Log In
March 31, 2009
Offline
I shot these on 5/26.
1- 30 grs 1,272 fps Cold bore Ambient temp was 61 degrees.
2- 30.5 grs 1,446 fps has a slight extractor rub from pressure.
3- 31 grs 1,417 fps
4- 31.5 grs 1,420 fps
5- 32 grs 1,491 fps has an extractor rub from pressure.
The new primers worked this time. All of the rounds ejected fine. Looks like I need to stay in the low 1,400’s. Barnes says to use 32 grs of 4198 for 1,617 fps but I’m getting pressure signs above 31.5 grains and only getting 1,420 fps. My load in this barrel tells me to stay around 31.5 grs of 4198. I used an over the powder card and then toilet paper rolled into a tube long enough so the bullet pushed it down some against the card.
November 7, 2015
Offline
Progress! What was the SD for the 4th load?
Mike
March 31, 2009
Offline
TXGunNut said
Progress! What was the SD for the 4th load?
Mike
I’m not sure what you are asking?
April 15, 2005
Offline
TXGunNut said
Progress! What was the SD for the 4th load?
Mike
Mike,
If I understand what Chuck did, he does not have an SD for just the 31.5 gr load because he shot just (1) round. If I understand it correctly, he loaded (5) total cartridges, each with a different charge weight. In his shoes, I would have loaded all (5) empties with the exact same load, shot them, and recorded the results, then repeat with the next powder charge weight.
There is no explanation for his #2 load being both faster in velocity and harder to extract than loads #3 and # 4 except for uncontrolled variances in his over-powder card placement and/or the (unneeded) rolled toilet paper between the powder card and the bullet.
The only way to control (eliminate) the oddities that he is experiencing in his load performance is to stop using the over powder cards and toilet paper. It is not needed with IMR 4198.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
November 7, 2015
Offline
Chuck said
TXGunNut said
Progress! What was the SD for the 4th load?
Mike
I’m not sure what you are asking?
I misunderstood, I didn’t realize you were only shooting one of each load. Maybe I just like loading, shooting and data but I don’t feel like one round will tell you much. I’m glad you addressed the primer issue. They almost never cause problems but it’s an easy thing to try when things get wonky.
Mike
March 31, 2009
Offline
TXGunNut said
Chuck said
TXGunNut said
Progress! What was the SD for the 4th load?
Mike
I’m not sure what you are asking?
I misunderstood, I didn’t realize you were only shooting one of each load. Maybe I just like loading, shooting and data but I don’t feel like one round will tell you much. I’m glad you addressed the primer issue. They almost never cause problems but it’s an easy thing to try when things get wonky.
Mike
Mike, at this stage I was just testing the charge weights trying to find the max load. I will pick the one I like and do some 5 shot groups. I only have 5 cases that are fire formed. I don’t want to ruin anymore brass. When I have the loading die set made I will fire form some more.
March 31, 2009
Offline
Bert H. said
Mike,
If I understand what Chuck did, he does not have an SD for just the 31.5 gr load because he shot just (1) round. If I understand it correctly, he loaded (5) total cartridges, each with a different charge weight. In his shoes, I would have loaded all (5) empties with the exact same load, shot them, and recorded the results, then repeat with the next powder charge weight.
There is no explanation for his #2 load being both faster in velocity and harder to extract than loads #3 and # 4 except for uncontrolled variances in his over-powder card placement and/or the (unneeded) rolled toilet paper between the powder card and the bullet.
The only way to control (eliminate) the oddities that he is experiencing in his load performance is to stop using the over powder cards and toilet paper. It is not needed with IMR 4198.
Bert
Bert, If I had more fire formed brass I would have shot more of each load. But I don’t and I don’t want to ruin more of the parent brass.
I can’t explain why #2 did what it did. None of the rounds were hard to extract. #2 and #5 did show marks from the extractor due to pressure.
You are making statements that can’t be backed up with any known documentation by any experts. The early ballasticians of the day when they were using smokeless powder in the longer black powder brass disagree with your assumptions. They say to use a filler and that’s what I will do.
The only guess I will make is that this brass probably has less case volume than the original factory 40 EX brass. When the parent brass was squeezed down the material went somewhere.
April 15, 2005
Offline
Chuck said
Bert H. said
Mike,
If I understand what Chuck did, he does not have an SD for just the 31.5 gr load because he shot just (1) round. If I understand it correctly, he loaded (5) total cartridges, each with a different charge weight. In his shoes, I would have loaded all (5) empties with the exact same load, shot them, and recorded the results, then repeat with the next powder charge weight.
There is no explanation for his #2 load being both faster in velocity and harder to extract than loads #3 and # 4 except for uncontrolled variances in his over-powder card placement and/or the (unneeded) rolled toilet paper between the powder card and the bullet.
