Author Topic: Using case fillers with cast bullets and reduced loads (Read 7122 times)

Turkeyfeather · « **on:** January 27, 2006, 02:03:41 AM »

I'm coming to the well again for technical assistance on using cast bullets. The question I have is on the use of case fillers. I have been, what I believe, successfully using Dacron fiberfill to offset the empty space in the case when loading reduced loads and cast bullets. This has enabled me to get complete ignition and good accuracy, respectable velocities, as well as reducing the concern for barrel leading at the resulting speeds.

I have used this philosophy on the 8mm Mauser, 303 Brit, 35 Whelen, and 45-70 cases with no clear indication of excessive pressures or concern. Perhaps I was lucky or perhaps there is some science to the percentage of load used and the use of the filler material.

In the paper written by Mr. C.E. Harris, on "Cast Bullet Basics for Military Surplus Rifles", he considers it strictly forbidden and briefly states it raises chamber pressure and contributes to chamber ringing.

I have been casting and handloading cast rifle bullets for over twenty years and many of the earlier writings I have used as technical knowledge had routinely used kapok, and other inert material to top off the powder charge to ensure proper ignition and uniform performance. While technology does advance and new information does condemn some of the old practices, I am a concerned about this report.

For example, in my 35 Whelen I have changed a very poor performer into a successful hunting load. I had experimented with using a Lyman 358315 w/w bullet, 204 gr., charged with 38.2 grains of IMR 4895. It gave me a calculated velocity of approximately 1,900 fps. The challenge was that the performance was very sketchy and inconsistent. After inspection and evaluation I noticed unburned lead particles left in the brass case. I quickly went to the rules of the past and took up that notable free space in the case with a case filler material. I noticed no indication of pressure change on the case or primer and from the human side, the charge felt no different on the shoulder. The performance outcome was just great and the load is now one of my main selections for that rifle. I get almost no barrel leading and I can punch consistent 100 yd holes.

While my success maybe a result of good fortune or perhaps a note to soften the condemnation of the use of filler materials. Considering Mr. Harris a well informed technical writer and validity of his statement, I would like to get comments and perhaps other technical reports on this topic. Let me know your findings on this.

:-)

Mikey · « **Reply #1 on:** January 27, 2006, 02:38:37 AM »

I have used the polyester fiberfill material used in making quilts to take up the additional case space in my reduced loads for rifles and have no problems at all. In addition I find the stuff cleans my bore on the way out. I also understand that the 'ringing' of chambers' is more a problem for black powder shooters using the wrong kinds of materials as wads when they brew up some of their loads. I learned to use the polyester material while firelapping my rifle bores and had a ball with it. HTH. Mikey.

Escalante · « **Reply #2 on:** January 27, 2006, 06:30:53 AM »

I too have used case fillers with reduced loads in my Swede rifles and my K-98. I have two 03-A3's that I haven't done this in. They both seem to shoot very well.
As of late there have been quite a few threads on this subject. I believe I am going to stop this practice until I can make a more informed decision.
I know there will be a lot of answers one way or the other just my opnion.
I probably will try case filling powders instead of fillers in bottle neck cases. HTH Rich

454PB · « **Reply #3 on:** January 27, 2006, 07:06:09 AM »

I've been down this road too. I started using Kapok about 30 years ago, mostly in straight sided cases like .444 Marlin and 45/70. I came close to doing some damage to my 45/70, and decided it wasn't worth the risk, extra time, and mess. I've learned to use more appropriate powders, rather than fillers. As recently as two weeks a go I was shooting cast boolits in my .308 Win., and mixed loads utilizing Kapok with the same loads minus Kapok. The only difference noted was higher pressure (noticably stiffer bolt lift) in the cases utilizing filler.

