Fillers (like "grits")...

[Mako]

...The temperature effects of grain size are generally correct, but the overall equation for heat transfer in the weapon is more complex.
Larger grain size = more particulate fouling. Fouling retains more heat energy. But, I doubt its a one-to-one relationship.
I'm not "geeky" enough to care about deriving a formula, but unburned propellant is the primary cause for a BP weapon to heat quicky...more quickly than the given input engery from a similar velocity smokeless propellant load.

I took a college course via work on pyrotechnics & explosives. Interestingly my "teacher" wrote the textbook & I got him to autograph it to "Montana Slim". There is a chapter devoted to gunpowder (corect term for the "real" thing ). I inquired about a "hands-on" lab day, but my teacher insisted we watch the videos instead.

Regards,
Slim

Slim,
You're right,  it's definitely not one to one.  The mass of the fouling is totally insignificant compared to the mass and thermal properties of the steel barrels, chambers, cartridge brass and cylinders.   I deal with heat transfer and thermodynamics on a daily basis.  In our reactors we get organic and inorganic residues which change the heat rates very locally, but have no measurable effect of anything approaching  0.5kg.

Your teacher wouldn't have happened to be Richard Barbour, Dr. Bailey or Dr. Murray would they?  I know Barbour and have worked with Rick Brumback who studied under him.  Rick ended up being a Scientist working with propellants for the Air Force.  The boys at Olin put me in touch with him a few years back for a project I was working on.

While it is true that you get a bit more fouling with 1F, there are other factors to consider.  I think someone over on Open Range did a controlled test to measure the mass of the residue left from equivalent loads of 1F, 2F and 3F.  They pushed a pre-weighed patch through bores after each shot and measured the mass of the fouling.  This was an attempt to quantify the amount of fouling from each grain size. 

One thing you might remember from your classes is that BP is a VERY inefficient propellant.  More than 50% of it is un-reacted upon firing.  Since everything except the residual fouling is expelled from the bore in what you know is called "ejecta,"  the amount of still burning powder that is ejected is more of a contributor ( or a non-contributor) to transferred heat than any heat retained by unburned grains of powder and evolved compounds left in the bore as fouling.  So 3F which burns more completely and quickly than 1F will transfer heat to the a barrel and the entire pressure column.  The still burning powder that is blown out the front just transfers that energy to the surrounding air.

But I will disagree with you about this statement 

"but unburned propellant is the primary cause for a BP weapon to heat quicky...more quickly than the given input engery from a similar velocity smokeless propellant load."

That would be true except for two factors; carbon fouling causes more friction than moist unburned BP residue and the leading you get in smokeless loads is almost non-existent in BP loads.  If you are talking about non-lubricated bullets and loads it would be a problem.  Until that BP residue hardens it really isn't an issue.  Now I need to find another test I saw where someone was measuring velocity decrease in a progressively "fouled" rifle.  The result was they found no major degradation as long as the fouling remained moist.  I guess if you are talking about old fouling your point would apply.  Do your BP loads ever lead a barrel, or ever get that hard to remove residue?  Mine don't,  I can push it all out with maybe two patches, then follow with one wet patch and I am clean.  No so for either of my daughter's guns.  They take soaking and brushes and a lot of work.  The velocities are not any higher and in one case actually lower.  Yet they have small amounts of leading and definite carbon fouling.

You do realize that BP is used as an igniter booster in almost all Artillery and Naval Rifle rounds don't you?  I'm talking about today, in 2009.   If you consult those texts concerning long range external ballistics you will find just the opposite is true. The fouling left by the BP actually reduces the friction.  In tubes that use non-BP initiated charges they have to change the computer settings to account for the quicker friction build up as rounds are fired.  These increases are significant when applied to rifled tubes being used over miles.  There is a chemical reaction with the main propellant charge and the BP booster which has been documented, hence the different trajectory requirements.

An interesting thought,  and you may not agree with me, but I don't think it is a significant factor in 50 or less rounds through a pistol over the course of a match if you are using BP lubed bullets.

Best Regards,
Mako

[Wills Point Pete]

 Something I don't quite understand, being a pore dumb country boy. It was a very few years after the .45 Colt was developed that they cut the bullet weight to 230 grains and the powder charge to 28 grains. And yet folks here talk about fillers as being something bad.

That 230/28 grain load brought down the Sioux Nation. It put Geronimo on the Reservation. It won more than a few civilian gunfights and it was the load St. John of Browning duplicated for his 1911.

Using a filler does not make one a 98 pound weakling and it is probably more "historically correct" than the he man loads many brag on. I'm not quite sure, nor do I particularly care, when Colt got away from those iron frames in the first SAAs, but from what I have read some of those first guns blew up with the 40/250 load and there were lots of complaints about the recoil. So they lightened the loads.

[Mako]

Something I don't quite understand, being a pore dumb country boy. It was a very few years after the .45 Colt was developed that they cut the bullet weight to 230 grains and the powder charge to 28 grains. And yet folks here talk about fillers as being something bad.

That 230/28 grain load brought down the Sioux Nation. It put Geronimo on the Reservation. It won more than a few civilian gunfights and it was the load St. John of Browning duplicated for his 1911.

Using a filler does not make one a 98 pound weakling and it is probably more "historically correct" than the he man loads many brag on. I'm not quite sure, nor do I particularly care, when Colt got away from those iron frames in the first SAAs, but from what I have read some of those first guns blew up with the 40/250 load and there were lots of complaints about the recoil. So they lightened the loads.

Pete,
Those are wise words.  You will note there are two types of folks that have responded to Button's question.  Those that have been helpful and offered advice and those that have turned their nose up as if it was unmanly to even ask. There is no honor in that.

I have found many who think that it's full bore .45 Colt or nothing tend to be the ones who have a 9mm as a sidearm.  Nothing wrong with a 9, but it seems out of keeping doesn't it?

Is there anyone on this forum that thinks you are under armed if you carry a 1911 (as a sidearm of course)?  Quite often I shoot .44 Russian in a '66, it holds about the same amount of powder as a .44 Henry with an equivalent weight bullet.  Is that wimpy as well?  I think not, and as a matter of fact it is similar to a .45ACP with a 200gr SWC at 900 fps (from a 5" barrel), which has been the lead load of choice for years.  Were all of the cowboys and users of Henrys, '66s and '72 Open Tops from 1860 until the early 20th century wimps?  I think not.

Good for you Pete!  And Button, as you can tell a lot of us have tried fillers or smaller cases over the years.  And as Pete pointed out the United States Army did as well.  So have fun and make smoke!!! This is a sport and it's supposed to be FUN!  A lot of us got tired of the antics with USPSA (IPSC) and IDPA, the reality is that we are dressing up like our heroes and having FUN.  Everyone should be a defender of our right to have FUN.

Have a great day,
Mako

[Cuts Crooked]

Pete,
Those are wise words.  You will note there are two types of folks that have responded to Button's question.  Those that have been helpful and offered advice and those that have turned their nose up as if it was unmanly to even ask. There is no honor in that.

<snip>
Mako

Very true, Mako!!!! Although I am one of those who tend to "fill 'er up" with as much as I can stuff in that big big ol' garbage can sized case, I know there are good reasons to load down some! There are guns out there that will shoot closer to point of aim with a lighter load (not many but some) and with the cost of componants these days it can really add up in reloading cost savings over a years worth of shooting too, and there are those who find the blast and recoil of of full house .45s jist plain objectionable.

Some years back I had a mild stroke, with attendant lose of tactile sensation on my strong side. It took a long time to get back to where I could feel comfortable /safe shooting full throttle loads in my 45s. Without going to downloading, I might well have given up CAS altogether. But by cutting bullet weight and powder charge, with some corn meal filler, added to take up the slack I found I could hang on to my Remingtons, well enough to shoot them safely, and work my way back up there over time.

[Smokin Gun]

Has anyone used Puff-Lon as a filler...black like powder ... for use as a filler. I tried it in an experiment with C&B only and no cards. Haven't used any in .45Colts yet, so was wonderin' if anyone else had.

