.38-55 Filler Required?

[HPT]

Hi All,

I have only used full cases of BP with a 250gr cast bullet in my Winchester .38-55.
I read about a couple loads in other posts that I would like to try in my .38-55which are 18 gr IMR4227 & 16 gr 2400. Do these need fillers? I think these would have a fair bit of space between the powder & bullet, is using a filler mandatory?

[frnkeore]

Lymans direct advice is NOT to use wads or fillers of any kind in ANY application. You'll find it in they're lastest #4 cast bullet hand book.

The competitive single shot shooter use 16 - 18.5 of either 4227 or 4759 with bullets in the + - 300gr w/o wads.

Frank

[Jon K]

NO FILLERS...

Jon

[runfiverun]

and in thier number three they give loads with fillers.
since mike wrote number 4 and don't like fillers it's advised against.
i know you can work up a load without them.
and another load with one.
usually the one without will need more work to make it as accurate.

[303Guy]

Surely Dacron is the most innocuous filler - all it does is hold the powder in place and believe it or not it seems to protect the boolit base. It's handy to have if a boolit gets pulled out of the case. One wonders what has made Lyman advise against fillers?

[HPT]

Is there a chance of the powder migrating into/or thru the filler to create a dangerous situation? The hunting season where I live lasts 3 weeks and rounds could be bounced around in pocket or gun for that entire time. Has anyone done any testing to prove this does not happen? I would think putting in a paint shaker would definately prove it? I'm guessing it must depend on how much you put in and unless you tested it afterwards you could never be sure.

Anyone have info on which powders are most to least sensitive to filling the case? Does primer strength (std vs Magnum) make a difference?

[KirkD]

There are a lot of urban myths and old wives tales about fillers running around on the web. Sherman Bell recently ran a series of pressure tests for various fillers and published the results in The Double Gun Journal. The bottom line is that for straight walled cases that were originally BP rounds, all fillers he tested proved to be safe if used with slower smokeless powders (I think he used IMR 4198) and one restrains oneself to original black powder velocities or slightly higher. The three best fillers were dacron, kapok and cotton. Personally, I do not recommend 'hard' fillers like cream of wheat or corn meal. The hard fillers can become a solid plug and I get nervous about that. I have used them but upon taking apart cartridges that had been loaded for some time, I found that they resulted in a solid plug that had to be dug out with a pin. For me, it is soft fillers only.

I have used toilet paper filler for years (which he did not test) in the 38-55, 45-60, 44-40, 45-70 and 45-90 and with a variety of powders including 2400, IMR 4227, 5744, IMR sr4759, and IMR 3031. In almost every case, I have found filler to give more consistent burning (much lower E.S.), improved accuracy, and less chance of leading. Perhaps the cartridge that I have fired the most using filler is the 38-55.

If one insists on using 2400 or IMR 4227 without any filler in a 38-55, then I would highly recommend testing the E.S. over a chronograph with powder forward (tilt gun down and then carefully raise it to horizontal before firing) and powder back (tilt gun up and then carefully lower it to horizontal position before firing). I was shocked last year at how position sensitive my batch of IMR 4227 is in my 45-60 loads if no filler was used. 2400 is also very position sensitive in the longer gases. IMR 3031 is also extremely position sensitive in the huge 45-90 case (I got a E.S. of over 400 fps without filler).

With regard to what happens if the powder gets mixed in to the filler, I can tell you from personal experience, that if that happens, some powder may remain unburnt. Certainly no dangerous situation will arise; it is entirely safe to have some unburnt powder. Kapok is one of the best fillers according to Sherman's results, and I doubt that you'll have much powder penetrating the kapok. The filler should completely fill the empty space so that the powder has little room to shake around.

I, like Sherman Bell, have become a big believer in filler when using smokeless powder in black powder cases. I am in the process of redoing all my loads to incorporate dacron or kapok fillers. Of course, I think one should stay away from the hotter loads. You will find that your velocities are higher with filler. I used to think this was because the filler was causing a higher pressure, but have since found that it is mostly due to more complete burning of the powder and similar velocities can be obtained by using the powder back position and no filler. Of course, one cannot always tilt the gun up before firing, so filler ensures that the powder is always consistently against the primer.

Of course, if one uses black powder, then filler is not necessary and one need not worry about other possibilities that might occur with smokeless powder, such as an overcharge.

[Larry Gibson]

There is still a lot of confusion of the difference between a "wad" and a "filler". Some will argue semantics but the difference is a wad is pressed down on the powder leaving an air space between the wad and the base of the bullet. A filler, to the contrary, is not pressed down onto the powder and fills the space between the powder and the base of the bullet.

Lyman used "wads" in the #3 and before CBHs (reading the description under various load data where they use them. They call them wads and the description for use describes a wad). However in #4 CBH Mike V (a new writer in the CBHs) uses the term filler. The proper use of a filler with the appropriate powder and bullet combination poses no danger of "ringing" a chamber. I will refer the OP and others to the sticky "filler" for my post on what is a proper powder/bullet weight and how to properly use a dacron filler. A dacron filler is the only filler I use. I do not use wads for such loads.

To answer the OP; Does the 38-55 "need" a filler? No it doesn't but unless you want to raise the muzzle before each shot you will have powder position sensitivity, inconsistent ignition and probable verticle stringing. I would definately use a dacron filler with 18 gr IMR4227 & 16 gr 2400 under a 250 gr cast bullet. Use just enough dacron fluffed to fill the air space between the powder and the base of the bullet. Read my post in the sticky "filler" or I can repost it here for you if you'ld like?

Larry Gibson

[59sharps]

Of course, if one uses black powder, then filler is not necessary and one need not worry about other possibilities that might occur with smokeless powder, such as an overcharge.[/QUOTE]

If you are using black powder the last thing you want is a air gap. so unless you are setting right on top of the powder you want a filler. BP likes a little compression.
with compression even the top of the powder will need to be picked if the round is disassembled. Do not see a problem w/ the COW I use turning into a solid plug.

[405]

My experience echoes both KirkD and LG. Well said.

Now to the question of why Lyman dropped the fillered loads. There is no doubt in my mind that the lawyers for Lyman know that (or have litigation experience with) a percentage of reloaders and tinkerers don't even marginally understand internal ballistics (or don't care to know) nor do they read load data and instructions with high levels of comprehension. Probably boiled down to a stop-loss, liability issue where even a rumor of a ringed chamber might be a liability issue or at least could be a bad business decision if the test data were located in a published load manual.

Examples might include.... Wad and filler terminology being used loosely and without understanding. The thought that Trailboss and 5744 are somehow similar and both are similar to blackpowder. Etc.

[KirkD]

If you are using black powder the last thing you want is a air gap. so unless you are setting right on top of the powder you want a filler. BP likes a little compression.
with compression even the top of the powder will need to be picked if the round is disassembled. Do not see a problem w/ the COW I use turning into a solid plug.
I agree with Larry Gibson on the difference between filler and a wad (and on his other things as well). It might be semantics, but I do not use filler with black powder, I use a wad. COW works well as a wad (i.e., with black powder). With smokeless, I do not want a wad, I want a compressible filler such as dacron. With BP I do not want a compressible filler, I want a non-compressible wad that will compress the powder instead.

[HPT]

There is still a lot of confusion of the difference between a "wad" and a "filler". Some will argue semantics but the difference is a wad is pressed down on the powder leaving an air space between the wad and the base of the bullet. A filler, to the contrary, is not pressed down onto the powder and fills the space between the powder and the base of the bullet.

Lyman used "wads" in the #3 and before CBHs (reading the description under various load data where they use them. They call them wads and the description for use describes a wad). However in #4 CBH Mike V (a new writer in the CBHs) uses the term filler. The proper use of a filler with the appropriate powder and bullet combination poses no danger of "ringing" a chamber. I will refer the OP and others to the sticky "filler" for my post on what is a proper powder/bullet weight and how to properly use a dacron filler. A dacron filler is the only filler I use. I do not use wads for such loads.

To answer the OP; Does the 38-55 "need" a filler? No it doesn't but unless you want to raise the muzzle before each shot you will have powder position sensitivity, inconsistent ignition and probable verticle stringing. I would definately use a dacron filler with 18 gr IMR4227 & 16 gr 2400 under a 250 gr cast bullet. Use just enough dacron fluffed to fill the air space between the powder and the base of the bullet. Read my post in the sticky "filler" or I can repost it here for you if you'ld like?

Larry Gibson

I tried the following yesterday:

15 gr 2400 without filler 1110- 1400 fps (spread 290)
16 gr 2400 without filler 1250-1370 fps (spread 120)
18 gr 4227 without filler 1080-1170 fps (spread 90)
9 gr Unique without filler 1140-1180 (spread 40)

So I think that is good evidence a filler is needed for the first 3 loads.

Seeing that the 4227 load is relatively slow, if I increase to 20 grains or a bit more maybe it will stabilize without filler?

For the 2400 its already fast enough, so I think that filler would be mandatory

The Unique shot worst - even though it had the smallest spread

So far blackpowder is still far more accurate in this gun, hoping to be able to shoot as well with smokeless.

How much will adding dacron increase velocities?

[KirkD]

HPT, were those spreads the difference between barrel tipped up before shooting and barrel tipped down before shooting? .... or where they simply the ES without doing any powder positioning fore or aft?

Before I used filler with 2400, I would prefer to use filler with a slower powder such as IMR 4227. If I did use filler with 2400 I would a) use only dacron, kapok or cotton and b) I would reduce the load, chronograph, then adjust to get around 1,300 fps.

Filler can also work as a gas check and improve accuracy in many cases. It will be interesting to see what it does in your case.

[Larry Gibson]

How much will adding dacron increase velocities?

The dacron filler makes the powder burn more efficiently which of course, given an equal charge, will give an increase in psi and thus velocity. Depends on all the usual variences that can affect such. I always suggest to drop back about 1 gr with those powders in the usual cast bullet loads and work back up. The use of the filler will negate powder postion sensitivity entirely.

BTW; I do not recommend a filler with Unique under any bullet in that cartridge. The other powders yes, Unique no.

Larry Gibson

[HPT]

Thanks for the advice

I'll try the filler loads soon as I can - maybe in a week or so.

[KirkD]

How much will adding dacron increase velocities?

The dacron filler makes the powder burn more efficiently which of course, given an equal charge, will give an increase in psi and thus velocity. Depends on all the usual variences that can affect such. I always suggest to drop back about 1 gr with those powders in the usual cast bullet loads and work back up. The use of the filler will negate powder postion sensitivity entirely.

BTW; I do not recommend a filler with Unique under any bullet in that cartridge. The other powders yes, Unique no.

Larry Gibson
Larry, my sentiments exactly. It sure is good to meet another fellow who knows the ins and outs of filler.

[Dan Cash]

Of course, if one uses black powder, then filler is not necessary and one need not worry about other possibilities that might occur with smokeless powder, such as an overcharge.

If you are using black powder the last thing you want is a air gap. so unless you are setting right on top of the powder you want a filler. BP likes a little compression.
with compression even the top of the powder will need to be picked if the round is disassembled. Do not see a problem w/ the COW I use turning into a solid plug.[/QUOTE]

The BP burns, the COW does not. You might see a problem when the COW solid plug jerks a case in two and/or rings your barrel.

[frnkeore]

"Larry, my sentiments exactly. It sure is good to meet another fellow who knows the ins and outs of filler."

Now, I have been criticized for offering loading data that isn't in reloading manuals because "there must be a reason that it's not used" infering that it's not safe. Now, it's all over this forum that people think it's safe to use fillers, I guess because no one has "rung" a barrel yet.

But, I say to you, that not one powder company that I know of has endorced the use of any kind of "filler" or wad and that Lyman has said that it could "ring" a barrel and specifically recommends against it! And there for in the light of no recommend sources of "fillers" that you should be completely aware of what can happen, regardless of what the so called "experts" on this forum say.

I also recommend that anyone contemplating the use of "fillers" read Charlie Dells book on this very subject.

Frank

[Larry Gibson]

Wondered when Frank would show up again..........[smilie=b::groner:

I also recommend that anyone contemplating the use of "fillers" read Charlie Dells book on this very subject.

Oh yes, please do read the book. But also note the difference between a wad and a filler as I defined them in my 1st post. Keep the difference in mind as you read the book, read Lyamn's "recommendation and all other "recommendations", especially as it may refer to a dacron filler instead of a wad. Also note the use of wads and "fillers" that cause "ringing" are with powders none of us recommend to use a filler with.

Frank has a hard time understanding that just as with H110/296, which when used in an appropriate case with a correct bullet, a reduced load poses no problems and so it is with a dacron filler. Used with and appropriate powder and appropriate bullet it poses no problems. Use either H110/296 or a dacron filler inappropriately and problems could arise. Same with faster horses, whiskey and women.:D

Larry Gibson

[runfiverun]

slap me....
the 1 gr is a pretty good rule of thumb.
if using 1.5 grs of filler drop back that much and test.
i'd rather have a little too much filler rather than not enough,and make the sizes or weights consistent.

MAKE SURE THE FILLER IS TOUCHING THE POWDER AND IS UNDER SLIGHT COMPRESSION FROM THE BOOLIT.

^^^^Larry: you should make that your sig line. ^^^^

[frnkeore]

Change is good :)

Frank

[Chill Wills]

How much will adding dacron increase velocities? BTW; I do not recommend a filler with Unique under any bullet in that cartridge. The other powders yes, Unique no.Larry Gibson

How do I find the information about which powders can be used with a poly fiber (Dacron) filler and which ones can't? And why. Oh, and "in that cartridge" (38-55 in this case)

[Larry Gibson]

Chill

This is my post from the "filler" sticky, I address your specific question after my signature line of the post.




I have for many, many years found dacron (polyester fill) to be the best "filler". I use a filler only when appropriate. Many think I always use a filler with every powder....I DO NOT!!!! The use of the filler can cause problems if not used correctly and when appropriate. If the powder is not correct for the bullet/cartridge combination then the filler is not going to make it "right". Many want to use a specific powder for a cartridge because the powder is "cheap" or because "they have a lot of it". There are lots of powders that are not only poor choices to use but that can be dangerous if used in an inappropriate bullet/cartridge combination. Do yourself a favor if you are wanting to use an inappropriate powder (usually "no data" available is an indication the powder might be inappropriate) and get an appropriate powder. You will save yourself a lot of frustration. The use of the dacron filler only makes an appropriate powder perform better. The dacron filler will not make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

I don't use the dacron filler or a wad with the fast to medium burning "fast" pistol /shotgun type powders. I find one of these fast burning powders that is fast enough to ignite and burn efficiently at the velocity I want and avoid using a filler with them.

I almost always use the dacron filler in rifle cases with the slower “fast” burning powders (4227, 4759, 5744, 4198, etc. with lighter medium weight bullets for the cartridge; i.e. 140 - 165 gr bullets in .30/.31 cals of 30-30 through '06 case capacity), the medium burning powders (RL7, 3031, 4895, etc.) up through the slow burning powders (RL19, AA4350, H4831SC, RL22, 3100, etc.) that give around 80% or less loading density under medium to heavy weight bullets for the cartridge; i.e. 170 - 220+ gr bullets in .30/.31 cals. Those examples are for the .30/.31 cals but the same guidance applies to other calibers. The dacron filler is used only between the powder and base of the bullet.
The “dacron” is polyester fill as commonly found in pillows and toys. It also comes in sheets called “batting”. It can be obtained very reasonably at most any fabric store.

The dacron batting comes in various thicknesses. I prefer that which is about 5/8" thick. My wife recently bought me 10 yards which will give many, many thousands of cast bullet loads. With this current batch of batting I cut it initially across the width into strips about 3/4" wide. I then "eyeball" cut 1/2" wide chunks which is close to 3/4 gr.

A smaller chunk is cut for 1/2 gr and larger for a larger amount. I've cut some chunks that weight 1/2, 3/4, 1, 1 1/4 and 1 1/2 grs and have them in a "snack" baggie stuck on a poster board above my loading bench for quick reference when I need to cut new chunks. The batting will run thin and thick throughout the sheet so I again just "eyeball it" based on the thickness of the batting when cutting the chunks.

Pretty extensive tests have demonstrated that the weight of the filler does not have to be exact, only close. What is important is that there is enough so that it “fills" the space between powder and bullet. A little too much hurts nothing but too little poses problems. That's why I have the different size "chunks" so I can use the right size for the case capacity I am filling. For example; with most medium burning powders (3031, 4895, 4064) in and '06 to function an M1 a 3/4 gr dacron filler is about right. With slower powders that give a higher loading density like 4831 a 1/2 gr filler is about right.

I use a section of .22 cal cleaning rod in cartridges of .30 - .375 cal to push the Dacron chunk inside the case just so it is all in. The 6 to 10" section gives plenty to hold onto and sufficient "feel". Merely hold the chunk of dacron over the case mouth and shove it in with the rod. Sometimes it takes a couple three pokes to ensure all is inside the case mouth. I poke the chunks in until all the dacron is at the bottom of the neck or at least all in the case. It doesn’t matter exactly where just so long as you don’t tamp it down on the powder as a wad and leaved a space between the base of the bullet and the dacron.

What you want to do is push it in to let the base of the bullet finish pushing it down and adding any compression against the powder. Thus I do not push it down on the powder but let the bullet do that when the bullet is seated. Using the right size chunk of dacron this method then provides a "filler" in the air space between the powder and base of the bullet.

A small length of coat hanger works for the .22-7mm cartridges and an unsharpened pencil works well for .45 cals. With the charged cases in a loading block I simply hold the chunk of dacron over the case mouth and push it in with the rod. It is quite easy and a lot of “precision is not required, just get the dacron into the case and let the bullet finish pushing it down.

Larry Gibson

Regards the 38-55; with PB'd cast from 225 to 300 gr with FN'd bullets I would try to keep velocity in the 1200 - 1500 fps range for best accuracy. Thus I would use any of the recommended powders per Lyman #4 CBH from 5744 to 4895. I would start with the Lyman "start loads". If loading density with any of them was less than 80% to the base of the bullet I would use a dacron filler. If at some point in load work up with a specific powder if loading density got to 80%+ I would drop the dacron filler. With the GC'd 375449 I would lean toward 4895 and probably would be above 80% loading density and thus would not use a dacron filler.

[Chill Wills]

Larry,
Thanks for the reply. My question stands. I am wondering were the resource data is that suggests that fillers can not be used with the faster powders like Unique and others in this general class and specifically not in a 38-55?

Thanks and hoping to learn something new.

[williamwaco]

I have used Unique and 2400 in my .38-55. With and with out dacron filler.

To me "dacron filler" means a small pinch of dacron, just large enough to hold the powder charge in place while I tap the case mouth on the bench. It does not mean: "fill up the rest of the case".

In the .38-55 a this amount of dacron filler will weigh three fourths of ONE grain.

Accuracy was excellent with the filler.
Accuracy was excellent without it.
I did not do any cronograph tests.

I never tried it with slower powders because I am interested in mild plinking and target loads.


.

[Larry Gibson]

williamwaco's description of his "filler" is actually a wad. A filler does in essence mean; "fill up the rest of the case".

I'm sure frankore can fill you in on the specifics but the use of wads, even a dacron wad, with some fast powders in some cases, particularly straight walled cases like the 38-55, has caused "ringing" of chambers. That is why Lyman and others recommend agains the use of fillers even though they mean wads. I also know of one reported case where a dacron filler with a lighter charge of fast burning powder caused a ring in a 32-40.

I find that with an appropriate fast burning powder for the bullet weight and intended velocity that a filler or wad is not necessary. It's when we get into the "I've got a couple lbs of this powder that I'd like to use but can find no data" that we get into trouble. Or when we use the wrong powder with a filler or a wad.

Larry Gibson

[Chill Wills]

Ok, so where is the cutoff from slow to med to fast. Is your source data anecdotal?

With respect, Chill

PS My old Lyman book has Dacron and Unique paired up as recommended. Nor the lasted book.

[Larry Gibson]

Cill

Powders faster burning than 4227, 4759, 5744, 4198, etc. are consider by me those that do not need a filler if the right powder is used for the bullet weight and velocity level wanted. Nothing "anecdotal" there unless you consider the topic a short narative of an interesting, amusing, or biographical incident?

PS; your old Lyman book has dacron used as a "wad" (the fine print in the loading notes for each bullet). Yes it has it paired with Unique in some cases. Lyman, as of the #4 CBH, no longer recommends that use. Unfortuneately, Mike V in his writings for that publication doesn't differentiate between a wad and a filler. The exact reasons are unknown.

Larry Gibson

[williamwaco]

williamwaco's description of his "filler" is actually a wad. A filler does in essence mean; "fill up the rest of the case".

I'm sure frankore can fill you in on the specifics but the use of wads, even a dacron wad, with some fast powders in some cases, particularly straight walled cases like the 38-55, has caused "ringing" of chambers. That is why Lyman and others recommend agains the use of fillers even though they mean wads. I also know of one reported case where a dacron filler with a lighter charge of fast burning powder caused a ring in a 32-40.

I find that with an appropriate fast burning powder for the bullet weight and intended velocity that a filler or wad is not necessary. It's when we get into the "I've got a couple lbs of this powder that I'd like to use but can find no data" that we get into trouble. Or when we use the wrong powder with a filler or a wad.

Larry Gibson

Interesting, I always considered a wad to be something solid and cut to fit the inside of the case. ( Like a shot shell wad )

I never really liked the idea of either. I get so much c-r-u-d in my face from that three fourths of one grain of dacron, the thought of filling the case with cream of wheat makes me cringe.

If I am using a load that is very sensitive to powder placement, I tap the base of the case a couple of times on the bench top and load it into the chamber with the muzzle slightly elevated and then very carefully maintain that orientation until the shot is fired. My testing has shown with some powders a difference of 200 fps from powder back to powder forward. That is a LOT on a load that produces 1400 fps to start with.

Of course this would not work for hunting. For hunting I use either powders that are not position sensitive or that are slow enough to nearly fill the case.

Rule of thumb. I just don't use those loads for anything except curiosity.

.

[John Boy]

For fans of fillers shooting the 38-55 - use florist foam.
The Schuetzen match shooters have been using it for a good period of time with success. Go to the ASSRA forum and look at the Sticky for loads

[Chill Wills]

Nothing "anecdotal" there unless you consider the topic a short narative of an interesting, amusing, or biographical incident?
I was referring to this: Larry writes: "I also know of one reported case where a dacron filler with a lighter charge of fast burning powder caused a ring in a 32-40."

PS; your old Lyman book has dacron used as a "wad" (the fine print in the loading notes for each bullet). Yes it has it paired with Unique in some cases. Lyman, as of the #4 CBH, no longer recommends that use. Unfortuneately, Mike V in his writings for that publication doesn't differentiate between a wad and a filler. The exact reasons are unknown.
We could ask him.


Larry Gibson

So what I think I am hearing is that you do not recommend it based on your personal reasons. Which is OK. That is what we all do with gray area subjects that lack clear lab guidance. I just wanted to be clear. If there was some printed data, not just Lyman's omission in the latest volume, I wanted to know where I could find it.
Thanks for taking the time to reply.
Chill

[runfiverun]

he does recommend it BUT only in certain conditions AND with ceratin powders.
sometimes 2400 works better with a filler sometimes not.
buy like larry mentioned slower than 4227 or aa-2230 filler is needed for more UNIFORM volocities.
you get to a point around 4064 or so where you fill the case with enough powder that a filler is not needed.

[Chill Wills]

he does recommend it BUT only in certain conditions AND with ceratin powders.
that a filler is not needed.

