Savage Model 10MLSS .50 caliber Muzzleloader Rifle Blown Up - Graphic Images!

[swamp]

Note: a friend forward this to me... draw your own conclusions... The below images and text is what was sent to me..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The rifle below looks to have been overloaded or the projectile was not seated against the powder charge at the bottom of the barrel.

A very good shooting friend of mine from Winnipeg, MB Canada sent me a link to these photos in a web album. A Winnipeg area shooter by the name of Trent Procter who works for Manitoba Hydro was sighting in his Savage muzzleloader rifle and nearly lost his hand. Luckily, he had his hand on the scope instead of the forearm when this happened. (Incidentally, the Savage is the only muzzleloader that is supposed to withstand the high pressures of smokeless powder.)
I don't know if this failure happened due to a defect in the rifle itself or if the shooter perhaps didn't properly seat the projectile against the powder firmly. This is VERY important with any muzzleloader, especially when shooting black powder.
Doc Martin
Webmaster Coon 'n Crockett Muzzleloaders Club Grand Forks, ND - USA www.coon-n-crockett.org <http://www.coon-n-crockett.org/>
This is what the rifle looks like:

This is a page I took from the manual that mentions the smokeless loads:

This is the note that was sent with the email I received:If you guys know of anyone who is shooting a Savage like this let them know that there are many recorded cases of them failing such as Proc's did. Savage is the only muzzle loader that claims it can handle smokeless powder loads. Cabelas won't even carry this product anymore.. This email has gone to the CEO of Savage Arms via another hunter who has contacted Trent. The same thing happened to him awhile back, he was lucky as his forend hand was on his scope as he was sighting in.

Forward as you feel fit.

[Bill Gunn]

The rifle below looks to have been overloaded or the projectile was not seated against the powder charge at the bottom of the barrel..

Notice the action held, but the barrel burst.
I would agree with the above statement, but what would make you think that the same thing wouldn't happen with any muzzleloader that you abuse like that.

Guess it shows again...... Stupid Hurts

http://pic90.picturetrail.com/VOL2250/777751/13525437/379735701.jpg

[swamp]

Bill, I don't know what happened... perhaps you know what stupid thing he did to cause this.. The story is circulating the net.. http://www.hpmuzzleloading.com/Alert2.html

In my opinion, I see three things that when combined that would give me a red flag, stainless steel bbl, possible below 0 Fahrenheit temps, use of smokeless propellent

[Bill Gunn]

Swamp,

This "Toby Bridges vs Savage" thing has been going on ever since he was fired from Savage. When he worked at Savage, he did the EXACT same thing to CVA's (calling them unsafe, and starting a big campaign against them), and called the Savage the safest M/L ever made.
I Personally think he has a vendetta going (because of being fired from Savage), and it ain't gonna stop in our lifetime.

I don't know how much muzzle loading you do, but in the last 25 or 30 years, with BP, and smokeless (and I do like BP flintlock the best by far) I've found that compared to "cartridge Guns", it's a lot easier to mess up with a m/l at the bench or while hunting.
I think just recently Captchee and I were discussing how just "talking to someone" while shooting, and reloading muzzle loaders is very unsafe. I've seen no powder, no bullet, and shooting out cleaning rod tips, all while talking to someone at the bench. I've heard of shooting out entire cleaning rods, and double loads (thankfully in my friends case, it was caught before the gun was fired). How many times have we all heard of the civil war gun being found with 2 or more loads in it?

Of course I have no idea what exactly was done that caused that barrel to burst. I was just agreeing with the statement made at the beginning of your post. It could be defective steel, but it was fired 200 to 300 times with no problem... ?
In reading of a supposed 4 failures of a Savage ML (where are the law suits?), out of the 10's of thousands made (and how many shots out of each of them ?), although I certainly wouldn't want to be one of them, I can see that many major "operator error" mistakes, would be in the realm of possibly. That's what I meant when I said "Stupid Hurts".
When I lived and worked in Winchester Va., the foreman I hired was into M/L's and hunted with his neighbor. One day he came to work all upset. He went home the day before, and his neighbor's wife called to say he didn't come home after hunting that day. They hunted right across the road, so he went to his partners favorite spot. He found him dead, and his T C Hawkin barrel was exploded. Everyone figured the same, load not seated, or double load. It doesn't make all the T C's out there bad. Just shows you have to be careful.
I will say that the Savage does have one BIG problem going for it.
There are a lot of guys out there that have a hard time following directions. You can find all over the net, guys that have to use powders NOT RECOMMENDED, and even warned against using for the Savage M/L in the instructions.
Toby Bridges was one of the leaders of them when he WORKED for Savage, and he was warned by Savage to stop. I've read that the gun he blew up had many of those "experimental" loads through it.
I have see loads that guys were saying how great they worked on deer that were 300 grain bullets going 2800 fps (using 60 grains of 'Lil Gun, and a double sabot) !!

