40-72 First loads and surprises.

[Kansas Ed]

Well, I fired the first loads out of the 1895 40-72 today. Results were interesting.

I loaded two different loads, both 260 gr. cast bullets measuring .410, and using Bertram Brass and Winchester Primers and 1.5ccs of COW filler. One load was 39.5gr IMR-3031, and the other was 40.5 gr IMR-3031.

Shot 1 was offhand to see if the sights were close enough to refrain from destroying the Chronograph. Since they were, and recoil was a heavy "push" I moved to the chrony.

3 shot string averaged 2004 fps! Not what I'd figured! I figured them at a hair over 1400 fps. 3 different sources listed 39-40 grains of 3031 and a 300 gr bullet to move around 1400 fps. I calculated that the filler would add a little velocity. Not so....the filler apparently added in the neighborhood of 500ish fps! Since the 40-72 is for all intents and purposes a .405 winchester with about .003 less diameter I am not concerned about the pressure at that velocity, but I am quite surprised at the result. I never did shoot the 40.5 grain load, opting to pull the bullets instead and reload the primed cases lower.

This was an interesting lesson for me. I've never measured the velocity difference with/without a filler, and I find it fascinating that the filler adds so much difference. Since 3 different sources listed that load in the 1400 fps range without filler I figure that their data corresponds enough to be reliable.

As I said, the 40-72 and the .405 are identical cartridges except for rim thickness, and .003-.005 (dependant on the rifle bore) bullet diameter. Logic would tell you that you could load it to .405 loads and expect similar results, but the .405 starting load with 3031 is 45 grains, without a filler. Had I loaded to 45grains in this rifle, with the filler I would have likely froze the action, and dislocated my shoulder!

My intent is to load the next loads at 36 grains and 37 grains. Still looking for that 1500ish fps range. I do plan on continuing with the COW filler. We'll see what transpires in a couple of weeks.

One other surprise...there was absolutely NO leading signs. Since there was a couple of spots of decent pitting in the barrel I hoped the COW would act like a gas check and protect the base of the bullet which it apparently did. Hopefully next time I'll get it on paper to see where we sit.

Ed

[Cliff]

If it were me I would weigh the COW filler to find how much this increases the weight of projectile. Also I would avoid COW and go to something like the plastic GREX for a filler. I think Ballistic Products handles the new plastic stuff. Grex has been discontinued for regular sales. There is one other product which I haven't tried but have read good things about that is something called Puflon, teflon and plastic filler. COW will sometimes cake up, increasing pressure. Grex type fillers pretty much disintergrates and leaves a very thin film behind. This will clean out easily, regular bore solvents (Hoppes) works well. I am sure others here have a lot more information than I do. Good Luck......

[Hobie]

I am strongly opposed to use of fillers. I can see that you won't listen to me, but I can't let this pass without saying. COW and other fillers add to the total projectile weight AND reduce case capacity which can combine to raise pressures. You don't need a filler so why do you insist on using one?

I think you're lucky you didn't have another surprise.

[Modoc ED]

What is COW? Cream of Wheat?

I see your concerns Hobie but there seems to be alot of guys on the forum that use Cream of Wheat. Some have even said they used Oatmeal.

[Lefty Dude]

Hodgdon did a test with Fillers like COW & grits. Using a very dry filler like COW changes the properties of the powder and displaces the moisture content thus changing the burning rate of the Smokless powder. The longer the time the COW-Grits is in the case the pressure & velocity continues to increase.
Many BP shooters use COW or Grits, however BP is very dry.
As Hobie states the COW can turn into a projectile.

I use a Dacron filler when reloading reduced loads with some Powders. The amount I use is just enough to maintain the powder at the bottom of the case and keep it from stringing horizontal as the case is loaded in the Rifle. I do this only with Powders I know are of a position sensitivity type.
I have used Puff-lon, I tried it with my 8mm CZ-V 22, loading lead bullets with a reduced powder load. It works, however I get the same results as I do with the Dacron.

The best advice is not to use a filler at all.
What works for me, maybe a disaster for you.

[Modoc ED]

Thanks for that "Lefty Dude". The bell just went off. I do recall that the references to Cream of Wheat, Oatmeal, and yes, Grits that I have seen has been with the use of Black Powder.

