Powder Ignition Failure

Folks, I have been encountering a number of failures of Vithavouri N140 powder to ignite.

I am aware of a number of incidents where this has happened with several 7.62x54R rifles and more recently with an 8mm Lebel.

The cases are normal ball loadings with a standard primer. What happens is that the primer fires, but the powder does not ignite. The bullet is driven into the rifling and the powder is left in a caked lump in the chamber and case. The powder which is normally grey takes on a yellow colour.

I have tried changing the powder and primer batches, but I keep getting incidents of this failure.

The Lebel I have has a fairly worn bore and the dies and bullet I am using (.323 mauser) is not a tight fit in the case. I am beginning to suspect that the primer is just blowing the bullet and powder down into the bore before it ignites..

Any thoughts...?

There's not enough heat to light the powder. You need to at least use a magnum primer and this should light it. Also, I've had this problem with ball powder and just changed toi an extruded such as 3031 IMR or 4064 IMR...the problem ended. Ball seems a bit harder to light.

Also, wondering how much you use? Ball powders won't always work with reduced loads. Here's a manual for that...

7,62 x 53R (7,62 Russian) - Rifle reloading - Reloading Data - Vihtavuori

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bombdoc

fairly worn bore and the dies and bullet I am using (.323 mauser) is not a tight fit in the case

---

What dies are you using as it sounds like the neck tension is all wrong and I usually well always crimp my 303 rounds, have you contacted VV with the batch number of your powder, also with a Magnum primer it equates to about a grain of powder so adjust your loadings I run Fed - 215M in my 6.5/284 and have adjusted the loadings down a grain, and I use Fed Gold Match - 210's in my 308's and 303's interesting thing I will keep on this thread as I use VV in my 6.5 (N-165) and have not had any issues

Some powders will do this in military rifles . It is caused by several factors , the more of the factors you have , the more likely it is to happen . 1. A bullet too small for the bore , 2. an oversized chamber for the case being used [ or the case is too small ] , 3. too much neck clearance in the chamber , 4. cooler weather , 5. the powder used [ I-3031 is one of the worst ] , 6. too light of a charge . You probably have all of those listed . It is NOT the primer or crimp.

In the few 0000's rounds I have reloaded I have never heard of different powders producing that type of ignition problem, also if you are using lee collet dies which I have used and you do not set them up correctly they will not get the tension on the neck and the projie will drop into the case how do I know this because I did not set them up properly and the projie promptly fell into the case with the powder, the .323 is the correct size for the Lebel 1886. Even if there is insufficent obturation with a worn bore the powder should still ignite. The only rounds I have that have failed and that is 3 of them are the ones I forgot to put powder in by not visualizing and being distracted (6.5/284). Have any of you military experienced personnel suffered this type of fate with any reloading you have done ending up with a blocked bore and grey/yellow gunk in the chamber as it is a newie to me and I have loaded allot of 303 rounds with 4 different powders over the years and suffered none of that maybe its a French thing.
I mean there are so many variable reloading practices, powder storage and handling for a start anyway we will see what the wise ones come up with.........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bob q

5. the powder used [ I-3031 is one of the worst

---

You didn't read what he wrote did you?

Jim is correct. Your primers are not hot enough for the ball powder to be shattered and ignited by the primer blast. That is why the yellow lumps of unburnt powder. Ball powders are well known for needing the extra brisance of a magnum primer. The extruded powders do not need the magnum primer is standard rifle cartridge loadings but would be needed if the round is considered to be in the magnum category. If you have tried a good magnum primer and this still happens then you have other problems that you will have to address.

O.P. says he's using VV N140. I believe that's an extruded powder. VV's website says "All Vihtavuori powders for small arms are extruded propellants."

I have very occasionally experienced a similar result with low-end charges of medium-burning IMR powder in relatively large-capacity cases, including 8mm Lebel. Normally the cure is to use a safely heavier charge or, when the objective is reduced velocity, an appropriate charge of faster powder.

Here's the pic of the powder in question, not as extruded as the IMRs I'd use in that cartridge.

I still think a magnum primer will solve this.

Attachment 66141

Thanks for the replies chaps..

To cover the main points raised:

1. This has occurred with a number of batches of N140.
2. Primers are standard CCI large rifle...
3. N140 is a chopped extruded powder, not ball!
4. I have two sets of 8x50R Lebel dies, CH4D and Lee. Cases are Privi - both dies seem to resize to the same (loose) diameter!
5 I am loading 42gn which is a lightish load, but I would not have thought excessive. The case is pretty full!