Dusty Miller · « **Reply #4 on:** January 27, 2006, 09:23:27 AM »

My guess would be that the easiest way to test for higher pressure is to chronograph the different loads. If you get higher velocity with the loads using a filler then its almost certain that you've generated higher pressure. However, it'd be very difficult to judge how much pressure was generating how much velocity. A BIG jump in velocity would certainly be a good reason to become very cautious.

jgalar · « **Reply #5 on:** January 27, 2006, 05:43:47 PM »

I don't use fillers and don't see a need for me to do so, but I use faster powders than 4895 such as Unique, 2400 and Reloader#7. I'm not very concerned with high velocity. If you can get it, you may want to try Accurate 5744. You should be able to get good velocity and accuracy without fillers with it. Accurate Arms has quite a bit of cast bullet load data available for it on their website.

lovedogs · « **Reply #6 on:** March 21, 2006, 05:31:05 AM »

Not long ago I got into a discussion on this topic on another forum and wished I hadn't. There were a pile of guys who'd been using fillers for decades who acted like I'd insulted their ancestry. Oft times we get away with things for a long time before having an accident but when we have that accident we can quickly lose our good ol' boy know-it-all attitudes. I have a friend who learned that recently when he blew up a Marlin .45-70. He will bear the scars the rest of his life.

My attitude is that the ballisticians have the education, training, experience, and instrumentation to evaluate these things better than I can. If you call the boys at Alliant, Accurate, Western, IMR, and Hodgdon they will all advise against fillers of any type with smokeless powders. They will also explain the reasons to you. I'm as independent as the next guy but not to the point of foolishly going against the advice of true experts. I love shooting and will continue to do so as safely as I can. I like having both of my eyes and all of my fingers. They make powders that fill extra space in some of the cartridges that were originally designed for black powder. I've had good luck using them. I use 5744 with great success. Best regards to you all!

Larry Gibson · « **Reply #7 on:** March 21, 2006, 09:02:35 AM »

Turkeyfeather

Yes the use or non use of fillers sparks a lot of controversy. Part of the problem is the use of out dated information. Further problems come from those not really reading and then misquoting. Harris' articles are considerably out of date but he mostly deals with wads and fillers other than dacron. Same with ringed chambers, most all are from the use of improper materials used as wads. Keep in mind there is a distinct difference between a wad and a filler.

I have been using wads and fillers of dacron in straight and bottleneck cartridges since 1970. I have been chronographing cast bullet loads since 1975. I have volumes of data on what works and what doesn't work. One does not have to be a professional ballistician to develop and test loads scientifically and safely. Note that I refer to the use of wads and fillers with cast bullets. I do not use either or recommend the use of either with jacketed bullets.

Pressures rise if you put a wad or filler in a load. This is evidenced by a rise in velocity and the other usually pressure signs if the load is excessive. I no longer use wads. The reason is I have found them not to be necessary. With rifle cartridges generally I use various powders for 3 different velocity ranges. For velocities in the 500 to 1400 fps with light or medium weight bullets I use a fast easily ignitable powder (usually Bullseye). It is not position sensitive and provides excellent accuracy with very uniform internal ballistics. For medium to heavy bullets at moderate velocity, 1200 to 1700 fps, I use Unique, 2400, H4227 or 4759. a wad or filler is not necessary with these powders either. For heavy cast bullets at faster velocity, 1700-2400 fps, I use 4895 mostly and find a filler of dacron (usually 1 1.5 gr) greatly improves internal ballistics which gives better accuracy. Keep in mind that with most cast bullet designs and alloys that best accuracy is a function of the RPM of the bullet. based on the barrel twist

If one is going to use a dacron filler you must use it when developing (working up) the load. In 30 years of shooting and chronographing thousands of such loads using dacron as a filler I have never had any indication of a pressure spike or any other problems. I have used dacron as a filler in cases as small as the .222 Remington and as large as the .375 H&H with most cartridges in between and the 45-70 and .458 Win Mag. Early on I used kapok, cream of wheat, cotton and a couple other materials and found they do give pressure spikes. I subsequently quit using them. However with dacron as a filler when used to develop the load there has never been any indication of a problem. Quite the contrary, the results have been only a positive improvement in the accuracy and internal ballistics.

I also use Bullseye for Cats Sneeze loads with heavy for caliber soft lead bullets at extremely low velocity. No wad or filler is necessary. I use slow powders (RL19, RL22 and H4831) for some 100% loading density cast bullet loads. Of course with 100% loading density the filler is not necessary. In closing Id say that the appropriate use of dacron as a filler poses no problems with correct cast bullet loads. The key is to use it with correct loads, when used with incorrect loads it probably can cause problems. But isnt that the same with the incorrect use of any component?

