I would like to have one of the old Hawkens or Kentucky replica rifles, but the thought of breaking it down and cleaning it for two hours has always keep me from buying one.

Has anyone tried a reduced Smokeless powder load instead of black powder?

I wouldn’t be trying to increasing the velocity, just reduce the cleaning time.

Buck,

DO NOT DO IT. Live with the cleaning of your M/L or buy a Savage smokeless M/L. But under no circumstance put smokeless in an muzzleloader not specifically designed for it. If you don't like cleaning it, don't shoot it.

Some people do it, but the chance that you could develop pressures that are not in the design capability of the rifle are great. Not a good idea!!!!! I shoot smokeless loads in my black powder cartridge rifle but it is new barrel material and the action is very strong. Not the same as a muzzleloader. This is probably why some think it is OK to use smokeless in a black powder gun. I do not shoot smokeless in any of my muzzleloaders.

Remember that I am talking about reduced loads such as the 45/70 was a black powder cartridge and now uses reduced smokeless loads that is still safe to shoot in the older guns.

Buck,

Some people mistakingly think that "velocity" indicates a specific pressure level. It absolutely does not.

Loads are in no way safe until proven safe.

Just what pressure was this one?



I would not be retained to examine nearly the number of firearms cases I have-- if more respect was paid to them.

1) Cleaning a traditional muzzleloader should take nothing like two hours. Consult with the fine folks at Track for advice and labor saving accoutrements www.trackofthewolf.com
2) Loading a traditional muzzleloader with anything but black powder or a BP substitute is a recipe for a hand grenade. Just say no.

I was just curious. I didn’t know if there were any crossovers such as:
If using X amount of Brand A black powder can be substituted by using X amount of Brand B smokeless power to equal the same pressures.

Buck,

No, there isn't. Even Pyrodex, Triple 7 and Black Mag3 do not = equal any specific blackpowder peak pressure, much less match an entire pressure curve.

What the picture portrays has NOTHING to do with this post. Please check the Encore and the first thing that got my attention was the fact that it had a MUZZLEBRAKE. This Encore looks as if it's a larger bore rifle. It is chambered and has no breech plug. The forearm doesn't have a ramrod or a place for him. This is obviously a conventional rifle that was either (1) firing an over compressed reload or (2) fired with an obstructed barrel. It looks amazingly close to firearms I've seen that had the shooter fire a squib load and without checking the barrel, fired a followup round that exploded the gun as you see here. This can happen with ANY firearm and is not indicative of using conventional powder in a black powder firearm.

Not that a muzzleloader WON'T explode if you try to swap powder. Black powder produces energy by a constant expansion of gasses in the chamber and barrel and continues to burn all the length of the barrel and beyond. Conventional powder produces its energy by explosion. All the energy is created at the breech with the resultant gasses pushing the projectile. Most black powder guns are made with a softer/less alloyed steel than modern firearms. Still, the breech and chamber of the modern firearm is exponentially thicker than the barrel.

Still, this picture paints a flawed impression of the possible results and Randy Wakemen should be more responsible than implying that.

I have a Hawkins and a plains rifle. Neither one takes any where two hours combined to clean. Ya just pop the pin out of the forearm remove the barrel from the stock remove the nipple. Place the breech in a pail of hot water with a few drops of dish soap. Insert a range rod with a jag and a patch on it and pump. After 4 or 5 strokes change out the water to some again hot clean water and pump a few strokes and your done. If it take you 2 hours or more then your stroking the wrong rod with the wrong incentive.

Al

The 2 hrs was just and expression meaning that it took a bit longer than smokeless.

Buck

Goerge,
I think the picture posted shows what can happen when the shooter makes a mental error and does something he shouldn't have...simple as that.
You seem to be on some kind of mission to refute and contest anything Randy Wakeman posts, or label anyone who doesn't agree with you some kind of idiot. Are you here to be our new self annointed expert? Your posts here on this thread and the one about the new Knight rifle come off as arrogant and insulting.

