Author Topic: Smokeless powder (Read 2440 times)

bsmit24 · « **on:** December 31, 2008, 09:11:10 AM »

I know that this is a big no-no and have no plans to try it but was curious if this is strictly because of metallurgy with traditional rifles/shotguns or because of the venting thru the ingnition hole because of higher pressures? Or are there other issues that I am not thinking about?

Keith Lewis · « **Reply #1 on:** December 31, 2008, 12:15:56 PM »

Besides the fact that the rifles are not designed for the pressure that smokeless can create there are other problems with smokeless. It tends to be sensitive to case design and the base of the rifles vary as well as breechplug design. Most of the rifles that will use smokeless or really magnum charges use a false rifle case type of design that helps to stabilize the smokeless pressure curve. Even the rifles that are designed for smokeless like the Savage require a little more attention to loading and powder measuring than the black powder and sub guns do. With smokeless a small error can be quite bad.

glshop20 · « **Reply #2 on:** December 31, 2008, 02:55:11 PM »

Exactly right! I have a Savage 10ML and it is designed to use specified smokeless loads. I would not try to use smokeless in any gun that is not specified for its use. Most BP guns are made to handle much lower pressures.

kevinsmith5 · « **Reply #3 on:** January 02, 2009, 02:39:44 PM »

Since I also reload smokeless I can tell you a very small difference in powder mass can make a huge pressure difference.

bsmit24 · « **Reply #4 on:** January 19, 2009, 12:24:26 PM »

Thanks for the responses. I started a new job and we had a baby so my computer time is limited.

My question is more theoretical than practical. I have no plans to try this but with all of the warning posted on everything having to do with bp I was wondering why not. If the steel that they use in modern muzzleloaders is the same as for modern rifles then the only reason that I could think of besides avoiding liability is that the greater pressure would quickly eroad the vent on either a cap lock or flinter. Obviously the pressures are different at max loads but I am talking about black powder pressures. Maybe there are other issues like not enough pressure when ignited when using patch and ball.

Has anyone done any indepth work on this or has everyone just stayed away because of the warnings?

Buckskins & Black Powder · « **Reply #5 on:** January 20, 2009, 06:02:29 PM »

yeah, No, Dont try shooting smokeless in any rifle thats not build for it!

especially with a flintlock/sidelock.

live long enough to see your new baby grow up.

Hammerspur · « **Reply #6 on:** January 20, 2009, 11:45:30 PM »

Quote from: bsmit24 on January 19, 2009, 12:24:26 PM

Has anyone done any indepth work on this or has everyone just stayed away because of the warnings?

I'm sure some late model muzzleloaders have barrels made of steel that would be perfectly safe with smokeless loads at or near black equivalent... probably even some breechplugs.
BUT which ones they might be?

The manufacturers' tech people would know, but I'm sure they wouldn't even discuss it for obvious liability reasons.
The makers and purveyors of smokeless rifles certainly must have all the info, but they're in the sales business, not education (trivia?)

I've been considering putting a smokeless capable rig together for some time and would certainly stick with dedicated designs for same, but it would be interesting to read the engineering/metallurgical data.

Not really a bad thing but some of us are still like the kid always asking "Why?"

Swampman · « **Reply #7 on:** January 21, 2009, 01:42:24 AM »

The weakness is the breechplug design.

mirage1988 · « **Reply #8 on:** January 21, 2009, 04:49:59 AM »

Im not a gunsmith but I believe the brass cartridge is really the most important difference between smokeless, and black powder, (or equiv.) Smokeless powder reaches peak pressure much faster than BP does and the brass absorbs that when expanding to fill the chamber. I'm not sure how savage makes it work, but I WOULD NOT SHOOT SMOKELESS OUT OF A GUN THAT IS NOT RATED FOR IT!

Keith Lewis · « **Reply #9 on:** January 21, 2009, 08:35:33 AM »

One additional item that would have to be considered is that many smokeless powders do not react well to being compressed. Loading in a traditional muzzleloader is doing just that depending on how much pressure is used which is also difficult to control without some means of making each load the same. There are smokeless powders that can be compressed but again this is a factor that would have to be considered and as stated it the rifle is not designed for smokeless trying it is potentially dangerous.

bsmit24 · « **Reply #10 on:** January 22, 2009, 11:45:57 AM »

Again, I have no intensions of attempting this! As mentioned above, just the kid in my asking "why" and a little bit of the engineer wanting to reinvent the wheel.

Thinking out loud

I don't think that the breech plug issue would be that much trouble to work around. Changing the breech plug to either a bayonet style with larger lugs or using acme threads should be able to take the loading from black powder pressure levels.

The cartridge in a modern firearm is used mainly as a convienent package and as a gasket to seal the removeable breech. I really do not see were the soft brass cases perform any measurable strenght to the action.

