For those who use carded wool, cotton, or kapok for filler. How much do you pack in?
Thanks.
john
Printable View
For those who use carded wool, cotton, or kapok for filler. How much do you pack in?
Thanks.
john
I use kapok. with 85 grs. I use 3 grains. I have used more, but can't see an advantage.
Literally whatever/as little as possible that will hold the charge back under normal handling. "Just a bare pinch" is all I use (whatever a "pinch" is to you) and originally tested by holding the powdered/open case between thumb & forefinger to rotate 180degr several times/shake very lightly to check for movement.
Dacron/poly is not recommended as it's not consumed, but rather melted and forms a "clump" that is (reliably) reported as ringing barrels/chambers upon impact with the bullet before it gets going down the bore.
Kapok, very small/light/"sprung" piece of cotton ball, even very small/light/"rumpled" TP works ok.
Key word is as little as possible.
.
You follow the advice above and I will guarantee it will only be a matter of time before you ring a chamber.Quote:
Originally Posted by MEHavey
What ME Havey is describing are wads as used in reduced loads with large airspaces between powder and bullet to hold powder up to the primer flash.
The late Charlie Dell did a lot of work in this area and he was able to produce chamber rings from the first shot via his experiments. Dell discovered that by placing the wad about .200 off the powder and allowing the powder to slump ringing was avoided. Dell used these bare pinches, these small amounts as ME Havey reports and he found indeed that they ring chambers, Dacron being the worse.
But again keep in mind Dell was talking about wads use to hold the powder in reduced loads with leaving large air spaces between wad and bullet. Dell was not describing fillers. Fillers are used to eliminate airspace
We are not talking about wads, we are talking about fillers, a completely different animal. An apples and oranges comparison at best.
We are talking about eliminating the large air spaces with fillers; material that completely fills the air space. The most common fillers are powder and bullet. Other fillers are a stack of card wads that extend from powder to bullet. Grease wads can be added in that stack. In shotgun shells fillers are plastic wads and granular materials.
These fillers fill the entire air space, unlike wads which only hold the powder back and leave air space.
Dacron. It has been widely reported that Dacron melts. I have personally used Dacron. I have never seen any signs of melting. I have been present when others have used Dacron and they had no evidence of melting. I have asked people who have reported the melting if they have seen it first hand and no one yet has told me they saw it first hand. Dacron is not consumed it is blown out the barrel and down range. In fact this is my one objection to Dacron. It is not biodegradable and collects in the weeds down wind and trashes up the range. I prefer the vegetable fibers, like cotton and kapok as they are biodegradable.
The Brits used fillers in 577/450. Cotton wool which is in fact cotton is described in the List of Changes, the British War department regulations as a component. When Eley and Kynoch started loading the old BPE cartridges with smokeless powder they used fillers to take up the air space. Kynoch still uses filler to this day advancing to sponge foam. Since the advent of the loaded shotgun shell filler have been used in the form stack of wads and cups to act as filler.
The secret to fillers is to completely fill the airspace with the filler, leave no air space at all. Ross Seyfried advises from his studies on loading the big British Cartridges, that you should compress as much filler as you can get in the case.
The bottom line is knowing the difference between a filler and a wad and how they are used and you will have no problems.
Sorry D, but while Dacron/Poly does tend/(has been reported) to cause rings--and I warn against it-- the natural/burnable materials do not when used as described above and below. `Been using it for years in 45-70 and 45x3-1/4 Sharps, and 38-55.
It must be consumable, and it must be "airy" enough to burn when surounded by burning powder. (We're talking a 1/2gr here, and not heavily tamped/compressed down).
I NEVER use it in high performance loads, and I NEVER using it with Black Powder (in the 45x3-1/4). But rather load the likes of 10% IMR4759 under 110gr Fg under a milk carton wax wad under a 1/4" felt grease/beeswax-soaked wool felt wad under a 600gr pure lead/paper-patch. (Talk about a "column" of stuff.)
Personally, however, I've come to appreciate using the likes of Trailboss in the straightwalls for low-medium loadouts. I don't worry about fillers at that point.
I shred up and lightly tamp down as much cotton ball as fills the neck of the shell and allows a .465 480 grain bullet to seat at the level of the crimping groove. This is usually a bit more than 3/4 of a puff, loaded over 85 grains of FF American Pioneer powder, which fills the body of the case. I prefer to shred and add in as the cotton tends to disintegrate at discharge... a more solid mass can wind up smoldering in the grass five paces from the muzzle.
