Forums.NitroExpress.com

Mickey:
Your post has brought me to the realisation that I was probably unduly harsh on Ross seyfried's writings, at DRJack's say-so. Thanks for pointing that out.

Seyfried has a writing style that is sometimes difficult to swallow: in particular, the old "At long last I alone have discovered the secrets of shooting BP Express rifles/Paradoxes/DRs, and will now share this with the world!!" chestnut. Meanwhile, most of us here have been quietly going about the business of successfully shooting our BP Express rifles/Paradoxes/DRs happpily for decades without fuss, and the Brits were doing it matter-of-fact for decades before that.

Having said that though, he writes with a greater empathy for vintage British firearms, and the social environment in which they developed, than any other US writer, most of whom just 'don't get it'. Even though I may occasionally wince at his grandiose statements, I would rather read his works than those of most other US writers (at the very least, because of the marvellous subject material and photos!).

Now, to fillers:
Seyfried doesn't like foam fillers, and has published this fact citing two blown guns using foam fillers (can't remember the reference, sorry, but fairly recent). Personally I don't like foam either, but Kynamco use them, and the lads in Melbourne have had great success with them for over a decade now.

IMHO there are two probable reasons why foam could be bad.
1. There are many different types of 'foam'. Wright says the correct type is polyurathane foam, but I have heard reference to speaker foam (which may or may not be polyurathane), foam ear-plugs, florist's foam, egg-crate foam, etc, etc. Some of these sources of foam may be foam rubber, or other compounds which could be unsuitable. I've even seen reference to polystyrene in print! Perhaps an incorrect foam wad could blow a DR? If in doubt, buy Kynamco foam wads.
2. Polyurathane foam is 'grippy' and if slightly oversize for the case, could be compressed onto the powder during reloading, and remain there due to friction against the inside case-wall. This would create air-space under the bullet, which could ring a chamber (or possibly blow a DR?). The same can happen if the loaded cartridges are transported base-upward: the weight of the powder could compress the foam wad up against the base of the projectile, where it might 'stick' when the round is reversed and then chambered: another airspace, this time between the foam wad and the powder.

This latter reason is why I personally don't like foam: I had this happen to a batch of .500/.450 Express cartridges, and could hear the powder rattling inside the case in the field, despite 2 half-inch polyurathane foam wads which took up all the air-space at the time of loading. I also don't trust the longevity of polyurathane foam, as it can become a crumbly, gooey mess after a few years in the tropics where I live.

DRJack: You are quite right in that fillers and wads can be dangerous, but enough has been written these days to ensure that the potentially unsafe practices are well documented and fairly well understood, at least to the point where most of us here happily use wads or dacron filler on a daily basis without fear of blowing-up our precious DRs. Perhaps you missed it, but Wright's warnings about fillers and wads are on pages 65 to 68 of the 1st Edition, a fairly comprehensive treatment.
It pays to be vigilant, for sure, and a reminder every now and then is certainly no bad thing.

As far as being 'know-it-all', I'm simply here to learn like most other members of this forum, but part of that process is clarifying the corporate knowledge when someone appears to be deliberately 'muddying the water'.

...and Mickey, we have to get back to Paul's intrigueing post at some stage...!!!!

--------------------
Marrakai
When the bull drops, the bullshit stops!
--------------------------------
www.marrakai-adventure.com.au

Post Extras