring an area of ground up to a required level
15. one's fill the quantity needed to satisfy one: to eat your fill

[Old English fyllan ; related to Old Frisian fella , Old Norse fylla , Gothic fulljan , Old High German fullen ; see full 1 , fulfil ]

[frnkeore]

Larry,
I see nothing catridge (as I asked) related in your difinitions or did that go over your head?

WAD:
5. a plug of cloth, tow, paper, or the like, used to hold the powder or shot, or both, in place in a gun or cartridge

Is the underlined part not what you are trying to do with your Dacron wad?

As stated before, I will not use or experiment with wads (or in your mind) fillers again. I did get a way with it for a while. Like I said, "once bitten, twice shy". It cost me dearly!

I found no realistic accuracy benefit to holding the powder in place in shooting targets. I've never orientated my powder charge. I load and shoot from the bench. Most ranges don't allow raising the muzzle anyway.

My examples are only w/o any assisting material holding the powder in place. The ES and SD show that wads or "fillers" aren't needed to attain accuracy. Good loading technics and componants as well as hard work are needed.

"Better yet load up some with wads and fillers in a Marlin and shoot them from the magazine"

Did you know that your posting in the single shoot group? No magazines here :)

Frank

[405]

Yikes!
If at all familiar with reloading, including shotshell and BPCR, the practical difference in the definition between filler and wad seems obvious. But then again maybe it isn't??? For instance, I have no idea why someone would use something like kapok! I guess because someone else talked/posted about it's use. Kapok fibers are the very fine seed wing strands packed in the seed pods of the kapok tree. I didn't need to try it because of an anonymous tip or because it was free or found in a 60 year old life preserver! I didn't even need to think too hard about why I would never use it as a ballistic filler! If kapok or dryer lint or cotton balls... why not belly button lint? Good grief. High loft dacron is so cheap and universally available.... but I guess there will always be a charm in trying to use baling wire or duct tape for some exotic purpose.

In my head I think of a wad as a fairly hard, dense object of some form. I use wads in both smokeless and blackpowder shotshells and between blackpowder and a solid lead slug in a blackpowder cartridge. In all the loads that use a wad (fairly hard object), that wad is in firm contact between the powder and the primary projectile.

For some loads I use a low density filler (dacron) to fill the space between the powder and the primary projectile in low pressure/low velocity smokeless loads to keep the powder against the primer. It seems to help accuracy and vel SD in certain loads. Larry's pressure data seems pretty conclusive about the advantages of dacron filler in certain loads.

I'm not comfortable using higher density "vegetable" fillers like COW, grits, corn meal, malto meal, etc. so I don't use it. Some swear by it and that's fine. But it IS known to absorb moisture and can become a hard WAD in a loaded round. I would think at some gradient of cartridge bottle neck design, the use of that type filler wouldn't be too smart. I tried it a few times in high expansion ratio, straight walled pistol cartridges but detected no advantage. I think those touting it's use claim it scrubs or prevents bore leading. Could be. Whatever.

[Larry Gibson]

Frank

No it didn't go over my head. Your argument has gone from the sublime to the rediculous. The difference is obvious as pointed out several times now. Again, the dacron I use is as a filler not a wad. The wad holds the powder in place and leaves an air space between the wad and base of the bullet (as in the context of loading reduced loads in CF cartridges). The filler, on the other hand, fills the air space between the powder and the base of the bullet reducing case capacity and holding the powder back. The difference between wad and filler is quite plain in the context used. BTW; I do not use a dacron wad, I use a dacron filler.

Let me ask since this conversation is getting rediculous; are you just peeved because you rung a chamber using a wad and I've not rung any chamber using a dacron filler plus I noted Winchesters admonition against using 296 in a reduced capacity? It does seem that way. I've only tried to help out by pointing out the difference between the two and the fact that one can ring chambers with the wad and conversely one does not ring chambers with the dacron filler. I suppose one must comprehend the difference between the two and you've an apparent problem with that comprehension. That's ok with me as I'll just happily go along using the dacron filler with complete succes. Probably good that you've quit using the wad as you won't ring any more chambers.

The definition of both wad and filler are within the context of the definitions we've both provided, none of which are specific to CF cartridge reduced loads BTW. However, if you do a search on this forum of "wad" and "filler" for the last year you will find 46 pages of threads referencing "wad". You will also find 32 pages of threads referencing "filler". Appears in the context of usage in this forum both terms are used and understood extensively. If you bother to read any of those threads you will find that most every one either understood the difference between the two during the discussion or understood the difference between the two at the end of the thread. Seems you are the only one who still doesn't understand the difference.

I've absolutely no problem with you using 296 in your bench target loads, have at it. The lesson you should have learned though is not to use the wad, apparently you did learn that the hard with a chamber ring even though you're still confused over what a filler is and isn't. The dacron filler reduces the case capacity and brings the 296 into a proper loading desnity. Your 296 load then would have been much better served with the dacron filler instead of wad you used, you wouldn't have rung the chamber, and we wouldn't be having this rediculous discussion. Anyways I've given it my best shot (pun intended) to show you the difference between the wad and the dacron filler. If you're wrapped up in semantic definitions and can not see the obvious then I've done the best I can and shall not waste any more time on you and this discussion. Have a good day.

