I'm getting mixed answers from the web on this. A majority of the ML crowd, including the the ML manufacturers say never to use smokeless in a muzzle loader. Then there are some that say that its safe with a slow smokeless-powder and reduced charge volume. Seems to me that all that's lacking for safe-use of smokeless is proper loading data. Black powder substitutes like Blackhorn 209 already blur the line between black and smokeless, which has nitrocellulose as its main component. So what gives?
Smokeless powder in muzzleloader?
- Thread starter War Song
- Start date
Traditional style muzzleloaders are what is called open systems meaning they vent pressure through the nipple or the touch hole.This means that in an event of extreme over pressure if the barrel didn t let go , which it probably would ,the pressure would also vent throughbthe nipple or touchhole right into your face.Smokeless powder in muzzleloaders except in the afore mentioned Savage inline will have you talking with your ancestors sooner or later.
This use of smokeless powder in muzzle loaders is not a matter of opinion. There are a couple of muzzle loading guns made specifically to use smokeless powder, and the Savage 110L is an example of that type of gun. They were made to replicate cartridge gun performance but to allow one to use them in "Muzzle Loader Only" seasons. As a result, a number of places have put much tighter rules around what constitutes a "Muzzle Loader" for special seasons. For example Pennsylvania actually now restricts ignition source to Flint. Due to blow ups and other safety issues with even these specifically designed guns Savage has stopped producing theirs and the others are getting real hard to find also.
In all other muzzle loaders, flint, percussion or In-Line, there is no "Safe" use of smokeless powder. The combustion characteristics of Black Powder versus Smokeless are very different. Stick to Holly Black or one of the specific Black Powder subs like Pyrodex, Triple 7, Blackgold and the like. Anything but these and you are taking unwarranted risks to you and those around you.
If I could post pictures, I'd show you a near-brand-new Pietta Remington Model 1858 revolver converted into scrap with a load of ca.25gr of an undisclosed nitro powder. The top strap is vertical and the missing parts of the cylinder are probably orbiting around Mars. The noob shooter was told that it really didn't matter, the way that modern firearms are made....
Wrong.
The very metallurgy of the components is also different, which is why loose-loading BP firearms cost - in general - considerably less than their cartridge-firing counterparts.
tac
Wrong.
The very metallurgy of the components is also different, which is why loose-loading BP firearms cost - in general - considerably less than their cartridge-firing counterparts.
tac
Well as you suggest there are all kinds of substitutes that are essentially smokeless heck some are actually solid rocket fuel.
Chuck Hawkes has written a fair bit on the smokeless use in M/L's and as well as a number of the custom manufacturers. The short story is there are all kinds of loads that produce lower peak pressures at equal velocities.
However....WHY?
Is it in an attempt to see smokless performance and still enjoy the extended "primitive hunts" If that is indeed the case I implore you to sell it to someone who gives a crap about what "primitive" means before you screw it up for the rest of us.
Inlines, pelletized propellant and plastic packaged bullets have already taken us way too far into Bubba territory as it is. Hopefully they'll prohibit these type of rifles from the primitive status rather than getting rid of the season altogether.....which is more likely. Fortunately a number of states have already made the move to ban inlines, pelletized powder, and smokeless based subs from all primitive hunting seasons....this is a trend I would like to see continue.
In short IMHO if you want to shoot a M/L then get some black and enjoy the sport for what it offers.
Chuck Hawkes has written a fair bit on the smokeless use in M/L's and as well as a number of the custom manufacturers. The short story is there are all kinds of loads that produce lower peak pressures at equal velocities.
However....WHY?
Is it in an attempt to see smokless performance and still enjoy the extended "primitive hunts" If that is indeed the case I implore you to sell it to someone who gives a crap about what "primitive" means before you screw it up for the rest of us.
Inlines, pelletized propellant and plastic packaged bullets have already taken us way too far into Bubba territory as it is. Hopefully they'll prohibit these type of rifles from the primitive status rather than getting rid of the season altogether.....which is more likely. Fortunately a number of states have already made the move to ban inlines, pelletized powder, and smokeless based subs from all primitive hunting seasons....this is a trend I would like to see continue.
In short IMHO if you want to shoot a M/L then get some black and enjoy the sport for what it offers.
25 grains is way too much powder... so I'm not surprised there. What I meant with my question was IF proper loading data was provided, essentially converting loads to smokeless. Shotgun shells were originally black powder (hence the dram equivalence system) and most shotguns can run fine on both black and smokeless. Shotgun shell loads are restricted to max pressures pf 10,000 psi - 12,000 psi, so that means smokeless doesn't necessarily mean high pressure. As I understand it, smokeless powder develops pressure based on grain size and how compact they are. So is that it, smokeless just isn't reliable in a muzzleloader because they can't compact it uniformly with the ramrod, even if it was using the slowest-burning largest grain powder out there? But if that was true, stuff like Blackhorn 209 would blow up guns.
Your post opens up another question, why DON'T manufacturers utilize better barrel metal for their muzzleloaders? I wouldn't mind paying extra for a safer gun, but I guess Savage already provided us that with their 110... Still every other manufacturer seems content to use the same low-carbon steel or free-machining stainless for all the blackpowder guns they sell. Why not provide the option of heat treated 4140, or even just 4130? I would want that extra margin of safety, even if I was just loading straight black powder, there would still be the risk of double loads and short stops.
Seanmp: I agree with you, if I ever get into muzzleloading, I would stay with powder and not even touch the pelletized stuff out of principle. But I'm just more interested in the technical aspect of why we can't use smokeless!
No.
