Why Not Smokeless Powder in a T/C Encore .50 / 209?

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

These are supposed to be some of the strongest guns out there, and there are even T/C loads that are TOO hot for turnbolts.

So if Savage can make a smokeless-powder capable rifle in a turnbolt, surely T/C could easily make one on their Encore frame, no?

The reality is that the T/C .50 barrel is probably strong enough to shoot smokeless powder loads (unless the barrels are made or heat-treated differently than standard T/C barrels); but the issue may lie with the breech plug strength - with the ProHunter version, just one twist and it's out. Not as confidence inspiring as a completely threaded one.

But surely even in its present form, it could easily handle a *mild* smokeless load, at around 2/3rds of a Savage 10ML-approved load, with a slow burning powder, with no problems? Surely there is a load of *some* smokeless powder, in *some* quantity, with *some* light bullet, that would have pressure curve below a 150 grain triple seven load (which is what the encore 209/50 is rated to), and 350 grainer, at all points along the curve, no?

If someone made you try it under penalty of death, what powders and loads would you try first? I have several shoestrings I can tie together.

 

[R.W.Dale]

Let me answer your question with a question


Are any of these super loads you note shooting black powder? If not there's your smokless loads.

 

[my762buzz]

These are supposed to be some of the strongest guns out there, and there are even T/C loads that are TOO hot for turnbolts.

I agree the breach plug might not be sturdy enough.
Probably not a serious consideration from the beginning.


I love my encore.

 

[627PCFan]

Here is a page full of reasons that can possibly save your life

http://www.chuckhawks.com/smokeless_thompson.htm

 

[Floppy_D]

My main concern would be pressure, and my ability to measure it. I tend to stick to published loads. Exceptions include stuff like "Ruger Only" loads. This is because someone has done the dirty work for me, and come up with heavy loads safe in a Ruger, that exceed other published data. If someone else found it safe, and a publisher made it publicly available, I might give it a whirl.

If I couldn't measure the pressure, I'd wait for available and reviewed data before I tried it. Otherwise, you are Lewis-and-Clarking the data, which is admirable and costly. If you do so, please share.

 

[Mr_Pale_Horse]

But surely even in its present form, it could easily handle a *mild* smokeless load, at around 2/3rds of a Savage 10ML-approved load, with a slow burning powder, with no problems?

I am of the opinion that a light charge of Unique (works in pistol, shotgun, rifle reduced loads, is relatively fast, but will not detonate below full load density) would work, but probably not produce spectacular results.

 

[berettashotgun]

Anything might work once.
Get a Savage like I did.
Just don't waste money on a thumb hole stock - the tang mounted safety is a loooong way from your thumb.

 

[madcratebuilder]

If your going to mess with smokeless in a black powder rifle would you mind if I took out a life insurance policy on you?

 

[Olympus]

Here is a page full of reasons that can possibly save your life

http://www.chuckhawks.com/smokeless_thompson.htm

Good ole Chuck Hawks. There's an answer for everything there. I'm sure if someone asked about the meaning of life, they'd get an answer.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

Here is a page full of reasons that can possibly save your life

http://www.chuckhawks.com/smokeless_thompson.htm

Ahhhh, thank you sir, that would explain it. Among other reasons, the Savage has the mondo screw-in breech plug, AND a bolt with locking lugs behind the breech plug, and pressure relief vent holes. Not to mention that apparently T/C ain't tellin whether or not they give the same heat treatment to the barrels.


Here ya go:

Can I Use Smokeless Powder in My Thompson/Center Muzzleloader?

By Randy Wakeman


E-mail question:

All right Savage 10ML-II Gurus . . . here is a question. Why can the Savage shoot smokeless powder but my Thompson/Center Encore cannot? Is the design limitation the steel strength of the receiver area or a limitation of the breech plug in my Encore?

Thanks,
Scott - Cloverdale, IN

Hello Scott, I'm glad you asked. A lot of people don't, but are nevertheless curious. I know that you are an experienced shooter and hunter, and if you are asking, well, there are undoubtedly a lot of other folks that would appreciate a detailed response as well. So here is the answer:

The Thompson breechplug is insufficient for Savage loads, and the barrel "may be heat treated," or may not be. Thompson/Center has done no testing with smokeless powders, and they warn VERY loudly against its use.

In the Savage, you don't have a barrel thrusting against only the action alone (as in any break action firearm). You have two one-piece stock pillars and a fat, wide recoil lug in front of the action to unitize the rifle.

The Savage was designed for smokeless from the start, and has withstood 129,000 PSI in torture testing. The Savage is designed and built with in excess of a 300% safety factor.