Larry Gibson

Dictator · « **Reply #8 on:** March 21, 2006, 11:38:55 AM »

This is an interesting topic for me lately as I'm trying to develope a light, plinking load for my 600 JDJ Ruger #1 and my brand new 800 gr. Mountain Mold flat nose bullet. My old light load was 70grs. of 5744 behind a Beartoothe 1040gr. lead bullet and a 20 gauge .250" felt wad. It shot beatifully at 1450 fps. I have a keg of 10 year old Winchester Super Lite WSL powder I would like to burn up in this gun if possible. My question is that this is such a big case, a 577 Nitro blown out to 600 caliber, I'm worried about using a fast burning powder like WSL, about like Red Dot in burn rate, in such a huge case. What charge weight? Filler on no filler, etc. I have also tried 70 gr. of H4895 and polyester pillow case filler and this 800 grain bullet but I haven't shot it through the cronograph yet, but it's real mild. It does leave a lot of burned powder residue behind, but zero leading or filler left behind in the barrel. What do you guys think? Can I safely use a small charge of this fast powder in this big, strait walled case?

lovedogs · « **Reply #9 on:** March 21, 2006, 02:47:15 PM »

Good reply, Larry. I appreciate it. Myself, I'm possibly over-cautious. Some of the explanations I got when talking with the ballisticians had to do with powder sneaking past the filler. I imagine if part of the powder was back against the primer where it's supposed to be and part of the powder had gotten in front of the filler it could cause some sort of problem. Couldn't it? I just don't know about this. On the other hand if it was a batch of ammo one carried carefully, as when going to the range, versus going hunting, it would be okay.

If I were to ever try a filler it would be dacron. It seems to get the best reports. But it seems unneccesary to me. I just look for a different powder.

Best regards!

Steve P · « **Reply #10 on:** March 21, 2006, 04:28:50 PM »

I have cut fine wads for reduced loads in straight wall pistol calibers. Use the foam trays from the meat department. Foam has not caused any abnormal pressures or problems in my reduced load. But again, only in straight wall cartridges.

I tried a filler in some bottle neck cases that I was trying to fire form. I saw how the pressures spiked and saw the problems that arose if the powder mixed in with the filler. Not pretty. I will not use a filler in a bottle neck case.

Just another nickels worth of info.

Steve

Nobade · « **Reply #11 on:** March 22, 2006, 06:02:11 AM »

I'll put in my 2 cents here. First, on that 600 JDJ I would definately not use fillers with a powder as fast as WSL. Any powder with as much energy as that has does not respond well to a compressed load. Another thing to keep in mind is there two kinds of fillers. One is a tuft of kapok or dacron on top of the powder, and another is a case full of cream 'o' wheat or shot buffer. With the kapok you run the risk of creating a secondary projectile, having it hit the base of the bullet, and ring the chamber. With the solid fillers this doesn't happen, but if you use them in a bottleneck case you can send pressures sky high as it is all trying to make it through the little hole. The main thing to guide you is the behavior of the powder. If you, like me, like to use a lot of mil surp powder in applications that it's not designed for, fillers can occasionally be useful. Two noticable uses I routinely do are with WC680. This stuff is nearly the same as AA1680, and it will not tolerate less than a full case. It is very erratic at low pressures. I use it in my 7.62x39 cast bullet rifle, and in the 45-70. In both cases I do not want a full case load, because the velocity is too high. So I use Ballistic Products shot buffer to take up the space. The loads are super accurate, extremely consistant, and burn clean. The filler boosts pressures enough to get that powder to work right. But something like WSL or any other fast burning pistol/shotgun powder should never be used with fillers. It's easy to either ring your chamber or skyrocket pressures and hurt yourself with these, and since they light off so easily there's no need for fillers anyhow. Now probably the best thing to do in big cases to keep the speed down is to use powder that's slower than optimal such as 4350 in the 45-70. It can be loaded to full capacity, shoots good, and can't hurt you. Fillers can be very useful if you know what you're doing, but I never recommend their use to anyone who is not intimately familiar with the behavior of the powder they are using and knows exactly what is going to happen before they touch it off. In other words, most people should not think about messing with fillers!