I only reload for .38 S&W Special, .30-30, .30-06, and .444 Marlin so I have no experience with fillers.

[Mike D.]

The .40-72 WCF is a very potent round, and is quite capable without the unnecessary use of fillers. I have NEVER seen the need to use any kind of fillers in any of the BP caliber guns that I own. Dangerous and erratic pressures can result from this practice. Don't load your cartridges to a high level, though. Most BP caliber '95s don't have Nickel Steel barrels and are not made for very high pressure loads.

[Kansas Ed]

Thanks for the concern, but I think you may have misunderstood my intent. I relayed the 405 data for comparison sakes, not that I ever intended to use any of that data. I was saying that logic would indicate that the case volumes of the 40-72 and the 405 being identical (they are except for a .003 difference at the mouth), and the bullet weights being identical, and the rifles being identical, with the only difference being some .003 difference in bore diameter would say that you could use 405 data for this cartridge. Which goes to show you that it doesn't necessarily work that way. I've seen people who say that based on case volume and bullet diameter in some cartridges, that loading data is for all intents and purposes interchangeable. Ackley was actually one of those people. My discussion was that this isn't necessarily true.

I should have probably relayed the weight of the COW when I posted, but the 1.5cc's of COW is approximately 15 grains. Since I was already using a bullet which was 35-65 grains under the data weights I had, I didn't believe that it would noticeably add to the pressure. Had I used a standard 300 or 330 grain cast bullet, the bullet would have been seated that much deeper in the case, as I loaded OAL to just shy of the lands. So this wasn't just done without some fore-thought and planning.

The ONLY purpose of the COW was to protect the base of the bullet, as .41 caliber gas checks are impossible to find. I have scoured the internet looking for a source for a couple of months to no avail. I have also shot Aardvark Custom loads in the 40-82 which uses COW as standard, and found them quite accurate. Aardvark gave me his load for the 40-82 when I was talking to him, and he was using a general starting load for that cartridge, and adding the filler.

I have used TP fillers on occasion for the 38-72 and the 40-82 with good success, but I didn't feel like the TP would protect the bullet base like the COW, especially in a bore which is moderately pitted in two areas. First shots indicated that leading wasn't there, so I believe that my assumptions of base protection are probably panning out.

I now have a baseline chronograph reading for this cartridge, so I can work it from here. I will continue to work the COW loads, reducing until I have a load that I like in the 1400 fps range, and then delete the COW for a couple of rounds to see what velocity impact this has on the cartridge. The loads I shot, IMO were well within the scope of the rifles capability, and there were no pressure signs, and less recoil than the same rifle in 405. Although there wasn't as much room for increasing the load as I had anticipated. I would expect that pressures were approaching the same as the 405 loaded to 2000 fps which is 200 fps slower than the factory loads/loaded them.

Ed

[Modoc ED]

Mike Venturino had an article in "Rifle Magazine" some time ago saying that for a caliber he didn't have a gas check for, he used the case to punch out cardboard discs that he used to load behind the bullet. As I recall, he used the cardboard from the back of a writing tablet.

[Kansas Ed]

I looked at the Ballistic Products website (thanks) and didn't find the filler that was mentioned, but did find these which I find interesting.

http://www.ballisticproducts.com/prodin ... umber=NC41

This may be another option which would protect the bullet base, without the side effects of the COW.

Ed

[Hobie]

What is COW? Cream of Wheat?

I see your concerns Hobie but there seems to be alot of guys on the forum that use Cream of Wheat. Some have even said they used Oatmeal.

Some folks bow to Obama too.

I think it has a potential for big problems and this was an example of a borderline condition. I don't like fillers.

[Lefty Dude]

I looked at the Ballistic Products website (thanks) and didn't find the filler that was mentioned, but did find these which I find interesting.

http://www.ballisticproducts.com/prodin ... umber=NC41

This may be another option which would protect the bullet base, without the side effects of the COW.