Personally I think that's nuts for hunting deer.
I use the lightest recommended load of V V-110, and it pushes a 250gr. at around 2200 fps. and does a great job.


Bill

[swamp]

I still wonder if it has has something to do with the stainless steel bbl and sub 0 Fahrenheit temps...

I'd like a professinal bbl maker's opinion on the savage ss bbl being used at sub 0 Fahrenheit temps..

The shooter was far from being a novice from what i have read so far...

[Bill Gunn]

From Lilja Precision Rifle barrels...

Q. Can stainless steel barrels be safely fired in sub zero temperatures?

Yes they certainly can be. There is a myth going around that stainless steel alloys used in rifle barrels loose their strength in sub zero temperatures. There is no truth to that. We have made many thousands of barrels that have been fired safely in below zero temperatures as have all of the other custom barrel makers as well as the major arms manufacturers. This is an urban legend that should be chilled

http://www.riflebarrels.com/faq_lilja_rifle_barrels.htm#subzero

[swamp]

http://www.kriegerbarrels.com/Calibers__Prices-c1246-wp3390.htm

from what I just read Krieger apparently would not agree with that statement from Lilja.... see what kreiger says about SS bbls and sub 0 Fahrenheit temps under notes at the bottom of that page...

Also note on that page that the minimun contour that they list for a CM 308 bbl is #0 and for SS 308 bbl is a #5

[GF.]

The pics of the gas cutting on the breech plug do seem pretty damning, I'd say... One thing, though, that rings true with me is that the smokeless powders are far, far, far less forgiving of sloppy measuring technique, so even if a guy were to make a reasonable effort to measure accurately, he could very quickly cause himself a problem which might not have an immediate result but which would continue to grow over time.

One real liability for the Savage rifles, IMO is that they were marketed as a high-power/low-maintenance alternative to 'old-fashioned' smokepoles like the pyro-pellet specials, so I wouldn't be at all surprised if a good number of Savages will never fail, simply because they never get more than a hundred or so rounds put through them. Why is that liability? Because for better or for worse, their relatively low failure rate may be more an artifact brought on by light usage than an indicator of good design or construction. Swamp mentioned that an injured shooter was 'far from being a novice', and that would (according to my assumptions) put him at an unusually high risk of running into a problem....

JMO, if a guy has never dry-balled or double-charged, he probably hasn't shot all that much; I'm still on my 3rd or 4th pound of powder, and while I don't believe I've ever double-loaded (because the ramrod would likely tip me off to that), I do know for a fact that I've dry-balled at least a time or two when yes, just like everybody else, I got distracted. It just seems to me that when you've double-charged, the difference between smokeless and BP or a sub is the difference between a hell of a kick and a pipe bomb.

So Bill, I'm glad you're enjoying your rifle, but I'd feel better about it if you would just pull that breech plug every once in a while and make sure it doesn't look like one of the ones Bridges is talking about....

And yeah, ML, cartridge-shooter or otherwise, 300 grain bullets at 2800 feeps is pretty heffing stupid, period, let alone as a deer load....

[Bill Gunn]

So Bill, I'm glad you're enjoying your rifle, but I'd feel better about it if you would just pull that breech plug every once in a while and make sure it doesn't look like one of the ones Bridges is talking about........

L O L ....
Well, I'm glad to report you can sleep soundly tonight.
Where did you get the indication that I don't follow instructions that are in the owners book?
They include cleaning and inspection and replacement of the the breach plug, & cleaning & replacement of vent liners every 200 shots.

My last order from Savage included 3 plugs, and 20 liners.