I have loaded literally thousands of .303 with similar loadings and never had a problem..

I am no stranger to ammunition design, but this one has me pretty stumped! I would not have thought you could blow a bullet out of a case and not achieve ignition.. but there you go ammunition - 90% science 10% woo woo!

I think my next move is to make an S Die for 8x50R and see what the effect of changing neck tension is! I'm pretty sure this is the cause! What I don't understand is why both Lee and CH4D make dies that don't seem to size for .323 bullets!

"Extruded" doesn't apply by degree. It's either extruded or it's not. The powder you show most certainly is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

You didn't read what he wrote did you?

---

You did not understand what I wrote . A list of things that cause the problem . #5 was the powder used [ an added note that I-3031 is a powder that has that problem the worst of the six or so powders that have that problem ] .

So, you're not going to try a magnum primer...lightish is still not a full load? Reduced loads in some cartridges will produce this very thing. Two ways to do it. Full house load and see or a magnum primer and see. Otherwise you've wasted time here... You never did tell us what bullet weight. The scales I set above show minimum 44 gr start. So you're under this set of loads by quite a bit...for the smallest bullet they show using this powder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CINDERS

the .323 is the correct size for the Lebel 1886

---

Of the 26 rifles I have chambered in 8x50 Lebel , none have a .323 groove barrel . They all have .327 -.329 groove barrels . So a .323 bullet is too Small . Once you have reloaded 100,000's of round for 1000' of old military rifles you will see a lot of things . 303's rarely have a bunch of the problems I listed . When the op loaded for his 8 Lebel , he had most of them .

Ok, so lets back up here...are you loading for .303, 8mm Lebel or 7.62x54? All are mentioned and you do circles but don't really say. What exact bullet weight are you using? All these things matter. So far we're all guessing because you won't be specific... except you say you've undercharged.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

So, you're not going to try a magnum primer...lightish is still not a full load? Reduced loads in some cartridges will produce this very thing. Two ways to do it. Full house load and see or a magnum primer and see. Otherwise you've wasted time here... You never did tell us what bullet weight. The scales I set above show minimum 44 gr start. So you're under this set of loads by quite a bit...for the smallest bullet they show using this powder.

---

The bullets I am using are 196gn FMJBTs and when they go, they are accurate and shoot to the sights, but I agree that I could safely come up a couple of grains and see what happens. That said, I'm not sure adding a couple of grains to the charge will affect the chances of ignition, but you never know!

I'm not saying I will not use magnum primers, but the lack of neck tension seems a more obvious cause which I will pursue if the increased load does not do the trick!

I came on here to see if anyone else had seen similar symptoms! I am aware of the issues of high pressures/detonations with low charges of slow powder, but I had not heard of the particular symptoms I have reported. Can I just confirm that you have seen these symptoms before..?

Thank you for your advice and opinion, and no, I don't think I have wasted my time; I'm sorry if you think I have wasted yours!

I HAVE had this happen before. About thirty years back. That's when I found up three things could be at fault, undercharge, cool primers and primer up condition. The last can be solved by tipping the muzzle up before firing and tap the butt to seat the powder back on the primer. If the flash isn't submerged in the powder you can get a hang fire or this cooked powder you have. The cool primer we've discussed and a light charge can also have the exact same effect. Or, the extra space in the case can blow it up...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

Ok, so lets back up here...are you loading for .303, 8mm Lebel or 7.62x54? All are mentioned and you do circles but don't really say. What exact bullet weight are you using? All these things matter. So far we're all guessing because you won't be specific... except you say you've undercharged.

---

To clarify..

I have observed the phenomenon in three rifles:

two were in 7.62x54 Mosin Nagant rifles (not mine) using .311 174gn FMJ bullets and N140 - I don't know the specific loads, but assume 45 - 47 gn range...

The third was my own 8 x 50 Lebel - I have given the details of the loads, however they were .323 bullets as that is the only 8mm bullets I can obtain.. They fly fine, no yawing or tumbling and group reasonably well at 300 yds. The French factory loads I pulled were .323 as well!

My comments about .303 were simply to point out that it is a roughly similar load using the same components that has never shown these symptoms, hence my curiosity..!

Working on the "first is unusual, second is coincidence, third is enemy action" theory I decided to ask around....!

So...the Lebel, do you actually have loading spec for this one?

