Fillers

[Zeek]

Here are three responses from my friend Mic McPherson when we got to talking about using filler materials, such as dacron. I thought that you would want to see it.


. . . The use of any synthetic filler such as Dacron is only asking for a destroyed gun. Just a matter of time before the chamber is either ringed or the gun is completely destroyed. THIS IS A MONUMENTALLY DANGEROUS PRACTICE.

I once wrote of this problem in a PS (Precision Shooting Magazine) article. Within one week of that piece's being published, I had three calls from experts who "had been doing that for decades... and never had a problem." Within three weeks thereafter, two of those guys called me back to apologize for they had just ruined a gun by ringing the chamber. A ringed chamber is exactly one infinitesimal step from a failed gun -- the classic detonation.
Thanks, Mic

ADD-ON: I asked him about COW and CM fillers too, pointing out the danger of decreasing the effective case capacity, relative to the given propellant charge. Here's what he indicated:

Organic fillers are monumentally less dangerous. However, no one can predict the ballistic consequences -- the filler might very well decrease chamber pressure! Why? Because it might promote primer induced bullet movement. However, any such filler has some percentage of rather abrasive inclusions. The only well proven safe filler is florist's foam -- it is cellulose based and crushes to produce dust that is not abrasive. Using anything else is just foolish.

Why is Dacron and such so dangerous? Because it compresses to almost no volume when the primer blast hammers into it. Then is melts. Both processes absorb a huge amount of heat from the primer blast, leaving less to ignite propellant. Also, the entire charge is then located at the bullet end and. Inadequate ignition is responsible for all detonations and the Krupp commission proved in its 1888 tests that any cylindrical cartridge with a partial case filling charge located at either end of the chamber and then ignited will always generate a standing wave -- whether the peak of this standing wave grows narrow enough so that the force at the center of the peak exceeds the strength of the chamber depends upon an entire hoist of variables but the potential is always present. So, synthetic fillers are doubly dangerous and it amazes me that folks do not know this!
Mic

Now, most folks have opinions, but Mic is the fellow who wrote the algorithms for the popular QuickLOAD software. He really knows what he is talking about, when it comes to internal ballistics. He's a very private fellow, so please don't bother him by e-mail except to arrange for him to do work on your lever action rifles. His essential "fix" is to use florist foam for a filler, which is cheap and readily available. You'll get LOTS more by reading his articles and book. That is the best way to obtain, and make use of, his input.
Thanks, Zeek

[longbow]

Zeek:

I am interested in fillers but of the granular type.

There is a thread on loading with fillers for the 6.5 Swede that I have been following. Larry Gibson is doing some pressure testing using shotgun buffer.

I have read articles on using shotgun buffer and cereal fillers and so far no mention of ringed chambers of pressure signs as long as loads are worked up.

Do you have any information on use of granular fillers like cereal fillers, shotgun buffer or Pufflon?

I would be very interested in any information you may have and I am sure there are others interested as well.

Longbow

[303Guy]

Zeek

This got my attention as I am fond of using fillers of the cotton wool type!:shock:
Quite honestly I thought the biggest danger was setting the bush on fire! (I did once get smoldering cotton wool but usually it doesn't even scourch).

Are there more details on what or how the chamber ringing occured? Mic says 'detonation' but what were the actual conditions? Was there a fibre wad over the powder with an air gap under the boolit? Where in the chamber did this ringing occur? Had the boolet slipped back into the case some and obturated inside the case? Too many questions!

I've seen it written that certain powders should not be reduced too much without the use of fillers because loose low volume charges can result in detonation. That appears to contradict Mic but not if we knew the actual conditions.

[barrabruce]

I've read stuff on the interweb.
One side=no fillers.
Other side no dramas if done right!!!


Anyways as far as I can tell...which anit much.
Trouble comes from the slower or non compatable reducing powders.
Apparently if you drill the primer pocket out it is suppose to get a better flame pattern and ingition.

A rimless case is used and the headspace gets to large from the primer forcing the shell forward and not having enough to blow back the base and reseat the shoulder to specs.

A wad is not placed on the powder and the rest of the case filled.
Meaning a wad with a gap or gaps occurr. This can form compact mass which hits the base of the bullet in a hard form under momentum and can cause ringing.As most of this ocuurs where the bullet was seated.(one theroy)

ITs all in the lap of the gods to me...
Iv'e just stuck to what the others do and pray I got it right.

Barra

[pdawg_shooter]

I have had my best loads by choosing a slow enough powder to get as near as possible to 100% load density. That way I get the best accuracy, jacketed velocity, and no need of fillers.

[303Guy]

I too like the slow enough powder to fill the case but most of my 'test tube' testing is done with light loads of fast powder that needs to be held against the primer. Now I am developing a sub-sonic hunting load and I seem to have no choice but to have a ¼ to ½ filled case. (Unless I can reduce the case capacity somehow and use a slower powder).

[Larry Gibson]

I've researched this numerous times over the years. Every instance of documented chamber ringing involved the use of wads, almost always a card wad of some kind with lots of space between the wad and the base of the bullet. There is a big difference between a wad and a filler but many do not understand the difference. A good example of the confusion is the use of shotgun wads in shotshells. In reality they are fillers in the context of what they do inside the shell. BTW; I never could document a single case of a ringed chamber from a dacron wad, can anyone? I prefer documented not hearsay.

Larry Gibson

[yondering]

Does your friend Mic have any explanation to offer behind his statement?

I've sometimes used a small tuft of cotton to hold the powder back against the primer; for example 10gr of Unique in a 30-06. I have a hard time picturing how that tiny pinch of cotton can cause chamber ringing or "detonation", vs just the loose powder sitting against the back of the case. I'll believe it when I see documented scientific proof.

[303Guy]

Well, I can think of one possibility. If the powder granules manage to work their way through that tuft of dacron so that there are two effective powder charges separated by dacron, the first might burn quicker and set off the second at a much higher temperature and pressure. That could be described as 'detonation'. But that would only cause ringing of the chamber if the boolit base upsets under the sudden pressure rise while it is still within the neck. That's only hyper-speculation. I have once found evidence pointing to powder granules working into the filler - when the filler ignited. Even that is speculation! I now make sure the powder won't ingress the filler and I haven't had burning filler since. (Cotton wool - the stuff can smolder quite sneakerly:evil:).

[shooter93]

Charlie Dell did pretty extensive testing on the subject and makes a very convincing argument as Mic does if you've read his stuff. Both of those guys are hard to argue with considering how extensive their tests and test methods are. Charlie's research is in his book on Schutzen shooting. Personally if I think I want a fillers I use Puff-a-Lon. It weighs nothing so you don't have an added weight problem and you use enough to fill the case with a slight compression. It seems the not filling the case part is where the problem lies.

[longbow]

My understanding agrees with shooter93. It is a large empty volume that leads to trouble.

I am not stating that as a fact but as my understanding of the issue.

By using a filler, there is not a large empty volume anymore and 100% loading density is achieved. Yes, you have to add the filler weight to the boolit weight and you can't just add filler to an already full load just because there is some empty space.

I guess there is going to be some compression and extrusion of the filler through the cartridge neck but then with a full case of slow powder, the powder does not all burn in the cartridge so is going to be compressed and forced through the neck too ~ like a granular filler.

