Can anyone explain to me why you cannot use smokeless powder in muzzleloaders?

Specifically, how the pressures from smokeless can be that much different if you are shooting a 250gr bullet at the same fps or less.

I have researched this as much as possible and still have not found any valid (read scientific) reasons, except for the guy who would volume measure smokeless instead of weighing it.

If anyone has any links that can scientifically explain it to me, it would be appreciated.

Not a link but powder burning rate would be one reason. 30 grains of Blue Dot isn't the same as 30 grains of IMR 7828. There are enough fools having accidents without introducing a hundred or so different smokeless powders into the equation.

For cartridges the British have had nitro for black loads for slightly over a century. They were reduced Cordite loads. In this country IMR 4198, 4895 and 3031, and others, have been used successfully in cartridge nitro for black loads. I suppose given good pressure data nitro for black could be developed for muzzleloaders, but why? That's hardly the reason for shooting a muzzleloader. If I want to shoot smokeless I'll use one of my few modern firearms.

I agree, but Accurate 5744 is actually a little slower than black powder, is used as a BP substitute in the old BP cartridges.

I understand the the romance of the muzzleloaders, but for me, it is just another opportunity to hunt. My romance is with traditional/primitive archery equipment. So I understand where you are coming from.

I feel that it is more marketing and money than anything else. Have to buy black powder substitutes, use more powder etc.

I am looking for scientific reasons ie physic that it can't be used.

First of all there is no proof standard in the USA for a muzzleloader. You have no idea how much pressure the barrel, breach plug and action can handle.

Some ML barrels might be made from the same stock as a CF barrel such as T/C claims but the breach plug design would be dangerous with smokeless for several reasons. Just changing a breach plug from a flat face to a concave face can have a big difference on pressures.

Smokeless is also much harder on the flash hole in a breach plug. Its called erosion or flame cutting and once the hole gets too large, powder can get past the hole. Pressure on the primer sky rockets and the primer fails or worse.

Burn rate is only part of the powder equation. You can have two powders that are nearly grain for grain interchangeable in a cartridge but one is not suitable for use in any smokeless muzzleloader.

You can also have powders with the same number such as IMR4350, H4350 and AA4350. Two are similar and one is not for SML applications. They are nearly interchangeable for a centerfire. A experienced centerfire reloader would know why one is different. The average guy who shoots a few shots a year to extend his hunting time would be clueless.

You can load a few smokeless powders to similar peak pressures as subs but the "curve of that burn is different. It might rise to peak psi much faster than subs and make more pressure longer. It might also make peak pressure later in a weaker section of the barrel where the contour is thinner than the breach.

There are a ton of reasons why you should not and many well tested SML designs that work great with the correct powders. Why would you want to risk it in a barrel and action design of unknown quality. You can buy a safe SML for about the same cost of a Savage or less. Mine was $900 and the barrel can handle a 458Lott proof load without damage. Its burst strength is roughly triple my hottest sabot-less loads.

AA5744 is not slower burning than BP or any sub. Pressures easily exceed 30K psi with Savage book loads and spike far faster. It burn far hotter too. AA5744 will eat vent liners faster than any sub including BH209.

43gr AA5744 250gr XTP Savage 50cal

A post from another forum comparing a ML barrel, and a smokeless barrel.

The typical steel the barrel and breech plug are made from has a Tensile strength of 78,000 PSI, 60,000 PSI Yield strength and Elongation of 20 Percent if it is made from a Cold Rolled steel bar. (Ref 12L14). If the maker used Hot Rolled steel to make the barrel the strengths are: Tensile = 57,000 PSI, Yield Strength = 34,000 PSI and Elongation is 22 Percent.
These low carbon steels cannot be heat treated to increase their mechanical properties.

The typical barrel for your .30-06 is made from a fully heat treated, high strength steel.
There are several of these materials that may be used but the strength of one of them is:
Tensile Strength = 287,000 PSI
Yield Strength = 270,000 PSI
Elongation = 11 Percent.

As you can see, the high strength steel shown has a Tensile Strength that is 3.6795 times stronger, the Yield strength is 4.500 times stronger and although the elongation is only 55 percent, this factor does not usually come into play.

Thank you for your information, just curious. I do a a bunch of centerfire reloading, so I understand burn rates, single base, double base and pressure curves.

I thought BP and BP substitutes were extremely fast burning powders, as in mini explosive.

Nobody could seem to explain in scientific terms, just don't do it! was all I heard for replies.

BP burns fast, but not very efficiently. Half of it is blown out the muzzle unburned.

That's why the smokeless loads are about half the weight (in grains) of black powder or BP substitutes.

Is there any pressure tested data for smokeless, BP or BP substitute loads?

What kind of pressures do 100gr volumes and 150 gr volumes give?

Lyman Black Powder handbook 2nd edition has several bp and sub traces.

I can tell you that 120gr by volume of Blackhorn 209 and a 300gr sabot-less bullet in a 45cal makes about 26K psi. A 250gr and the same load is about 23K psi.

