Smokeless powder in a muzzle loader - how to destroy some nice rifles

[Snidely70431]

A month or so ago I found this video on the internet. In it some 'good ol' boys' destroy some nice rifles, ostensibly to demonstrate that smokeless powder should never be used in muzzleloaders not specifically designed for it, such as the discontinued Savage 10ML and a few custom conversions.

https://9tube.me/watch?v=en384qVqrug

What the video actually showed me is that it is actually quite difficult to convert a modern black powder muzzleloader into a pipe bomb. In the video, they try to destroy it with a double load - 160 grains of FFG Swiss - with no visible effect. A barrel full of FFG Swiss splits the stock and knocks the butt plate loose. They then try the volumetric equivalent of 80 grains of H110. This causes a bulge in the barrel.

To give you an idea of how much of an overload this is, the MAXIMUM load Hodgedon recommends for the 454 Casull is 38.2 grains behind a 240 grain bullet, and lists the pressure as 51,300 COP. If 80 grains would fit in a 454 Casull I hate to think what sort of pressures would develop.

They then manage to destroy the rifle with the volumetric equivalent of 80 grains of Hodgedon Titegroup. The maximum Hodgedon recommends behind a 180 grain bullet in a 44 Remington Magnum is 7.4 grains, giving a pressure of 39,000 CUP.

 

[Mizar]

The pressure build up depends and on the resistance the bullet offers - that's why a black powder cartridge is more effective than the exact same load in a cap & ball for example. But saying that I do not advocate smokeless loads in any way - we have seen guns exploded and the owner injured from much smaller loads, like 1/3 of the usual volumetric black powder load was more than enough to blow the gun to pieces in some cases. We cannot know for certain what exact steel is used for the barrel (even cast blanks maybe), is the breech plug of adequate design to withstand smokeless pressure build up, stuff like that...

 

[Snidely70431]

The pressure build up depends and on the resistance the bullet offers - that's why a black powder cartridge is more effective than the exact same load in a cap & ball for example. But saying that I do not advocate smokeless loads in any way - we have seen guns exploded and the owner injured from much smaller loads, like 1/3 of the usual volumetric black powder load was more than enough to blow the gun to pieces in some cases. We cannot know for certain what exact steel is used for the barrel (even cast blanks maybe), is the breech plug of adequate design to withstand smokeless pressure build up, stuff like that...

It is not blackpowder and smokeless powder, as if there is only one version of smokeless powder. I have a list of 178 different smokeless powders , ranked by their burn rates.

Well, I WAS going to provide a link, but cannot find the particular list I printed out. Here is a link to one burn rate chart:
http://forums.thecmp.org/showthread.php?t=118527

Another way of determining the difference between smokeless powders is to look at loading data for different cartridges using different powders. Here is a link to Hodgedon's load data site.
http://www.hodgdonreloading.com/data/rifle

 

[Mizar]

Would you please read my last sentence again? By the way, we had the same discussion here quite recently...

 

[Snidely70431]

You do know that some of the modern muzzleloaders are rated at 150grain equivalent of black powder? A 45/70 Government was factory loaded with 70 grains of BP. The mos powerful BP round with which I am familiar was the 45/120 Sharps. These muzzleloaders are quite stout.

 

[WestKentucky]

Quite stout indeed, however with fixed ammunition you have a better controlled situation. You have your massive force contained in a soft pressure vessel that seals up all the nooks and crannies, you have a properly weighed charge, you have a fixed case volume allowing for controlled burn of propellant, and you have a more reliable ignition method, not to mention the beauty of it being weather resistant and easily reloaded, unloaded etc. With a muzzleloader the best you can do afield is a volumetric measure of powder which may be "close enough" but its not PROPERLY as in accurately and consistently measured. Forget about that pressure vessel sealing things up because it doesnt exist when you stuff from the business end. So you have an estimated charge that you are just ramming a bullet down on until you compress your charge. Forget all the other advantages of fixed ammo too. You at this point have a rifle of unknown strength with an estimated, compressed charge with a hot propellant which may be spikey when compressed. Your only saving grace is that the bullet you crammed down the bore is now properly sized to the bore, so it slides out more easily than it slid in. When you touch that trigger your just praying that you don't re-enacr a scene from Tom&Jerry.

