Purpose of Wads, ie: Oxyoke Wonderwads ??

[paulvallandigham]

We were getting 20 fps increase in our velocity, but our SDV dropped from around 20 fps, to 10-12 Fps, by lubing the barrel in front of the PRB.

I consider the velocity increase to be minimal, but the other benefits to be substantial, because the bore stays cleaner, the fouling softer, and the lower SDV give better ( smaller ) group size.

You get a much larger increase in velocity just using the OP wads to seal the gases. Depending on the gun and load combination, the increase in velocity can be 250 fps. Now, that is a substantial increase. I got that much in my 20 ga. fowler, shooting RB loads using too small wads vs. proper sized wads. The same ball and same patching was used with both wads. That indicates, to me, that neither the PRB nor the too small wad was giving us the proper velocity( blow by), but when we used the proper size wads, and the PRB, we got that huge increase in velocity.

Also improved was the reduction in size of residue. When I used the correct wad, the residue from FFg powder was no different than the small sized residue I found shooting FFFg powder in the gun. That suggests to me that the use of the wad was increasing chamber pressure and promoting more complete burning of the power. Group sizes at 25 yards started to get down around one hole. I need to increase my powder charge from 75 to 80 grains and see if that won't do the trick, based on what others, including Roundball, have said about their chosen loads.

 

[Joel/Calgary]

If you will be testing the effects with balls, you may want to try a larger-diameter wad (e.g. .62/20ga in a .58, .54 or .58 in a .50, etc.) so that there will be enough material to wrap around the base and jam into the annulus. Then you might want to compare some of the other ways of augmenting the initial obturation: loose fillers (corn meal, cream of wheat, wasp nest) or Sam Fadala's second patch under the ball (I reuse the ones I've policed up after shooting for this).

I'm also quite interested in what you find. More data is always useful. The interpretation of the data can sometimes be contentious, but valid data is always good.

Joel

 

[roundball]

If you will be testing the effects with balls, you may want to try a larger-diameter wad (e.g. .62/20ga in a .58, .54 or .58 in a .50, etc.) so that there will be enough material to wrap around the base and jam into the annulus. Then you might want to compare some of the other ways of augmenting the initial obturation: loose fillers (corn meal, cream of wheat, wasp nest) or Sam Fadala's second patch under the ball (I reuse the ones I've policed up after shooting for this).

I'm also quite interested in what you find. More data is always useful. The interpretation of the data can sometimes be contentious, but valid data is always good.

Joel

Actually I've used the next larger caliber size wads for a number of years now...on the assumption that if an Oxyoke wad makes a better gas seal, then an even tighter fitting wad that might expand out further into the grooves would seal even better. When I pick them up off the range I can see tiny little gear teeth looking marks around the edge indicating they did squeeze out into the grooves some amount.

By the same token, I don't believe the larger wads curve up around the ball, or at least not as much as a normal caliber size wad might...I think the engagement of the wad edges with the grooves and the twist being applied to the wad edges by the grooves, holds the edges under a certain amount of resistance/stress and keeps them from curving up easily...speculation of course...but I figure in order for the little land/groove teeth marks to appear around the edge of the wads they must be staying in contact with the grooves to some extent...dunno.

At any rate, I can see these tests spanning multiple Saturdays so I'll just have to keep going and making smoke...I know, I know...but sombody's got to do it
:thumbsup: