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

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I had a friend that was developing loads to shoot BPCR to 1000 yards for long range matches and started using duplex loads, rifle failed and lost an eye and then learned to shoot left-handed.

BP only in BP guns is my rule.

That's odd. I shoot the occasional long range BPCR, even past 1000 yards, with great lack of success, but I've never thought to use a duplex load - a 405gr bullet in front of 95gr of 1.5fg does the biz for me, using somebody else's .45-120 rifle - mine is just the regular -70.
 
That's odd. I shoot the occasional long range BPCR, even past 1000 yards, with great lack of success, but I've never thought to use a duplex load - a 405gr bullet in front of 95gr of 1.5fg does the biz for me, using somebody else's .45-120 rifle - mine is just the regular -70.

Duplex loads for some in the BPCR crowd are the way to go. I personally would not, but some do.
 
The steel in most ML barrels, past and present, is not designed to withstand the pressures common in cartridge guns using smokeless powder. The steel is more than safe for black powder pressures which run 20% to 30% AT MOST of pressures in high velocity cartridge guns. There is no going back since there are tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of muzzleloaders using steels safe for pressures in the 10,000 to 15,000 psi. 55,000 psi is not uncommon in magnum cartridge guns View attachment 178051
You can see in the chart that once a certain point is reached.. in this case 110grs.. the maximum burn rate/speed levels out quite dramatically. In the loadings between 120 and 150 grs, a 30 gr difference.. speed only increases 67fps. Yet a 10 gr differential between 50-60 grains is over 100 fps. faster.
 
An interesting thread!

Strangely enough, a major problem with BP in the past was trying to slow it down for use in cannon (ML!). If you look at old photos of cannon from the 1860s you will see they had short barrels and very thick breeches. This was because the powder charge burned very quickly and produced a high pressure peak almost before the projectile had started to move. Given the relativly weak state of the cast and wrought metals available at the time, they had to add thickness to give the strenght. There were various attempts to slow down the burn rate of the powder by making very coarse "pebble" powder or compressing the powder into prism blocks to reduce the burning surface. The problem with BP is however that it is basically made from compressed dust and cannot hold together that long. As soon as the grains start to break up, the burn rate climbs exponentially. The problem with this is that the energy of a charge depends on pressure over time; you either get high pressure over a short time or lower pressure for a longer time. If you can persuade your propellent to burn more gradually, you can release more energy at a lower pressure.

The next thing they tried was to slow the burn rate by using less flammable components. By using charred straw instead of charcoal the powder took longer to complete the burn. This was called cocoa powder and was used in large cannon at the end of the BP period. It was however very dirty. It did however allow the pressure peak to be flattened out and extended the burn time allowing more energy to transfer to the projectile. Steel wire was often wound round the first quarter of the barrel to help improve the pressure resistence without having to use very thick breech rings..
1682449521123.png

As nitro propellent is a chemical solid rather than a compressed block, it is much more robust in resisting the pressures inside a breech, and the burning process can be better controlled. The secret of making smokeless propellent was to find a way of forming the nitrated cellulose into a solid mass. Early attempts to make a propellent from nitro cotton met with disaster as the surface area was too great and the burn rate could reach supersonic velocities. At this speed, the reaction changes from a "burn" to a shockwave induced "detonation" and the energy generation rate climbs exponentially. Black powder cannot detonate as the burn rate can never reach supersonic velocities in the medium, however almost all smokeless propellents can be made to detonate given the correct "encouragement". UK used only a very small range of double base (NG/NC) Cordite propellent in almost everything from small arms to Ship cannon by simply changing the grain size and surface area. The US has tended to stick to NC powder for cannon even up to the present day for some reason.

"Duplex Loads" are nothing new in gunnery. Almost all cannon rounds are duplex and up until very recently used a BP filled primer to ignite the nitro propellent. These charges are however very carefully designed to achieve a desired and predictable effect, often at very great cost in firing trials. There seems little practical benefit and significant risk in using "Reverse Duplex" in small arms where you are using smokeless to ignite BP, and not the other way around!

Always remember that there are a number of "Dragons" hiding in the back of the propellent cave...

