Are any of these statements wrong?

[Arizona_Mike]

Axioms:
1. Smokeless powder burns more slowly than black powder.
2. There exists a smokeless powder load that produces a "safe/standard" pressure for every muzzle loading firearm.
3. For all but the shortest barrels, the velocity with slower burning powder will be higher because the average pressure will be higher for a given peak pressure.

Theorem:
1. A smokeless powder load that gives the same velocity as a standard load is going to have equal or lesser peak pressure than the black powder load (likely significantly lower peak pressure)

Are any of these wrong and if so why?

Mike

 

[Longhorn 76]

Smokeless is progressive in its burn rate.

You are going to get hurt.

 

[jimnbubba]

Like the difference between Ethyl and regular gasoline

 

[raa-7]

Don't ever use smokeless in your muzzle loader Not eVeN a LittlE BiT ! I know that some people get to thinking that, "Well just a little won't hurt" Don't do it !

 

[Prairie Dawg]

I don't want to be standing next to you when you shoot your ML with smokeless powder.
--Dawg

 

[raa-7]

I'm just saying that because I've seen those horror photo's of what has happened that's all

 

[MErl]

Axioms:
1. Smokeless powder burns more slowly than black powder.
2. There exists a smokeless powder load that produces a "safe/standard" pressure for every muzzle loading firearm.
3. For all but the shortest barrels, the velocity with slower burning powder will be higher because the average pressure will be higher for a given peak pressure.

Theorem:
1. A smokeless powder load that gives the same velocity as a standard load is going to have equal or lesser peak pressure than the black powder load (likely significantly lower peak pressure)

#1 There is a wide variation in the types and burn rates of smokeless. I'm sure some are faster and some slower however they are tested.
#2 I'd agree there probably is a smokeless load that is safe for every safe BF firearm. Finding it might be a challenge and measuring each charge would probably require more precision.
#3 Don't know enough of the details for this. need longer time at high pressure for more velocity but if you also have to accelerate the unburned powder between gas & bullet there is probably a loss.


the theorem is way off.
Just take limit case where all all the force/pressure is an impulse at t=0, the rest of the time down the barrel the bullet would be slowing and pulling a vacuum. Could still have the same velocity as a constant push at the end of the barrel with much higher pressure.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

All I'm gonna say is if you try this, please post pics of the aftermath, if you're able.

 

[[email protected]]

Every new generation has to re-learn what has been known for a hundred
years. Sounds like a accident waiting to happen.

 

[Pancho]

I'd test your theorem with a throw-away gun wedging the gun in a tire and using a looooong string to pull the trigger. The trick would be guessing at a very small starting load.

 

[Malachi Leviticus Blue]

Every new generation has to re-learn what has been known for a hundred
years. Sounds like a accident waiting to happen.

The young know everything, and can't believe how ignorant the old folks are, then they learn and learn gaining knowledge year after year until they are old and .... wait, who was it that was ignorant?

 

[jgh4445]

You might as well say, "Hold my beer and watch this!"

 

[Jim K]

Smokeless powder is perfectly OK in muzzle loaders IF the right smokeless is used and the right charge. Smokeless powder burns and creates gas, same as black powder. But smokeless powder will, in general, create more gas and generate a much higher pressure volume for volume than black powder.

In the early days of smokeless powder, there were several smokeless powders that were called "bulk" powders because they could be loaded to the same bulk (not weight) as black powder. The first muzzle loading rifle I ever fired, I fired with bulk "white powder" simply because that was what was with it and I didn't know any better. It worked fine and I am still in the land of the living.

Today, there are "in line" ML rifles that work, and are designed to work, with smokeless powder.

One reason not to use regular smokeless powder in a ML is that regular caps won't set it off, so pressure and all that aside, a charge of 3031 in your pet Kentucky repro probably won't ignite. (Don't count on it though.)

The way folks tend to really get into trouble is reading that, say, an 1860 Army repro can be loaded so there is just enough room for the ball. Then they try it with a charge of Bullseye (it looks black, doesn't it?) and (if the cap is hot enough) the results are, well, interesting.

So smokeless powder should never be used in a muzzle loader? As a general rule, good and should be followed. But as a totally accurate statement, maybe not so much.

Jim

 

[Arkansas Paul]

Today, there are "in line" ML rifles that work, and are designed to work, with smokeless powder.

Here's one of those right here in this link. Click on the one that shows the guys hand after he shot it if you dare. I'll warn you, if you've got a weak stomach don't do it.
And keep in mind, this one was designed for smokeless. Now I know that pretty much any gun has failed at some point, but I'm not willing to shoot smokeless in a ML. If you want to, go ahead but click on this link to see what can happen.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2010/02/18/savage-muzzleloader-kaboom/

 

[Rattus58]

Axioms:
1. Smokeless powder burns more slowly than black powder.
2. There exists a smokeless powder load that produces a "safe/standard" pressure for every muzzle loading firearm.
3. For all but the shortest barrels, the velocity with slower burning powder will be higher because the average pressure will be higher for a given peak pressure.

Theorem:
1. A smokeless powder load that gives the same velocity as a standard load is going to have equal or lesser peak pressure than the black powder load (likely significantly lower peak pressure)

Are any of these wrong and if so why?

