Shotgun Forum banner
1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,995 Posts
Rastoff said:
I've recently considered loading some el-cheapo Fed hulls. They require the CB6100-12 wad due to the straight wall. While researching the recipe for this I find that I can use everything the same (except the hull and wad), but the pressure is down to ~6,430psi.
Heads up...

Alliant just copied and re-published Claybusters data for the CB-6100. The "first" generation CB-6100 data at that, - that is where that 6,430 psi came from.

There was a powder cup problem with the first CB-6100, so Ron fixed the mold to make the powder cup work, but he never re-published new data for the CB-6100"A". So if you were to use the CB-6100"A", the pressure will be higher than that 6,430.

The better wad for those Federals is the Claybuster CB-2100, and for 1-1/8th oz, the CB-2118 works very well.

I believe that the intent behind the CB-6100 wad was for the Euro's which can have varying base wad heights. That is to say, with the Winchester-style crush section of the CB-6100, it is more conducive to use wad pressure adjustments for varying base wad heights, whereas the stiff and stout swirly crush section of the 12S0/12S3 wad is not.

Use the CB-2110, and CB-2118 wads for the Federal hulls. If you want maximum performance, and willing to spend $10.70/bag (to your doorstep), then invest in some Gualandi GU-1225's from BPI.

Rastoff said:
My question is this, why is the pressure so much lower?
And the answer is, because those were Claybusters actual test pressures on a wad that (unknowingly) didn't work at that time they were published by Claybuster (and then copied by Alliant).

Bottom line is, since Claybuster changed, and modified the design of the CB-6100 (to make it the CB-6100A"), there really IS no accurate pressure data published for them anywhere. If you want data for them (for comparison purposes), you can either swag it by using data for a 12S0/CB-2100, or pay to get them pressure tested, or lean on Alliant or Claybuster to actually re-test them (unlikely to see that happen).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,995 Posts
dogchaser37 said:
2 items Moke,

First why are the Gualandis' better than the Federal 12SO, 12S3 and the Claybuster clones? If it because they fit tighter in the hull, that isn't much of a reason.
You do have a point, and I shouldn't make such sweeping statements without data to cover my butt (said data is coming).

I've seen your OEM 12S3 test data, and agree, that they were spectacular. However, (right or wrong), I just don't even think about OEM 12S3's anymore once I priced them out, - you see the price on them puppies ? I just don't see OEM 12Sx's as a viable option at all.

I have Claybuster 12Sx clones getting tested right now (compared to Gualandis'), but my preliminary home chrono tests does indicate that the Gualandi's have an edge in lower SD's than the Claybuster 12Sx clones (which, as you know, are already pretty good in their own right).

dogchaser37 said:
Second, the internal shape of the hull, the volume in the combustion area of the hull, base wad material and the primer placement have more to do with the lower pressure, than an overpowder cup design of a wad. You only have to look at steel shot wads to realise that the overpowder section of a lead wad is going to expand and seal, EVERYTIME, unless it gets damaged. 8,000 to 11,500 PSI, developed in less than a millesecond, will expand the overpowder cup.

Look over some loading data, with equal components and powder charges, a straight wall hull with a low basewad, of either paper or plastic always run lower pressures than tapered wall hulls.
What I was trying to convey is, that it was already known that the powder cup of original CB-6100 wasn't sealing (Ron already admitted that), and that the numbers posted are now null-n-void (something that Ron also admitted to). I know that straights have lower pressure than tapers, I'm just saying that the published numbers for the CB-6100 are lower than normal (or what you'd expect with the revised CB-6100"A").