The uses I see are:

- very light charges for subsonic loads (eliminating the position sensitivity of some powders)
- preventing double charging using reduced loads
- achieving 100% loading density for use with reduced charges of slow powders (no SEE effect and more consistent burn) ~ not everyone wants a full house load all the time
- eliminating gas checks
- minimizing or eliminating leading (seemingly a happy byproduct of using granular filler)
- sealing behind the boolit to prevent gas cutting with boolits that may be undersize or in bores that are rough
- allowing higher than normal cast boolit velocity

I can think of lots of good uses and so far I have had no problems using granular fillers with any of fast, medium or slow powders. However, I do not want to take chances so would like to hear from others. I am not looking to ring a chamber or blow up a gun.

I do not have pressure testing equipment so can only start with light loads and work up to where I want to be unless flattened primers or sticky extraction say otherwise. So far I have not pushed the limits for high velocity so that has not been a problem.

I have been following the 6.5 Swede test Larry is doing with great interest.

FWIW

Longbow

[bcp477]

The warning issued by the author quoted is an ENORMOUS oversimplification. As someone else stated before, many do not understand the use of fillers. If one does not understand how to use them - THEN DON'T. It is ridiculous to assert that the use of fillers will certainly lead to chamber ringing....or a "destroyed gun". Bloody nonsense. The use of fillers INCORRECTLY could lead to such problems..... the key word being "incorrectly".

I've been using them for years - dacron and cotton wool exclusively. I will continue to do so, as I DO understand their use..... regardless of the misgivings of any "expert."

[Zeek]

Longbow asked

I am interested in fillers but of the granular type.
Dear Longbow: see revised starter blab for this thread. Zeek

303GUY indicated:

This got my attention as I am fond of using fillers of the cotton wool type!
Quite honestly I thought the biggest danger was setting the bush on fire! (I did once get smoldering cotton wool but usually it doesn't even scorch).

Are there more details on what or how the chamber ringing occured? Mic says 'detonation' but what were the actual conditions? Was there a fibre wad over the powder with an air gap under the boolit? Where in the chamber did this ringing occur? Had the boolet slipped back into the case some and obturated inside the case? Too many questions!

I've seen it written that certain powders should not be reduced too much without the use of fillers because loose low volume charges can result in detonation. That appears to contradict Mic but not if we knew the actual conditions.
A: I'll ask him about wool, given that it cannot melt. Recall, though, that the warning was about having all the powder at either the front or the rear of the cartridge.

Many more comments/questions by All Y'awl (that guy sure can talk!).
Let me refer you to Mic's website. Look at all of his articles posed there. This guy is the real thing, so you will not be wasting your time on a snow-shovel expert:
http://www.leverguns.com/store/mcpherson.htm (http://www.leverguns.com/store/mcpherson.htm)

I just tried this just now & it would not function. Try again later. Given that I am not Mic, I'll just let this thread rumble on as a talk place about this subject and what you find out about it.

BTW, I have had Mic give his full or near-full treatment to ALL of my leverguns, and they sure work nicely now. Also, do NOT miss out on his book (available through PS: http://www.precisionshooting.com/books.html ) on Accurizing the Factory Rifle. LOADS of stuff in there that you have NEVER heard or thought of before!

Keep in mind that he is not talking about deflagration (fast burning that propagates no faster than the speed of sound). He is talking about conditions that can ring-or-render-into-many-parts the rifle: explosion. Rifle powder deflagrates, except under certain circumstances. Let's avoid those circumstances, guys, okay?
Zeek

[405]

No worries about flame blame. It's good to get all sides and opinions about this. If for no other reason than to keep the wits sharp and gray matter limber. Everyone gets into ruts and a tunnel vision syndrome as things go along, shooting goes well and guns don't blow up. Good to think and re-think in abstract once in a while.

A good point is made about... if the premise were true about the potential for fillers causing all sorts of maladies then how can wide varieties of shotshells function properly with all manner, design and types of plastic or fiber fillers?

I do think detonations can happen... but they are very rare. Can most kabooms be traced to simple over-charge/over-pressure? I do think ringing can happen. Is it more of a result of kinetic/mechanical obturation happening right at or involving a thin wafer like zone of solid material of the bullet base or hard wad or both? Can a compressed solid mass of unburned powder, slamming against the bullet base, cause a similar condition resulting in a ring?

A few years ago I looked at some raw lab data published by one of the Scand. powder/ammo/gun companies- Lapua or Norma or Sako maybe??? no matter, they used the most modern ballistic testing equipment available and were trying to duplicate conditions that were causing "reported" detonations. They couldn't cause one in the lab! The closest they came to detonations were abnormalities seen in "shadow graph" images from inside a cartridge case as the round fired. They occassionally observed a high velocity compression wave impact the base of the bullet then move rearward into the main powder charge. I can't remember all of it but I think they saw squirrely pressures when that condition was observed. One thing I do remember though is that they could not reliably duplicate or repeat the rebounding compression wave situation. It seemed to be fairly rare and almost random.

[StarMetal]

Just because the fellow is famous for doing something else doesn't mean he's the Holy Grail on fillers. Not myself either. I think he's full of it. It's been said that Dacron burns and often leaves little melted plastic like balls in your bore. I've never found this. BruceB finds a lot of his Dacron filler in front of his shooting bench and only slightly charred. I see most of mine blow out with the muzzle blast like blowing on a dandelion. I too feel the problems are from using it wrong. I don't buy the primer pushing out the filler and bullet either because if that were true our Swede project with the buffer wouldn't have the shock absorbing effect it does on the bullet. BruceB and my self have done test with Dacron loaded in clear plastic vials with powder. In my case a fairly fine ball powder. Bruce carried his in his pocket for a couple weeks or something like that. Me I vibrated, tapped, jarred mine. Nothing, no migrations. I done the same test with shot buffer and course tubular powder. Nothing. I don't see a filler decreasing pressure.

Longbow why follow Larry in the Swede loading, just pm me and I'll help you along the way and you can be shooting yours.

Joe

[Willbird]

From what I had read about ringing of chambers it happens more often with guns that have very soft steel barrels (not 4140). of course these guns are typically WORTH a lot more $$ too :-(.

Bill

[303Guy]

Wow! This sure is an interesting thread. It might just save one of my Lee Enfields! Not to mention my dignity.:oops:

Mmmm.... food for thought. As 405 puts it - grey matter stimulation and waking up from a rut!

That random compression wave is a worry since if it were to coincide with some other random adverse condition the results might be unexpected!:shock:

Thanks for bringing this up, Zeek.

[StarMetal]

I talked to one of the Hodgdon powder techs about the old classic blowing up your 38 Special with hollow base wadcutters and small charges of Bullseyes. He said they tried to duplicate that in the lab really really a lot and nothing. He said they would bet if you could go back in time and take the cartridge apart you'd find more powder in there then was suppose to be. I tend to agree.

303guy, you've stuck stuff in your cases and shot them that I'd never ever do.

Joe

[303Guy]

303guy, you've stuck stuff in your cases and shot them that I'd never ever do. And I wouldn't recommend anyone doing what I do either!:mrgreen:

I'm wondering how I've managed to survive this far! I think thing through carefully though. That's why I take note when a warning is sounded!:!: I also like to look closely at other peoples boo boos so that I can understand how not to make the same mistake.:roll: Sometimes I actually manage to save myself but I also often show others what not to do!:mrgreen:

I'm glad you mentioned your tests with powder migration through a filler. Have you done similar tests to see how not to use a filler? Meaning, to see what conditions will allow the filler to migrate?