Chinook · « **Reply #12 on:** March 22, 2006, 06:45:34 AM »

I haven't extensive experience with fillers and wads in common metallic cartridges, other than a fair amount with British Nitro cartridges. Some of these are straight-wall but most are bottleneck designs. Because they were originally designed for black powder or cordite, their powder capacity is quite large. It is now a common and well-documented practice to use fillers when reloading these cartridges in order to keep the powder firm against the primer. Much of my own experience comes with the .470NE, in which I use RL-15 and a foam wad purchased from none other than Kynoch in the UK. It is my understanding that Kynoch loads some of their own British cartridges utilizing this wad. This is a very light, porous foam. Other writers such as Ross Seyfried and Graeme Wright, the latter author of "Shooting the British Double Rifle", have espoused the use of dacron or foam fillers for these cartridges. Bearing in mind that these rifles range in value from about $6,000 to $100,000, the owner would not cavalierly risk damaging one to questionable loading practices. I have had excellent results with the .470. I did notice, however, increased velocity (and therefore pressure) when firing the .360 #2 with a foam wad vs. without wad. One could conclude, as noted in an earlier response to this topic, that you can't just stick filler or wad in an otherwise suitable load - you ought to at least reduce your powder charge and work up from there.

Regards,
Chinook

Dictator · « **Reply #13 on:** March 23, 2006, 07:19:55 AM »

That kind of goes with my thoughts on WSL being too fast for this big case. I'll stick with the H4895 & other more suitable powders. Below is a pic of my Mountain Mold bullet of my design w/ a 90% meplat. It's a good looking bullet. I'm going to make some 70gr. loads w/ H4895 & dacron fibre filler to see how they shoot. The bullets are made of straigth wheel weigths dropped into ice water out of the mold.

lovedogs · « **Reply #14 on:** March 25, 2006, 03:48:57 PM »

Hey, Dictator... that's a real good-looking bullet! What's its weight? Something between 300 to 350 gr. with that design looks like it'd really smack some game in a .45-70. Wish I could find something like that in about a 250 gr. gas check design for a .44, also.

Dictator · « **Reply #15 on:** March 26, 2006, 01:52:29 AM »

Thanks Lovedogs. That bullets weighs in at about 700 grs. which is light in this caliber. I just tried another load yesterday of 70 grs. IMR-4198 w/ fiber filler and it shot much cleaner and again no leading. I can tell it has more zip with this faster powder. I'll crono it asap, but I'm guessing it's around 1500 fps. Go on Mountain Mold's web site and Dan there can make you any design you want and his prices are very reasonable. His bullet design program on his web site is really cool and easy to use. As you put in design changes like meplat percentage, groove numbers , & other input, you can see a picture of the bullet you're designing in really time right there in front of you. When I was making this bullet up I kept going back & forth on meplat % until I finallized on this one at 90%. I then messed around on groove numbers. His work is great and I receuved my blocks in about 3 weeks. Sometime in the future i'm going to have him make me a gas check mold with large meplat for my 44 mag handgun.

Mikey · « **Reply #16 on:** March 26, 2006, 10:55:14 AM »

Lovedogs - go to Beartooth Bullets - they should have exactly what you are looking for. HTH. Mikey.

lovedogs · « **Reply #17 on:** March 26, 2006, 12:51:01 PM »

Thanks, Mikey. I've already got Beartooth in my FAVORITES so can check them out.

Robert · « **Reply #18 on:** March 27, 2006, 05:18:18 AM »

Quote from: Dusty Miller

My guess would be that the best way to test for higher pressure is to chronograph the different loads. If you get higher velocity with the loads using a filler then its almost certain that you've generated higher pressure.

I would tend to think that the opposite would be true. In my opinion, the higher pressure results from the filler becoming 'stuck'....packed tightly behind the shoulder for a millasecond. That would make the bullet slower?

Larry Gibson · « **Reply #19 on:** March 27, 2006, 06:52:55 AM »

Quote from: lovedogs

......Some of the explanations I got when talking with the ballisticians had to do with powder sneaking past the filler. I imagine if part of the powder was back against the primer where it's supposed to be and part of the powder had gotten in front of the filler it could cause some sort of problem. Couldn't it?