Too much space in a BP charge can lead to shock waves travelling up and down the chamber causing pressure peaks and creating rings when the shock waves meet. There was a very nice demonstration of this by a researcher in the 60s who did a number of firing trials using copper pipe as a barrel subsitute. It was quite easy to produce predictable pressure rings in the barrel by leaving gaps. I need to emphasise that these trials were all fired remotely under controlled conditions, and is definately not for repetition in the back yard!​
Re-enactors need to be careful not to coat the bore with a layer of powder when loose loading blank charges as this can create a "quick match" effect as a flame front travels up the bore. They report this as "detonation" - it isn't, but it can lead to pressure peaks. Blanks need to be properly loaded into the breech with some form of light wad to keep the powder in place..​
I will not stray too far into the smokeless zone, but there is a known problem of using light charges of slow powder which will detonate in some circumstances.​

Please try not to poke the dragons!
 
Last edited:
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.
Maybe that's why "lawyer proof" modern BP replicas have such thick, heavy barrels. That powder really DOES act differently than black powder!
 
An interesting thread!

Strangely enough, a major problem with BP in the past was trying to slow it down for use in cannon (ML!). If you look at old photos of cannon from the 1860s you will see they had short barrels and very thick breeches. This was because the powder charge burned very quickly and produced a high pressure peak almost before the projectile had started to move. Given the relativly weak state of the cast and wrought metals available at the time, they had to add thickness to give the strenght. There were various attempts to slow down the burn rate of the powder by making very coarse "pebble" powder or compressing the powder into prism blocks to reduce the burning surface. The problem with BP is however that it is basically made from compressed dust and cannot hold together that long. As soon as the grains start to break up, the burn rate climbs exponentially. The problem with this is that the energy of a charge depends on pressure over time; you either get high pressure over a short time or lower pressure for a longer time. If you can persuade your propellent to burn more gradually, you can release more energy at a lower pressure.

The next thing they tried was to slow the burn rate by using less flammable components. By using charred straw instead of charcoal the powder took longer to complete the burn. This was called cocoa powder and was used in large cannon at the end of the BP period. It was however very dirty. It did however allow the pressure peak to be flattened out and extended the burn time allowing more energy to transfer to the projectile. Steel wire was often wound round the first quarter of the barrel to help improve the pressure resistence without having to use very thick breech rings..

As nitro propellent is a chemical solid rather than a compressed block, it is much more robust in resisting the pressures inside a breech, and the burning process can be better controlled. The secret of making smokeless propellent was to find a way of forming the nitrated cellulose into a solid mass. Early attempts to make a propellent from nitro cotton met with disaster as the surface area was too great and the burn rate could reach supersonic velocities. At this speed, the reaction changes from a "burn" to a shockwave induced "detonation" and the energy generation rate climbs exponentially. Black powder cannot detonate as the burn rate can never reach supersonic velocities in the medium, however almost all smokeless propellents can be made to detonate given the correct "encouragement". UK used only a very small range of duplex (NG/NC) Cordite propellent in almost everything from small arms to Ship cannon by simply changing the grain size and surface area. The US has tended to stick to NC powder for cannon even up to the present day for some reason.

"Duplex Loads" are nothing new in gunnery. Almost all cannon rounds are duplex and up until very recently used a BP filled primer to ignite the nitro propellent. These charges are however very carefully designed to achieve a desired and predictable effect, often at very great cost in firing trials. There seems little practical benefit and significant risk in using "Reverse Duplex" in small arms where you are using smokeless to ignite BP, and not the other way around!

Always remember that there are a number of "Dragons" hiding in the back of the propellent cave...