[Mako]

Has anyone used Puff-Lon as a filler...black like powder ... for use as a filler. I tried it in an experiment with C&B only and no cards. Haven't used any in .45Colts yet, so was wonderin' if anyone else had.

I have a friend who has a .45-120 who has used it because finally realized he has more cartridge than he really needed.  He's now shooting something along the lines of 80gr and using Puff-Lon as a filler.  He said some of the other shooters where he is use it.  I'll email him and ask more about it.

You should ask John Boy or some of the guys over on the BROW board, not all of them look (or at least post) on this board.  I have a .45-70, but I don't consider myself and expert.  And I have never used it in smaller cartridges. 

There's no reason it shouldn't work.  How expensive is it?

Regards,
Mako

[Smokin Gun]

There's no reason it shouldn't work.  How expensive is it?

Thanks for the reply ... I don't know the cost was sent to me to try. I think it was Brownells that may have sold it...
Maybe I'll give it a try at least in my .45Colt ... and I'll check next door about the .45/70's.

[Fiddler Green]

Has anyone used Puff-Lon as a filler...black like powder ... for use as a filler. I tried it in an experiment with C&B only and no cards. Haven't used any in .45Colts yet, so was wonderin' if anyone else had.

All the bench rest shooters tried it but quickly moved on. Not that it didn't keep the powder packed in the sase but they didn't like the residue in the barrel.

It would do the job in a BP case but it costs as much as BP so it's not a cost savings. If it were me, and I were trying to fill the case wwith something other then powder, I'd just use wads as they are cheaper to make. But, I still prefer to fill my cases with BP. 

Bruce

[Smokin Gun]

Can't blame ya for that Bruce...I like to feel I'm squeezin' the trigger for a reason. Other times I like to build up loads to a particular gun for tight groups at various distances...more of the filler use for me would be in a cart. case .like .45Colt or .45/70 with BP only.
But some times I try makin' money outside Casinos' poppin' 3 holes in card with a Smokin' Gun autograph :O) On a slow day I jus' shoot a deck 3 times and I'm good. HeeHee!

[Wills Point Pete]

 I have a bottle of Puff Lon but haven't used it yet. The folks making it say iit works with BP but I'm kind of nervous about trying it. You know how plastic wads in shotshells gum up the bores with real black. It's not a big problem as long as I have some Windex with Vinegar but without that, it's a real pain. I just don't know if it's the same kind of plastic and how well the Windex would work in a rifled barrel.

If you do try it, let us know how it works, especially about fouling.

[Mako]

Smokin Gun and Wills Point Pete,
I saw your posts again this evening and "remembered" to follow up on my email to my friend with a phone call (just got off).  He says he has succesfully used the Puff-Lon. He gets it from Buffalo Arms and costs about the same as Black Powder. He kept talking about grains and I kept asking him if he meant volume.  I couldn't figure out if it weighs the same or not, but it is sold by the pound just like powder.  He's presently shooting 90 grains of 2F (Swiss) and then filling with Puff-Lon in a 120 case.  I forgot to ask him about his bullet.

He says he can't tell any difference in clean up, accuracy or any of the other things they advertise, he just says it helps get his loads more manageable for a day's shooting.

I know it's not much, but I hope it helps,
Mako

[Fiddler Green]

I have a bottle of Puff Lon but haven't used it yet. The folks making it say iit works with BP but I'm kind of nervous about trying it. You know how plastic wads in shotshells gum up the bores with real black. It's not a big problem as long as I have some Windex with Vinegar but without that, it's a real pain. I just don't know if it's the same kind of plastic and how well the Windex would work in a rifled barrel.

If you do try it, let us know how it works, especially about fouling.

I don't see any problem with using it. But, at around $28 a pound it's almost twice What I pay for Goex ($14.59).


Bruce

[Smokin Gun]

Thanks Mako that was fast... that's jus' what I was wantin' to know. I gotta call that high end filler for me, but I was guessin' that it wasn't cheap. I got some left and will try some .45Colts with the puff-lon(will use less) / vs Quaker oats or cornmeal  and see what kind a groups both get.
I'm pretty certain that say long time storage along with accuracy the Puff-lon is well worth the money.