 

[Mizar]

Snidely, no one is saying that the minute your muzzle loader smells smokeless it will self-destroy. It's just that the possibilities for something to go wrong are quite higher. Bellow I'm giving you some points to consider:
1. 150 grains of black powder in a muzzle-loader is quite different than 150 grains charge in a cartridge. The pressure is lower, but do you know for certain if this is the case with smokeless powders also in the same condition?
2. Smokeless powder of today, despite different variations in the burn rate and pressure build up, has a progressive burn rate - it burns faster as the pressure rises. This is not the case with black powder - it has a more or less linear burn rate, despite the pressure. You have quite different pressure curves.
3. Do you know what steel is used in that "front stuffer" and does it have an adequate heat treat for the intended purpose?
4. Do you have load data for smokeless, that is approved by the manufacturer?
5. Do you know what pressure you are getting with the powder of your choice to duplicate a black powder load - higher, lower?
6. Do you have a reliable ignition system for smokeless?
7. There are inline rifles, specifically rated by the manufacturer for safe use with smokeless - why is that?

There are far too many variables to consider smokeless loads as safe - we don't have the needed data to safely proceed. As I already mentioned - there are cases of blown apart rifles from much reduced smokeless loads.

 

[Mr. Standfast]

A list of smokeless powders ranked by burning rate can be dangerously deceptive. With black powder the burning rate is close to proportional to pressure. The powder which takes a second to burn away in a saucer will burn 200 times as fast when the pressure rises to 200 atmospheres. But with smokeless it is a lot more than proportional to pressure, with the result that anything you would expect to raise pressure a little, tends to raise it a lot. Someone with a list may conclude very correctly that powder A burns almost identically to powder B - at the pressure the compiler of the list tested them. But at a different pressure they may behave very differently.

It is indeed quite hard to blow up a good black powder firearm with black powder. An exception I would never want to fire is my factory .38 rimfire conversion of the Colt 1862. The rear of the cylinder is still the diameter Col. Colt meant for the 1849 .32, and has been bored through where it was originally nipple-thread diameter, leaving the metal paper-thin over the bolt notches. In its day it was a cheap and almost certainly non-injurious part replacement, but it wasn't an antique then.

Long ago there was a rifle in Mexico designed for muzzle-loading with smokeless, I think both that and the modern equivalent would have a shoulder to make the powder space constant. Still, what was a little human life in Mexico in those days? My guess is that the Savage got discontinued because there is so much difference between one smokeless powder than another. Besides, there was nothing to stop some intellectual from loading powder beyond that shoulder.

 

[Snidely70431]

Quite stout indeed, however with fixed ammunition you have a better controlled situation. You have your massive force contained in a soft pressure vessel that seals up all the nooks and crannies, you have a properly weighed charge, you have a fixed case volume allowing for controlled burn of propellant, and you have a more reliable ignition method, not to mention the beauty of it being weather resistant and easily reloaded, unloaded etc. With a muzzleloader the best you can do afield is a volumetric measure of powder which may be "close enough" but its not PROPERLY as in accurately and consistently measured. Forget about that pressure vessel sealing things up because it doesnt exist when you stuff from the business end. So you have an estimated charge that you are just ramming a bullet down on until you compress your charge. Forget all the other advantages of fixed ammo too. You at this point have a rifle of unknown strength with an estimated, compressed charge with a hot propellant which may be spikey when compressed. Your only saving grace is that the bullet you crammed down the bore is now properly sized to the bore, so it slides out more easily than it slid in. When you touch that trigger your just praying that you don't re-enacr a scene from Tom&Jerry.

To your point about properly weighed charge, you pre-weigh at home and put the charge in a pill bottle.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/50-100x-Pl...hash=item33e61a4617:m:mssAdhX9KF_sBxA9qQ1A0RQ

If you have ever hand loaded cartridges that were designed for BP, you have given the lie to the can't use smokeless in a BP firearm. The .38 S&W Special was originally a BP cartridge loaded with 31 grains. The ..22 LR was originally loaded with 5 grains. 45/70, .30-30, .30-40 Krag, .38-40, and .44-40 are all self-evident.