The only way to control (eliminate) the oddities that he is experiencing in his load performance is to stop using the over powder cards and toilet paper. It is not needed with IMR 4198.
Bert
Bert, If I had more fire formed brass I would have shot more of each load. But I don’t and I don’t want to ruin more of the parent brass.
I can’t explain why #2 did what it did. None of the rounds were hard to extract. #2 and #5 did show marks from the extractor due to pressure.
You are making statements that can’t be backed up with any known documentation by any experts. The early ballasticians of the day when they were using smokeless powder in the longer black powder brass disagree with your assumptions. They say to use a filler and that’s what I will do.
The only guess I will make is that this brass probably has less case volume than the original factory 40 EX brass. When the parent brass was squeezed down the material went somewhere.
Chuck,
The only way for you to get reasonably accurate load data is to measure the volume of all (5) of your test cartridge cases and then load them precisely with the exact same load. Then go shoot them with your chronograph recording.
I suspect that you are correct in that the case capacity is something less than an original WRACo case. But you should first verify and document it.
In regard to the use of fillers, I am not making any assumptions what-so-ever… I am simply repeating and adhering to what Dupont stated about the use if their IMR 4198. I will back that up with my own personal experience loading and shooting both the 40-70 Ballard and 40-70 Sharps Straight cartridges using IMR 4198 with no fillers or over powder cards. Both are long straight walled cartridges and when loaded with 24 – 28 grains of 4198, they shoot perfectly. For my 38-55 (which is essentially a scaled down but very similar contour to the 40 EX) I load it with 22 grains of IMR 4198… again, a very accurate and consistent load in my Single Shot high-wall rifle.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
March 31, 2009
Offline
Bert H. said
Chuck said
Bert H. said
Mike,
If I understand what Chuck did, he does not have an SD for just the 31.5 gr load because he shot just (1) round. If I understand it correctly, he loaded (5) total cartridges, each with a different charge weight. In his shoes, I would have loaded all (5) empties with the exact same load, shot them, and recorded the results, then repeat with the next powder charge weight.
There is no explanation for his #2 load being both faster in velocity and harder to extract than loads #3 and # 4 except for uncontrolled variances in his over-powder card placement and/or the (unneeded) rolled toilet paper between the powder card and the bullet.
The only way to control (eliminate) the oddities that he is experiencing in his load performance is to stop using the over powder cards and toilet paper. It is not needed with IMR 4198.
Bert
Bert, If I had more fire formed brass I would have shot more of each load. But I don’t and I don’t want to ruin more of the parent brass.
I can’t explain why #2 did what it did. None of the rounds were hard to extract. #2 and #5 did show marks from the extractor due to pressure.
You are making statements that can’t be backed up with any known documentation by any experts. The early ballasticians of the day when they were using smokeless powder in the longer black powder brass disagree with your assumptions. They say to use a filler and that’s what I will do.
The only guess I will make is that this brass probably has less case volume than the original factory 40 EX brass. When the parent brass was squeezed down the material went somewhere.
Chuck,
The only way for you to get reasonably accurate load data is to measure the volume of all (5) of your test cartridge cases and then load them precisely with the exact same load. Then go shoot them with your chronograph recording.
I suspect that you are correct in that the case capacity is something less than an original WRACo case. But you should first verify and document it.
In regard to the use of fillers, I am not making any assumptions what-so-ever… I am simply repeating and adhering to what Dupont stated about the use if their IMR 4198. I will back that up with my own personal experience loading and shooting both the 40-70 Ballard and 40-70 Sharps Straight cartridges using IMR 4198 with no fillers or over powder cards. Both are long straight walled cartridges and when loaded with 24 – 28 grains of 4198, they shoot perfectly. For my 38-55 (which is essentially a scaled down but very similar contour to the 40 EX) I load it with 22 grains of IMR 4198… again, a very accurate and consistent load in my Single Shot high-wall rifle.
Bert
Bert we went through this for weeks. I knew you couldn’t agree to disagree.
April 15, 2005
Offline
Chuck said
Bert we went through this for weeks. I knew you couldn’t agree to disagree.
Chuck,
You restarted this silly argument with your comments in post #107. Just in case you are not aware, it takes two to tangle, and you are 50% of the problem (argument).
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
January 8, 2025
Offline
I enjoy this argument, as an outsider looking in. I understand I know enough to be dangerous, so I’m very careful with my reloading. As a blade of grass watching elephants tussle, I’m not going to comment my thoughts. I just enjoy you two. I’d listen to this conversation intensely sitting a stool down in some dive bar.
March 31, 2009
Offline
Bert H. said
Chuck said
Bert we went through this for weeks. I knew you couldn’t agree to disagree.