Never assume on reloading a sure recipe for disaster as for light charges and mag primers I nearly blew myself up trying to get reduced load and lower pressure for velocity (Win - 760 Ball Powder) it did not work I had 3 flash overs that created so much pressure the primers fell out of the case stuff that for a lark never again I will not go below a 93% charge density now regardless. That was in my 6.5/284 to try and squeeze a few more rounds from the barrel as they toast barrels pretty quick @1200rnds or less when loaded to the 2950fps with 140gn Bergers. I find it strange that with 2 types of dies you get the same result, you could try gas check leads but then you probably cannot drive them hard enough, try defcon or similar consumable safe packing to keep the powder against the primer or as you suggest go to a Redding "S" type die.

One thing to note is that the old Lebel case is quite "fat".

Thus, any "lightish" load will settle below the centre-line of the case and thus below the flash-hole alignment.

With some powders, this "primer flash-over" is a recipe for a spectacular detonation. With others, you may get a hang-fire, or at best, the primer will JUST drive the bullet into the throat where it will stick, and the powder will be partly "melted" into a blob.

The old "Lebel" round was derived from similar black-powder cartridges of the era; see also include the 8mm Guedes / Kropatschek.

In those, one could jam in a fair swag of the old charcoal and get reliable ignition.

The early French powders were probably developed for loading by "bulk", not weight., i.e., an early "Pyrodex".

In BOTH cases, one must ask one important question:

"Was the case "fully formed" before insertion of the propellant or, as was the case (so to speak) with Cordite, the bundles inserted into a parallel-sided case BEFORE final neck-forming?"

The Brits' answer to the French introduction, was good-old "Cordite". The original .303 ammo had a PELLET of BP inserted before final forming and this method continued with the "smokeless" ammunition. The VERY first "trials" cartridge cases did not even have a "properly" formed shoulder and neck, but a weird "collar" that was a straight lift from an experimental Swiss cartridge.

The original primers were also different to those used today in "commercial" ammo.

Note that The .303 originally used a BOXER primer. Boxer was British and his system worked.

HOWEVER, when smokeless became all the rage, there was a sudden change to a BIG, chlorate-rich primer having two TINY, offset flash-holes. This set-up provided TWO jets of ignition flame into the back of the Cordite column. The Chlorates, sulphur etc in these primers provided a "flash" of greater endurance, this being necessary to ignite the new propellant.

Note that several of the other military cartridges of the same era also used "LARGE" primers in the 0.250" size range. Primer technology and chemistry were comparatively new fields at the time. Nitro-Cellulose propellants were likewise new and were noted to be MUCH harder to get started than tried and true Black Powder.

Style-wise, the Americans had become keen on the British-developed "Boxer" system, mainly because of its ease of reloading, back in the 1870s. Interestingly, in the 1930s, they made up a special batch of .30-06 "match" ammo that used BERDAN primers, SPECIFICALLY because this system seemed to give more consistent combustion, and thus, better grouping, than the Boxer-primed equivalent.

As for "recipes"; the US Ordnance System was slow to adopt the lead-based primer. However, commercial suppliers quickly cottoned-on to the fact that lead-based primers were an absolute boon to their reloading customers. The lead-based primer was a German innovation from before WW1, and was described (in German), in various technical publications of the time. They had also done a substantial amount of research into the corrosion issue as well.

Despite all of this study, ALL military ammo, EVERYWHERE was also CORROSIVE until WW2. The kick along came from the US introduction of the .30 M1 Carbine, with its "non-user-serviceable" gas system. Pretty much ANY genuine military ammo loaded before about 1950 (apart from M-1 Carbine) WILL be made with corrosive (chlorate-rich) primers.

The 7.62 NATO was the FIRST post-WW2 cartridge SPECIFIED from day one, to be "non-corrosive". Most "Eastern-bloc" SERVICE ammo is STILL fitted with CORROSIVE, lead-based primers; they are designed to go BANG first time, EVERY time.

The French were loading spectacularly corrosive .30-06 ammo, with both brass and STEEL cases, well into the early 1960s.

Hi,

Thanks for the input chaps. To respond to the various recent posts...

I have not found many loadings for the Lebel.. and none for Vit Powders. My loading is derived from the 8x57 recipe in the Vit manual which suggests 39.5 of N140 for a 180gn bullet and 42.7 for a 200gn one. I have done stairsteps firing trials and the 42gn charge appeared to give the best approximation to the service load. My choice of N140 is based on availability and where it sits in the burning rate table. It is generally considered to be a suitable powder for medium calibre rifles, which this is...