They include statements in the manual that these parts are expected to wear, and should be replaced periodically, as any liner should be on any muzzle loader as it wears.

I actually over do the changing thing, I change the liner every other season (about 50 to 60 shots), and I have changed the plug once, even though it looked perfect, and still have 2 extras.


As far as the SS barrel thing.... I'd guess that I'd be buying a barrel from Lilja long before I'd buy one from kreiger, if they don't trust their own barrels.

[swamp]

I certainly want to know more about the ss bbl issues... here is another bbl exploding and yes it is another ss bbl..


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEOEu6k6sFE

[Bill Gunn]

Honestly, and all kidding aside, it is something to look into, but I myself would not put a lot of stock into something off the internet.
You never know if what you are reading is coming from a 16 year old kid, or a rocket scientist.
One of my friends son lives in Alaska, and is a geologist for a gold mining company. He recently stated that all the steel on the excavators, bulldozers, and other machinery ALL becomes brittle at 40 to 50 below zero, and it snaps like peanut brittle when stressed.
I would have to see something from a metallurgist that knows SS, barrel pressures, and other variables we are dealing with, to get an informed opinion.

jmho....

Bill

[swamp]

Bill, I have talked to some custom gun makers and there are issues with SS bbls and cold temps at least according to some I've spoken with.. Apparently some SS alloys are less affected than others when it comes to cold temps and SS bbls... there arent the same stresses with actions however so its non issue with SS actions... at least this is what I have been told...

I am going to do more research on this..

[Rattus58]

I still wonder if it has has something to do with the stainless steel bbl and sub 0 Fahrenheit temps...

I'd like a professinal bbl maker's opinion on the savage ss bbl being used at sub 0 Fahrenheit temps..

The shooter was far from being a novice from what i have read so far...

It has nothing to do with smokeless, so get off that already will you? It could be the barrel steel, but it isn't because its stainless. It is more likely from improper loading,.. more than likely.

Aloha... :cool:

[swamp]

Well according to some bbl makers which does include krieger, stainless steel begins to lose fatigue resistance below zero degrees Fahreinheit so I guess I will tend to lean away from ss bbls on hunting rifles that may encounter sub zero temps... also I prefer not to get into smokeless powders with muzzleloaders... I would like to know at what temp the above incident occurred at...

[captchee]

MMM ??
Couple things . If properly built there is no reason that a rifle loaded from the muzzle using smokeless , would not withstand the very same pressure produced by the same loads as any cartridge would .

Now that being said , depending on the powder , you don’t have to have a bullet completely seated as with a Black powder charge ..
If this is in doubt , simply go to your ammo box and pick up one of the shells . Give her a shake . What you find id the bullet , depending on the cartridge and powder , can be as much as ¾ inch off the powder charge .
Now this is not to say one should or could apply the same principle and thus have the bullet 3 inches off the powder .
That would not be good . The bullet will then act like an obstruction .
But what I am saying is if these barrel truly were designed to withstand smokeless charges then it should have been taken into account


As to Tb and his issue . IMO he was stupid and his failures to follow manufactures recommendations most likely contributed to the failure he was part of .
At the same time I do not think the ML10 modified breech design is a good design .
The original designers design IMO was much better and safer . I know he supposedly signed off on the changes but . I cant help but wonder why ?
But on the other side of the coin , there are a whole lot of people out there that will subject their rifles to the very same things

As to stainless barrels . How temperatures effect them depends on the material used . All stainless is not the same in their make up . Simply put all steels change with temperature. it’s a mater of if those steels stay in proper parameters at temperatures that the shooter is likely to encounter
If the company building these barrels are not using the very same standards as stainless center fire barrels , then IMO they should be .
But frankly there is no way of knowing unless the barrel is sent off to be tested and showed to be of sub standard material .
But even then there is know way of knowing that the company will not just go back to doing what they did . There simply are no checks to keep them honest other then lawsuits .
On the flip side though , how many barrel failures happen with non stainless barrels ????


In reality what we all shoot is nothing but a pipe bomb with a weaker plugged end “projectile “ there is simply dangers that can happen .


How long has the ML 10 been out now ? 3-5 years ?///
Either way you cut it , not a good track record for that length of time , regardless of how many have been sold . Not in today’s market .

