OP wad for PRB?

[Blizzard of '93]

a thick felt button overpowder in my .50 tightens groups when useing both PRB and Lee REAL slugs. more so w/the slugs. I place a dab of lube atop when loading. makes wipeing between shots which I do (dry patch) noticeably easier.

 

[roundball]

Would a couple of card OP wads work similiar to a felt OP wad with PRB?

They won't provide the extra lube that the wool wads carry of course, but they should serve as a firewall and provide sealing...the degree will probably depend on if & how fast they might burn up without being saturated with lube...might need to use 3, 4, 5 of them...depends on the material.

Over Shot cards from Circle Fly appear to have a hard shiny finish as if a sheet of cardboard was run though a giant roller press to compress them hard and end up with a glossy finish, they seem to withstand fire pretty well...but if you make some from common ceral box cardboard they may not hold up.

 

[paulvallandigham]

I can see no benefit to be derived from using MORE THAN ONE OP wad. One should give you all the seal you are going to get.

If you are going to use 2 wads, then compromise, and put a greased felt wad down on top of the OP wad, and then the PRB. The extra lube is not going to hurt anything, It might provide an extra seal against water on a rainy day, and it will surely help to soften the residue. The added mass will also help to raise pressures, and contribute to more complete burning of the black powder, regardless of caliber.

 

[longcruise]

They won't provide the extra lube that the wool wads carry of course, but they should serve as a firewall and provide sealing...

I know you felt wad users are firm believers in the *gas seal* feature of the wad, but I'm just not buying it! How is a flat felt wad under a round ball going to seal gasses when the bore size wad is going to be pushed into a cup shape around the lower half of the ball? Seems like it's going to come up short of even being bore size once it gets wrapped around the ball.

the degree will probably depend on if & how fast they might burn up without being saturated with lube...might need to use 3, 4, 5 of them...depends on the material.

Some BPCR shooters use unlubbed cardboard wads under their bullets and they don't burn up! Yes, some lube them and some even use two with a grease cookie in between them but the benefit seems to be the softening of the fouling. I have been told that the wad under a round ball protects the patch from burning, but otoh, I have shot dry unlubbed patches over heavy loads and they did not burn up at all. Worked just fine but they are a bit hard to load even when the bore is wiped between shots. I'm convinced that ease of loading was the origin of the use of lube on a patch.

Going back to the BPC crowd, you can ask ten of them what the wad is for and you will get some differing answers. Some will say they use it to prevent damage to the base of the lead bullet. Some will tell you that the bullet base will melt if unprotected by the wad.! Some will say they use a lubbed wad to soften fouling. Some will tell you the wad is to protect the powder from the grease cookie they use over it. There's probably some other answers too.

My point being that they as well as the ML crowd seem to have a number of reasons for using felt or cardboard wads but there is no agreement on why. That lack of agreement causes me to think that nobody had really taken a hard look at what the wad is doing and are simply putting their faith in their own and other shooters untried and unproven opinion.

 

[roundball]

That lack of agreement causes me to think that nobody had really taken a hard look at what the wad is doing and are simply putting their faith in their own and other shooters untried and unproven opinion.

I am usually pretty careful in these discussions to reference things being ”˜as advertised’ or ”˜supposed to’, etc...but in this situation I also have some personal hands on experiences with Oxyoke prelubed wads that I can share:

1) TC .45cal RB barrel”¦.018” TC precut/prelubed pillow ticking with a Hornady .440” could easily be thumb started”¦not a very tight PRB combo”¦and when using 90grns Goex 3F the patches would be burned / shredded. As soon as I started using Oxyoke prelubed wads over the powder charge to act as a firewall, the patches came out so new and still lubed they could be reused, and just for testing, I did.

2) This spring I chronographed loads with and without Oxyoke wads over powder. In every case an Oxyoke OP wad dramatically reduced the SD”¦one example was 25 fps down to 6 fps”¦so improved gas sealing was obviously taking place. If the wads were curving, it apparently didn’t make any difference in sealing.

3) I use the next larger size wad (ie: a .50 wad in a .45, a .54 wad in a .50, etc) on the assumption that they might seal even better”¦and when I pick them up off the ground, the edges look like miniature gear teeth where the material has been spread out under pressure and forced out into the grooves.

So based on #2 and #3, I’m not convinced that a wad gets curved up around a ball...or if they do, I am convinced there is no negative effects on gas sealing.

 

[paulvallandigham]

Roundball, I think a third alternative is in play, and thanks to your careful planning. YOU Note that you use the next caliber larger wool wads in the guns. I believe the use of these larger diameter wads, explains why they don't turn up ( More ) than already needed to fit down the barrel, and seal the bore so well. That is why I suggested there is NO advantage to be gained in using 2 OP wads.