The lose powder could be an issue with reguards to compaction and also the reduced pressure could affect the burning charactistics.

Modern rifles have a throat and then the bullet (lead is slightly oversize) is forced through the bore while a patch and ball would not take as much force to move it down the barrel.

No one has mentioned anything about the ignition system. Anythoughts on problems with traditional locks? Flint, cap, underhammer, etc.?

What got me thinking about this was an article about the savage and thinking that if some one made a small caliber rifle (.32) with the ability to use smokeless powder only up to bp pressure levels it could be extremely cheap to shoot and fouling would not be an issue on extended trips.

Keith Lewis · « **Reply #11 on:** January 22, 2009, 01:03:46 PM »

I understand the interest and am glad that you do not intend to pursue this; however, I hope you understand that there are beginners to this sport that are not totally in tune with all the rules and some barely understand that there is a difference in Black Powder, the muzzleloading substitutes for Black Powder and the other branch of propellants called Smokeless Powder. Discussions in this area need to be continuously stated that using smokeless powder in a muzzleloader not specifically designed for it can cause serious damage to the rifle and likely physical damage to the shooter up to and including death. That is the reason it is made as clear as possible that this was for discussion about the mechanics of the muzzleloader but not with the intention of actually experimenting with smokeless powder. I have actually seen discussions of this before and usually the site prefers to limit this just due to that situation of a beginner becoming confused and thinking this is a condition that they could pursue. I think I am done lecturing at this point, I hope you understand where I am coming from and the reason for the extreme cautions.

mirage1988 · « **Reply #12 on:** January 23, 2009, 06:08:52 AM »

Sorry bsmit24- you need to go back to armchair engineering school- the cartridge is actually THE main reason in the strength difference between a typical muzzleloader action and a cartridge action. If it was only a container to hold the powder and the bullet, why aren't cases made from plastic?

Hammerspur · « **Reply #13 on:** January 23, 2009, 06:46:51 AM »

Quote from: mirage1988 on January 23, 2009, 06:08:52 AM

Sorry bsmit24- you need to go back to armchair engineering school- the cartridge is actually THE main reason in the strength difference between a typical muzzleloader action and a cartridge action. If it was only a container to hold the powder and the bullet, why aren't cases made from plastic?

I believe you are mistaken. The difference in strength between a CF and typical muzzleloader is the quality of the materials and construction.

If one compares a CF and a modern, high quality muzzleloader made of like materials and design then the inherent strengths are essentially the same.

The difference the case makes is its ability to momentarily swell slightly upon ignition creating a gasket within the chamber preventing the violently expanding gases from venting through the breech rather than out the bore.

The lack of this seal in muzzleloaders intended for smokeless is addressed in part by the more specific design and material contruction of their breech plugs and the fact that the priming flash hole is the sole route back to the breech.

These arms operate at pressures significantly higher than those created by BP loads.

bsmit24 · « **Reply #14 on:** January 23, 2009, 07:01:04 AM »

Quote from: mirage1988 on January 23, 2009, 06:08:52 AM

Sorry bsmit24- you need to go back to armchair engineering school- the cartridge is actually THE main reason in the strength difference between a typical muzzleloader action and a cartridge action. If it was only a container to hold the powder and the bullet, why aren't cases made from plastic?

Some companies such as active have made all plastic shells for shotguns. The thin case walls could not handle the high pressures of modern cartridges (50,000 PSI) if they were not fully supported by the bolt face and chamber walls. This can be clearly seen in cartridges like the .45ACP (around 17,000 PSI normally if I remember correctly) in which a portion of the case is unsupported because of the feed ramp and at higher pressures (30,000+ PSI) will bulge and split the case head.

bsmit24 · « **Reply #15 on:** January 23, 2009, 07:10:26 AM »

Keith Lewis, I completely understand what you are talking about. Although I am new to muzzle loading, I have been shooting and reloading rifles, shotguns and pistols all my life and some of the same issues can be seen in modern firearms that use older blackpowder cartridges. I cringe when I hear people talk about shooting low brass shells in an old damascus hammer gun and other such feats.

mirage1988 · « **Reply #16 on:** January 23, 2009, 07:43:12 AM »

So why can I buy a .375 barrel for my encore, but should not shoot smokeless in my muzzleloader barrel?
T/C must use weaker metal in their muzzleloader barrels If I'm following your argument correctly? Or maybe the encore is not a well constructed model in your opinion? If the cartridges job is only to hold the powder and bullet and seal the breech, then why wouldn't plastic be sufficient?

bsmit24 · « **Reply #17 on:** January 24, 2009, 07:09:39 AM »

Quote from: mirage1988 on January 23, 2009, 07:43:12 AM

So why can I buy a .375 barrel for my encore, but should not shoot smokeless in my muzzleloader barrel?
T/C must use weaker metal in their muzzleloader barrels If I'm following your argument correctly? Or maybe the encore is not a well constructed model in your opinion? If the cartridges job is only to hold the powder and bullet and seal the breech, then why wouldn't plastic be sufficient?

That is partly what this thread is about. I do not know the specific reason why thompson center decided not to promote use of smokeless in their muzzle loaders and savage did or for what reason. There may be valid reasons such as muzzle loader barrels are not made from the same steel or are not heat treated or it could be something completely different like not having an effective way to keep the hot gasses out of the shooters face. It may have also been decision made by the lawyers with concerns about liability.

I am specificaly curious about smokeless at BP pressures which may or may not be an issue.

As mentioned above, there are some shotgun shells that are plastic and there are also some breechloading paper shells for rifles like the sharps and others. Because of the differences in material properties, plastic cartridges would have to be thicker than an equivilent brass cartridge which would mandate a different chamber.

Lane · « **Reply #18 on:** January 25, 2009, 05:37:09 PM »

Look, Why are we EVEN giving this topic any credible debate when

..........

With the advent of BlackHorn 209, there is no need to chance smokeless powder in your muzzleloader at all

http://blackhorn209.com/

It's like smokeless powder with a little smoke thrown in

bsmit24 · « **Reply #19 on:** January 27, 2009, 06:56:51 AM »

Quote from: Lane on January 25, 2009, 05:37:09 PM

Look, Why are we EVEN giving this topic any credible debate when ..........

With the advent of BlackHorn 209, there is no need to chance smokeless powder in your muzzleloader at all

As posted above, this is for discussion purposes only and I do not have any intentions of physically trying this, nor do I recommend others to try it. I thought that someone may have some better insight into why it is such a taboo subject.

I have never tried BH209 as it is usually promoted for inlines and I prefer more traditional locks. Can it be ignited with a cap or flint? Are you suggesting that BH209 is a modern smokeless powder that has added bulk filler to make it easier to measure by volume?

Hammerspur · « **Reply #20 on:** January 27, 2009, 10:10:28 AM »

Quote from: bsmit24 on January 27, 2009, 06:56:51 AM

Are you suggesting that BH209 is a modern smokeless powder that has added bulk filler to make it easier to measure by volume?

I do suspect that myself.

Some years back I recall Ross Seyfried sampling and discussing at the time newer muzzleloading propellants.
He concluded that if someone really wanted to offer an improvement in the available fuels
"...bring back the old bulk smokeless."
Perhaps that is exactly what's been done.

While adding bulk for volume measurement the filler produces some smoke for BP replica/substitute 'authenticity'... ?

bsmit24 · « **Reply #21 on:** January 27, 2009, 11:46:01 AM »

hammerspur, it appears to be extruded hollow cylinders and as you said bulk filler with a smoking agent for authenticity.

I am really leaning toward the liability reason for no one persuing this angle. Although equivalent pressue loads may be possible(a .45 BP ML may have a working pressure of 15,000 to 25,000psi and a .45 Long Colt has a max pressure of 14,000psi so there in the same ballpark), though having someone load 120+ grains of smokeless instead of 10 to 20 grains in a muzzleloader is certain death!

Found this article while surfing the web. http://www.chuckhawks.com/muzzleloading_pressure.htm It touches on some of the issues that I am curious about in regards to smokeless powder.

It still does not answer any questions about ignition with cap or flint or compression of the powder as mentioned previously.

Hammerspur · « **Reply #22 on:** January 27, 2009, 12:47:43 PM »

bsmit24,

PM sent.

Lane · « **Reply #23 on:** January 27, 2009, 11:51:38 PM »

Quote from: bsmit24 on January 27, 2009, 11:46:01 AM

hammerspur, it appears to be extruded hollow cylinders and as you said bulk filler with a smoking agent for authenticity.

I am really leaning toward the liability reason for no one persuing this angle. Although equivalent pressue loads may be possible(a .45 BP ML may have a working pressure of 15,000 to 25,000psi and a .45 Long Colt has a max pressure of 14,000psi so there in the same ballpark), though having someone load 120+ grains of smokeless instead of 10 to 20 grains in a muzzleloader is certain death!

Found this article while surfing the web. http://www.chuckhawks.com/muzzleloading_pressure.htm It touches on some of the issues that I am curious about in regards to smokeless powder.

It still does not answer any questions about ignition with cap or flint or compression of the powder as mentioned previously.