Savage barrels are 100% proof-tested to SAAMI centerfire standards before shipping. Every single 10ML-II rifle fires a proof load, then gets an inspection, and then is function fired after that.

In the case of Encore black powder barrels, the first time that barrel sees pressure is when you pull the trigger. Not a good time to experiment!

The Savage has two large gas vents in the sides of the barrel. It is part of Savage's redundant safety system. These gas vents which would direct gas away from the shooter's face if anything got through the breechplug. (It never has, to my knowledge.) In an Encore, escaping gas has nowhere to go.

Can you imagine shooting a cleaning rod out of a .30-06 or a shotgun? Well, customers have shot ramrods out of their Savage 10ML-II's. In fact, FIVE of my own customers have. Complete brutal negligence on the part of the shooter! However, no Savage shooter has ever been injured by this horrible misuse. The strength of the 10ML-II has saved the skinny butts of many "ramrod shooters" again and again.

So, to review, You have a barreled action proven to withstand 129,000 PSI though NO Savage allowed load so much as reaches 1/3 of that level. You have a bolt that holds the primer that cannot be closed if the breechplug is out of battery. You have the Savage Accu-Trigger that can survive the "jar-off" test, not from a few inches--but from 20 feet.

It goes on and on. No gun is idiot-proof, but the 10ML-II is as close to it in frontloader land as modern manufacturing techniques, materials, and design allow.

The Encore muzzleloader barrel was never, ever designed for smokeless and has "black powder or Pyrodex ONLY" stamped right on it. Thompson knows what they are doing. There never has been any confusion as to what T/C barrels are made for.

Savage Arms has done their part clearly and well, and for years has redundantly warned: "DO NOT ATTEMPT TO SHOOT SMOKELESS POWDER OUT OF ANY OTHER MUZZLELOADER." Thompson/Center Arms and Savage Arms speak with one voice on the matter. It is as clear as "do not use 20 gauge shells in a 12 gauge shotgun." All muzzleloaders are handloaders in the field, and must accept the full responsibility of reloading when they decide to handle a muzzleloader.

The Savage was developed for smokeless powder from its inception some 16 years ago, and now has entered its 6th year of consecutive production with smokeless in mind. In terms of materials, quality, testing, and design, smokeless is what it was born to burn.

On second thought, don't think I'll try it. Sticking with BP equiv. for the Encore then. I just traded my 10ML II for an Encore Prohunter .50, but plan to get another 10ML II with the stock I want at some point.

Dang, that Savage is impressive as heck; proof-tested to over 300% of expected pressures!

 

[berettashotgun]

The Savage 10ML II does NOT have a locking "lug" bolt.
The 1st model did - the newer model II actually uses the bolt handle like a cheap 22.
This design change allowed the ATF rules to be circumvented - no yellow sheet to fill out to buy a Savage 10ML II.
I have a 2nd model and love it.
My hunting buddy has the encore and loves it.
I'd take either one over a matchlock.

 

[Windy Hill Mules]

Savage worked for me ..... Used LOOSE Triple 7 in it
But so has the CVA Kodiak, T/C Black Diamond , T/C Encore

Knight Buck Country worked for my daughters first and several after that and even used it a couple time myself

 

[tango2echo]

I had a 1st Gen Savage 10ML, and it was a fine rifle. The thumbhole stock was "odd" and accuracy was only "so so." I traded it for another rifle, and later bought a TC Omega that will shoot under 1.5" at 100yards and about 3" at 300yards. The only catch is that it will only shoot ONE sabot/bullet/powder combo well. So, I stocked up.

I would really like to see some truly non-corrosive black powder substitutes. (Yes, I've tried Blackhorn209 and from lot to lot you have no idea what you're getting. ) I think with more choices of powders, TC, CVA, and Savage would gain a much larger muzzleloader following. TC needs to buddy up with Hodgdon or somebody and work it out.

t2e

 

[bigmedicine]

If you are really devoted to the encore platform, there is a company that makes smokeless barrel conversions. Remarkably, they are called Smokeless Muzzleloading Incorporated http://www.smokelessmuzzleloading.com/ . Give them a look and see what you can do. Safe, great reputation, and perfectly viable alternative. They converted a Ruger #1 for me and I love it.

 

[PedalBiker]

I've always wondered the same thing since .38 sp and 45-70 loads are made with BP equivalent pressures. I think it's the whole inability to measure pressure coupled with the fact that black power is not nearly so progressive as smokless powders, especially to the extent that small variations in charge size make big pressure excursions. If you double a smokeless charge even in a modern gun bad things happen. Dumping enough blackpowder to blow up your gun would require some serious negligence.

When I was younger I did loads of stuff I'd never try now - that was something I never tried and don't care to now. That Blackhorn 209 is looking pretty good, though.