He said they would bet if you could go back in time and take the cartridge apart you'd find more powder in there then was suppose to be.This has been my contension too! It's human nature to water down what we've done when we blow something up - it's an attempt to save face!:bigsmyl2:

[StarMetal]

And I wouldn't recommend anyone doing what I do either!:mrgreen:

I'm wondering how I've managed to survive this far! I think thing through carefully though. That's why I take note when a warning is sounded!:!: I also like to look closely at other peoples boo boos so that I can understand how not to make the same mistake.:roll: Sometimes I actually manage to save myself but I also often show others what not to do!:mrgreen:

I'm glad you mentioned your tests with powder migration through a filler. Have you done similar tests to see how not to use a filler? Meaning, to see what conditions will allow the filler to migrate?

This has been my contension too! It's human nature to water down what we've done when we blow something up - it's an attempt to save face!:bigsmyl2:

No, all I wanted to see if powder would migrate and if buffer would migrate. I imagine if you carried them for years or handled them rough for months on it would migrate though. But in normal handling and use...no.

Joe

[Willbird]

I talked to one of the Hodgdon powder techs about the old classic blowing up your 38 Special with hollow base wadcutters and small charges of Bullseyes. He said they tried to duplicate that in the lab really really a lot and nothing. He said they would bet if you could go back in time and take the cartridge apart you'd find more powder in there then was suppose to be. I tend to agree.

303guy, you've stuck stuff in your cases and shot them that I'd never ever do.

Joe

Judging by the number of once fired 38 special wadcutter brass that USED to be avail I would guess it was once the most fired round in competition, maybe only second to 22lr in that respect. I never heard of blowing guns up with 38 hollow based wadcutters.

IMHO any time anybody blows up a pistol it was a reloading error of some kind, bullet pushed deeper into the case, or a double charge or over charge (powder bridging maybe?).

I DO believe SEE will happen with the powders they say not to use in 1/2 charges (like 4831 for example) but I do not believe SEE happens in pistols.

Bill

[405]

From what I had read about ringing of chambers it happens more often with guns that have very soft steel barrels (not 4140). of course these guns are typically WORTH a lot more $$ too :-(.

Bill

From what I've seen in some of the old BP chambers that never saw any smokeless or fillers... I'd agree. Many of these old chambers I've looked at do show faint rings in the neck area at the point where a bullet base would be seated. My guess would be: years and years of shooting factory black powder ammo with either BP alone or with the common card wad between bullet base and charge, both at 100% load density, probably caused the rings. None that I've seen have been really large, deep or noteworthy.... but they are there. If you can get the light just right in the chamber look at the area in the neck where the base of a normal bullet would be seated.

[Willbird]

Well I wonder also if some factory loaded rounds with BP had some air space in them sometimes ??

[405]

Hard to say. I would imagine there was quite a bit of variation in the methods used to load back then. It would seem possible or even likely that some were loaded a little "loose". Then over time, the powder would settle and develop an air space. Also, some may have been loaded to something less than 100% load density to begin with. I don't have a large enough original cartridge collection nor have I looked inside enough original cartridges to make a "for sure" call about it. I have handled a large number of a variety of the old bp cartridges but just shaking them, unless there's a lot of airspace, doesn't tell much. Breaking them down to examine (especially if they are crimped) is usually a no-no because of collector value and scarcity. :)

[MT Gianni]

The warning issued by the author quoted is an ENORMOUS oversimplification. As someone else stated before, many do not understand the use of fillers. If one does not understand how to use them - THEN DON'T. It is ridiculous to assert that the use of fillers will certainly lead to chamber ringing....or a "destroyed gun". Bloody nonsense. The use of fillers INCORRECTLY could lead to such problems..... the key word being "incorrectly".

I've been using them for years - dacron and cotton wool exclusively. I will continue to do so, as I DO understand their use..... regardless of the misgivings of any "expert."

How do you propose one learn about fillers if you don't use them? I have used Dacron in cases with as severe a neck down as the 243. I don't any more because I don't need to. There is a huge difference in a filler in a straight wall case and a tapered one, IMO.

[bcp477]

How do you propose one learn about fillers if you don't use them? I have used Dacron in cases with as severe a neck down as the 243. I don't any more because I don't need to. There is a huge difference in a filler in a straight wall case and a tapered one, IMO.


I don't "propose" anything. I don't care if anyone else uses fillers or not..... or learns about them (or not). I have no control over what anyone else does....and I am not in the business of educating anyone on the use of anything. My comments were made in service of blunting the ridiculously over-simplified nature of the "expert's" opinion on this subject.....nothing more. The specific comment about which you speak was only a basic generalization, in furtherance of "common sense". Just as I would assert that those who are not trained pilots should not undertake flying an airplane (a very obvious example).....I stand by the character of the assertion that, if one doesn't know what the h#ll one is doing, then don't do it. The obvious uptake of that is.....gather information and learn about the subject, BEFORE acting on it. I don't see that as anything but crystal clear.

[shooter93]

I have seen the hollow base wadcutters come apart. It was long ago and the cause was very deep hollow base bullets, there were a couple types floating around, and to high a velocity. The base was more like a "skirt" and higher velocities caused a separation of the skirt from the body leaving a partial bore obstruction which caused the problem with the next shot. Often times we get "half" the story when the incident happened long ago. As I said when I use fillers I fill the case completely. Read all of Mic's and Charlie's research and methods and you can understand why they don't like fillers.

[Lead pot]

Wad cutters will shoot quite well.
This ten shot group was shot with a MVA scoped Shiloh .45/2.4 at 200 yards with a full load of 1F Goex EXP powder at 200 yards.
These wad cutters are a cup nose and base not hollow base I swage, actually they are a swaged core I use for the PP bullet.
I don't know how much farther that bullet would perform good too but it sure makes a very good clean cut hole at 200 yards.
I don't have a clue what a smokeless load would do. I don't use smokeless or any type of a filler other then a paper wad below the powder, one above the powder, lube wad and another card under the bullet.
Kurt

http://i704.photobucket.com/albums/ww43/Kurtalt/IMG_0071.jpg

[Willbird]

I'm also wondering what the velocity is at muzzle, and at 200 yards with that bullet. I have seen people fire a model 52 at 200 yards with 38 wadcutters and get 6" groups if the wind was not blowing.

[EDK]

Leadpot,
Really nice shooting.
I don't really know what a MVA scoped Shiloh is?

A Shiloh Sharps...great rifle made by some really talented nice people.

MVA...Montana Vintage Arms....telescopic sight primarily designed for black powder rifles like the Sharps. Also made by some nice folks to do business with.

Kurt aka Lead Pot...one of the guys I owe a lot to for his advice on the BIG 50.

:cbpour::redneck::Fire:

[docone31]

Now,
That is an interesting patch!
It makes a neat hole. Amazing that, without a ballistic nose, it cuts so cleanly.
Perhaps there might be some rethinking here.
And indeed, the folks at Shiloh are good folks. They take what they do, seriously.
A rifle, some day, I will have again.
That is a talks alot photo!
Says it all.

[Lead pot]

Willbird,

:shock: I don't think my 52 will reach 200 yards:lol:
I don't worry to much about velocity, other than enough to keep the gullet stable and how good it looks when it gets to the target.
That load barely made 1100 fps if that. You cant push a wad cutter to hard.


EDK.

How is that .50 shooting??
I sort of retired mine for a while. :sad:

Kurt

[Zeek]

Does your friend Mic have any explanation to offer behind his statement?

