More Reliability!

[nchawkeye]

If you don't mind me mentioning, I believe I see a couple of things that might help your groups...

Notice you have a few patches where the ball wasn't centered??? Go with bulk pillow ticking and cut your patches at the muzzle, that should help with the stringing...

Now, since you aren't using store bought patches, make up some of Srumpy's Moose snot...When I went to using fresh patches and lube I was able to get rid of the over the powder wad...I'm a firm believer that if charges are below 80-90 grs and the proper ball/patch combo is matched with good ticking and lube the wad is not needed...

Finally...Use a 6 O'clock hold, this will also help close up those groups...

 

[ebiggs1]

Although this thread was started to show how 4f powder fouls, or doesn't foul, in your pan. Several have made comments on the targets. They were not the point but your suggestions got me thinking possibly I could improve my shooting. I am as I have stated the world’s worst shot. I am used to shooting a dime at 100 yards with my 22/250 or 220 Swift. I never did much open sight shooting. Probably because I am not good at it. I can certainly try your suggestions and we’ll see.

 

[ebiggs1]

Actually I posted this to get a reaction, or response, on the fouling or lack thereof in the pan. I have read since I have been on this forum how bad 4f powder is for fouling but it didn’t occur here. I don’t think I could have made it any worse, condition wise. Thoughts?

 

[Robbvious]

Right. Thanks for the insight! :thumbsup:

 

[Semisane]

You shouldn't need an over the powder wad......ever

:haha: Well, I'm certainly happy to here that Mark. I guess the positive results were confusing me. :grin:

 

[MSW]

not so bad... my T/C will do that, too (unless i dryball, which of course i never do)

 

[Swampman]

The need for over the power wads is caused by using oversized projectiles and patches that are too thin. When the correct components are used the need for an over the powder wad goes away. Our forefathers didn't use them.

 

[paulvallandigham]

Sorry to disagree with you, but the Chronograph shows that even with a very good ball/patch combination, you get a lower SDV using an OP wad to seal the gases, than if you load the PRB without it. I don't believe in using thin patching, either.

 

[Semisane]

The need for over the power wads is caused by using oversized projectiles and patches that are too thin. When the correct components are used the need for an over the powder wad goes away. Our forefathers didn't use them.

I understand where you're coming from Mark. My guns shoot quite well without wads. I didn't say I needed them. I said I can get slightly better accuracy at longer ranges (75 yards and farther) with them, and I can. I also use a dry wad when I load for hunting because I use olive oil lube on the patch and the gun may stay loaded for days or weeks.

As for our forefathers, perhaps mine used them and yours didn't. :wink:

 

[David W.]

When shooting at 100 yards with a 6 to 8 oz. leather op wad soaked in ballistol, I improve my groups dramatically. 36" .62 Hoppy Hopkins barrel, .610 (weighed) ball, .026 dry denim patch, square cut, (soaked in Ballistol), 80 gr FFFg Swiss. As you can see, my patch/ball combination is tight. My 5 shot groups are 2-3" on average, and I am not the best shot in the world. My eye balls are getting old and tired.

Yes, using an op wad does tighten up the groups for the reason Paul pointed out.

As semisane pointed out, using a op wad helps seal the powder when a rifle is left loaded over an extended period. It helps when hunting in the rain too.

As far as being HC, I believe the use of op wads was practiced. Even if not, I use them anyway.

 

[ebiggs1]

Although this thread was started to try and get 4f powder to foul, I suspect the short distance of 25 yards isn’t conclusive as to whether my OP wad was of any value. I would have to agree if you were to leave a gun loaded a long time, as in deer season, an OP wad would be a good idea.
The point here was the 4f powder didn’t foul.

 

[smoothy]

I like seeing your results using FFFFg powder as far as the fouling is concerned. I use it for priming. The only drawback I see using it is that with smaller granulations there is more overall surface area, which is also a positive for ignition. The more surface area the more moisture can be absorbed. The more moisture absorbed the more unburnt powder, thus more fouling. I'd be interested what your results would be on a more humid day. Even hunting during the Winter I have experienced some moisture problems when its above freezing and the snow is melting, especially when a fog is coming off the snow. And I know you typically have dryer air in Kansas than we do in northern Illinois.

 

[ebiggs1]

“The conditions were 92 degrees, 90% humidity, and slight wind. It took me a little over an hour to shoot 10 shots (approx 10 min between shots).”

This was about the most miserable conditions I would want to shoot in. I was dripping sweat all over the place. The gun was hot. (It rained that afternoon!) Plus I waited 10 minutes between shoots. I didn’t clean or wipe the pan. There was no fouling, or insignificant fouling, as you can see on the photos. It fired all ten times as shown by the targets.

 

[smoothy]

Well go figure. Thanks for the info.

 

[Flint62Smoothie]

Sorry to disagree with you, but the Chronograph shows that even with a very good ball/patch combination, you get a lower SDV using an OP wad to seal the gases, than if you load the PRB without it. I don't believe in using thin patching, either.

Ohhhhhhhhh please STOP with your standard deviation mantra ... it's getting OLD! Benchrest world records have PROVEN that the load with the lowest std dev is NOT always the tightest shootin' load! And don't give me that old "C'fire (smokeless powdah really) ain't BP either", as even some original BP schuetzen records have NEVER been beaten yet.

It is truly great that you do this research, and post about it, but man oh man ... when you get a thought or an idea (that just might be more pratical on PAER) ... you're like a man with only one tool ... a hammer :idunno: ... you treat every one else's question as if it were a nail. You treat EVERYONE who differs with your highly regarded self-opinion as being ignorant ... You never once propose any of your concepts as perhaps "another idea that should be considered" or tried.

:surrender:

 

[Semisane]

Uh-Oh!

Flack jacket!

Helmet!


Where are my flack jacket and helmet? :haha: :haha:

 

[Swampman]

Sorry to disagree with you, but the Chronograph shows that even with a very good ball/patch combination, you get a lower SDV using an OP wad to seal the gases, than if you load the PRB without it. I don't believe in using thin patching, either.

The over the powder wads do nothing except protect the patch. When the proper patch is used no protection is needed. It just cost more per shot and takes longer to load. I also keep my gun loaded for weeks during hunting season.

 

[mykeal]

Since the thread has completely ignored your original premise, I'll feel free in taking it to yet another level. Clearly the reason the pan fouling didn't result in lower reliability is that you were shooting a rifle at pistol targets.

Problem solved. See how simple that was? :surrender:

 

[ebiggs1]

How observant you are, sir! That must be it.

 

[luieb45]

My guns must have some real big problems 'cause my targets are LEWIS soybean bags. Until recently I started shooting more suitable targets. Maybe that is what all my problems were caused by. :idunno: