Smokeless in a BP ???

I am NOT going to buy the savage ML.
Click to expand...

Why not? It is the only muzzleloader factory approved for smokeless powder. True, there are only three suitable powders in the manual, but that is not too limiting.

I think it is wrongheaded but it is a safe enough product for those who want to just barely squeak in under the rules for muzzleloading hunts.
 
A characteristic of black powder is that it burns very rapidly, and creates an immediate pressure spike. That means the pressure is mostly generated, and contained, in the thick part of the barrel around the chamber. But progressive burning smokeless powder keeps the pressure on longer.
Click to expand...

I was going to say that I have heard the exact opposite, but I did a bit of research first and found we would both be correct since it entirely depends on which smokeless powder is being compared.

I'm learning......

http://www.levergunscommunity.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=27410
 
Most muzzleloaders have an ignition system that is totally unsuitable for smokeless powder. Black powder only wants to be set on fire and that's what percussion caps and nipples with their tiny vent holes were designed to do.
The modern cartridge and primers of modern guns don't just set the powder charge on fire, the primer establishes the initial high pressure in the case that the smokeless powder needs to burn efficiently. That's one reason that a good crimp is so important in modern guns.
The primer alone in a .22Hornet will propell a .22 caliber air rifle pellet set in the case neck with enough velocity to shoot it through a beer can.

I have successfully made smokeless work in a Ruger Old Army but only after using a small charge of FFFFg to act as a kicker to get the smokeless to burn like it's supposed to. Without the black powder kicker charge, I only got failure to fires and squibs.
To really make this revolver smokeless powder friendly, you would need a special cylinder that uses sealed shotgun primers instead of percussion caps.
 
more, please

All of this has nothing to do with whether the gun is muzzle loading or breech loading, or whether it has a "vent" or not,
Click to expand...
Jim: I am open to different ideas and to changing my point of view if new and better info happens along.
The quoted comment above....could you, would you, explain that more? How could the presence of a vent not have something to do with the safety of what we are discussing? I understand the problem related to ignition with percussion caps but, as noted, duplexing can solve that.
I am not arguing.....open to new ideas.
Pete
 
Do BP Cartridges have vents or a way to vent?
Click to expand...

Nope. I load 45lc with BP all the time, and I load cowboy action velocities with TrailBoss in BP (only) cartridge guns as well. I use a standard 45lc case and standard LP primers. I guess the old pinfires could vent a bit through the pin hole, but BP doesn't need a vent for good ignition. It just needs to be compressed a bit, unlike SP.
 
Last edited:
Again I WILL NEVER be the tester on this but do you know anyone who has?
Click to expand...
Yup---this guy has...Smokeless powder used in an BP rifle... Weak stomachs need not click the link.

http://www.castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?t=77487

Although there is a lot of argument within the thread as to what actually caused the barrel failure, the professional opinion (a machinist and pro muzzle-loader maker) who showed me the details of this before the thread ever hit internet said it was because the guy used a volume measure meant for BP to load for smokeless and ended up with a slight overcharge.

While some BP's have been made for a smokeless cross-over, WHY DO IT? Want a muzzle loader? Great. BP is a fun sport. Don't want BP? Great--get a cartridge. Pouring smokeless (IMHO) down the barrel of a muzzle loader is kinda like tossing ammo in the campfire--never know when something is gonna go the wrong way, but it's just begging for it.
 
Joey V. said:
I never thought this would have such a great debate! After reading everyones responses I am NOT going to buy the savage ML. I just don't feel it to be as safe as I want it to be and besides I love the smell on BP.
Click to expand...

I have to say that I could not disagree with that decision any more than I do.

Even if I were going to shoot BP, it would be from a Savage.

But, I would NOT shoot BP.

The Savage is a fantastic gun. It is NOT NOT *NOT* a black powder gun that shoots smokeless.

It is DESIGNED to shoot smokeless powder. It is the ONLY muzzleloader on the market with a GUN QUALITY steel barrel.

Let that sink in.... other muzzle loaders do not use GUN quality steel in their GUN barrels.

My uncle has a Savage ML10. It is fantastic. 58gr N120 produces 2200+ fps from a 300gr Barnes Original 45cal bullet. The effect on deer has to be seen to be believed.

You will NOT regret buying an ML10.

Oh, and while we're at it, pay no attention to the rantings of the disgruntled former Savage employee who is the only person in the world who has ever managed to blow up an ML10, and he did it twice.

It has been PROVEN, more than once, that a Savage can handle a LITERAL double charge of smokeless power. The barrels are proof tested to 110,00 psi.
 
Doc Hoy said:
Do BP Cartridges have vents or a way to vent?
__________________
Click to expand...

Well, I would suppose that every revolver is a "vented" system once the bullet gets past the forcing cone.
 
peetzakilla said:
It is the ONLY muzzleloader on the market with a GUN QUALITY steel barrel.

Let that sink in.... other muzzle loaders do not use GUN quality steel in their GUN barrels.
Click to expand...

Oh I don't know but I'm pretty sure the Stainless Steel Ruger Old Army pretty much uses the same barrel and barrel materials used in the .45 Long Colt version of their revolvers, in fact, I would even bet that that barrel could withstand "Ruger only" handloads in revolvers chambered for .45 LC. In fact, I don't see how, in this lawsuit happy society, a manufacturer would dare use anything less strong than "gun quality" steel in their barrels, just to cover their rears.

Also, modern cartridge breechloaders have been blown up by injudicious handloads.
 
B.L.E. said:
Oh I don't know but I'm pretty sure the Stainless Steel Ruger Old Army pretty much uses the same barrel and barrel materials used in the .45 Long Colt version of their revolvers, in fact, I would even bet that that barrel could withstand "Ruger only" handloads in revolvers chambered for .45 LC. In fact, I don't see how, in this lawsuit happy society, a manufacturer would dare use anything less strong than "gun quality" steel in their barrels, just to cover their rears.

Also, modern cartridge breechloaders have been blown up by injudicious handloads.
Click to expand...


I'm talking about rifles. There might be other BP guns with similar barrels, I know nothing about handguns of this variety but the Savage is certainly one of a VERY few, if there are ANY others, with certified Gun Quality 416 stainless steel.

Of course, ANY firearm can be blown up. That's not the point. The point is that the Savage ML10 is proof tested to over 100,000psi, 129,000 I think. That's higher, by a lot, that most any center-fire rifle of which I am aware. Center-fire rifles are, I believe, tested to 20% over max, which is typically around 78,000psi max proof test. The Savage has been shown, more than once, to be capable of withstanding a LITERAL double charge of smokeless powder.

Also, the Savage is the only muzzleloader factory pillar bedded action and free floating barrel, not to mention the only muzzleloader with an Accu-Trigger.

What would happen to a... I don't know... CVA muzzleloader with a double charge of BP?
 
What would happen to a... I don't know... CVA muzzleloader with a double charge of BP?
Click to expand...

Probably nothing. Years ago when I was more interested in traditional forging (as in hammer and anvil with a billow on hot hickory charcoal) I did some research on traditional muzzle loader barrel forging techniques. One of the early methods of testing the forge-weld seam after finishing a barrel abd before mounting in a stock and lock was to mount it in a firing block and fire from a distance with a double charge, then inspect it. Part of the inspection was to check the bore diameter with a feeler rod. Any "loose" spots indicated bulging. Tight feel through the length of the bore was a 'good-to-go' approval. NOTE, this was an early method by individual smiths, not mass-production. BUT, the point is that the standard for barrel construction from the beginning was to be capable of handling a double charge with no ill effect.

Would I try it? NOPE. But they'd likely handle it just fine.
 
In cowboy action shooting some people load bp in a .45 Colt and some people load smokeless in the same cartridge but the pressure curve is different for each. Smokeless, from my understanding needs to be pressurized in a some controled way to realized its power. If you burn smokeless in the open air it burns very differently than it does under pressure. With a ML it would be hard to control the pressure and you may get something that under performs in one case and with a slightly different amount of powder and or compression space you might get blow the gun up. The chance of getting it right would be very low and not worth the risk.

Just my opinion
 
pressure

Sam Fadala did manage to blow up a MLer some years ago in a test of overcharges.
It's in one of his books - forget which one. I also don't recall how much of an overload he used.
There is a good discussion of this topic in the Gun Digest Black Powder Reloading Manual.
Pete
 
DG

I think I remember that article. I also remember he had to do a lot of different things to get the barrel to let go. As I remember superimposed charges and gaps in charges and tremendous overloads.
 
DG

Doc: Yeah, that's the article in Gun Digest. There was a much earlier article in one of his "Sam Fadala's BP.....etc.". The pix had him wearing sidewhiskers from the 1970's so it was a few years ago.
Pete
 
Smokeless in a BP = dumb idea.

Joey,
You are wanting to speak to someone familar with using smokeless powder in a muzzleloader, Savage Arms probably has several engineers who could answer your questions. Their first sentence will have the words "don't try it" somewhere before the period at the end. Even their model 10 ML muzzleloader is unsuitable to use many brands of common smokeless powder, they use powder made by only one or two companies and anything else is dangerous. There are a series of photographs floating around the internet of what used to be a stainless steel Savage model 10 ML, the barrel is split. Also in the series are photos of what used to be the shooters hand, minus fingers and thumb. It could be you if you continue out with this nightmare.
 
Nite Ryder I never will..

Just to clarify if you read my post I said I never will do this.

I only seek the knowledge of why it "can't" be done in a safe way. I did kind of find my answer by calling a few powder companies. Seem as if Smokeless powder when it is "detonated" (their wording not mine) produces a massive pressure spike before it levels out and lower grade BP intended steal barrel can't take it. It will first blow out nipples and breech plugs and then if you’re stupid enough to keep strengthening the weak points as you proceed it will burst the barrels and probably kill ya. They did however tell me if you build a muzzleloader (in-line so no nipple to blow out) out of gun barrel steel and a strong enough CLOSED action you can do it with no problem just like savage did. I am not setup to do such a thing so again I would never do it nor would I want to. Well maybe I would LOVE to be able to because I could cash in on the $$$ millions Savage is pulling down but….. Besides I love the smell and simplicity of BP and that is why I won’t even buy the savage.
 
I have found this thread to be quite interesting. I know that some of you were only tolerant in your discussion of this and maybe a few who...well...were...not, heh, heh, but in the end there was good information discussed and ideas brought forth.

While I know that we cannot assume that anyone reading these discussions will read all of a particular thread (or even a whole post sometimes it seems) and therefore jump to conclusions that may lead to a poor decision, we also should not stifle intelligent discussion on the off chance a fool will be as a fool is. My opinion of course.

I guess I'm saying that maybe some people remove themselves from the gene pool for a reason. Natural selection at it's best, if you will. :)

Oh, and I'll also say that I love BP shooting for what it is and prefer flintlock even, since that's where I get my thrill. Each to his own, eh?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top