[J-Man]

What can be added to powded to reduce its flash signature? Or are there any particular powders that have significantly low flash?
Using a 16" FAL.....

[Black Snowman]

I've never heard of any "approved" or "offical" or even "experimental" flash suppressants for the home reloader. To control flash the only options I've found are powder selection and load development.

Most of my flash concerns are with handguns so I've noted it on powders I've used there but I've never shot my rifles in the dark or even a poorly lighted environment so I couldn't tell you the differance between the one's I've used.

You've got your work cut out for you on this one as I don't think the ammo companies are speaking up on what they use. It might be formulated into a special powder, just a low flash available powder, or an add-in. I haven't heard any of them say.

[J-Man]

Yeah, not sure what's used. I do like how the Aussie .308 surplus has virtually no muzzle flash, even out of my 16" barrel FAL. Has a funky green powder. Burns clean too.

[Black Snowman]

The WC846 and some WC820 pull-down powder I have and they both have a green color to them. I think it has to do with having less graphite coating than most commerical powders. I haven't tested the WC846 yet but if it's low flash I'll post it. If I can tell. Load development will be out of a 26" barreled bolt action so it might be hard to tell.

[Mike Irwin]

Nitrocellulose is gray because of the graphite coating that's added to reduce static and promote flowing through measuring equipment.

In its uncoated form, it can be yellow, green, gray, reddish, brown, etc.

As for reducing flash, there's nothing that the home reloader can add to powder.

[Grump]

As for reducing flash, there's nothing that the home reloader can add to powder.
I say there would be a market for such, but the potential liability for overloaders blaming the additive for their mistakes would make for either high pricing or some hard-nosed warnings and policies on claims.

If marketed from Nigeria, they could probably make a go of it at a reasonable price...I'll need to ask Dr. Mumboketo next time he e-mails me.;)

[Third_Rail]

Mike, pure nitrocellulose is NOT those colors, it's simply white. Double based smokeless powder (~98% nitrocellulose/~2% nitroglycerin) is also white, but when burnrate additives are added, the color can change as the additives have colors of their own. Sometimes the color is also intentionally changed for ID purposes.

As for flash reducers, to my knowledge, they don't exist for civilians. ;)

[Mike Irwin]

Third-rail...

Duh, I knew that. Drain Bramage... :)

I actually meant to say "nitrocellulose-based powder."

Sigh. Sucks getting old.

I once had a squib load with a Winchester round that had suffered through some seriously bad storage. The primer only partially ignited the powder, which fizzled, leaving a yellowish blob of powder (the graphite coating had burned off some of it) in the barrel.

[Third_Rail]

That sounds more like it decayed due to improper neutralization of the acids used in the nitration, how old are we talking?

[Mike Irwin]

At that point only about 5 years old, or circa 1981, or long after neutralization was an issue with ball powders.

As I said, poor storage. In an unheated unairconditioned shed that leaked like a sieve, flooding the box in which the rounds were stored fairly regularly.

Green, corroded, and very nasty. I wanted to see what would happen when I shot them. Only one was a complete failure, but several others had definite primer hang or powder issues.

[Rico567]

The primary contributor to flash is unburned powder, or a burn that has continued to the point where a fireball (flash) forms at the muzzle. Apart from access to a complete chemical laboratory and the knowledge of how to use it, I think the best way to get low flash is to experiment with powders. It seems like a powder on the edge of "too fast" for your loading (sounds like .308 in this instance) would be a good place to start.

My experience in searching for this quality is confined to pistols. In .40 S&W, for instance, Power Pistol by Alliant produces loads that are ballistically marginally superior to Hodgdon's Universal Clays....but Universal has far, far, less flash than PP. It's a tradeoff, and I've made my decision. (5.9 gr. Universal, CCI500, Rainier (or Gold Dot) 165 gr.)

[Third_Rail]

Mike:

When nitrocellulose is made, sulfuric and nitric acids are used in high concentrations in a 50/50 mix called nitrating mix. The cellulose is added and stirred, and after about 10 minutes it's nitrated fully. It then is chopped up and turned into tiny bits, and then it's neutralized by basic solutions; sometimes the maker doesn't use enough, and that's what I thought the problem is. Now, it's true that 99% of the time this no longer happens, but there are batches of DBSP that make it through poorly neutralized and will not be able to fire after a few years. It seems like that's not the case with the rounds you talked of, but it can happen.

Forgive this post if you already knew! :D

[Rico567]

-bleep-

[Black Snowman]

Well I didn't know so no appologies nessisary 3rd :)

And I came to the exact same conclusions as Rico regarding Power Pistol and .40 S&W. I'm still using Universal. Which I origionally picked because it had the lightest charge weight of the top velocity producers and cost the same or less than the other powders so I would get the most loads for my money.

All that savings and more has been lost in addtional experimentation, new firearms, and range time :evil:

[Third_Rail]

Apart from access to a complete chemical laboratory and the knowledge of how to use it....

I guess some experimentation is in order for me! :D

[Mike Irwin]

Third,

Yep, I'm familiar with the process. :)

As Rico said (twice :)) most muzzle flash is caused by burning powder. There's another kind of muzzle flash that also is seen -- where the powder gases actually incandesce (sp?) as a plasma.

[Third_Rail]

The second type of muzzle flash is almost unknown in anything under a cannon. I'm still leaning toward saying that a load that burns all the powder before the bullet exits the barrel is the easiest solution.

[Dave R]

Well, I'm not a chemist, but I've noticed a difference in muzzle flash from different factory loads, so I tend to believe that some powders just make more flash than others.

So just try different powders till you find one with flash characteristics you like.

Or has anyone here already done that, and care to tell us what powder(s) have less flash? I know its not Unique. That has more flash than most commercial stuff I've tried.

[Mike Irwin]

Third Rail,

No, I don't believe that's correct at all. Gas incandescence is well known in rifles and handguns according to much of what I've read.

As for a load burning all of the powder before the bullet leaves the muzzle, sorry, but about the ONLY time that happens is with .22 LR in a long barrel.

It simply doesn't happen with any handgun.

[Third_Rail]

And all that low-bulk powder is wasted....

If a burn isn't complete at the time of exit, the rest of the still-burning powder is wasted.

I need to come up with a bulky powder that burns fast for pistols, thus filling the case and burning completely.

Also, I didn't realize that plasma incandescence was present in rifles and pistols, I was almost certain that it was only apparent when the air was heated in a large area (i.e. a cannon muzzle)

[Poodleshooter]

Hollow extruded powder maybe? Something as voluminous as an extruded rifle powder, but with weight, burn rate and clean consumption closer to Clays.

[Third_Rail]

Hollow has already been tried, it complicates the burn peak, the surface area exposed, etc. So that's a no-go. What we're really looking for is a clean burning low-nitration powder that would take up space/weight, but still give the needed push for the bullet without making extra flash/shockwave. I doubt it'll be found any time soon.

[Mike Irwin]

Third,

No, the incandescence factor isn't heated air around the muzzle of the gun, it's the powder gas that is incandescent as it leaves the muzzle.

[Third_Rail]

We're thinking of different effects, I just googled on what you're talking about, and you're right. It wasn't what I was thinking of, and I wasn't aware of it; now I am, and I'm that much better off! Woohoo! Knowledge!

[Mike Irwin]

Knowledge!

Is wasted on people who play on the Third Rail... :D :neener:

[Third_Rail]

Hey! :p

[Grump]

One of the selling points for Winchester Action Pistol powder was low(er) flash.

Unfortunately, making low-flash powder [edit] by just using an additive [edit] might not be easy. Otherwise, I suppose Unique would have had it back when it was made by Hercules. Love Power Pistol but I can get that much flash (maybe more) using 296 while getting higher velocities.

[Mike Irwin]

HEY!

Now I remember where I've seen you, Third Rail!

You starred in an episode of Myth Busters.

In that one the guy made out of ballistic gelatin was... well he was...

Hum... family forum. I can't say what he was doing, but has it stopped "raining" yet? :what: :D :neener:

[Third_Rail]

Aww, I've made a friend!

Back on topic, though, there is SOME progress with nitrating cotton pads for making DBSP, although they don't quite give the desired effect when mixed with NG and chopped. YET. I'll make it somehow. Someday.

[BluesBear]

Is this gas incandescence?

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=848786
Photo is of .50AE Desert Eagle from another, but unknown to me, website.

[Mike Irwin]

When you get a donut shape like that I'd say yes, that's a pretty good example of incandescent powder gas.

A muzzle flash that's mostly powder tends to spread in a cone away from the muzzle.

[Mikul]

A big muzzleflash is a detriment to accuracy. The uncontrolled burn outside of the barrel exerts forces unevenly on the bullet, pushing it one way or another. It makes little difference at normal pistol ranges, but at rifle range, it can cause some unusual groups.

[Black Snowman]

With my .50 AE loads out of my Desert Eagle the light loads are noticably more accurate than the full power loads. The differance in flash between them is 8"-12" of flame to 24"-36". I hear the extra lenght of the 10" barrel makes a huge differance in accuracy on the gun with hotter loads.

This is a somewhat extreme example in a pistol but it illustrates the differance the gasses buffetting the bullet can cause.

Light loads, rested with a dot scope I could get about a 1.5" group at about 25 feet. Not great I know, it's heavy and the trigger isn't great.

The full power loads open that up to almost 4". Some of that could be the pain induced from shooting the hot loads from a rest too. Free handed they're much easier on me.

Free-hand with a 2x scope I was getting about 2" groups with it at 25' using the light loads and closer to 6" groups with the full power loads. Of course the full power loads can also make the target hanger sway much worse as well. They produce quite a breeze.

[Archie]

someone was asking about how make an impressive muzzle flash. The consensus was to use a very slow powder and a light bullet.

For a low flash load, I would suggest a very fast powder and a heavy bullet (for the caliber). Load to the bottom end of the data, so the pressure remains low and flame color will be dull red. Use the longest barrel you have for the round.

The theory is to try to get all (or as much as possible) of the powder to burn prior to the bullet exiting the barrel. Please note, the penalty for this is lower velocity and power levels. (There ain't no free lunch!)

[Grump]

A big muzzleflash is a detriment to accuracy. The uncontrolled burn outside of the barrel exerts forces unevenly on the bullet, pushing it one way or another.
Naw, I beg to differ. IF that were true, there would never be a smokeless powder rifle capable of decent accuracy. Check out any WWI bolt gun at night. Selected M1903 Springfields shot minute of angle all the time with not-so-great ammo. And that was BEFORE glass bedding was used...

It's the squareness of the crown that eliminates the quoted problem.