Shotgun Forum banner
21 - 30 of 30 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,444 Posts
Moke ,

As always you have the answer.

Some day I'll learn, but it doesn't look like it will be any day soon.
 

·
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
·
10,357 Posts
Moke,
This time I'm in full agreement with you on the overpowder cup theory. I have had that problem at different times over the years with different wad/hull combinations. One particular instance that comes to mlnd is the Windjammer 20 ga wad some years back. You could depend on off sounding loads with those wads if temps got anywhere below 40 degrees.

They had a very thick and stiff overpowder cup that simply would not obturate enough to seal properly in even moderately cold weather. I haven't used any in years, so I don't know if that ever got corrected or not.

That's one of the worst I've encountered, but there were others along the way that gave similar problems. 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.

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.

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.

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.

DLM
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,830 Posts
Discussion Starter · #24 ·
Republican said:
Signs of blow by on the first generation CB-6100's (left 2) compared to "A" model (right 2):
Please explain this further. All four of these look similar to me, but, just like reading an X-ray, I don't have the experience to tell the small differences you see. So, please point out why you think you see blow by in one pair and not the other.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,444 Posts
Rastoff,

They are basically the same. The 2 on the right seem like they have sealed off better. The top of the obturating cup on those wads are the same diameter as the the obturating cups on the left. The skirt is larger in diameter on the wads on the right so the upper part of the wad never touches the bore and stay clean.

The wads on the left probably don't seal worth spit, I can't believe they were actually made that way. If you want a short thick obturating cup to expand and seal properly you can't give the cup a domed powder side. It has to be made flat and the portion that seals has to have the gas pressure push outward at right angles or nearly right angles to the bore. That is how and why the Gualandi, Federal and Remington SP style wads work.

If you really look close you can see the soot on the left hand wads from blowby, the wads on the right are picking up debris from the bore.
 

·
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.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,444 Posts
Moke,

Helarco wads are second rate at best. There have been problems with them, and you have been one of the posters. That Claybuster wad can't decide what it wants to be, it still isn't a very well thought out wad at the powder cup end.

Put up samples of well designed wads and the skirts will be as thin if not thinner than the Gualandi wad. I like and use Gualandi's in the 16 gauge they are a good wad.

There are a lot of well designed wads. But guys that are good with plastic molds aren't always good at designing wads. Ever notice, when one of them doesn't make an actual clone, there is a reasonable chance there are problems with the wad.

Just remember, you get what you pay for.
 

·
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).
 
21 - 30 of 30 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