Why does smokeless powder peel open a muzzleloader like a banana?

[Shadowalker164]

I crossed paths with a video on this forum, can’t remember where, that demonstrated what happens with smokeless powder. Scary! It blew up every ML it was loaded in! I thought it was a bit of an over charge at 150 grains, but with BP I think the barrels would have survived? Is the issue the metal ML’s are made of? Barrel Wall thickness? How can a cheap black gun pop off smokeless forever and an expensive BP barrel becomes a cautionary tale? I don’t want to shoot the stuff, just curious.

 

[nkbj]

Two items basically; duration at pressure and the other not being engineered to withstand it.

 

[BoomStick]

More energy per grain in smokeless. There aren't many modern cartridges that will fit 150gr of smokeless, except maybe 50 BMG and the like. If you could somehow squeeze 150 gr into a 30-06, or most anything not designed for that kind of pressure, it'll blow up too...

 

[desi23]

I would say it is a combo of errors, made worse by failing to understand the difference in operating pressures between traditional black and later smokeless powders.............. For one thing, smokeless charges for modern day guns are tiny compared to black powder charges for muzzle loaders (or even early day cartridge guns). People using volume measured charges in a muzzle loader are using far more smokeless than any gun would be expected to survive. The steels used in modern muzzle loaders are capable of handling the pressures produced by black powder and the modern day substitute powders as measured out with traditional volume measures. The same measure with smokeless in it is a bomb.

Every now and then you hear of someone using very small charges of smokeless and getting away with it............ NOT a good idea, far too easy to make a dangerous, potentially fatal mistake. The proper charge, of the proper powder, for the design of the gun and you're fine. Too many don't understand the difference in the way powders work and get in serious trouble

 

[Shadowalker164]

Broomstick, your post beggs the question, at say 60 grains, would the ML still rupture? I get the pressure gradient on faster smokeless, but this can be engineered around. I saw another video where the guy claimed a 3000 fps ML! I’m fairly sure he wasn’t using BP!
If the question is engineering is it a money deal. Price point out of the market.

 

[earlwb]

There are several factors in play. The first one is black powder is measured by volume whereas smokeless is measured by weight. There is a huge difference between the two.

People that do not know better will measure smokeless propellant by volume and wind up with way too much propellant to charge the gun with. Thus blowing up the gun when they fire it off.

It is possible to use smokeless propellants in some guns. The .45 Colt and the .45-70 are two examples of it being done. But you have to be extremely careful though to not exceed the gun’s design capability. Not all guns are created equal.

They have made muzzleloaders that are designed to use smokeless propellants. But the user has to be extremely careful in loading the gun correctly. Most of the manufacturers quit making them due to the stupidity and laziness of people using and blowing them up. Then actually suing the manufacturer for their stupidity.

 

[Shadowalker164]

Question asked, question answered.
This forum is OK

 

[BoomStick]

I wouldn't be able to speculate what amount of smokeless would burst a ML barrel. As others here have said, these things are engineered for their intended purpose. The vids of people deliberately destroying guns baffle me...I've got less money and more common sense I guess.
I've heard of 3000+ fps in some smaller caliber inlines using a sabot and a large charge of synthetic BP. Not really anything I've had much interest to look into further.

 

[new2bp]

Because 22gr by weight of say, Accurate 5744 takes the same volume as about 30gr of 3Fg black powder, but while the 3Fg will generate very low pressures (less than 10k psi even with no air space) the 5744 will generate nearly 50k psi in pressures in even less time than the BP.

That said, there ARE muzzle loaders designed to use smokeless - but this is the wrong forum for that.

 

[JohnBHM]

In the eighties I was apprenticing for the carpenter position at my college. The carpenter who was to become a good friend used to talk about muzzle loader shooting sometimes although I didn't have a lot of interest at the time. I do remember him saying that he would sometimes drop a few grains of smokeless down the barrel before the black powder. I was only interested in wood working back then. I only recently found out that he was the New York State muzzle loading champion sometime before I knew him. I was lucky enough to know him and handle some of his guns. Sadly my family and I relocated half way across the country and by the time I was able to return he was suffering from dementia and the family wasn't saying where he was only that he wouldn't have known who I was. I can't go back but will always be thankfull for the time we had.

 

[LME]

Broomstick, your post beggs the question, at say 60 grains, would the ML still rupture? I get the pressure gradient on faster smokeless, but this can be engineered around. I saw another video where the guy claimed a 3000 fps ML! I’m fairly sure he wasn’t using BP!
If the question is engineering is it a money deal. Price point out of the market.

Some black powder target rifles have large diameter barrels which can tolorate huge charges?

 

[Britsmoothy]

Some are missing a point here.
Where as all black powder yields about the same level of pressure in pretty much the same time smokeless powders very vastly in their performance levels.
Thus it is impossible to suggest using a certain smokeless because once that becomes accepted Bubba is going come along and put the wrong smokeless in his muzzleloader and cause harm.

The other point is that we have vented breeches. Blackpowder pressure venting from a nipple or touch hole can be bad enough but to use some types of smokeless could boost the venting to an extremely dangerous level.
That is why them unmentionable things that were indeed developed to use smokeless had to use 209 primers and have fancy breech sealing apparatus.

Just don't do it, it's not clever.

 

[dave951]

There are several factors in play. The first one is black powder is measured by volume whereas smokeless is measured by weight. There is a huge difference between the two.

And you would be 100% wrong.

We have many threads and posts on this but to recap- many bp shooters do measure by volume BUT many measure by weight+volume (competition shooters). Smokeless reloading (and yes, I've been doing it for 40+ years) is done the exact same way. Many bp shooters are pretty cavalier in their attitude to powder measurement and just use volumetric means and that's because bp is quite forgiving in that sense. BUT if you want accuracy, you'll get just as OCD about measuring (meaning weighing) as any smokeless reloader, if not more so.

So in measuring a charge of smokeless (or bp for the competition shooter), the reloader will set his powder measure to dispense a certain weight of powder BUT, that very powder measure works on VOLUME! The only exception to this is the new computer driven "trickler" type of measure that will dispense (again by volume) a certain amount of powder onto a scale and the computer will "trickle" powder on the scale till the desired charge is met. So it's a marriage of volume and weight to precisely measure a charge. That's a level of OCD many smokeless reloaders don't go to unless they're competition shooting where accuracy is king. Back in the day before the computer controlled "tricklers", in loading precision ammo for my rifles, I'd dispense a charge from my powder measure that was a bit under what I wanted. I then put that charge on a scale and "trickled" powder till it came up to the weight I wanted. Same thing, older tech.

Once again, you cannot violate the laws of physics. Mass is Mass, whether black or smokeless powder. A given mass of a given composition will have unique burn characteristics, and that holds for black or smokeless powder. Where things get sticky with regards to smokeless is the composition can yield wildly varying burn rates and peak pressures while black powder is somewhat limited in that regard. Smokeless burn rates and peak pressure are varied by chemical composition (which varies widely) AND size of individual powder granules while Black Powder is pretty much limited to the ancient ratios of sulphur, potassium nitrate and charcoal coupled with the size the granules.

Now to the use of smokeless in traditional muzzleloaders- a VERY bad idea. The traditional guns were never engineered for smokeless, although it is true that there are some modern muzzleloaders designed specifically for it and there is another place to have those discussions. Using smokeless in an original gun with it's steel from the "day" maybe of suspect quality compared to the present materials is asking for trouble. You might get away with it once, twice, maybe more, but the stress from smokeless on a gun originally set up and engineered for real black powder may well lead to serious injury and destruction of a gun that is just one of a limited number still in existence. All around a very bad idea.