Victor
"Always carry a firearm east of Aldgate, Watson."
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEHavey
Read again what I wrote, dacron when used as or like a wad---your 1/2 grain example will indeed lead to ringing. I am with you warning people not to do this. This is a wad not a filler.
The question however had to do with fillers, not wads. You posted a warning about wads and it has nothing to do with fillers.
Wads and fillers are as different in their usage as apples and oranges.
There is a world of difference loading the American staightwall cases and the British high volume bottle necks.
Well, folks, I guess that about does it.
I'll close by saying that I would NEVER use a "filler" of any kind in a bottleneck case -- never.
Whatever is used to then position the powder (if you believe necessary) must exceptionally light, airy, and immediately consumed in the initial powder combustion -- nothing going down the bore at all if possible.
Use your own judgement.
A good book to read on this issue of fillers in large volume cases and especially large volume bottle necks cases is Greame Wright's "Shooting the British Double Rifle"
Wright did the load research at the Birmingham Proof house.
Wright discusses the difference between fillers and wads and how to use them.
Lot's of good helpful information in the book backed up by the laboratrory work at the Birminingham proof house.
.
I wish to comment on one of the often repeated myths touched on above and that is that there is any filler that is consumed and doesn’t go down the bore. For a filler to be consumed in the combustion chamber it would have to have a higher burn rate than the propellant itself and therefore be a propellant in its own right. For that matter, no propellant is completely consumed in the chamber either, since that would mean no flame or smoke beyond the cartridge case. While many of the substances used for filler can indeed burn, they burn (if at all) well after having left the case.
...what Richard is saying is they burn on his range and make grass fires. Small grass fires, and we always got them put out before they burned much. :)
Cotton being the biggest culprit...
Gentlemen, I am trying to understand this filler/wad business. I do not shoot an M-H (yet!) but do shoot 45-70, 43 Egyptian, and 11.15x60R, so I am not utterly clueless about BP cartridges.
If what I write irritates somebody, please have patience with my ignorance and try to explain where my thinking is going wrong - and at the moment it is going like this:
If you use a filler (by which I understand some soft or fluffy material that is too compressible to be regarded as a wad), then at the moment of firing the filler will not effectively restrict the gas expansion but will be heavily compressed. In other words, the powder will burn pretty much as if there was a volume of air in the case equal to the volume of uncompressed filler minus the compressed volume of the filler. With "fluffy" fillers this could be quite a lot. So it does not surprise me that there are concerns about ringing.
If you use a wad (by which I mean a material that cannot be compressed down to a few percent of its original volume) then this hidden air volume does not apply, or at least only slightly (you see, it's not plain black and white air/no air).
On the reasonable principle that the wheel has already been invented, I looked at the List of Changes, British War Material, Volumes I and II, to see how the original M-H cartridges were assembled.
LoC 2661 shows the famous first-generation foil cartridge, which contains 85 gn of powder, glazed board disc, a beesway wad with a concave depression on top, two more discs, and then the bullet. Apart from the concave depression in the wax wad, this is still basically a good way to make a BPCR load.
LoC 4756 (specifically for Egypt) shows the later solid drawn brass version. The powder charge is still 85 gn, but there is a "wad of cotton wool", approx. 1/10 inch thick, between the powder and the wax. Note the word "wad", implying that it was NOT loose filling. Presumably it was intended to take up the space that had now become available as a result of the altered base/cup, so that the powder charge could be held at 85 gn.
Skipping LoC 4868, the buckshot version, which had a filling of bone dust (where do you get that these days?) between the balls, we come to LoC 4911. The charge is 85 gn, as ever, but the base/cup is now thicker, apparently eliminating the need for a wad, as the assembly is now the same as the first (foil) version, including the depression in the wax wad.
Finally, we come to LoC 5159. This is a version with a reduced (63-67 gn) charge for the M-H carbines. The case volume is reduced by a paper lining within the main body of the case. A filler is NOT used. The "Egyptian" solution has been dropped. As dumping in a few grains of filler would seem simpler than applying a paper lining, why was the simpler and cheaper option not used?
The answer, I suspect, is that it was already known that a filler was not a good solution. It is easy to forget (see Skennerton's book if you have) that the Martini-Henry was introduced after an extremely rigorous selection and approval procedure, and just about any idea that anyone comes up with concerning black powder shooting was already known, tried, and maybe discarded with good reason in the 19th century.
So, dear M-H fans, why are you playing about with "fluffy" fillers at all?