No, It can not be ignited with cap or flint.

mechanic · « **Reply #24 on:** January 28, 2009, 01:00:17 AM »

I suspect that , as much as anything else, there is an inability to educate folks enough for them to safely use smokeless powder. If there were only one powder it might be possible. There is really no difference in the steel in the barrells, but there are tremendous differences in powders. Black powder, and substitutes are of course measured by volume, whereas all the smokeless must be weighed, and carefully. A little can go a long way. I'm not familiar with the Savage, but I would bet that there are only certain powders that can be used. I would think that charges should be weighed.

Can you imagine the result if some knucklehead substituted something like Bullseye? A three grain charge of Bullseye is a pretty good load in a 38, yet it is possible to overcharge the case several times in volume. A mistake could mean death. I believe it is this which keeps the companies away from offering smokeless barrells more than anything.

ohiosam · « **Reply #25 on:** January 28, 2009, 04:24:53 AM »

I have never heard a good engineering answer to the why part of this question just the standard DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT IT which I agree with.

I have an Encore and several barrels. The ML barrel thickness is .160" at the breech. The 7mm-08 is .260". The shotgun barrel is only .095". I don't believe the only reason the much thinner shotgun barrel is safe with smokeless is because of the case.

As far as in your sidelock you probably have a breech plug screwed into a barrel, then a nipple screwed into a the breech plug or worse, a drum. To many little parts to hold together. Also, my Renegade with 120 grains of ff is "self cocking" after every shot

If you want to use smokeless, get the Savage. As for me I'm sticking with my Encore and BH209.

ohiosam · « **Reply #26 on:** January 28, 2009, 04:33:40 AM »

Quote from: mechanic on January 28, 2009, 01:00:17 AM

I suspect that , as much as anything else, there is an inability to educate folks enough for them to safely use smokeless powder.

We all know someone who while distracted has forgot the powder, put in twice the powder, 2 bullets or left the ramrod in the barrel. BP and subs are more forgiving and it's easier to catch these mistakes(with a marked ramrod).

riddleofsteel · « **Reply #27 on:** January 28, 2009, 04:47:33 PM »

Henry Ball of Greensboro, NC developed the modern smokeless power muzzle loader after hidden rust weakened the vent screw of his Lyman Plains Rifle and caused him injury. Originally based on a Mauser bolt action, these guns have been designed from the beginning to handle modern smokeless powder with high strength steel and modern machining and design techniques. However it was his revolutionary breech plug that allowed the use of modern primers to ignite that powder.
After he had perfected the design and patented it he marketed the design to all of the major rifle makers like Weatherby, Remington, ect ect. It was Savage that had the vision to purchase rights to the design and mass produce it. After modifications to the breechplug design, approved by Henry Ball the Savage ML II hit the market as the strongest and the ONLY muzzle loader on the market approved for smokeless power.

This is why no other commercial manufacturer offers smokeless muzzle loaders. Only Savage has rights to the design.

As far as what powders to use. It is no different than loading any cartridge or traditional muzzle loader. You have to select the proper propellant to burn in your gun. If you go cramming just anything down the barrel or in the cartridge you risk damage to the firearm or your person. Savage supplies a list of approved powders and Henry Ball and his son Bill have detailed lists of approved powders and loads. Just Google it.

bsmit24 · « **Reply #28 on:** January 29, 2009, 07:11:33 AM »

Quote from: ohiosam on January 28, 2009, 04:24:53 AM

As far as in your sidelock you probably have a breech plug screwed into a barrel, then a nipple screwed into a the breech plug or worse, a drum. To many little parts to hold together. Also, my Renegade with 120 grains of ff is "self cocking" after every shot

If you want to use smokeless, get the Savage. As for me I'm sticking with my Encore and BH209.

As I read and research more, I think that the ignition is the biggest challenge on a couple of fronts. A hot enough spark to ignite smokeless and apparently BH209 and being able to defuse or redirect the blowback through the ignition system. A "mule ear" or underhammer may be the only possible solutions for traditional locks and flint probably is not hot enough to ignite the primer.

120 grns is a little more than I care to shoot and as mentioned above would keep the pressure at or below BP pressures (15,000 to 25,000 psi). The self cocking is exactly one of the issues that frightens me, I would not want a get of high pressue hot gasses venting near my face!

I don't necessarily want to use smokeless, this was purely for discussion.

bsmit24 · « **Reply #29 on:** January 29, 2009, 07:18:25 AM »

Quote from: riddleofsteel on January 28, 2009, 04:47:33 PM

Henry Ball of Greensboro, NC developed the modern smokeless power muzzle loader ...

Thanks. I found an article about him by Randy Wakeman and he seems to have done exactly what I wanted to discuss in this thread, although I hand more traditional locks in mind. He does seem to believe that education and liability are some fo the big issues and the problem of people attempting to get "magnum" performance from a muzzleloader.

I am not that familar with the savage muzzle loader but am curious about breech plug that he designed.