Muzzle Velocity: Filler versus No Filler - 2nd Model Dragoon

[Foto Joe]

A couple of weeks ago I posted Muzzle Velocity: Filler versus No Filler and used my Pietta 1860 Sheriff Model for the test. The results on that one made the impression on me that filler does indeed act as somewhat of a "Gas Check" thereby increasing Muzzle Velocity, at least it did on that one.

Sadly my optimism that I had discovered an unknown truth in the Black Powder world, today came to a crashing end.

The test that I ran this afternoon was as follows: The gun is an ASM 2nd Model Dragoon with a 7" barrel (one of my favorites). It was loaded with 45gr by weight of Goex 3f and on the filler tests I used 10gr by volume of cornmeal.

Average Muzzle Velocity without Filler: 1066 fps with a Muzzle Energy of 353 ft. lbs.

Average Muzzle Velocity with Filler: 1047 fps with a Muzzle Energy of 341 ft. lbs.

So....it seems that the results are pretty much exactly the opposite of what the Sheriff Model yielded. Does filler act as a "Gas Check" thereby potentially increasing the muzzle velocity of the round ball? It's still a definite maybe, but I wouldn't get my hopes too high. I think it pretty much largely depends upon the gun. One thing of note that did catch my attention was that the extreme spread was less than half on the "No Filler" loads i.e. 79fps with and 35fps without. My only explaination for this would be more consistant powder compression when you're not additionally compressing cornmeal.

Just for grins I did chronograph with 30gr 3f Goex and about 20gr of cornmeal as well. The extra 15gr of powder does provide quite a bit more umph shall we say. The 30gr loads averaged out at 848 fps.

 

[45-70 Ranger]

Thanks for the info Joe!

An ASM 2nd Mod. you say? Holy crap, that's what I have as well. It too, is my favorite in the Colt designs I have. Small world...you're scarring me now Joe!

So the filler acted up as opposed to none at all. I was wondering about that myself. I have no crony and thus I gotta go at it the old fashioned way and watch where it prints etc...I usually don't use filler and just load 'em up to where they hit right and tight.

Glad that you did this testing as the data will help a lot of us out here. Thanks!

Wade

 

[BHP FAN]

It's still less than a BB gun's worth of difference. not really enough to worry about. some folks claim greater accuracy because of reduced ''jump'' or the distance before the ball engages the rifleing, but I figure that's what a forceing cone is for.All that said, I like Wonder Wads, or my homemade lube ''cookies''.

 

[TheRodDoc]

I tried to suggest that those type of tests weren't very accurate in the other thread.

The only way to make any kind of halfway accurate test with a black powder gun is with absolutely No Powder Compression at all. (filler or not) And the same gun.

You have to use a measure rod and ram rod with a stop to load the chambers. And use only the same one chamber for all shots. Weight powder carefully. Filler must end up exactly same height in cyl as did the one with just powder so the ball sits in exactly the same depth in cyl. and etc.

 

[arcticap]

One reason could be that the filler adds extra weight which then needs to be expelled out of the chamber and barrel. So it could still be acting as a gas check by providing more consistent velocity as shown, but it's extra weight is holding the velocity down just a little bit.
Thus the gas check theory could still have been proven simply by the lower extreme spread.
The more consistent velocity could also be the reason for often getting better reported accuracy using fillers rather than thinking that it's the result of the ball being seated higher in the chamber & closer to the rifling.
That's not too bad of a result for using a fraction of a penny's worth of filler.

 

[J-Bar]

One good reason to use cornmeal as a filler, it adds a lot of sparks when you shoot at night!! Beauty!

Thanks for the follow-up range report. One never knows until the experiment is done, eh?

 

[BHP FAN]

and it smells like breakfast!

 

[Foto Joe]

I tried to suggest that those type of tests weren't very accurate in the other thread.

I'd like to make clear that I'm NOT putting ANY of this out there as the Gospel according to Joe by any means. Scientific, my tests are not. I'm doing this for a couple of reasons, the primary of which is: I wasn't working that day and I was bored. The secondary reason was: I'm curious.