A properly designed power cup will expand and seal, yes. But much like the current day Drf0/3's, the original CB-6100 wasn't doing that, - hence the lower pressure, and blooplyness. Ron was the first to admit that, and noble enough to re-work the mold to fix it. And of course, the CB-6100"A" actually does work now. Some of us just needs to get on the horn w/ him to harp on him about that old data that is still up on the Claybuster website, which is no longer accurate (as Ron himself even said). You are aware of the whole CB-6100 vs. CB-6100"A" situation a while back, yes ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,995 Posts
dogchaser37 said:
Again unless you test those wads with all the different powder, hull, primer combinations, the only thing you are learning is about the combination you are testing.
I realize that Mark, yes. Not reasonable that I could test each and every powder and primer combination under the sun for a particular suspect wad in question. BUT, when said wad doesn't work when compared to it's competitors clone, or it's clone parent, then it's a bad wad, period. Be it one powder/hull/primer combination, or n+1, n+2, n+3. That is the case with the Drf0/3, and that was the case with the original CB-6100 that I mention. Ron at Claybuster is a pretty straight shooter, and pretty knowledgeable on wads, and he was very upfront about addressing the powder cup situation on the CB-6100. He knows his stuff.

Blanket statements about all powder cups flairing out at 9K psi pressure simply isn't true. If it were, Ron at Claybuster wouldn't have had to re-tool and re-do the mold for the CB-6100, and we wouldn't have the current situation with the Drf0/3. The physical dynamics are a lot more involved.

dogchaser37 said:
One of these days you and I need to visit on the phone
I think that would be a great idea actually.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,995 Posts
Rastoff said:
The pressure listed on the back of the paper is 6,550 for the same load. So, Alliant data is not a copy.
Look again, - it's identical. 6550, 6790,7910 for 18,19,20 gn's of Red dot (209A primer).

"back of paper" :


Alliant on-line reloading guide:


Same thing for Clay dot, Green dot, e3, and A.S., - it's all been copied directly from the paper.

For reference, here is the back of the paper that I posted when the CB-6100's first came out:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,995 Posts
dogchaser37 said:
I can't believe that a wad manufacturer would believe it wouldn't seal.
Actually, I'm annoyed at the opposite, - a wad manufacture who actually believes that a thick lipped, short lipped, undersized cup would actually seal.

Trust me, Ron at Claybuster didn't change the CB-6100 to the CB-6100"A" due to 'powder migration'. He did it because all of the complaints from the shooters of bloopage, of which was further exaggerated by cold weather (tale-tell sign of wrongly designed powder cup lip for given diameter and resin characteristics). Powder migration with big-flake powders like Hodgdon's Clays (and e3 for that matter) just isn't happening in these situations (I know, - I've tried to indice it). Besides, if you look at the CB-6100 vs. the CB-6100"A" situation, you will see that Ron didn't increase the diameter of the cup, - he increased the length of the lip.

dogchaser37 said:
You keep forgetting about the pressure.
I don't. If you test these things, you will see what is happening. The pressure is actually the dead give-away of a sealing problem.

One thing not to be overlooked is the ballistic "cost" associated with an inadequate cup design (for those that do eventually seal at, or after pressure peak), and that is blowby cost. if it takes 4ms to seal, how much gas (and subsequently pressure) was just lost between 0 and 4ms ?

And that's not to mention the situations where the cup lip never does seal completely.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,995 Posts
dogchaser37 said:
Moke ,

As always you have the answer.
heh, - no, "Ron" has the answer, - he's the one who fixed the CB-6100, not me....

I understand what you are saying about injection molding, and increasing the length of the lip so that it thins out creating a flair and all of that, I get all of that.

What I am suggesting is, that it was not powder migration that was causing bloopage in the the old CB-6100. I've tried to induce migration every conceivable way imaginable, and I just couldn't get flakes of Clays to come out around the powder cup of a seated wad. I'm open to ideas to help me "see" this powder migration theory in action.

What a do see however, is flakes get outside of the lip just AS the cup is being inserted down into the powder (as trapped air is blowing up around the lip). I see the same thing on other wads that don't experience the aforementioned performance problems. But with as little as a few ounces of pressure on the wad after it's seated (normal weight of the shot charge + crimp), what I see is the flakes of Clays interlock together and not able to get out of even the loosest fitting cup. For example:


Incidentally, one of the attributes that makes the Gualandi better than the 12S0/3 and the Claybuster clone is the sealing ring that you can either call a anti-migration ring, or as I like to call it, an anti trapped air blow-back ring.