[Bill Gunn]

How long has the ML 10 been out now ? 3-5 years ?///
Either way you cut it , not a good track record for that length of time , regardless of how many have been sold . Not in today’s market .

First Savage M/L's were shipped in 2000... Ten Years.

Time sure does fly, when I'm having fun...

[swamp]

Does anyone know what the wall thickness is on a savage ML10 CR bbl and that of a savage ML10 SS bbl?

[Bill Gunn]

Well, I have a bunch of plastic sabots that have been shot through my SS barrel, but their on my lawn in my back yard.
Right now it's 0*f outside, and their somewhere under a foot of snow, so I can't measure the ID of the barrel.
Mine is one of the very first ML II's that has the "Easy Start" muzzle (that I like a lot), so the ID can't be measured at the muzzle.


EDIT......


I found some info on the internet where a guy slugged the barrel of his ML II.
He got real close to .500 (.497 to .503) after many tries.
I measured the OD of mine, and it starts at 1.035 at the action, and .860 near the muzzle.
In the area where the barrel failed on the one in the pictures, the barrel is very close to 1.000".

More info....



http://www.randywakeman.com/ballltd18.htm

[swamp]

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=420803

well IMO seems to me that something is stirring --- cabelas and perhaps with other major retailers ... some are apparently getting rather nervous....

... Savage 10 ML BP...

accuracy to shoot less than 1.5" groups at 100 yds, with Blackhorn 209, Triple 7, Shockey Gold, or White Hots ...
With Warning ... Black powder, Pyrodex, Triple 7, Blackhorn, White Hot, or American Pioneer black powder susbstitutes are the only safe and suitable propellants for use in any muzzleloading firearm.

I cant even find a savage ml on cabelas website... whats going on?

[Bill Gunn]

I got a good idea Swamp, if your afraid of them....

DON'T BUY ONE !!!


From Natchez Supply... EVERY Savage M/L is out of stock, they sold every one they could get..

Savage Top Sellers -
Savage Products
10ML-II Series

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BV18143 50CAL 24'STS THUMBHOLE STOCK Out $811.93 $689.99

BV17503 CAMO 50CAL 24 BRL W/ACCU TRIGGER Out $647.18 $549.99

BV17504 CAMO STS 50CAL 24 B W/ACCUTRIGGE Out $721.93 $609.99

BV17497 SAVAGE INLINE BLUE 50CAL 24 BRL Out $602.72 $509.99

BV17505 W/LAMO STK 50C STS 24BBLACUTRIGR Out $764.45 $649.99


My buddy called DDS Ranch (Largest Firearm Supplier on the internet, the office is about 5 miles from my house) he has 42 wholesalers he buys from and NONE have one SS Savage ML II in stock, and don't expect any for at least 30 days. They all sold out before the gun season began, and it was the same last season. They just cannot keep up with the demand.

http://www.ddsranch.com/cart/

If you don't buy one I doubt Savage will notice the drop in sales.

Cabela's having a BP model while a smokeless model is still being produced is about the stupidest thing I ever heard. If it is a lesser gun, which one would you rather shoot ? The smokeless gun owners manual covers shooting BP, or any substitute you may wish to shoot.

[swamp]

Bill honestly using smokless powder in a muzzle loader is something that i would never do even though thousands of others do it...

If i wanted a new ml then i'd look at a tc http://www.tcarms.com/firearms/triumph.php ...

I think i could get similar mv results with triple 7 powder... am i wrong in thinking so? ... what advantages does smokeless give me over triple 7

[captchee]

Ahh a point here , firing a rifle is not proofing it .
Firing it at over charges is NOT proofing it .
Proofing requires a lot of different steps beyond just a heavy charge , not only is there measurements but also analysis of the effects of the charge on the steel of the barrel .

Saying a barrel is proofed because its been fired , is miss representation
The US has NO standards of proof beyond what any given company feels is acceptable

[Bill Gunn]

Swamp...

Google the words "Crud Ring"...

You'll get about 70,000 responses, and they ALL have to do with 777.
In the Savage manual (page 13) it discusses the use of 777, and gives specific instructions regarding the use of 777 because of how dirty it burns.

http://www.savagearms.com/various/documents/manual_muzzleloader_10mlii.pdf

777 loads run from about 200 to 600 fps slower than "V V 110" loads.