Go back up a few posts. You will see we are talking about Unique Powder and Dacron fibers. It is the Unique that got my attention. I have been filling out charges with Dacron poly fiber for decades. Unique loads too.
So far, I am a safe handloader so if there is an official lab tested warning where this combo is contraindicated, I want to read about.

All the best,
Chill

[Larry Gibson]

Chill

Unfortunely, you may not find "an official lab tested warning where this combo is contraindicated". Many things done by manufacturer's are the result of "the customer is always right" and the fact they want to simply avoid any controversy that may hinder sales. That's business. I also am a safe handloader as I've learned to be the hard way. I also have been using chronographs for almost 40 years. I have chronographed thousands of loads. I also have been measuring pressures in numerous cartridges for several years. I understand the danger signals of high pressure and/or any abnormallity with the use of both.

I have pressure tested several loads of Unique with wads and with fillers in a couple cartridges. Please keep in mind the distinct difference between the wad and the filler. I found no indication that it was "dangerous". I do not "contradict" Lyman's ald use of a dacron wad because I have not found any indication of pressure spiking. Lyman has simply bowed to pressure and is in the "not recommended" safe mode for business reasons, in my opinion. I suppose I could make every attempt to ring a chamber. I have seen a couple "ringed" chambers so I do not discount that it can happen. However, I choose not to ruin one of my own barrels simply to test for the pressure signature. I can say that I have chornographed and pressure tested thousands of cast bullet loads in various cartridges with a dacron filler and found absolutely not indication of any pressure sign that would indicate "ringing". I found no indication of "pressure spiking" either. In fact, in my test of the 6.5 Swede with a buffer filler it was assumed by the promoter of such loads that pressure spiking would occur if the buffer was compressed. I proved it didn't.

Perhaps frankore would donate a rifle I could test to a "ringed" chamber with to find out what the pressure signature is?

I am not the one here that is saying the use of a dacron wad or filler is dangerous with any powder. What I am saying is I do not recommend a filler with any "fast" burning powder. The reason is simple; a wad or filler is not needed if you use the right fast burning powder for the bullet weight and velocity intended. For me Unique and Bullseye cover the range with all rifle cartridges using cast bullets in the 300 - 1500 fps range. For medium and heavy weight cast bullets at 1500+ fps I prefer slower burning powders with a dacron filler if loading density is less than 80%. I have explained many times in the past that I quit using dacron wads, not because it was dangerous, but because the wads in cartridges in the magazines got loosened from recoil. Powder migration around the wads occured and misfires and hangfires occured. With the dacron filler with the appropriate powder that does not happen. It also does not happen with an appropriate fast burning powder for the bullet weight/intended velocity without a wad or filler. What I do not advocate is the use of an inappropriate powder because it is "cheap" or because we just "happen to have a couple pounds" of some such powder.

If you are using a dacron wad with Unique and are happy with it then I'm not going to tell you it is dangerous. Now frankore might, but I will not. I might tell you there may be a better powder to use with a filler or a better powder to use without a filler in that particular cartridge/bullet weight combination. Will I tell you it is dangerous and that you are definately going to ring the chamber like some do? No I will not as I've no proof that it is dangerous or that it will, in fact, ring the chamber. For example; in the 8x57 with 296/H110 thread my testing showed evidence of a potential inconsistent psi problem (pressure spiking) with H110 under a 190 gr cast bullet and recommended against that combination. To the contrary, in the past I shot a lot of Unique loads under 250 - 300 gr cast with a dacron wad in my 45-70s without a single indication of psi problems. Subsequently I switched to Bullseye under a 275 gr cast w/o a wad or filler because the wad or filler is not needed with that combination.

Larry Gibson

[frnkeore]

"Perhaps frankore would donate a rifle I could test to a "ringed" chamber with to find out what the pressure signature is?"

I don't think so. Your the one that make these claims, there for use your own rifle!

Let me put it this way:

1. anyone can make up claims of why a company no longer recommends the use of "fillers or wads but, ONLY the info from THAT company will be the truth and NOT "I think", "they've lawyered up" or "they don't really know what they are talking about". I've suggest writing them and asking.

2. Barrel rings occur by putting things inside the case and I don't know of one that has occured (all other things the same) w/o putting something inside the case. I personally have "rung" a barrel and WILL NOT EVER put anything inside a case again.

Larry, you have told me that you've read Charlie Dells book on this subject but, you have not posted anything that would indicate that. I really do suggest that you get the book and read it.

Regarding my suggestion of a 296 load (16 - 18 gr), you yourself proved and posted the info that it is a low pressure, safe load, You tested a 19 gr load that you said had pressure spikes but, NOT at a dangerous level. We can get back into that again if you like.

Frank

[runfiverun]

chill:
the unique and dacron is fine, it don't make any difference in most situations and might help in others.
using a filler is in effect making a smaller case.
and it holds the powder against the primer in a more uniform way making ignition more consistent.
if your powder needs that.
or it shows erratic velocity variations ,either by vertical stringing or over the chronograph, then a filler is called for.

[Larry Gibson]

Frank

I don't make claims that fillers will ring barrels, you do. I've lots of proof via chronograph and real psi readings that a dacron filler with an appropriate powder won't ring a chamber. You've read Del's book on ringing chambers with wads and you've rung a chamber yourself. That makes you the "expert" on ringing chambers. Me? I'm a piker because I use a filler, not a wad, and I use the appropriate powder and don't ring/rung chambers......obviously I'm not the expert at ringing/runging........ Thus if you want to donate a rifle and teach me how to ring/rung a chamber I'd be more than happy to learn, with your rifle. BTW; just think of what we could add to Del's book by actually measuring the pressure signature of a load that rung a barrel. I'd gladly let you publish a second "part II" book to Del's so you would be a "published" expert at the topic instead of just a "I read it in a book" expert. Here's your chance at infamy!!!!

I have talked to the companies about this; do you really think with liability being what it is that they will give a straight answer? No, they will stick to the "party line" of the company which is based on whatever their reasons are.