 

[dave951]

Some black powder target rifles have large diameter barrels which can tolorate huge charges?

Not really. Folks have always experimented to find the "best" for competition and that often drives development. That's why in the waning era of using bp as a common powder, you see a move to 45cal for military and competition use. In the last years of common bp cartridges, bore sizes got down to the 40 and 38cal range. Looking at the history of competition type rifles is very interesting and there are lots of rabbit holes to explore.

 

[earlwb]

Some black powder target rifles have large diameter barrels which can tolorate huge charges?

Not really. The larger calibers were the accepted normal of that era. Black powder charges were fairly moderate too. Metallurgy was in its infancy and barrel quality could vary wildly. Thus people didn’t load the guns with big powder charges like people tend to do today. Many folks here in the forum work up loads for best accuracy and that is not normally the maximum load either. Plus the larger bores were easier to clean and you could get a few more shots without having to clean them too.

The smallest practical bore was .32 caliber for muzzleloaders. The .32s and .36s were quite popular as they used less lead for bullets and less black powder too. That meant more shooting per pound of lead and/or powder. That was important out in the wilderness where you are very limited in what you can carry with you. They probably had more guns made in smaller calibers than the larger calibers back in the day. Even with the push west onto the Great Plains.

 

[LME]

Not really. The larger calibers were the accepted normal of that era. Black powder charges were fairly moderate too. Metallurgy was in its infancy and barrel quality could vary wildly. Thus people didn’t load the guns with big powder charges like people tend to do today. Many folks here in the forum work up loads for best accuracy and that is not normally the maximum load either. Plus the larger bores were easier to clean and you could get a few more shots without having to clean them too.

The smallest practical bore was .32 caliber for muzzleloaders. The .32s and .36s were quite popular as they used less lead for bullets and less black powder too. That meant more shooting per pound of lead and/or powder. That was important out in the wilderness where you are very limited in what you can carry with you. They probably had more guns made in smaller calibers than the larger calibers back in the day. Even with the push west onto the Great Plains.

The rifles I saw were not old ones. It is hard for me to see how smaller cal. balls/bullets were used due to less lead and powder? People that can afford target rifles that are in the thousands of dollars plus range wouldn't worry about power and lead cost? I am not disagreeing with you but it doesn't sound logical? Could you post your source of information?

 

[tenngun]

In the novel mysterious island by Vern, written in the 1870s or 80s he discribed ‘gun cotton’ and how it was used in ml at 1/4 tge charge. I understand during the late disagreement between the states the south did try gun cotton as a powder source. I don’t know how this worked out

 

[dave951]

The rifles I saw were not old ones. It is hard for me to see how smaller cal. balls/bullets were used due to less lead and powder? People that can afford target rifles that are in the thousands of dollars plus range wouldn't worry about power and lead cost? I am not disagreeing with you but it doesn't sound logical? Could you post your source of information?

Part of what you're seeing is form following function. If the target is at a relatively short range (think gallery style shooting), then a small caliber makes sense because environmental factors don't have much of a role in the outcome. Get out shooting at distance, the ability of a 45 or 50cal to "buck the wind" is most certainly a deciding factor v a smaller caliber. I don't think that economics are really at play here. I think physics, distance, and the type of shooting were dictating equipment.

 

[Okie Hog]

Just don't do it, it's not clever.

A friend was present on a firing range when a shooter loaded his muzzleloader with a volume charge of smokeless powder. The friend saw the powder container sitting on the bench after the wreck. The man is a reloader and he believes the powder was IMR 3031.

The shooter was gravely injured.

 

[deerstalkert]

A friend was present on a firing range when a shooter loaded his muzzleloader with a volume charge of smokeless powder. The friend saw the powder container sitting on the bench after the wreck. The man is a reloader and he believes the powder was IMR 3031.

The shooter was gravely injured.

stupidity, ignorance, and mistakes are costly sometimes.
sometimes it is just arrogance that hands out the bill.