filler

[canuck4570]

the usual way to put the filler is powder and add cream of wheat to fill the rest of the case..... what in your opinion would happen if the charge for your 4570 is 40 grain of 4064 and 10 grain of cream of wheat you would mix the charge and the cream of wheat all together and put in in your case this way the powder and the cream of wheat woulb be eveanly distributed... would it be dangerous in your opinion....

[azshootercastlead]

the usual way to put the filler is powder and add cream of wheat to fill the rest of the case..... what in your opinion would happen if the charge for your 4570 is 40 grain of 4064 and 10 grain of cream of wheat you would mix the charge and the cream of wheat all together and put in in your case this way the powder and the cream of wheat woulb be eveanly distributed... would it be dangerous in your opinion....


Really bad idea - use something like 5744 made for reduced loads.

http://www.accuratearms.com/data/5744.htm

[44man]

I agree, don't use cream of wheat. If you want a filler use Dacron (polyester fiberfill) to hold the powder against the flash hole. Takes only a tiny pinch pushed in with a pencil. I use it with 4759 in my 45-70 revolver loads. With 5744, you won't need any.
I don't see a need for a filler with 4064 either. You should try 3031 in that 45-70 and no filler will be needed.
The only time filler is needed is if the powder charge is very low in the case and I would sure never use anything hard.
Cream of wheat and corn meal is OK with black powder to eliminate air space because it is compressed with the powder. I use it for light loads in a cap and ball revolver so there is no air space above the powder.

[KYCaster]

A friend of mine loads 577-450 with a main charge of BP and a filler of BP and COW mixed. He says it works great. I'm not a BP enthusiast so I can't comment. He hangs out on the Martini board. You might try to get some info there.

Jerry

[redneckdan]

I use dryier lint. Works like a charm and its free!:mrgreen:

[buck1]

I use dryier lint. Works like a charm and its free!:mrgreen:


And I thought I was clever!

[jh45gun]

I shoot 3031 in my 4570 with no filler and it works like a charm. I know a lot of guys use fillers here and know more about this I suppose than I do but I prefer just not to use them. Jim

[StarMetal]

Redneckdan,

If you like dryer lint, you'll love Kapok for a filler. I've used Kapok for more years then I care to admit. I have both Kapok and Dacron now.

Joe

[Blackwater]

Star Metal et al, my one use of kapok was for a buddy, trying to get his old BPE doubles to shoot and a load that regulated to the barrels. IIRC, we used 3031 and kapok filler, and he got ballpark starter loads from an old Gun Digest, back when it was a really good tome. Having never used fillers before, I was VERY careful, especially with those old guns, to look down the barrels after EVERY shot, and several times found wisps of kapok still in the bore.

Now this was in the huge old black powder express ctgs., with their long, long cases and plenty of room for the powder to rattle around in. I've been dubious of fillers ever since, though I KNOW in my mind that far too many have used them with complete satisfaction and success. Knowing something and FEELING it just aren't the same thing. (sigh!)

Anyway, have any others seen this, and if so, has it been with very large (.45 & .50 calibers) bore rifles? Can't help but wonder if there's not some "drawback" into the barrels of some of these large bore guns immediately after the bullet exits and the hot gasses suddenly cool dramatically as they hit the open air outside the muzzle, thus drawing wisps back into the bore???? IIRC, the wisps were in the forward 1/3 of the barrel. Checking with the old doubles was really easy, since when you break them, all you have to do is just look down the barrels for a quick check.

Anyone got any idea if the large bores "draw back" some of the tufts along with the suddenly cooled gasses into a cavernous bore, as I describe? That was my only theory of how they got there, and I don't think I've ever asked this question anywhere before, and I've long wondered about my theory's feasibility.

[35 Whelen]

I can't comment on using filler in a 45-70, but since the first part of February I have fired 700-800 rounds of cast bullet loads through my 303 British from 3 different Enfields. Bottom line? If i want to brush lead out of the bore after each 10 shot string, I leave out the filler, otherwise, I use it. I use Precision Reloaders "PSB" shotshell buffer and it works beautifully. With 18 grs. of Sr4759 I use my little Lee powder dipper full of PSB and it fills the case to the base of the neck. Just this evening I fired exactly 65 rounds of cast bullets in two of my 303' and when I was finished, one clean, dry patch through each bore and they were spotless. I have already used well over a pound of this filler with no negative effects on any of my rifles. Your mileage may vary......

[redneckdan]

I too had leading and inaccuracy problems until I tried filler.

[Doble Troble]

COW improves accuracy in my 38-55. My dog enjoys it when I spill it.

[redneckdan]

cow? I'd like to know how you stuff a damn milk cow in a case?

