Reloading in a Vacuum.....

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Steve2md

Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
172
Location
Gilbert, AZ
I am curious about this subject. I consider my Google-Fu to be strong, but the only things I pull up are "vacuum sealing ammunition"
My curiosity lies in actually loading the cartridges under a vacuum, perhaps with a press in a vac chamber. Modern smokeless powders contain their own oxidizers, and thus have no need for oxygen in the case to fire.

Hypothesis: Ammo loaded and sealed under vacuum has the potential to be more accurate due to increased consistency (powder drops will have no atmospheric interference, thus will be more even) and decreased (read nil) moisture. Furthermore, were the cartridges to be sealed at both the bullet and primer ends with an additional sealant (such as the water proofing seals on some milsurp) the propellant would remain under vacuum until firing, potentially leading to a more complete burn of the powder while still in the case.....

This is presented as a hypothetical situation, since I do not have a chronograph, nor really the time to build a vac chamber, but I'm curious as to your thoughts. It would be a really cool experiment, in my opinion.

I believe it could be done in a plexiglass vacuum chamber built at home, using something such as a lee hand press, a decent scale and a trickler. desiccant packs could be placed in the chamber to ensure dryness of all components.

Thoughts?
 
I've considered this myself, but with a different approach to accomplish the same results, which is to create a more efficient burn, by removing as much of the oxygen as possible. My thought would be to load cartridges in a zero oxygen environment by introducing carbon dioxide, or maybe nitrogen, as those two gases consume / deplete oxygen molecules. I would think this could be much easier to accomplish by simply bagging the press, and then using a tube to feed the gas into the bag while loading the cartridges v.s. trying to load in a vacuum environment. Loading in a gas filled bag wouldn't likely produce a 100% oxygen free environment, but I'm sure it would be a very low Oxygen environment.

GS
 
It's not really a "practical" exercise, more of a theoretical. The amount of vacuum would not need to be extreme either.
If I was capable, I'd figure out how to model the whole experiment on a computer, but my comp skills aren't as high as they could be, and I'd have no idea where to start.
All things being equal, I believe that the model would show a small, though tangible increase in accuracy.
Going one step further, were the rounds fired within a vacuum, from an immovable rest, there would be zero outside interference (including air resistance) to effect the flight of the projectiles, allowing rounds created under vac, and rounds created under atmospheric(atmos) conditions to be fired together and measured for velocity and accuracy. In that test, I believe the difference in vac ammo and atmos ammo could be quite a bit larger.

As for a "low o2 environment", how would that create a more efficient burn? I'm thinking that the more o2, the better, although the shelf life of shells loaded in high o2 would be practically nil, since the powder would begin to oxidize almost immediately.
My reasoning behind believing a vac would burn more completely, is that it would take slightly longer for the pressure within the case to build enough to push out the projectile, vs an atmos round, which would immediately begin to compress the air (o2 and N), increasing pressure. In the vac round, there is nothing to compress until o2 and Co2 are produced by the burn.

Things that make you go hmmmmm
 
Creating a vacuum inside the case would have a detrimental effect on the cartridge when removed from the vacuum environment. You see, once you have atmospheric pressure outside the case it would want to push the bullet further in changing your overall length. Also, and I am not sure about this one, but you may find that your smokeless powder would off gas and/or breakdown chemically rendering the round inert.
 
Jimbo2032 said:
Creating a vacuum inside the case would have a detrimental effect on the cartridge when removed from the vacuum environment. You see, once you have atmospheric pressure outside the case it would want to push the bullet further in changing your overall length. Also, and I am not sure about this one, but you may find that your smokeless powder would off gas and/or breakdown chemically rendering the round inert.
Click to expand...
I think you may have identified a strong argument against going to all this trouble. Depending on how much empty space is inside the case, you could potentially create a round that will actively draw moisture inside due to the negative pressure differential.

Besides, how do you work inside the vacuum? You would need to build a glove box of some sort so you could handle the brass. You certainly wouldn't want to hold your bare hands inside a vacuum environment for very long because of the danger of capillary rupture. Your hands would be two giant hickeys!
 
How many torr do you plan to work with? A plexiglas chamber probably won't hold much at all. The joints are critical.
 
The earth's atmosphere is about 80% nitrogen (inert). Use a load that almost fills the case or a compressed load and you'll have so little atmosphere (thus oxygen and moisture) in it that it might as well be zero.
 
I don't do any reloading,and I'm not trying to be a smart a$$,but some of these off the wall THEORIES just blow my mind.If you've loaded your optimum load and are happy with it, go with it.If you say you have the perfect load,it can't be more perfect.There are no degrees of perfect,either it is or it isn't.
 