Mike

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIsvVFeEZsg

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...&mid=06C46A78BD18A38AE77106C46A78BD18A38AE771

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gg70MlYykDY

Black powder goes bang.... smokeless burns... that is why it is called clean burning. The longer burn creates much more pressures.....

 

[Pancho]

I won't pretend to know the metallurgical difference between a modern made bp rifle and a smokeless rifle but just judging from the comparative thickness of you typical modern inline or sidelock barrel it would seem that a modern bp rifle should be able to handle the pressures of smokeless powder. Their is too much evidence that they won't. If I were building for resale a modern sidelock or inline I'd use the same metal and methods used for smokeless to avoid litigation. Hickock 45 has a youtube segment where he compares the two powder times. The smokless burns in rather predictable manner, more like a cannon fuse.
The Bp goes up all ot one time.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

The 1873 "trapdoor" Springfiled predated smokeless powder by a couple decades.
70gr of black powder in a .45-70 behind a 405 grain bullet produces about 19.000 CUP presure.
As does 48gr of H4895 . . . but about 120 fps faster.
As does 31gr of IMR 4198 . . . with the same velocity.

It's internal ballistics, not voodoo.

Gun makers have to worry about messaging. Say you can use smokeless powder as Savage does and there is always going to be some idiot (likely a long time black powder shooter who has never handloaded cartriges) who thinks he can volume measure smokeless powder as if it were black. I have read that Savage proofs their barrels to some ungodly pressure (like 210,000 psi) for just such idiots.

Mike

 

[BowerR64]

Its confusing because of how slow smokeless burns. When its not contained like in these videos it seems so slow and harmless the black powder however seems more unsafe because of how quick it lets go when its not even contained.

Watching the one video "Ridiculously LONG (gun) Powder Burn" you do however see the different types of smokeless you can see some of it looks intensly hot like around 1:35 the color of the burn changes and looks like a hotter type of powder simmilar to the 4F when it went off.

There are still a few things that i dont understant about smokeless though.

Like say when black powder is contained it detonates right in the spot where it detonates. Smokeless seems to detonate away from were it first starts to burn. You normaly see the barrel has exploded with smokeless not in the chamber. Black explodes in the chamber where it starts.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

My Axioms:

1. Smokeless powder burns more slowly than black powder but generates higher peak pressures under confinement (like in a gun barrel behind a bullet or shot charge).

2. There exists a smokeless powder load that produces a "safe/standard" peak pressure for every muzzle loading firearm; that safe peak pressure smokeless load will usually generate far less velocity than a safe peak pressure black powder load for that firearm. (It's not worth seeking.)

3. For all but the shortest barrels, the velocity with slower burning powder will be higher because the average pressure will be higher for a given peak pressure.

4. It is not average pressure that will cause a barrel or receiver to fail: it is peak pressure that blows up guns. Which is why smokeless powder in a black powder gun is a bad idea.

5. Black powder guns are essentially all vented at the breech. Assuming loads that generate the same muzzle velocity with the same bullet weight, with blackpowder you are venting a lower pressure near your face whilst with smokeless powder you are venting a higher pressure near your face. Which is why smokeless powder in a black powder gun is a bad idea.

 

[DoubleDeuce 1]

I cannot figure out why some people feel the need to re-invent the wheel

What is it that is so hard to understand when it says "BLACK POWDER ONLY"...:banghead:

 

[Arizona_Mike]

I found this pressure barrel data for .45-70 loads for the 1873 Springfield on an other site.

It looks like there are both faster and slower burning smokess powders (not that anyone would choose a fast pistol powder for such an application), so I guess axiom #1 needs to be qualified to "suitable powders", just as you would not put FFFFg, FFFFFg, or non-graphite coated blasting bowder in a muzzle loader . . .



Mike

 

[Patocazador]

Whether your 3 statements are valid, I don't know but here's one more that is valid:

Most black powder firearms are not tested to the pressures produced by smokeless powders.
In fact, the same model of firearm manufactured by a producer may have quite a range of pressure variables for the individual guns that roll out on the assembly line.

Unless you have your firearm tested by a certified laboratory, you have no idea if it can withstand smokeless powder pressures.

 

[Mike OTDP]

OK...smokeless propellants have a burn rate that is strongly influenced by pressure. Much more so than black powder. This accounts for the differences.

 

[Jenrick]

Technically you could probably measure the appropriate amount of gasoline and use it to fire a muzzle loader too if you really wanted to.

My question is why do you want to use smokeless in a BP firearm? If you're talking about a modern inline ML, then just get a "normal" cartridge rifle and go nuts. If you're talking a "traditional" ML then isn't the appeal using BP in the first dang place? I don't get the point of using smokeless in either context. Sort of like buying an old typewriter and trying to figure out how to hook it up to your 24" monitor.

-Jenrick

 

[BowerR64]

for me it would be 2 reasons, no clean up after a full day of shooting.

#2. full day of shooting no clean up.

When i shoot mine i dont care what powder i use, what lube i use or what ive used to clean the gun with before i get about 12-18 shots threw the gun and the cylinder has locked up where it cant rotate because its so fouled up.

Ide love to just dump powder, ram the ball and fire 300 rounds over and over without any other equipment but that never happens for me.

I even have issues ramming the ball in because the cylinder is so fouled up that it makes the chambers tight where a ball has a hard time fitting in.

The smoke from shooting these is kinda cool but it only = 1 thing more mess.

The smoke and mess is what drives people away though wich is good because it keeps prices low