I've sometimes used a small tuft of cotton to hold the powder back against the primer; for example 10gr of Unique in a 30-06. I have a hard time picturing how that tiny pinch of cotton can cause chamber ringing or "detonation", vs just the loose powder sitting against the back of the case. I'll believe it when I see documented scientific proof.
The explanation is that way-bad things WILL happen (because they HAVE happened), from time to time, with loads using filers. Regular deflagration (standard rifle propellant type of burn) will NOT cause ringing or disintegration of the action. The steel is just way to strong for that to happen. So, all we know is that SOMETHING can happen, rarely-but-enough-to-keep-you-wary, if you use fillers. Now, you HAVE been warned. So, if you choose to ignore that, it is up to you.
Zeek

[Zeek]

The warning issued by the author quoted is an ENORMOUS oversimplification. As someone else stated before, many do not understand the use of fillers. If one does not understand how to use them - THEN DON'T. It is ridiculous to assert that the use of fillers will certainly lead to chamber ringing....or a "destroyed gun". Bloody nonsense. The use of fillers INCORRECTLY could lead to such problems..... the key word being "incorrectly".

I've been using them for years - dacron and cotton wool exclusively. I will continue to do so, as I DO understand their use..... regardless of the misgivings of any "expert."

That's fine. Just be sure that you tell folks if it goes wrong on you. The good news is that it happens to tallented shooters very seldom. The bad news is that it happens even to talented shooters. You've been warned. That is all this is. The folks who have lost a rifle from this approach also knew what they were doing. When somebody suggests that you "Join the club!", be sure that they are not carrying one.
Zeek

[303Guy]

... SOMETHING can happen, rarely-but-enough-to-keep-you-wary, if you use fillers. Now, you HAVE been warned.FWIW, I am taking the warning very seriously! So far I have lurned that I can use shotgun powders without filler quite safely even allowing for a double charge! I want to load sub-sonic shotshells anyway - for my suppressed shotgun (I haven't built the suppressor yet). I'm thinking that a sub-sonic load has no more than 100yds useful range anyway so exptreme pinpoint accuracy for a pig sized target shooting off the shoulder is not a make or break requirement!

Here is a thought on how bad things might happen with fillers. Suppose the moisture content of a cotton filler and the powder allows for a chemical reaction with powder vapours and the cotton producing some form of high explosive mix? Cotton is the basis for nitro-cellulose, right? Just a thought.

[303Guy]

Putting it that way makes me remember past events when something happened and the nearest suspect got blamed and that was the end of the 'investigation' and conclusions were drawn! 'They' didn't get away with it when I was involved. I always hit 'them' hard in the face with facts that 'they' could not deny! But then again, I never got any promotions!:sad: (I just never learned the art of 'kissing butt'!):mrgreen:

Well, I have just tested a small charge of Lil'Gun under a heavy boolit with the muzzle pointing straight down. It burned well and some AR2209 contaminant was collected with signs of 'partial burning'. I am now about to test the same load with Dacron fill.

[303Guy]

Right. Test done!

Indications are higher velocity with the Dacron filler but lower pressure but this is not a definitive test as a different rifle and case was used. The 'partially burned' AR2209 seems the same and there was no trace of the Dacron.

One charge was lying up against the boolit and the other was held against the primer. The bores are very different. So, I am thinking that Dacron has fewer likelyhoods of variations so might be a safer option than cotton wool.

I am also thinking that it could be better to use the 'correct' filler in the 'correct' way than no filler at all but I am still concerned as a warning was issued!

http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo327/303Guy/MVC-498F.jpg
"Partially burned" AR2209. Small white granules of burned or maybe partially burned Lil'Gun is visible. There was no sign of the burned/partially burned Lil'Gun without the Dacron filler.

[6.5 mike]

My biggest problem was talking myself into putting something in the case besides powder. Just seemed wrong to my simple mind, but in order to fireform the cases in my sharps I needed to do this using a light smokeless load (12.5 gr unique).
So far I've had no signs of any trouble, & I do check about every 3 rounds.
Using a dacron filler as shown by 405 I get very consisent ignion & surprizing accuracy with a 300 gr pistol boolit pp'ed to match my barrel.
I think using the correct filler, with the correct powder charge lowers your chance of a problem. As has been pointed out, confusing a filler & a wad leads to big mistakes.

[Bullshop]

Two words, PACKING POPCORN. Or is that three words. Oh I dont care I use it.
BIC/BS

[Blackhawk Convertable]

I use dryer lint for filler on my Black Powder substitute loads

[303Guy]

The difference in holding the gun muzzle down without and with a Dacron filler.

http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo327/303Guy/Withoutfiller-Withfiller.jpg (Same case used)

It's harder so see in a pic but it is evident just the same that without filler and with the powder down against the boolit (on the left), the pressure is higher.

These 'accidents' that occur very rarely - how do we know the filler itself was not 'accidently' left out and that the damage was due to the absence of the filler in a load intended for a filler? (Of course, that would make the danger just a real! Or worse.:roll:)

P.S. There is no difference in the appearance of the powder residue!

[Willbird]

I would not expect using a load you got from a manual to cause a ring in your chamber like fillers have been found to do over, and over, and over again ??

Bill

[Old Coot]

303 Guy, How tightly is your rifle chambered? The primer on the left looks as though the metal has flowed back without striking the bolt face, hence the sharp appearance of the protrusiion. I am wondering if the rifle is chambered generously -as many smle's were reported to be- could this increased headspace from the downward pointing position haqve caused the primer appearance?

[bcp477]

One aspect of this, that doesn't seem to have been mentioned.....but is probably obvious to everyone who uses fillers (so, I will state the obvious):


Fillers should ONLY be used with loads that are WELL BELOW maximum. NEVER with any load that approaches maximum. Of course, WHY would anyone think of putting filler in a case that is already mostly full (more than 70 %) of powder, anyway ? That is subject to interpretation, like everything else.....but that is where common sense and good judgement come into it. As such, I don't think it a good idea to use fillers with any moderately fast or fast powders......as the pressure curve is steep with these. Since the pressure increase (if indeed there is one....and common sense would indicate that there would be) with fillers is a BIG unknown.....it seems folly to me to try filler with fast powder. So, I won't do that, ever. What I do use filler with is MILD loads of relatively SLOW powders....hence no problems. And, I get IMPROVED results with filler.

That is what I spoke about earlier...... CORRECT use of fillers, as opposed to incorrect. No chamber ringing (or blown up firearms) here. And no worries about that here, either.

I'll say it again : used CORRECTLY, fillers are NOT a danger. Used STUPIDLY... anything can be a danger.

[303Guy]

Used STUPIDLY... anything can be a danger.That probably is quite true. Problem is, how do I know? I am guilty of using fillers on a 'mild' load that was over 70% load density. I am pretty sure at this time (but I am open to correction) that fillers with some powders is more of a safety thing, i.e. [pressures could be higher without the filler due something unknown happening when the charge is far from the primer.

I am wondering if the rifle is chambered generously -as many smle's were reported to be- could this increased headspace from the downward pointing position haqve caused the primer appearance?No, it is quite tightly chambered - it is not an SMLE (MkIII) but an older MLE (MkI). The same case was used for both tests and the case chambered tightly, i.e. had to be cammed home (having been previously fired in a No4). The same results were seen with the No4 again using the same case for both tests (not the same case as used in the LMLE). I should mention that I rely on headspacing on the shoulder.