Ed

Try Here:

http://www.circlefly.com/

[Ben_Rumson]

Hey wait a minute.. Won't lighter bullets (35-65 grains lighter than data calls for) give higher velocities than heavier bullets when the powder charge is for a 300gr bullet?
ED...If your bullets are well lubed and over groove diameter a few thou. you may not need COW to protect the bullet bases... I have some old rifles with bores similar to yours that don't lead up..(lead build up along the land/groove junction).. but I do get a few lead flakes out on a patch when I clean but there's no lead streaking along the bore, that requires traditional leaded barrel cleaning techniques.. As a way of simplifying the loading process you might drop the COW and see how it shakes out... Interesting post..anything to make the oldies belch anew is always fascinating.. Thanks & good luck..Keep us posted

[Kansas Ed]

Lefty: Thanks for the link. Will order some wads or filler this coming week.

Ben: Yes, the lighter bullet may have contributed to the increase in velocity. I did consider starting without the filler, but really figured that I would end up with filler anyway. Lots of testing to do with this old cartridge, so that is definately on the game plan for the future. While working up loads for the little brother 38-72, I tried some 19 different load combinations for my rifle, and another 17 different combinations for my buddy's rifle. Mine got pretty intricate at times being somewhat finicky, and wanting to lead with even gas checks, but eventually came around when wrapped with teflon tape.

So I'm just now getting to the dirty work of bringing this one into the field. Hopefully I'll have it ready and I'll be comfortable enough with it to take deer with it this fall. The first chronograph session is always the most nerve racking as it determines the base line for everything that follows.

Thanks,
Ed

[KirkD]

I'll fess up to using fillers in lots of different cartridges, including toilet paper (TP) and COW. For all you fellows who suggest weighing the COW, I don't think the weight makes a difference. What does make a BIG difference is the reduced case capacity when you stick COW in. Reduced case capacity = higher pressure. I don't think COW compresses near as much as TP. I've done chrono tests with and without TP, and in my chronographing experience, TP typically adds about 100 fps to the velocity. COW seems to add a lot more. Based on my experiments with my 45-70. If I use COW and want to get the same velocity, I have to reduce my powder load by 27% to 30%. Yes, you read correctly! That is a huge reduction in powder .... and I would only do it for low end to moderate loads. It seems that COW does not compress anywhere near as much as TP. If a fellow wants to try COW, the first thing I'd do is reduce my starting load by 30% and see what the chrono says .... and I would only do this with slower powder like IMR 3031 or slower. And I don't feel comfortable putting too much COW in either.

That being said, on the basis of what I'm seeing with COW, I might start with 30 grains of IMR 3031 in your .40-72, or maybe even 28 grains. However, I usually experiment around with no filler first just to see what I can get with no filler.

I wouldn't worry about a little pitting. I've shot a lot of different old Winnies with various degrees of pitted bores, one '73 44-40 looking like a sewer pipe, and none of them ever leaded at velocities as low as 1,400 fps.

Thanks for posting this Ed, in spite of the razzing some of the guys are giving you. That is very valuable information and it would be a pity if it were not posted and some other fellow decided to fill his case up with COW and blew the bejeebers out of his gun. We all can learn from your experience.

[geobru]

I have to weigh in on this thread because I have had to learn the hard way how to get the most out of a couple of 86's that I have. They are a 40-82 and a 45-90. Both seem to need fillers when using smokeless powders. I have used 5744 and 3031 in them with similar results. The funny thing is that the 40-82 prefers cornmeal over TP, while the 45-90 likes TP over cornmeal. The photos that follow show the results that I got using no filler and cornmeal, then a TP-cornmeal comparison.

The 25 gr. 5744 cornmeal load with a 277 gr NEI FNGC chronies at 1495 fps. I didn't have a chrony when I shot these targets, so I don't know what the speed of the no filler loads or the TP loads in the 40-82. What I have learned is that a broad brush doesn't work with these old guns and you have to experiment until you find the combination that works.


This is the 40-82 with no filler and cornmeal at 35 yards.


The 40-82 again with cornmeal and TP filler at 35 yards.


The 45-90 with cornmeal and TP filler at 55 yards

[KirkD]

In my own experience, filler always improves my groups, sometimes dramatically. However, I would suggest filler for only the advanced reloader, or for a reloader who is using a tried and true load from an advanced reloader who has already tested the load. If I can get 2 & 1/2" groups without filler and 1" groups at 100 yards with filler, I will likely just go with the non-filler load simply for the sake of making my reloading easier. For the kind of guns I shoot, 5-shot 2 & 1/2" groups at 100 yards are just fine for hunting.