Black powder burns very quick .As to if most of it blows out the barrel , that depends on the load .
There is a point of diminishing returns . Normally, depending on the powder that�s around 100 grains .
I we look at the Lyman charts you will see that as you rich a given load , the increased benefit of larger loads starts to drop . The reason for that is because your chamber has grown faster then the pressure can build to fill the space .
IE. Prior to ignition the pressure chamber is confined to the size of the charge and blocked by the projectile . The millisecond that enough powder has ignited to move that projectile , the pressure area starts expanding.
This expansion of the pressure area , was one of the concerns of the Firearms guilds during their meetings in Liege during the early half of the 1800s concerning the primer that we today call the 209 . Some time around 1830 if I recall my reading correctly . Basically in so many words . Their conclusion was that the primer upset the load and enlarged the pressure chamber / area too to great of an existent during ignition . Thus creating the possibility of the pressure wave moving in two directions vs. a continual push down the bore . Now remember we are talking guns with barrels and breech plugs ,that on average were made to no where near the tolerances of even the cheapest guns of today .

With smokeless , it build pressure to a greater existent with far less powder by volume or by weight . Now remember we are talking milliseconds here. If we look at Overkills pressure chart and look at the spikes , what we are actually seeing is the powders ability to build and maintain pressure as the pressure chamber grows .
Why ?
Well because we are back to the powder being far more efficient . Its capable of filling the expanding pressure chambers with increasing pressure .

Also all BP is not the same . It maters how its mixed and the quality of the mix components,. Especially the type of carbon �charcoal � used . For instance . One of the reasons Swiss is such a good powder is because the type of charcoal .
Today with the synthetic powder , manufactures are using sugar based carbon . Which creates an increase in pressure but also increase ignition temperature . All the result of differences in the carbon component.
So now add in the gun design
Would it be possible to find a load size that would work safely for muzzle loading , using smokeless powder . The answer is a resounding YES .
HOWEVER , this �SAFELY� depends on the design of the gun . a lot of production guns today , carry whats call improved or modified breech designs . The anti chambers of these designs are often to large to be used safely with modern smokeless powders of any type..
As such the newer smokeless guns on the market today carry their own breech design that specifically for the use of �specific �smokeless powders .
So Why specific powders . Well in simple form each powder has its own attributes and its own requirements that it needs to perform .

The other issue also has been brought up concerning gas cutting which is a big problem when using a fixed breech design and smokeless powder . So you need a breech design that readily replicable or simply easily replaced .
That IMO is where the smokeless designs that use a brass cartridge casing truly shine as they should produce a much simpler maintained firearm and possibly because they appear to be nothing more then a barrel swap on a center fire design , capable of a broader range of powder choices .

But then we also , I think have to consider the user , who frankly , for the most part IMO is and will only continue to be incapable of loading their rifles to manufactures specification . Pushes the limits , then gets hurt front heir own stupidity .
So again. I see no reason why smokeless powders could not be used IF the gun was designed for their use to begin with OR if the powder had a �very � close characteristics of BP

Just a question here for some to possibly think about.
Can you make your own smokeless powder ?
If not then what will all this mater when you cant get or cant afford the reloading supplies to reload or use your gun ?
I look at BP as kinda like the wild wood weed . Some of you may be to young to remember that song LOL .But if need be we can just smile and wave sitting on our sack of seeds

cap......Even with lighter loads. What percentage of BP do you think is being burned?

Mauser Hunter & captchee,

Thank you for all the information it has been very helpful.

Can you run pressure curves of AA 5744 with 38gr of powder? Pyrodex and BH 209 with 100 & 150 gr/volume loads?

Who makes muzzleloaders that are safe with smokeless powder? Now that Savage is done. The TC Encore frame is strong enough, should I have one rebarreled with an appropriate steeled barrel.
I have a very good machinist/gunsmith that can make a breechplug with concave or flat powder chamber. Or whatever is appropriate.

Or should I just switch to BH 209 from the pyrodex and Black Magic I have used in the past. Got real sick of cleaning my muzzleloader this past season after it took me 8 years to draw the tag.

Yes. Most aren't strong enough.

I know of a bullet maker who loaded and shot smokeless in many guns other than those which are approved/sold as smokeless ML's. He had strain gauges and tried to be very cautious. I don't have time or funds for that. I just bought a Savage, many years ago, and moved on. Might be something to consider.

Well as I said , it depends . Load, barrel length and barrel bore size ��.
But considering the heat , the largest % is being burned with normal 100 grain loads . What�s spitting out on the ground or snow is mostly un burnt carbon or a mix of components. which by themselves burn at higher temps .
But again there is a point of diminishing returns . So if the load was large enough , you could in theory end up with some amount of powder being carried out the muzzle . But it IMO would have to be well clear of the muzzle flash or it would be ignited

what we think as a instontanious ignition really isnt . at first its a progressive burn . take a look at these slow speed videos of flintlocks firing . take not that you can actualy see the powder start to ignight and spread just prior to complete ignition . thats with Swiss Null B
http://www.blackpowdermag.com/featured-articles/siler-high-speed.php

now take a look at this one wich has had large grain cannon powder used for a priming . notice how you can see powder being blown from the pan . but that powder is being ignighted even though it no longer in the pan

http://www.blackpowdermag.com/featured-articles/siler-high-speed.php

CRS

SMI and a few other companies make barrels for the Encore that are capable of using smokeless. Bullberry offers a barrel but IIRC the plug should be upgraded with a plug from a machinist named Pete in PA. Someone on Dougs board also used a plug from a person named Ryan. Both plugs have more threads, Savage vent liners and are designed for smokeless applications.

None of these options are cheap.

Sure seems like a lot of toruble & expense to kill one more measly little ol' deer.

I got mine mainly to reduce the cost of recreational shooting, convenience and because fast twist 45s are scarce. Sighting in and leaving the bore fouled for extended periods before the hunting season is nice.

My Savage was as simple as removing the 50cal barrel and putting on the 45cal. Other builds get more complicated.

Does anyone here have the cpabilities to run computer similated pressure curves with BH 209, pyrodex and aa 5744 in various charges?

I do not have the program to do that, but it would be interesting to see.

Here are a few reasons to be very careful when considering substituting smokeless powder for black powder.

Damn!!

There is a program called Quick Load and one called something like Powley. Im not sure if they include subs. Center fire pressure estimates probably run a little high in a muzzleloader. I have a friend check my 45 sabot-less loads with QL before trying them out. Estimates are closer when shooting without a sabot and pressures are usually much higher too.

There are hundreds of pressure traces on Dougs board and a couple with Blackhorn209.

Doug"s board? Pleas enlighten me.

Want to learn about smokeless? go to Dougs message boards and then to savage smokeless muzzleloading.read and soak it in,there is much to learn

Just checked out Dougs board, tremendous amount of information over there. Thanks for the heads up.

Should give me hours of reading/studying enjoyment.

Has to do with burn rate pressure exponent. For black powder when pressure builds the burn rate increases relatively slowly as pressure increases. For nitrocellulose the burn rate increases relatively rapidly as pressure goes up. So for nitrocellulose you get a much, much higher peak pressure all things being more or less equal. And that's not good for a firearm not designed for it.

If you want to get all scientific about it check out the model rocketry people who deal with propellent selection and engine design. Like Here.

Unfortunately peak deer rut in Va is during black powder season. If I want to have the best chance of killing a decent buck I have to use a black powder rifle.

Personally I HATE cleaning BP rifles and if I had a choice would never use them. Thus, my interest in smokeless muzzle loaders.

Also, in Va it's not "just one measly little ol deer", I can literally kill all the deer I want in BP season

Funny that you call it black powder season, and you want to shoot smokeless.

That makes me shake my head. With all that is involved with hunting for deer....and the work involved when you do get one, or more, washing your muzzleloader after the hunt just isn't a big deal.
It just is not hard to do.
Pete

Mauser Hunter, I share your dislike for maintaining blackpowder rifles, so often use a smokeless Savage, including the regular season.
I have some decades experience hunting muzzleloader, including lots of hunts with flintlocks in PA. I still like hunting with them... sometimes, repeat, sometimes.
I find it funny that many of the "purists" consider Pyrodex, 777, etc as legitimate bp substitiutes, then discount the hell out of 5744 and the like. They are all substitutes if they are not bp.
Last, PA used to call it a primitive weapon season requiring flintlocks & patched round balls. This is different than muzzleloader, often meaning inlines, more efficient wads, bullets, & bp substitutes.
To bad every state does not have a primitive weapon season requiring bp, flintlocks & patched round balls. That gets you back to the real basics. The woods did not seem to be to crowded.

We seem to have a misunderstanding. I have no problem cleaning BP guns, and it's all I shoot and hunt with.

Smokeless isn't even legal here in ML season.

I completely understand the "primitive" aspect. The same thing has happened with archery seasons. Traditional archery is my preferred weapon, but I love hunting first and foremost. The weapon matters little to me.

I have even thought about buying a 45-70 single shot and using 45 cal sabots.

Load an empty/primed casing in the chamber, dump powder down the barrel and seat a bullet from the barrel end.

Still a "muzzle loader".

and that would work but NOT a muzzleloader .
the problem you may run into though is that your states laws may state "capable of only being loaded from the muzzle. In which case what your thinking of , while doable , should not be aloud un the definition of Muzzle loading.
A couple years back I made this same point on both sides of the fence .
Some folks here simply disregarded it at traditionalism .
But the simple fact of the mater is that cartridge guns can be loaded from the muzzle . Probably not the best thing to do if your thinking of using smokeless powder . But if one is using BP or one of its modern equivalents then you biggest issue is going to be starting the projectile

Lets take a minute and think about the percussion Sharps rifles . They are loaded for the most part from the breech end with a paper rolled cartridge. HOWEVER . They can also be loaded from the muzzle .
However because they are capable of being loaded from the breech , they are illegal for muzzle loading seasons . Well at least here .
Now lets go back further and look at the Ferguson rifles . Is it loaded from the breech , NO .
Its actually loaded from the top barrel flat . this however doesn�t stop anyone from loading the gun from the muzzle if they so chose .
However that rifle , even though well over 200 years old in design , is still considered illegal for muzzle loading season because it can be loaded from the breech end .