I try not to take myself too seriously most of the time but if I feel that I'm right about something, I'll beat you up pretty good trying to convince you to my way of thinking. That's not the case here. I'm just throwing out what my results were and how I arrived at them. If you disagree with my methodology, please feel free to run the tests how you feel and please post the results. Myself and others would be extremely interested to have something to compare to.

As far as filler versus no filler is concerned, it's definitely personal preference, kinda like Crisco versus wads, homemade or otherwise etc. I started out using cornmeal simply because my first gun was a '51 Brassy in .44 and stuffing wads down the chambers to take up space otherwise used by powder, seemed an expensive alternative to the unused cornmeal sitting in the cupboard of the 5th Wheel, same goes for the Crisco which my wife didn't miss for six months.

My main reason for still using cornmeal, even in guns that don't necessarily need to have the filler is it just adds a little bit of security against a chainfire. Is it the be all and end all of chain fire prevention, certainly not. But it's better than nothin'. As far as wads are concerned, I prefer not to spend money on commercially made wads and since I spend the winter in a 5th Wheel, making my own isn't reasonable. Once we get back home I'm going to put it on my list of stuff to play with.

Lastly, I have a tendency to leave guns loaded for prolonged periods. Lubed wads I have found out first hand can have negative effects on powder. I never had a mis-fire because of it but my Navy used to give a pronounced slight, but noticable hang-fire...pop-boom!! Cornmeal being completely dry hasn't demonstrated that tendency.

Like I said above, if you're curious about these sorts of things, get out there and experiment, post the results and let others learn from what you're doing.

 

[BHP FAN]

One think I noticed about cornmeal...when used as a filler, it actually seems to polish the barrel. Very little clean up needed vs. wads or Crisco.

 

[Oyeboten]

Leftover 'Scrapple' might be worth a try...would supply Lube and Filler at the same time!


I got some 'Cream o' Wheat' a while back...planning to get some Corn Meal and try them out.

 

[arcticap]

Grits & Instant Grits

Grits and instant grits are coarser than corn meal and most of the other popular fillers which may allow it to have even more of a scouring action on the barrel during firing.

Shooting grits

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=257686&highlight=grits

Grits, corn meal, cream of wheat, it all works fine. Grits aren't common here so I use corn meal or cream of wheat, but a lot of folks use grits. In the old days, I doubt corn meal was ground as fine as it is today. Anyone using it as filler would be using the same as grits essentially.

I am using Ruger old army. I went to the shooting range this morning and tired the grits .Less corn dust when loading .Just trying something different

Filler

http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=5253783&postcount=18

Since nobody else has, I'll mention instant grits. Recommended by someone on this forum, and they work great!

Paper Cartridges

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=379417&highlight=grits

I like to use Instant Grits

fill w/ powder and grits

As for filler i have been using grits

 

[ClemBert]

When I use filler material I generally use instant grits. In fact I loaded up some .45 BPM today using them on light loads (40 grains FFFg and 10 grains grits with 250 grain BigLube).

I would think that felt wads would make a better gas check than any of the various food products being used.

One thing to consider between your BP firearms is the chamber-to-groove diameter. It could be that your 1860 has a smaller delta than your Dragoon.

For example, on my Walker the chamber diameter is 0.450 whereas the groove diameter is 0.458. Not great. On a ROA the chamber diameter is 0.453 whereas the groove diameter is 0.451.

Any chance you could slug out your chambers and barrels and get back to us on the delta between the two? It might help explain something.

p.s. I just read the comments of mykeal (regarding chamber/barrel diameters) in your original thread. Seems that my brain resonates at the same frequency as his...scary!!!! LOL!

 

[Foto Joe]

It appears I must finally slug the barrels of my guns. I haven't gotten around to it basically because my shop is thousand miles away and I'm too cheap to buy a dowel rod at the hardware store. Actually I'm usually on my way home when I remember that I need one. I'll wander around the campground with an adult beverage tonite and see if any of our gadget guru's have something I can use.

I really need to do this, I've tried using a caliper but I don't trust the thing telling me the truth when I'm trying to get groove measurements. Truck drivers aren't allowed to play with too many specialized instruments.

 

[Mizar]

Foto Joe, one advice - never, ever, take measurements on the muzzle with a calliper - one wrong movement or too much presure on the jaws as you pull the calliper out and you can damage the lands or the crown. Especially on those soft steel replicas.

Boris