TXGunNut said

Chuck said
Thanks, Mike.
I just gave away 50 lbs of lead to one of my shooting friends.  He and the other 4 guys that shoot next to me have explained the process.  Maybe one of them would help me out.  One of them cast 5 bullets for my Sharps rifle for display cartridges.  Too pretty for me to shoot.  The bullet that is.  I have shot the rifle.
  

Yep, they're pretty! I don't have a problem shooting them because I can pour some more. 
 
Mike
  

I need some 45-70's.  I'm not picky.  .458", 400 grs would be nice but I wouldn't complain about something heavier.  My shoulder might though.  The Sharps has 1:18 twist.

When case head gets too hot to hold, I drop it on a folded towel . . . .NO WATER QUENCH!

(Usually done before a bullet casting session.)

Chuck said
Thanks, Mike.
I just gave away 50 lbs of lead to one of my shooting friends.  He and the other 4 guys that shoot next to me have explained the process.  Maybe one of them would help me out.  One of them cast 5 bullets for my Sharps rifle for display cartridges.  Too pretty for me to shoot.  The bullet that is.  I have shot the rifle.
  

Yep, they're pretty! I don't have a problem shooting them because I can pour some more. 

Mike

I just gave away 50 lbs of lead to one of my shooting friends.  He and the other 4 guys that shoot next to me have explained the process.  Maybe one of them would help me out.  One of them cast 5 bullets for my Sharps rifle for display cartridges.  Too pretty for me to shoot.  The bullet that is.  I have shot the rifle.

Chuck said
I have a bunch of my friends telling me I should.  I have enough trouble keeping up with what I'm doing now.
  

Chuck-

I've invited Zeb up to pour a few, hopefully someday he'll wander up here. Would be a bit of a hike for you but I'll extend the offer anyway. It's the same as reloading, it can be accomplished with minimal equipment or you can wind up with dozens of moulds, a box full of sizing dies and more related equipment than you can imagine. There are few things more satisfying than pouring molten lead into a mould and dropping out a fresh, shiny bullet. It can be a bit frustrating at times but you seem to enjoy a challenge. Single cavity steel moulds are almost therapeutic but the aluminum 4-6 cavity moulds will keep you busy until the pot is empty.  I'm sure one of your friends on the left coast will let you sit in on a casting session and maybe even pour a few. On the downside useable lead is getting scarce out here in the free world and I would recommend looking into the local lead supply situation before investing in tools and equipment. 

Mike

Mike

Bert H. said

Chuck said

Bert H. said

Chuck said

Bert H. said .  FWIW, IMR 4198 has not "been around for over 100 years", and its formulation is virtually the same today as when it was introduced in the 1930s.
  

Never said it was.  The only documented Dupont info I've ever seen that talks about fillers and compressed loads was for the No 1 powder. 
  

You are guilty of ignoring some of the information I posted. Specifically, Post #78 in this topic string. 
  

I did not ignore it.  I actually agree with some of it. But a lot of the times your opinion is not backed up with documented proof.  Opinions don't count in reloading.  I don't trust anyone's opinions when it comes to reloading.   I choose to test the data I get from the noted and accepted authors of the reloading manuals. 
  

That was not my opinion... instead, it was quoted information.
  

"This is what you will find if you do some investigating”

IMR 4198 is generally considered not position sensitive for most rifle cartridges, including common straight-walled black powder cartridges like the .45-70, .40-70 Ballard, and .40-90 Ballard. This means that, within normal loading density and pressure limits, you don’t need to worry about the exact placement of the powder in the case for consistent ignition and performance.

Why it’s not position sensitive

• Burn rate and formulation: IMR 4198 is a fast-burning extruded rifle powder designed for consistent combustion when loaded within its published pressure range.
• Experience in older cartridges: Reloaders using it in .45-70 and similar straight-walled cartridges have reported no issues with vertical stringing or erratic ignition when powder placement varies."

OK, provide the source of this data.  I have provided all my sources.  Even if you do, I will still use fillers when I think they are needed.  None of this says anything about the Topic of reloading the 40 EX.  I thought you were going to agree to disagree.  

Chuck said

Bert H. said

Chuck said

Bert H. said .  FWIW, IMR 4198 has not "been around for over 100 years", and its formulation is virtually the same today as when it was introduced in the 1930s.
  

Never said it was.  The only documented Dupont info I've ever seen that talks about fillers and compressed loads was for the No 1 powder. 
  

You are guilty of ignoring some of the information I posted. Specifically, Post #78 in this topic string. 
  

I did not ignore it.  I actually agree with some of it. But a lot of the times your opinion is not backed up with documented proof.  Opinions don't count in reloading.  I don't trust anyone's opinions when it comes to reloading.   I choose to test the data I get from the noted and accepted authors of the reloading manuals. 
  

