Ruger #3 or #1 Smokeless Muzzle Loader
- Thread starter Gerald
- Start date
Gerald, the only problem would be getting a good seal at the primer, with pressures being high. Not sure how Savage does it, but at least theirs is enclosed with the bolt.
A Ruger's block just slides up the back of the barrel, leaving a slim vent all around, so escaping gas could get out.
I sure would hate to do that to a 45-70 Ruger, anyway.
A Ruger's block just slides up the back of the barrel, leaving a slim vent all around, so escaping gas could get out.
I sure would hate to do that to a 45-70 Ruger, anyway.
smokeless muzzle loader 
That doesn't make sense to me... I have always felt a big part of muzzle loading firearms is the belch of smoke and smell and the mess to clean after..
The sealing of the primer with easy removal to replace with a new primer would be a big problem...
That doesn't make sense to me... I have always felt a big part of muzzle loading firearms is the belch of smoke and smell and the mess to clean after..
The sealing of the primer with easy removal to replace with a new primer would be a big problem...
I guess you could use shortened .45/70 cases with primers in them for ignition, change them like primers in the back. Then stuff everything from the front. I'm not sure I see the purpose here either. Is it to get into a muzzle loading hunt somewhere or something? If so, I doubt this would be legal, but who knows. This method should seal with breech as well as be fairly fast to reload. You would have to keep a number of shortened and primed cases on hand.
In using a #3 or a #1 as a muzzleloader, there are a couple of issues. Since this is to be a smokeleess muzzleloader, the issue of higher pressures also exists.
Sealling of the breech is not too difficult using a brass seal. In fact, one should be able to use a threaded breech plug and prime with a shotgun primer. An extractor in the plug would remove the spent primer.
The main problem with the use of a No.1 is that it is a hammerless design which cocks when the breech block is closed. So the system has to be such that one is loading an unprimed barrel. Other options would include such things as an automatic hammer block safety. Or a side cocking lever for the hammer and divorcing hammer cocking from breech block movement.
An easier method for a firearm of this type is to make up a brass case into which one could load the primer, powder charge, and projectile. Then feed it all in from the breech. I think somebody has already done this. Regards, Bill.
Sealling of the breech is not too difficult using a brass seal. In fact, one should be able to use a threaded breech plug and prime with a shotgun primer. An extractor in the plug would remove the spent primer.
The main problem with the use of a No.1 is that it is a hammerless design which cocks when the breech block is closed. So the system has to be such that one is loading an unprimed barrel. Other options would include such things as an automatic hammer block safety. Or a side cocking lever for the hammer and divorcing hammer cocking from breech block movement.
An easier method for a firearm of this type is to make up a brass case into which one could load the primer, powder charge, and projectile. Then feed it all in from the breech. I think somebody has already done this. Regards, Bill.
Bill is right, this has already be done on a boltgun platform, it use .45 Win Mag cases with primers for ignition and can take up to 4 50 grain pyrodex pellets for a charge, yes 200 grains. I can not recall the manufacturer but it is fairly new to the market. But using smokeless powder in it is whole different kettle of fish.
This would probably be done a little more easily on a break-action exposed hammer gun. Like an NEF handi - if they don't already make a BP one. Threaded brass breech plug as described earlier, and smokeless compatible.
Geez guys the idea is to use smokeless powder rather than that damned black garbage (including the substitutes) and to not use sabots in a rifle with a smokeless proofed barrel. I believe that the only muzzle loader with a smokeless proofed barrel currently made is the savage ML and I like the Ruger.
Last edited:
Okay, I'm gonna go out on limb here, but here is my take on it. Black powder and it's substitutes need to be compressed or slightly compressed to ignite and burn properly - if there is any airspace you can ring/bulge the bore. Smokeless on the other hand can create nasty pressure spikes (catastrophic) if compressed , that why a cartridge's overall length and seating depth are quite important when dealing with maximum or compressed smokeless loads. If one where to muzzle load with smokeless and a traditional ram rod there is no way to controll the amount of compression or lack of compression of the powder charge. I suppose with some careful calculation and the creation of a depth stop on the ram rod it could be made to work - but it's to much risk for me - I won't be gambling with my #3!!
Hope this helps.
Hope this helps.
I don't see any problem with compressed loads using smokeless powder. Even in a straight case like the 45/70. In fact, I have used compressed loads in the 45/70 with no ill effects.
The only problem with using smokeless in a muzzle loader is one of containment. Pressures are generally higher so one can't count on a hammer lying on top of a spent percussion cap to do the job. Even heavy loads of black will drive the hammer of my Hawken back to half-####.
Now it should be possible to load low pressure loads from the muzzle. It makes a certain amount of sense to suppose that a load which drives a 300 grain bullet at 1400fps when breech loaded; would do the same if the components were loaded from the muzzle. It also seems likely the pressure would be similar.