If you use a .50 wad in the .45, a .54 wad in the .50 etc. you are going to get that seal you need, based on the results Roundball got using his chronograph. There are a lot of BPC shooters out there who would love to get their SDV down to 6fps! Congratulations on solving that bit of problem, Roundball! :thumbsup: :hatsoff: :grin:

 

[Jarikeen]

So is it possible that when I used three OP waxed cards, when experimenting with the .41 Mag slug in the .40 GM barrel, that one OPC would have done? I used three because I was using beer coasters as my wad material, and it wasn't 1/8" thick like the fly circles.

I suppose I could have tried it with one, but I was so pleased with the results, I stopped there.

 

[roundball]

Cards are different from wads.

Cards are usually thin, .030" wafers...in fact "cards" are normally used as OS (over shot) cards...a light thin wafer that needs to flip out of the way quickly from in front of the shot column...I'm not sure if one of those would have been enough over powder.


The "wads" I'm talking about are Oxyoke 1/8" prelubed wool wads and one is all that I've ever needed over powder.

 

[paulvallandigham]

OP wads come in different thicknesses( See Track of the Wolf's on-line catalogue to see the various sizes), but generally, an eight-inch thick card is going to seal fairly well. I don't know anything about your .41 Mag bullet, so I cannot comment.

If you use a flat base bullet, there should be no problem using a hard OP wad as a sealer.Some shooters use extra wads as fillers, out of habits they acquire shooting BP cartridges with reduced loads.

If you are using a PRB( patched Round Ball) in the barrel, and center an oversized OP wad in your rifling, the gas pushing forward on the back of the card is met with the resistance cause by the friction between the lands and grooves of the barrel, and the edges of the card, so that some kind of equilibrium can be expected, as long as that card is centered, and the edge seal is not broken.

The experience I have had shooting PRB over an OP wad indicates that in a variety of calibers tested, the SDV is reduced remarkably, just as Roundball has reported, regardless of caliber or gauge of smoothbore.

The secret to success is using an oversized, or, if you are lucky, a properly sized, OP wad to your GROOVE diameter. Roundball's discovery that you can use a next-caliber-sized felt wool wad to get the same result is a boon to shooters who don't want to spend a lot time with a caliper, and then ordering various diameters of OP wads to see what works, or works the best.

So that you understand the significance of Roundball's posting here, concerning his SDV, there are many high velocity, 22 centerfire calibers where shooters would be ecstatic if they could get their SDV down to double digits. Single Digits would cause them to call for a pulmotor!

Single digit SDVs in BPC rifles have been shown for more than a decade, Steve Garbe wears a hat that says, " Smokeless powder is a passing Fancy!" , as he and his partner, Writer Mike Venturino, have reported SDVs as low as 4 fps, shooting 45 and 50 caliber rifles, and five shot groups at 200 yards using tang peep sights of 2-2.5 inches.

You won't get that kind of accuracy with a PRB at 200 yards, with or without an OP Wad, simply because the Ballistic's Coefficient of the Round ball is so terrible. But the RB is a very good short range projectile, and within its limitations, it does amazingly well. Just do what you have to in order to keep that gas behind the ball, and not cutting past it in the barrel.

 

[paulvallandigham]

I am not sure what you mean by an " OP Waxed card". Are you meaning those thin, Over Shot Cards? Those are usually only 1/10th inch thick( .10"). Look for Walter's Vegetable Fiber Wads, which are available in several thicknesses. An 1/8th" card would be .125 thick. I believe I have seen the vegetable cards as thick as. Fiber wads are .062" or about 1/16". They work fine. My fiber wads seem stiffer than the OP wads I have.

See Track for dimensions, and available wads.
http://www.trackofthewolf.com/(S(3...s/tableList.aspx?catID=2&subID=37&styleID=121

I hope that helps us communicate better.

 

[tjohnson56]

Would a filler, corn meal perhaps, be as effective a gas sealer as a wad?

 

[longcruise]

and when using 90grns Goex 3F the patches would be burned / shredded.

TC .45cal RB barrel”¦.018” TC precut/prelubed pillow ticking with a Hornady .440” could easily be thumb started”¦not a very tight PRB combo

Putting your statements in reverse order as above, leads me to say: There's your problem :wink:

You have chosen to handle the problem with an op wad. I don't doubt that the wad has somehow prevented the shredding of your patch, but a simpler way to deal with the problem is to use a tighter combo. I firmly believe that "burned" patches are patches that have first been shredded with the root cause of shredding being either (a) a bad crown. (b) a bore with sharp edges on the lands that cut the patch. (c) A patch so loose that gasses simply blow by and tear the patch up. Once any of those three things happen, the patch will be subjected to hot gasses ripping by at extreme velocities, which of course destroy the patch.

Now, you seem to be preventing the patch from being destroyed by using the op wad. Does that mean the wad is sealing the bore or is it just giving enough protection to allow the patch to survive? As we discussed previously, I want to do some testing with op wads over the chrono and for accuracy to see if my results jive with yours. In fact, just picked up a bag of .54 lubed wool wads yesterday and planned to test with them in my .54 rifle but since you are using them one caliber over, I'll test in one of my .50 cals and maybe two of them.

So based on #2 and #3, I’m not convinced that a wad gets curved up around a ball...or if they do, I am convinced there is no negative effects on gas sealing

Your use of the oversize wad presents a whole new parameter to be tested. I'm going to be burning an awful lot of of powder on this. :shocked2: :haha:

There are a lot of BPC shooters out there who would love to get their SDV down to 6fps!

Those sdvs are not all that uncommon for BPC loads. I'm not into bpc very much but I have a rifle that I enjoy shooting casually and carrying on the hunt. My ammo is loaded with the KISS system. No wads, just the bullet seated firmly on pre-compressed powder and seated to touch the lands. SDs are single digit with 8 being pretty common. I can't speak to wads and accuracy since I shoot a less than precision rifle with common open irons like we shoot on our cap and flint guns. Accuracy is good though.

If you use a flat base bullet, there should be no problem using a hard OP wad as a sealer.

I feel compelled to reiterate my experience with using maxi patch bore sealers under maxi balls. I assure you that the design of them created a bore seal that would definitely be superior to any felt or cardboard wad. However, there was no increase in velocity as one would expect if the bore were to be well sealed, and in fact velocity fell off by about 12 to 15 fps! I suppose it's even possible that a wad would interfere with pressure upsetting the bullet to fit the bore!

 

[roundball]

and when using 90grns Goex 3F the patches would be burned / shredded.

TC .45cal RB barrel”¦.018” TC precut/prelubed pillow ticking with a Hornady .440” could easily be thumb started”¦not a very tight PRB combo

Putting your statements in reverse order as above, leads me to say: There's your problem :wink:

You have chosen to handle the problem with an op wad. I don't doubt that the wad has somehow prevented the shredding of your patch, but a simpler way to deal with the problem is to use a tighter combo.

That's what I said...this thread is about "wads" and I was using the .45cal loose fit PRB precisely as an example to prove that wads protect patches. The Hornady .440's were fine in all my other .45cals...just one barrel seemed an eyelash larger and had this problem...I used wads to keep the patches from burning/shredding.

I firmly believe that "burned" patches are patches that have first been shredded with the root cause of shredding being either (a) a bad crown. (b) a bore with sharp edges on the lands that cut the patch. (c) A patch so loose that gasses simply blow by and tear the patch up. Once any of those three things happen, the patch will be subjected to hot gasses ripping by at extreme velocities, which of course destroy the patch.

It was not 'A'.
It was not 'B'.
It was 'C'...which is exactly the point I made in the example...and then proved that a wad protected my patches and prevented those failures.

Now, you seem to be preventing the patch from being destroyed by using the op wad. Does that mean the wad is sealing the bore or is it just giving enough protection to allow the patch to survive?

No, I didn't "seem" to be preventing the patch from being destroyed...I in fact prevented the patch from being destroyed by using Oxyoke wads over powder as a firewall to protect the patch.

I suppose it's even possible that a wad would interfere with pressure upsetting the bullet to fit the bore!

Apparently not...I shot many boxes of TC .45cal/255grn maxi-hunters for a couple of years with maximum powder charges.
I used Oxyoke wads over the powder to protect the base from softening from the fire to keep the groups tight.
A nice side benefit to protecting the bases from softening was that leading was reduced if not eliminated while using max powder charges.

 

[paulvallandigham]

According to my preliminary testing, YES! Corn meal, Cream of Wheat, Grits, and even hornet's nest seem to provide a good seal. I am wanting to do a comparison test all on the same day at the range before making a judgment on which, if any is any better than the others.

I have both Wasp and Hornet's nest, although not as much of the Wasp nest as I would like. I don't have any grits, but I think I know a store where I can buy them.

 

[longcruise]

It was 'C'...which is exactly the point I made in the example...and then proved that a wad protected my patches and prevented those failures.

Yes, I agree that I'm pretty much agreeing with you on this. I'm still not convinced that the wad seals the bore even though it might be helping to keep the patch together.

My way of solving the problem would have been a thicker patch or a .445 ball and maybe both. I realize that you would be giving up ease of loading but OTOH, changes in the crown can make a very tight load much easier to start. What would happen to accuracy would remain to be seen of course.