OK, don't all jump on me at the same time, please form an orderly queue. I know that the original service load was a real shoulder-basher. I know you want to reduce the charge so that you can fire a competition target without requiring medical treatment afterwards. And I am not expecting anyone to fiddle paper linings into the case ( it was probably inserted in the factory before the cartridge was necked down, something we can hardly duplicate).
But why not use a felt wad, such as the wads used by the percussion revolver shooters? I know it can't "flow" around the shoulder, but I do not think this is necessary. The wad can be inserted part way, the case inverted, and then the wad pushed in futher, so that the powder is sitting round the powder in the neck - no substantial air space.
And this brings me to the previously unexplained depression on the top of the wax wad in all the M-H cartridges mentioned above. I suspect that, because powder can very a bit in density, that this was provided so that the bullet could be seated to a constant depth without any significant powder compression, as the wax would deform to fit. If anyone has a better explanation, let's have it!
Patrick
First if you break down one of the drawn brass LOC cartridges you will find loose fiber fairly densely packed. Call it a wad, call it filler, but it is about 3 grains as specified by Double D. As you say, they pretty much knew what was what by the time they adopted the drawn case. However it is worth noting that during the MH frontline service the foil cartridge remained that standard as it was produced well into the 20th Century.
What is being prevented is not the expansion of the charge upon ignition, but holding it in place until ignition and prevention of a "coal dust" effect, while also ensuring there is no obstruction at the neck. The more solid the mass, the more likely an obstruction will occur. Keep in mind that the filler that was used in part resulted from the change from the foil to the semi-ballonhead drawn case, which had a much larger capacity....very similar to the reformed CBC brass used by many. This same problem was also addressed by using a paper liner, which reduced capacity....but is problematic for reloaders. The solidhead brass sold today is less in capacity so the filler is that much less of an issue and a number of folks shoot the rounds with the airspace to no ill effect.
One major consideration when comparing BP cartridge technique is that the MH round is a much more severe bottleneck than others of the era, so much of common practice has to be reconsidered. Since I primarily use reformed CBC brass, I prefer to load to the MK I drawn brass standard as shown below:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...4b1f145_-1.png
Patrick,
The issue we run into is that the LoC charge of 85 grains in modern solid head cases doesn't fill the case to the neck. In fact it just comes to the bottom of the shoulder in the solid head cases. It takes 95 grains of Fg to fill to the bottom of the neck in the solid head cases.
In the CBC semi balloon head cases it takes a 109 grains of powder to reach the neck. 85 grains in these cases are way below the shoulder.
We can only load card wads and wax wads to the bottom of the neck, this leaves a large airspace between neck wad and powder chamber. One school of thought is you shouldn't have air space in black powder cartridges.
Cards and wax wads work just fine in the neck, what do you use in the body of the case below the neck?
The one LoC load you mentioned had a cotton wool wad. I have pulled some of these LoC loads down and none of the cotton wads were 1/10 in thick, all were thicker, closer to 1/4 inch thick and compressed. One thing I noticed with the loads I pulled downs was that beeswax wad was often melted and had soaked into the cotton. Those loads had to get very hot to do that. The cotton was put in the case to prevent the melted bees wax from contaminating the powder in the hot Saharan sun. Greener mentions this in one of his books.
The paper liner was not put in to reduce the case capacity. The literature is very clear on that. The paper liner was to prevent corrosive action between the brass case and the powder. All the paper liners I have seen are tissue paper and do not serve as filler.
In order to address the airspace issue in modern case we turn to filler.
We can't use hard cards or below the neck because the powder chamber is larger than the neck. The only thing we can use is fiber and foam fillers. There is ample evidence that in the literature that filler were used in commercial ammunition. Eley and Kynoch used them extensively during the transition from Blackpowder Express to Nitro powders. Modern day Kynoch uses foam as a filler in their commercially marked ammunition.
Now to address your one comment regarding “fluffy” fillers. We aren’t using a little fluffy tuft of kapok to hold powder in place such as target shooter do with there light loads. We are using the fiber filler to fill air space. We are compressing as much filler as we can get in the case to fill the airspace over the powder.
Bottom, line we aren’t trying to duplicate LoC loads. We are trying to improve on that and we are quite successful at it.
I agree with you: no fluffy fillers, no ringing problem. Am I right?
Wads as per LoC 4756: I estimated the 1/10" from the drawing. You say it was more like 1/4" and compressed. So I reckon it must also have been inserted before the cartridge was necked.
