Fillers

[303Guy]

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

(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.)

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!

Cotton wool igniting.

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!

Makes me wonder what other serious risk I might be taking!
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!

Cotton wool igniting.

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!

Makes me wonder what other serious risk I might be taking!
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. 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...ller/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.