Yes frank,, we have discussed how you "rung" the barrel in a rifle. You used the wrong powder and a low end charge of that powder with a heavy dacron filler. So is that the filler's fault or your fault? It's probably good that you "WILL NOT EVER put anything inside a case again" (assuming you mean other than powder?) since you don't understand the safe use of fillers, or wads for that matter.

Yes, I've read Dell's book. It is all about how a wad can cause ringing. I use a filler. You still don't grasp the difference between a wad and a filler do you? Or the appropriaye use of either, do you? Myself and a whole lot of others have very long and successful history with the use of fillers for many, many years in thousands upon thousands of loads without ringing barrels. It is entirely safe if done correctly. You didn't use the filler correctly. Don't use a filler if you don't want to, it's as simple as that.

You tested a 19 gr load that you said had pressure spikes but, NOT at a dangerous level. That is quite correct. I know when to stop because of the potential problems demonstrated, probably why I've not rung a chamber and you have. To bad you can't learn from the evidence presented to you, if you really want to get back into that again? I'd rather avoid all that frank, why don't you just let us that use fillers go in peacefull bliss? We're more than happy to let you also go in peaceful bliss by not using a filler or a wad. Can we just let it end there?

So in closing frank, you win again. I promiss to never ever try to convince you to use a filler, ok?

Larry Gibson

[KirkD]

For me, the key factor in determining which powders I can use filler with and which I'd rather not is the burn rate/'speed'/DPI/RQ. The faster the powder, the sharper the pressure spike and the greater the initial acceleration of the bullet and anything in the case. When all is said and done, I don't use fillers with powders that are quicker than IMR 4227 or 5744, and I don't use them for high end loads, and I use them only in straight walled cases that were originally designed for black powder. I also use them to produce velocties that are at or only slightly higher than original black powder velocities and with bullets of similar weight to the traditional weights. There is more leeway than this, but that is what I do. I've never used fillers with significantly reduced loads or high end loads. If you are a fellow who likes steamy loads up near the max, then stay away from fillers; chance are you don't need them anyway.

I consider corn meal and cream of wheat to be more of a non-compressible wad than a compressible filler, so I do not use or recommend them. I have used toilet paper for years, but it is not the greatest, since powder can work its way up inside the crevices and remain unburnt. Bell's results show that dacron, and kapok are the best, cotton is good too. For anyone scared of fillers, I would highly recommend Bell's article. He's got the goods in the form of actually measuring the pressures at the case center and the case neck for a variety of fillers.

[Chill Wills]

chill: the unique and dacron is fine, it don't make any difference in most situations and might help in others. using a filler is in effect making a smaller case. and it holds the powder against the primer in a more uniform way making ignition more consistent. if your powder needs that.
or it shows erratic velocity variations ,either by vertical stringing or over the chronograph, then a filler is called for.

Correct!
Since I mentioned I have been doing this a few decades you might imagine there has been a purpose to my madness. In other applications I have used the green floral foam. Those of us that still shoot Schuetzen matches have been doing this a long time. I did not invent this or anything for that matter. We all just pass our wisdom along, for better or worse.

One thing we all should keep in mind here on the friendly faceless internet; don’t underestimate a stranger or assume anything about their knowledge lest a fool is made of oneself.

Take a kid shooting any chance you can.
Chill

[Chill Wills]

Chill

I also have been measuring pressures in numerous cartridges for several years. I understand the danger signals of high pressure and/or any abnormallity with the use of both.

I have pressure tested several loads of Unique with wads and with fillers in a couple cartridges. Please keep in mind the distinct difference between the wad and the filler. I found no indication that it was "dangerous". I do not "contradict" Lyman's ald use of a dacron wad because I have not found any indication of pressure spiking. Lyman has simply bowed to pressure and is in the "not recommended" safe mode for business reasons, in my opinion. I suppose I could make every attempt to ring a chamber.

I can say that I have chornographed and pressure tested thousands of cast bullet loads in various cartridges with a dacron filler and found absolutely not indication of any pressure sign that would indicate "ringing". I found no indication of "pressure spiking" either.

In fact, in my test of the 6.5 Swede with a buffer filler it was assumed by the promoter of such loads that pressure spiking would occur if the buffer was compressed. I proved it didn't.
Larry Gibson

Don’t get me wrong Larry, I am not trying to put you in a corner. Just the opposite, I am very open to learn but without sophisticated lab equipment how can you assert some of the findings you make in post #34? Are you going to site the use of the Ohler pressure equipment or primmer, case and primer appearance or action opening resistances?

And thank you, I have been aware that you have made a point to frame all this as your opinion.

Chill

[Larry Gibson]

Don’t get me wrong Larry, I am not trying to put you in a corner. Just the opposite, I am very open to learn but without sophisticated lab equipment how can you assert some of the findings you make in post #34? Are you going to site the use of the Ohler pressure equipment or primmer, case and primer appearance or action opening resistances?

And thank you, I have been aware that you have made a point to frame all this as your opinion.

Chill

Oehler M43 PBL. I test 27 different cartridges in 22 different test barrels. For each shot I can measure muzzle velocity, instrumental velocity, down range velocity, TOF, BC, peak psi, get a pressure trace, a ballistic chart to 250 or 500 yards, wind drift based on measured BC, energy, power factor, recoil and a couple other things besides the SD and ES for all of the measured data. I don't "assert" anything, I simple report what I have actually measured, have found and have not found with regard to this topic.

Larry Gibson

[Chill Wills]

Oehler M43 PBL. I test 27 different cartridges in 22 different test barrels. For each shot I can measure muzzle velocity, instrumental velocity, down range velocity, TOF, BC, peak psi, get a pressure trace, a ballistic chart to 250 or 500 yards, wind drift based on measured BC, energy, power factor, recoil and a couple other things besides the SD and ES for all of the measured data. I don't "assert" anything, I simple report what I have actually measured, have found and have not found with regard to this topic.

Larry Gibson

I own one too. That is why I asked. Though you would not tip your hand it sounded like this was how you are so strong in your assertions (yes, they are assertions)

Your getting a little pissy Larry.
I treat everyone with respect and will continue to with you too. You can do the same.
You can have the last word, I found out where you are coming from. Thanks.
All the best, Chill

[frnkeore]

Larry,
Can you explain to us how these two statements reconcile with each other.