For those not in the know, the Lebel case is probably the most conical of all the early smokeless cases, going from 1/2" down to 3/8" in about 1.5". The 42gn charge comes to about 1/4" below the base of the neck so is not IMHO excessively low and is well above the flash hole alignment..

The Lebel was the world's first military smokeless powder cartridge and used an early single based nitrocellulose "poudre blanc" propellent. The main issue with the round was as a result of adopting a spitzer bullet in a tube magazine! The base of the case had to have all sorts of catch rings and double primer covers to stop the rounds initiating in the tube..! I only ever load these single shot! The Lebel was designed as a smokeless round from day 1 and was fully formed before loading.

As to primers.. from what I understand, the main shift was from fulminate of mercury to lead azide because of stability issues in storage. Chlorides were used in both mixtures and caused bores to rot if not cleaned.. the combination of mercury and chloride residue would eat a barrel as you watched! True "non corrosive" primers did not come in until after the war with styphnate based compounds. As I said before, I'm not convinced this is a primer problem as I am using a modern powder/primer combination that should ignite under these conditions..

Thank you again for your input.. although I have a lowly headstamp on this board, I have been at this game for over forty years both as a shooter of old guns and as an Army Ammunition Technical Officer (check with Peter L for my Bona Fides..).

I am curious about what I am seeing here, and would like to get to the root of it! I know about the "bear at the back of the cave" issue with low and slow loadings - this may be related...

My theory is that the weak neck tension and probable worn throat is causing a condition akin to a low density load in that the initial pressure pulse is blowing out the bullet into the bore and increasing the size of the apparent chamber. The rapid increase in volume is dropping the pressure to the point where, for some reason, the propellant is not igniting! I just think this is odd as the pressure in the chamber should not be affecting the primer performance - at least I have never seen this reported in the literature...!

I've seen .308 fired in 30-06 chambers. They fired fine and fire formed to the long chamber nicely. They had no support there at all. They had enough primer and powder to do the job. You're lacking in both. I have other examples too... And I understand your bona fides.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

I've seen .308 fired in 30-06 chambers. They fired fine and fire formed to the long chamber nicely. They had no support there at all. They had enough primer and powder to do the job. You're lacking in both. I have other examples too... And I understand your bona fides.

---

Thanks Jim...

I will up the loading and see what happens!

Keep us infoed...

FWIW Go up in .2's of a grain up to max and see where you get, some cases only really work when they are loaded up besides you may strike another node point and get an even tighter grouping also trying another powder is not a bad thing I have loads for 4 different powders (Thank goodness for excel spreadsheets) for each of my centrefires as when one supply dwindles you can swap to another and carry on. Means more range time and reloading but hell that's what it is all about, still reckon crimping may not be a bad thing JAT

Many years ago I was warned about "low" loads in pistol cases.

The one that got a bit of publicity in pistol-shooting circles was:

2.7 grains of "Bullseye" behind a 148gn Wadcutter in a .38spl case. This was reputed to potentially take your nice K-38 apart without a screwdriver.

I recall that the H. P. White lab had done some looking into this matter.

Bullseye is one of the fastest powders ever offered on the commercial market and was designed for light loads in small cases.

2.7 grains of the stuff barely forms a film on the bottom of the case. A "flashover" means that the whole lot ignites ALMOST instantaneously, as opposed to damn fast. Explosion vs. VERY rapid burn. The resultant SHOCK is what makes your K-38 look shabby.

"Low" loads mean that there is a lot of space NOT occupied by the propellant. Variations on how the propellant is "arranged" at each shot will lead to variations in ignition and thus pressure curve, and, ultimately, down-range performance.

This applies at ALL variations of "partly full", but is MUCH less noticeable as "full" density is approached.

Some years ago I was fooling around with some .223 Rem loads and getting odd pressure signs but reasonable accuracy. A mate was over one day and I raised the matter. He looked at me "funny" and said he was using the same cases, powder and bullet as I was, BUT using MORE of the same powder, in fact, a slightly compressed load. I gave it a whirl and he was right; one grain more than my most recent trial produced smaller groups AND did not display the serious primer flattening of the marginally "lighter" loads. Voodoo stuff indeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruce_in_Oz

Many years ago I was warned about "low" loads in pistol cases.