Dr Oehler did some tests of a similar nature and measured the same effects.

[bcp477]

Well, as part of the "subject to interpretation" aspect..... much depends on the definition of "mild" in this circumstance. A load with a very slow powder, which will not come close to maximum pressure, even with greater than 70 % load density, would still be OK for filler. That would still qualify as a "mild" load. (Perhaps I should not have used LOAD DENSITY in my example, but rather PRESSURE.) On the other hand, using any filler in a load that already approaches maximum pressure .....say, over 75 - 80 % of maximum pressure....WOULD be stupid (as the pressure increase caused by added filler is certainly an unknown).

I can say with certainty that fibre-tuft fillers, i.e., something like dacron or cotton wool, or dryer lint for that matter, do not increase pressures much - certainly FAR less than solid materials like cereal products. Such loose fibre fillers are gas porous, weigh virtually nothing....and though they do compact on firing, they cannot form a solid "plug" like other materials. Nevertheless, they do increase pressures....we just don't know how much. So, common sense still must govern their use.

As for myself, my 8 x 57 loads are probably in the range of 25 - 35,000 psi (I seriously doubt above that, anyway)..... so filler is NOT a problem, especially since I ONLY use loose dacron or cotton wool.

[303Guy]

Right from the start when Zeek first started this thread, I have been doing some serious thinking and re-evaluation of my practices. Well, today I got a rather unexpected result - my cotton wool filler did not exit the bore! It's the first time this has happened to me. The load was very light for fire-lapping purposes. The first one shot the cotton filler out as normal but the last one did not! I will continue to use cotton wool filler for this purpose because of its bore cleaning and boolit base protection properties but I will always check the bore inbetween! For any other purpose, I will use 'Dacron'. I have never found any trace of the 'Dactron' filler in my firing tube. It looks like it really does melt away. Cotton wool, on the other hand, while it usually doesn't even scorch, has another rather sinister property! It burns!

http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo327/303Guy/MVC-512F.jpg Cotton wool igniting.

http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo327/303Guy/MVC-513F-1.jpg Cotton wool burning!

Now add the oxygen rich, high temperature and pressure environment inside a cartridge case! Draw your own conclusions. I'm opting for caution!

Thanks to Zeek, for bringing to our attention, the possible risks! :shock:

Makes me wonder what other serious risk I might be taking! :oops:
I'm just soooo not ready to die ummm... so relatively young!

[StarMetal]

Right from the start when Zeek first started this thread, I have been doing some serious thinking and re-evaluation of my practices. Well, today I got a rather unexpected result i my cotton filler did not exit the bore! It's the first time this has happened to me. The load was very light for fire-lapping purposes. The first one shot the cotton filler out as normal but the last one did not! I will continue to use cotton wool filler for this purpose because of its bore cleaning and boolit base protection properties but I will always check the bore inbetween! For any other purpose, I will use 'Dacron'. I have never found any trace of the 'Dactron' filler in my firing tube. It looks like it really does melt away. Cotton wool, on the other hand, while it usually doesn't even scorch, has another rather sinister property! It burns!

http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo327/303Guy/MVC-512F.jpg Cotton wool igniting.

http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo327/303Guy/MVC-513F-1.jpg Cotton wool burning!

Now add the oxygen rich, high temperature and pressure environment inside a cartridge case! Draw your own conclusions. I'm opting for caution!

Thanks to Zeek, for bringing to our attention, the possible risks! :shock:

Makes me wonder what other serious risk I might be taking! :oops:
I'm just soooo not ready to die ummm... so relatively young!


303guy, wow, little scary huh? I'm glad nothing bad happen and also happy you are going to stop any unsafe practices that you think you do. So cool, stay safe and happy shooting.

Joe

[bcp477]

Of course cotton wool can burn......so will dacron if it gets hot enough. However, I've NEVER encountered this issue - the cotton wool that comes from my barrel is only scorched a bit, nothing more. Perhaps hotter loads would be more subject to ignition of the cotton fibres. Aside from a SMALL danger of setting fire to dry brush, etc. ..... what could this matter anyway ? The fact that cotton has a lower ignition temperature than dacron is much ado about nothing.....at least as regards internal ballistics. So, I don't quite understand the talk of personal safety, in regards to this. Perhaps I am missing something.

[shooter93]

Whay 303 Guy found out is despite thousands of rounds being fired with various fillers and no trouble is that it CAN happen. It comes down to a matter of risk a person is willing to take. Much like Mil-spec primers or not in the Garand etc, and no I don't want to open that argument, some people decide not to risk the problem with certain or all types of fillers. As I said before if you read all of Mcpherson's or Dell's research on the subject you can understand why they won't personally use ot recommend fillers to others. It's up to you to decide whether or not you'll use them.

[303Guy]

I have discovered the recipe for igniting cotton wool filler! And I mean actually flaming.:holysheep Yup. I set the stuff alight!:!:

7grs Lil'Gun in a 303 Brit, cotton wool filler and topped with a wooden fire-lapping 'bullet'.

The same powder charge with filler but topped with a 245gr boolit doesn't even scourch the cotton wool.

I should do tests to see at what boolit weight scourching begins.

[35remington]

A quote....

"The good news is that it happens to tallented shooters very seldom."

(In reference to the safety record of fillers and their likelihood of causing accidents).

The even better news is it happens to the vast, vast majority of all users, talented or not, not at all!

To give an accurate opinion on fillers, one really has to use fillers.

To simply give "warnings" may give the doomsday shouter the warm fuzzies that he's saving his fellow man, but the other thing that such devil shouters can't argue with is that users of fillers that have no problems far, far, far, far outnumber those who do.....

incidents traceable to the use of fillers are still impossible to definitively nail down after perhaps a century of use and fit the category of hearsay (which is certainly reassuring and does everything to encourage me to keep right on using fillers,

and,

the reported incidence of problems occurs at a seemingly much, much, much lower rate than handloading accidents attributable to other causes.

So, when we blame fillers, have we really analyzed the problem correctly, or are they blamed like 2.7 grains of Bullseye with a 148 grain wadcutter in .38 was for years (and still is) blamed for blowing up the gun?

In other words, the problem doesn't seem to be repeatable in either instance with even the remotest degree of regularity (it's absolutely not repeatable at all), when the ideal conditions for "blowing up the gun" according to the naysaying pundits have to be occurring many, many, many times every day....and still nothing happens.

Those with no experience with fillers shouldn't give the impression that they know better than others in advising against the use of fillers. With no filler experience, you don't have much room to preach.

Want to nail down the use of fillers as a bad idea for all time? Produce documented instances of verifiable problems. We've been waiting on just such a thing for all these many years now.

No more speculation, please, as it wastes my time and insults my intelligence. I don't need any more of that.

Since I wisely won't hold my breath waiting, I'll continue to use fillers as my thoughtful analysis allows. I trust you'll agree that I'm mature enough to make my own choices, and let me go on my way.

Save the environment instead. Those guys need the credibility more than I do.

[Willbird]

A quote....



To give an accurate opinion on fillers, one really has to use fillers.

To simply give "warnings" may give the doomsday shouter the warm fuzzies that he's saving his fellow man, but the other thing that such devil shouters can't argue with is that users of fillers that have no problems far, far, far, far outnumber those who do.....

incidents traceable to the use of fillers are still impossible to definitively nail down after perhaps a century of use and fit the category of hearsay (which is certainly reassuring and does everything to encourage me to keep right on using fillers,



In other words, the problem doesn't seem to be repeatable in either instance with even the remotest degree of regularity (it's absolutely not repeatable at all), when the ideal conditions for "blowing up the gun" according to the naysaying pundits have to be occurring many, many, many times every day....and still nothing happens.

