I posted this on the Black Powder board and it didn't even get viewed so i thought i might have more luck here. thanks for any thoughts you all may have.

I have noticed that the primer flash hole in a shotgun shell is substantially larger than the flash hole in the 209 holder in a muzzle loader. i have not measured them, but a guy who i consider very much up to speed on these topics told me that the typical flash hole is ~0.030". i also notice a lot of soot is apparent when using the 209 primer. a lot more than i imagined there would be.

2 questions:

1. is there some particular reason why the muzzleloader restricts the flame and the shotgun shell does not?

2. if the hole was larger, would that allow more of the fire to go into the barrel and lessen the sooting situation?

thanks for the help.

Bill, the size of the flash hole in a shell vs a breech plug is determined by different considerations. The shell is going to remain intact with the primer still fixed in its pocket.

The primer has to have some wiggle room in a breech plug else you would never get one out (easily). So... not everything goes forward and away when you fire a muzzeloader - some of the gases and debris will escape back into the action (blowback). Increasing the flash hole size will generally exacerbate the blowback problem and could be dangerous to the shooter.

Very small changes in the size of that hole can produce varying results but it is tiny by design and should remain so. As the hole is eaten away by flame cutting or gas flow, often the shooter will see a marked reduction in accuracy and an increase in blowback.

Some of the newer designed plugs are nearly at the point of mastering the balancing act involved and produce nearly no blowback into the action - at least when the plug is brand new. Closing some actions will also compress the primer into its pocket and further aid the seal.

well i do thank you for your insight. what you say seems to make sense. thanks for the help.

Hi Bill-

Let me add a little more to it...

From my understanding, the "black powder" primers, like Winchester's "Triple Se7en" Muzzleloading 209 Primers, are less powerful than the standard 209 primers. The theory is that the muzzleloader specific primer will not dislodge the seated bullet BEFORE the powder charge is ignited, which can happen with the more powerful standard shotgun primers. Reportedly, prematurely dislodging the bullet can cause erratic ignition and lead to increase soot buildup.

This reasoning may have something to do with why the flash hole in the muzzleloading rifles is so small in comparison to a standard shotshell. I'd guess it's likely two-fold:

1) to reduce the power of the 209 primers

2) to reduce blow back


Of course this is a lot of speculation and hearsay on my part, but I have noticed cleaner burning with the Winchester Triple Se7en 209 primers, so I'll continue to use them.

Kenati: i purchased several hundred of these primers a while ago. up until just the past month, i was waiting for a vendor to get some breech plugs for my muzzle loader so i have not had the time to try these out yet.

i did notice something though, after i installed the breech plug. i fired off a couple regular Winchester primers and i got almost no blowback. in fact, i couldn't get any on my finger when i rubbed the breech. until now, i had been using a TC primer holder and the sooting was really spectacular. i haven't tried the new plug out with a bullet and powder charge, but right now i'm optimistic. you can bet though that i will be getting into the Triple Se7en primers soon.

thanks for the advice.

quote:

Originally posted by Kenati:
Hi Bill-

Let me add a little more to it...

From my understanding, the "black powder" primers, like Winchester's "Triple Se7en" Muzzleloading 209 Primers, are less powerful than the standard 209 primers. The theory is that the muzzleloader specific primer will not dislodge the seated bullet BEFORE the powder charge is ignited, which can happen with the more powerful standard shotgun primers. Reportedly, prematurely dislodging the bullet can cause erratic ignition and lead to increase soot buildup.

This reasoning may have something to do with why the flash hole in the muzzleloading rifles is so small in comparison to a standard shotshell. I'd guess it's likely two-fold:

1) to reduce the power of the 209 primers

2) to reduce blow back


Of course this is a lot of speculation and hearsay on my part, but I have noticed cleaner burning with the Winchester Triple Se7en 209 primers, so I'll continue to use them.

i actually experienced this this weekend i have always used shotgun primers but could only find the 777 primers this weekend used them they do have a small delay vs the shotgun primers but the powder didnt soot the barrel as bad

To further complicate things, the low ouput 209 primers will NOT reliably ignite Blackhorn 209 powder.