John, my posts, just like your posts reflect my personal opinion. I try not to insult anyone's intelligence as long as they don't try to portray it as THE opinion. Whatever Randy was attempting is something only he can address, but the last time I looked, this was the "muzzleloading" section of the forum and all previous discussions in this thread involve the use of conventional powder in a black powder firearm. Then there's the continual refusal to accept that there is no formal "proofing" of firearm in America. So if I come off as having a burr under my saddle, I'm sorry it seems that way. I am not apologetic, however, for insisting that issues presented as "the truth" maintain some integrity in its presentation.

I don't mean to sound arrogant. It's not intended that way, but I'm adamantly selfish in name dropping to validate my remarks. I don't use hearsay to prove an issue if I haven't personally experienced it or seen the results. I have nothing personal against Randy. He seems to have a lot going for him but IN MY OPINION, he comes off as pompass. Since he's stated that he will put me on his "ignore" list, then I'm sure my opinions mean as much to him as his does to me. The only difference is that if he's right, I'll support him and I don't need to "ignore" the comments of anyone. I consider them "opinions" and you're as entitled to yours as I am to mine. When it comes to facts, however, I would expect that no one's "opinion" counts for anything.

George,

I don't agree with smokeless powder explodes. If it did the BATF and DOT wouldn't list it as a flammable. Yes when confined it "burn" a lot faster, but still doesn't explode. I also don't agree that it is entirely consumed in the breech (I question what you mean by "at the breech" as do you mean the breech end of the barrel, how much of it?). If that was true, why is that throat erosion is mainly from abrasion? That is the throat metal is hot from the hot gases, thus more vulnerable to the sand blasting effect of the still burning and unburned powder kernels zooming down the bore. Also if this were true we wouldn't need a very long barrel at all.

It is said that blackpowder can only reach a certain pressure, which many concider a lot lower then smokeless. The U.S. Navy did a lot of experimentation with blackpowder and found out that it can indeed be increased in the pressure range and the pressure was very high.

Not flaming you, just having a gentleman disagreement.

Joe

Starmetal, you are correct and my use of the words were a bit fast and loose. Blackpowder is a Class A Explosive and gets much more attention than conventional powders because of that. The words "explosive" and "expansive" were used more as adjectives to describe their chemistry and physics.

I still maintain that conventional powder burns in "the breech area". If you truly want to see the validity of what I say, however, this is the time of year to see a visible example. Take your conventional firearm and fire it over a clean snow field. You'll find no residue in front of the muzzle. Try that with black powder. You'll see a veritable soot flume out in front of the muzzle. I have night photos of my shooting my .460 Mag pistol. My hands are engulfed in flames and my face is illuminated. There is no "tongue" of flame, however. Conversely, I used to make custom Lancaster?Pennsylvania/Kentucky rifles. I am shown firing a .45 loaded with 90 grains of FFFg powder. A tongue of flame reaches out to about 8 feet in front of me with burning embers feathering out underneath the tongue of flame. There is very little light on me except from the touch hole of the flintlock.

Now I know we're talking pistol versus rifle and much of the .460 flash comes from the escaping gasses between the cylinder and the forcing cone, but the effect shows that conventional powder is generally consumed very quickly.

Yes, what you say about muzzleloaders blowing out unburned powder is true and smokelees powder doesn't. I agree smokeless is very much consumed early in the barrel. There are some powders, like say 2400 and 4227 that absolutely refuse to burn every kernel. Being a big fan of cast bullets, we found out that in some instance (22 Hornet comes to mind) that there are cases where a rifle primer is just too much primer. Let me explain and I'll tie this in to smokeless burning in the barrel a little farther out then the breech. Take that 22 Hornet, the small rifle primer is too much because with the minute amount of powder used for cast loads, it was not only blowing the slug into the throat/or-rifling, it was blowing the powder out too. It still all burned, but accuracy wasn't so good. Switch to small pistol primers helped this immensely and accuracy came around too. Be very careful of where you swap out rifle and pistol primers.

Joe

Man, I'm stumped. I know of smokeless gunpowder and blackpowder, and even blackpowder substitutes. But I have never , before Mr Roof started using the term in this thread, heard of "that convention powder." As in his quote:

quote:

Conventional powder produces its energy by explosion.

Sounds like just so much BS to me.



Buck3, see what you started?

I agree with that as well Joe. It's easy to generalize and overlook specific facts as you've included.

Onefunzr I see chemistry is not your forte either. Conventional gun powder and "smokeless gun powder" are interchangeable with most people while "black powder" or "black powder substitutes" are in a whole nuther country. You know, sorta like your post?

"Conventional" powder does not all burn in the breech area, most of it does but definitely not all. Take your 300mag or other centerfire rifle out at dusk and fire off a round. You will see quite the fireball coming out of the muzzle. This is hot gas or flame from the charge burning inside. For a big overbore case like the 30/378 it will surely be quite impressive. Smokeless powder burns all the way down the barrel, and depending upon the relative speed of the powder and length of barrel, some of it burns outside the muzzle.

George, if YOU say so, I guess it MUST be true.

However, doing a search of that term over the length and breadth of this forum only brought up your name. I wonder why that is? It seems that in 9 years worth of conversation on AR, when people mean smokeless gunpowder, they damn well say SMOKELESS GUNPOWDER.

quote:

Originally posted by george roof:
...I still maintain that conventional powder burns in "the breech area". ...

Hey George, Now you've fumbled into an area that I do know, and you are WRONG - again. Some of it absolutely does Burn in the Breech area, but just not all of it. Yours is a common misconception that many Rookies and Beginners just don't comprehend.

Conventional(aka Smokeless Powders) all have "Controlled Burn Rates", thus the terms Fast Burning and Slow Burning Powders. Some can be completely consumed in less "Bore Volume", like a "Standard" 22LR in a typical rifle of 16" barrel length. Smokeless Powders begin the controlled Burn Rate inside the Case and extend on into the Bore. The actual Burn distance varies depending on ALL the specific cartridge components as well as the Bore size.

One place a person could "see" the dv/dt Area created by the Burning Powder is in the Owners Manual for one of the Home Strain Gauge Systems(HSGS). Though I normally consider the non-calibrated fiascos worthless, they do clearly show how the Pressure spikes move forward in relation to time(dt) as the Slower Powders are used. And they show the "Duration of Burn" as well.

So, basically you are just WRONG - again. You are simply at the wrong internet site trying to get people to believe these foolish and incorrect notions. I feel sure you will accept this lesson for you "in the spirit" in which it is meant.

Best of luck to you.

quote:

Originally posted by george roof:
...If a smokeless round gets tossed into a wood stove along with a similar round filled with black powder, will there be any difference in the results? Please explain your answer.

Hey George, I'm a novice when it comes to Black Powder, so you and the rest of these fine folks have an opportunity to "Teach" me about them.

I do enjoy reading the threads where there is a bit of (civil) disagreement, because I generally learn more when the people expand their thoughts during the argument stage. As long as they speak from first-hand experience, or say they are guessing so I know the difference, it is when I can learn the most.
---

I don't remember ever tossing any cartridges into a fire. So, this will be speculation on my part.

I would expect the Black Powder cartridge to explode, since that is what Black Powder does. If that is incorrect, anyone out there should feel free to educate me.

With the Smokless Powder cartridge I'd expect it to simply have a rapid burn rate, push the Bullet out of the Case and perhaps shove the case around a bit due to a reduced "rocket effect". The Primer "might" exit the Primer Pocket due to it's propellant, but it might not due to how tight it is in the pocket and the size of the Flash Hole.

It helps for people to think of Smokeless Powder as quick burning in a progressive manner, but requires High Pressure for it to Burn properly. Black Powder ignites in a significantly shorter time span, without requiring confinement to increase the pressure, which is normally refered to as a controlled(hopefully) explosion.

Don't really know from first-hand experience about tossing cartridges into a fire though.
---

And it seems everyone was able to answer "Buck3's" original question to the point that he understands not to use Smokeless Powder in a Firearm which is just not designed for it.

Best of luck to you all.

EDIT in:Hey George, It seems you must have deleted the post I just answered. I don't understand why, but here is my answer.

Hotshot, after a good night's sleep and reconsideration, you may notice I've given up my conciliatory mood and I'm back to restate my opinion. You, as have several here, seemed to have boarded the Randy Wakeman wagon and are fighting to impugn anyone who'd question his remarks. That's OK, but everyone is entitled to an opinion, even if it's sometimes misguided or even incorrect.