[Jon K]

I have tried and had Dacron remain in the case or barrel. Couldn't explain it and didn't like it. But I have used Cornstarch packing peanuts- roll it close to diameter of the case, cut it with a razor and push it in with a dowel or pencil. I used it with Unique and it worked good.
Better yet, I agree with others use AA 5744. It doesn't need a filler, and is not position sensitive. Or if you want to fill the case up try some 8700, not a real screamer on velocity, but it fills the case.
:castmine: I had a Pedersoli that liked 23.5 grains of AA 5744 behind a RCBS 500 gr w/SPG lube, Fed 210 primer, Starline brass-and no filler..........That's if you shoot smokeless. Have you tried BP?
Hope this helped.

Have Fun Shooting,
Jon

[BruceB]

Gents;

Some of our powders may be said to be LESS position-sensitive than others, but my extensive personal testing with such types as 2400 and XMP 5744 has proven that they too can often benefit from a bit of dacron.

I found this out via the simple method of loading batches of ammo which were identical, except that one batch would have dacron fill, and the other batch would not have the filler. These direct comparisons have been fired hundreds of times to date, in a lot of different rifle calibers and cases.

In MOST examples (not all, by any means) the dacron-filled loads gave slightly-higher speeds, which was no surprise, but they ALSO usually gave smaller velocity spreads and better grouping. This holds true for cartridge sizes from the 7.62x39 right up to the cavernous .416 Rigby. 5744 is a mainstay for my .416 Rigby loads, using less than 1/2 of the available case volume, and it works very well indeed (with dacron, of course!). In fact, the Rigby delivers about 90% of its original factory-loaded energy with 55 grains of 5744 and the 365-grain RCBS cast boolit!

Such powders as 2400 and 5744 can work fine without filler, as stated, but in MY ammo, the 2400 and 5744 rounds are better and more-uniform with the dacron added.

Dacron fill is certainly not a cure-all or a magic formula for success, but in my ammunition, it is often a very desireable factor. I've hoped that I could cook it down to a simple yes-or-no decision for ALL my loading in cases with extra internal space, but that is not to be, apparently. Soooo, I still load a LOT of direct-comparison batches with/without dacron, and let the rifle tell me which way it likes its 'grub'.

As long as my ballistic results are improved with dacron, both in consistency over the chronograph screens and in groupings on paper, it will remain as a valuable contributor on my bench. Don't be too quick to rule it out because "THEY SAY" certain powders don't need it. "They" say an awful lot of things which are either misunderstood, misreported, or just flat wrong.

[Jon K]

I hoped to help not offend anyone with my reply.
All my tests are unbiased and done side by side with and without filler or whatever the test is along with the chronograph and on paper without looking at the groups shot until both are done for comparison. Any statements I made are from tests not "THEY SAY", OR ANYBODY SAID! Each shooter needs to decided what works best for their gun in their application. I have used several Dacron, PSB, Cornstarch packing, COW. Some work better than others in some applications. But by far fillers are not the answer to accuracy and performance, rather only a method of reducing a load.
When I said 5744 was not position sensitive, I based that on chronograph results and group tests that showed no improvements in loads identical except the addition of filler. AGAIN TESTED SIDE BY SIDE - SAME DAY- SAME EVRYTHING.

Jon

[StarMetal]

I go along the same lines a BruceB. I've been using either Kapok or Dacron for fillers for more years then I care to admit and in just a many calibers....and no problems.

I may have had alittle filler residue in the case or bore,but that doesn't bother me. The air pushed ahead of the bullet just blows it on out the barrel. Same as fellows that put electrical tape over their muzzles when hunting in the rain. The air blows it off...as is the same with those plastic pipe thread protector caps that they put over M16 flash suppressors for the same reason...they blow off too. What's the difference between alittle filler residue in the bore and kernels of some ultra slow powder in the bore?

Joe

[BruceB]

[QUOTE=Jon K]"I hoped to not offend anyone with my reply."

Au contraire, mon ami. At least I, for one, was not offended in the least. However, from your last post, it seems that perhaps YOU were offended by my reply. Not intended, I assure you.

My test protocol is very much like yours, since I have long-since learned the procedure of changing only ONE variable when trying to discern what that single variable is doing.

JON: "Any statements I made are from tests not "THEY SAY", OR ANYBODY SAID!"

My reference to "they say" was not pointed at you. Over several decades in this hobby, I have heard "them" say that such-and-such a powder is not position-sensitive on scores, if not hundreds, of occasions. Many here can tell you that I often perform experiments specifically intended to ascertain the truth or falsity of many of these things that "everyone knows" in handloading, and on many occasions have found that what "they say" is flat-out wrong, or at least highly questionable. Same in this instance, because in quite a few of my rifles I DO detect position-sensitivity with 5744 and 2400. Not a great deal, not as much as some other powders manifest, but there is some sensitivity.