The one that got a bit of publicity in pistol-shooting circles was:

2.7 grains of "Bullseye" behind a 148gn Wadcutter in a .38spl case. This was reputed to potentially take your nice K-38 apart without a screwdriver.

I recall that the H. P. White lab had done some looking into this matter.

Bullseye is one of the fastest powders ever offered on the commercial market and was designed for light loads in small cases.

2.7 grains of the stuff barely forms a film on the bottom of the case. A "flashover" means that the whole lot ignites ALMOST instantaneously, as opposed to damn fast. Explosion vs. VERY rapid burn. The resultant SHOCK is what makes your K-38 look shabby.

"Low" loads mean that there is a lot of space NOT occupied by the propellant. Variations on how the propellant is "arranged" at each shot will lead to variations in ignition and thus pressure curve, and, ultimately, down-range performance.

This applies at ALL variations of "partly full", but is MUCH less noticeable as "full" density is approached.

Some years ago I was fooling around with some .223 Rem loads and getting odd pressure signs but reasonable accuracy. A mate was over one day and I raised the matter. He looked at me "funny" and said he was using the same cases, powder and bullet as I was, BUT using MORE of the same powder, in fact, a slightly compressed load. I gave it a whirl and he was right; one grain more than my most recent trial produced smaller groups AND did not display the serious primer flattening of the marginally "lighter" loads. Voodoo stuff indeed.

---

According to the on line loading data from Alliant, 3grns of Bullseye is the max load behind a 148 grn HBWC. I've used as little as 2.5 grns without any problems. I now use 2.3 grns N310 in 38 Spl, still no problems.

Ok.. sorry to not to have been back on the board for some time..

I have been doing some further trials on the Lebel loading and have increased it (by stages) to 44gn. The ignition problems appear to have gone and there are no overpressure signs.. groupings are good for an old gun!

I must admit to being surprised by such a "step" in the performance with a less than 10% change causing such a difference! I'm not at all clear as to what is happening here. N140 is not a particularly slow powder and the original 39.5gn load filled over 2/3 of the case, so the flash from the primer must have impinged on the powder.. so why did it not ignite?

Having examined the unfired powder it is clear that the primer has blown off the powder coating yet there is no evidence of ignition..!

Strange.. I will remain careful with this loading but the extra few grains seems to have sorted it!

Thanks for all the advice chaps..!

You could possibly be seating the primer too deep. I had to pull 50 7.7x58 Jap rounds when I first started reloading because using the hand primer I was squeezing them too far in and it wasn't igniting the powder properly because of that. My solution was to stop using the hand primer (instead using the press) and the problem went away.

Strange EL17 that you reckon the hand primer was the issue I went the other way as a hand priming tool allows you to feel the crush as you seat the primer where as a press with its leverage you can actually crush the anvil to the point that you will get spurious ignition of the rounds. I have been using a hand priming tool for the last 8 years and have great result but before I was using a press with a bit of gusto caused me to have all sorts of click bang episodes I find your post #30 most interesting.....

One tedious thing I do first is remove from each one all inside case primer hole burrs also uniforming all the holes to the same depth that way you are getting consistent ignition results once it is done you do not have to worry about it

This was just a issue I had, mainly because I had a tough time figuring out where exactly my primer was by feel, it was either too deep or not deep enough. With the press (at least mine) it prevents me from crushing the primers, so that works for me even if it takes a little extra time.

Thanks for the input regarding primers..

not sure it is relevant in this case, but you never know. I use an RCBS bench priming tool which seems very consistent..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bombdoc

. . . My theory is that the weak neck tension and probable worn throat is causing a condition akin to a low density load in that the initial pressure pulse is blowing out the bullet into the bore and increasing the size of the apparent chamber. The rapid increase in volume is dropping the pressure to the point where, for some reason, the propellant is not igniting! I just think this is odd as the pressure in the chamber should not be affecting the primer performance - at least I have never seen this reported in the literature...!

---

The theory sounds good if we add the relatively large volume of the Lebel case and consequent low load density. With light loads of relatively slow powder, pressure and temperature simply never rise high enough to light up the charge and the powder flame extinguishes prematurely.

Experience with .323" bullets and IMR4895 in my 1886/93 rifle (modified for Balle N} demonstrated to me that the few published loads for the 8x50R are much too conservative for consistent ignition and burning. Significantly increasing charges eliminated these problems completely.