First off, I understand for every rule there is an exception or a few thousand of them. My statement about conventional smokeless powder, however, is true in concept. MOST of it is burned in the breech or in the case of the round. Once ignited, this powder turns into a combustable gas that has only one exit from it's nest in the breech: out the end of the barrel. Sure, this burning gas exudes a flame out the barrel, but this is a resultant condition and not indicative that the powder is still igniting as it travels down the barrel. As I said, there is always an exception or two and one of the easiest to find is in shotguns where often charred bits of powder are found in the barrel after shooting.

Conversely, black powder, because of its crude chemical composition continues to burn the length of the barrel or beyond. It was once thought (and some fools still believe) that a muzzleloader could not be overloaded with black powder. I once heard a guy claim to be able to fill his barrel with black powder, seat a bullet at the muzzle and ignite the powder with no effect. That's certainly possible because of what I stated earlier, HOWEVER, that barrel better be the thickness of the old pot mortars of the Civil War to consistently get away with that.

Now let's look at black powder outside the basic charcoal, saltpeter (potassium nitrate) and sulfur. Sulfur burns readily, but not violent. Adding an oxidizing agent (saltpeter) to it accellerates that burn while the charcoal holds the flame in concentration. It comes in 4 grades: Fg - commonly used in cannons and firearms down to 2 inchs in diameter. FFg is a finer granulation that functions best in firearms from the .50 up to one inch and maybe a bit above. The third grade, FFFg was commonly used by the earlier settlers in all their rifles and pistols from the .20 up to the .45 calibers. FFFFg or "flash powder" was used only for flintlocks in the flash pan of the lock. It is a super fine grind of blackpowder that was used in flashbars by early photographers for artificial illumination. Using FFFFg as a primary load was disasterous for firearms as the oxygenation of the sulfur was far too intense for the USUALLY Damascas barrels of that time.

Conversely, the use of the familiar copper flask with the premeasuring spout was discouraged for this reason. The flask, manufactured with a spring loaded trapdoor to fill the spout (You hold it upside down, place a finger over the spout, click the spring latch allowing powder to fill the spout, release the spring and then turn the flask upright to insure it is filled with powder and dump it down the barrel) became a hazard in itself. The brass springloaded trap door sheared powder after having filled the spout. This created a very fine FFFFg powder that when returned to the flask immediately settled to the bottom of the flask. Shooters, not allowing the flask to empty would refill the flask without clearing the FFFFg that had been created. Eventually, some unfortunate soul would get to the bottom of his flask and load it with this on-site manufactured FFFFg powder exposing him to mortal danger when it ignited.

Obviously, some of you shoot muzzleloaders without giving them their proper perspective or credit. When a conventional smokeless round is loaded, it is COMMON for loose powder to be inside the round. (By loose, I mean that the cartridge is not filled completely and there exists air space inside the cartridge casing. With smokeless powder, this is perfectly safe AND COMMON, since the primer will ignite all this powder spontaneously.)

Conversely, with black powder it is imperative that NO AIR SPACE be left between the round and the charge in the barrel. Black powder, though explosive, can be controlled in its burn by not allowing extra oxidation of the powder as it burns and moves the projectile down the barrel. If a bullet is seated improperly, the air space will allow a complete burn of all the black powder inside the confines of that breech area and subsequently create unsafe pressures behind the bullet that may explode your firearm. Hunters who leave their firearms loaded without primers (which is now common in most states allowing primitive weapons) should always mark their ramrods to a fully charged point. After a hunt and before the next one, the gun should be stored muzzle up and a ramrod should again be used to insure the bullet has remained seated. The newer sabots have reduced some of this danger, but it still exists. Patched ball users as well as PowerBelt users don't have as much luxury and should check to insure the bullet has not creeped toward the muzzle and created an "obstruction" to the burning blackpowder.

Simply stated, these actions relate to conventional smokeless powder firearms having a "kick" or recoil while blackpowder has more of a "push" against your shoulder.