The felt wad I was suggesting would be the kind used by revolver shooters, which are 10 mm long. My idea (which I apparently did not make properly clear) was that this cylindrical felt wad could project into the neck region to take up the "spare" volume in the case. It may sound a bit wierd to reverse the cartridge to push the wad to its final depth, but this would be advisable so that the powder settles round the wad in the neck, and if it was a regular solution you would simply have a peg of appropriate length to set the depth.
As to LoC 5159, which, do not forget, was for the reduced charge for carbines, I quote:
"The case ... is similar to the Mark II solid case ...LoC 4911 and 4985 but, when filled, it has a thicker paper lining"
I.e. initial reason for lining doubtless as you say, but made thicker for the reduced charge. Please look at the drawing - that is no tissue paper.
Anyway, not having an M-H to play with, I was hoping that someone would be curious enough to try my suggestion out. Even though, if you are successfully using "non-fluffy" fillers, the idea may be redundant!
Patrick
I was curious about other fillers. I am currently shooting a mkIV using jamison brass, 85 gr with enough cow/1F to fill to the bass of the neck. That is followed by lube cookie between two card wads. For an experiment, I have made up some cartridges with a couple raps of nitrated paper inserted first. I wrapped it around a pencil and inserted it in the case. It unwound by itself once it was pushed all the way in. This has reduced the capacity to about 75 gr which is to the bottom of the neck. I hope to get out in the next couple of weeks and try them.
john
Patrick,
Correct, no fluffy filling, no ringing. Our fillers go below the neck over the powder down in the powder chamber.
No, I don't believe the cotton wool was put in the the case and then it was necked. It's very simple matter to put a cotton ball or piece of dacron or kapok in the Martini case by pushing it down with a wooden dowel.
Felt wads, stacks of card wads, grease cookies all work good in the neck itself. I have used all and they all work.
I have not pulled, or found any of the carbine rounds. so I can not offer any first hand knowledge on them.
I know some have tried various tubing, paper, and even copper tubing with less than satisfactory results. Just thinking about them worries me. And some of my worries have been founded by shooting results reported by others. The copper tubing was put in the 24 guage CBC shotgun case before the case was necked and formed to make the 45 cal. neck.
One of fellows on British militaria reported using copper tubing and after shooting finding the tubing sticking out of the neck of case.
You need a substantial amount of paper to reduce the powder space. The worry with this paper and cardboard tubing is where do they go when the cartridge is fired. Do they stay in the case, go down range or get stuck in the bore. You must check the case every shot and see if the wad is still there. You cannot miss a case...that might be the on that the paper or cardboard stays in the bore.
In the CBC shot gun case you could use water glas and put in a shotgun head wad. This is a standard practice in the old days. The hardest part of this is finding 24 guage head wads to fit the CBC case.
John, mentions using 50/50 Cream of Wheat and BP. I have used this technique. It works. I used it with Triple 7 as well as black powder. The use with Cow or any filler with Triple 7 is strongly not recommended.
When used with 2F Goex the CoW worked just fine. With any other grade of of black powder and 2Fg Swiss, when poured in the case the CoW and BP separated out from each other. This is not conducive to consistancy and was visable on the target.
Others have tried the nitrated paper with good results. But the reports were that the limited amount of reduction wasn't worth the effort.
Let me know by PM if you want to try kapok, I have a substantial amount.
Oh dear, now you've got my brain on full ahead invent. I have never seen a a shotgun head wad, but I believe I have a bagfull of felt wads that would do very nicely in an M-H case. White felt, 15 mm outer diameter, hole in the middle about 7 mm diameter. So the annulus is about 4 mm thick. Thickness of wad 5 mm. What is it? - The felt wad that is used under the guide pin on piano keys to dampen the impact on the keyboard frame, that's what. So nowall you need is a supply of scrap pianos...
Seriously, I reckon such a felt ring is spot on as a head wad.
Just one thought - what happens to a head wad when the gun is fired - does it burn, smoulder or what? What does that mean in terms of re-using cases? I presume that anyone who is not a multi-millionare IS re-using their M-H cases.
Patrick
Still not found an M-H that is isn't a Khyber Pass Special, a wreck, or both.
BUT ... how about an 1870s Peabody, Connecticut, rebarreled to 45-70? Surely a reloader-friendly solution ... but how do they shoot? Anyone know?
Patrick
Have you ever look in side a fired shotgun shell, down in the bottom is head wad. Some of the modern plastic shells have of course a plastic head, but some have a hard fiber wad. The old paper shells all had fiber head wads.