Those with no experience with fillers shouldn't give the impression that they know better than others in advising against the use of fillers. With no filler experience, you don't have much room to preach.


No more speculation, please, as it wastes my time and insults my intelligence. I don't need any more of that.

Since I wisely won't hold my breath waiting, I'll continue to use fillers as my thoughtful analysis allows. I trust you'll agree that I'm mature enough to make my own choices, and let me go on my way.

Save the environment instead. Those guys need the credibility more than I do.

You can do as you please.

I value my rifles and pistols, so for that reason I will not use reduced loads of slow burning powders like 4831, because once in a blue moon SEE can happen.

And I will not use fillers like dacron.

I will use fillers like grex that completely fill the case with a granular filler maybe someday if I feel the need.

My opinion is just as valuable as yours, even if I am not willing to risk a rifle or pistol EVER to try dacron type fillers, not even once.

Bill

[303Guy]

So, when we blame fillers, have we really analyzed the problem correctly, or are they blamed like 2.7 grains of Bullseye with a 148 grain wadcutter in .38 was for years (and still is) blamed for blowing up the gun?I agree with this completely. But, the 2.7gr Blue Dot load, while it did not in itself blow up the gun, was the first step in the chain of events that led to the blow-up. (Or was it the last step?). Now, had the shooter been using a filler, then the filler would have been blamed! The truth is likely that 5.4grs of Blue Dot blew up the gun!

[matm0702]

Hi folks

Has anyone tried PSB buffer as a filler? Have bought some but haven't had time to try it out.

Mike

[longbow]

Here is an article on use of PSB:

http://www.surplusrifle.com/shooting/castfiller/index.asp

Starmetal posted this already here or on another thread and if you haven't seen it, it is a good read.

I have not used PSB or other shotgun buffer to date but plan to. So far I have had good success with COW in my .303. I have read several articles on using cereal fillers in bottleneck cases successfully and so far I have had not problems or cause for concern. Pressures do increase so loads have to be worked up.

Since cereal fillers can vary some and since there are warnings that if left loaded, the cereal fillers over time can become a solid mass that "could" cause high pressures, I plan on getting shotgun buffer and trying that. I am also going to load up a few rounds with COW and leave them for a year or so then pull boolits to see what has happened to the filler if anything.

I was out shooting last weekend (grease groove not PP boolits) using:

- 314299's gas checked & oven heat treated; no filler
- 314299 gas checked & oven heat treated; COW filler
- 314299 oven heat treated no gas check; COW filler
- 314299 ACWW no gas check; COW filler

All over 19.3 grs. (Lee scoop) of IMR 4227.

My very subjective comment about pressure is that the gas checked no filler loads resulted in primers much like 303guy's ~ caved in with no real flattening. The loads with filler showed some primer flattening against the bolt face but no signs at all of high pressure. All loads were "light" and accurate. Loads with filler and no gas check shot right along side of gas checked loads.

I have used powders as fast as Unique and as slow as IMR4320 with COW filler. While I am certainly not in the league with many here with regards to shooting with extreme accuracy and high velocity, I have been very happy with the results I have been getting and am still working on loads.

I like the 100% loading density and no gas check that I get with fillers. For PP boolits of course, the no gas check is not an issue but I think the 100% loading density especially with slow powders is a benefit.

Just my 2 cents worth (well maybe 4 cents, there's lots of words there!).

Longbow

[longbow]

Bill:

I have heard both mentioned. Some say the cereal filler will absorb moisture from the air and cake up hard and I have also heard what you are saying in that the cereal filler can either absorb moisture from the powder or the powder absorb moisture form the filler.

I suppose with something as variable as a ceral filler, the way it is handled and stored could affect how much moisture is carries with it. The only way to be sure it was consistently dry would be to warm it in an oven for a bit to dry it out then either load right away or at least keep it sealed until used.

Of course with plastic buffer this would not be an issue.

So far I have not had any problems but I generally load then shoot within a few days so no long storage time for anything to happen. This is why I plan to load some up and leave them for a year or so ~ maybe some in the basement and some outside to see what happens when I pull boolits.

Longbow

[35remington]

I hope this reply is taken in a constructive light, as I do not mean to be contentious. However, trying things and knowing their limitations is always valuable, so once again I'm out with my opinion.

But hey, if that opinion is hard earned, then of course I think it's of value. In our experiences, if we're not learning, we're not paying attention.

If you've never used filler, is your opinion as valuable as one who has?

Despite what was said a few posts ago, I say no.

Why?

Well, in that same post, it was mentioned that the poster might plan to use Grex (granulated plastic) in some of his future loads if he felt the need, no doubt because of the "good press" that he's heard about it. In the same post, it was mentioned that he wouldn't use dacron, undoubtedly because of some "bad press" he heard through some nonverified source. His mind is made up, and he knows what to use.

How?

Now, I've used that plastic buffer as filler quite a bit. But there is a problem with light loads. When small charges of fast shotgun powders are used with large quantities of grex filler, it is not uncommon for all the filler to NOT be blown out of the case and barrel. The result is a caked plug of filler, partially filling the case that looks like a dirty snowdrift.

One can see in the improper application (only determined through use and carefully checking the results), even the supposedly "blessed" grex filler can be inadvisable. In that same post it was advanced that dacron was unsafe in fillered loads, and the grex was implied to be more reliable and safe as a filler material. If the user applied Grex to his loads without carefully checking what was going on, it is possible that another mysterious "filler incident" could have occurred. If one is using fillers, it behooves the user to investigate what is going on and pay attention, especially when applications where the granulated plastic fillers occupy a large portion of the case volume and the pressures are low.

This is a more extreme but still very possible use of plastic fillers that the user may attempt to apply, and the result isn't speculation based on what has been heard from an anonymous source, it's the result of actual use.

Dacron gives satisfaction and clears the case and barrel every time while under the same conditions Grex or plastic buffer will not. No, grex is not superior for filler to dacron in many instances! Nor does dacron have shelf life issues as Grex or plastic filler may have.

Incidentally, despite what was implied, dacron completely fills the case as well, just as grex or plastic filler does. The user merely has to use it that way which is simple enough.

So "pre approving" a filler for a planned future use and claiming its superiority with no knowledge of its shortcomings because one has never used it does indeed give an example of where experience using fillers makes one's opinions more valuable than one who does not.

Which is why, due to such issues and others, I will not condemn the proper use of dacron, and I've used and followed the advice of other successful users as well.

Experience talks, and speculation, well.....it doesn't "walk the walk."

[Digital Dan]

Don't use fillers, never have. I use card wads for compressed loads with paper patched bullets and straight wall cases.

One can disagree with McPherson certainly, but dismissing his credentials out of hand because one disagrees is a bit over the top. There are very few folks on this planet that are as knowledgeable on the subject of interior ballistics. One would be well advised to consider the difference between a lab being unable to reproduce a given event and an expert explanation of how it might occur. Neither opinion guarantees is will or won't, so if one is content with their lot, fine.