JON: "But by far fillers are not the answer to accuracy and performance, rather only a method of reducing a load."

This is where we come to the crunch. MY experience is rather different from what you report, but that doesn't mean either of us is wrong. I have had a general long-term trend (thousands of rounds, many years, hundreds upon hundreds of loads in a couple dozen rifles) which convinces me that dacron fill DOES give me better performance on average in the instances it's used. NOT ALWAYS, as I clearly stated above. Sometimes the difference is extreme, sometimes very moderate, and occasionally dacron actually degrades the performance. I make no claim about dacron being a magic potion, but I also don't see it as "only a method of reducing a load".


JON: "When I said 5744 was not position sensitive, I based that on chronograph results and group tests that showed no improvements in loads identical except the addition of filler. AGAIN TESTED SIDE BY SIDE - SAME DAY- SAME EVRYTHING."

...and when I said that dacron gives me better accuracy and more-consistent performance, generally-speaking, did you think I was guessing at the ballistics or groups, or that I would try to get meaningful comparisons by firing on different days in different weather??? OF COURSE the loads were chronographed, OF COURSE they were fired at the same time and place, and OF COURSE I strive to have "SAME DAY-SAME EVERYTHING". Not doing so invalidates the whole experiment.

It's far from unheard-of ('specially in handloading) for people to come up with different results with the same procedure. That's all we have here.

BTW, I see your address listed as being in California. Are you aware of the annual Nevada Cast Bullet Shoot? It's a fun get-together here in Winnemucca, and many Californios have taken part over the six years of Shoots since 2000. Deputy Al manages to get here from the Riverside area each year. The Shoot will be on May 19-20-21 this year, and we'd sure like to have you come along for a good time. It's very informal, just a get-together in good company, plus a bit of CB shooting. There are some threads about it down on the Competition Board near the bottom of our home page. How about it???

[Jon K]

Bruce,

I was not offended by your post, but I was trying to clear the air about hearsay. I wouldn't make any statements, that I don't have the data to back up. Just making the statement, that I didn't find data to support fillers w/5744. I also stated that I have found remaining filler in the case and in the barrel, that along with the chronograph not showing me more consistant data w/fillers, that test for that day is over. I also don't feel unburned dacron, or cornstarch in the barrel is a good situation to be in.

I don't dispute your findings either, your gun may do better w/fillers. If so, more power to you, you have a surely found something that makes you gun work.

Some fillers, like PSB and Puff-lon also help to reduce or eliminate the fouling, but I haven't yet found the right load for my gun to improve accuracy.
I don't mind trying anything, like fillers, but I use the data and only the data to decide whether it is right for the gun. I want all the mechanical advantage I can get, especially since I'm not the best shooter on the line, and can use all the help I can get. Meaning the better the gun can shoot , the better my score can be.

Thanks for the invite to the Shoot in May, I'll keep it in mind. I have a problem teenager at home now, and I recently retired and am still trying to cope with living on less.

Regards,
Jon

[Maven]

Jon, Re: "But by far fillers are not the answer to accuracy and performance, rather only a method of reducing a load." Like Bruce B., I question this rather broad generalization. With some powders that may be the case, but have you ever tried milsurp IMR 5010? If not, let me describe it: It's very slow, very chunky (extruded), very inexpensive and great for ~1,800fps and cast bullets. (You can push it faster though.) 48--49grs. + a heavy CB work well in .30-06-sized cases, but velocity spreads (both ES & SD) tend to be high, even when using mag. primers. The solution was to use either a generic poly- filler or powdered bran in the same, but small amounts; i.e., 1cc in the '06, but only .3cc in the 8 x 57mm. Voila! Velocity spreads fell to <30fps (from >40fps), flyers pretty much disappeared and the amount of unburned powder left in the fired cases dropped significantly. With IMR 5010, fillers work well and the results are repeatable, but they DO increase pressure. However, I'm not sure they're worth the effort or make a difference with milsurp WC 860, which has a similar burning rate. As for 5744, 4198, 3031, et al, I've never found it necessary to use fillers to enhance performance or accuracy.

[KCSO]

Fillers are also a cure for bullets that are just a tad undersize. I have had 303's that i couldn't cast a big enough bullet for and with the addition of filler I went from poor to at least acceptable accuracy in all cases. In one gun I went from bullets keyholing to 3" groups at 100 yards with just the addition of COW.

[StarMetal]

Jon,

I guess my statement of the filler or unburned powder kernels get blowed out of the barrel went unnoticed or heeded. Add me to Bruces ranks...I get better consistency with my loads. Another thing that Maven didn't mention in his excellent post is that fillers also keep the bore cleaner. One aspect that a filler can be used for just the purpose of keeping something clean and no other reason is in revolver. It will decidely keep the cylinder face and frame/forcing cone area alot cleaner then went not used with cast loads. I proved that to friends that went shooting with me over and over and THEY brought it up as why my revolver was so much cleaner. I also use filler in slow burning powder, such as Maven mentioned, if though you don't need it, because I feel it makes a gas seal somewhat, in addition to keeps the bore cleaner. I've be using a filler for over 30 years with no harm and in various calibers including overbore small calibers. Like you said we can all do what pleases us and I will....I'll use fillers.