What I believe is, that a longer, thinner lip on a powder cup provides more pliable surface area for the expanding gas pressure to act upon to get it to flair out to meet the ID of the hull sooner in time, thus increasing pressure in a more consistent fashion (yielding usable SD's). I know you and I are at odds on this theory, and I'm open to different ways of thinking about it.

Here is the change that Ron made to the CB-6100 to make it the "A" model:

You can see the faint mold line where a lengthened section was added to the powder cup.

And from inside of the cup, the same faint modified mold line can be seen on the back side:


Just as the original CB-6100 did, the static fit of the CB-6100A is acceptable in the Federals:


Signs of blow by on the first generation CB-6100's (left 2) compared to "A" model (right 2):


The CB-6100"A" also fits and works fairly well in the Euro's too (i.e. Rio's and Fiocchi's):


And unless you are intending to play "Peak-a-boo" with the kids, don't attempt to use the Drf0/3 in the Federals or Euro hulls:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,995 Posts
The lip of the powder cup on the Gualandi GU-1225 on the far right is thinner than the CB-6100A to it's left, and the Helarco VP-13 on the far left:

And the inside of the powder cup on the two shot CB-6100A's pictured in a couple of posts up is in fact domed as you see here in this center picture. They do not seen to be flat, or square to properly expand outwards to create a proper gas seal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,995 Posts
D L Marcum said:
I learned a long time ago to shy away from ANY wad that had a very short lip on the overpowder cup, or any that had a very thick lip on the cup.
I would agree with that with one exception, - "if" said wad already fits tight enough to where the lip of the powder cup didn't need to flare out very much to create a proper seal (i.e. the CB-2118 12S3 clone for example).

D L Marcum said:
One thing that I noticed in this thread that no-one has addressed the OP's statement regarding chamber pressure. Stating that lower pressure were better. This simply is not a true statement, in and of it'self.
You are absolutely correct, - I'm a firm believer that adequate pressure is needed for complete burn and consistency.

D L Marcum said:
Low chamber pressures lead to incomplete as well as very dirty powder burns, and within reason, the MODERATELY higher chamber pressures, (8,500 to 10,000 PSI), give far more consistant powder burns and produce smaller SD's.
Correctamungo.

D L Marcum said:
Could you, or would you, address this aspect of the results of low chamber pressures? I think the extremely low pressures he was speaking of are counter productive to good performance of his ammo.
I very much agree. What I can't provide (right yet) is the actual pressure-point to where the CB-6100's become unstable under low pressures. But much like yours, and as a general rule of thumb, it has been my experience that pressures below 8,500 PSI are counter productive for performance. Low is not always better. In fact, I'm not even sure where this whole mindset ever came from except maybe the fear of bumping into the SAAMI max. But as Mark and others pointed out a while back, anything you see published isn't going to be doing that anyhow.

That said, and as stated, the whole reason I chimed in on this thread in the first place is to point out that the Claybuster published numbers (that Alliant copied) for the original CB-6100 wad are no longer valid, and most probably significantly lower than what you'd experience by using the new current revised CB-6100A. Revised wad should mean revised data as well, but that just didn't happen in this case. I'll call and talk to Ron about this to see what he has to say about it.

In the mean time, and if you guys want, I'll send a batch of CB-6100A loads in to get pressure tested. We need an actual baseline set of numbers for the CB-6100A anyhow. If you guys give me the load makeup, and what to compare them to, I'll make them up and send them in. Hopefully it's not Red dot, because I don't think I have enough Red dot left to make up any test loads. I wouldn't mind having actual pressure test data on hand for the CB-6100A's (since I do still use them believe it or not).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,995 Posts
Rastoff said:
That would be great! Unfortunately, what I'm currently using is Red Dot, but I do have something else, um...I'm not at my reloading bench, but I think it's Hodgdon Titewad.
I have Titewad too (a very good powder too BTW). But I'll see if I can round up some Red dot and get your particular load pressure tested with the next batch I send out to Precision Reloading (which will be pretty soon here).
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top