Testing: Filler vs. no filler.

[maillemaker]

Today I took my Uberti Walker to the range, and I worked up loads of 35, 40, 45, 50, and 60 grains 3F Shuetzen, using a .457 ball cast from a Lee mold. Sprues were oriented sprue-forward. The filler was Cream of Wheat. When filler was used, enough was put over the powder so that when the ball was firmly seated it was just flush with the cylinder face.

Before starting, I had seated a ball on an empty chamber and then removed the nipple and poured powder in from the nipple opening to determine the minimum uncompressed load that the revolver loading ram can reach with a ball. In the case of this particular Uberti Walker, that was 32.9 grains of 3F Shuetzen. Thus I started with 35 grains as the starting load.

Shots were made from 25 yards off of a bench rest. Because seating the bullets with no filler vs. with filler results in, obviously, different bullet seating depths, I did not use lube. If I had used lube, the deeper-seated bullets would have ended up with more lube over them than the shallow-set bullets. To eliminate this variable, I used no lube. This is the first time I had ever shot a BP revolver with no lube.

The difference with no lube is instantly apparent after the first 6 shots. The barrel was fouled with hard deposits that brushing and wiping with Ballistol alone would not remove. Instead I poured water down the barrel and scrubbed that with a bristle brush and then wiped with a patch. That removed the fouling.

The best group was achieved with the load I had already discovered for this revolver and currently use in competition - 45 grains 3F Shuetzen with filler.

However, surprisingly, 35 grains with filler also did very well.

45 grains without filler had some bullets make a good group, but one bullet missed the target entirely.

I had a few targets with a "missing" bullet, either it went through an existing hole or missed the target entirely. As I was cleaning up I discovered a hole in the bucket I use to hold my "bullet catcher" bucket so I know at least one of them went about a foot low, but I don't know from which target it came from.

Here are the images of the targets:

http://imgur.com/a/1U6jH

So, from this very limited experiment, I believe that there may be merit to using filler such that the ball is seated near the face of the cylinder, and thus near the barrel opening.

I'm also very much a fan of over-the-ball lube as the effect on keeping the fouling soft is obvious and large.

Steve

[maillemaker]

I will be repeating this experiment with my Pietta 1858 and 1860.

Steve

[kwhi43]

It's good that you found out something that others had found out 70 years ago.
Looking forward to your next testing. I know this takes a lot of work. Thank you
for taking the time to do it.

[rodwhaincamo]

My father gave me a honey bear bottle with some sort of cereal grains when he gave me my ROA. I don't use it often as I wouldn't want to carry that in the field as well, and measuring that out, especially on a breezy day, is a real pain.

So what I have considered doing is buying thin felt material from Durofelt and using them as filler.

You mentioned over the ball lube. Do you notice any difference between lube placed there or behind the ball on a wad?

I typically shoot cast bullets and am not sure I really care to lube the wad as the groove is lubed. But I've wondered if the wad would just scrape of the bullet lube.

Thoughts?

[maillemaker]

It's good that you found out something that others had found out 70 years ago.

It's not so much "finding out" as it is lending credence to what is now "common knowledge". I've only been shooting BP for about 3 years now in the N-SSA. Nearly everyone there uses filler over the powder and under the ball. This is where I learned to do it. The rationale given was that by positioning the ball close to the start of the rifling, it does not have a chance to develop much velocity before engaging the rifling and thus takes to the rifling better. I don't know if the rationale is true or not but there does seem to be some value in the action.

In discussions of filler around here, some of said that the filler was not necessary. I would very much like it to be unnecessary, as it would reduce loading complexity and expense.

Looking forward to your next testing. I know this takes a lot of work. Thank you for taking the time to do it.

No problem. I like doing experiments like this. It definitely is time consuming. I took all 3 revolvers thinking I would do all of them, but only did the Walker. I spent all day at the range.

So what I have considered doing is buying thin felt material from Durofelt and using them as filler.

