Smoking Alternative

[arcticap]

"...In closing I’d like to again emphasize that BH209 is so efficient in cartridge firearms that my 32-20 velocities and the velocities I get in my 45-90 Sharps are quite a bit above those obtained with either BP or T7.
Clean up in a vibratory cleaner with Dillion case polish has been problem free and it does not tarnish or corrode the cases!
This is an excellent powder and a real asset to the shooting community.
I recommend you ML shooters give it a try. You will not be disappointed.

Reece Talley"
https://blog.westernpowders.com/2018/06/blackhorn-209-finally-a-solution-to-black-powder-fouling/

 

[DocRock]

"...In closing I’d like to again emphasize that BH209 is so efficient in cartridge firearms that my 32-20 velocities and the velocities I get in my 45-90 Sharps are quite a bit above those obtained with either BP or T7.
Clean up in a vibratory cleaner with Dillion case polish has been problem free and it does not tarnish or corrode the cases!
This is an excellent powder and a real asset to the shooting community.
I recommend you ML shooters give it a try. You will not be disappointed.

Reece Talley"
https://blog.westernpowders.com/2018/06/blackhorn-209-finally-a-solution-to-black-powder-fouling/

You continue to offer advertising copy from the powder manufacturer as “evidence” that potassium perchlorate is non-corrosive. Again, you are making a fool of yourself while presenting false information.

Your advertising copy versus factual information about the highly corrosive nature of potassium chloride, the residue of potassium perchlorate combustion, a key ingredient in all the black powder substitutes.

https://blog.cheaperthandirt.com/corrosive-ammunition/

Answer this question:

Do you assert that black powder substitutes are non-hygroscopic and non-corrosive?

If so, cite credible sources to back it up, not ad copy. If not, cease and desist from your foolishness and lies.

 

[Muppetdaze]

It doesn't matter how efficient it is as long as it goes bang, makes smoke and is relatively easy to clean,
@Articap, that old army shooting the 777, what lube was being used? That looks pretty good

 

[Darto]

I must agree with post #18 (APP) and all the recommendations of Buckhorn 209 for less dirty shooting. These are two substitutes are less corrosive after shooting, than Pyrodex or 777 in my limited experience.
Real black smells best I would say.
APP seems the least corrosive. Buckhorn is close.
APP produces less velocity than any other.
Buckhorn pretty good all around substitute, less messy, strong velocities, has lots of load data around for it (as does Pyrodex and 777), APP not so much information.
Aliant Black MZ by itself seems to work in firelocks a little better than other substitutes
(But Hodgdon says it is OK to use tiny amounts (5 grains) of 4FG real black loaded first in flintlock rifles (or matchlock rifles), and then the rest of the charge being Pyrodex. This idea works in my flintlock as does Black MZ, the other substitutes don't work as well.
Real black is clearly the most reliable of all in my flint and match locks.

 

[Muppetdaze]

Yeah, shame i can't use black powder. Must be a substitute that doesn't need uk licensing

 

[arcticap]

It doesn't matter how efficient it is as long as it goes bang, makes smoke and is relatively easy to clean,
@Articap, that old army shooting the 777, what lube was being used? That looks pretty good

The video maker didn't mention any lube in the caption or comments.

 

[arcticap]

There is no non-corrosive black powder substitute. All of the substitutes are at least as hygroscopic as genuine black powder and all contain compounds that promote rust.

Having addressed that fact.....

I'm not disagreeing with you, but what is the basis for the claim that "All of the substitutes are at least as hygroscopic as genuine black powder....Having addressed that fact..."
Where did you get that fact from?
Is that a fact about the by-products produced after each is combusted, from before each is combusted, or both before and after each is combusted?

I find it hard to understand how each powder can have such different formulas yet all are as hygroscopic as black powder or worse than the genuine stuff.
I don't even know what the definition of the genuine stuff is because every company and person makes it differently, and with a different formula and moisture content to begin with.

I don't see how they can all be as hygroscopic as an unknown.
To be honest, I don't even know what all of the by-products of all of the powders are, or the amounts of each, and that's a fact.

The label below may display an older warning.



There's a warning printed on the label of Black Horn 209 powder that makes it very clear that corrosion can possibly result by not cleaning its residue.
The question is whether there has been a comparative or quantitative study showing which powders are more corrosive than another and based on which factors, such as the amount and type of residues, or the amount and duration of humidity.
The production of hygroscopic residue after combustion is only one way of evaluating a powder's potential to cause corrosion.