You and I just have differing POVs on this and I'm not trying to tell you that you do things "wrong" but just highlighting the contrast in how we solve problems.

When I test wads, I will not be testing the effect on ever thinner patches in the hope of "discovering" that a wad will allow the use of a thinner patch. I'll be looking only at SD, velocity and accuracy.

I used Oxyoke wads over the powder to protect the base from softening from the fire to keep the groups tight.

Ha! That's another one of those bits of conventional wisdom that are not at all convincing. I don't shoot conicals much any more but when I did, various wads did not have any effect on accuracy. When I recovered ml conicals and BPC slugs from berms that had been shot without wads there was no damage or indication of melting or softening of the lead. And that with higher pressures in the BPC loads given the very heavy slugs and compressed powder charges.

 

[paulvallandigham]

I will agree that hot gases from " Smokeless" powder are more likely to melt the base of cast bullets, than Black Powder, but I have seen cast bullets fired from MLers and from BPC guns that show the bottom edge being cut by gases. The use of wads to protect the bases of the bullets is intended to protect the entire base of the bullets, to the edges, and not simply prevent possible melting at the center. Gas Checks, made of copper, perform this same function with Smokeless powder loads, and permits higher velocities( Higher pressures, higher chamber temperatures, etc.) with cast bullets, than you can do without some kind of base wad, or OP wad. To get higher velocities in BP guns, you have to reduce the length and weight of the bullet use, and increase the powder charge. This applies to both MLers, and BPC guns. With longer barrels, such bullets remain in the barrel longer, and are more susceptible to gas cutting at their bases, if a wad is not used.

The evidence of base melting is the subject of arguments, But I have loaded .45 cal. 350 grain bullets cast of 1:20 Tin to lead alloy, that has a mirror finish when they come from the mold. After they are fired, the base looks like it has been pelted with fine steel balls, when no wad is used. When a wad is used, the base is still smooth, altho it has some oxide on it from the high temperature the lead reaches as it exits the muzzle and is exposed to air. I have not fired these slugs into water, to try to save them in as pristine a condition as possible, so they can be weighed and compared, because I don't have an adequate water trap for this work. However, examination of many bullets recovered from a variety of test medium show the same conditions for the lead base. The results published by the BPC guys indicates you get smaller groups if you use a base wad to protect the bullet, also. Since accuracy is the objective of all this, perhaps that is the best test to use. :hmm: :hmm: :thumbsup:

 

[roundball]

That's another one of those bits of conventional wisdom that are not at all convincing.

You must be speed reading too fast because you continue to keep missing the fundamental point, and try to compare everything to BPCR, so I'll try to clarify it one last time.

I have not spouted any "conventional wisdom"...I just listed precise, actual hands on experiences.

All were actual, proven, repeatable, predictable experiences in .40/.45/.50/.54/.58/.62cal muzzleloaders, a few were caplocks, most were Flintlocks.

None of my hands on experiences had anything to do with BPCR.

:v

 

[paulvallandigham]

Roundball: I think he is making reference to my comments about BPCRs. You have not said anything about them. Your information is absolutely correct. There are parallels to cast bullets in brass casings, but there are also differences. As long as a reader understands those differences, the two different disciplines can teach each other.

 

[longcruise]

marmotslayer Said:
That's another one of those bits of conventional wisdom that are not at all convincing.





You must be speed reading too fast because you continue to keep missing the fundamental point, and try to compare everything to BPCR, so I'll try to clarify it one last time.

I have not spouted any "conventional wisdom"...I just listed precise, actual hands on experiences.

All were actual, proven, repeatable, predictable experiences in .40/.45/.50/.54/.58/.62cal muzzleloaders, a few were caplocks, most were Flintlocks.

None of my hands on experiences had anything to do with BPCR.

I used BPCR only as a comparison. The conventional wisdom I refered to was you statement to the effect that the wad would protect the base of your ml conical from melting or softening and deforming. Not speed reading at all!

So, based upon the discussion so far in this thread, the things I question are, (1) whether or not an op wad will seal gasses when loaded under a prb. (2) whether or not the op wad under a prb will reduce sd and improve accuracy. (3) Whether or not an op wad will protect the base of a lead conical and prevent melting/softening and moreso whether or not the conical ever does get soft much less melt.

See! I'm following along just fine reading slowly and laboriously! :thumbsup:

 

[longcruise]

Roundball: I think he is making reference to my comments about BPCRs. You have not said anything about them.

Actually, I fell into discussion of BPCR more as an analogy when questioning the concept of ml conicals melting or softening due to heat and pressure, etc.