Now to belabor the point of no American firearm being proof tested, we need to go no farther back than the black powder. At one time, barrel manufacturers would take a certain stock of steel rods that would be used in the manufacture of barrels. A single barrel would be tapped at both ends and a touch hole drilled in the center. One tap was removed and a fuse inserted into the touch hole. The barrel was filled completely with black powder and the tap tightened. The fuse was lit. If all the black powder would burn in that barrel without exploding it, it was considered PROOF of the quality of the rod stock to manufacture other barrels. After manufacturer, each gun was shot once with a "proofing load" and then sent out to the buyer. (Dixie Gunworks in Tennessee once had some interesting information on this practice. I don't know if it still appears in their catalogs as I stopped using them when I stopped building muzzleloaders nearly 20 years ago.)

As the modern firearm progressed and the use of modern metallurgy practices began with x-rays and magnafluxing, it was deemed impractical to "proof" American firearms. Anyone who knows anything readily accepted that using these metallurgy techniques would provide a safer alternative that subjecting the firearm to stresses it would probably never see in common practice. The only way for a gun to "proof" was for it not to explode. The only way to fail a "proof" was for it TO explode or at least show visible signs of distressed metal. American gun manufactures decided that proofing was simply unnecessary and their saftey record has borne this out.

With blackpowder, all your loads are compressed by fact and by design. Increasing the powder may increase the recoil to some degree but not to the levels of comparison with conventional smokeless powders being used as a substitute.

Now Hot Core, I do appreciate your lesson as I've only spent a fraction of my time on smokeless powder chemistry that I have on black powder and black powder substitutes. I can acquiesce to your knowledge and experience of how my generalizations were too broad in context. I apologize for that as well, but many of us understand and accept generalizations erred on the side of safety versus the factual intricacies you pointed out. I'm just a dumb country boy and tend to deal with them more often than I do specialists such as yourself. Maybe I should consider new company, huh?

Still, I take exception to Randy's random remarks made in that same vein. Using a picture of a modern firearm exploded by some obstruction or possible an unsafe compressed load to make a point in muzzleloading, to coin a phrase you used: " You are simply at the wrong internet site trying to get people to believe these foolish and incorrect notions."

Now, that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

Oh come fellows, quit picking on George. You saw that George and I had our discussion in a gentleman manner. I didn't call him names or insinuate anything negative about him, nor did he to me. When you have a good controlled disagreement, both parties can learn a wealth of information.

Now back to topic. I believe it was Thompson Center that said a barrel could indeed be overloaded with black powder. They also said you could tell when you were beginning to reach that the level where you were using too much powder by the method George mentioned and that was shooting over fresh snow and seeing how much unburned powder was laying on it. I imagine a whit sheet could be used too, but it MIGHT catch fire.

Smokeless powder can be made to explode. I read a report from the FBI about one of the "bombers" that they had caught and they gave, what I thought, was too much information on the manufacture of his pipe bomb. It required some very dangerous techniques, none which required a higher education or chemistry course...it was pure mechanical. Please don't ask because I will not tell you.

About throwing cartridges into a stove or fire. I'm sure most of us know the black powder ones will explode. There use to be a lot of us young fellows that spent a day in the woods when we were teens and build a fire and roast potatoes and could hot dogs. There were always some smart asses that would toss, in our case, shot gun shells in the fire. At least they had the decency to tell us, or we would see them...and start running fast. Now they did pop pretty good and spray their BB's somewhat. Let me tell you what happen to an Uncle of mine. He was burning trash in a common 55 gal steel barrel, which had a big square hole in the bottom and a pipe grate right above that. A lot of folks made those to burn their burnable trash back when it was legal. Well somehow a live 22 long rifle cartridge was in the trash my Uncle was burning and it went off. It was the case, not the bullet, that penetrated through the steel barrel wall and broke his skin, stinking him pretty good. Mine you after setting outside and rusting, plus the repeated fire burnings, the wall of the steel barrel aren't so thick and tough. That 22 rimfire seem to explode a little more violent then a center fire rifle cartridge. On the center fire cartridges the real danger, in my opinion, is from the primer cup. Now the primer compound is an explosive. Speaking of primers let me tell you about a fellow that had a progressive loader in his basement on his reloading bench. He had one of those steel pipe protectors around the primer tube. Well one day, somehow, a primer went off in the bottom of that tube. The whole column of primers exploded. The safety steel pipe did it's job and directed the blast straight up, which blew a foot hole in the ceiling, which was directly under the kitchen. He said good thing his wife wasn't standing on that spot when it happen. As it was nobody was harmed.

