Quote:



Kinda new here but I would like to add my two cents worth, if I understand correctly "over powder" wads would be a lightweight filler that takes up ALL the air space between the powder and the bullet base and that type of wad is generally considered safe and beneficial in some instances (not at all necessary with 5744 however). The "on powder" wad would be a thin wad placed against the powder to hold it back next to the primer wile leaving the remaining case volume empty, this is the type of wad that leads to ringed chambers and worse! By leaving that airspace between the bullet base and the powder the wad essentially becomes a very lightweight projectile and when it along with the shock wave from the powder hits the bullet base the bullet then becomes essentially a bore obstruction causing chamber ringing or even rupture in extreme cases.

Not stating that as absolute fact but rather the way I understood it as it was explained to me, however it does seem to make sense. In any event to me it just makes better sense to use a bulkier powder if empty case space is a concern, personally my favorite 45-90 load uses a 500 grain bullet and AA4064 to produce about 1450 FPM. This load was every bit as accurate as the 5744 loads at comparable pressures and fills the case nearly to the bottom of the bullet.

If your powder charge fills the case enough that the wad is in contact with both bullet and powder, then there's no difference between on powder vs. over powder. It's both at that point.
Sounds like the issue with the blown up 1885 had little to do with a wad, and was too large a charge, and a wad.

BP wrote on Feb 4^th, 2016 at 5:01pm:

The wad against the powder is dangerous when there is space between it and the projectile. the burn rate is spiked by the wad and the result is a gas wave that hits the back of the bullet at up to three times the chamber pressure, thus a 20,000 psi safe load becomes a 60,000 psi impact to the barrel that only the strongest of firearms can withstand. 5744 within itself is not dangerous or no more than any other smokeless powder if loaded correctly but the safety limit is not there with a hundred year old rifle as well as most of the modern replicas. The Quigley match, as well as all that allow smokeless powders, would be better served if they limited smokeless powders to those rifles that can withstand modern "blue pill" pressure tests, JMHO.

BP wrote on Feb 4^th, 2016 at 7:21pm:

There will be no barrel ring due to a normal powder burn in the circumstances you've described, the ring comes from a sudden change in the burn rate, a pressure spike. The powder's burn is "set" by the wad and as the powder burns it hits an obstruction, the bullet, the burn rate increases at the base of the bullet where the pressures triple and the result is a ring or worst. 
I'm no ballistician, it's the best way I know how to explain the occurrence known as secondary pressure spike.

I used to use cotton as a filler in my 45-90 chicken loads. After lighting that Ladies hair on fire had to stop using it. Was told that beside making a big mess and lighting things on fire it smells real bad. 



       Joe.

Had someone mention that you could soak cotton like when you make combustible nitrated paper cartridges. Asked the fellow if he would be making a crude form of gun-cotton, and...      

I started this thread because 2 1/2 years ago my wife's 1903a3, shooting a published (Speer Manual ) reduced charge of 28 grains of  5744 grenaded and darn near took off her left thumb (she was shooting offhand) and was drilled just above and between the eyes with shrapnel that is still lodged against her skull, fortunately not penetrating further.  The top upper half front ring of the receiver was never found; the barrel was 10 feet down range. I was not using an over/on powder wad of any kind.  I checked for double charges with 5744 since the woman injured at the Q is a personal friend--and her 40-65 load was 21 grains 5744.    Ever since I have been leary about using that powder especially since anecdotal conversations with others, inc. reputable gunsmiths, indicated it has ringed (rang? rung?) more chambers than any other commonly used powder, including her 1874 Sharps'--again no over/on powder wad-- load was pubbed in Lyman Cast Bullet manual 21 grains 5744 in a 40-65 under a Saeco 410 gr cast. This was the year before  the serious Q incident during practice just before the match.   BTW the announcement for the Q, when opened, has the load warnings/prohibitions in red ink.  I am curious about incidents involving 5744 ever since.

emmett22405 wrote on Feb 5^th, 2016 at 2:04pm:

Was the 1903A3 a Remington, Smith Corona or another?