I found one example that may refute that every powder that contains a single ingredient is as bad or worse than black powder.
And that was a non-scientific experiment that the Bevel Bros. did that showed that black powder may have hygroscopic properties that can corrode a gun barrel before the powder is even fired. --->>> https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/threads/is-unfired-black-powder-corrosive.68416/#post-842847
I don't know if any similar experiment was ever done involving Black Horn 209 or any other substitute powders.
With black powder it appeared to happen in part because it contains so much charcoal.
But whether every sub. powder is as potentially corrosive as black powder before it has even been fired may not have been studied to gauge the amount of corrosion that can be done by each under the exact same circumstances.
One powder or residue may be more susceptible to corrosion at different levels of humidity than another.
IMO enough scientific analysis and proof is lacking to be able to make a blanket generalization simply based on whether a powder contains a single ingredient or not, at least not enough to satisfy my curiosity.

For instance, can simply placing a gun fired with BH 209 in a rifle case protect it from corrosion?
Testimony seems to indicate that there's really no way to predict whether it will end up corroding or not.
Whether that can be said about every other powder or not, quite frankly I don't know.
At what point does the potential to produce corrosion turn into actual corrosion?
Quantitative analysis about actual situations is lacking, so what we're left with is the testimony of the many users.

 

[DocRock]

For the last time, what is it that you pretend not to understand about potassium perchlortate? Hygroscopy is but one aspect of corrosion. All black powder and its substitutes are hygroscopic.

As shown in the chemical analyses presented above, (namely: "Analysis of ascorbic acid based black powder substitutes by high-performance liquid chromatography/electrospray ionization quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry" and "Forensic analysis and differentiation of black powder and black powder substitute chemical signatures by infrared thermal desorption –DART-MS") all of the black powder substitutes thus far discussed contain potassium perchlorate, the key corrosive ingredient in corrosive primers. Potassium chloride, the residual salt from combustion of potassium perchlorate is a highly hygroscopic and highly corrosive salt. Indeed, in the information provided above, it is viewed as more corrosive than potassium nitrite, the salt produced by the combustion of potassium nitrate in black powder, by virtue of the potassium chloride resulting in deep metal pitting as opposed to the surface rust promoted by potassium nitrite.

All black powder and all black powder substitutes thus far identified in this discussion are hygroscopic AND corrosive.

Potassium perchlorate, found in all the black powder substitutes thus far discussed, is the corrosive element in corrosive primers, yielding potassium chloride after combustion. This is a highly hygroscopic and corrosive substance. If left for any time, it is likely to produce deep pitting rather than the more common surface rust produced by potassium nitrite, the post combustion salt of potassium nitrate found in black powder. Black powder residue and the fouling from black powder substitutes are best removed by copious amounts of hot, soapy water. There may be other methods or solvents that work as well as hot soapy water but no evidence has been presented to support such a claim.

Black powder substitutes are not "less corrosive" than black powder. The salt residue from their combustion (potassium chloride), is potentially more damaging to metal than than that produced by black powder combustion, potassium nitrite. We need not rely on testimony. The scientific data establishes for a fact that potassium nitrite and potassium chloride are corrosive to metal and that accumulated data of over 100 years demonstrates that failure to remove potassium chloride after shooting will result in deep pitting. No conjecture is required. It is established scientific fact.

Black powder substitutes do not exist for the convenience of the user, or due to less corrosive properties, but for the convenience of the manufacturer and retailer. They are designed to circumvent regulation as an explosive, thus being easier and lower cost to transport, stock, and store.

 

[arcticap]

Your own source Bill Knight states:

"Potassium chloride is by itself not overly hygroscopic. If crystals of potassium chloride are scattered over the surface of a steel plate they will not began to attack the metal until the relative humidity reaches a certain point. Generally fairly high humidity is required to wet the surfaces of the crystals."

And

"In the case of brass, a film of potassium carbonate on the brass will cause discoloration of the surface of the brass—various shades of brown to black, depending on the humidity. But, the potassium carbonate will not actively pit the brass." --->>> https://www.camp22.org/black-powder-pages/barrel-fouling-black-powder-vs-substitutes

There's are differences between theory and reality.
In some cases the sub. powder may corrode more than black powder, and in other cases the sub. powder may corrode less than black powder if at all.

