Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Mule Deer, powder used as a function of metal fouling?

I really believe that your above statement from another thread is quite true, and am interested in the experience of others, as well as yourself. Perhaps the guys who shoot hundred of rounds a day at gophers, etc, will have some insight in this regard.

I have done a lot of loading in scores of rifles with many different powders. For the most part I do not get cranked up too much with cleaning rifles. Usually just put one or two wet patches of Kroil through the bore after a shooting session, to remove the powder fouling, and put the rifle back in the safe.

I have noticed, however, that three rifles in particular, a 270Win, 30-06 and 300 Win, when using Norma 204 powder, exhibit virtually no metal fouling when using this powder. If I switch to something else, the bores begin to foul. Switch back to N204 and they stay absolutely clean.

The 300 Win Mag is a Stevens 200 that I bought new on a whim. That barrel now has around 200 consecutive rounds through it using 204 and several different weights and makes of bullets, including the old original 200 gr X bullets, yet shows no sign whatsoever of metal fouling. None!

Is it possible that being a double base powder might have something to do with this, or does the Norma powder have some other unique characteristic that accomplishes this?

Ted

One of the sales appeals to the 204 was the fact that it was being loaded, by some anyway, with a propellant which helps reduce, prevent, or remove metal fouling, thereby getting around one of the problems sometimes seen in the smaller of the small bores (like the 17). I don't doubt that you might be seeing a real, designed effect. At the very least, what you're reporting is an interesting bit of info.

I believe reduced metal fouling is a positive attribute of Reloder 15. IIRC this came out of military contract work to cut down fouling in high rate of fire weapons.

....I'd like to hear more about this. I believe that the metal surface finish in a particular rifle's bore would have the biggest influence on metal fouling, but that is solely based on reckoning.Certainly the pressure curve of a particular powder would have influence as well. This would be a great subject for an in depth magazine investigation, with extensive testing.

Ted,

According to Norma their powders contain a decoppering agent...jim

I remember there was quite an uproar within the military Reguarding Chrome lineing the barrels of small arms due to the fowling issue...I remember they stopped lineing & all hell broke loose. Not sure how or if the issue was ever resolved.

I was not aware of that, however that is exactly what appears to happen with this powder. The 300 Mag barrel has never had copper solvent in it since I started using 204, and looks brand new. Some of the loads have been the old Barnes X 200 gr at around 2900 fps. If anything should copper it up, that should!

Klitarik, is saying essentially the same thing.

If this is so, now I am really wondering why everyone doesn't formulate powder this way?

Very interesting!

Ted

Jim,

Can you point me to a link or resource to read about that? I can't find it on their website ?

Thanks,
$bob$

I'm no chemist, but I do know that powder composition is always a compromise. So the answer to "Why aren't all powders made this way?" might have to do with the unintended consequences.

In other words, they may know that adding .01% of fulminating bearhair eliminates copper fouling, but it also increases muzzle flash, or hot weather stability, or attracts moisture, or � well, you get the idea.

Also, what would be the effects of storing a powder with "de-coppering" agent in a copper-alloy container for an extended period of time (e.g., in a brass rifle cartridge case capped by a copper-alloy [or copper-alloy coated] bullet)?

A sub topic was also brought up again by Mule Deer I believe. That its not necessary to clean some barrels all that often.

I sort of knew this from way back but the reminder got me to try it again. So some of my best shooting rifles don't have their barrels cleaned at all.

Of course if a rifle throws a shot fouling is suspect and I clean that one.

As to the powders that help clean I am all for it but I don't use much of them.

The load I used for the 6mm Remington International where I shot it over 130 times in one day at the full course Free Rifle matches used Sierra bullets and IMR's 3031. That barrel is worn out now and I have not tested the new barrel that much.

It could possibly be an agent activated with heat or pressure?

Powdr-Kote?

remseven,

That could very well be the case. I am still curious about what the situation is, though.

That's an interesting question. I have noticed that some loads corrode in the case after 20 or more years. The rear part of the boat tailed bullet gets all pock-marked and gray and some of the powder grains don't ignite when the round is fired. This does not happen with the same powder stored equally long in its original containers or with certain other powders. Most of this experience has been with IMR powders, none with Norma.

OK guys, let's add another moving part to this equation. According the the A-Square loading manual, pgs 274-275, RL-19 is exactly the same thing as Norma 204 (also MRP=RL-22 and N-203=RL-15).

Any observations of RL-19 exhibiting the same traits as discussed above?

Well, now that you mention it, I have not used much Re22, but it gets very high velocities in several rifles with little or no metal fouling.

Ted

Has anybody contacted Norma or is this just a "rumor thread"?

I checked out their website (see my other message above) and found no such claim.

The old Unique had some sort of sooty black residue left behind that I always assumed was some sort of graphite lubricant to reduce metal fouling in bores, but I never saw that they claimed it was and I never claimed it was.

Can anyone actually substantiate this "Norma claim" or that they even made the claim?

$bob$

I�m no expert but Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decoppering ) states, �Decoppering agents are frequently added to smokeless powder propellants.� The article goes on to mention that compounds of tin, bismuth, and lead have been added to smokeless powder to reduce copper fouling. Apparently, these compounds react with copper to form alloys that are easily dislodged.

Do MILSPECs require decoppering agents in military smokeless powders?
If so, which common powders, besides RL-15, are in standard use by the military?

Ramshot TAC also supposedly contains something that tends to prevent copper buildup. I don't know what it is, since nobody will tell me, probably so other powder manufacturers won't find out. But I do know TAC is a Belgian powder developed for military automatic arms use, where something to prevent copper build-up in bores makes a lot of sense. (I mentioned this one day to somebody at Alliant and they said RL-15--the U.S. 5.56mm powder--contains something to help prevent copper fouling as well.) Use in automatic arms is apparently also the reason TAC burns so cleanly.

"Decoppering agents" implies getting rid of the copper after it builds up. Instead they prevent copper build-up.

I have fooled enough with TAC to know that something is going on. When you can fire a .223 around 500 times and get rid of the tiny amount of copper fouling with 2-3 patches of solvent, then that fouling would have to be termed minimal.

Powders that tend to leave a lot of unburned residue in the barrels tend to create more copper-fouling, since the residue (which contains a lot of carbon) tends to be quite abrasive. This is one reason you often see prairie dog shooters scrubbing away at their bores periodcally during a long day: Many of the popular ball powders (especially for the .223) tend to be dirty-burning. Cleaning the bore every 50 rounds or so gets the powder gunk out, so lessens copper build-up as well.

Personally, I really, really HATE cleaning barrels, something I firmly believe should have disapopeared with the invention of smokeless powder. So unless there is a good reason to do otherwise, these days I tend to use the cleanest-burning powders available. Combining them with Ultra Bore Coating often practically eliminates cleaning.

Being double-based doesn't have much to do with whether a powder burns cleanly. In general, traditional ball powders tend to foul more, because their burn rate is controlled by additives (especially coatings) that tend to resist burning, hence more residue in the bore. This is because their size and shape (small and round) has little effect on burn rate, whereas the size and shape of the big granules of "log" type powder affects burn rate.

I dunno how come the Ramshot ball powders burn so cleanly, but they do. Which is why I use them a lot, especially in handloads for high-volume shooting. Plus they are cheaper than most other powders!

Was glad to see some Ramshot powders included in my new Nosler reloading manual.
Royce