It is not necessary or meaningful to impugn the testimony of others unless you have something other than anecdotal observations to support your position. My own observation, and only that, is that the issue is primarily related to reduced or allegedly reduced loads of smokeless powder in large volume cases. There are several ways to step around the potential for misstep: One is to switch to a smaller cartridge. If you don't have one, it's a good excuse to buy a new gun. After all, if you tell your wife you're doing it for safety reasons and don't want her kissing a scarred face, she might understand.

Another approach is to use a bulk powder such as Trail Boss or the SR series from IMR. Trail Boss in particular is very useful for this, as is SR 4759. It is the reason they were created. Lastly, there is always the black powder alternative. Another excuse to buy another gun...

[35remington]

Here's why McPherson's comments can reasonably be called off base in regard to filler:

"Why is Dacron and such so dangerous? Because it compresses to almost no volume when the primer blast hammers into it. Then is melts. Both processes absorb a huge amount of heat from the primer blast, leaving less to ignite propellant."

Ahem......Mic goofed.

First, I think Mic forgot the filler is on the other side of the powder; the powder is between the filler on one side and the primer on the other. The primer's heat always hits the powder first before it has any impact on the filler. The intimate contact of the primer and powder due to the presence of filler enhances ignition, not detracts from it.

It's easy enough to prove.....if the dacron filler somehow robbed the powder of heat, despite being on the wrong side of the primer blast, velocities would be lower with filler as compared to the use of no filler and having the powder against the primer.

Except they're pretty much identical. So the "heat robbing" theory doesn't seem to have any credence that he's proven. My pretty darn extensive chronographing of fillered and unfillered loads using the same powder charges has shown no such thing.

"Then it melts"

I think it's been pretty well proven that in a great many instances, filler does NOT melt. Many photos exist of fillers used in large enough quantity that is recovered, dirty but intact, from the ground in front of the muzzle of the gun. I've done the same.

Even if the filler did melt in some instances, the primer's ignition heat must go through the powder first. If any residual heat is remaining from ignition of the primer, then and only then can it act on the filler. So it may be seen that any effect on the filler occurs after the primer's heat has had first shot at the powder, and the powder absorbs most of the heat energy due to its proximity to the primer and much greater weight.

Further, the powder charge is much heavier than the dacron used in typical amounts that range from about 0.2 to 1.5 grains depending upon the size of the cartridge. So the powder, complete with graphite coating and surface deterrents in many instances, requires more heat energy to raise its temperature to the ignition point than the dacron does due to its much greater weight.

So Mic's pronouncements seem to have much more to do with theory rather than anything he's proven. The "heat robbing" idea doesn't have a whole lot of credibility.

So beware of the pronouncements of experts who aren't experts on the subject they're postulating on.

As here.

[35remington]

Yep, agreed.

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

Not much. He hasn't used it.

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

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

I'm disagreeing with him here because he doesn't know what he's talking about, so yes, I'm dismissing his credentials to comment on the use of dacron fillers. Certainly an actual past user of dacron as filler wouldn't state what he did.

[BruceB]

You fellers were doing so well, explaining the virtues of dacron, that I just sat back and enjoyed the show.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Digital Dan]

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

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

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

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

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

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

YMMV.

[35remington]

"What has occurred with surprising regularity over the years is the ringing of barrels, both with black powder and smokeless."

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

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

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

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

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

Then very questionably tied dacron to underignition.

A most certain error.

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

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

[BruceB]

This discussion is expanding rapidly, and it's not uncommon on this Board (for which I give thanks).

Dan raises the issue of blow-ups.

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

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

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

I had a perfect example of "squirrely performance" (good description, Dan!) in the cited 7mm Remington Magnum cartridge. A full-power load of H4831 destroyed my wife's Browning Safari Mauser, giving her some fairly-severe injuries. The identical load had been fired many times before in that same rifle, but this time....

[35remington]

Full power or reduced, Bruce?

[BruceB]

Oh, it was "full-power" alright.

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

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

If anyone would like more detail on the incident, search for "Karen" and find the thread titled "The day Karen met the moose".

[35remington]

I don't mean to hijack the thread, and if this looks likely I'll be sure to nip it in the bud, but this isn't a reduced load nor one with a filler.

Still, I gotta ask.

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

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

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

I'm certainly at a loss.

[Digital Dan]

"What has occurred with surprising regularity over the years is the ringing of barrels, both with black powder and smokeless."

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

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

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

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

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

Then very questionably tied dacron to underignition.

A most certain error.

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

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


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

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

[35remington]

The topic thread is "fillers." The original topic was on that point and their inadvisability due to claimed problems, and in my own opinion this idea of filler use can't be secondary to the discussion, which was why I responded as I did and kept on topic on fillers.

Disagreeing is fine.

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

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

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

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

[303Guy]

FWIW, I don't get to see too many rifle barrel bores so when I come across two with ringing .... ? And both these were 22LR's! The one had a ring about two thirds down the bore, the other much closer to the chamber. The second one I own, so I could have a closer look to see what can be learned. There is definately no filler involved.

It would be real interesting to know what caused the incident with BruceB's rifle. Faulty primer .... ?

[bcp477]

"It would be real interesting to know what caused the incident with BruceB's rifle. Faulty primer .... ?"


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

[303Guy]

... this isn't a reduced load nor one with a filler.Apparently no filler was used.

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

[dualsport]

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

[BruceB]

There was no filler in the load that destroyed her rifle. The primers were fine, being from a lot that functioned 100% in that rifle, as well as a bunch of other guns. The bullet traveled only about four inches from the chamber.

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

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

[softpoint]

The thought just crossed my mind that a weak primer could have caused BruceB's blowup with the full charge of powder. I've read of the blowups caused by reduced charges of 4831 all the way back in Ackley's books. On the subject of fillers, though even reputable manuals such as Lyman recommend them?:coffeecom

[Willbird]

I remember reading an article in a gun magazine where the author met with one of the Hogdons, who insisted SEE was BS, and to prove it he loaded a half charge of 4831, held the rifle horizontal and shook it a little to get the powder to lay flat, and touched it off.

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

Bill

[Willbird]

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

hehe o K :-).

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

Bill

[303Guy]

Speaking of bad primers, and that was my first thought - I came across one with the anvil sitting in the cup sideways! That was a Federal primer. I still have it somewhere .... mmmmm [smilie=1:

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

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

In fact, I now wonder whether the mysterious secondary explosion effect is in fact caused by a weak primer or primer strike on top of a low density load of slow powder, which will explain why the event is relatively rare and cannot easily be reproduced under lab conditions.

[Lead pot]

Regardless to belief a under charged load of the wrong powder will raise pressure as bad as an over charged case.

Kurt

[BruceB]

May I respectfully suggest that y'all go back to the thread and read the description/discussion?

Go to "search", and type in the word "karen". The thread is located second from the top of the second page.

Ignition was not a problem. The bolt handle was MOST DEFINITELY all the way down...I was the guy who had to put a four-foot pipe on it to get it open. The pressure was extreme, as you might expect with the bullet lodged in the barrel.

[barrabruce]

303 guy about the .22 ringing.
Iv'e seen a couple of those too. mostly in the same locations as you mentioned.
just in front of the chamber a few inches and about 3/4 of the way up the barrell.

From what I can deduce...just "shade tree tinkering".....

I have "once" had a round that logged in the barrell. About 3/4 of the way up.
It was from an 'old packet of shells that had been sitting around for donkeys years and I think the packet was drenched in gun oil and muck.Probably been rained on an all that too!!

Bad cartridge.
Then a second round through will surely do it.