I don't think felt would work that well and is likely to catch fire as a head wad.
I don't work with metric cases so can't tell you if you wads are the right size or not.
Quite frankly, I don't know anyone using a head wads for the Martini. Maybe someone is, but I don't who. Fillers are so much easier to use.
The head wad has to be put in be for the neck is put in the Martini case. It is glued in with a product called waterglass.
Wads and filler are not comsumed when fired. They are blown out the barrel and down range. That is why you find card wads, tufts of fiber fillers, plastic shot cups, pieces of paper patch, etc, laying around the range after a days shooting. This includes the famous 50/50 Cow BP mix. the CoW is not consumed by the firing.
The only time I have experienced burning of fillers and wads is after they are blown out of the barrel and laying on the ground and only on hot dry days. See the reference up thread to setting Richards range on fire.
I have seen kapok, cotton and felt smoulder after it hits the ground.
If the Peabody is already rebarreled go for it.
When it comes to fire danger with fiber fillers, based on my range I'd have to say cotton is the most likely to start a fire, kapok the least and wool somewhere in the middle. Cotton and wool tend to stay intact as a mass and to the extent they are smoldering provide enough mass to start a fire. Kapok is most often blown apart into tiny shreds, leaving little mass to start a fire....possible yes, likely no.
This past fall we had a particularly bad fire danger and I had a couple tufts of wool start grass fires on the range. Normally I can wait until I finish a string of shots before running forward to do the filler-on-fire two-step if necessary. But when it is really dry, like this past fall, I check for any sign of smoldering before loading the next round. Because of my experience I would only use kapok in a round intended for fall hunting.
In a almost straight walled case,like the 45/70.Dacron is an excellent choice for a filler,even if it does not entirely fill the case.
All my " serious" loads,in this caliber include a filler of some sort.
A piece of Dacron,weighing about a grain,when lightly tamped onto the surface of the powder,will keep the powder in place.As afore mentioned,its important to have no space between the filler and the powder.
For those who are tempted to substitute cotton for Dacron,TAKE THIS TEST.
Get two glass vials,about the same diameter as the 45/70 cartridge,and load them as you would a cartridge.Put an equal charge of powder in each.Then put an equal weight of Dacron/cotton in them.
Shake them up,equally,or leave them sit for awhile.You will note that the Dacron has not budged,at all,but the cotton has migrated away from the powder.This allows the powder to seep past the cotton filler,and thus creates a dangerous condition.This is how you get a ringed chamber.
The reason is that cotton is heavier,and has less loft,then Dacron.If you use cotton,by all means,FILL THE CASE.Keep in mind,that the weight of the filler is figured in the PSI rating of the load.
It's much simpler to use Dacron.
My favorite cast bullet load,with my 30'06 and 30 Krag,both include Dacron fillers.Just use the same care with fillers that you use with gunpowder.
Frank
Kragman, what you are describing is not filler but a wad. This is where the controversy comes from. We are not talking about wads. We are talking about fillers, items that totally eliminate air space.
If it doesn’t fill the case, it is not filler, it is a wad.
Wads are used in reduced load in cases with large volume to hold the powder up to the flash hole, usually in smokeless powder cartridges.
Fillers are used in large cases with large volumes to eliminate air space, usually in blackpowder cartridges.
Patrick,Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Chadwick
If you really want a Martini, IMA/Atlanta Cutlery is the way to go. The weapons are genuine British manufacture and, particularly in the case of the MKIV, likely to be in as good shooting condition as you'd find elsewhere online for more money. You also have the ultimate safety of a first-rate return policy.
I have a 45/70 Connecticut Peabody rifle, at some point transformed to carbine complete with bar, ring and several NYNG stampings. Reloading for and shooting it is more like the Trapdoor experience. You aren't dealing with that huge bottle-necked case and the particularities of reloading for it. Then again, I'm not looking for reduced loads and compensating "fillers." Perhaps I'm just a glutton for punishment, but having just spent an afternoon getting reacquainted with some bolt rifles and an M1, I find I prefer the kick of the full-house Martini. Nothing a shoulder pad won't solve.
Victor
"Always carry a firearm east of Aldgate, Watson."
Thanks for the tip, Viclav, but I am living in the middle of Mauserland, and the Martinis on offer are dire.
Any of you who have seen the film "Khartoum" with Charlton Heston and Laurence Olivier will remember the scene on the Nile where the Brits and friends are fleeing downriver, using M-Hs to fire at the rebels, who, for their part, are blasting back with Rolling Blocks. I do not have an M-H, but I do have an Egyptian Remington, with that nice smooth finish you only get from a century plus of sand abrasion! One fine day, I'll find an Egyptian M-H to go with it...