With N140 and the .323" 200-grain Sierra, QuickLOAD estimates it would take 47 grains to reach normal working pressure in this cartridge -

Cartridge : 8 mm Lebel M/93 (8x50R)
Bullet : .323, 200, Sierra HPBT MK 2415(2430)
Cartridge O.A.L. L6: 2.849 inch or 72.37 mm
Barrel Length : 30.0 inch or 762.0 mm
Powder : Vihtavuori N140

Predicted data by increasing and decreasing the given charge,
incremented in steps of 1.064% of nominal charge.
CAUTION: Figures exceed maximum and minimum recommended loads !

Step Fill Chg. Vel. Energy Pmax Pmuz Burnt B_Time
..%...%..Grain fps. ft.lbs psi. psi. % .... ms

-10.6 82 42.00 2382 2519 36390 4814 100.0 1.709
-09.6 83 42.50 2404 2567 37504 4845 100.0 1.690
-08.5 84 43.00 2426 2615 38650 4876 100.0 1.667
-07.4 85 43.50 2449 2663 39828 4906 100.0 1.645
-06.4 86 44.00 2471 2711 41040 4936 100.0 1.624
-05.3 87 44.50 2492 2759 42287 4966 100.0 1.603
-04.3 88 45.00 2514 2807 43569 4995 100.0 1.582 ! Near Maximum !
-03.2 89 45.50 2536 2855 44887 5025 100.0 1.562 ! Near Maximum !
-02.1 90 46.00 2557 2904 46244 5054 100.0 1.543 ! Near Maximum !
-01.1 91 46.50 2578 2952 47639 5082 100.0 1.523 ! Near Maximum !
+00.0 92 47.00 2600 3001 49074 5111 100.0 1.504 ! Near Maximum !

There is no way known that you should be achieving 100% burn my quickload program states that in rather red letters under the chart with pressures p-max ect, with my reloads I try to get 98%+ burn in the barrel but never 100% as the last thing you really want is the burn to be completed before the projectile exits the barrel relying on the residual gas to push it out. JM5centsW

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CINDERS

There is no way known that you should be achieving 100% burn my quickload program states that in rather red letters under the chart with pressures p-max ect, with my reloads I try to get 98%+ burn in the barrel but never 100% as the last thing you really want is the burn to be completed before the projectile exits the barrel relying on the residual gas to push it out. JM5centsW

---

I'm using QL version 3.2. Can you post a screenshot of that red-letter warning?

Many great loads, including most .22 Long Rifle factory rounds, burn all their powder before the bullet exits a reasonably long barrel. Seems to me that's often a good thing. Why waste powder by leaving some unburnt?

"Why waste powder by leaving some unburnt?"


- Because a bullet that remains in the barrel is going to cause big trouble when you fire the next round. The first (and last) time I used a nitro factory load 45-70 with my Pedersoli Sharps (nitro-proofed) there was a feeble sound as if a .22 had been fired, and a bullet driven into the bore just far enough that it would have been possible to chamber another round with disastrous consequences. The case was still full of nitro powder with the yellow look already described.


Sometimes trying for maximum efficiency can be counter productive. I would rather "waste" some powder than waste a rifle and my face.

Patrick, do you know little appropriate powder it takes to blow a normal-weight jacketed bullet out the barrel of the usual medium smokeless military rifle? I do - and it ain't much. 3 to 5 grains of Bullseye will normally do the trick. It's all a matter of matching powder burning rate to the desired result. Your .45-70 experience appears to be another example of somebody loading too little of a medium/slow powder in a large-capacity case. Not a good recipe for success.

Parashooter in reply and as requested to post #36 I did a spurious load up for my 6.5 x 284 though this one to excessive pressure limits but also indicates 100% burn, I know that with loads that are within SAAMI certain powders regardless of loaded grains will indicate a safe level of pressure whilst telling you of 100% burn achieved before base of bullet exits muzzle in black font.
I also understand and realize what your saying that 100% burn is not wasting powder and desirable but at what point is the 100% achieved and how far is that going to push the projectile down the barrel I just like to play it safe even if it means throwing a bit of gravel out the end of the muzzle like anything in what we do it is up to the individual and what they are comfortable with.
In my 6.5/284 having a little gravel going out the end is paled compared to the fire cracking and throat erosion this cartridge is famous for but for inherent accuracy I can put up with it originally I was going to go with a Shooting times Westerner till I read the barrels are normally toasted at 700 rounds + - dependent on how hard you drive them.
In the second pic I have included a load that whilst getting up in pressure shows the bullet exited the barrel and a 99.39% burn so .61% is not much out of 51 grains