It depends on factors that may or may not be present, and on the amounts of the respective by-products.
I read a lot of eye witness testimony to catch up on this whole controversy.
There was a great majority of people who never experienced any rust with Black Horn 209, some after many shots and many months without regular cleaning.
That's proven, and it happened in different parts of the country.
Take the same number of shots using the same amount of black powder and under the exact same circumstances, and those guns very well may be rust buckets if they could be fired at all.
They would need to be swabbed much too often compared to BH 209 for a fair test.
That would truly show the relative potential for corrosion that could be caused by each of the powders.

I hope that you understand what I mean.
Take 100 or 1000 guns and fire the same number of each with one of the 2 respective powders and store them under the same circumstances and see how many of each are left standing.
I have real doubts that black powder would win out because too many people have testified that corrosion didn't happen to their guns shooting BH 209.
The posters were not in a secret conspiracy to hide the facts.
One actually stated that he was going to continue to not clean his gun because of the lack of any corrosion.

Many of these testimonies were posted around the time when the very first reports of corrosion with Black Horn 209 were beginning to come forward in 2008 and 2009, just about the same time when Western Powders started putting a sterner warning on the bottle.

That's why I asked whether placing a gun in a soft case might prevent corrosion.
I believe that it may based on the way that people treated their guns without cleaning and without causing corrosion.
Can you prove that a gun case doesn't offer protection from humidity?
Of course not.

For all we know there could be by-products in the BH 209 residue itself that inhibit moisture absorption, such as an oil base that protects the metal more than we know.
Someone with a nitride rifle posted that he hasn't cleaned his gun of BH 209 residue in over 4 years.
He doesn't doubt that any other gun would rust under similar circumstances.
But can the same be said if black powder were fired in the same gun for 4 years?
That would be impossible to begin with because of his number of range sessions, but there's other parts of the gun besides the bore that could be affected.

Some speculated that maybe higher pressure or combustion efficiency blows the contaminants right out of their bore for the most part.
Maybe in part that's why some BH 209 users only experience a very light brown or whitish film that wipes right off without causing damage.
Someone said that there's a film that seems to be lubricating during loading.

In this case I'm more interested in actual results than theories. and field results over lab tests.
Perhaps there are facts that aren't in evidence, and that your references don't include.
Now that people are aware that BH 209 can cause rust, they clean their guns to be safe.
But that doesn't change the experiences of so many in the past.
Just like with Reece Talley.

And I also posted an example of how unfired black powder may have caused corrosion.

 

[J-Bar]

The Single Action Shooting Society which governs most of the cowboy action matches, established a minimum smoke standard to ensure that competitors in black powder categories would have to deal with comparable amounts of smoke obscuring targets. 15 grains of Goex FFG is the standard. I made a video comparing the amount of smoke produced by several different powders. I concluded it is difficult to tell difference. See for yourself:

 

[DocRock]

The Single Action Shooting Society which governs most of the cowboy action matches, established a minimum smoke standard to ensure that competitors in black powder categories would have to deal with comparable amounts of smoke obscuring targets. 15 grains of Goex FFG is the standard. I made a video comparing the amount of smoke produced by several different powders. I concluded it is difficult to tell difference. See for yourself:

I have to compliment you on the speed of you duelist fire!

 

[J-Bar]

I have to compliment you on the speed of you duelist fire!

Thank you, but compared to my competitors, I’m pathetic!

 

[DocRock]

Your own source Bill Knight states:

"Potassium chloride is by itself not overly hygroscopic. If crystals of potassium chloride are scattered over the surface of a steel plate they will not began to attack the metal until the relative humidity reaches a certain point. Generally fairly high humidity is required to wet the surfaces of the crystals."

And

"In the case of brass, a film of potassium carbonate on the brass will cause discoloration of the surface of the brass—various shades of brown to black, depending on the humidity. But, the potassium carbonate will not actively pit the brass." --->>> https://www.camp22.org/black-powder-pages/barrel-fouling-black-powder-vs-substitutes

There's are differences between theory and reality.
In some cases the sub. powder may corrode more than black powder, and in other cases the sub. powder may corrode less than black powder if at all.

It depends on factors that may or may not be present, and on the amounts of the respective by -products.
I read a lot of eye witness testimony to catch up on this whole controversy.
There was a great majority of people who never experienced any rust with Black Horn 209, some after many shots and many months without regular cleaning.
That's proven, and it happened in different parts of the country.
Take the same of number of shots using the same amount of black powder and under the exact same circumstances, and those guns very well may be rust buckets if they could be fired at all.
They would need to be swabbed much too often compared to BH 209 for a fair test.
That would truly show the relative potential for corrosion that could be caused by each of the powders.

I hope that you understand what I mean.
Take 100 or 1000 guns and fire the same number of each with one of the 2 respective powders and store them under the same circumstances and see how many of each are left standing.
I have real doubts that black powder would win out because too many people have testified that corrosion didn't happen to their guns shooting BH 209.
The posters were not in a secret conspiracy to hide the facts.
One actually stated that he was going to continue to not clean his gun because of the lack of any corrosion.

Many of these testimonies were posted around the time when the very first reports of corrosion with Black Horn 209 were beginning to come forward in 2008 and 2009, just about the same time when Western Powders started putting a sterner warning on the bottle.

That's why I asked whether placing a gun in a soft case might prevent corrosion.
I believe that it may based on the way that people treated their guns without cleaning and without causing corrosion.
Can you prove that a gun case doesn't offer protection from humidity?
Of course not.

For all we know there could be by-products in the BH 209 residue itself that inhibit moisture absorption, such as an oil base that protects the metal more than we know.
Someone with a nitride rifle posted that he hasn't cleaned his gun of BH 209 residue in over 4 years.
He doesn't doubt that any other gun would rust under similar circumstances.
But can the same be said if black powder were fired in the same gun for 4 years?
That would be impossible to begin with because of his number of range sessions, but there's other parts of the gun besides the bore that could be affected.

Some speculated that maybe higher pressure or combustion efficiency blows the contaminants right out of their bore for the most part.
Maybe in part that's why some BH 209 users only experience a very light brown or whitish film that wipes right off without causing damage.
Someone said that there's a film that seems to be lubricating during loading.

In this case I'm more interested in actual results than theories. and field results over lab tests.
Perhaps there are facts that aren't in evidence, and that your references don't include.
Now that people are aware that BH 209 can cause rust, they clean their guns to be safe.
But that doesn't change the experiences of so many in the past.
Just like with Reece Talley.

And I also posted an example of how unfired black powder may have caused corrosion.

Your obtuseness is remarkable, if not your intellect.

The highly hygroscopic nature of potassium chloride is established in the scientific paper on the subject. Don't cherry pick.You want to disregard the entirety of Bill Knight's reponse, fine. It has no impact on the facts that all BP and its substitutes are hygroscopic and corrosive. And potassium carbonate is not the same thing as potassium chloride.

This is not an issue on which you can have an opinion. All black powder and its substitutes are hygroscopic and corrosive. After admitting that fact, you can meander along with what Jimmy said about his rifle and what Fred thinks about his favorite substitute and whether shooting under the Blue Moon has an impact. If you can find any credible source demonstrating that potassium chloride is not hygroscopic or corrosive, cite it.

If you can contradict these chemical analysis of potassium chloride in which it is clearly labeled hygroscopic, do so. Otherwise stop saying things that aren't true:

https://www.chemicalbook.com/ChemicalProductProperty_EN_CB9137176.htm

"Other Precautions: This product is hygroscopic. Store under dry protective gas. Protect from humidity and water. Do not store together with acids or oxidizing agents."

https://www.espimetals.com/index.php/msds/230-potassium-chloride



You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

 

[DocRock]

Thank you, but compared to my competitors, I’m pathetic!

I am very familiar with the feeling...

 

[arcticap]

You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

The same goes for you.

Tell me, does BH 209 tarnish brass more or less than black powder?
Is it kinder to the brass?

Why don't you address any of the points that you can't defend?
Isn't that why you keep calling me names, because you're an internet bully instead of a gentleman?
That just proves the weakness of your argument.
Go ahead and play with your new thread. --->>> https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...titutes-are-hygroscopic-and-corrosive.873458/

 

[DocRock]

The same goes for you.
So I picked the wrong quote out of many points that were made.

Tell me, does BH 209 tarnish brass more or less than black powder?
Is it kinder to the brass?

Why don't you address any of the points that you can't defend?
Isn't that why you keep calling me names, because you're an internet bully instead of a gentleman?
That just proves the weakness of your argument.
Go ahead and play with your new thread. --->>> https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...titutes-are-hygroscopic-and-corrosive.873458/

BH209 is hygroscopic and corrosive, as are all substitutes and genuine black powder. That's fact.It's not my fact, it's a fact that I have supported with a number of rigorous scientific papers and hard details. And it's the only statement I have made on the subject. Why do you keep trying to cast doubt on that fact with things like "But according to an advertisement for BH209, Bobby said it's not so corrosive" or talking about the degree of discoloration of brass?

My issue with you is that you are dishonest and are misleading forum users.

 

[arcticap]

I'm not disagreeing with you, but what is the basis for the claim that "All of the substitutes are at least as hygroscopic as genuine black powder....Having addressed that fact..."
Where did you get that fact from?
Is that a fact about the by-products produced after each is combusted, from before each is combusted, or both before and after each is combusted?

I find it hard to understand how each powder can have such different formulas yet all are as hygroscopic as black powder or worse than the genuine stuff.
I don't even know what the definition of the genuine stuff is because every company and person makes it differently, and with a different formula and moisture content to begin with.

I don't see how they can all be as hygroscopic as an unknown.
To be honest, I don't even know what all of the by-products of all of the powders are, or the amounts of each, and that's a fact.

All of the residuals are therefore hygroscopic. It is true that less residue means less hygroscopy, so if you are promoting Blackhorn 209 as “cleaner burning”, while that is an unestablished opinion, it would have some merit if true, but would, at most, be a matter of degree.

A matter of degree does in fact seem to refute your initial conclusion of what was asserted as being fact.

I didn't promote anything other than how to make smoke which is what the OP asked for.

You simply don't like that your faulty conclusion was challenged.
Why else would you be coming back to this thread when you posted your own thread about it?

Why would you think that BH 209, a unique powder that's based on nitrated ester would have the same or worse hygroscopic properties than black powder which contains charcoal and sulfur?
Show me how you can draw a conclusion that substantiates that it's at least as bad or worse than black powder is in every single instance where BH 209 has ever been used.
I don't believe that you can prove it because nothing that you've posted has detailed information about the interaction of the nitrated ester base and how it may or may not interfere, or prevent or be a catalyst for corrosion.
That's simple enough for anyone to understand.
Nitrated ester is not the base for any other muzzle loading powder.
How do you know that the nitrated ester base doesn't interfere with the formation of corrosion IN SOME INSTANCES and on some level?
Why else would so many people not experience corrosion problems.

There's other issues too, including Western Powder's recommendation to use an efficient style breech plug and full strength 209 shotgun primers, to promote full combustion of the powder.
These things may or may not matter, but how can you honestly say that they don't have any effect on the amount of the residue that's left behind?
Where's your expertise and substantiation on issues involving the chemistry of the nitrated ester?
If it's oil based then perhaps it interferes with the solubility of the rest of the residue IN SOME CASES.
Are you a chemist that can provide the expertise that I'm suppose to believe over people who I trust that posted about their own personal experiences?

Posted by LaneNebraska Oct 10, 2009:

"I am sorry for your situation.
I have used BH209 since it was available, with no sign of rust at all. I use a SS Knight Disc Elite. Left it fouled for the entire Nebraska season, from sight-in in early November-Jan 31. NEVER cleaned it. Shot 5 deer. Left it loaded in the garage for 2weeks in a cheap walmart plastic gun case. Fired it into a doe at 45yards. Finally cleaned some time in Feb.....Not a speck of rust=mirror bore.

I've been out to the range this year(Sep-14). Fired about 25 shots. Haven't cleaned it yet....it's still in the cheap old gun case in my garage. And I'm not the least bit worried about it.

I don't own a gun safe or dehumidifier.

For me, BH209 is just the same as smokeless powder, Non-Corrosive. The extremely light residue left in the bore does Not attract moisture at all.
-----[and]-----
ArtJr.
This may be hard for you to believe, but I know dozens and dozens of folks over on Huntingnet.com and ModernMuzzleloder.com that have my same experience--with or without Stainless barrels=No Rust At All. As a matter of fact, these accounts on Dougs board are the Only ones I've Ever heard about rust so far.

As far as my routine, I always start the season with a clean-oil free bore. Then I foul it with a few test shots. And leave it that way. I load up, then tape the end of the barrel/finger cot it. If I get doused with rain/snow, then I wipe it down, of course.