I'll bet a dollar to a donut those ballisticians were talking about wads not fillers. A proper filler fills the airspace between the powder and the base of the bullet. A proper filler does not permit powder mitigation regardles of rough handling or recoil of the previously fired cartridges. It was for the very reason of powder mitigation under recoil that I went from wads to fillers.

"If I were to ever try a filler it would be dacron. It seems to get the best reports." That is the filler material to use. I use enough that the air space is filled and the bullet slightly compresses the dacron when seated.

Let me ask you and everyone here a few simple questions; Ever shoot shotgun shells? Have you ever seen a "ringed" chamber on a shotgun? Ever reloaded shotgun shells? If so don't you use wads? Ever wonder why they tell you that the wad column must take up all the space between the powder and shot? Hello out there!!!!!! Those WADS, whether fiber or plastic, are really a FILLER!!! This is the very same principle as when using a filler with cast bullets! Done properly in a shotgun - No Problemo! Done improperly in a shotgun and BIG Problemo!!! Same thing when using a filler in a rifle cartridge with a reduced load under a cast bullet. Use it properly and NO problemo! Use it improperly and potential for BIG Problemo! But isn't that the same with reloading just powder - properly done and no problem, improperly done and big problem?

If you don't want to use fillers then don't. There are many useful cast bullet loads that do not need a filler. If you want the increased performance that a filler provides when used over medium or slow powder then use a filler. But use it properly with medium to heavy cast bullets for caliber and the medium to slow powder. Make sure it is a filler and not a wad. The choice to use or not to use is the individuals. Is it all that difficult?

Larry Gibson

jh45gun · « **Reply #20 on:** March 30, 2006, 03:41:37 AM »

I do know I called the companies mentioned and they say no filler period no matter what it is so there for I just use powder that does not need it. I may be overly cautious but I kinda like me and the guns I own to risk any problems. I know a lot of good, long time reloaders use fillers but since it is a controversy I decline to use them. I may be missing out on some good loads but I also in the back of my mind would be worrying about them being safe or not which to me would take the enjoyment out of the reloading and the shooting. Jim

jaguar · « **Reply #21 on:** April 10, 2006, 04:28:43 AM »

Hi All.
I'm going to toss out a few of my thoughts on the topic of fillers.
First off the increase in pressure when using fillers I would expect for 3 reasons. The first is improved powder ignition as it is held composed properly next to the primer and would be ignited in a uniform and forward progressing pattern. The second reason is more complete ignition of all powder. I have seen unburnt powder grains left in the bore when not using a filler, and almost if not a clean bore when using the same load with fillers. Obviously in this instance MORE powder was being ignited and yes the chony showed an increase in velocity. This happens in any load when you increase the charge, so why wouldn't you expect the same when utilizing like charges more efficiently. Of course for some powders and loads the improvement may be small or dangerously LARGE! Thus it is for certain that if you try fillers you should not just use the same load you normally use without. Work up a load as per just about any manual suggests. My narrow experience in this topic shows that I am getting the same velocities with a 19.5 grain load with filler as with a 21.0 grain load without filler... that is close to a 10% increase!! I hope no one out there would hap-hazzardly increase any of their maximum loads by 10% and not expect a pressure spike or WORSE!! The third possible reason for pressure and velocity increases when using fillers is that the filler itself, as it is forced against the base of the bullet, is acting as a seal, lessening blowby... similar to a paper patch. I've no data or testing to show this, but it seems reasonable conjecture if nothing else.
As for suppliers of powders not recommending fillers, I fully understand and support their position as we can all understand the liabilities involved, especially as they cannot control if an individual is dilligent and capable enough to ensure power does not migrate ahead of the filler when loading or even if too much is used or is packed in too tight. Immagine what a solid crammed in wad of filler might do in a bottleneck case if during ignition it compresses to a near solid before being "squeezed" out through the smaller neck diameter.... sounds just like a bomb to me :eek:
(note that this obviously would not apply to shotguns as refered to previously in post or straight sided cases)
These are my 2 cents on the topic and my final stand is with the powder companies..DON"T USE FILLERS.
Cheers
Jaguar :wink: