Load Workup for Subsonic, Heavy-for-Caliber (60+ grain) Bullets in .22 Hornet

[gitano]

I used to use Cream of Wheat (CoW), but cornmeal (CM) is cheaper and comes in larger packages. I prefer 'meal'  - CM or CoW - for fireforming, but don't particularly care for either as a "buffer". I was willing to use CM in these Hornet cases because I was clutching at straws getting a heavy bullet going slow but still trying to keep pressure up. TP isn't great, but will do until I try the charges with no buffer at all. Since the 5-grains of W296 is just about exactly 50% of case capacity, I probably don't really need any buffer at all. I have also used dryer lint. It compresses well but it's difficult to get repeatable portions/weights. J0ebl0ggs was telling me that he tried couscous (a type of corn meal) and it wouldn't compress.

I will be trying the unbuffered loads today.

News at ll.

Paul

[gitano]

Ok... So there's good news and bad news. The bad news isn't too bad though.

I decided to go ahead and try the charges without any buffer. Loaded exactly the same as the previous cases - neck-only resized, primed with CCI Small Pistol primer, 5.00 grains of W296, bullet seated to OAL of 1.786" (0.407" deept), crimped with LEE Factory Crimp - just no buffer.

First shot went Pfffffft! Bullet not stuck in bbl, but no MV reading. Second through fifth shots gave the following MVs:
941
865
877
866
The average of those - 887 f/s - is 235 f/s slower that the TP-buffered shots at 1122 f/s. Clearly, a buffer is needed.

Here's a screenshot of the Excel spreadsheet with a pic of the target. Note the group size of 0.51". Nice! Just too slow.


Back to the drawing board. Or in this case, the reloading room. Reloaded the five cases exactly as above EXCEPT the addition of 1/4-sheet of TP. Here are the MVs for those FIVE shots:
1125
1123
1129
1094
1153
With an average of 1125 f/s.

Here's the Excel spreadsheet with picture of target:


First and last shots were the top two. No good explanation for them. Group size of 0.81", MoA =2.21, and group size at 50 yd = 1.16". "Within specs", but just barely. The two 'fliers' are disappointing, but the overall group size is 'tolerable'. Clearly, keeping the powder against the primer, AND a bit of "space occupier" MATTERS. A difference of 235 f/s in MV, and more importantly, uniformity of ignition and burn.

I still would like to be just below 1100 f/s on average, so I am going to load 5 more with 4.90 grains of powder. I THINK that as long as I have the TP buffer, I'll still get good ignition and burn. Meaning consistent MVs. Also, I moved the @#$%^&* scope 2 clicks TO THE LEFT, instead of right. Eedjit! I'll correct that too.

News at ll.

Paul

[gitano]

So, I tried the 4.90-grain load. Not particularly satisfying. Looks like the 5.0-grain charge is the 'the one'. Group size might get better with increased charge, but I don't want to go above the 5.0-grain charge average MV of about 1120 f/s. Here's the Excel spreadsheet and target picture:

]

I suppose that the last 'experiment' will be to shoot 5-10 rounds without the MagnetoSpeed attached. Although there is no way that the first shot in this last group (with the 883 MV) was a function of the MagnetoSpeed.

Paul

[gitano]

I went right back to the reloading bench and loaded 10 rounds: 5 using the new Winchester brass, reusing the 5 I had been using, and 5 using new unfired brass. It's clear that the MagnetoSpeed didn't have an impact on precision. Here is the Excel spreadsheet with target. (No MVs because no MagnetoSpeed.)


Here's the second batch of 5 with the unfired brass:


And here is the workup for all 10 shots combined:


You'll note from the Grp Ctr figures on the Excel spreadsheet that I did get the scope adjusted correctly.

It doesn't appear that I am going to be able to string together 5 or more shots into a group smaller than about a large inch at 35 yards. I can get three or four into a nice small 1/2" group, but there's no way to get all five into even 3/4". Unfortunately, if it was always the first shot that was a flier, I could adjust to that. However, it seems that the flier(s) are random in the sequence. Does not instill confidence that I can hit exactly what I am aiming at at 50 (or even 35) yards. I really wanted something near 1" at 50. I could live with 1.5" at 50, but it's not very satisfying. That combined 10-shot group has an equivalent at 50 yd of 1.75". Again, "small enough",  but just not very satisfying.

Paul

[j0e_bl0ggs (deceased)]

Looking on t'internet, came across this while looking for a suitable filler for the hornet.
Original article - http://www.artfulbullet.com/index.php?threads/article-10-buffers-fillers-and-other-taboo-subjects.186/


Three things we need to talk about here: FILLERS, BUFFERS, and WADS.


These all have their place when assembling cast bullet loads, although I generally try to avoid them for most work as all of them are more or less "bandages" for other problems. For some ends,though, the proper application of these things is a practical way to achieve them. I'll attempt to explain.


Fillers and buffers are two different things to me, although some use the term interchangeably. The reason I differentiate is that I frequently use buffers as a tool to achieve some particular, and potentially dangerous ends that many people don't fool with. The term "wad" is perpetually misused, often-times probably where "wadding" would have been more descriptive, but who knows.


Fillers are, to me, the fluffy ones like Dacron, Kapok, dryer lint, wool, cotton, Styrofoam packing peanuts, florist's foam, "fake" snow, cat hair, etc. Fillers don't raise pressure much, although they do promote efficient combustion by fooling the powder into thinking it is in a smaller cartridge case than it actually is during initial combustion, and also by locating the powder positively against the primer where it can get maximum exposure to the primer's heat. I like to call fillers "powder locators" because essentially that's what I use them for. The filler easily compresses forward as the primer blast goes off and early burn pressure begins, so the case volume is rapidly and gently expanded to "normal" and the powder continues to burn almost as if the filler weren't there.


Intermediate sorts of fillers are things like Puff-Lon (or however it's spelled), spherical HDPE pellets like some of the shotshell buffers, and other things that don't compress into a solid plug under pressure. These "flowing" fillers have more mass than the fibrous fillers, take up A LOT more volume under pressure, and loads must be reduced considerably when using them, but they don't tend to seal gas from the bullet base. Basically, they're true fillers because they effectively reduce case volume even at peak pressure.


Buffers are something I learned about from two guys on the Castboolits forum who rarely post anymore, so I'm preserving the technique, and my experiences of it's use here for posterity. I don't know if it was all their idea, but it certainly wasn't mine, although once the seed was planted I more or less learned how to use it on my own. Buffers are things that compact into a solid plug under pressure, increase loading density, tend to clump rather than flow, and can effectively relay the kinetic energy of the burning powder gas to the bullet without the gas actually touching it. They must fill the case and achieve slight compression to locate the powder, prevent mixing, and to work as a "buffer" between bullet and hot burning gas. This last is why we use the term "buffer" rather than filler, even though it serves the other purposes automatically.


My comments here on buffers and how I use them are made with the assumption that you realize that you can very easily kill or maim yourself or others using them if you don't know exactly what you're doing, so don't take this information lightly. Neither the site owners nor I will assume any responsibility whatsoever for anyone who chooses to use this information.
Principally, I only use one thing for buffer as a matter of safety: BPI Original granular shotshell buffer used in ball, slug, and buckshot loads to help support the soft lead projectiles under acceleration and keep them from deforming. There are other things to use, but I won't go into them here except Cream O' Wheat, and only to add another disclaimer. COW is hygroscopic absorbs atmospheric or other moisture), and tends to form a starchy, solid mass when allowed to sit in a loaded cartridge case for any length of time, and this can cause a serious obstruction when fired since it won't compress and squeeze through a bottlenecked rifle case as easily as it does when it's dry, flexible, and fluffy. It typically absorbs moisture from the smokeless powder (or even gunpowder) itself when put in a cartridge case, and that increases the effective burn rate of the powder drastically, so it's a sort of "one, two punch" on raising the hell out of pressure in a stored load that's otherwise perfectly safe when fired the same day it's put together. Back to the BPI Original (not to be confused with the spherical version that is a true filler as I described earlier). In some instances, particularly high-powered rifles in which I'm attempting to achieve very high velocity and maintain accuracy, I use this PSB (polyethylene shot shell buffer) to fill the space between the powder and bullet base, with slight compression.


What happens then is the buffer works against the restriction formed by the shoulder of the case to add more resistance to the powder pressure. More resistance=higher temperatures which=higher efficiency which=more consistent shot-to-shot burn which=smaller groups. This is a trick to get slow powders that we like for gentle launches of our delicate bullets to burn well, yet still not build too much pressure too soon. There is a delicate balance here since too much of a good thing raises pressure too much before the bullet moves and defeats the purpose of using slow, hard to light powder. The buffer extrudes into the neck and pushes the bullet into the throat without it being touched by the gas, so the neck expands behind the bullet as it moves forward rather than blowing past the base of the bullet and expanding the neck before the bullet moves as often happens with a high pressure load without buffer but with a well-fitting nose that obdurates the throat. All that adds to accuracy. Oh, and the buffer plug follows the bullet all the way out the muzzle, shielding the bullet base from the yawing effects of muzzle blast at crown exit.


How much powder, what kind of powder, which cases to use it in, how much buffer, and particularly how much static compression to use is a little bit beyond what I'm trying to cover here in this post, and gets into the Twilight Zone of Ph, D. hand-loading, so I'd rather address it on a very specific and individual basis rather than attempt to establish general guidelines for its use. Sorry for the let down, but feel free to ask specific questions if you're serious about applying buffer to a load and I'll share what I know.
Now don't go to sleep, because THIS IS IMPORTANT!: Fiber fillers and wads must be used correctly or at the least you can "ring" your chambers. You've probably heard the term "chamber ringing" associated with the use of "fillers", along with the palpably nervous hush and furtive glances among those that consider putting anything inside a case other than powder and air is foolish and will always ruin your gun. While I certainly respect those who never step outside of well-established, published loading practices, there are some of us who, like Doral, "Imagine getting more" from our cast bullet loads and have learned how to safely and properly use fillers and wads to help us out occasionally. Chambers are ringed by one thing, and that's the IMPROPER use of fillers and wads. The sudden, high pressure, radial pressure wave deflected off of the bullet's base because the reloader didn't follow directions and tamped the filler/wad down on top of the powder and left an air gap between it and the bullet base is what caused the problem, not any mystical, inherent danger of a few tufts of fibers or a little disc of card-stock. When you compress the powder into a column and leave a big gap in between it and the bullet, the bullet becomes a bore obstruction. The powder lights and burns ferociously because it's crammed against the primer, then it pushes the wad forward (be it card, fiber, or a tamped tuft of Dacron or similar) like a piston that slams suddenly into the bullet base with tremendous force like a freight train hitting a concrete wall. Usually it doesn't blow the chamber before the bullet moves, but that force is directed outward as it concentrates behind the mass of the bullet, often stressing the chamber steel enough to form a permanent ring right behind where the bullet base is parked.


The proper way to use a fiber filler is to fluff, or "loft" it up when installing it in the case such that it occupies all of the space between bullet and powder. I don't mean pack it in there tightly, but let it have a little compression beyond what the fibers naturally have if you wad them in your hand and allow them to relax to their natural volume. I like Dacron for some loads because it has a very consistent, robust, natural springy loft to it and I can poke a tuft of it down into a bottlenecked case with a pocket screwdriver or blunted nail, leave a little bit up in the neck, seat a bullet, and know it's properly compressed and not going to ring my chamber. Lint, cotton, and wool don't have as much spring, tend to start wildfires, and can get sort of packed down like an old pillow through handling or recoil in a magazine, thus potentially becoming a wad against the powder and leaving the air gap we want to avoid.


The proper way to use a fiber or card wad, (true WADS in my mind at least, and notwithstanding the muzzle-loading, gunpowder guys) is right under the bullet, or in shotgun shells. Notice how shotgun shells are ALWAYS supposed to be loaded to 100% density? Heavy payloads, fast powders, and thin chambers are a recipe for rings if ever there was one, but how many have ever seen a ringed shotgun chamber from a properly assembled shotshell? Some of them are using a half-inch of wadding or more, but it's done so the powder column can't get a head start before it slams into the payload. Engineered crush zones have largely replaced separate over-powder wads in commercial offerings, but again, they cushion and build gradual resistance until the payload moves. I only use card wads in one instance, and that's in a high-pressure, paper-patched load involving a cartridge case that simply runs out of room for any other kind of buffer, but needs one to help protect the bullet base. I get a significant reduction in group size with my .45 Colt carbine launching a 340-grain, soft lead paper-patched slug out of an 18" barrel at over 1300 fps when adding a hard wad cut from soda can 12-pack cartons. The load is compressed already, nothing but as much Reloder 7 as I can pack in there.


Ok, in review, I only recommend Dacron fibrefill for powder location between bullet and powder column and only in slight compression; I only use granular, PSB as a compacting buffer, and only then in specialized, high velocity applications; don't leave air gaps between your wads and the bullet base.

[sakorick]

I wished I could help, however, I have spent my whole life trying to scheme a effort to speed thing up and never to slow them down!

[gitano]

Interesting read about "buffers" etc. While I can agree with what he writes, and it makes 'logical sense', I wonder about the 'authority' with which he writes. Almost everything he writes is as if he KNOWS it is fact proven with observed experimentation or testing, as opposed to opinion/assumption based on indirect experience and supposition. Like I said, it all 'makes sense', and I would be inclined to apply it to my reloading efforts, but I wouldn't be surprised to see different results from those he asserts.

I did 'perk up' at the assertion that grain-type fillers have a tendency to 'solidify' over time in a case. Based on what I saw in that one 'plug', "solidifying" makes sense, AND makes those types of fillers unacceptable for me. I'll relegate those solely to fire-forming duties.

At this point, I'm 'fine' with "a quarter sheet of 2-ply toilet paper" as the buffer for these loads. I do not believe the variability in MV AND PoI are a result of the buffer used. Instead, I think the variability is due to 1) low charges, which cause, 2) Low pressure, which in turn affects the 3) burn rate of the powder. The 'buffer' I am using is probably a 'good' one under the circumstances. It's not hygroscopic; it compresses well; it's cheap; I don't have to worry about starting 'grass fires' around my yard; and it should remain unchanged over the lifetime of use of the cartridge. Maybe there are more 'good' reasons to use it, those are just the first that come to mind.

These subsonic/low-pressure loads are actually the first ammo fired from this rifle. I haven't shot some of the factory stuff that shoots very well from the Anschutz Hornet that I have. I suppose I should shoot some of that stuff to see if I get the same sort of variability. However, I SERIOUSLY doubt it. When a rifle puts together 3 or 4 touching shots and then 'throws' one or two, it's almost certainly an ammunition issue, NOT a rifle issue.

One thing that is niggling in the back of my head is 'light' primer strikes. It doesn't make sense to me that the vigor with which the primer is struck would have any effect on the vigor of the primer 'brisance', BUT... I suppose I could be convinced otherwise with some experimental data. The point is, I purchased this receiver used. You may recall that I had to replace a spring in the firing mechanism. It is possible (in my head anyway), that the hammer strikes are not uniform. Maybe j0ebl0ggs would be interested in searching t'internet for information on "primer strikes". I'll give it a cursory look myself.

Anyway, I've lost interest in this rifle/cartridge configuration for the time being. As Ol' John used to say: "Only accurate rifles are interesting", and I think I've wrung all the 'accuracy' out of this rifle/cartridge combination that I can. There are of course other powder choices; notably 2400, and I MIGHT try some charges of 2400 to see if I can get more consistent MVs/PoIs. However, while this exercise was interesting, and I learned some 'stuff', the God's honest truth is that when I can't put 5 straight shots together without at least one flier, my interests turn to other things.

Paul

[j0e_bl0ggs (deceased)]

No claim as to the veracity of the info, like duplex load stuff, not a great deal out there. Only posted for reference, caveat emptor.

[gitano]

I quit chasing speed about 20 years ago, Rick. :D

I don't think one HAS to be subsonic to make effective use of suppressors. The supersonic 'crack' is mostly a non-issue to me as "silent" is NOT what I'm after with a suppressor. "QuietER" is what I'm after. In spite of all the hoohah spewed by Hollywood and the idiot anti-gun people, suppressed firearms are NOT "silent", and those that are just barely subsonic so that they eliminate the 'crack' are still QUITE loud! You're not gonna "fool" anyone with a suppressed firearm that launches a projectile at 1050 to 1120 f/s. I'd just like to not have to wear ear protection when I 'plink' around.

Paul

[gitano]

No claim as to the veracity of the info, like duplex load stuff, not a great deal out there. Only posted for reference, caveat emptor.

That's the way I took it.

Paul

[j0e_bl0ggs (deceased)]

I quit chasing speed about 20 years ago, Rick. :D

I don't think one HAS to be subsonic to make effective use of suppressors. The supersonic 'crack' is mostly a non-issue to me as "silent" is NOT what I'm after with a suppressor. "QuietER" is what I'm after. In spite of all the hoohah spewed by Hollywood and the idiot anti-gun people, suppressed firearms are NOT "silent", and those that are just barely subsonic so that they eliminate the 'crack' are still QUITE loud! You're not gonna "fool" anyone with a suppressed firearm that launches a projectile at 1050 to 1120 f/s. I'd just like to not have to wear ear protection when I 'plink' around.

Paul

There ya go, shooting RF / full bore without ear plugs / ear defenders etc is so comfortable. Rarely and I mean rarely ever shoot a rifle without a 'moderator' these days.

[gitano]

Just for reference:
I shot  the milled 10/22 using the Aguila SSS (10 shots).




Here's a screen-shot of the Excel spreadsheet and aggregate "target".

]

Group size - including all 10 shots - is not much different than that of the Contender .22 Hornet: Max spread - 0.95", MoA = 2.85, groups size @ 50 yd = 1.36". Overall, the group is windage-centered (group ctr = 0.08" to the right of PoA). Elevation of  the group center is 0.18" LOW. However, if I use only those shots that are not statistical "outliers", the group center is 0.01,-0.05. That's one 100th of an inch left of PoA, and 5 100ths of an inch low of PoA. That's "dead on". I'm not making any scope adjustments. (As it turns out, those shots that didn't make it within the outer ring of the target are statistical outliers.)

It's just tough to get low-velocity ammo to have consistent MVs. There are always 2 or 3 that 'gag'. Disappointing really.

Paul

[gitano]

Those targets are 0.963" in outer diameter. So, looking at those as about half an inch smaller than the actual targets I will be shooting at, (1.5") , all 10 shots are "ok". Which is what the "Groups Size at 50 yd" number - 1.36" - indicates.

Paul

[recoil junky]

:clown:WOW!!! I don't think the Nylon 11 can do that.

So, I called Walt again and we chatted about many things but I forgot to see what exact bullet he shoots. Must be CRS  creeping in I guess. Are you shooting gas checked bullets?

RJ

[gitano]

The above 10 targets were shot with the self-milled 10/22 receiver, an aftermarket 1:9 twist barrel, and Aquila SSS ammo.

The targets through the rest of this thread were shot with the Contender .22 Hornet with 1:9 twist, 26" bbl. First shots were with cast bullets - 46-grain with gas check. As usual, I gave up on those PDQ. Most of the rest of the targets have holes from the Speer 70-grain semi-spitzer (#1053).

I'm not going back to subsonic cast in the .22 Hornet.

Paul