 

[WestKentucky]

To your point about properly weighed charge, you pre-weigh at home and put the charge in a pill bottle.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/50-100x-Pl...hash=item33e61a4617:m:mssAdhX9KF_sBxA9qQ1A0RQ

If you have ever hand loaded cartridges that were designed for BP, you have given the lie to the can't use smokeless in a BP firearm. The .38 S&W Special was originally a BP cartridge loaded with 31 grains. The ..22 LR was originally loaded with 5 grains. 45/70, .30-30, .30-40 Krag, .38-40, and .44-40 are all self-evident.

On the properly weighed charge part, your right, assuming that there is no wind, no spillage, and that the powder isn’t fouled by moisture or crud before loading.

As to the cartridges originally loaded for BP....True, but again your talking about fixed ammunition that was developed and deemed safe by folks with pressure testing rigs. For all intents and purposes, each of those cartridges you listed are actually version 2 which are entirely new cartridges that happen to share the name and outside case dimensions as their predecessor which used Black. Case heads are different, internal dimensions are different, case volume is different. Velocity, pressure, etc. it’s certainly not apples to apples when talking old school vs new. If it were then all of the old revolvers in 32sw and such wouldn’t be relegated to only using intentionally weakened versions of the original cartridge.

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

Black, smokeless or whatever substitute powder, the guns that are blown up almost always (maybe always) have 2 bullets stuffed in them.
I saw guy at the gun shop last week with the remnants of the Thompson he double loaded. Unlike some, he admitted he made a really dumb mistake.
It cost him most of the hearing in one ear, a piece of metal in his arm and one that could have be fatal just grazed his head.
Wish I had photoed the remnants of the gun. About a twelve inches at the breach split off lengthwise.

 

[Snidely70431]

Black, smokeless or whatever substitute powder, the guns that are blown up almost always (maybe always) have 2 bullets stuffed in them.
I saw guy at the gun shop last week with the remnants of the Thompson he double loaded. Unlike some, he admitted he made a really dumb mistake.
It cost him most of the hearing in one ear, a piece of metal in his arm and one that could have be fatal just grazed his head.
Wish I had photoed the remnants of the gun. About a twelve inches at the breach split off lengthwise.

Just out of curiosity, what does 'double load' mean in this instance? powder, then bullet, then powder, then bullet? Powder, then powder, then bullet, then bullet? What load of powder? What weight bullet? Two round balls in .50 caliber weigh about 350- 360 grains. T/C maxi-balls are either 250 or 375 grains each.

Did you watch the video? The guys fill the entire barrel with FFG Swiss powder, then put 2 round balls in front of it, if I remember correctly.

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

powder, then bullet, then powder, then bullet

That's what he did.

 

[Snidely70431]

That's what he did.

I wonder if the 2d charge ignited.

 

[Buddy]

If you have ever hand loaded cartridges that were designed for BP, you have given the lie to the can't use smokeless in a BP firearm. The .38 S&W Special was originally a BP cartridge loaded with 31 grains. The ..22 LR was originally loaded with 5 grains. 45/70, .30-30, .30-40 Krag, .38-40, and .44-40 are all self-evident.

The .30-.30 and the .30-.40 Krag were never designed for blackpowder. Both were designed in the 1890's to use the smokeless powder of the day. Even though they were designed from the outset to use smokeless nitrocellulose powder the BP cartridge naming system was still used. Marlin changed the .30 Winchester to .30/.30 to keep from having the Winchester name associated with one of their guns and the .30/.40 Krag was also called the .30 US or .30 ARMY because it was the first smokeless powder adopted by the US Army to replace the .45/.70.

 

[Mr. Standfast]

I wonder if the 2d charge ignited.

It might be better if it did.

In 1910 Franklin Mann wanted to test the effect of an airspace over the powder. So as altering the charge would be introducing another variable, it seemed natural to top off a given charge with an inert substance. He chose sand, presumably in a barrel reaching the end of its accurate life. Surprisingly, the effect was to tear off the neck of the nearly straight case (.32-40 if I remember correctly), and send it down the barrel with the bullet.

My guess is that sand locks together, and into the brass, on momentary impact - rather like dry sandbags will stop a bullet in a shorter distance than damp ones. Good black powder, unignited, is a hard, gritty substance. I had a similar experience with the 860R Portuguese Guedes, when the black powder available in the UK was of extremely poor quality. Black over 5gr. of fast shotgun power was a distinct improvement. 30gr. of Reloder 7 gave very reassuring pressure indications when topped off with a light kapok filler. So next I tried 27gr, with the rest of the case filled with that mediocre black. The result was a torn-off neck.

It is surprising how many firearms it is quite difficult to blow up with an excessive load alone. Much more often it is a bore obstruction, or the firearm previously impaired in some way. A shotgun, for example, is in more danger from the weak spot where a dent has been lapped or bored thinner, than a barrel thin everywhere. I think a double bullet might be more dangerous than a double powder charge..

But I will never forget the experience of a much earlier friend of a much older friend in my childhood. Barracks life in India in the hot season was extremely wearing, so he resolved to shoot himself. As a soldier he knew that a man will occasionally survive a bullet through the brain, in a much impaired condition, although he didn't know (as General Hatcher did) that muzzle-blast range is different. So he filled the barrel with water.

With the rifle against his head, however, he became reconciled with this world, and changed his mind. But in his nervous state he tripped the trigger, and blew off most of his ear. He woke up in hospital to find the god-like figure of the regimental sergeant-major waiting by his beside, and asked if he would be dismissed the service, or prosecuted for what was then a criminal offence. The sergeant-major told him he had had a foolish accident which was its own punishment, and he would stay in the regiment, under stoppages for £5.10 to pay for the rifle he had destroyed.

His great grievance was that although the rifle was probably impaired, he thought that excessive when no damage was conspicuous. Several hundred extra grains of extra "bullet" hadn't produced a burst, or failure of the Lee-Enfield receiver. I think the key is that that overload was never absent. The buildup of the elastic gases, when a bullet is decelerated some way along its path, is more likely to be destructive.

 

[Mizar]

It is true that (some) guns don't blow that easy. The real problem, like I see it, is lack of data for safe smokeless load for a given muzzle loading gun. After all, when nitrocellulose smokeless powder was introduced to the public it was first used in black powder guns, mainly shotguns. But there was load data, tests performed. There are powders that reach higher pressure than black for a load with the same exact muzzle velocity. And that's a problem - burn rate cannot give us that information. We don't know exactly how it will perform - it might be safe, it might be not. And then we face another problem - ignition. Percussion caps are very poor choice for igniting smokeless - one needs shotgun, or central fire primers to not get hangfires. On top of that, black powder guns are usually made of lower grade steel that, although perfectly fine for black powder, might lack the strength needed for smokeless loads. To put it simple - too many variables to consider this idea safe.

 

[maint1517]

All I know is that it made me sick watching those rifles blown apart like that.
What a waste.

 

[Jim Watson]

Some years ago there was a debate as to whether the leaded free machining steel being used in some reproductions was strong enough even for standard loads of black.

.38 Special BP load was 21 grains, not 31. Don't get your loads off gunboards, it can be hazardous to stuff.

2. Smokeless powder of today, despite different variations in the burn rate and pressure build up, has a progressive burn rate - it burns faster as the pressure rises.

It does, but that is not what "progressive" means. Progressive burning smokeless powder is LESS proportional to pressure, and carries its burn farther down the barrel - which still isn't very far - than black or early smokeless like Ballistite or Pyro.

 

[Mizar]

My bad, Jim.

 

[Mr. Standfast]

I believe the most important problem with the use of smokeless in muzzle-loaders is controlling the initial burning space as closely as a cartridge case can. Shaped pellets, unless you can crush them.

Burning rates can be modified to some extent by composition and by coatings. Solid grains of various shapes are strongly degressive as the surface reduces in area, the faster the further from the spherical they are. Inhibiting coatings tend to produce a step in the burning rate: they don't usually produce a steadily increasing burning rate through the grain - more like candy-coated M&Ms, it's slow until it's gone, then normal.