A lot of materials behave differently in a vacuum. Air actually provides some amount of lubrication, and O2 often creates oxide layers that protect the underlying material from further breakdown. Stainless steel and titanium are a couple examples. So I suspect a number of things would change and not in ways one would expect.

I think nitrogen could slightly increase the shelf life, but I doubt it would do anything else. Well, unless someone likes to smoke during reloading - it might help extinguish any embers before they reach the powder. So it could be considered a safety measure.

FWIW, a 30% O2 atmosphere is for all intents and purposes equivalent to a 100% O2 atmosphere, so I suggest foregoing any thoughts of increasing the % of O2 for anything that doesn't absolutely require it. :)
 
some of these off the wall THEORIES just blow my mind
Click to expand...

This wasn't a theory. It isn't even a hypothesis. It's just interesting speculation and I'm glad the OP went to the trouble to ask. I always enjoy the opportunity to think about something I hadn't thought about before. The fact that there are a lot of problems with it and that it isn't really practical doesn't make it any less interesting.
 
I'm a little more down-to-earth. Are you thinking handgun ammo that would yield 1/16 inch groups at 25 yards rather than 1/2 inch groups? Seems like either would certainly be in the X ring, or be fatal shots if hunting or used for defensive use.
 
I'm not even going to wrap the last two functioning brain cells in my head around this issue. I mean, one of them is on the fritz as i Ty3p$E.......... :(
 
Quote:
some of these off the wall THEORIES just blow my mind

Quote:This wasn't a theory. It isn't even a hypothesis. It's just interesting speculation and I'm glad the OP went to the trouble to ask. I always enjoy the opportunity to think about something I hadn't thought about before. The fact that there are a lot of problems with it and that it isn't really practical doesn't make it any less interesting.

Exactly, this is by no means a practical exercise. It is intended as a critical thinking project.

Quote: I'm a little more down-to-earth. Are you thinking handgun ammo that would yield 1/16 inch groups at 25 yards rather than 1/2 inch groups? Seems like either would certainly be in the X ring, or be fatal shots if hunting or used for defensive use.

1/16" groups vs 1/2" at 25 yards? even though that's negligible as far as a pistol in a defensive shooting, how is it not an improvement? Getting all shots in the 10 ring is not equal to getting all shots in the same hole, imo. Some of us roll our own to save money, but others of us look to create a weapon/ammo combination that is far more accurate than we are capable of ourselves. Without striving for the "impossible" there is no improvement and forward progression. I understand and am well aware of the physical difficulties of carrying out this experiment in real life. That's not what this THEORETICAL conversation is about. It's just a mental exercise.

We must remember that if we ever settle on "good enough" and stop striving for perfection, all forward momentum is lost. I know if I ever find "perfect" loads for anything and stop experimenting, this hobby will stop being fun for me and I will likely go back to buying factory ammunition
 
Last edited:
bigdaa said:
I'm not even going to wrap the last two functioning brain cells in my head around this issue. I mean, one of them is on the fritz as i Ty3p$E.......... :(
Click to expand...
If my one remaining quarter braincell recollects correctly, they sent up a Bowie knife on the first lunar landing.
 
dropping powder would be an issue.

BECAUSE IT WOULDN'T DROP.

How do you get the powder to "fall" into the case?????

And then how do you keep it in the case while seating a bullet????
 
In a vacuum the powder would drop just as it would in my basement. In zero gravity, it would not drop. The two don't necessarily go together.

And if I could get my handgun shots into 1/2 inch groups at 25 yards, Steve2md, I wouldn't worry about reducing it to 1/16 inch groups. I'd be happily hoisting an adult beverage!:neener:
 
I don't think my press, let alone the dispenser and scale, would fit in one of those new Dyson's !
 
I can't remember when or where I read this, but supposedly, loading ammunition under very low humidity conditions can be dangerous due to static electricity buildup which can ignite the powder "fines".

If dry air is incapable of properly dissipating static electricity, I'd think that no air at all would be even worse...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
Reloading with a little disability
2
Replies
28
Views
1K
jamesicus
J
T
  • Locked
Educated Reloading Newbie....with General question
Replies
15
Views
685
Varminterror
Varminterror
Billy Jack
  • Locked
Upgrading Reloading Equip with $$$ from Rifle Sale
Replies
18
Views
978
ArchAngelCD
ArchAngelCD
B
  • Locked
Reality thread: First time reloader success story.
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
burningsquirrels
B
S
  • Locked
Recoil is moving my balls ...
2 3
Replies
56
Views
4K
CharlesK80
C
Back
Top