Larry Gibson

[frnkeore]

Well Larry,
I tend to be a logical and scientific person. Being of that type I try to use the most scientic term for things that I encounter. Just because Dacron is of a different texture and material than a card or other types of wads, it still remains a wad, place upon the powder charge. Your assertion that there is no air in the case after inserting Dacron is rediculous. The only solids in the case are the powder, bullet and the Dacron fibers, all the rest of it is AIR! That 1 gr of Dacron fiber is the only solid inside the case other that the bullet and powder. Do this test........ squeeze that 1 gr of Dacron between your fingers and then you will have a better idea of how much actual space the Dacron takes up, the rest of it is air.

Those little Dacron fibers can not resist a shock wave, if it occures. The shock wave and the localize pressure is what rings a chamber.

Your superiority complex and condicending responces bring on verbs and adjetives that are not condusive learning and sharing information.

My input here is two fold, one, to show that you do not need Dacron or any other kind of wad to achieve match grade accuracy, two, to share what I personally know (based on my experiance and Charlie Dells writing and experiments) about the subject and warn people to proceed with caution. I'm not out to attack you (I've complemented you in PM's about things that you've done and ask for advice) But, I won't be spoken to like you have done in this thread. Plain base single shot charges are much different than GC charges shot in bolt action rifles. Buy one and shoot with us :) I'd be happy to help you in that endever.

The End,

Frank

[Larry Gibson]

Darn, guess I don't know squat about shooting PB'd bullets in the 13 single shots I have........wonder what the heck I've been doin' with'em all these years..........:shock:

[smilie=l:......or.......:groner:

Larry Gibson

[nanuk]

re: kapok

was it not Ross Seyfried that wrote in the older gun mags that used "kapok" when subbing H4198 for BP in the BPE cartridges? I still kinda remember his 40% (??) rule, and kapok "This size of a Lemon" stuffed in to take up the space

[35Whelen]

Hello Guy and welcome aboard.

I am fairly new to this game of cast boolits too. However, I should mention that I have reloaded centerfire metallic cartridges for more than 25 years now and have not had an accident yet. ( see how it didn't say NEVER )

I bought a Ruger No.1 in 45-70 this past year, and just couldn't wait to shoot it. So rather than smelt, cast , size and lube a bunch of rounds in the foul weather, I ordered some 400 grainers and got to playing.

I wanted some reduced charge loads so I could ease into shooting the Ruger. Not being a wimp about recoil...I just love to load and play as well as shoot. So I started out with 14.5 grns of Unique and worked my way up to 16.5 grns of Unique under the 400 grain boolit. Recoil was very mild and I was geting about 1350fps out of my Ruger with the top load of Unique.

16.5 grains of unique is NOT a lot of powder and it doesn't fill up a case with a 400 grain boolit ( term for cast bullet) I remember as a young lad working in the Police range, there was an old time shooter who used to reload our ammo for practice. He forgot more about shooting that I would ever know and he held three world records for open sight centerfire rifle. At any rate he told me about reduced loads......if the powder is laying flat in the case as can happen when using reduced loads, the primer can flash over the powder and cause it to detonate and not burn at its intended rate. Detonation can cause extreme pressures VERY fast and damage your firearm or worse. So I always took his advise .
When I do my reduced loads I use a 1/2 grain puff of polyester dacron stuffing found in craft stores and push that puff of " filler " down on top of the powder after I have charged a case with powder. This filler will keep the powder against the primer where it should be.
Now , I have read and I have been told that you don't need it with Unique as it is not position sensitive , but I want to be safe and it shoots well so why change. Besides half the fun of this whole game is putting loads together and working at the loading bench.

What I liked about using Unique...is that with 16.5 grains per load....I could get tons of shooting out of a pound of powder ( 424 to be exact ) as compared to say 140 50 grain loads

I hope that helps you with your decision. My rule of thumb is ...if the powder charge is small enough in weight and volume, that it could lie flat in the case and the primer could flash over it...I use a dacron filler to hold it back against the primer. An extra step...ya maybe, but I like building the rounds as much as shooting them.

[NSB]

35Whelen: I asked this question a while ago, don't remember if it was on this site or not. Larry answered me saying that dacron was OK but not to use a wad. I have no problems differentiating between the two. However, I'm still not sure if the dacron can be packed down on the powder as you describe (that's how I've been doing it on my "new" 45-70). Here's where it gets tricky. I think Larry considers this the wrong way to do it. I think he teaches that the dacron needs to be "picked" to loft it up and take up all the space between the primer and the base of the bullet. I never got a good answer on this so maybe Larry can jump in and discuss this. I'm not sure if packing dacron down on the powder is the same risk as using a wad with an air space. Larry?

