Magnum Muzzleloading Rifles?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Timthinker

Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2006
Messages
815
Unlike some BP enthusiats, I am a fan of in-line rifles for the accuracy I have achieved while using them for target practice. Yet, I am somewhat annoyed by the marketing practices of classifying some in-lines as magnums. Granted, these "magnum" rifles are capable of holding a greater powder charge more safely than other BP longarms, but the title magnum seems misleading to me. I would like to read some other opinions on this topic. Thanks.


Timthinker
 
Opinion: the concept of a 'magnum' load in terms of black powder is at best simply a marketing term, like 'new and improved' and at worst a fantasy.

Black powder burns more slowly than smokeless. We all know that. Slowly enough that the top of the column of powder is actually moving down the barrel before it begins to burn. It's very possible to actually expel powder without burning it; you get no benefit from having poured it down the barrel. We also know that there is a point of diminishing returns where adding 10% more powder gets only 5% more pressure/velocity/energy (whatever measure you'd like to use). This is because the combustion is taking place further down the barrel and the 'chamber' is larger, even changing as the combustion occurs. We also know that this change in efficiency is erratic from shot to shot because of the dynamic environment. If we carefully compact our loads every time we build in a certain consistency that we can count on, but overloading subjects the top of the load to a more and more dynamic environment that we have no control over, thus destroying the very thing we're trying to achieve.

It's a pretty well known fact that black powder guns have 'optimum' loads; each gun has a combination of powder, compression, projectile, lubrication, etc. that it 'likes' best. Accuracy is optimized with that load, and we spend lots of powder, ball and time trying to find it with each gun. The 'magnum' load is antithetical to that optimum load - pack as much in and get as big a boom as you can without regard to accuracy.

Also, I seriously doubt whether the 'magnum' rated guns are really any different than any other gun of the same caliber and barrel dimensions. I think the term is a marketing gimmick - nothing wrong with that, but people who look for that should understand they aren't really getting any more capability like they perhaps are with centerfire weapons.

Like I said, my opinion.
 
I view magnum as just a term... I have saw many a "magnum" front stuffer that was burning powder 30+yards downrange... Most barrels just dont have enough length to fully utilize 150gr of BP...
 
I'm just proposing a theory here. If a charge of blackpowder burns progressively as the round travels down the barrel would it be impossible to overcharge a gun? It would seem that for a given barrel length only so much powder can be burned behind the ball before the ball reaches the muzzle anything beyond that would be wasted.
 
i think your right Pancho. i think i remember hearing before that with those loads of 150 grains the barrel would have to be about a 7 feet in lenght to get the full benefit of the powder.
 
Mykeal, I agree that the term magnum is more of a market creation aimed at hunters. This is not to say that those "magnum" muzzleloaders will not hold a larger powder charge more safely than other comparable rifles, but I doubt one would seem a significant difference between the two. I could be wrong, but I would like to see some hard data comparing the two.


Timthinker
 
Thompson / Center's opinion

The following is an excerpt from the owner's manual that came with my T/C Scout. It was printed in 1991 and this paragraph is found on page 20.

For years it has been assumed that it is impossible to overload a firearm using Black Powder. The theory was that only a certain portion of a heavy Black Powder charge will burn and that the remaining is blown out of the bore in unburned condition. This thinking led to the belief the pressures created by a Black Powder charge would reach a certain (undetermined) range and climb no higher. Our testing indicates that this theory is completely unfounded. As heavier and heavier charges were loaded our pressure readings climbed accordingly. At no time was there any indication of a leveling off of pressure. Unreasonably heavy charges of Black Powder or Pyrodex can be dangerous. Restrict yourself to the loads listed in this booklet and start with the lightest load shown for your particular model and caliber. Bear in mind that the following conditions can be cumulative. If you load the heaviest charge listed without following instructions (working slowly upward) then other conditions such as powder fouling, hard projectiles and improper loading, can carry you well beyond the maximum safe pressure rang of muzzleloading firearms. All propellent powders (depending on their design and composition) will function most efficiently within a given pressure range. Our testing indicates that the Black Powder used for our testing operated most efficiently in or near the 7,000 P.S.I. range. In other words, those charges which are approximately midway in our loading charts recorded the highest velocity in relation to the lowest pressure. Heavier loading showed marked increases in pressure for only minor gains in velocity and were less accurate.