The Green Mountain barrels are very good quality steel as you know. And if the rusting thing was gonna happen on a regular base, I would expect the Non-Bergara=Old CVA/BPI Blued barrels to be the most susceptible to ANY moisture. Cause that was the case with my old CVA MagHunter.

Yes I am tough on my guns. To me they are just tools. I try to keep them all safe and functional. And the bores are always protected.

Maybe my Stainless is more resistant to rust?? But that still does not explain all the others with blued barrels that are also doing just as well....

To me, BH209 is a blessing. I also reload for 4 other rifles/shotguns, and none of these bores have ever rusted either."

https://dougsmessageboards.proboards.com/thread/2770/bh209-rusty-barrels-costly-reality

 

[DocRock]

@arcticap .

Among your problems is that you haven't read anything I've posted. Which makes refuting it silly and you foolish.

BH209 is not unique. Like all other black powder substitutes, it contains potassium perchlorate.

For the last time, that yields potassium chloride post combustion. That is a well known corrosive agent, and well-document as such above. Both the fouling and the potassium chloride are hygroscopic. Again, well documented above and utterly unrefuted by you.

If you had read the data presented, we wouldn't be at this point. Blathering on about the nitrated ester base doesn't change the fact that combustion of potassium perchlorate produces corrosive salts, exactly the same as corrosive primers,and that those salts corrode steel. Period. And all the anecdotes about Uncle Hank's special rifle that was rubbed with bat poo and transmission fluid don't change the fact that BH209, every other substitute, and genuine black powder produce fouling that is hygroscopic and corrosive.

You may well suggest that the corrosion ensuing is impacted by a thousand, a million, variables and cite every advertising testimony or fireside recollection about corrosion and how it was different in 'that rifle'. But none of that changes the fact that all black powder and black powder substitutes yield post combust residue that is hygroscopic and corrosive, and if you don't clean it off, it will produce rust and or pit. And the fact that you keep denying that is just plain foolish.

I'm done here. But go on. Tell us about how cousin Jedediah seasoned his barrel with possum fat and powdered hens teeth and how that changed the chemical components of black powder substitutes...

 

[arcticap]

All of the residuals are therefore hygroscopic. It is true that less residue means less hygroscopy, so if you are promoting Blackhorn 209 as “cleaner burning”, while that is an unestablished opinion, it would have some merit if true, but would, at most, be a matter of degree.

A matter of degree does in fact seem to refute your initial conclusion of what was asserted as being fact.

I didn't promote anything other than how to make smoke which is what the OP asked for.

The argument should have been over when you admitted that it would represent a matter of degree.
You proved my point at that time because a matter of degree can make all of the difference about whether BH 209 is always "equal to or worse than BP" or not.
Try reading your own reply from page 1 that I quoted above.
It amounts to an admission which I believe can make a quantitative difference, relatively speaking.

 

[Odd Job]

Knock the bickering off, folks.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

It doesn't matter how efficient it is as long as it goes bang, makes smoke and is relatively easy to clean ,

OK so delving into my experience as a "black powder extra" in the TV Mini-Series George Washington (done waaaay back in the 1980's) as well as having been involved in some documentaries...,
The way some production companies deal with black powder and smoke, is to add flour. Black powder can be expensive when shooting it out of artillery, when you're talking 1/4 can per shot at a minimum if not more to get that proper puff of smoke. So..., What they did, and what a lot of the reenactment artillery folks did at one time (been a while since I manned a cannon; can't say what they do "today") is they'd launch a charge of common white flour. Makes for a nice cloud of smoke, and if you're not interested in an actual "bang" since the sound will be added later..., you really save on the BP as you can reduce the charge below 1/4 can per shot...depending on the size of the cannon.

At the reenactments, the flour was wrapped in aluminum, so it tamped the charge making for a good BANG, and as the flour-charge exits the muzzle, it ruptures, giving a very nice smoke effect. A little fire too as some of the flour ignites in front of the muzzle.

In your case..., you could make tiny flour-charges and load them on top of whatever BP substitute that you use. The drawback is that you then have aluminum foil going downrange if you do them as they do for artillery AND the flour charges tended to be 8 to 16 ounce loads over top of 4 ounces of black powder. So the ratio of flour to BP was 2:1 or even 4:1.

