Hey let's get something straight guys

O

olyinaz

New member
I was simply asking WHY something is not done, not recommending that it BE done. With the exception of the guy who mentioned blow back through the nipple holes and the venerable Captain who mentioned pressures in the cylinder during the long travel out to the forcing cone every other post in the now locked thread was little more than hair pulling and wailing. About as helpful here as it is anywhere/anytime else...

Regarding the fellow who asked me why one would want to do something, I guess someone should ask Savage that question as well because they have introduced a muzzle loading, 209 primed rifle that is rated for...[GASP]...smokeless powder! And I assume they're selling some.

At any rate, it is that rifle and the initial introduction of semi-smokeless powders back in the 19th Century that prompted my simple request for information. Both current and historical would have been (and was) appreciated. Hysterical was not.

Edit: Let me state categorically that I do NOT (!) suggest loading smokeless in a BP revolver! It's a simple technical question and NOTHING MORE. Does anyone know what sort of maximum pressures BP is capable of generating in a typical revolver?

Regards,
Oly
 
Last edited:
I dunno about maximum pressures but bp cartridges run around 14,000 PSI and modern Ruger loads run around 30,000 PSI. It MIGHT be possible to load a very light smokeless load in a ROA but get just a tad too much and top of the cylinder and top strap are going bye-bye. Ain't worth the risk.
A buddy of mine had a very old .22 revolver and he fired a modern .22 short in it. It broke the gun into three major pieces and a bunch of tiny ones. Granted it was an old gun but you'd think a wimpy load like a .22 short wouldn't hurt anything. WRONG! Leave the smokeless to guns or at least cylinders designed and built for it.
 
Last edited:
It is my belief that smokeless shouldn't be used in percussion guns because the muzzleloading percussion cap and nipple system was not designed to ignite smokeless powder. Unlike black powder, smokeless doesn't like to simply be set on fire, the primer in a modern cartriage not only ignites the smokeless powder, it also establises the initial working pressure in the chamber. If you simply set smokeless on fire, you get squibs and bloopers and that fools you into thinking it's an underload so you put in more and then it finally burns up to smokeless's working pressure and BLAM, a gun destroying detonation, a modern gun destoying detonation.
There's a real good reason that designed-for-smokeless muzzleloaders use 209 primers and not percussion caps.
That also explains why it's safe to use mild smokeless loads in cartriage conversions, the powder is being ignited by a powerful primer, not by a weak flame through a tiny hole in a nipple.

Some people also claim that the blowback through the nipple with smokeless pressure will instantly erode the nipple hole but I don't buy that theory. If that was true, the cylinder to barrel gap on a modern .44 magnum would not be long in this world.
 
Last edited:
Hey thanks guys - that is EXACTLY the kind of information I was looking for. Very very good point about modern smokeless squibbing and blurping along until BLAMMO - bad news. I think that's honestly got to be the key to the whole thing but I suppose the other major factor simply must be that you can't (usually...) cram enough BP into a cap and ball firearm to blow it up so it's easy to make them and relatively liability free on top of it all.

The Savage muzzle loader is only approved (as far as I know) for one powder and load other than BP and, frankly, I suspect that Savage is taking on one heckuva lot of liability but I hope it's a successful product.

Cheers,
Oly
 
>>>I dunno about maximum pressures but bp cartridges run around 14,000 PSI and modern Ruger loads run around 30,000 PSI. It MIGHT be possible to load a very light smokeless load in a ROA but get just a tad too much and top of the cylinder and top strap are going bye-bye. Ain't worth the risk.<<<

Oh absolutely I agree.

What would be an interesting product, in my view simply because I love all firearms, is a replacement cylinder for the ROA that takes 209 primers and is approved for very specifically certain smokeless loads. Same theory as the Savage muzzle loading rifle. I think it would be a hoot stuffing balls or conicals on top of the approved/proven safe loads and I suspect that 209 primers would be loadable in a ROA without any modification of the frame (the cutout is already pretty large) but any mod would need be pretty mild if so.

After all, R&D and Kirst sell plenty of drop in cylinders (one even to me), another interesting variant could be a lot of fun for ROA owners.

Cheers,
Oly
 
>>>There already are safe smokeless C&B conversion pistols being made<<<

Well I'll be dipped in doo!! They make EXACTLY what I was talking about - a 209 primed conversion cylinder for the ROA that runs smokeless powder. Sheesh, the Good Book is right - nothing's new under the sun. :o

Too bad it's British and a bit pricey as a result...

Thanks,
Oly
 
I looked at those British nitro cap and ball revolver conversions in the link also, pretty neat. I guess that's what results when cap-n-ball revolvers is all that the government lets you own.

Another thing about primers is that you can read spent primers for warnings of excessive pressure. You can't do that with percussion caps.

Loose nitro powder has been used in large artillary pieces for as long as artillary has been using nitro powders. I believe that the 16 inch naval guns use a small bag, about 2 kg I think, of black powder behind the 600 pounds of nitro powder to get the nitro powder lit and establish the initial chamber pressure that nitro powder needs to burn efficiently. That bag of black powder essentially does the job of a primer in a cartriage.
If any of you readers have first hand knowlege of these guns, please correct me if I'm wrong.
 
Last edited:
>>>I looked at those British nitro cap and ball revolver conversions in the link also, pretty neat. I guess that's what results when cap-n-ball revolvers is all that the government lets you own.<<<

Bingo!! And even so I'll bet it's a pain in the arse to own one. Nuff said.

Cheers,
Oly
 
oly - personally, I like your question. I think a forum should be where you can discuss what to do and what not to do. Your topic is/was a good one to discuss or make comment on. It just doesn't make sense to me that one should fear asking a question on this forum. Good job...we need someone to stir the pot every once and a while.

Cheers
 
westlake

How different, in use, are those Westlake conversions from what you get with an R&D conversion cylinder? They are neat looking and probably work well but looking at the cylinder itself - two parts, etc - it looks ever so much like an R&D cylinder.
Pete
 
somewhat off to the side. I am happy to completely avoid loading smokeless powder in a non cartridge revolver. I'm convinced that, ceteras parabus, it blows them up. Some people have, for whatever reason, used minimal amounts of smokeless in with the black powder chage-maybe hoping for cleaner burning. I've heard that that blows them up too. Interestingly though, some guy in france designed a revolver to use pistol primers and smokeless powder with .357/358 wadcutters. It seems to have held together alright but the velocity spreads were huge as were the groups he shot.

It would seem that smokeless in a c&b is a loose/loose proposition. I am not criticising anybody for wondering if it might work while refraining from recommending it.
 
>>>How different, in use, are those Westlake conversions from what you get with an R&D conversion cylinder? They are neat looking and probably work well but looking at the cylinder itself - two parts, etc - it looks ever so much like an R&D cylinder.<<<

Other than both being two part units they're quite different. An R&D conversion cylinder simply opens to allow the insertion of standard caliber metallic cartridges. For example mine is in .45 Colt for the ROA.

The Westlake splits like the R&D cylinder but only so that you can load 209 primers into an appropriate primer pocket with a flash hole into the main cylinder volume - it's still a muzzle loading cylinder.

Frankly, the splitting design is the main stumbling block for me with the Westlake because I just get tired of fooling around with that. I'd much rather see an SAA style loading gate at the back of the cylinder but I'm also concerned with getting the 209 primers back out. Don't the inline muzzle loaders have an ejector for the 209 primers?

Thanks,
Oly
 
Oly,

good thread, very informative- thanks for reviving it. I stayed away initially, and didn't even read it 'til now, expecting much of the same from last thread. But this one looks calm, and the flames haven't derailed it- yet. :rolleyes:

Yes, it's all about the primers and ignition. Black is easier to set off, even if it's not compressed- which is why safety recommendations say don't fill a c/b from a full flask, an ember could explode the flask in your face. Use a small vial. Smokeless if more difficult to set off, requiring a hotter primer. Putting just 5 grains Bullseye in an ROA, it very well may not even go off with a std c/b cap- which has happened to people experimenting as such- somewhere was posted such experiments, and initially the gun did not even go off with smokeless.

now, smokeless in a BP cylinder- like Einstein said, it's all relative to need:

would I try it if my life depended on it, and no other powder was available, and I faced certain death otherwise ? yes, in an ROA I would- because that gun was proofed with smokeless, it may just survive the few precious shots I need, to save my neck

would I try it just for kicks ? heck no- not without a 100 foot string, vice, and shield- and why blow up a perfectly good ROA if it didn't work right anyway

would I try smokeless in a cartridge conversion cylinder, with a brass cartridge, using a c/b blackpowder frame/barrel/gun ? heck yeh, that's what the conversion cylinder is made for, by design- and I've run 100's of rounds through 2 of them, in the past few months, with no ill effects- but these are COWBOY ACTION LOADINGS, not full-house +P or hot/magnum loads.

would I try smokeless cartridges in a bored out blackpowder c/b cylinder, converted to cartridge w/conversion ring ? probably not- that would be risky- and again require the 100 foot string, etc.- the R&D would have to be done, and for what a conversion cylinder costs, it's not worth the time and risk. Colt started off doing cartridge conversions, by boring out the c/b cylinders, and fitting a conversion ring- but they used BP powder/cartridges for that- not smokeless.

on the ROA w/smokeless, here's the info I have on the original design, and proofing with full cylinders of Bullseye- again just for reference, anyone reading this, DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME- this was done in a Ruger lab under protection- but the ROA's are very strong indeed

click attachments, then use magnify and click to enlarge, to read it
 

Attachments

  • ruger1.jpg
    ruger1.jpg
    56.5 KB · Views: 76
  • Ruger2.jpg
    Ruger2.jpg
    48.9 KB · Views: 57
  • Ruger3.jpg
    Ruger3.jpg
    41.1 KB · Views: 49
Last edited:
CaptainCrossman - please provide the attributes for the material posted as images in your message above.
 
on the ROA w/smokeless, here's the info I have on the original design, and proofing with full cylinders of Bullseye- again just for reference, anyone reading this, DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME- this was done in a Ruger lab under protection- but the ROA's are very strong indeed
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if that test proved how strong the ROA is or if it simply proved how erratic nitro powders are when simply lit on fire with a percussion cap. It's quite possible that the powder simply burned and the pressure needed to unseat the balls and push them out of the barrel was below the powder's fast burning threshold.
Set a small pile of nitro powder on fire with a match and it just burns up, quite slowly as a matter of fact, try the same thing with a small pile of black powder and you won't try it again.

Incorrect charges of smokeless powder will destroy modern firearms.

anaconda-kb.jpg


blow_up_it_1.jpg


Do these pictures scare you? I sure hope so!
 
mykeal
Senior Member

Join Date: 2006-10-08
Location: Northern Michigan
Posts: 871

CaptainCrossman - please provide the attributes for the material posted as images in your message above.




why certainly

Dennis Adler-BP Revolvers-Repros and Replicas

see pic
 

Attachments

  • adler.jpg
    adler.jpg
    103.9 KB · Views: 46
B.L.E.
Senior Member

Join Date: 2008-12-20
Posts: 216

Do these pictures scare you? I sure hope so!



I can appreciate those pictures, but I say this with all due respect-
no, they don't scare me- here's why

#1 you can blow up a gun just as badly as in those pictures, with blackpowder, by using a bullet that is .007" too large, creating too much pressure- it's just that easy- it happened to the famed Elmer Keith- he blew the cylinder and topstrap off a Colt Peacemaker

#2, Bill Ruger knew more about firearms, than you or I ever will. Actually, he forgot more about guns, than you or I will ever know. And he proofed that ROA with smokeless for a reason, so it would survive some abuse without hurting the shooter, and triggering a lawsuit.

i.e. the ROA is overbuilt by a considerable margin. Ruger knew some dumb unscrupulous shooter, may eventually get the wacky idea of putting smokeless powder in, or maybe someone would put smokeless in by accident- so he wanted that gun to survive at least initially

#3, I see a bullet stuck in that gun, which makes me think someone reloaded it with a slug that was oversized, and it got stuck in the barrel/cylinder interface, and blew up the gun

it may have had nothing at all, to do with powder charge- any gun explosion must be carefully disected to find the cause

Elmer Keith blew the top off a Colt Peacemaker as a kid, on July 4th making noise shooting in the air, because he loaded larger 45-70 rifle slugs, in the 45 Colt cartridges

so that can happen with the slug being too large, even by a few thousandths of an inch.

and Elmer Keith was not an idiot, either- surviving that episode, led to the invention of the 44 Magnum cartridge- I'm not saying to push loads until the gun blows up as a practice, but your example is obviously one of blatant overloading or the wrong size bullet, or the wrong powder, or too heavy a bullet/too fast powder, etc.

sure, there are super-fast powders that will blow up any gun they aren't designed for- put super fast powder in any magnum rifle, it will blow it apart- that doesn't mean a 5 grain cowboy load is going to blow up a gun, like in your pictures- I've been reloading now for 30 years, so I know better than to get scared by those pictures.

because there are super-slow smokeless powders like H870, that you can top off the cartridges with, and the velocity and pressures are very low, pathetically low actually- and they could not blow up anything, by design- such as artillery shell powder- yet they are smokeless- many a shooter and gunsmith, started off a home-made gun using "full cases of H870" because it is just so safe due to low pressure- it's all about the speed of the powder, and weight of projectile

http://www.reloadbench.com/gloss/hh870.html


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_159_26/ai_90099727/

Who was Elmer Keith and what debt of gratitude do we owe him? Born in Missouri in 1899, Elmer grew up on ranches in Montana, Oregon and Idaho. In the 1920s, he decided to celebrate the Fourth of July by firing his .45 Colt 5 1/2" SA revolver, and a letter detailing this experience was published in the American Rifleman in 1925. This was the first, or at least one of the very first, times he appeared in print.

He recounted how his .45 Colt SAA, using black powder loads, blew up as he was firing it during his celebratory triggerwork. Elmer had been using heavy .45 loads in the old Colt, made up with 300 grain bullets with a diameter of .458", originally intended for use in the .45-90 lever action Winchester. The ancient blackpowder Colt gave up after enduring those high-pressure loads once too often.

Elmer was not the first to blow up a sixgun, and probably won't be the last. What's significant is what came next. He switched to the .44 Special after this episode, to come up with a sixgun that would safely handle the heavy loads he wanted for daily use. From that explosive encounter with the .45, Elmer Keith was launched on a path that made him the premier influence on sixgunning for over 50 years.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top