Now lets flip this and go the other way . Some years ago modern muzzle loading companies started to come out with quick release breech plugs on their break open designs , Claiming that doing so did not make them capable of breech loading . This IMO was a play on words .
On one hand , they were capable of being loaded from the breech just like the early percussion sharps rifles by using the very same loading applications .
Now granted the sharps I quicker to load because of the falling block design . But not all that much slower then loading a Ferguson rifle.
However once fired , these designs were harder to remove the plug .
So once fired it became harder to load by the same manor .
Now jump to some of todays designs which are using plugs with skip threads . IE instead of complete turning the plug out , all that�s needed is a � or � turn and the plug comes out .
Yet these are still not considered capable of loading from the breech .
WHY , when this type of plug is only a smaller version used on breech loading artillery . Its only been scaled down and applied to shoulder fired rifles

So where do we draw the line ? Where is the point where we say a gun is capable of loading from the breech ?

Is it at the point where like with a traditional design , you have to basically tear the gun down and clamp the barrel in a vice so as to remove the plug and then load it ?

How about if that design can be loaded in the field without taking the gun apart .
Or is the case that the definition is decided by the amount of time it takes . IE its quicker to load from the muzzle . But if that�s the case , I would point out that the laws do not give a time frame . They simply state ; Capable of loading from the breech .
So let me ask you all this , while your thinking /considering what im saying .
In this day and age where at every turn , government is disregarding our laws . To the point of interpreting wordings to fit their wants , how is it that most all of us can stand up and complain even a little bit , when simply put , are we not doing the same thing ?

How many of us think the 2nd amendment is very clear both in its writing and its original intent .
I would hope dam few of us here don�t see it that way .
Yet all to many times when other laws don�t fit or views , we simple interpret their wording or intent , to mean what we want.

Just another quick point here since this thread was about smokeless powder .
How many remember just a few months back when RW was on here trying to convince us all that smokeless powder was a replacement for black powder and there for the smokeless guns should be aloud in muzzle loading seasons because the laws stated; Black powder or its modern replacement
Remember that topic ?
Such an opinion , IMO is why many of our laws state �direct replacement� or �equivalent�
Most all of us can understand what that means .
But if we allow the context to be broken down by someone interpreting laws to mean what they want , for their own benefit, for what ever benefit that maybe , what happens

Direct replacement:
now is justified because yes smokeless powders �directly replaced � the common used Black powder.

Equivalent:
Lets say 6 grains of red dot . �Not that it does , I just throwing a number out there � but if it did , would you not be using an �equivalent� load to produce a like load for BP ?
See these are the very types of arguments put forth every day .

Thus as more and more people begin to accept such out of context definitions , we then begin to disregard the original intent completely . Then one day the original reasoning for the law is complete negated and someone will make the jump to concluding the laws has no use , grounds or purpose and should be done away with .
Then we set back an wonder how this all happened . Well folks it happened because we aloud a lot of baby steps to form killing the very intent of the law

Is this not , the very reason we all are fighting right now for the very life of the 2nd amendment?
THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRENGED UPON .

The only reason we face what we now face is because we aloud people to interpret the wording to the point to many forgot what the original intent was . They have come to believe that original intent holds no merit and there for the law is useless if not dangerous to their own well being .

IMO that�s exactly what happens whenever we allow �liberalizing� anything .
Lets allow smokeless powder to be used . After all what can it hurt .
Tomorrow someone says . MMM lets allow it to be used in brass casing as long as we load the bullet and powder from the muzzle . After all what can it hurt .
Day after tomorrow someone comes along and says ??? Lets allow the loading of the powder in the casing . After all the projectile is still being loaded from the muzzle right .
Next week someone pipes up and say .;Ha what difference does it really make as long as the gun is capable of only being loaded with one round at a time and you use BP or it direct replacement or equivalent ??????? After all you only get one shot right !

Smokeless powder was the original non corrosive replacement. DuPont sold a dram equivalent for shotshells almost 100 years ago which was based on a French powder from roughly 1895. Early smokeless powders were in limited production in the 1860s.

Pyrodex didnt come out until the 1970s? Its actually BP with other ingredients added that make it more corrosive than real BP.

Does Triple7 contain dinitrobenzoate and graphite but no sulfur? If so, it has more in common with smokeless than real BP.

Blackhorn is nitro based and a few states tried to ban it and most failed. IMR/Hodgdon lead that assault in some cases because it competes with their more corrosive subs. They stand to lose the most if smokeless powders are allowed. They own the 3 main ML propellents on the market.

Thankfully my state does not see a difference in the powder you use but i would like to see an early primitive season that bans most modern MLs and 209 primers.

Completely banning smokeless makes as much sense as banning Kevlar/graphite stocks or stainless steel barrels. Banning scopes would have more effect if you wanted to limit any performance advantage that smokeless has over subs/bp.

Excellent points, but my states limits muzzleloader harverst by drawing and excluding some hunt areas. South Dakota also changed the law to use zero magnification scopes and dot sights along with smokeless powder.

The whole point of "primitive" seasons to allow for more opportunity at a reduced harvest success. The "primitive" part has been lost in archery and muzzleloading seasons. That is a whole other discussion.

I would just like to use smokeless powder for ease of cleaning. A projectile going 1800-200fps has the same ballistics (handicap) regardless of propellant used.

Overkill .
i cannot dispute what you say .
but the simple fact is that we are not talking about those powder now are we
again smokeless replaced BP
But if a state says Black powder or its equivalent/ replacement, its not talking about smokeless powder . Its talking about T7 , pyro ���..
Again same thing .
THE RIGHT TO BARE ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRENDGED UPON .
Where in that does it say , except if you want to own X
Fact is that it doesn�t .
Yet we have aloud folks to interpret that meaning to the point they feel they can take away our outlaw what ever they like .
Simply trying to accept otherwise is doing nothing but drawing us all down the same road that has brought us to all the issues we now face .
Now I realize that some states don�t have such wording that defines any type of powder . that�s ok fine .
But tell me . What is the purpose ?
Its kinda like someone saying . You shouldn�t use a 30 cal muzzleloader on deer .
Yet in the next sentence states that a 30.30 is a great deer rifle .

Which by the way IMO it is . But if im shooting a muzzleloader with 190 grain, 30 cal conical at 1800fps why should anyone expect there to be a different effect just because the conical was loaded from the muzzle.
What difference would it make if I load it from the breech with a measured starting rod . A powder charge and then screw on a breech plug .
Yet we have laws that say its not muzzle loading if I do that . IMO rightly so

I wonder how long it will take before someone realizes that they can make a safe 30.06 design that only requires a standard casing being set to the bore . Bolt closed .
A load of X dumped down the bore and a pre sized jacketed bullet stuffed down the bore .
It would still be a muzzleloader ,,, Right .
Never mind you might as well just load a pre loaded round and forget about all the rest
Why even say muzzle loading . Why not say Black powder season .
never mind that saying BP season doesnt mean you cant you a black powder cartradge
But then if we do that why say black powder when as you clearly state , we can simply load a low base powder to achieve those lower velocities .
But then why do that when we can achieve high velocities.

Case in point .
Im in the process of converting my pieta 1860 to 45 long colt using a Kirst converter .
I can shoot both Black or low base smokeless safely , as long as my load isn�t above 1000 fps .
I have killed mule deer with a colt 1911 with muzzle velocities much lower then that .
So why in the world would I want to confine myself to Black powder loads when I could simply use a smokeless load .

So where is the point we draw the line and why ?
dont tell me with a brass casing becouse alot many of the smokless designs are using brass casings

Our ML season comes after rifle season and before the late youth hunt. Bow season and early youth season come first and bow season is the longest also. Our ML season is basically two weekends near the end.

We can only harvest one buck excluding draw hunts on wildlife areas. Some of those hunts do have more restrictions. Most draw hunts exclude CFs completely. Banning smokeless makes sense on some of those hunts since its a draw only on land that typically gets no hunting pressure.

Our ML season is basically an extension of the CF season and you use the same tags. Its just another chance to fill your CF tags without a CF. Some states now allow single shot rifles with a straight wall cartridge like a Sharps 45/70 during the ML season. Some also allow pistols with rifle calibers like a Encore in 7mm-08. Some are shotgun and ML only the whole season.

In those situations im in favor of allowing smokeless and preferably offer an early traditional season also before the rifle season. I use mine during the CF season and i only hunt the ML season to get away from work again. Some years i use Blackhorn and sometimes i use smokeless. The type of powder makes little difference on my success rate.

Smokeless for me is just convenient and cheaper to shoot for recreation. The cost of Blackhorn drove me to it. Thats my story and im sticking to it.

Using a primed case (instead of a breach plug) and pouring the powder/projectile down the muzzle has proven to be dangerous in a break action. H&R used to make one with a non thread plug. If you open the action after a misfire the plug can become a projectile. There are some customs that use a primed case but they also have locking lugs on the bolt and a breach plug.

Powder is powder, just like a stock is a stock. I dont see anyone promoting a ban on a 1lb Kevlar composite stock even though it offers a big advantage while hunting.

I don't see anyone banning the customs like Ultimate that let you achieve near smokeless performance safely with 180grs or more of Blackhorn or other subs. They may ban the ignition type but they are not banning the performance of the load.

The major bans/regs ive seen are on the ignition type, scopes and projectile. If you have those regs in your state, smokeless is either worthless or offers very little advantage. A muzzleloader by our state's definition can only be loaded from the muzzle and that is good enough for me.

still dodging the question Over kill . when will it not be good enough ?
Ill step up and submit that its only good enough now when those shooting it are a minority . When they become a majority that�s when it wont be good enough . The end result will still be to try and get center fire performance from a muzzleloader

as to break opens being dangerous .
How exactly do we come to that conclusion
Drillings are break open and one of the highest quality guns ever made .
SxS, Over and under as well as many single shot , shot guns and rifles are break open . Is there a danger in those ?
opening any gun after a miss fire can cause harm .
as a very young man i held down a soldier who mistakenly open the feed tray on an M60 after it had chain fired then stop suddenly . took his complete arm off right at the shoulder.
do you look down the bore when your rifle missfires ?


Im not suggesting we Bann anything . What I suggesting is that we all support each other by recognizing the laws as they are written instead of liberalizing everything we touch

H&R MADE a break action with a plug without threads..Its no different than a brass case. It becomes a projectile under certain conditions.

Thats why NO ONE offers that design anymore. Its why all H&R muzzleloader breach plugs NOW have threads. I never said all break actions were dangerous.

If it loads from the muzzle ONLY its a muzzleloader PERIOD. It may not be traditional but its a muzzleloader as defined by law. Its not a form 4473 firearm.

The difference is one is a firearm and the other is not since it can not be loaded from the breach with a current production cartridge.

I can achieve over 2500fps with BH209 and a 200gr ST, are you suggesting BH209 should be banned also? Are you suggesting a ML can be banned based solely on how much fps or fpe it can generate?

I can break over 2300fps with T7 and a 200gr SST. Should it be banned also? That can even be done without a 209 primer.

Load data for Pyro pellets claims over 2400fps with a 155gr bullet in a 45cal sabot. Should it be banned also? Thats similar to a 7mm-08 at the muzzle.

I know,,,, lets ban all powders except real BP and require you to use heavy conicals so its impossible to break 1500 fps. Oh... but wait those are effective killers too. Oops those loads can beat a 45/70 405gr trap door load.

Darn it, i thought i had the solution.

Well i guess i will just keep launching a 275gr BE at a mild 2400fps until i can see a good reason not to shoot them. The deer haven't seemed to know the difference in any bullet or powder ive used. They all died quickly. They all died at under 200 yards.

Good load for rifle seasons where it belongs.

Thats when i normally use them.

I just dont see the difference between using a 45/70 or a muzzleloader with identical ballistics. Its VERY easy to duplicate or beat a 45/70 even with real BP in a 45cal. 405gr at 1300fps-1400fps...no problem.

Its a bit more challenging to duplicate the accuracy and reload time though with a ML. I draw MY line at what is legal and encourage those that make the laws to offer more options for those who want to self impose more of a challenge.

First let me apologize for this post being so long .
As well as high jacking this thread .
I really didn�t mean to do that . But I think it�s a subject that we all need to consider and talk about .
Its not about modern vs. traditional . Its about both . Its about us all .
Hell its not even about banning smokeless powder for muzzle loading . As I have said before . . There is no reason why smokeless cannot be used when done properly .
All im saying is lets take a minute and look back over the development in the last 20 years . Then look ahead and ask ourselves if we are ready for the consequences.
All I ask is that we think about as truly i believe it will effect us all .



Actually the big reason is that the Federal laws state that in order to qualify as a non FFL weapon , the design cannot be readily converted to center fire .
Savage ran into that with the early ML10 design which is an . Bad bull also had this issue . But they chose to go a different route and just make a FFL required rifle .
Ill get to more of that in a second .



Being capable of loading from the breech with a "current" production cartridge has nothing to do with it . its any avalable fixed ammunition which includes BP loads . . Nor does loading from the muzzle . It has to do with the frame or receiver .
Please re -read 18 U.S.C. � 921(a)(16)
Take note of the following in section C

C: Any muzzle loading rifle, muzzle loading shotgun, or muzzle loading pistol, which is designed to use black powder, or a black powder substitute, and which cannot use fixed ammunition. For purposes of this subparagraph, the term �antique firearm� shall not include any weapon which incorporates a firearm frame or receiver, any firearm which is converted into a muzzle loading weapon, or any muzzle loading weapon, which can be readily converted to fire fixed ammunition by replacing the barrel, bolt, breechblock, or any combination thereof.

Im not going to get into a traditional vs. modern argument with you. It has nothing to do with that . What im trying to tell you is that if we as a shooting discipline , read as ALL muzzle loading people , don�t start policing ourselves and stop interpreting things out of context , we are going to end up sucking pond water and IMO will have no right to complain when the fed does the same thing . Which by the way they are already doing .
When the ATF say


Now I ask you . Who in the hell is the ATF to determine anything. They are enforcement not courts .
Now maybe you missed it so ill bring it up again .
I have a bone stock Pieta reproduction of a colt 1860 . it�s considered a muzzleloader and no form 4473 is required .
How long do you think its going to be with the current gun ban push , before the ATF realizes that and a whole hand full of other black powder revolvers , fall under what I just posted above ?
Do you realize that there are people who are suggesting that ALL muzzleloaders , traditional and modern should be required to be sold through an FFL with full back ground and registration. that�s not just production guns either. There is talk of even requiring SN# and registration , on muzzleloaders made by those who make traditional long rifles like myself .. �NOTE : im not one of them � frankly I think its stupid and just another attempt by the Anti�s to track us all down .
But frankly I see a day when there is a very real chance that�s going to happen �IF� its not already being implemented with obamas new gun laws .
Why exactly do you think they are doing that Overkill ?



Why do you think you had a solution , what you just did was prove my point .
Why would you stop at allowing real Black powder when it also will produce the same load for the 45.70.
In fact we can get very near those same muzzle velocities from in a 36 or 45 cal shooting a round ball . Do you think a 71 gr, RB want kill you at just over 2200ftps ????
What do you think I would get if I used that same charge an stuck a 139 grain , 6mm boattail with a sabot down that bore ???
The more and more we push the point where more and more shooters pushing center fire performance, realizing just what these guns are capable of ,the easier its going to be to simply disregard keeping muzzle loading guns separate from all these regulations.
Even more so once the use of smokeless powder becomes popular .
Why , because more an more people are going to start looking at the actual numbers . Thus making that comparison.

So folks don�t think im harping just on modern guns, please bear with me just a few minutes longer .
Currently we are seeing folks wanting to ban high capacity magazines .Were not talking 20 and 30 round clips . We are now down to talking 10 .