It was mentioned here by George the hazards of some powder horns or dispensers. On another forum they discussed how we've all heard how sometimes black powder explodes from static electricity. Well some of the member took some fine dust black powder (very little amount and not contained) and tried with various methods to set it off with static electricity sparks. None were successful. I'll bet that most the mishaps of recharging a muzzle loader with a powder dispenser of some sort, is caused by hot embers still in the barrel. That's not to say that the dispensers mechanism couldn't ignite the powder though.

Joe

Reading George's last post I see he has come up with some ideas about compressed loads and the recoil they generate and why. This is not the place for that discussion. Without cluttering up this section, I will just say he obviously knows little about the subject. Briefly, compressed loads are typically caused by a bulky, slow burning propellant being used. Powder compression, in and of itself DOES NOT cause increased recoil. That is caused by other factors. That subject is for the RELOADING forum.

Most modern muzzle loader steel is capable of holding the pressures from smokeless but none of you has stated the obvious reason they can't! The brass case that contains the pressure! Savage went through a lot of trouble to develop a way to do it without the brass.
I don't buy the stuff that smokeless burns closer to the breech than black because most slow powders need a long barrel to develop velocity. Most black powder guns also need longer barrels. It is how and when the pressure peaks and how much pressure is developed that counts, not the pressure curve. Smokeless is so much more efficient in generating oxygen to promote the burn, contains more energy then black and spikes the pressure so much quicker and stronger that a proper seal is needed. Black is not efficient and much turns to fouling. Enter the brass case! It's entire function is to seal the breech. Comparing the low pressure smokeless loads with black powder loads is a NO-NO and anyone fooling with smokeless in a gun not designed for it is asking for serious injuries or worse.
There are NO explosions in a gun, all powder burns at different rates depending on either composition, coatings or granulations.
The difference in powders is that black is so poor and so little actually burns for a given charge, that it is safe in about any gun. The smoke and the fouling left behind are components that detract from pressure. It just does not have the energy.

quote:

Originally posted by John S:
Reading George's last post I see he has come up with some ideas about compressed loads and the recoil they generate and why. This is not the place for that discussion. Without cluttering up this section,

I guess it is OK for Randy Wakeman to post whatever he wishes, I noticed you did not include him in your post on cluttering up this section.
Is this site for the select few and screw the rest??? Or are you just in his click?

No, I'm not in anyone's click and RW posted one picture of a blown up gun to illustrate a point he was trying to make about not using velocity as an indicator. I can't help it if you didn't "get" his point.

John, I apologize for sounding impertinent and I understand I'm a "visitor", but you've jumped on me twice about picayune issues. Now RW posted that picture of a conventional smokeless powder burning firearm on the muzzleloading forum and you keep defending it as "making a point". Velocity and pressures on this forum, I would think are relative to muzzleloaders and I've admitted my lack of specifics on smokeless powder. Using your terminology, you defend the person and not the issue at hand. Is this or is this not the muzzleloading forum and was or was not the point you chose to chastise me about not included as a laymens perspective of the differences of those two? I wouldn't think of taking one of my pictures of a caplock with the barrel bulged and put it on the 50BMG heading. I stated I felt like it was "piling on" earlier and you, as a moderator, don't make that feeling any less by stating what you've stated. But since it seems to be such an important issue to you, I'm going back and removing all the references about compressed loads. I'll await your rationalizing how a smokeless powder firearm stays here.

Well George, you apparently missed the point of that picture too. IMO, the picture you are referring to was used to illustrate what can happen if someone assumes that low velocity equals low pressure, or that it might be okay to substitue smokeless powder for blackpowder in a rifle not designed for smokeless. The original poster asked if it would be okay to substitute a smokeless charge for the proper blackpowder charge. I agree it would have been more appropriate to use a muzzleloader in the picture, but as it is the picture is still a graphic reminder for everyone to NOT do this. What is so damned wrong with that?

Randy Wakeman.. would you please remove the picture in your post and replace it with one showing a blown up blackpowder rifle? If you have none, just remove the picture as it is not relevant in a muzzleloading forum.