OK, thanks Cinders. I see the same red lettering in 3.2 - if the load estimate exceeds maximum average pressure (PMAX). Has nothing to do with % burned, really. As you note, do the same exercise with a lower pressure load of sufficiently fast powder and we get the same burn statement without the red letters. In reality, physics dictates that once we get the bullet moving at a fair clip, momentum will carry it out the barrel long after all the powder has burned. (This is why the .22 LR, where burn is 100% at about 16" from breech, works fine in much longer barrels.) Stuck projectiles usually occur when we either use very light loads or something prevents an otherwise-adequate powder charge from burning normally.

Attachment 67485

I was always taught in my ballistics classes that the "all burned" point should be somewhere around 2/3 of the barrel length! This may apply more to large calibre artillery rounds, but I assume the same should be true for small bore..

Burn rate can change with ambient temperature and pressure, so if the "all burned" point is near to or outside the barrel, then inconsistent ballistics are surely inevitable?

Just for interest, I have just measured a Lebel case capacity.. maximum physical load for N140 is around 51 grains!

Well.. I thought I had cracked the non ignition problem by bringing up the load to 44gn.. seemed to work fine for a batch of 50 rounds..

I reloaded to the same spec.. and the first round has failed to ignite! I don't get it.. I don't really want to take the load much more than 44gn and I think I am too close to the maximum loading to switch to magnum primers...

I have Emailed Vithavouri! I think my next move is to change the primer manufacturer..!

Quote:

---

The cases are normal ball loadings with a standard primer. What happens is that the primer fires, but the powder does not ignite. The bullet is driven into the rifling and the powder is left in a caked lump in the chamber and case. The powder which is normally grey takes on a yellow colour.

---

Let me recommend something based on my experiences with a revolver: change the mainsprings! You can find new, extra power Mosin Nagant mainsprings at Wolff https://www.gunsprings.com/index.php...ID=102&dID=182 . I have no idea where to find a new mainspring for a French Lebel. You can take measurements of the spring, coil thickness, inside, outside diameter and call Wolff and see if they have something that will fit.
Military rifles have such robust ignition systems that still after a century, with century old mainsprings, they will go bang. However, that does not mean a century later that it is not about time to replace the mainspring. I am of the opinion that weak mainsprings cause ignition problems. This is primarily based on a revolver experience.

One cold weekend I took to the range two recent acquisitions. The first was a well worn S&W M586 and the other a 95% Colt Trooper Mk III both chambered for the 357 Mag.

I bought a very used M586, the previous owned shot PPC with it, said he fired about 40K of 148 LSWC with 2.7 Bullseye and Federal primers. If you are not aware, Federal primers are the most sensitive primer on the market a combination of thin cups and special sensitive priming compound. These primers are outstanding in pistol mechanisms, especially mechanisms with weak or marginal ignition systems. This is an excellent post on this issue: IT DON’T GO BANG: FIRES, HANGFIRES, MISFIRES AND SHORT ORDER COOKS IN JERSEY IT DON’T GO BANG-FIRES, HANGFIRES, MISFIRES AND SHORT ORDER - Gun Hub It turns out, there are a lot of fire arms on the market with marginal ignition systems. Federals will ignite when other primers misfire. While this is a wonderful benefit for revolvers and pistols, it is not an advantage with semi auto rifles. In these mechanisms, Federal rifle primers, standard and match, are the most slamfiring rifle primer on the market.

The weather was cold there were infact snow flakes in the air, it was overcast and the wind was blowing. The ammunition had been overnight in the bed of the truck. With the M586 I had misfires, no hangfires, and I had squibs with a load I tested in 103 F weather. I had rounds that were anywhere between full power and squib. I did not have issues with the Colt Trooper. My load was with a 158 LRN with 12.0 grains AA#9. I used WSP primers. Below is my test data, 12.0 grains AA#9 was close to my “reference” load of 13.5 grs 2400, so that’s what I used.

AA#9 is a very fine ball powder. It shot just fine in warm weather.

One round left a bullet in the throat of the M586, another round left a bullet lodged between the cylinder of the M586 and the throat. The bullet stuck in the M586 throat had a column of ball powder behind it. The texture of the powder was similar to cotton candy. Ball powder was all over the mechanism, I had to get a paper towel and wipe it out from under the extractor star, cylinder recess. Luckily I had a long shafted screwdriver. Inserting the screwdriver through the muzzle and pounding on the handle enabled me to knock the lead bullets out and continue shooting.I have attached pictures of the case that squibed in the M586. As you can see the bullet was shoved back in the case.