But pierced grains, anything from simple macaroni to about seven holes, increase their burning rate on their inside as they reduce it on their outside. The first can never really compensate for the second though, especially as the pressure falls.

 

[Snidely70431]

The .30-.30 and the .30-.40 Krag were never designed for blackpowder. Both were designed in the 1890's to use the smokeless powder of the day. Even though they were designed from the outset to use smokeless nitrocellulose powder the BP cartridge naming system was still used. Marlin changed the .30 Winchester to .30/.30 to keep from having the Winchester name associated with one of their guns and the .30/.40 Krag was also called the .30 US or .30 ARMY because it was the first smokeless powder adopted by the US Army to replace the .45/.70.

I stand corrected on the 30-30 and 30-40 Krag. For some reason I mistakenly thought that Winchester had renamed the 30-30 as .30 WCF when they went to smokeless. At my age, if that is the worst brain fart I suffer I'll call it a win.

 

[Snidely70431]

Here is another of these 'scared straight' never use smokeless in a muzzleloader videos:



It is from CVA, and they use 120 grains of HS-6, a pistol powder. I looked up some load data on HS-6, and 120 grains is a HUGE overload.

The load for a .357 Magnum with a 146 grain bullet runs between 8.5 and 9.5 grains, and gives velocities of 1,330 and 1,461 fps, respectively, and pressures of 32,900 and 41,800 CUP, respectively

The load for a .45 ACP with a 230 grain bullet is listed as 7 to 8 grains of HS-6, producing velocities of 751 and 856 fps, respectively, and pressures of 12,900 and 16,600 CUP, respectively.

As you can see, just a small, one grain increase in powder charge creates a large increase in pressure. I doubt there is a rifle action or barrel made that would not be destroyed by a powder charge of 120 grains of HS-6.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Smokeless powder generates higher pressure than black powder.
Most muzzleloading rifles are vented at the rear near the shooter's face.
I have CVA muzzleloaders, and a Remington 700 ML.
The gas vented from BP, Pyrodex, and Triple7 is enough excitement for me.
The rod and gun club bulletin board carries warning photos of ML rifles destroyed by use of smokeless.

ADDED: If you think you can get away with loading a pistol level of smokeless in a muzzleloader rifle without blowing up the gun, the gas vented from the rear is at smokeless powder pressures, not at BP levels. Don't risk it.

 

[Snidely70431]

This is a link to an excellent article about the relationship between the recoil, pressures, and velocities produced by BP, and various BP substitutes, the projectiles in front of them, and the lack of information from muzzleloader manufacturers and BP substitute manufacturers.

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

The author, Randy Wakeman, does an excellent job of research and writing.

Small excerpt from the article:


Many muzzleloading manufacturers are far worse, giving you nothing to indicate what projectile weights are considered maximum, or even if there IS a maximum projectile weight. It is really past time for the muzzleloading world to grow up a tiny bit.


Most people will readily agree that propellant (gunpowder) produces expanding gas. If that identical type and amount of hot gas is used to push a 200 grain bullet or, alternatively, a 3500 grain cannon ball out of your barrel, it will make a huge difference in pressure. And that difference in projectile weight has everything to do with accuracy, safety, and a "maximum load."

Unfortunately, that is not made readily apparent in the new dark ages of "modern muzzleloading." If you are dumb, you'd better be tough, for muzzleloading manufacturers are not doing their job in describing their recommended loads properly.

In any good reloading manual you are given specific powder charges and bullet weights, with the resulting muzzle velocity and often pressure. Maximum "NEVER EXCEED" powder charges are clearly shown for each bullet weight so that you can be sure to stay below these levels, and be safe. Reloading manuals exist to keep you safe.

If you are a muzzleloader you are a reloader, no two ways about it. Only you control what enters your muzzle before you pull the trigger, and you need reliable information to help you do so properly. So that I can properly offend all the image-conscious muzzleloading manufacturers and all the tender-hearted so-called black powder substitute manufacturers equally, I'm here to tell you that they all royally stink at this. They obviously think you are too dumb to care, and far too dim-witted to comprehend the vital basics of what all competent reloaders have readily understood for decades and decades.