I'm quickly getting out of my depth, but this' my understanding. The design of the guns doesn't allow for smokeless use, even when drastically reduced. Very few guns as mentioned were built for smokeless, however those are known to explode as well since the tolerances for a standard shooting load and an over pressure load that can damage the gun are very close with smokeless powders, often in the range of 5-10 grains... an amount that is more than easy enough to exceed for anyone not paying close attention reloading, since you are forced to do so after every shot at the range instead of at home. Also, the actions aren't necessarily as strong, so exceeding tolerances can have greater impact on firing. Repeated overpressures can cause cumulative damages resulting in metal fatigue and failure at what was previously a safe load. Ringing, stress cracks and other visible signs may not be visible or go un-noticed in a forearm that you can't check the bore on without removing the breech plug. Also sometimes an inadequately seated ball or bullet can cause pressure spikes.
All these are variables that're incredibly difficult to get right all the time with a muzzle loader, which makes black powder safer due to its nature. However, even if you're the most OCD of reloaders, it is also my understanding that most smokeless powders experience drastic pressure spikes unlike black powder under regular conditions, so a safe smokeless load in regards to peak chamber pressure may result in far far far lower actual bullet FPS/muzzle velocity, therefore negating any value.
Some of my comments are more speculation than anything else, but between all of them there's a decent argument against smokeless in muzzle loading guns. When you get into cartridge guns the rules change slightly as reloading offers inherently more control and often the guns are being fired with pet loads that are only sufficient to punch paper and short distances. Additionally, most cartridge guns are developed and manufactured to a higher standard, historically due to greater technological advances and today due to the need for a sturdier firearm, whereas a muzzle loader is not designed with that in mind.
All these are variables that're incredibly difficult to get right all the time with a muzzle loader, which makes black powder safer due to its nature. However, even if you're the most OCD of reloaders, it is also my understanding that most smokeless powders experience drastic pressure spikes unlike black powder under regular conditions, so a safe smokeless load in regards to peak chamber pressure may result in far far far lower actual bullet FPS/muzzle velocity, therefore negating any value.
Some of my comments are more speculation than anything else, but between all of them there's a decent argument against smokeless in muzzle loading guns. When you get into cartridge guns the rules change slightly as reloading offers inherently more control and often the guns are being fired with pet loads that are only sufficient to punch paper and short distances. Additionally, most cartridge guns are developed and manufactured to a higher standard, historically due to greater technological advances and today due to the need for a sturdier firearm, whereas a muzzle loader is not designed with that in mind.
I guess I just don't see the point of using smokeless in a BP muzzle loader. If you use smokeless you still have to keep the pressures (and performance) at BP levels and at the same time you reduce the safety factor that is built in with BP. A couple extra grains of BP doesn't usually make a catstrophic difference - OTOH a couple extra grains of smokeless powder can double the pressure in some circumstances. Given the increased risk with little performance improvement, why bother?
Rule 5. Personal insults are not permitted.
Last edited by a moderator:
The same kinds of opinions are regularly expressed with regards to the use of smokeless in antique cartridge firearms. Fact is that smokeless can be used safely in antiques (and many including myself do), but can be quite easily misused as well. Same applies to muzzleloaders, but the process is more complicated and the risk is higher, so it suffices to advise against it.
The main problem savage had with their smokeless ML were idiots not reading the instructions on what powder to use, and using a powdr measure instead of weighing the powder out.
On that note. If the ML does not specificaly say it can be used with smokeless... DONT. You arent going to get any better performance, only thing you may get is less cleaning after shooting.
Remington is coming out with their new 700 muzzle loader soon. With its new ignition system and how much 777 it can hold they are punching a 250 projectile 2400 fps.
If you want beyter performance. Look at a new muzzle loader.
On that note. If the ML does not specificaly say it can be used with smokeless... DONT. You arent going to get any better performance, only thing you may get is less cleaning after shooting.
Remington is coming out with their new 700 muzzle loader soon. With its new ignition system and how much 777 it can hold they are punching a 250 projectile 2400 fps.
If you want beyter performance. Look at a new muzzle loader.
Brutus
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Everyone thinks that Savage made in line muzzleloader is safe. But do some background research with google should bring to light some rather scary incidents.
I think myself the idea of a smokeless powder muzzleloading rifle=pipe bomb on a slow burn fuze.
It's a foolish idea, and most big name manufacturers do not build one.
That fact itself is somewhat telling, don't you think??
You could not pay me enough money to own one of them.
Last edited:
Like I said the problem with smokeless in traditional muzzleloaders is there is no Safeway to vent the pressures from an over load and since it is an open system pressure would come back from the
nipple or touchhole .Even with blackpowder it has happened with high pressure that the hammer in a percussion rifle has been set back to half ####.Experimenting with smokeless could cost you your gun or your life,is it really worth it?
nipple or touchhole .Even with blackpowder it has happened with high pressure that the hammer in a percussion rifle has been set back to half ####.Experimenting with smokeless could cost you your gun or your life,is it really worth it?
Last edited:
I think you've got the dog by the tail here. To me, to buy a muzzle loader comes from the Desire to shoot black powder...
That being said, I remember seeing a boutique vendor who makes inlines out of Ruger number 1 actions and employs a false muzzle to assist in loading FMJ rifle bullets....neat, but to me pointless. If I want smokeless convenience in an old time rifle I'll use a modern Sharps.
That being said, I remember seeing a boutique vendor who makes inlines out of Ruger number 1 actions and employs a false muzzle to assist in loading FMJ rifle bullets....neat, but to me pointless. If I want smokeless convenience in an old time rifle I'll use a modern Sharps.
