Question:

Regarding Cast Bullet Load Development;

Does the percentage of space used by a charge of powder "A" vs. powder "B" matter if they produce the same velocity and pressure / curve.

I've read somewhere long ago it's better to have a charge occupy close to 100% of available space below the bullet, without compression of course unless its BP, than say 25% of case capacity.

I suspect that the reason for powders like 5744 etc. were designed to be bulky for that reason.

It is also apparent that a lot of the powders being used with success by other members in many of the straight wall cartridges 32-40 -- 38-55 etc. are in the middle of the burn rate chart.

Many of the starting vs. max load data resources 
do not specify approximate percentage of case capacity used for a given charge.

Is this a useless, time wasting consideration or is there any merit to charge volume vs. capacity, --------- powder cost not withstanding....
Assuming proper primers, neck tension and or seating resistance to obtain complete combustion. 

Guess I could invest in '"Quick Load" if I could get some assurance from the publisher that it would work on my windows 11 machine or MAC..!
After asking I get a qualified maybe.., Who wants to invest those $$$ in a program that will not work.

Any other suggestions for programs that make velocity / pressure calculations.. ?

Thanks in advance

RJ

PS I guess I could just stick with BP, fillerup, compress .1 and fire away.

RE: 
"In short; use a standard load, flower foam wads to push the powder against the primer," 

Bud thanks for sharing.
So I have to ask, is this not a recipe for a ring chamber..?
I thought I read in many other posts, 'No over powder wads'... Am I going crazy?

TIA

RJ

Great post...
, 
Thanks...

So I understand, the floral foam is basically so porous it doesn't restrict or slow the forward movement of the propagating burning of the powder....
Is this a fair characterization.??

A accomplished shooter I was privileged to meet one day IIRC correctly told me there are two types of floral foam.. One of which works and the other doesn't.

If someone here can enlighten me if this is the case it will save me the embarrassment of contacting him and admitting to my faulty memory.

Thanks

RJ

RE: "homologous" word of the day..!

Oldman1950 wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2022 at 6:24pm:
 

Yes, this is correct and works well. At both ASSRA and CBA matches, the shooters are using this WET floral foam. I shoot two Stevens 44 1/2 with two barrels each (.32-20 CPA and .25-20 WCF) and have never had a problem. I also cut with a band saw at 3/16" inch thick.

Another way to cut the wet floral foam is to stretch a piece of fine wire at the correct height over a piece of wood and cut it as you would cheese.  Just don't put it on a sandwich.  It tastes really bad!

Jack

Cheese Wiz on floral foam!

The foam wad loading tool Neal Rice made for my rifle seated the crinkle foam wad against the powder.  We used 10gr of AA#9.  Never had any issues or crud fouling.  I shot a couple 50-shot matches and did not clean until after the match.

Rich

I know of a RKS stainless steel barrel that has ringed from the shooter using floral foam pushed down on the powder.

Do not believe the nonsense that it will not happen to modern steels or that floral foam disintegrates before the double pressure wave occurs.

In this case the ring is at the bullet base where the bullet is breech seated.

Be safe - place the wad at the top of the case.

If the rifle is only shot level it may never occur - however shooting uphill at Tommy's Schuetzen range the ringing did occur.

Ringing is also about the rifle's firing position and not just that the wad is down on the powder.