I am fairly new to the mz world, but am going to throw my hat into the ring, only because of something a well-known designer of MZ rifles told me...

I was talking to Doc White several months ago about the threads on here touting the so-called "strength" of Savage muzzleloaders. He chuckled, and said the only reason they can allow smokeless to be used is that they have the money to insure themselves against a lawsuit. I told him that I had a copy of the Browning Test report done with smokeless on one of his rifles, and he told me that yes, they had shot a bunch of smokeless in his rifle. The only reason he didn't advise it was that insurance is about five times the cost of black if you insure for smokeless... I believe him.

I also believe, having read the Browning report at least three times, that it is virtually impossible to blow up a mz barrel with smokeless powder UNLESS you stick a bullet somewhere between powder and muzzle, and then touch the rifle off. Browning tried repeatedly to do just that with one of Doc's, and the worst they could do was split a stock and bulge a barrel (not open it up like a lampstand...).

And finally, fwiw, I have Doc's permission to post the report on this forum (or will email you the MS Word document), for those of you who are interested. It will put to rest a whole lot of the crowing by the "Savage Or Nothing" crowd, I suspect.

Doubless-
New Ultra Light Arms also produces a smokeless muzzleloading rifle, so Savage isn't the only game in town. NULA is a small company, in fact I'd call it miniscule compared to Savage or any other major arms producer. There is also an outfit that is doing smokeless conversions on several other actions. The fact still remains that those are the only two companies that will come out and claim their rifles are designed for use with smokeless powder. So the fact still remains that if you are going to use smokeless in a ML it had better be in one of those rifles, if you want any legal legs to stand on if something were to ever go wrong. They are also the only two that use a true bolt action in their designs...and I don't think anyone can deny that those actions are much stronger and capable of handling higher pressures than the typical inline muzzleloader such as Doc White produces. I have owned one of his fine rifles for several years and they are a lovely piece of weaponry to be sure. But in no way would I consider it as strong or durable as the Savage or NULA rifles.

I read a test report about the Savage smokeless muzzleloader and also a report on the different type of steel used to make it. The reports stated that the rifle was tested to 150,000 psi. So I think they may be a tad stronger then the regular run of the mill black powder muzzleloader and even some of the smokeless centerfire cartridge rifles on the market.

Joe

quote:

Originally posted by John S:
...I agree it would have been more appropriate to use a muzzleloader in the picture, but as it is the picture is still a graphic reminder for everyone to NOT do this. What is so ... wrong with that?

Hey John, I totally agree with those thoughts.

quote:

Randy Wakeman.. would you please remove the picture in your post and replace it with one showing a blown up blackpowder rifle? If you have none, just remove the picture as it is not relevant in a muzzleloading forum.

And I totally disagree with this. I think it made the original point very well. I'd even considered tossing in a link to the blown-up M98 on the Gunsmith Board so people could see another example of Cumulative Metal Fatigue.

Huuumm, come to think of it here it is - Cumulative Metal Fatigue in a non-BP rifle.

It seems there is a current trend to compartmentalize every Forum so there is no room for free flowing discussion. If the threads wander around a bit - so what. No difference than when we sit around the fire, shooting the breeze.

As for me, I much prefer the open exchange of ideas that normally happen at AR without all the Reloading being regulated "only to" the Reloading Board, or "only" Hunting being alowed on the HUNTING Boards.

By the way John, how are the Accubonds doing?

Good Hunting and clean 1-shot Kills.

Hotcore, I haven't used one in two years!

Thank you John though I find your logic a bit distorted, but most of all, thank you Randy. That is a classic picture of what an obstructed muzzleloading barrel looks like. I have dozens of pictures just like that one. It seems that is always the case of bulging/splitting a barrel with obstructed loads, double loads or allowing an air gap between the powder and the bullet.

For some interesting reading, go back to some of the chronicles of the battle of Gettysburg and read up on the startling finding of the percentages of firearms with double, triple, quadruple, and even 5 loads in weapons found lying on the battle ground. Seems that in all the noise and smoke, a misfire was not recognized and the gun just reloaded again. I'd be very interested to know how may injuries were related to that fact alone.