Misspelling left in quote intentionally.:D
 
Most interesting. Can you please let us have a look at the loading tables.
 
Loading tables

I can, but my typing is very slow ~ about 12 words per minute, so let me try to photo them with my wife's camera and post.
 
The savage muzzleloader is outstanding with smokeless rifle powder. Some guys are pushing them to 2600 FPS. I shoot mine at 2250 FPS /with 250 g. for sub-minute accuracy.
 
Read with Caution Links Below

Will My CVA Muzzleloader Blow Up?

This is a question asked over and over again by our readers; a question that many advertising-driven publications would not dare to talk about, much less investigate. It certainly is valid, and obviously important to muzzleloading hunters that value their own well-being, as well as the health of their family members, neighbors, and friends. No one expects their wives to drive them to the emergency room a couple of hours after they buy a new CVA-- but, that is exactly what has happened.

After numerous CVA muzzleloader failures, and numerous life-changing personal injuries, a representative sampling of current and recently failed CVA product has been catalogued, and sent to several independent facilities for evaluation at great expense and time. Their findings should trouble you, if not shock you.

In a report from the renowned H. P. White Laboratory, Inc., dated January 24, 2007, H. P. White found when examining a failed recent production CVA rifle, "The combination of relatively soft steel and tapered threads would have created a dangerous situation. One in which the blow-out of the breech plug was likely." This report is straight from Lester W. Roane, H. P. White Laboratory.

Consumers need to know how muzzleloaders compare in materials used. The metal used in CVA guns is soft and weak, too soft and weak to be used in modern inline muzzleloaders as far as I'm concerned. In the very same report from H. P. White, the hardness of CVA rifles was measured. H. P. White reports, "Further, the breechplug [Rb 99] is harder than the barrel [Rb 85] on the Black exemplar. Both of these hardness readings are low for this application. In standard engineering handbooks, the Rockwell "B" scale readings are headed "Soft Steel and Non-Ferrous Alloys" or something similar."

H. P. White continues, "A U. S. made Thompson Center Arms Renegade rifle gave a hardness reading on the barrel of Rc 18. This is more appropriate for the application."

Dr. William J. Bruchey, of Port Deposit, MD, analyzed three CVA rifles memorialized in a report dated March 24, 2007. Dr. Bruchey concluded his lengthy report by stating, "Other anomalies, such as tapering of the breech hole, or manufacturing or engineering design defects are a more likely cause and should be pursued further."

Steven M. Tipton, Frank W. Murphy Distinguished Professor of Mechanical Engineering, University of Tulsa, found even more problems with CVA in his memo of May 15, 2007. Mr. Tipton found the CVA problems to be more obvious. Mr. Tipton found that "The internal threads were tapered prior to failure" and that "the incident barrel was not overpressurized during firing." Mr. Tipton also found when discussing the barrel's internal threads that "the tap was not fully impressed into the stock material" and that "The thread rolling profile is not correct. The crown of the threads were not closed, resulting in the curved tops and open hole in the top of each thread." Mr. Tipton found "There is another problem with the thread profile." He further finds, when discussing the voids on the tops of the threads, that "This void significantly reduces the strip-out strength of these threads."

This information has been arrived at independently; it can and should be shared with the muzzleloading hunting community. This is only a small portion of the body of analysis collected; there are more victims on a regular basis, and the costly process of independent analysis continues with each additional incident. If this article saves needless pain and suffering, needless 911 calls, needless loss of body parts-- well, it has to be said. It must be said.