Quite some time ago (about 1972 I think). I bought an H&R break open rifle in 45/70 (Called the Shikari). It had a 28 inch barrel and a cleaning rod under the barrel. I thought it looked cool. I was big into black powder back then and had a T/C Hawken I had bought a year earlier and shot the heck out of. This H&R was the first modern 45/70 I had a chance to buy and it was cheap ($59.95). Anyway, I shot it quite a bit with jacketed bullets and it worked great. I then started casting bullets for it and that worked great too. At some point I decided to try loading it with a patched round ball, from the muzzle just to see what it would do. I loaded 75 grains of fffg and a .445 round ball with a linen patch. Now, the 22" twist used in 45/70's is supposedly way too fast for round balls but this load from my Shikari grouped under an inch at fifty yards.
About this time, I decided I could probably use smokeless when doing this and not have to deal with the fouling caused by the fffg. So I loaded a small charge of bullseye and then pushed a patched ball down to the mouth of the case (I did this by first loading a case into which I had loaded a piece of dowel even with the case mouth. I then seated the ball on this and marked the rod for subsequent shots.). This worked too and pressures were predictably low. So low that I thought I might be able to get away with doing a similar thing in the Hawken. Thinking about it and doing it are two different things though. I would never recommend the use of any smokeless load in a muzzle loading rifle. Regards, Bill.
The only problem with using smokeless in a muzzle loader is one of containment. Pressures are generally higher so one can't count on a hammer lying on top of a spent percussion cap to do the job. Even heavy loads of black will drive the hammer of my Hawken back to half-####.
Now it should be possible to load low pressure loads from the muzzle. It makes a certain amount of sense to suppose that a load which drives a 300 grain bullet at 1400fps when breech loaded; would do the same if the components were loaded from the muzzle. It also seems likely the pressure would be similar.
Quite some time ago (about 1972 I think). I bought an H&R break open rifle in 45/70 (Called the Shikari). It had a 28 inch barrel and a cleaning rod under the barrel. I thought it looked cool. I was big into black powder back then and had a T/C Hawken I had bought a year earlier and shot the heck out of. This H&R was the first modern 45/70 I had a chance to buy and it was cheap ($59.95). Anyway, I shot it quite a bit with jacketed bullets and it worked great. I then started casting bullets for it and that worked great too. At some point I decided to try loading it with a patched round ball, from the muzzle just to see what it would do. I loaded 75 grains of fffg and a .445 round ball with a linen patch. Now, the 22" twist used in 45/70's is supposedly way too fast for round balls but this load from my Shikari grouped under an inch at fifty yards.
About this time, I decided I could probably use smokeless when doing this and not have to deal with the fouling caused by the fffg. So I loaded a small charge of bullseye and then pushed a patched ball down to the mouth of the case (I did this by first loading a case into which I had loaded a piece of dowel even with the case mouth. I then seated the ball on this and marked the rod for subsequent shots.). This worked too and pressures were predictably low. So low that I thought I might be able to get away with doing a similar thing in the Hawken. Thinking about it and doing it are two different things though. I would never recommend the use of any smokeless load in a muzzle loading rifle. Regards, Bill.
Ruger Conversion
Leeper: If you have a brass case, with powder and projectile loaded from the breech how is this a muzzleloader? I have a 458 #1 and thought simply load a black powder subsitute (I was not thinking smokeless) into a primed case, close the breech with the safety on and load a projectile from the front. Instant muzzleloader. I never could convince myself that trying to seat a bullet on a live primed case was a good idea and never tried it. If a 458 or 45/70 case (with or without powder) could be modifed to accept a primer after the bullet was seated eveything seems easy. By caefully opening the underlever, the cartridge would not eject and allow a primer to be inserted, then close the breech for safe shooting. Before someone draws it to my attention, yes I am familiar with the phrase "Nothing is impossible for the man that dosen't have to do it himself" My original purpose was to use the modified 458 # 1 during the muzzleloader/shotgun season in Ontario. My final solution was simpy to use a fully rifled shotgun with scope rather than a muzzleloader. But the #1 muzzleloader continues to be interesting. I am enoying this topic and hope to learn more. Thanks to all.
Leeper: If you have a brass case, with powder and projectile loaded from the breech how is this a muzzleloader? I have a 458 #1 and thought simply load a black powder subsitute (I was not thinking smokeless) into a primed case, close the breech with the safety on and load a projectile from the front. Instant muzzleloader. I never could convince myself that trying to seat a bullet on a live primed case was a good idea and never tried it. If a 458 or 45/70 case (with or without powder) could be modifed to accept a primer after the bullet was seated eveything seems easy. By caefully opening the underlever, the cartridge would not eject and allow a primer to be inserted, then close the breech for safe shooting. Before someone draws it to my attention, yes I am familiar with the phrase "Nothing is impossible for the man that dosen't have to do it himself" My original purpose was to use the modified 458 # 1 during the muzzleloader/shotgun season in Ontario. My final solution was simpy to use a fully rifled shotgun with scope rather than a muzzleloader. But the #1 muzzleloader continues to be interesting. I am enoying this topic and hope to learn more. Thanks to all.
I thought I had stated I loaded the H&R from the muzzle. After re-reading my post, I see I did, in fact, mention that I was loading the patched round ball from the muzzle. Guess you missed that part.
The bigadvantage of the H&R over the Ruger for this purpose was; it had an exposed hammer. The idea of loading from the muzzle with the hammer cocked just seems unsafe to me. Remember, the Ruger safety does not block the hammer. It only blocks the trigger. This is why I don't like the idea of using an unmodified #1 as a muzzleloader. As you pointed out, even loading over a primed case is a little iffy. Things can happen.
Virtually any modern muzzleloader barrel will handle pretty high pressures since most are made of the same steel as centerfire rifle barrels. It is the percussion cap/nipple more than anything which precludes their use with smokeless. That and the fact that smokeless powders are less forgiving. You can't use the wrong kind, in the wrong way, and expect to get away with it.
As far as muzzleloading seasons are concerned, I don't think even the Sharps percussion rifles are legal for use in these hunts so it is unlikely a muzzle loaded 45/70 or 458 would be.
The bigadvantage of the H&R over the Ruger for this purpose was; it had an exposed hammer. The idea of loading from the muzzle with the hammer cocked just seems unsafe to me. Remember, the Ruger safety does not block the hammer. It only blocks the trigger. This is why I don't like the idea of using an unmodified #1 as a muzzleloader. As you pointed out, even loading over a primed case is a little iffy. Things can happen.
Virtually any modern muzzleloader barrel will handle pretty high pressures since most are made of the same steel as centerfire rifle barrels. It is the percussion cap/nipple more than anything which precludes their use with smokeless. That and the fact that smokeless powders are less forgiving. You can't use the wrong kind, in the wrong way, and expect to get away with it.
As far as muzzleloading seasons are concerned, I don't think even the Sharps percussion rifles are legal for use in these hunts so it is unlikely a muzzle loaded 45/70 or 458 would be.
I've been kicking around an idea of building a plug for my 12g baikal single shot and turning it into a muzzle loader as well. Hidden hammer so it cocks on opening. I would use black or substitute for this though. I see your problem. My thought is to disconnect/remove the extractor and install a plug that would take a shotgun primer so that I could load an unprimed "rifle" safely then open the breech and insert primer so I don't become a statistic . I figure if I like this modification I could pin the plug in the chamber at a later date. I have never seen an insert for an inline so how do you keep loose powder from falling through the "flash hole" where the primer goes?
As far as smokeless goes there would be no problem in the ruger. For the disbelievers of smokeless in a ML take a loook at the savage ML.
. I figure if I like this modification I could pin the plug in the chamber at a later date. I have never seen an insert for an inline so how do you keep loose powder from falling through the "flash hole" where the primer goes?As far as smokeless goes there would be no problem in the ruger. For the disbelievers of smokeless in a ML take a loook at the savage ML.
McD said:
Yes you deffinately have to thread it for a breach plug first to make it a muzzle loader. Then you can load it with no worries of having to add an ignition source before you load. It's not like it hasn't been done before, I'm just glad that Precision Rifle of Anola MB still has the picture with thier No. 3 on thier website. Where the work was done I'm not sure, but here is a link to thier site http://www.prbullet.com They use a 25 ACP to ingnite the 45 caliber Ruger #3. The site also has some great info for muzzle loading.
Ruger #1 Conversion
Over Christmas, a friend told me about a 25 ACP primer system for in line black powder rifles. Apparently a primed 25 ACP shell (no bullet) in placed in the breech plug. Using this idea, could a 45/70 or 458 brass cartridge be modified to accept such a 25 ACP shell. My thinking would be, insert the modified 458 cartridge into the Ruger single shot,load powder and projectile from teh front, then insert the primed 25 ACP primed empty shell into the modified 458 cartridge. Seem safe enough in theory,- no front loading the powder or projectile on a live primer, Any thoughts?
Over Christmas, a friend told me about a 25 ACP primer system for in line black powder rifles. Apparently a primed 25 ACP shell (no bullet) in placed in the breech plug. Using this idea, could a 45/70 or 458 brass cartridge be modified to accept such a 25 ACP shell. My thinking would be, insert the modified 458 cartridge into the Ruger single shot,load powder and projectile from teh front, then insert the primed 25 ACP primed empty shell into the modified 458 cartridge. Seem safe enough in theory,- no front loading the powder or projectile on a live primer, Any thoughts?