I would hope that we'd all agree that substituting smokeless powder in a black powder firearm is a hazardous undertaking if you insist on using the haphazard methods all of us use when loading only black powder and its substitutes. Even with the Savage and any others extolling the use of conventional smokeless powder, integrity of loading measures need to be insured.

quote:

Originally posted by John S:
Hotcore, I haven't used one in two years!

By the way, I know a fellow out in Placerville(SP?), Califoney who speaks very highly of you.

Best of luck in keeping us on the straight and narrow.

And I do of him! Bob is a great fellow and one very knowledgeable reloader.

quote:

Originally posted by Doubless:
I am fairly new to the mz world, but am going to throw my hat into the ring, only because of something a well-known designer of MZ rifles told me...

I was talking to Doc White several months ago about the threads on here touting the so-called "strength" of Savage muzzleloaders. He chuckled, and said the only reason they can allow smokeless to be used is that they have the money to insure themselves against a lawsuit. I told him that I had a copy of the Browning Test report done with smokeless on one of his rifles, and he told me that yes, they had shot a bunch of smokeless in his rifle. The only reason he didn't advise it was that insurance is about five times the cost of black if you insure for smokeless... I believe him.

I also believe, having read the Browning report at least three times, that it is virtually impossible to blow up a mz barrel with smokeless powder UNLESS you stick a bullet somewhere between powder and muzzle, and then touch the rifle off. Browning tried repeatedly to do just that with one of Doc's, and the worst they could do was split a stock and bulge a barrel (not open it up like a lampstand...).

And finally, fwiw, I have Doc's permission to post the report on this forum (or will email you the MS Word document), for those of you who are interested. It will put to rest a whole lot of the crowing by the "Savage Or Nothing" crowd, I suspect.

It sounds like you are quoting Doc out of context-- or, misquoting him altogether.

You are referring to Browning Test Report 98-42-08, dated August 26, 1998, prepared by Kevin McLeod.

The tested gun was a White ("MTI") model 97.

One test shot with 50 gr. Accurate Arms 5744 resulted in stock splitting. 90 grains of 5744 with a leaky conical resulted in "Catastrophic Failure."

No pressure data was taken or recorded.

It is negligent to refer to smokeless powder as being just one thing. Smokeless powders are not interchangable: any reloading manual loudly warns about this.

1) White rifles HAVE failed with smokeless powder.
2) Knight Rifles HAVE failed with smokeless powder.
3) T/C muzzleloaders HAVE failed with smokeless powder.

In fact, I am aware of a brand new White that failed with Pyrodex first shot out of the box.

An alarming number of CVA branded guns have failed with Pyrodex. You are looking at one, that I am holding.

All Savage 10ML-II rifles are proof-tested in accordance with SAAMI center-fire protocol. No other muzzleloader made is 100% proof-tested before leaving the factory.

In the 7 year history of the Savage 10ML-II, there have been no injuries, and of course NO litigation. NO other major muzzleloading manufacturer can make that claim.

All reputable gun manufacturers have liability insurance. Certainly not just Savage, but Browning, Beretta, Marlin, Ruger, etc., etc. The notion that "smokeless" insurance cost more than "blackpowder" insurance is ridiculous. There is no such thing as propellant-based liability insurance.

All models of the Savage 10ML-II has been shown to withstand over 120,000 PSI peak pressure in torture tests. Savage has published that, and also that their muzzleloaders are made with a safety factor of over 250% with recommended loads. No other muzzleloading manufacturer has transparently discussed their safety factor, nor what their rifles have been proven to withstand. Hodgdon does not bother to publish pressure information on Pyrodex or Triple 7. Pressure info is, however, published in every modern smokesless reloading manual.

Savage has never commented on problems of other muzzleloaders, and will not. Savage has been focused on making their product as good as it can be-- and, it shows.

There is no short of liability insurance at Knight Rifles or Thompson. However, anyone that recommends smokeless in a Thompson muzzleloader can expect to hear from their law firm in short order.

No firearm is idiot-proof. The best that can be hoped for is "idiot-resistant." Factory recommended loads exist to give you good performance, factory recommended loads exist to keep you safe.

Whether an individual chooses to enjoy the benefit of factory tested, factory approved loads no one can enforce. Ignore them, you of course are on your own.

And now we return you to your regularly scheduled programming....