The number of cases I've evaluated grows regularly. Naturally, the more representative data we have the more pointed my opinions become based the most credible evidence we can gather. We have seen that CVA barrels are far softer than reputable brands of muzzleloaders, including Knight and Thompson-muzzleloaders that handle many of the very same loads that CVA owners are told to use in their owner's manual, including the "3 pellet magnum load." We are seeing not only relatively soft materials, but non-existent quality control. It is not plausible that shooter error is a factor in several incidents; it is not plausible that these guns were ever proof-tested or ever fired with so much as recommended loads (much less proof loads) before the consumer is directed to develop 25,000 PSI (or more, actually up to 49,000 PSI with crushed Triple Se7en pellets) a few inches from his face. Then, needless and sadly, it is too late.

As you have read above from H. P. White Laboratories, CVA inline guns tested are made from softer, weaker, inferior metal than even an old Thompson Center sidelock such as the Renegade. So soft in fact, CVA materials had to be measured on the wrong scale, the Rockwell "B" scale that is used for soft metals, not suitable firearms materials. Note that the Thompson Renegade is not a "magnum muzzleloader," is not recommended to be used with 150 grain charges, yet the old T/C Renegade is a clearly better built muzzleloader than current CVA inlines tested using stronger materials as verified by H. P. White testing. The difference should send chills up your spine, when H. P. White finds CVA materials hardness as "low for the application" and a T/C sidelock's materials as "more appropriate for the application."

H. P. White is the most respected independent ballistics laboratory in the United States, and has been for decades. "H.P. White Laboratory, Inc. was founded in 1936 by Mr. Henry Packard White as a ballistic research and development facility. Since that time, we have become acknowledged as the leading privately owned laboratory engaged in small arms and ammunition research, development and testing."

It is vital to consider the sources of information. Note, as published by H. P. White: "H.P. White Laboratory, Inc. produces no manufactured item and is in no manner affiliated with any other research organization, manufacturer, agency or end product user. We are, therefore, the only truly independent ballistics laboratory in the United States. This unique independence has enabled the Laboratory to maintain an objectivity difficult to duplicate elsewhere."

It is my clear and steadfast opinion that yes, based on the very best evidence we have-- a new "used as directed" CVA muzzleloader may certainly severely injure or destroy some of your body parts that you don't care to have damaged or destroyed. Far, far too many incidents have already taken place to validate that; lamentably and regrettably so.

here is the link.
http://randywakeman.com/WillMyCVAMuzzleloaderBlowUp.htm
 
I donno if you'd call it "magnum" or not but a CVA kit 45 caliber Kentucky rifle's narrow brass butt plate kicks purty hard with a mini ball and 240 grains of FF powder. Magnum or not, young and dumb or not, we only did it once each. If a mag is more I wouldn't be interested.

I don't take recoil as well as some but have shot a 460 Weatherby standing without pain, but the 45 turned me black and blue and I was sore for days.

My understanding is only so much powder will burn before it is pushed out the end of the barrel, it was more than enough anyway.
 
Exactly

It is vital to consider the sources of information.

Exactly.

Scrat, notice how Fakeman uses phrases like
current and recently failed CVA product
and cites studies dated as recently as 2007.

Yet the only results he gives are for the
a failed recent production CVA rifle,
which happens to be on of the recalled guns listed on CVA's website . Old news.

His so called
respected independent ballistics laboratory
was reportedly paid big $ by the plaintiffs in a lawsuit involving those defective products.:scrutiny:

You should probably read the link you posted in #3 more carefully before you quote someone whose credibility is nonexistent.
 
Thompson Center's owner's manual load tables contradict those published by Sam Fadala, whose integrity is well known. I very disappointed that, although they claim rising pressures, they present no pressure data. Those are likely chronograph data which must be sampled and statistically managed to be meaningful. No statistics are presented. I don't find their data to be convincing.

I do not claim that the pressures from increasing loads reach a maximum and stop climbing. TC sets up a thesis they know is incorrect and then refutes it easily. I agree that pressures continue to rise with increasing loads, but the RATE of increase of pressure begins to diminish as compared with the RATE of increase in powder load. And I also agree that it is possible to charge a gun to a point that is dangerous. But to state that the unburned powder is not ejected from the barrel is simply nonsense. You can easily prove that yourself by putting a white sheet on the ground in front of your muzzle and shooting one of these 'magnum' loads - you will find both unburned powder and combustion products on the sheet. And the higher you go in load, the more unburned powder AND combustion products you will find.