Too much space in a BP charge can lead to shock waves travelling up and down the chamber causing pressure peaks and creating rings when the shock waves meet. There was a very nice demonstration of this by a researcher in the 60s who did a number of firing trials using copper pipe as a barrel subsitute. It was quite easy to produce predictable pressure rings in the barrel by leaving gaps. I need to emphasise that these trials were all fired remotely under controlled conditions, and is definately not for repetition in the back yard!​
Re-enactors need to be careful not to coat the bore with a layer of powder when loose loading blank charges as this can create a "quick match" effect as a flame front travels up the bore. They report this as "detonation" - it isn't, but it can lead to pressure peaks. Blanks need to be properly loaded into the breech with some form of light wad to keep the powder in place..​
I will not stray too far into the smokeless zone, but there is a known problem of using light charges of slow powder which will detonate in some circumstances.​

Please try not to poke the dragons!
Good post!
 
old thread but, so am I.
it is a question of pressures and pressure spikes. our BP firing rifles operate in the 12k to 28k pressure range.
i have a 338 Lapua that operates at 65k
the black powder peaks within the first 14 inches according to a graph someone smarter than me compiled.
here is a graph showing BPvsSmokeless.
pressure curve..jpg
 
Last edited:
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.
Your typical black gun shooting 25 grains of smokeless powder produces over 60,000 PSI. 150 grains of black powder, depending on what grain size you use, which is a massive load probably won't produce 20,000 PSI.
 
So as this old thread keeps chugging along and I've caught back up, I find myself pondering a question.

Let me start by saying that my MLs are always used with BP or if in a pinch, Pyrodex and nothing else. Smokeless will never end up in any of my MLs.

So that said my thoughts followed by the question is this.

We have smokeless powders available today that can be loaded in old BP era cartridges that closely duplicate BP performance and pressures. This can easily be done with modern replicas of the 1873 and 1876 Winchesters as well as their antique counterparts whose barrels were not yet made of even the early nickel steel barrels that came out basically concurrently with the 30WCF. To my understanding, vintage 1873s and 1876s had barrel steels that would be pretty comparable to the MLs of the day and probably not as strong as our modern traditional MLs.

So this has me wondering, if the correct smokeless powder used in BP cartridges can be very safe in an antique '73 or '76, why then would it be deemed unsafe in a modern ML?? My thought is ignition. We all know that smokeless powder can be dangerous with poor ignition. Based on what I've seen here on this forum, we know that igniting smokeless with a flinter is sketchy at best. I would guess that proper ignition with a percussion cap would also tend to be sketchy.

What do you folks think??

Again, I have zero intention of attempting it in my MLs. Just an academic exercise.....
 
If I were forced to try it (I won't) I would use Accurate 5744. I have used it in a 40-65 and a 45-70 with good results, it needs no fillers in BP cartridges and is very accurate in the guns I have tried it in.
 
The first problem is the open vent. The potential for a much pressure from smokeless could cause the user to receive debri at high pressure.
A nipple cone potentially could fragment.
The jet from a vent from a flintlock could harm a bystander etc.
The other issue is the wide variety of smokeless powders and an unlimited chamber.
By looking at the mechanism of a certain modern inline you can clearly see how they have gone to great lengths to make sure the breech is not vented but completely sealed.
A cartridge rifle or sidearm limits the quantity if nothing else, yes the wrong smokeless could be used and damage the firearm but that aside a cartridge completely seals the bore and completely isolates the user from high pressure.
 
The thing about smokeless powders is, as you are increasing pressure, they burn faster and the pressure curve with increased powder charges goes up exponentially rather than linearly.

A case in point is my 300 Wby. I one time mixed up H 4831 for IMR 4831. Max charges are listed as 83.5 and 81.8 respectively, only a 2.004% difference. Well, one shot of the 83.5 gr charge of IMR 4831 (1.7 gr over max) caused my primer to flatten and extrude, and the action dang near needed to be hammered open. The brass slightly swaged itself in to the ejector plunger hole. SAAMI pressure for that cartridge is listed at about 65,000 psi. My best guess is that I was up closer to 85,000-90,000, way up in to the safety margin for the gun. So a mere 2% change in powder charge produced a 25%-30% change in pressure. I did not fire a second shot with those loads. I pulled all the bullets and reloaded them.

The answer to your original question is; yeah, you can do it and probably get away with it (like in modern smokeless loads for historic black powder cartridges), but the slightest operator error in measurements (and there are no loading manuals out there for doing it) may produce such an exponential change in pressure that catastrophic failure (remember, most of them are made from 12L14 steel) is a real possibility. Why tempt fate if you don't have to?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top