[Sixgun]

Ed,
This is an interesting thread. I absolutely see no need for any filler in any cartridge (exception--silent loads) and I load for 60 different ones, most of them antique dash-number jobs.

The 40-72 is extremely high on my want list as I love to have a 40 caliber gun that shoots "heavy for the caliber" bullets. The 40-72 has that fast twist as opposed to the 40-65 and 40-82 so it will stabilize those 330 gr. bullets

I have found that variables such as sizing diameter of bullets, (#1) crown and bore condition, alloy of the lead, sights, headspace condition, and matching the velocity and bullet weight of your load to approximate original factory loads to be lots more important than using slower powders with dangerous fillers. Gas checks are a must for accuracy with old rifles with worn bores and not-so-perfect crowns. Fillers are a bad move and are nothing but aggravation.

Try a faster powder such as 5744 or 4198 and pay close attention to the above variables. When I want to see if a rifle shoots, I load the proper bullet with enough Unique to be just under the speed of sound. If that load does not shoot, I worry, because nothing else will.

11 grains in the 45-70, 6.5 gr. in the 32-40, 32 Spl, and I'm guessing about 9 grains in the 40-72 ought to do it.

I'm curious, did the rifle belt you back sharply with the 2K loads? Sure the chrono is "on the money"? Sometimes the sun can play heck on a chrono or maybe it was bumped on your way to the gunclub?

Hope this all works and keep us informed.------------------------Sixgun

[Kansas Ed]

I suppose that the reason I "figured" I would end up with a filler was the fact that the 38-72's seemed to be pretty sensitive to loads. That is: That they weren't as tolerant group wise as was say a 30-30 or a 45-70 to shoot pretty much anything well. Seeing as the only problem with the 38-72 was a "dark" bore and no major pitting, I would have expected them to shoot anything pretty well, but that wasn't the case.

Also, this particular rifle was built in 1898, so has the 1:26" twist.

This rifle has "pitting". Not a "dark" bore, but 2 areas of decent pitting about 1/3 and 2/3's of the way down the bore. Therefore my assumption that I needed to protect the base of the bullet. Finding a 40-72 is difficult enough, but finding a 40-72 with a "pristine" bore is probably impossible. So that is the condition I am forced to be working with.

geobru: Your targets are fascinating, to show that much difference based on the type of filler used. A lot to be learned from that I think.

As for the powder choice, historically I found 4 loads using 3031 (39-45 gr), 2 loads using 4895, 1 load of 5744, and 1 load using H4895. As you can see, I chose the baseline to be 3031 because all of the data tended to agree within reason.

Recoil was less than a standard 405 load, and even less than a 38-72 load @ 1800fps. Chrony was "on the money" as evidenced by other cartridges we shot that session.

Kirk: You are absolutely correct in that the reason I am posting this is for that one other guy out there who is searching Google within the year looking for a viable 40-72 load. There is a total of 7 loads out there that can be found for this cartridge, and that really doesn't give enough data for people to start with, to bring these old war horses back into the field.


Ed

[gimdandy]

Fascinating to say the least. I don't own any of these calibers but as an avid reloader of 46 years this is very valuable info to me . Have several 45-70's and 38-55 / 375's and am always searching for the elusive .5?? ,repeatable 5 shot groups. That tells me of a great load for that particular barrel and apparently it " like's " that load .I have attained the perfect load in several of my guns and obviously I seem to like the search , however it is a long process and an elusive one at times , neverless still enjoyable.
KirkD posted on Apr 07 2007 a summary of shooting a 45-90 using 3031, w/ and w/o TP filler and posted E.S. , and S.D. w/ corrosponding chrony results. That to me is very conclusive w/ that barrel and I thought enough of the info to print it and save, as I have several of his posts as well as others of this and the old forums (thanks KIRKD and all the others ). Parts of this post will be saved as well

[Don McDowell]

With that 260 bullet, 29 grs of 5744 will give you plenty of velocity and about all the accuracy that rifle and bullet will deliver, and the best part is , no stinking fillers of any kind anywhere required.