Just a few days back I posted a link to modern air rifles . Most of you probably past right over that .
But do you realize that the Girandoni air rifle as used by Lewis and Clark in their famous expedition, by that time the design it was some 20 - 30 years old and in fact had been designed and used in combat . It also carries a large 21 round magazine which loads a new ball with the simple push of a slide lever . The magazine also loads the balls at the breech . So no need to ram a ball home
The rifle is also said to be able to fire up to 40 rounds without and noticeable loss in performance .
Which even at 100 yards is more then adequate enough to putting a 44 cal round through a 1 inch pine board .
Its rate of fire is said to be as great as 22 rounds in 30 seconds . that info can be checked through the NRA web site
how many of you realized that . I would bet not many . Most likely because you never thought about it or looked
Granted , right now we are talking low base smokeless powders that produce in the ball part of BP. But its not going to stay that way as its realized that so much more is capable .
Once again im not talking about banning anything . Im also not talking modern vs. Traditional . What im saying is we better start thinking about where exactly it is we are heading and why . For if we don�t we better not cry when the anti gun groups start crawling up our back side with a microscope and thus realize that they have us all by the Nuts

I'll take a stab at it. The 45/70 shoots a cartridge. And loads from the breech. The muzzleloader doesn't.

How'd I do?

CRS, you've been given some very good advise on a very complex subject. Accept it, reject it as you deem fit. There are options available for a designed smokeless ML. The other option available for loading smokeless in a ML not intended for such is illustrated in the photos of the hand above.

Nitro for black loads have been around for a great long while and there are people still fiddling with such things today. They are doing so with CARTRIDGE guns, not MLs. Their work is irrelevant to your inquiry.

The weak point in conventional ML design is mostly found in the breech plug and/or bolster/nipple. If one is inclined to futz around with the pioneer theory re: pressure with all attendant analytical metrics, keep in mind the health, safety and welfare hinges on machined threads. Such things are commonly viewed as stress multipliers from an engineering perspective. That is a circumstance unique in the world of firearms with only rare exceptions.

I do agree with Capchee that developing a nitro for black load for MLs is possible, but at the same time suggest that absent education on the topic of internal ballistics and testing equipment to evaluate the process leaves one woefully ill prepared to do so safely. Measured velocity in this case is NOT a valid tool insofar as evaluating pressure.

With that said, if you're laboring that much to clean a ML after using BP, my guess is you're doing something wrong. I am not personally inclined to masochistic behavior myself and prefer cleaning BP residue from a number of arms to smokeless/copper fouling cleaning in others. I do both, but prefer the former.

This has been a very informative thread.

As far as the cleaning, it isn't that hard. But I like to clear my load every night. So I clean every night I go hunting. I hunt hard and long, meaning all day. And cleaning is just one less thing I would like not to do when I get home.

I still cannot understand how some of the BH209 and T7 loads from above are less dangerous than say AA5744 pushing a 250gr bullet to 1950 fps, or the manuals that state 150gr BP/pyrodex loads pushing a 250gr bullet to 2200-2400 fps. Especially since AA5744 is considered a very good substitute for BP cartridge loads.

I just do not think anyone has does the testing and the manufacturers have no monetary incentive to do the testing when they can sell their BP substitutes for a much better margin.

I have though about buying some pressure testing equipment, but there is no monetary incentive for me to pursue it when I can buy BH209 and go from there. I can only draw a tag every third or fourth year, so that is the most common sense route. I used up most of my Black Magic this past season practicing and discharging loads at the end of the day.

I have another 3-4 years to work up another load for when I draw the next tag.

I personally think that the best thing for special muzzleloader seasons would be to get rid of inlines/sabots and allow flint/caps with patches and roundballs being pushed by black powder only. Buckhorn sights and call it good, but that will never happen.

If you are hunting with a clean bore and can safely secure the gun overnight, remove the prime, or primer as the case may be and hunt with it the next day. If the bore is oil free and dry the powder will not rust the bore.



Well, try this: BP is relatively stable insofar as quickness is concerned. "Quickness" is the property wherein burn rate varies as a function of pressure. Smokeless powder burn rates correlate significantly with pressure, ie, they are not stable in that context. This is one reason smokeless propellants generate higher peak pressures. It could well be the comparison you give is predicated on that particular metric. Peak pressure is the beast that can dismantle a breech plug or nipple in half a blink. One can double charge a gun with BP and not necessarily cause harm to anything other than ego. That cannot be done with smokeless. Murphy's Second Law om paraphrase as I recall it, "If it can be done, it will be done."
http://www.murphys-laws.com/murphy/murphy-laws.html



I think they promote subs because they are easier to distribute from a regulatory perspective which makes them more available and popular than BP. Ignition favors conventional primers due to brisance characteristics and specifically the #209 style because they are easily handled. FWIW, many shooters of BP cartridge guns favor magnum rifle primers for BP due to enhanced accuracy.



I am of the same sentiment, but that is another can of worms and best left unopened for the moment.

Yes

I understand that double base powders can get unpredictable with varying pressures, but single based powders are much more predictable and mild mannered. For example AA5744.

The double charge can happen, but I am anal enough that I actually weigh my BP substitutes, I do not measure by volume.
Volume measurements and actual weight do not correlate.