Joe

[mooman76]

If I could interupt for a silly question. What is Kapok?

[StarMetal]

moonman,

Not a silly question. First Kapok comes from the Kapok tree. This tree grows in South American and Africa, Indonesia, and some other places. It has seed pods and that is were this fluffy material comes from. It's alot like milkweed fiber. It's main use was pillow stuffing and lifejacket stuffing, but has been replaced in both areas.

Joe

[Doble Troble]

Does anyone know anyone who has had filler trouble? I've heard rumors of detonation, ringed barrels, etc. I haven't had trouble myself, but I avoid extreme loads, both hot and cold.

[Jon K]

Starman,

I agree the fillers sure are cleaner and may even avoid or reduce fouling, no doubt. Like I said earlier to Bruce, if you have a load that you have proved accurate, more power to you. You have succeeded in the goal we strive for - an accurate load that shoots best in your gun.
If for no other reason than the cleaner issue, I am going to work with the PSB and Puff-lon again. Got some new tips, and I am always willing to test the possibility of something that works.

Jon

:castmine:

[Dale53]

I haven't heard specifically of "fillers" causing a problem. Although, it must be recognized that fillers reduce case capacity and if your load is already a truly maximum load, it will raise pressures significantly. That is fact and you must keep that in mind (I'm sure Joe does).

However, dacron "wads" have been implicated in a number of cases of chamber ringing. Charlie Dell was a friend of mine and we have discussed this, in person, many times. He did the only serious work that I know of on this issue. Others MAY have done, I KNOW that he did and published his work. His book, "The Modern Schuetzen Rifle" written along with Wayne Schwartz, has a chapter on this issue. The Frenchman, Vielle (the inventer of smokeless powder) discovered the reason for chamber ringing over a hundred years ago. Charlie set about "confirming" Vielle's conclusions. Vielle DID know what he was talking about. Charlie made up brass barrels (they would yield at lower pressure than even mild steel, so it was easier to "ring on demand"). Small charges of powder in cartridge cases where a wad held the powder against the inside base of the case produced the ringing force. It wasn't the wad but the pressure wave perpendicular to the base of the bullet. When the wave strikes the bullet, it becomes a ring of pressure at the base of the bullet and produces the ringing force. The force is accumulative and over time produces the dreaded chamber ring.

Charlie got so he could produce the ring at will. By firing the barrels held vertical, he could even ring barrels without a wad. The wad just created the powder position that produced the ringing force. Original Schuetzen barrels were of mild steel and were more suseptible to damage than modern chrome moly barrels. However, modern barrels HAVE been ringed. Seating a wad .100"-.200" off the powder charge minimizes the ringing force. This is only practical in a straight case. One very interesting fact was that using dacron wads (pulled from pillow stuffing or batting) increased the ringing force. Charlie was not able to determine why but WAS able to determine that this WAS a fact.

If you must use a wad, keep it off the powder (Kapok is somewhat safer than dacron) a bit to allow the powder to "slump" when in firing position and this seriously reduces the ringing force.

This is for general information with the hope that it will save someone from a ringed barrel.

Use it or don't, that is your decision.

Dale53

[StarMetal]

Dale,

The important thing you mentioned there is the fellow had a "wad" of wad against the powder, leaving a big airspace between it and the barrel. We've gone over this a zillion times here and the forum and that is where the trouble starts. That wad being in that position makes the bullet a bore obstruction then. Me, BruceB, Oldfeller, Maven, Larry Gibson and others have stated that if you use Dacron and Kapok or any filler, make sure it fills that space entirely between the powder and the bullet base.

About Kapok and Dacron...I like Kapok, but Dacron is easier and less messy to use. It's fibers don't get everywhere and stick on lube, etc. and it's springy thus expands to fill the airspace better.

I have used Kapok in hot loads. When I was shooting those 7mm's at about 2700 fps out of my 7mm-08 I was using double gaschecks and a kapok wad. I wouldn't say the load I was using was maxium though. I've even used Kapok in 7.62x25 pistol loads also. I've shot Kapok alot of years out of alot of cartridges. Haven't had one iota of trouble...but then again I don't leave an airspace.

Joe

[44man]

Joe is right, no airspace above the filler. I would not use filler over very fast powder that takes up little room in the case either. Very fast, small amounts of powder in a large case is kind of stupid anyway. It is as bad as using a reduced load of very slow powder.