I applaud TC for warning about overcharging your black powder gun. I just wish they'd been a little less loose with the logic.

And Randy Wakeman is famous for his obsession about CVA and his bending the truth. He has no credibility with me.
 
Mykeal, That post was not intended to discredit your statements, to the contrary, T/C's findings support your position in respect to diminishing returns although they term it as " efficiency " . I read their statement about unburnt powder being expelled not that none is expelled, but rather that the theory that after a given point all excess powder is expelled effectively making it impossible to overload a ml barrel is not true. Which is what Pancho's post had eluded to.
 
I'm trying to imagine the progression of flame front of a charge of black powder. Of course an inline will be different from a sidelock. This is way beyond me and is rather academic since I work up a load from a weak charge to the maximum accurate charge but according to the rather weak results of TC's testing there is something going on with an ignition of powder that straddles the line between progressive burning and exploding.
 
There may be ways to maximize more of the potential velocity from a given amount of powder enough for a rifle's ignition system to ultimately be considered to be "magnum".

The more powerful #209 primers, the brass cartridge case primer system, or even a device like the Knight Power Stem:

Mfg_900042.jpg

http://www.knightrifles.com/productDetail.aspx?id=900042

This breech plug is called the Knight Power Stem. It's designed to ignite the loaded powder at the top of the charge 1st before traveling down to the base of the charge rather than the other way around as most conventional breech plug designs do.
I couldn't relocate the initial article that I read that stated how much extra velocity is attained from the use of this breech plug, but it's also supposed to help promote better accuracy and burn the powder more cleanly.
Also, it's designed to be used with loose powder only and requires at least 70 grains of powder loaded into the barrel to have the primer flame reach the top of the powder charge and ignite it properly.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=230200&highlight=stem

And let's not forget CVA's new Electronic ARC ignition which is supposed to burn hotter too, which translates into more complete powder consumption. Just because some rifles aren't true "BP magnums" doesn't mean that there aren't any true BP magnums. :)
 
QUOTE:"before the consumer is directed to develop 25,000 PSI (or more, actually up to 49,000 PSI with crushed Triple Se7en pellets"

It would be good to know what load details caused those pressures!
 
My take.

Hey there;
After many years of study on the subject at hand here , This is what I have to say about that. #1 Powder in the barrel has weight. Any weight adds to the recoil....... !!!!! When recoil levels get as high as the "magnums " put out there is a very big change in consistant accuracy. In other words Accuracy becomes a rare thing in any gun at magnum levels. We all define accuracy differently. I shoot mare then just BP guns. Accuracy in my Book. Is one hole !!!! BP can blow up barrels . Usually it just swells them to the point where the shooter is not aware of it. Accuracy suffers.
Recoil is heavy with all magnums including BP. What some guys calls accurate enough for hunting would cause me to eliminate that load or rifle...
With accuracy you have the power. Precisely placed shots are more deadly then heavy hits in places they do not belong.
I am glad to see that some one like tha accuarcy game also.
The "MAGNUM" BP gun has allowed many hunters to think they can make longer shots on deer and such. Most can not hit paper right with the heavy loads. But will hunt that way . Most on here have not leaned in the direction of the magnum loads, at least that I have been seeing.
 
whosyrdaddy -

Apologies for my tone, it was a bit strident. I really don't like TC's manuals - they are full of mistakes and have given license to some pretty poor practices over the years. In my opinion, which is worth exactly what you paid for it. I get a little worked up when they are quoted as authority. I need to be a little less obsessive. Thompson Center makes very good rifles. I own two and am very pleased with the function and quality. They obviously have an excellent engineering and manufacturing operation. Their publications do not enjoy the same reputation with me.

I will also suggest, with respect, that the marketing information provided with these 'new' ideas be taken with a grain, no, 150 grains, of salt. The attempts by a marketing department to explain their 'technology breakthrough' is to be viewed with the same skepticism as the nightly network news broadcast. In my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top