I found some pressure dataon AA5744.
44gr with 250gr bullet is 38k psi out of a Savage, velocity was reported 2200 fps.
That exceeds the 28-30k psi that muzzleloaders are suggested to stay within.

But, what if you dropped the charge by 6gr? I am pretty sure one would well under the pressure limit.

Just for thought anyhow.

I found some pressure dataon AA5744.
44gr with 250gr bullet is 38k psi out of a Savage, velocity was reported 2291 fps.
That exceeds the 28-30k psi that muzzleloaders are suggested to stay within.

But, what if you dropped the charge by 6gr? I am pretty sure one would be well under the pressure limit. I am pretty sure the firearm cannot tell the difference in what kind of powder is generating the pressure. As long as the pressure is within the safe operating range of the firearm.

Just for thought anyhow.

Sure, you could drop the charge to keep peak pressure within safe limits with nitrocellulose powder for a black powder barrel. But compared to black powder you would end up with lower average pressure. It's that burn rate pressure exponent thing. So you would get lower velocity from smokeless than black. How much I don't know, but I'd bet a lot slower.

But how would you know how much powder is safe without instrumenting the barrel? Would be guessing whether or not you just made a pipe bomb.

Of course you would have lower velocity with lower pressure. The whole point of this thread is what is the actual pressure?

And is the pressure low enough to be safely used in non smokeless produced muzzleloaders. ie < 30k psi

The gun barrel cannot tell the difference where the pressure comes from. As long as it does not exceed the capabilities to safely contain it. Most inlines are limited to 30k psi I believe.

The western powders website list 45-70 loads with AA5744 from 16k - 38k psi. A saboted bullet and bigger bore diameter should actually reduce pressure even more.

You notice that all of BP and substitute load data does not list pressures just velocities? How do they know it is safe in muzzleloaders? They have to have pressure data, just not presenting it to the general public?

I think it is a bunch of smoke and mirrors, with the muzzleloading industries bottom line benefitting.

So if you load nitro based powder to the same peak pressure as black and end up with significantly lower velocity, what's the point? You don't have an excess of velocity to start with.

Not being expert in internal ballistics I would not try to transpose cartridge data to muzzle loading. Obviously a lot of things are different. Of course BP substitutes are pressure tested, they don't publish burn rate data either as far as I can tell. I suspect there's enough difference to heed maximum load warnings.

There is no way that you can accurately extrapolate peak pressures or pressure curves without equipment. Trying to do so....that would be smoke and mirrors.

That lower pressure. = lower velocity is not always the case. Other factors come into play.
Example: two .416s with 400 grain bullets at 2370fps. The Rigby version is at or lower than 40K CUP. Remington's runs at 52K psi.
Pete

I am not chasing velocity, I am chasing economics and ease of cleaning. I do not want to push envelopes, just stay within the pressure parameters of the firearms.

That information is not readily available from the manufacturers. The question is why not? We are to blindly accept their word without scientific data?

No . but lets remember that what your looking at is companies that will be held liable when someone does something stupid . Which they will swear didn�t happen or wasn�t their fault .
There are just to many variables where seemingly minor changes can result in drastically different out comes .
But as you say . Why take their word for it . So if they build a rifle and clearly state 10 grains by weight of brand X powder . It isn�t long before someone doesn�t take their word for it and uses 6 grains of brand Y .
Next thing you know billy bob say ; I use brand Z and have no issues .
Maybe he doesn�t or as the case most often is , he doesn�t have the knowledge to know if he has or is causing damage to the gun which may end up coming apart down the road .
In which case the cry will go out about how poorly made the gun is

There is a lot more to it then saying Hay , why wouldn�t this be safe if I have near the same X .
What you maynot be thinking about is just what some of the others have posted time and time again .
IE what are the pressures
What are the pressure curves
How do those pressures curves effect things
How do those pressures react for the given application .
Can the total design withstand the pressures .

Even if you got all that information , your still not going to be able to take the human variable out .
There in lays IMO the real reason as to why .
No one wants to put their neck on the line to see if billy bob will not be stupid .Maybe it wouldnt even be his fault . things happen. even when you think everything is right . just take a look at what can happen when you get your reloads wrong .

Hell you cant even get so call well known authorities to understand they need to maintain the gun and replace parts when needed . Then when the gun blows up , they blame the maker .
Its hard enough getting folks to not try and load smokeless in muzzle loading guns not designed for it .
Did they know better ? Most times they found out they didn�t know as much as they thought they did

Even if the info were available.....how would you set about using it without equipment that would tell you how your gun is working?
Blindly accept data.......from the manufacturers? Yeah. Why not?
Pete

I have already decided that BH209 (a smokeless powder) is my next powder of choice, because it is simply the most economical thing for me to do.

I can use 84gr (weighed) or 110gr (volume) for 2129fps with a 250gr saboted Barnes TMZ. I will work up my load for accuracy and continue to weigh all my charges.

I would just like to see some actual scientific data. That way I can make an informed decision based on real data, and not just take it on someone's word for it. I have not been able to find any published data. The companies that should have it are just giving me the standard response of don't do it.

Then don't.

Or if you normalize to peak pressure something roughly on this order.

You can take that up with Paco Kelly, his graph.

I just wanted to emphasize the difference in area under the curve as a general proposition.

I won't, just trying to learn.

DD,
Thanks for the graph.