I may have had light primer strikes with the 586, but as you can see from the primer on the M586 case, I had deep primer indentations. I have looked at the firing pin protrusion with the M586, and that looks to be good. It protrudes a significant distance out the recoil shield. I loaded this ammunition on a Dillion 550B over a couple of years ago. Out of 100 rounds, these were the only two that stuck in the barrel, but I did have squib rounds.

Shot well, even out to 50 yards. The squib loads barely rocked the gong.
As you can see, the primer looks fairly well smacked.


Tested velocities of my loads in a M27 Smith:

Code:

---



Smith & Wesson M27-2 6.5” barrel

158 LSWC 13.5grs 2400 R-P cases CCI primers
9-Oct-05 T = 64 °F
Ave Vel = 1273
Std Dev = 44.03
ES = 176.7
High = 1372
Low = 1195
N = 30
Very accurate.

158 LRN 12.0 grs AA#9 CCI500 Mixed cases
5-Aug-06 T = 103 °F
Ave Vel = 1278
Std Dev = 34.98
ES = 117.4
High = 1344
Low = 1226
N = 27
Accurate little or no leading

158 LRN 12.5 grs AA#9 CCI500 3-D cases
5-Aug-06 T = 103 °F
Ave Vel = 1348
Std Dev = 34.16
ES = 134.7
High = 1386
Low = 1251
N = 25
Very Accurate no leading

---

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...20AA9WSP-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...ge158L12-1.jpg


https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...A9WSRCol-1.jpg

Instead of mysterious primer issues, mechanical out of tolerance issues, what the real problem turned out to be a combination of a weak mainspring and ball powder. Ball powder is hard to ignite and it is harder to in cold weather. It was not obvious to me that the mainspring was weak, but it had been bent tens of thousands of times shooting PPC by the previous owner. I changed the old mainspring out to a factory new mainspring. Next time I took it out, the weather was 50ish and I had positive ignition and no squibs! I have had absolutely no problems, no misfires, no squibs, with the pistol to date. I have shot hundreds of rounds through the thing since then, no problems at all.

Don't discount my revolver experience, just because it is not a rifle. Primers seem to require a certain threshold of energy for complete ignition. I don't have any data on how much primer energy is released based on striker energy, but based on my pistol experience, I would say it varies.

Thank you for that... I will have a look and see if there is anything I can do with the mainspring. I don't get the impression that it is giving a weak strike; all the primers are showing a good pin impression, and all the primers have gone off.. but as you say, you never know!

What I can't get my head around is how a primer can blow a bullet well into the bore along with a column of powder, and yet not set it off!

The local gunsmith has a pile of Fed primers in so I might just buy a carton or two, even though they take up loads of space...! It might just do the trick!

I WILL crack this! - no answer so far from Vithavouri by the way!

Why don't you try a different powder (500g one) with equivalent burn rate but again start 5-10% lower than max for that powder see what happens failing that try Federal Match 210M

Don't trouble yourself about striker impact in the Lebel, whose massive striker assembly (firing pin, cocking piece, retainer) weighs a whopping 5.1 oz - compared to 3.0 oz. for a 98 Mauser assembly. Momentum does the trick even if the mainspring is pretty tired.

You'll stop seeing these ignition anomalies when you throw in enough powder to get temperature and pressure up to reasonable levels and/or reduce your expander to give adequate neck tension to those somewhat-undersized bullets.

My Lee 8mm Lebel dies came with an expander appropriate for .323" bullets (perhaps yours didn't). Nevertheless, I experienced ignition problems with conservative loads of IMR4895 in the 40-45 grain range. Once I got up to 48 grains (which about fills the case to the base of my 175-grain bullets), the trouble disappeared.

The Lebel action is massive and robust, made of quality steel, and rated for 50,763 c.u.p. (3500 bar, copper crusher) working pressure - in the same class as the 98 Mauser. There's little rational excuse for doubting its ability to handle stiff loads. Note that Vihtavuori gives 47.5 grains of N140 as maximum in the 8x57 (a smaller case) with the 200-grain Speer bullet.

That much said, if I were seeing ignition problems and didn't have a need for such heavy loads, I'd try a faster powder, preferably double base - with an appropriate lesser charge, of course.