The foil was an added safety precaution for the artillery pieces..., even though the guns were damp swabbed before reloading, the foil was there to prevent a remaining ember from accidentally igniting the charge while the poor chap was still loading. You don't need foil then as you're talking revolvers.

You could use simple newsprint to make the charges, and test to see if any of the paper travels farther than bits of burning powder, and how wide it spreads. That way you know how to safely use them or if they are not satisfactory that way.

IF that isn't satisfactory, then you might need to go to nitrated "flash" paper as the BP revolver blokes use to make ready-made loads. The paper would be consumed just as the gunpowder is.

The puff of "smoke" won't be as dramatic as a full chamber of BP or BP substitute, but I'd bet 10 grains of some sort of gunpowder, with the rest of the blank holding a paper wrapped flour charge, would give the onlookers a pretty good idea of what black powder cartridges did when fired.

Cleanup wouldn't be any worse than BP..., not sure how easy it would be, due to the modifications you mentioned in your OP on the guns you are using.

LD

 

[arcticap]

Hi, I'm British, so please bear with my weirdness,
I'm looking for a non corrosive black powder substitute....that smokes.(Black powder in the UK is legislated).

I intend using it to reload blanks for western reenactment, in the UK the revolver cylinders are pinned in and don't strip so they're a pain in the arse to clean properly

So does anyone know of such a beast? I have access to smokeless but perhaps there's something I could safely add?

I am curious about how the blanks would be constructed.
Have you spoken with any other western re-enactors about the powders that they use and how they construct their blanks?
The type of powder that you use may affect how the blanks would need to be constructed.
If a re-enactment organization is involved, perhaps they have rules and regulations regarding how blanks should be constructed.
777 may only require placing a thin card over the powder, perhaps with a dab of glue or a crimp to hold it in place.
IDK if a combination of smokeless and 777 could be constructed the same way or not, or if the smokeless needs a better seal that could result in expelling a thicker card that's a"harmful projectile."
Even wax based lube cookies often travel a distance and can hit close targets and stick to them, since they can be partially melted.

Hi Black Jack, Would that be ballistol universal oil?

Yes, Ballistol serves as a neutralizing agent, lubricant and helps to dissolve residue both before and after a thorough cleaning.
The gun may still need to be washed, cleaned, swabbed or scrubbed.

 

[alsaqr]

Black MZ is a great blank powder. Evening of 4th of July neighbors were shooting off fireworks. Loaded up my Encore with 150 grains of Black MZ followed by a sabot: Fired the gun straight up : A resounding boom resulted. No fireworks for a couple minutes.

The expert cited above on BP substitutes:

The ascorbic acid based subs are usually no more corrosive than black powder. The old Black Mag did have potassium perchlorate in it. But GOEX's Pinnacle and American Pioneer Powder did not. GOEX claimed that their Pinnacle could be used in a flintlock if you ground up some of the powder and used it in the lock pan. When I checked it for them it did light off my flinter with temps down near freezing. But lock time was real slow. Giving something of a hang-fire effect.

Hodgon makes two subs. The oldest being Pyrodex. The patent formulation shows 17 parts of potassium perchlorate. If you shoot it and don't clean the gun quickly it will micro-pit the bore. Leave it fouled for a good length of time and you will have deep pits in the bore. Pyrodex will not work in a flinter if you do not first "prime" the breech with a few grains of black powder before loading the main charge of Pyrodex. Besides using black powder in the lock pan.
THen Hodgdon came out with the 777. Forget it as far as flinters go. Iffy at best in the traditional sidelock such as T/C and Lyman markets. This 777 has a very high ignition temperature and has proven to be more difficult to ignite compared to Pyrodex. While the 777 MSDS shows potassium perchlorate in the formula I could not find any real amount and the residue did not pit brass or steel test plates.

So none will work reliably in a flinter. Most will work in percussion guns but 777 is real picky on ignition system design for reliability.

The 777 is pretty hot stuff. The other subs tend to look a bit weak in a patched ball gun and give the best results behind elongated bullets. The ascorbic acid based subs are mainly gas generating compositions, producing very little heat expansion of the gases which makes them real weak in some patched ball guns. In my 28" barrel Trade Rifle the old Clean Shot produced lower velocities once I went over 110 grain charges. And 110 grain charges of it gave velocities nowhere near smaller charges of black powder.