Awhhh it din't go off...crank another in an try it.

A dud round does sound ..well soundless if there is no gas eminating from the barrell.

[softpoint]

I've wondered about primers being the culprit in some blowups ever since I read Ackley's books many years ago. The infamous "Hangfire?" I don't recall ever having a hangfire. I've talked to one person about 25 years ago who claimed he had one with a freshly loaded cartridge in a .460 Weatherby. A marginal primer could have a problem igniting the 120 grains or so of powder in the old MKV?
His rifle was unharmed, he said, but it is very uncomfortable to have a .460 go off when you have started to take it down off your shoulder,in his words.

[303Guy]

The bolt handle was MOST DEFINITELY all the way down...Yes it would have been. But that doesn't mean it was all the way down when the trigger was let off. What happens - and this does not imply that it happened in your instance - is that if the bolt is not all the way down, the cocking piece strikes the cocking cam which closes the bolt fully but leaves enough energy in the firing pin to set off the primer. It sometimes shows up as an unusually shallow indent in the primer. It was just a 'maybe/could be/what do you think' type thought or idea. By the way, I know about that particular phenomenon because I am prone to it! (With one of my rifle's anyway - it may just be that particular rifle! Most often it does not go off at all when that happens). But it makes wonder about the possibility in your case. If - and that's a big if - that happened, then ignition would have been the problem. But I stress - that is only a wild speculation on my part! :roll:


The infamous "Hangfire?" I don't recall ever having a hangfire.Well, I've had one!:Fire: The damn thing went off after had lowered the gun (shotgun) but not removed it from my shoulder. Old ammo!

[rickster]

Has anyone here used pressure tracing equipment to assess the effects of fillers?

[longbow]

Look here for the 6.5 Swede high velocity tests using fillers:

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?t=72897

[405]

This thread is coverin' it all.
I don't see how low density filler like < 1 gr of loose dacron used in front of relatively fast powder has or could have much to do with chamber or barrel rings. However, given the wide variety of odd components that are concocted by shade tree ballisticians... never say never :)

No more than a couple of years ago an acquaintance told me with absolute certainty that he doesn't use dacron filler because it "will leave a bunch of melted plastic in the bore". No doubt, he heard it from a reliable source who heard it from a reliable source who heard it somewhere?

SEEs are nearly impossible to prove, demo on purpose or disprove. That's why anyone who says they can prove that it doesn't happen by loading some undercharge of slow powder then firing it without consequence proves nothing!

There have been enough instances of undercharge - slow powder blow-ups that it seems almost certain these types of SEEs do happen.

In certain applications/loads it's interesting to note the print-outs of raw pressure trace data. Everytime I see one that does show the multiple pressure spike events it gives me the willies!!! I pay very close attention to those and try to avoid similar load specs.

I don't know how many dogknoted 22 rf barrels I've seen. It must be pretty common. The little 22s have been around for a long time. Over the years much of the 22rf ammo has had a bad reputation for being unreliable. Easy to re-create the events. Load up the ole 22 with who knows what ammo. Fire, fire, no fire (must of not fed another round), fire... ring! What's also interesting is it is not unknown that 22s have been taken to gunsmiths for repair that have multiple 22 slugs still in the barrel :)

[beemer]

I have also seen a lot of ringed 22 barrels. I think some of it is caused buy kids leaving too much oil in the barrel after cleaning. The one that came to mind was one that put oil in his BB gun to make it smoke. When he went a 22 he did the same thing and guess what happened.

Dave

[303Guy]

caused buy kids leaving too much oil in the barrel after cleaning. I used to oil my air gun, fire it, insert a pellet into the muzzle a bit, load a pellet and fire. That would cause diesel ignition of the remaining oil fumes and produce a cool 'crack'!

On case dents - I seem to be able to produce them at will. Trapped gas expanding? Or is it shock waves? Take a look at this one.

http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo327/303Guy/CollapsedCaseMouth.jpg

Only the annealed case mouth collapsed but what a spectacular collapse! No way was this 'trapped gas'. More like a shock wave moving rearward, catching the unsealed mouth (low pressure load) and doing tricks to it! This was fast powder (shotgun). Filler was used. The filler was found attached to the boolit base in the sand trap.

By the way, I have seen a broken P-14 bolt locking lug. This is a strong action so what could have broken that lug off? Shock waves?

[Bulltipper]

I came across squib loading in my "Complete Handloading Guide" by Phillip B Sharpe and it really sparked my interest. I wanted to be able to light load my 30-06 or 308 for varmint hunting with lead boolits and not have to wear ear protection if i didn't absolutly need to. I found this thread a couple weeks ago and read it completely and found a lot of good information from all of you. I approached this experiment cautiously as I greatly feared Ringing the Chamber! My goal was a 1100 FPS 175 grain boolit. Yesterday I finally got my .309 size lube die that was the last piece of tooling needed. I loaded 7 grains of 700x shotgun powder (my smoke of choice) added my filler of dacron (about the size of a cotton ball) and put on my face shield, safety glasses, level 4 body armor and kevlar helmet and went down to the range in front of my house. (i live in rural Oregon) My first shot registered 1092 on the chrony, was really quiet and had light recoil. I opened the bolt and the bore was spotless shiny and clear. The poly fill lay on the ground about 15' or 20' in front of me singed but not burned or melted (almost seemed like it would clean the bore really nice!) Following shots were a little slower but always cleared the barrel and I had no mishaps. I finally wound up the load to 7.3 grains of 700x and I am at about 1125 to 1150 fps. Eye protection is as always mandatory, but hearing protection is optional which makes it great for coyote shooting, rock squirell, and general plinking. I am putting just enough poly fill in the case to keep the powder charge in the back and not allow it to move around. I am also storing these cartriges upright ONLY. At this point I am pulling the bolt after every shot to check the barrel (Ruger m-77) Can any of you see anything hazardous here that I may be overlooking? I realize I am completely out on the "experimental" limb here but I am really having a good time with this. Thank you all for your previous comments and information on this thread, it has been very helpful!
kevin

[barrabruce]

You may wanna read this. I aint not expert but here it is.
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?t=56342

AS to exploding guns with reduced carges.

One explaination Iv'e read that satifies my mind is.
Goes somthing like this..if I can find it I'll post it here.


SSE detonation is caused by a bad primer ignition or primer.

The primer when struck smoulders and not burns.
The heat or slow fizzling some how.
Changes the powder charge to an expanded a explosive gas.
When ignition occurs it is this now highly volitile gas that does the damage.

Remembering than gun powder is a controlled burning substance it sounds like a good explainatioin to me and why it maybe hard to duplicate without fudging primers and I'm gunna be extra nice to my primer now.

Barra

[303Guy]

SEE detonation is caused by a bad primer ignition or primer.

The primer when struck smoulders and not burns.
The heat or slow fizzling some how.
Changes the powder charge to an expanded a explosive gas.
When ignition occurs it is this now highly volitile gas that does the damage.I have come to suspect this too. Have a look at this primer as it came out the packet.

http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo327/303Guy/MVC-052F.jpg

This does not mean that defective primers are THE cause but possibly A cause. What stops slow powder in a large partly empty case from 'smoldering' before finally 'detonating' with a perfectly good primer - or maybe an 'in spec' but at the lower end, i.e. weak primer? Slow powders have a 'heavy' retardent coating, right? In a large case whith a low load density, the powder may respond to being 'blown away' by the primer flash in an unpredictable manner.