Chill Wills asked..........so if there is an official lab tested warning where this combo is contraindicated, I want to read about.)

(Unfortunely, you may not find "an official lab tested warning where this combo is contraindicated".Many things done by manufacturer's are the result of "the customer is always right" and the fact they want to simply avoid any controversy that may hinder sales. That's business.)

( Lyman has simply bowed to pressure and is in the "not recommended" safe mode for business reasons, in my opinion.)

"I have talked to the companies about this; do you really think with liability being what it is that they will give a straight answer? No, they will stick to the "party line" of the company which is based on whatever their reasons are."

So, are you saying that these companys have told you it's perfectly safe to use what ever you call the stuff you put in the cartridge case (with the powder) and just don't want to admit to the public that it ok? Or have they flat out told you that it CAN NOT and WILL NOT be recommend!

Again, not one shooting related company will tell you that it's safe to do so! Not powder manufactor, bullet manufactor or even the very company's that specialize in everything that we shoot (Lyman, RCBS and SAECO).

BTW, will your equipment tell you when a SEE or a ringed chamber will happen before you pull the trigger?

Frank

[Larry Gibson]

Chill

I am not getting "pissy" by any stretch. You have asked questions and I have answered them. You have rebutted my answers or asked for clarification and I have answered or given the information. I have made it absolutely no secret on this forum that I measure and collect data with an Oehler M43 and have been doing so for several years. Thus I'm not sure about "tip your hand"? The tone of your posts indicated you thought it was me telling you it was unsafe to use a dacron wad with Unique powder. Twas not me saying that at all, was/is Frank who is adamant in that position. My position is simply that I have not found, through extensive testing over the years, that a dacron wad is "dangerous". I have found that wads can pose potential damage to a firearm (ringing) under certain circumstances. I have not actually investigated or seen a "ringing" that was caused by a dacron wad though. I understand they have been reported and from what I have learned it was a poor choice of powder/bullet combination. I have certainly found a wad can cause misfires and hangfires under certain circumstances. I don't use a wad or a filler with Unique because, as I've mentioned, if uUnique isn't burning efficiently then I simply switch to a faster powder that does burn efficiently. This reduces powder positon sensitivity problems, eliminates hangfires and generally makes for a better load for me. I will openly state my testing, as I'm sure yours has, that the use of a wad with Unique produces a much more uniform and accurate load.

Would have been nice had you come right out and said you use a M43 instead of beating around the bush. We could have compared notes and data then without the bantering I guess. If you've data from the use of M43 measurements I would certainly like to compare? :drinks:

Larry Gibson

[KirkD]

I would say that if a fellow does not want to use any fillers, or does not understand the proper and safe use of fillers, then he should stay away from them. Same goes for reloading, or using smokeless powder. For those who know what they are doing, however, fillers are entirely safe. In my opinion, reloading with very fast powders like Bullseye is a lot more 'one the edge' than using fillers (appropriately done). As for what companies publish in their reloading manuals, it should be no surprise at all if they do not want to talk about fillers. In my experience, there are a lot of people out there that are not very good at following instructions and/or do not understand the science behind what goes on at ignition re. bullet mass, powder burn rates, case volume, bullet hardness, bore size vs. bullet diameter, bullet seating depth, etc. and how all these things affect pressure. I've seen the craziest things people do. It wouldn't surprise me in the least to see some yahoo pouring molten wax into the case as 'filler' or a 'wad' (heaven forbid epoxy, or wooden dowling plugs.) Nothing surprises me anymore. Several years ago, I talked to a fellow in the design department at Browning about a particular reproduction levergun they had produced in limited quantities. He told me OFF THE RECORD what kind of strength that levergun has. ALL THE RELOADING MANUALS I SAW classified that levergun in a much weaker category. There was a big difference between 'off the record' information straight from the fellow inside the company actually in the know, and the 'official' published information. Why? Because they knew there are yahoos out there who mess up or like to go beyond any published limit, or who do not know what they are doing.

Nothing speaks like actual data. Sherman Bell mounted strain gauges at two different locations ... mid chamber and at the case neck to actually measure the pressure curves at the two locations to see what effect the filler had on case pressure upon firing and when the filler piled up against the bullet base. Real data trumps what powder manuals will 'officially' publish. A double charge is much more probable than problems due to filler.

Finally, there are times when it might be dangerous NOT to use filler if you are using position sensitive powder in a large case in an older rifle. Here are two examples.

1. I developed a load for an original Winchester 1876 45-60 using IMR 4227. All velocity tests were done by stepping outside and firing the bullet slightly downwards across a chrony into a stump (powder forward). When I had a load that gave me 1,300 fps with a cast 300 grain bullet, I loaded up a bunch and went to the range. My first shot across the chrony gave 1,517 fps. The next two were 1,565 fps and 1,566 fps. Why? I was loading one shot at a time and inadvertently leaving the powder at the back of the case. I then tilted the gun down across the chrony and got 1,341 fps. No filler with IMR 4227 in a 45-60 case in an original '76 is dangerous in my opinion. I refuse to use IMR 4227 in that cartridge anymore without filler.

2. Similar story with an original Winchester 1886 chambered in 45-90. This time I was using IMR 3031 and got an extreme spread of a whopping 541 fps. I will not use IMR 3031 in a 45-90 case without filler. Bottom line: it may be dangerous NOT to use filler with certain powders in certain cases.

I never use filler with powders faster than 5744/IMR 4227. For powders such as 5744 or faster, if one insists on not using filler (in cartridges that were originally black powder), then I recommend 5744. It is still position sensitive, but not as bad as most others. IMR 4227 is off my list. I finished my last can last week and will never buy any more. A lot more could be said about the particulars of various specific powders, but I will leave it at that.

[Larry Gibson]

Frank

There isn’t always a yes or no answer, especially when dealing with companies. You say “not one shooting related company will tell you that it's safe to do so”. So you have actual documentation that they say specifically, in no uncertain terms, that it is unsafe? Or is that your assumption because they “recommend” not to use such?