Chuck,
You restarted this silly argument with your comments in post #107. Just in case you are not aware, it takes two to tangle, and you are 50% of the problem (argument).
Wrong again, you need to read your comments in post 104. I have said all along that I will never quit using toilet paper as a filler. I prefer to err on the side of safety. Unless you can actually show me some proof and not just an opinion.
April 15, 2005
Offline
Chuck said
Bert H. said
Chuck said
Bert we went through this for weeks. I knew you couldn’t agree to disagree.
Chuck,
You restarted this silly argument with your comments in post #107. Just in case you are not aware, it takes two to tangle, and you are 50% of the problem (argument).
Wrong again, you need to read your comments in post 104. I have said all along that I will never quit using toilet paper as a filler. I prefer to err on the side of safety. Unless you can actually show me some proof and not just an opinion.
Chuck,
I suggest you enroll in a college level physics class and learn why your theories on the use of uncontrolled filler weight and placement in a confined cylindrical container/space is a recipe for failure.
The first serious inconsistency issue that you are creating is the use of an over powder card. Unless you can precisely control the weight, and physical placement of the powder card inside the cartridge case, you are introducing an uncontrollable variable that will cause pressure variances upon ignition of the powder. Further, it is critical to control the compression pressure of the powder to insure a consistent burn rate. Compressing the powder has an effect on both the burn rate and the corresponding pressure that it creates upon ignition.
The next uncontrollable variable that you are introducing is the weight & volume of the toilet paper filler. Do you weigh each piece of TP that you place in the cartridges and ensure that it is exactly the same? Do you position it in precisely in the case and in the exact same location from load to load? I am willing to bet that the answer to each of my questions NO.
When you change the internal volume & space of the cartridge case with filler and powder cards, you are altering the burn rate and pressure of the measured powder charge. With no filler and no over card, it will give you a much more consistent burn rate for a powder that it not position sensitive. Because IMR 4198 is not position (as stated by Dupont) or temperature sensitive, it is a very good choice for the larger (older) former black powder cartridges. Numerous gun cranks in the past have advocated its use as well (Frank Barnes at the top of the list, and he did not mention fillers for its use).
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
March 31, 2009
Offline
OH Bert, a lot of bull. I use filler because that is what the experts say to use. According to you they are all “cranks”. I do not compress the load but I do keep it all next to the primer. I have been using toilet paper for over 35 years and never have had a problem once I figure out the best amount to use. The toilet paper keeps the card, in this situation, and powder next to the primer so it all goes off at the same time. The bullet does push the toilet paper in by about 3/8″ in the 40 EX. Flash over, which is a documented fact, could cause incomplete ignition and guns have blown up. I have had problems when not using a filler. The ignition is not as it should be and it shows up on the chronograph as some erratic speed. Just like the time I compressed the load in the 40 EX. What you need to do is load your longest case with the reduced load of smokeless and drop the barrel below vertical just before you shoot so the powder is up against the bullet and see if your ES is still the same over 5 shots.
Like I said, I want to be safe and I will not do as you say. I spent 42 years in engineering and construction groups and just because it works on paper does not mean it works in the real world. I believe the Experts, the target and the chronograph.
April 15, 2005
Offline
Chuck said
OH Bert, a lot of bull. I use filler because that is what the experts say to use. According to you they are all “cranks”. I do not compress the load but I do keep it all next to the primer. I have been using toilet paper for over 35 years and never have had a problem once I figure out the best amount to use. The toilet paper keeps the card, in this situation, and powder next to the primer so it all goes off at the same time. The bullet does push the toilet paper in by about 3/8″ in the 40 EX. Flash over, which is a documented fact, could cause incomplete ignition and guns have blown up. I have had problems when not using a filler. The ignition is not as it should be and it shows up on the chronograph as some erratic speed. Just like the time I compressed the load in the 40 EX. What you need to do is load your longest case with the reduced load of smokeless and drop the barrel below vertical just before you shoot so the powder is up against the bullet and see if your ES is still the same over 5 shots.
Like I said, I want to be safe and I will not do as you say. I spent 42 years in engineering and construction groups and just because it works on paper does not mean it works in the real world. I believe the Experts, the target and the chronograph.
Chuck,
As you well know, I am a retired Sr. Engineer, and I worked in that field for 44-years. The so-called “experts” that you so desperately and willingly want to believe (trust) were not educated or trained engineers or scientists. None of them designed or formulated gun powder or anything related to it. They simply experimented with reloading and developed their own opinions from it, and then published their non scientifically observed results.
The erratic results you have experienced and stated thus far with your 40 EX cartridge loading experiment are in fact the direct result of what I have tried to enlighten you with. I urge you to put your emotions aside, and then critically evaluate what is causing the erratic results you are seeing.