[35Whelen]

NSB
Sorry if I was unclear by saying pushing it down on the powder. I weigh my dacron...a pinch equals about 1/2 grn. I check each one on the scale..you get good at estimating the size. Then I simply push the puff down into the case using a chopstick or dowel rod until it is about 1/4 inch below the case mouth. I don't try to tamp it down hard on the powder. I just want it to keep the powder on the primer by pushing it back with it's springy characteristics. The filler actually sits about the bottom of the bullet, and it does tend to want to puff right back up when you first put it in.

I too read that a hard wad/powder card can cause problems. The poly dacron simply gets crushed without resistance and quite likely it ends up melting quickly as the powder ignites

I should also mention, that I don't use the sheets of dacron and cut little squares out as suggested in the Lyman 3rd Edition. I use the loose poly dacron and pick it out of the bag.....it's already pre lofted then, so to speak.

[Larry Gibson]

NSB

Basically that is correct; the dacron filler needs to just fill the air space without bing tamped down into a wad leaving an air space between the wad and the base of the bullet. Using more than enough to fill the case is ok as it doesn't raise pressures unless really compressed in. It jus isn't as accurate is all. The dacron filler should just fill the air space., but it does not have to be an "exact" amount. For example; in the .308W with a medium burning powder like 4895 under a 170 - 200 gr cast bullet seated to the base of the neck needs a dacron filler of 1/2 - 3/4 gr to fill the space. One shot with a 1/2 gr filler and the next shot, with the same charge, with a 3/4 gr dacron filler will perform within the normal shot to shot velocity and pressure variation. It seems like the weight of the dacron would need to be exact but it doesn't if held within reasonbly close tolerances.

I suggest those interested read the "sticky" titled "filler".

Larry Gibson

[Larry Gibson]

35 whelen

Your technique seems good with one suggestion; just push the dacron filler to the base of the neck and then let the bullet push it further if need be. Other than that I think you've got the technique down correctly. Using batting cut into squares or picking a chunk off out of the bag works equally well either way. I've about 9 yards of batting to use and a couple bags of "stuffing" to use.....should keep me happy for many a cast bullet shot:lovebooli

Larry Gibson

[NSB]

Larry and Bill,
Thanks for the info. I'm pretty new to this big bore single shot shooting and although I'm having some good results I don't want to ring either my Sharps or High Wall. Both of you were very helpful.
NSB

[Cap'n Morgan]

To give everyone here a idea of the lack of need for these fillers or wads (Larry, I couldn't find a actual gun related difinition for filler) here is some chrono results for breech seated target loads.

Frank.

I think that the fact you're using breech seating has a lot to do with the low SDs you're getting. Setting the boolit into the rifling will raise the start pressure needed to get the boolit moving and give you a more uniform ignition - just like adding a crimp.

[pls1911]

See the "Easy Sharps" post from a few minutes ago.
300 grain RCBS, 28 grains of 2400, with "about" a half grain of dacron works nicely.
(weighed it once to get the idea of volume, and just estimate now.. it's TINEY little bit.)
It's light, accurate and deadly to 200 yards...it will hammer and good bulge in 3/8 plate at 200 yards as well.
I believe the key is that using dacron fibers the airspace need not be packed. A very little loose fluff under the bullet, letting the bullet determine the final depth/density.
my loads don't undergo rough and/or extended transport, so migration though the loose fibres toward the bullet base is not a problem.

[nanuk]

I think PFF has made all other fillers obsolete because it weighs almost nothing for the volume it takes up & instantly evaporates leaving expansion room for the powder.


I use PFF in my muzzleloader. about a handfull on top of the powder.

I routinely see it laying on the ground out in front. I have never heard of it evaporating in the chamber.... in fact, I have read others who say it stays solid, and acts like a scrubber when going down the bore.

I'm gonna have to pay attention to it when I do some smokeless shooting when it warms up.

[Larry Gibson]

.........I believe the key is that using dacron fibers the airspace need not be packed. A very little loose fluff under the bullet, letting the bullet determine the final depth/density.
my loads don't undergo rough and/or extended transport, so migration though the loose fibres toward the bullet base is not a problem.

That is indeed the idea and why the dacron used as such is a "filler" instead of a "wad".

I've pulled bullets with dacron fillers that underwent the recoil of 10 - 20 shots while in the magazine and also after some extended rough handling/carrying. With a proper filler I've not found any indication of powder migration through or around the dacron filler. A dacron wad, on the other hand, will be many times moved forward under recoil or handling and the powder can and does migrate around the wad. This has caused hang fires:|, the reason which prompted me to not use wads anymore....only fillers.

Larry Gibson

[nanuk]

I'll weigh out a "Handful" and get a weight.

I use it as protection for the base of the boolit.

I had read about the use of PFF as a wad before, so figured I'd try it. it seems to help with accuracy a bit, but leave the barrel far less fouled.