Here’s how a typical conversation goes when discussing such with a factory tech/rep;

Me; Good morning, I understand in your company’s latest manual you no longer recommend the use of a dacron wad with certain cast bullet loads?

Tech; That’s correct, we no longer recommend the use of a dacron wad.

Me; Any particular reason why?

Tech; It’s been reported that it can cause problems.

Me; Reported? As in your laboratory’s testing where high pressures resulted?

Tech; No, we never found that high pressures resulted but others have reported problems.

Me; If you’ve not found any indication of high pressures then why the change?

Tech; As I’ve said it can cause problems, mostly what is called “ringing’. This has been reported so our policy is to not recommend the use of the dacron wad anymore.

Me; Have you done any extensive testing to determine the problem and what actually causes ringing.

Tech; No, we've not tested for ringing but there are many theories that are reported. Our testing for the data in our manuals in the past was extensive and we never had a problem with ringing but, as I said, it’s been reported so we no longer recommend the use of the dacron wad.

Me; Probably because of potential liability?

Tech; That’s not my department, policy is to not recommend the use anymore.

Me; Thanks for your assistance.

Tech; Anytime, have a nice day.

And that’s how those conversations usually go if you can even get to talk with an actual technician. So was the use of the dacron wad “dangerous” or was the company just being cautious because it was “reported” to cause problems? You figure it out, I already have to my own satisfaction.

“BTW, will your equipment tell you when a SEE or a ringed chamber will happen before you pull the trigger?”

With a potential SEE, yes it will. Read the Handloader article I have posted on SEE and you will see (pun intended) there are pressure indications that an SEE potentially could occur, i.e. the pressure builds in a very few shots to dangerous levels. I have seen this in pressure testing several potential combinations. It’s commonly referred to, many times erroneously, as “pressure spiking”. I know when to stop testing, just as the lab technicians stopped testing in that article, before the SEE occurs. That’s why I stopped testing with H110 in the 8x57 in the other thread because the pressure indications were there showing the potential for an SEE. I tried to tell you that but you fail to grasp the importance.

With a ringed chamber, I don’t know. That’s why I asked you to donate a rifle and specific load data known to cause ringing. Obviously, since you’ve read books and had a ringed chamber you are the expert. I’ve not rung any chamber in many years of using wads and fillers in many different cartridges with many different loads in thousands, if not tens of thousands, of such rounds fired. Obviously I’m not the expert at ringing chambers, you are. So if you’d care to donate a rifle and data I’d be more than happy to load it to a ringed chamber….if it’s possible, and collect the pressure data so we may see (there’s that word again) if there is a specific pressure signature to the event.

Larry Gibson

[Larry Gibson]

KirkD

A very sensible post, thank you.

Larry Gibson

[HPT]

Results using 16 gr 2400 and Lee 250 gr bullet:


Picture #1 without filler 1250-1370 fps spread
10 shots in 3.75" @ 100 yds
avg. 1.42" each hole to centre of group

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z41/VonN_photos/IMG_1614-1.jpg


Picture #2 with 1 gr. filler 1396-1440 spread
10 shots in 2.63" @ 100 yds
avg. 0.89" each hole to centre of group

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z41/VonN_photos/IMG_1615.jpg

[smithywess]

For me, the key factor in determining which powders I can use filler with and which I'd rather not is the burn rate/'speed'/DPI/RQ. The faster the powder, the sharper the pressure spike and the greater the initial acceleration of the bullet and anything in the case. When all is said and done, I don't use fillers with powders that are quicker than IMR 4227 or 5744, and I don't use them for high end loads, and I use them only in straight walled cases that were originally designed for black powder. I also use them to produce velocties that are at or only slightly higher than original black powder velocities and with bullets of similar weight to the traditional weights. There is more leeway than this, but that is what I do. I've never used fillers with significantly reduced loads or high end loads. If you are a fellow who likes steamy loads up near the max, then stay away from fillers; chance are you don't need them anyway.

I consider corn meal and cream of wheat to be more of a non-compressible wad than a compressible filler, so I do not use or recommend them. I have used toilet paper for years, but it is not the greatest, since powder can work its way up inside the crevices and remain unburnt. Bell's results show that dacron, and kapok are the best, cotton is good too. For anyone scared of fillers, I would highly recommend Bell's article. He's got the goods in the form of actually measuring the pressures at the case center and the case neck for a variety of fillers.



Kirk D,

Thank you for your posts. This thread has been very good with some knowledgeable posters. I have found 30wcf on the M.O. Forum to be very knowledgeable as well. I am just embarking on a salvage experiment on the washed out bore of a Marlin Model of 1889 in .44-40 Calibre which slugs to .430" but throws one foot groups at 80 yards with quench cast wheelweight bullets sized to .432". Some bullets miss entirely and most tumble, and one shot out my sky screens !! The speed has been 1240 f.p.s. with 21.0 grs of IMR 4227. The bullet is cast from R.C.B.S's .44-200-CS mould. Lubed with Alox. I have bought another barrel in .38-40 but before I abandon the .44-40 barrel I have done two things. Firstly I Beagled the mould to throw bullets to .434" diameter. Secondly I have loaded cartridges with the same 21.0 grains of IMR 4227 but now I have on top of this powder added enough Polyethylene Shot Buffer ( 4.1 grains) so that there is compression made when the bullet seats. I haven't tested these loads yet but Dave Scovill of 'Handloader' wrote of this technique years ago using 'Super Grex' which was Winchester's shot buffer at the time. He said the buffer would act in a fashion similar to a gas check and stop gas cutting. He had good success with accuracy. I notice on this thread that HTP on page 3 shows tightened groups of 250 grain bullets using what he calls filler but I don't know his method is or what he's using.


I'll keep an eye on this thread as I go to test my new loads. 30wcf suggested I oven harden my bullets even further but I don't want to go that route in order to stay married to my wife. I'd rather screw the .38-40 barrel in first. We''ll see.