Smokeless powder in an in-line muzzleloader

M

Mike Irwin

Staff
I'm putting this here so that it will get more views.

This link shows what can happen when smokeless powder is used instead of black powder/black powder substitute in an in-line muzzleloader.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/12/16/wrong-powder-blows-muzzleloaders-fingers-off/

The shooter apparently lost several fingers in the incident; it's pretty easy to see how that could have happened.

The article doesn't discuss how the incident happened, whether it was an accident, ignorance of different kinds of powder, or someone being an idiot.
 
G

g.willikers

New member
A Darwinian incident?
"What kind of gun powder did you use?"
"Well, you know, gun powder...."
Boy, that guy reduced the resale value of his gun to near nothin'.
 
N

NoSecondBest

New member
A lot of confusion comes from the fact that there have been a couple of inline muzzle loaders specifically designed for smokeless powders. I have a Savage ML2 inline muzzle loader that is designed for use with some select smokeless powders. Too many people think they know more than everyone else and figure their gun is just as strong so they can use smokeless powder also. If it says "Blackpowder Only" it means blackpowder/blackpowder subs ONLY. As Ron White says, "you can't fix stupid".
 
M

Magnum Wheel Man

New member
most all gun powders are "black" aren't they???

I hope it was some ignorant SOB, instead of some newbie that will likely never hunt or shoot again, because they lacked the proper mentoring
 
W

WV_gunner

New member
Didn't Ruger try proving the strength of the Old Army by, not recommending, using smokeless powder and the gun still functioned fine? Not that it's smart.

On the other end of the spectrum I know of someone who used a muzzle loader with powder pellets and couldn't figure out why they couldn't hit a deer, they only had one pellet in the rifle.
 
J

James K

Member In Memoriam
I suspect that the load was not just "smokeless powder" but a pistol or shotgun powder loaded to the same weight or volume recommended for black powder. "But the book said sixty grains and I weighed it real careful..."

Jim
 
P

Pahoo

New member
Read the labels and the manual !!

At the start of our M/L training at the live-fire station. We review the safety guidelines pertaining to M/L's. This is our first rule and as an exercise, We present about five empty powder containers/cans. We then ask the students to identify which is safe to use, in M/L's. We proceed to ask them to read the labels. "ALL" that are safe to use, are labeled as such. For example, 777 reads; Easy Clean Muzzleloading Propellant. The only error in this statement, is the "Easy Clean". Smokeless powder is usually labled as such of not safe. We add that one exception is Black Powder. If it's not properly identified, don't use it. .... ;)

I have a Savage ML2 inline muzzle loader that is designed for use with some select smokeless powders.
Click to expand...
We usually do not address this unless the question is asked, then we fall back to our next safety rule; Read your instruction manual. .... :)

Be Safe !!!
 
R

RIDE-RED 350r

New member
First off, let me say that I have absolutely no intention of conducting the experiment myself...

I was talking about this thread with my brother today..

The conversation wound up in place where we pondered why one with the extensive knowledge to pull it off could not scientifically calculate a safe load using whichever type of smokeless would be suitable..

Here is the reason we ask this question: The old black powder metallic cartridges of the early days, for example the 45-70... They started out as a black powder round did they not?? If that's is the case, somewhere along the line it was converted to smokeless successfully. There are quite a few metallic rifle cartridges out there that started life sending rounds downrange with black powder that are now running smokeless...

So, with that said and if I am correct, is there some element the metallic cartridge case brings to the table to facilitate the safe utilization of smokeless powders that separates it from a muzzle loading rifle?? I tend to think not, but I could very well be wrong. I make no claim if being a munitions expert.....

It just makes me wonder that if approached scientifically, methodically, and safely, why couldn't a smokeless load be worked out for a black powder rifle??? It's been done in the past....hasn't it??
 
P

Pahoo

New member
Been that and dun dat and still have my fingers !!

It just makes me wonder that if approached scientifically, methodically, and safely, why couldn't a smokeless load be worked out for a black powder rifle??? It's been done in the past....hasn't it??
Click to expand...
Oh it's been done alright and with catastrophic results. Playing with this stuff is nothing new and my first encounter was in the early 80's. Amazingly, I still had all my fingers after that adventure but a friend of mine never stopped soon enough and paid for it. He still jokes about it. ..... :rolleyes:

There are guys out there that are still playing and experimenting but I won't shoot with them. .... :p

Be Safe !!!
 
D

Doyle

New member
There is a barrel maker (don't remember who) that made smokeless muzzleloader barrels for the Encore. All barrels came with a powder chart of known (safe) loads.
 
R

RIDE-RED 350r

New member
Pahoo:

Do you know the hows and why's of what went wrong?? Less than ideal powder burn rate?? Incorrect charge weight??

Again, I don't have any intention of playing around with this idea with my old-ish TC Renegade.. I just find the topic quite interesting and I enjoy learning more about it.

Is there something about the metallurgy of a black powder barrel that makes it incompatible with the use of smokeless???

Smokeless run significantly higher pressures than Double F to comparably toss the projectile downrange??

I am a handloader and I am very familiar with the varying burn characteristics of the different smokeless powders...

How did they safely transition the early black powder cartridges to smokeless??

I'm still trying to figure out how to "quote" a post.... :rolleyes:
 
N

NoSecondBest

New member
It's not all about just powder. These muzzle loaders have screw-in breech plugs and the threads on these plugs cut into the barrel steel in order to attach. This thins out the barrels in that area very close to where the powder is sitting. No matter how think the barrel is in the middle or end, it's very thin where the breech plug is attached. After that you can discuss different steels, pressure, etc. Even the smokeless muzzle loaders are restricted to certain powders and bullet weights. Savage only recommends a couple of powders and no bullets over 300g. There are limits on smokeless muzzle loaders that only a fool attempts to exceed.
 
P

Pahoo

New member
Reinventing the wheel !!

Do you know the hows and why's of what went wrong?? Less than ideal powder burn rate?? Incorrect charge weight??
Click to expand...
There thinking went wrong !!! ..... ;)

Be Safe !!!
 
T

thallub

New member
There are numerous muzzleloading rifles out there: They vary in mechanical strength. A smokeless powder load that may be safe in one model will destroy a different model.

How did they safely transition the early black powder cartridges to smokeless??
Click to expand...

By loading smokeless powder rounds to blackpowder pressures.

The switch from blackpowder to smokeless in metallic cartridges had its growing pains. At one time Winchester sold high velocity smokeless powder loadings in .25/20, .32/20 and .44/40. These loadings were intended for use in the Winchester model 92 rifle. There were warnings on the boxes against firing that high velocity ammunition in revolvers and Winchester model 73 rifles. i have quantities of that old ammunition in all three calibers.

Winchester discontinued their high velocity loadings in the above calibers because folks refused to heed warning labels then whined when their guns blew up.

About ten years ago i sold a pristine ANIB model 73 rifle in .32/20 to a guy who paid a premium price for the gun. He fired one of the Winchester high velocity rounds in the gun, destroying same.
 
T

thallub

New member
I suspect that the load was not just "smokeless powder" but a pistol or shotgun powder loaded to the same weight or volume recommended for black powder. "But the book said sixty grains and I weighed it real careful..."
Click to expand...

Methinks you are correct. That gun fragmented pretty good.
 
B

bbqncigars

New member
"so I figgered with a name like Bullseye it's got to be good in any gun." = KABOOM! It seems like every year there's someone who, through ignorance or carelessness, does this. The recent Savage KB posting comes to mind regarding the latter.
 
R

reynolds357

New member
There are many manufacturers of smokeless muzzleloaders around today. You can get smokeless custom 700 Remngtons, Some of the Savages are still around (I have one), Custom barrels for NEF shotgun actions, Custom barrels put on the Ruger #1 are the ones that immediately come to mind.

It can all get confusing to new shooters or shooters who choose to not read well.:rolleyes:
 
J

James K

Member In Memoriam
I first encountered the "load by volume" error with smokeless powder on a pistol range when I stopped a newbie who was about to load his percussion revolver with an (estimated) charge of 40 grains of Bullseye. He knew that only black powder should be used, but had asked the store clerk for "revolver powder" and he said it looked black to him. Had he fired that charge, his repro revolver could have been blown back to Italy and maybe taken a piece of the shooter along.

I strongly suspect that only the fact that smokeless powder is not easily ignited by an ordinary percussion cap has kept such accidents from being more common. But of course many inline rifles use shotgun primers, which will certainly ignite fast-burning pistol and shotgun powders.

Jim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top