Using Smokeless Powders as a substitute for Black Powder in vintage cartridge rounds.
CC
like to shoot, but I am not sure if I want the hassle of the clean up,
etc. Is there a better standard of accuracy or performance that black
powder has over smokeless (aside for romance and/or aesthetic
qualities of authenticity). Or does smokeless perform just as well as
BP in cartridges that were originaly designed for Black powder. Three
examples to consider. 45-70, 43 mauser, 577/450 Martini. I assume that
4198, 2400, and Unique (smokeless powders) could be used in any of
these rounds with good effect. Thoughts?
Thanks.
Clement C.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Learn about rec.guns at http://www.recguns.com
-----------------------------------------------------------
Clark Magnuson
Kenneth Coney
(look at the can). The pressures generated by smokeless powder and their sudden peak combined with
the poor quality metals used in those early guns can and will burst the rifles.
CC wrote:
> ...
Adam Barker
don't know why you couldn't load smokeless powders down to the same pressure
and have safe loads, however it might not have as good of performace as the
black. I haven't ever seen pressure listings for black powder loads, but
would be interested in seeing them if anybody knows of a good source. A few
of the older reloading books I have seen have reduced loadings listed for
plinking, but I can't remember their titles at the moment.
Adam
Harry O
the relative speed charts published just about everywhere, I am afraid
that my experience is opposite of yours. BP is MUCH faster burning than
smokeless.
I base this on my experiments with a hollow-base, soft-lead bullet being
shot in an undersized bore like was common in the old days (specifically
the 41 Long Colt). The accuracy was directly related to the speed of
the powder when using smokeless. 2400 was less accurate than Unique was
less accurate than Bullseye. Then I tried FFFg and that was the most
accurate of all. I think that the faster the powder burned, the faster
the hollow-base gripped the rifling, and the more accurate it was.
Therefore FFFg was the fastest burning.
You are correct that smokeless can generate more pressure, but that is
completely different from burning speed.
Kenneth Coney wrote:
#
# Don't do that! Black powder burns much slower than smokeless powders with
# their nitroglycerine base (look at the can). The pressures generated by
# smokeless powder and their sudden peak combined with the poor quality metals
# used in those early guns can and will burst the rifles.
Randy Wakeman
#like to shoot, but I am not sure if I want the hassle of the clean up,
You don't mention what the specific rifles are . . . nor the condition.
As far as the "hassle of clean-up," look into loading Hodgdon Triple Seven.
No sulfur. Cleans with tap water, that's it.
See www.hodgdon.com
Loads are listed for the .45-70 and others. Call Hodgdon with questions.
Using smokeless powder in a vintage blackpowder gun is incredibly stupid and
irresponsible.
What is the max. working pressure of your vintage guns? If you can't answer
that, and choose to dabble with smokeless on your own - -
you are a danger to yourself and others. Stay home.
Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Randy Wakeman
Randy Wakeman
#smokeless.
That statement is false on its face.
ABSOLUTELY WRONG.
Randy Wakeman
Brian Nolen
"Harry O" <har...@tconl.com> wrote in message
# You are correct that smokeless can generate more pressure, but that is
# completely different from burning speed.
True. Also, isn't black powder classed as an explosive with exemptions on
small amounts for use in BP firearms? At least as far as posession goes...
Brian
Tony Belding
# I've got a couple of older original black powder cartridge rifles I'd
# like to shoot, but I am not sure if I want the hassle of the clean up,
# etc. Is there a better standard of accuracy or performance that black
# powder has over smokeless (aside for romance and/or aesthetic
# qualities of authenticity). Or does smokeless perform just as well as
# BP in cartridges that were originaly designed for Black powder. Three
# examples to consider. 45-70, 43 mauser, 577/450 Martini. I assume that
# 4198, 2400, and Unique (smokeless powders) could be used in any of
# these rounds with good effect. Thoughts?
The conventional wisdom holds that black powder can, in fact, produce
better accuracy than smokeless powder in those rifles. Note that I'm
referring to modern reproduction rifles here..... Shooting smokeless
loads in original rifles from the pre-smokeless era is unwise. You
might get away with it, and then again you might blow up the gun. Why
risk it? (2400 and Unique are fast burning and would be *remarkably*
unwise choices of powder for this use.)
There is no great hassle involved in cleaning up a BPCR rifle. First
swab out the bore with a mixture of Ballistol and water. Some people
use 1/2 Ballistol, but I think as little as 1/5 or even 1/10 Ballistol
can work fine: the water does most of the work. Use a bronze brush
only if there's leading to remove. Then run through a clean patch or
two to dry the bore, and a final patch with pure Ballistol, or Bore
Butter if you prefer. It's no harder than cleaning a smokeless powder
rifle.
You will also want to decap your brass (with a universal decapper) and
then soak it 10-15 minutes in water with a modest amount of vinegar --
not too much or too long, because vinegar is acid and could weaken
your brass if you overdo it, but it really does cut through black
powder residue. Then rinse them with clean water and dry them in the
sun -- or very gently in an oven if the sun isn't shining.
Cleaning up the brass is the main hassle with shooting black powder
cartridges, and yet it's really not all that bad. You do need to
clean your gun and brass as soon after your shooting session as
circumstances allow (i.e. the same day). If that's a problem, then
you might want to investigate some of the new black powder substitutes
-- other than Pyrodex, because it's at least as corrosive as black
powder. (Incidentally, I've heard that neither black powder or
Pyrodex are anywhere near as insidious or destructive as corrosive
primers. Thankfully those are a thing of the past.)
Clark Magnuson
max and for a 500 gr bullet:
1) IMR4198 50.3 gr 50% full case 1691 fps 25kpsi
42 gr gives 1380 fps and 15kpsi start load
2) 2400 36.3 gr 40 % full case 1565 fps 25kpsi
27 gr gives 1297 fps and 15kpsi start load
3) H4350 80 gr 1828 fps 82% case full 25kpsi
64 gr gives 1485 fps and 67% case full and 15kpsi
4) IMR4895 64.9 gr 1784 fps 67% case full 25kpsi
50.4 gr gives 1439 fps 52% case full, and 15kpsi
I have included 2 other powders:
The H4350 gives very good top velocity for pressure, but I don't know
how well it will work in partially filled cases.
The 4895 I know works very well with partially filled cases. In 45/70
with 405 gr bullets, the 4895 works very well down to 30 gr and probably
further down.
Ji Fay
rifle using handcast Lyman 350 grain lead bullets, sorry don't recall te
exact load as it was almost 40 years ago. It shot great, wish he never
sold it. 8-(
El Kabong
> ...
Oh, you can load a black powder cartridge with smokeless powder and
fire it....once, though you just may kill yourself in the process.
Kenneth Coney
(try Unique or Bullseye). Light them and time the comparative burn times then come back.
Harry O wrote:
> ...
Randy Wakeman
#news:<asvath$o6t$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu>...
# > ...
My comment was NOT to use smokeless powder.
Anyone who thinks BP burns faster than smokeless is horribly wrong.
Randy Wakeman
Harry O
slowly and weakly when unconfined.
Kenneth Coney wrote:
#
# Pour a two foot long 1/4 inch wide string of BP on the ground (outside)
# and also one of smokeless (try Unique or Bullseye). Light them and time
# the comparative burn times then come back.
Harry O
for it. A single experiment is better than a thousand theories.
Randy Wakeman wrote:
# Harry O wrote:
# #BP is MUCH faster burning than #smokeless.
#
# That statement is false on its face.
# ABSOLUTELY WRONG.
# Randy Wakeman
El Kabong
> ...
CC, I was being sarcastic in my response. DO NOT use modern smokeless
powder in a black powder firearm.
Randy Wakeman
#vintage
#From: Harry O har...@tconl.com
#Date: 12/9/2002 6:07 AM Central Standard Time
#Message-id: <at212q$o0r$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu>
#
#I have. BP burns much faster. Smokeless (regardless of the type) burns
#slowly and weakly when unconfined.
#
#Kenneth Coney wrote:
Unconfined is off-topic . . . this is a gun forum, not a pyrotechnic forum.
Propellants are always confined when used in firearms.
As to "regardless of type," you are misinformed. The key to modern smokeless
powder development has been controlled /// progressive burning rates.
You are talking of nitrocellulose in single base powders, nitrocellulose /
nitroglycerin in modern double base powders.
Any way, the POINT:
IT IS UNSAFE TO USE MODERN SMOKELESS POWDER AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR BLACKPOWDER
UNLESS SPECIFICALLY RECOMMENDED BY THE MANUFACTURER OF THE FIREARM.
Randy Wakeman
KCOM
On 7-Dec-2002, c5...@world-wide.net (CC) wrote:
# I've got a couple of older original black powder cartridge rifles I'd
# like to shoot, but I am not sure if I want the hassle of the clean up,
# etc. Is there a better standard of accuracy or performance that black
# powder has over smokeless (aside for romance and/or aesthetic
# qualities of authenticity). Or does smokeless perform just as well as
# BP in cartridges that were originaly designed for Black powder. Three
# examples to consider. 45-70, 43 mauser, 577/450 Martini. I assume that
# 4198, 2400, and Unique (smokeless powders) could be used in any of
# these rounds with good effect. Thoughts
Don't do this. The pressure increase by the use of smokeless powder can
damage your rilfes. If cleaning them is your main concern, use either
Shooter's Choice "Black Powder Bore Cleaning Gel"
http://www.shooters-choice.com , RB-17 Bore Cleaner http://www.rb-17.com ,
or MPro 7 Corrosive ammo bore cleaner http://www.mp7.com . Any of the three
will clean your bore without the need of soap and hot water. HTH.
--
Steve
Stan Schaefer
#
# Using smokeless powder in a vintage blackpowder gun is incredibly stupid and
# irresponsible.
#
# What is the max. working pressure of your vintage guns? If you can't answer
# that, and choose to dabble with smokeless on your own - -
#
# you are a danger to yourself and others. Stay home.
#
# Stupid, stupid, stupid.
# Randy Wakeman
#
Complete and utter bilge. You can use proper smokeless loads in a
vintage cartridge arm, provided:
Said arm is in good condition
Pressures do not exceed design pressures for the gun
A cast or paper-patched swaged lead bullet is used in deference to the
softer steels of the era
There's pressure-tested smokeless loading data available for most any
blackpowder-era cartridge if you look hard enough and more available
all the time. Smokeless in a muzzleloader is a whole other animal,
but that wasn't what the original poster asked about.
Stan
Ken Marsh
AA makes a powder called XMP5744 that is designed to replace Black
Powder in the old, large capacity cases. It is designed to be
position insenstive and is less likely to succumb to S.E.E (Secondary
Explosion Effect). It is a specially formulated double base extruded
(most double bases are flake or ball) designed to have a pressure
build rate more similar to BP than most smokeless powders.
Comparing burn rates between BP and smokeless is difficult, because BP
has a constant burn rate while smokeless is progressives (burns faster
with pressure). Smokeless tends to build faster while BP slowly ramps up
(and up). There are smokeless powders either "slower" and "faster" than
BP, and many more that are both (usually faster in the breech and slower
at the muzzle). This doesn't mean you can't get into trouble with BP,
for example with air space below the projectile, you can still build
pressures that will bust a tube.
Ken.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opt-out options are not an | Mail: kmarsh at charm dot net
acceptable excuse for Spam. | WWW: http://www.charm.net/~kmarsh
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Oberlander
even said together.
Harry O
by E.D. Lowry, (2) "Modern Pyrotechnics" by H. Ellern, and (3) "The
Chemistry of Powder & Explosives" by Tenney L. Davis.
Excerpts:
(from 3) Explosives detonate, they do not function by
burning......Propellants are combustible materials which burn, but do
not explode and function by producing gas....A sample of commercial
black powder of moderately fine granulation, say FFFg, may be poured out
in a narrow train, a foot or more long. When one end of the train is
ignited, the whole of it appears to burn at one time, for the flame
travels along it faster than the eye can follow.
(from 1) Heretofore, the terms propellants and explosives have been used
in a somewhat loose manner. It now becomes important to give them
correct definitions......Broadly, smokeless powders are propellants and
black powder is an explosive....
Propellants exhibit rapid ignition of successive layers of propellant.
The gasses generated, however must be confined to ensure continuation of
the burning process. The rate of reaction is directly dependent on the
chemistry, the geometry of its individual granules, and its degree of
confinement.....The total burning time, in guns, may vary from a
fraction of a millisecond to several milliseconds.
With explosives, no confinement is necessary, as the rate of reaction is
so rapid the high-pressure gasses do not have a chance to move away from
the propellant surface. Initiation results from a shock wave traveling
through the material almost instantaneously.
#2 has a lot of good stuff, too, but it is just a repeat of the above.
I think that the problem here is the definition of words. Someone said
that black powder BURNS slower than smokeless powder and therefore, you
should not use smokeless powder in place of black powder. That is
totally wrong. However, I believe that the writer intended to say that
smokeless powder can develop much more pressure than black powder. That
is correct. The speed of ignition and pressure that powder can develop
are two separate characteristics for any powder.
Smokeless powder can be used in place of BP ****IF YOU ARE VERY
CAREFUL****
Many people have done it, including me. Some have destroyed their guns
doing that (not me). If you really want to tickle the tail of the
dragon, try making some BP of your own. The rec.pyrotechnics group has
a lot of good information there. The trick is not the recipe. The
trick is combining them, pressing the combination, and corning it
without blowing YOURSELF (not your gun) up.
I hope that this ends this discussion, Randy. Unless you can come up
with something more than "you're wrong because I say so".
Randy Wakeman wrote:
#
# #randy...@aol.com (Randy Wakeman) wrote in message
#
# My comment was NOT to use smokeless powder.
#
# Anyone who thinks BP burns faster than smokeless is horribly wrong.
#
# Randy Wakeman
Randy Wakeman
#vintage cartridge arm, provided:
#Said arm is in good condition
#Pressures do not exceed design pressures for the gun
#A cast or paper-patched swaged lead bullet is used in deference to the
#softer steels of the era
#
All of which is unstated and unknown.
A safe shoot is a successful shoot.
If anyone care to bet their life on what they don't know . . . that's up to
them. Please stay away from others while you do it.
Randy Wakeman
Peter H. Proctor
#From: randy...@aol.com (Randy Wakeman)
#Subject: Re: Using Smokeless Powders as a substitute for Black Powder in vintage
#cartridge rounds.
#Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 14:27:52 +0000 (UTC)
##You can use proper smokeless loads in a
##vintage cartridge arm, provided:
##Said arm is in good condition
##Pressures do not exceed design pressures for the gun
##A cast or paper-patched swaged lead bullet is used in deference to the
##softer steels of the era
##
#All of which is unstated and unknown.
True, ya wanna be sure of your loads. But estabished light loads using (
say ) Unique have been used in old BP pistols for years without problems..
PHP
Harry O
shooter I know (including myself) has loaded smokeless in place of BP at
one time or another. And no manufacturer that I know of approves (in
writing) of handloading, regardless of the powder used.
Randy Wakeman wrote:
# IT IS UNSAFE TO USE MODERN SMOKELESS POWDER AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR BLACKPOWDER
# UNLESS SPECIFICALLY RECOMMENDED BY THE MANUFACTURER OF THE FIREARM.
#
# Randy Wakeman
Randy Wakeman
#I take it you are not a handloader.
Sorry, Harry O . . . wrong again. I've been reloading for over thirty years.
Moving on . . .
Harry O
Checking through my Ruger, S&W, Browning, and other owners manuals,
EVERY one of them specifically warns that using handloads will void
their warranty. If you knew that, WHY did you say that he had to get a
recommendation IN WRITING from the manufacturer before using smokeless
handloads?
Like I said before, every handloader I know who loads BP cartridges has
tried smokeless in it at one time or another and some use it
exclusively. If you have been handloading as long as you say, you have
seen the same thing.
Oh, I know what the problem is. You were wrong in your first post and
cannot admit it.
Randy Wakeman wrote:
#
# Harry O har...@tconl.com writes:
#
# #I take it you are not a handloader.
#
# Sorry, Harry O . . . wrong again. I've been reloading for over thirty years.
#
# Moving on . . .
#
# Randy Wakeman
litha...@gmail.com
# Although I have never seen the speed of BP compared with smokeless on
# the relative speed charts published just about everywhere, I am afraid
# that my experience is opposite of yours. BP is MUCH faster burning than
# smokeless.
# I base this on my experiments with a hollow-base, soft-lead bullet being
# shot in an undersized bore like was common in the old days (specifically
# the 41 Long Colt). The accuracy was directly related to the speed of
# the powder when using smokeless. 2400 was less accurate than Unique was
# less accurate than Bullseye. Then I tried FFFg and that was the most
# accurate of all. I think that the faster the powder burned, the faster
# the hollow-base gripped the rifling, and the more accurate it was.=20
# Therefore FFFg was the fastest burning.
# You are correct that smokeless can generate more pressure, but that is
# completely different from burning speed.
# Kenneth Coney wrote:
Actually black powder when fully exposed to the air virtually explodes, by
contrast smokeless powder under the same condition tends to burn very progressively.
When confined, however, black powder behaves somewhat differently. It burns
progressively up the bore of the barrel, increasing pressure behind the projectile
as it does so. Hot much of the powder gets burnt before the projectile leave the
barrel will determine the velocity of the projectile. If the powder charge is
too large, powder that hasn't been burn will exit the muzzle behind the projectile.
To test if the powder has been totally burned, you can spread a sheet of newsprint
beneath and out from the muzzle. The present of powder granules that have not burned
will be seen scattered over the surface of the newsprint. The excess powder is wasted,
so it is better to reduce your powder charge down to the point of complete combustion.
It's no accident that older black powder firearms have longer barrel, than new
contemporary firearms. The longer barrels were need to provided time for heavier powder
charges to burn, and impart increase velocity to the projectile being fired. If you
can locate a copy of the Guns & Ammo 1974 Annual, on pg. 266 You will find a chart on
how the .40 Caliber Dixie Caplock Rifle build projectile velocity with increases of
powder charge and barre
l length.
Gunner Asch
#contrast smokeless powder under the same condition tends to burn very progressively.
#When confined, however, black powder behaves somewhat differently. It burns
#progressively up the bore of the barrel, increasing pressure behind the projectile
#as it does so. Hot much of the powder gets burnt before the projectile leave the
#barrel will determine the velocity of the projectile. If the powder charge is
#too large, powder that hasn't been burn will exit the muzzle behind the projectile.
#To test if the powder has been totally burned, you can spread a sheet of newsprint
#beneath and out from the muzzle. The present of powder granules that have not burned
#will be seen scattered over the surface of the newsprint. The excess powder is wasted,
#so it is better to reduce your powder charge down to the point of complete combustion.
#It's no accident that older black powder firearms have longer barrel, than new
#contemporary firearms. The longer barrels were need to provided time for heavier powder
#charges to burn, and impart increase velocity to the projectile being fired. If you
#can locate a copy of the Guns & Ammo 1974 Annual, on pg. 266 You will find a chart on
#how the .40 Caliber Dixie Caplock Rifle build projectile velocity with increases of
#powder charge and barre
#l length.
The single most important SAFETY consideration between BP and
smokeless is Pressure.
While black powder is realitively slow burning in your firearm...it
will only generate so much pressure. With one rare exception...its
nearly impossible to generate more than 28,000 cup with black
powder..and then only in certain rifles using 3F powder. The average
rifle loading using BP runs from 6000-20,000 cup with most being in
the 18,000 range.
Smokeless on the other hand...will generate 70k cup with the wrong
powders..
Once.
Gunner
Rubaiyat of Omar Bradley
designed to take the place of black powder.
http://www.midwayusa.com/product/2649173432/blackhorn-209-black-powder-substitute
Gunner Asch
<johnwesl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
#This is a pretty old thread, but I note that there is now a smokeless powder that is specifically
#designed to take the place of black powder.
#
#http://www.midwayusa.com/product/2649173432/blackhorn-209-black-powder-substitute
GACK!! $35 for 10 oz of the stuff???????
Yeah..the reviews look wonderful...but I think Ill stick with my
much...much cheaper Goex 2F (Ive got more than a few full 16oz cans of
it in the magazine)
If Im shooting game inside of 100 yrds...it wont care if I shoot that
500gr slug or the 240gr balls into 1" or 3".
Interesting development though. Hope someone comes out with some
reasonably priced stuff..then I might try it.
Gunner
R.L. Horn
# powder that is specifically designed to take the place of black
# powder.
#
# http://www.midwayusa.com/product/2649173432/blackhorn-209-black-powder-substitute
That's been around for seven- or eight years, I believe. AFAIK, it's a
species of duplex powder (nitrocellulose+sulfur+niter+???).
I can't say I've tried it. It's hard to ignite (that's "209" as in
shotshell primers) and intended for modern inline muzzleloaders, in
which I've absolutely no interest.