I know many people use wads, lubed or otherwise, as a filler. I have never used them so I cannot comment from experience. My initial reaction is that a solid wad would be superior to a loose filler as there would be no possibility of it mixing with the powder and/or diluting the charge when it goes off. As all is compressed under the ball this might not be an issue but with a relatively solid wad it would be almost certainly not an issue. I like the cream of wheat as it is extremely inexpensive.

You mentioned over the ball lube. Do you notice any difference between lube placed there or behind the ball on a wad?

I have never used any kind of lube behind the ball so I cannot comment from experience. My initial reaction is that lube behind the bullet cannot lubricate the bullet in front of it. It may be able to create deposits on the barrel that keep the fouling soft or easily cleaned away by subsequent bullets.

I typically shoot cast bullets and am not sure I really care to lube the wad as the groove is lubed. But I've wondered if the wad would just scrape of the bullet lube.

If your bullets are grooved and carry their own lube in their grooves, then I think you are accomplishing the primary purpose of bullet lube which is, in my opinion, to lubricate the bullet being fired as it travels down the barrel. Just as in Minie balls, this also certainly helps keep fouling from being able to adhere to the barrel.

Assuming you have a bullet that works with the rate of twist of your rifling, I would expect that a grooved bullet that carries its own lube is superior to applying lube in front of or behind the bullet.

What I have been told is that most of the modern reproductions have twist rates optimized for round ball, and so it is difficult to find a short conical bullet that will work well in them. However, I have read a review in Guns of the Old West that compared round ball to some conical bullets, including a "Kaido" bullet, and the Kaido conical gave the best accuracy. I'd like to try some.

Steve

[Quentin2]

Interesting thread, Steve. Methodical, repeatable testing is always welcome! Common knowledge is good but it never hurts to see if it stands up to real world testing. I hope you do find the time soon to test your 1858 and 1860. Thanks for the information!

[rodwhaincamo]

"My initial reaction is that lube behind the bullet cannot lubricate the bullet in front of it."

My understanding is that lube is only for keeping powder fouling softer. It seems it would work best if behind the bullet if this is the case, and I've read that in cartridge guns that lead bullets don't lead the barrel until the velocity becomes quite high (~1200 fps?).


"What I have been told is that most of the modern reproductions have twist rates optimized for round ball…"

My understanding was that Uberti used a 1:16" twist as the Rugers, and that Pietta's used something like a 1:30" twist, which was why conicals did poorly in them. I measured my new Pietta '58 and found it has a 1:16" twist, and does equally well with my custom 170 and 195 grn WFN bullets, though not as well as my ROA does with them. And my Pietta has had the chambers reamed to .449" and chamfered.

[tatartot]

Great report Steve.But have you ever tried testing with just
a lubed felt wad.I found in my cap & ball revolvers a 1/8 inch
hard lubed felt wad makes a huge difference then no wad.

I never have tried the filler thow.TT

[maillemaker]

My understanding is that lube is only for keeping powder fouling softer. It seems it would work best if behind the bullet if this is the case, and I've read that in cartridge guns that lead bullets don't lead the barrel until the velocity becomes quite high (~1200 fps?).

I apply Lee Alox lube to my bullets that I load for .45 ACP, which only pushes 850 fps or so, as I recall.

Over-the-ball lube does help with keeping the fouling soft, and of course also lubricates the bullet, whether it needs it or not. However, lubed wads may work just as well at least in terms of fouling and are easier to load than spooning goops of lube over the chambers and possibly allows for longer-term storage of a loaded gun than over-the-ball lube. That's never an issue for me as I shoot as soon as I load.

Great report Steve.But have you ever tried testing with just
a lubed felt wad.I found in my cap & ball revolvers a 1/8 inch
hard lubed felt wad makes a huge difference then no wad.

No, I have never tried wads of any kind.

Steve

[44 Dave]

I have been using lubed over powder wads for a while.
Thoughts being, the first shot is wiping the oil that was in the barrel from to cleaning then the next round is lubed by the proceeding wad.
When cleaning after a short session of 6 to 18 rounds one double sided swab with black powder solvent has the barrel 90% clean.
If loading and not shooting right away, keep one pistol loaded at all times, I use a card wad over powder to keep the lube from getting to the powder.