Smokeless in Antiques

Very interesting reading in this thread. I use only smokeless powder in my .44 Russian and .577 Snider. In doing my research for data I came across this study,,
http://www.gmdr.com/lever/lowveldata.htm ,,, This info differs from most of what has been posted here in that powders FASTER than 2400 are generally used.

The basis and conclusions of the study can be found in a link on the first page,,, "The Use of Pistol Powders in Rifle Cartridges" .

I developed a target load for the Snider based on this data and have had excellent results (paper plate groups at 100 yards). Definitely worth the read even if you don't intend to use smokeless.

2400 is a great powder for rifle and larger capacity pistol cartridges. But 2400 is much too slow for smaller cartridges like 455 webley, etc. 2400 is popular because it approximates ffg burning rates. The smaller handgun cartridges used fffg black powder, not ffg.

I have4 been repeating the following for going on 10 years now....

Several years ago an excellent article was published concerning the use of 2400 as a BP replacement. The article was well researched, accurate and correct. It specifically concerned rifle cartridges only and specifically compared the burn speed of 2400 to FFG powder. The problem arose when people of lesser understanding interpreted the article as saying that 2400 was a good replacement for all black powder. Hundreds of reports on dozens of forums had the local keyboard experts espousing the use of 2400 in everything - pistols, rifles, cannons.

The problem is that many of the smaller old pistol cartridges did not use FFG black powder, they were originally loaded with FFFG black powder which is not even close to 2400 burn speed. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing in the hands of an internet expert. Using 2400 in a 455 webley cartridge would be the equivalent of using Varget powder in a 45acp, if you can picture that.

2400 works very well in cartridges of about 45LC and larger. It can be made to work in 44Russian sized cartridges but it will not burn really well or produce uniform velocities, just like ffg powder in smaller pistol cartridges - 2400 is a bit too slow to work well. In cartridges smaller than 44 Russian, 2400 is actually a poor choice for use in vintage or antique firearms.

2400 is a great replacement for FFG. 2400 is not good replacement for FFFG.
 
Last edited:
Jethunter,,,, my reference to 2400 was just an example of the slowest powder recommended in the info provided. I'm using 700X in the Snider and Unique in the 44 Russian.

Sorry, I was talking about using 2400 in handguns, not actually referring to your post but just the article as an example of how 2400 has come to be the holy grail of black powder replacement for some people. I use Unique and other pistol powders in rifles all the time and didn't mean I had an issue with it.
 
the Paradox:
45/70
lyman manual lists: 457102 at 426gr / 70gr FFg 1256fps / 16900CUP

it appears that about 56gr nitro is a compressed load, so if I find a powder, where 56gr or so has a MV of 1250, it is safe to assume the pressure will be LESS than BP

so, if we extrapolate that data into a 45 cal ML, using the same 56gr of whatever powder was required to reach 1250fps with 56gr load, the chamber pressure will be the same and therefore totally SAFE to use in a ML.

and if your inline 50 cal ML is proofed to handle 150gr of powder, using the 50/140 as a base, whatever slow powder fills the case, to produce 1550fps or so as was the original MV using BP, it is safe to assume the chamber pressure will be lower and totally safe in a modern 50 cal ML.

And YET, there are many who say I'm crazy thinking like this and will surely blow myself up if I try this.

I'm sure someone with QL can do calculation and tell me what the fastest powder to use to get that 1550fps in a 50Cal ML, using the 50/140Sharps as a guide.

or better yet, use the 50/90. Probably a couple options there

I'm wondering the same and I am looking for others' input.
I heard of more difficult ignition, so I guess smokeless ignition would be feasible with 209 primers.

So this could only be worthwile for modern inline muzzleloaders.

Anyone done it?
 
I'm wondering the same and I am looking for others' input.
I heard of more difficult ignition, so I guess smokeless ignition would be feasible with 209 primers.

So this could only be worthwile for modern inline muzzleloaders.

Anyone done it?

I have been testing imr4198 in my smoke pole 50 cal. Working good so far.
 
Interesting read so far. I'm not a huge fan of BP either, for reasons said in above posts. The difficulty I have is when the old books give both BP and a smokeless data, but the smokeless powder is no longer available or difficult to find ( such as Unique). In newer books and such there is lots of data for new powders such as Titegroup to replace Unique but little data for new powders with old or antique guns.
 
Back
Top Bottom