I will leave you with this… “You can lead a horse to water…”
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
March 31, 2009
Offline
Bert H. said
Chuck,
As you well know, I am a retired Sr. Engineer, and I worked in that field for 44-years. The so-called “experts” that you so desperately and willingly want to believe (trust) were not educated or trained engineers or scientists. None of them designed or formulated gun powder or anything related to it. They simply experimented with reloading and developed their own opinions from it, and then published their non scientifically observed results.Bert
And neither are you and most of your posts are just your opinion.
When it comes to load development you are not the one that will lead me anywhere.
January 8, 2025
Offline
Chuck said
Bert H. said
Chuck,
As you well know, I am a retired Sr. Engineer, and I worked in that field for 44-years. The so-called “experts” that you so desperately and willingly want to believe (trust) were not educated or trained engineers or scientists. None of them designed or formulated gun powder or anything related to it. They simply experimented with reloading and developed their own opinions from it, and then published their non scientifically observed results.
Bert
And neither are you and most of your posts are just your opinion.
When it comes to load development you are not the one that will lead me anywhere.
I’m also an engineer, title is “technologist “ because I didn’t go to school for 4 years. I went to work. I have what’s called “equivalent experience”. I understand why chuck won’t alter his process. And I see how berts recommended advice could help. But if I were chuck and hadn’t blown up a gun in my face, I sure wouldn’t do something that I thought would cause such a thing. Y’all know more about lead and powder than I do. It really seems like Chuck is applying black powder principles to smokeless. I’m honestly scared of black powder. Way too volatile to have around before I understand it. Just saying from a couple stools down.
April 15, 2005
Offline
MidwestCrisis said
It really seems like Chuck is applying black powder principles to smokeless.
That is precisely what he appears to be doing. Based on his past comments & posts, his experience with using IMR 4198 is both limited and very recent.
On the other hand, I have been safely reloading older black powder cartridges with it for 40+ years now. Just in this past year I reloaded a total of 500-rounds with IMR 4198, (50) 40-70 Ballard, (50) 40-70 Sharps Straight, (250) 38-55, and (150) 25-20 Single Shot. These were all with specific loads that I have previously reloaded and accuracy tested.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
March 31, 2009
Offline
MidwestCrisis said
I’m also an engineer, title is “technologist “ because I didn’t go to school for 4 years. I went to work. I have what’s called “equivalent experience”. I understand why chuck won’t alter his process. And I see how berts recommended advice could help. But if I were chuck and hadn’t blown up a gun in my face, I sure wouldn’t do something that I thought would cause such a thing. Y’all know more about lead and powder than I do. It really seems like Chuck is applying black powder principles to smokeless. I’m honestly scared of black powder. Way too volatile to have around before I understand it. Just saying from a couple stools down.
Adam, I’m sort of like you. I got drafted while in college and never went back when I got out. I had a good job waiting and a family to take care of. I have had many titles. At one time I was an Engineering Aid. But the last 20 years I was a project manager. Depending on my assignments I would hire an Engineer if one was needed. Many summers the company I worked for hired college students that were future engineers. I used to get one and try to instill upon them the need to go into the field and learn about what they were about to engineer. It is a rare occasion when you find an engineer that is book smart and has common sense. I spent a big part of my career working with the Operation and Maintenance Supervisors to rebuild something that an Engineer designed that didn’t work. “Worked on paper”.
I have been collecting the old loading manuals and any books that are about loading or ballistics from the era when loaders started using smokeless powder in the black powder cartridges. I do try to keep the speed down to around the black powder speed. But, speed does not indicate what the chamber pressure really is. So I watch pressure signs very closely. Many writers/shooters of this period recommended/used fillers of some sort. Toilet paper is the choice of many. Some of these same writers talk about flash over. This can occur when using small loads of smokeless powder in large black powder cases. The primer ignites the powder, not all at once, but down along the top of the spread out powder. Guns did blow up and people got killed.
I have been using 4198 since 1990. I do not use fillers in short cases. Bert is exaggerating some. When I met him I don’t really know if he was actually loading but I can tell you his knowledge base was all about the highwalls. He’s a very smart guy and has learned a lot since but he can be scary when it comes to loading. But so are some of the writers of loading manuals. Some of these guy’s loads can be a little hot. You should not be shooting smokeless powder in your old guns without using a chronograph and understanding the signs of pressure.
I have never seen a noted expert, that has written a book on loading or ballistics, say that a filler, used properly, is bad.
January 8, 2025
Offline
Yes Chuck, I’m 21 years into a career, I’m getting into project management and I’m good at making things work. I was told once that most engineers have a ton of common sense because they’ve never used a lick of it. Reloading is an art. Everyone is going to have a different opinion. I really enjoy how you bring these old cartridges back to life.
Thanks,
Adam