That was not my opinion... instead, it was quoted information.

Bert H. said

Chuck said

Bert H. said .  FWIW, IMR 4198 has not "been around for over 100 years", and its formulation is virtually the same today as when it was introduced in the 1930s.
  

Never said it was.  The only documented Dupont info I've ever seen that talks about fillers and compressed loads was for the No 1 powder. 
  

You are guilty of ignoring some of the information I posted. Specifically, Post #78 in this topic string. 
  

I did not ignore it.  I actually agree with some of it. But a lot of the times your opinion is not backed up with documented proof.  Opinions don't count in reloading.  I don't trust anyone's opinions when it comes to reloading.   I choose to test the data I get from the noted and accepted authors of the reloading manuals. 

Chuck said

Bert H. said .  FWIW, IMR 4198 has not "been around for over 100 years", and its formulation is virtually the same today as when it was introduced in the 1930s.
  

Never said it was.  The only documented Dupont info I've ever seen that talks about fillers and compressed loads was for the No 1 powder. 
  

You are guilty of ignoring some of the information I posted. Specifically, Post #78 in this topic string. 

Chuck said

Bert H. said
Chuck,
What I am telling you (and you apparently are refusing to accept or understand) is that I choose to believe what the Powder manufacturer (Dupont in this case) has clearly stated concerning their product.  They alone have the legal liability to insure that their products (and the instructions for use) are clearly delineated.   Clyde (Snooky) Williams (and other similar authors) were not the gun powder manufacturer, nor are they directly legally responsible if somebody misused Dupont's gun powder. So Yes, he is one of the "gun cranks" that I am referring to.
Dupont clearly stated not to pack or use a filler with their smokeless powders designed to replace black powder, yet you intentionally choose to take the erroneous (bad) advice/recommendation from someone not directly associated with the manufacture of the actual product... why ?  Do you honestly believe that Dupont is unqualified to tell people not to use fillers or packing?
Bert
  

You are doing the exact same thing.  Refusing to admit what the Modern Experts have said. What ever Dupont said 100 years ago for a powder that hasn't been around for over 100 years most likely was what they believed or could have been said for liability reasons.  Neither of us has any proof.
I will follow the experts.  But, I will start low and work up.  I will use fillers when there is a large void to fill.  Flash over is real and has blown up rifles.  As powders were improved and replaced they have become more efficient and will produce more pressure based upon my chronograph data.  I've just learned a lesson about compressing a load and won't do it again.  Not sure when I'll shoot again.  Hopefully on Tuesday if I can get all the projects done around the house to be gone for a couple weeks.   
  

I asked Grok ( an unbiased expert?) who was right and below is his response. Don’t shoot the messenger - pun intended!

Why Bert’s position holds up best:

•  Manufacturer guidance is the safest baseline. Hodgdon/IMR (who now handle the IMR line) and historical DuPont data have long treated IMR 4198 as a relatively non-position-sensitive powder. It’s specifically praised for black-powder cartridge use precisely because it performs consistently without needing fillers when you follow the “40% rule” (roughly 40% of the original black-powder charge by weight). Current Hodgdon data for cartridges like the .45-70, .38-55, or similar doesn’t call for fillers with 4198, and many experienced reloaders on Winchester-specific forums echo this: they load 4198 successfully with no filler and good consistency. 

•  Fillers introduce unnecessary variables. Even “safe” light fillers (toilet paper, Dacron, etc.) can sometimes cause issues like inconsistent ignition, minor pressure spikes, or (rarely) chamber ringing in older guns if they shift or compress oddly. Bert’s point about legal liability is spot-on: the powder maker has every incentive to give conservative advice, while secondary sources or individual “modern experts” (including books like Williamson’s) don’t carry the same accountability.

•  Flash-over risk is real but overstated for 4198. True secondary explosive effect (SEE) or dangerous flash-over is more commonly associated with certain slower powders in very low-density loads, not with a fast-burning powder like 4198 when charges are kept in the recommended reduced range. Many long-time reloaders (including several on the same site) report decades of trouble-free use of 4198 without fillers, especially in straight-wall cases.

Bert’s conservative, manufacturer-first approach is the one that minimizes risk — especially valuable when shooting collectible Winchester lever guns or single-shots that you don’t want to damage.

Bert H. is on the safer, more conservative side — and in the reloading community (especially among collectors of vintage Winchester lever guns and single-shots), his position aligns with the stronger consensus.

Bottom line for safety: Stick with published data from Hodgdon/IMR or reputable manuals.

Bert H. said .  FWIW, IMR 4198 has not "been around for over 100 years", and its formulation is virtually the same today as when it was introduced in the 1930s.
  

Never said it was.  The only documented Dupont info I've ever seen that talks about fillers and compressed loads was for the No 1 powder.