Patrick
DoubleDQuote:
Originally Posted by TheDoubleD
Just to clear things up;My post only concerns smokeless powder with a rather large empty space above the powder.
I wrote to counter the post that labels Dacron as a "demon" that destroys gun chambers.That is plain B S.With proper care,it cannot do any harm.
Over time,I have conducted many tests,comparing similar loads;with and without Dacron.In many cases,the Dacron load was better then the non Dacron load.In no case,was the non Dacron load better.
So,for the last 40 years,all my low and medium power 45/70 loads include a filler;usually Dacron.
Sorry about my loose use of the term"filler".You will find a lot of Shooters,like me.
Filling the case,usually involves a granular filler.My first was Cream O Wheat.Now,I use PufFlon.
Frank
Kragman,
The big Martini case starts at a disadvantage in that it has airspace with it standard black powder load.
Try to make nitro for black loads in the case and powder volume is less the 50%.
These aren’t reduced loads, they are full service loads. 35 to 40 grains of IMR 4198 will move wads as it bounces around in the truck while out hunting. You have to use filler to retrain this big slug of powder.
Ross Seyfried in his work with the big British cartridge uses Dacron. Seyfried says to use just as much Dacron as you can get in the case. Greame Wright in his work at the Birmingham Proof house and with Kynoch came up with floral foam for filler. Kynoch uses a foam plug similar to foam ear plugs. I use kapok myself.
Like you I find I get better results using filler than without. That is an under statement as without fillers in these big cases I get misfires and failure to fire in the smokeless load. I have experimented with different amounts of filler. I compressed a quantity of filler in the case and then weighed the filler. Then I weighed each lot of filler that went in so each amount was consistent. I could see the difference of weight each lot, versus tearing off some filler and stuffing it which gave poor accuracy.
I have also used the granular solids and in the bottle neck Martini cases they tend to slug up and stretch case necks.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...tandard-54.jpg
The other thing is the amount filler needed to fill the case. The medium sized 45/70 case, even with reduced loads doesn’t use the quantity of fillers these big British cases do. The NfB loads use so much granular solids that most of it didn’t leave the barrel. Puff Lon was the worst. After firing, my cases and action covered in the stuff.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...tandard-55.jpg
These two issues made me pass the on granular solids in the Martini case and stick to fiber fillers.
DoubleD
There are two schools of thought on the topic of the amount of filler to put in the case.
One,insists that the case be filled.This will positively prevent any powder or filler migration.I did a lot of experimenting with this,and find no reason to question it's safety.But in my OPINION,it is not more safe.
The other,insists that the least amount of filler be used to prevent any problems of a "second projectile"nature.I have loaded and fired many such rounds with not a hint of trouble.The filler is Dacron.
I prefer to put only enough Dacron in the case to hold the powder in place.
These rounds are not subject to any harsh treatment.Their shelf life is very short.Hunting rounds,on the other hand,are filled with PufFlon;being careful to not compact it.Compacted PufFlon will form a solid mass.That MAY ring a chamber.(second projectile).
Frank
The only thing I have ever heard associated with ringing is wads, reduced loads of smokeless powder, and air space.
I have ever heard the secondary projectile associated with a load with a filler, for that matter in my 40 some odd years of playing this game I have never heard of ring in anything but reduced loads.
The way I have heard second projectile theory stated is that the wad moves forward before the bullet moves after which one of two things are supposed to happen.
1. the air between wad and bullet base is compressed between wad and the column of compressed air causes the ring
or
2. The wad moves forward and impacts the bottom of the bullet and compress and expands causing the ring.
I don't know which is correct, I do know that the ring occurs just below where the base of bullet is located in the chamber.
DoubleDQuote:
Originally Posted by TheDoubleD
We Agree.
I have heard all three of those arguments;none of which has any hard evidence to support it of being correct.Any one,or all of them may have some credibility,but maybe none of them do.
.I personally avoid any load that may involve a "second Projectile".
I rely on my hands on experience.Properly applied Dacron,or any other filler/wad,will only improve the efficiency of the cartridge load.
Frank
My God, this is not rocket science, it's black powder.
I load 75 grns 1F, then stuff in enough kapock or pure cotton to
1/2" below top of neck - that way I know that there'll be no air space
when I seat the bullet.
Do NOT use cornmeal !!