Captchee,

You didn't read that right, it says...

No Savage 10ML-II leaves the factory without a barrel that is proofed to in excess of 46,000 PSI. Not just a test sampling of barrels are so proofed, ALL OF THEM ARE. Also, every single Savage 10ML-II is also test fired prior to shipment.

All guns are proofed, AND test fired. Are you telling me that one of the largest firearms makers in America has no idea how to proof a firearm?
Exactly where did you get that information?

It is my understanding that There are two civilian bodies that govern manufacturing and proofing standards throughout the world: the C.I.P, headquartered in Liege, Belgium, and SAAMI in the United States. In the United States, SAAMI publishes the standards approved by ANSI that are voluntary in the United States for use by commercial manufacturers. Membership in SAAMI is not law, it is elective.

Bill

[captchee]

SAAMI
sets standards , of what is felt to be safe limits of pressure , and are only a guideline , they do not proof .
subjecting a barrel to 46,000 PSI is not proofing .
even European laws do not subject every barrel to proofing . you simply cannot do that and keep up in production
They do what’s call batch testing . To ensure production is staying within requirements.
Personal I don’t car what savage says they do because there is no checks other then their own company .

SAAMI do not check to ensure a company stays within their guidelines .
The only way a statement of proof is valid is by an un bias, un associated testing facility actually running the barrels to unsure they meet a given set of parameters . Not just withstanding pressures .
A barrel can very well pass European pressure loads , yet fail the proof . The reason is that the barrels are also tested to ensure that load did not create un due stresses , stresses that cannot be seen simply by looking at them . This also ensures that the barrels stay resilient and return to proper shape after firing of a heavy load .
Proofing also provides for a set of standards which will remove even a proofed barrel from proof .
Thus just because a barrel was once proofed does not mean it will always be in proof

Again the US has no proofing houses . SAAMI is only a standard , a standard with no teeth and no requirements to ensure the recommendation are being followed and have been tested .
And yes if savage is say their barrels are proofed , then IMO shame on them because they are using the word PROOF as a sale gimick .
It means nothing because the so called proof has not and is not validated by anyone past themselves . And yes they know better . But the consumer does not . They see and read “we proof every barrel to SAAMI standards “ thus they are impressed .

But the reality is that most every barrel company worth their salt follows the same guidelines. .
If you want a barrel PROOF ed you send it off to a proofing house . The result is that you will get a barrel back that is assured to be in proof . It will also be stamped and certified to be in Proof .
That stamp is no made up one my some company . it’s a backed assurance that the house knows what its doing . They also are often checked to ensure they follow requirements . If they fail they lose the right to Proof

46 .0000 big do de daaaa . DDS seamless and cromolly can be rated at over 120 thousand PSI and also is tested to insure that rating .
most people frown of its use . yet it to will pass that 46,000 mark with no issues

[Bill Gunn]

Again, I ask you, where are you getting your information that Savage is lieing, or is it just something you want to believe?

[Rattus58]

Bill honestly using smokless powder in a muzzle loader is something that i would never do even though thousands of others do it...

If i wanted a new ml then i'd look at a tc http://www.tcarms.com/firearms/triumph.php ...

I think i could get similar mv results with triple 7 powder... am i wrong in thinking so? ... what advantages does smokeless give me over triple 7

Smokeless is cleaner, less recoil, and smoother shooting than black powder. You'll not get the consiistent accuracy you will with smokeless powder either. This whole smokeless thing is a fraud anyway. Powder is powder. Anything not Black Powder is no different than smokeless anyway, they are all propellants. You don't have any moisture problems with smokeless and no crud ring.

Smokeless powder presents no more of a threat to a muzzleloader than does Black Powder. Get used to it. Smokeless is hard to light off. That is the major issue with smokeless and it eats nipples with a vengeance, hence the use of ventliners. There is a synthetic bias against smokeless that is unwarranted. Look at the thousands upon thousands of hours, shots, of smokeless shooters with the Savage, the Ultimate Muzzleloader and several others .

I'd appreciate you keep the "It'll blow up your muzzlelader" to those in kindergarten or who are otherwise not intelligent enough to load a firearm properly.

[captchee]

bill im not saying savage is lying . what im saying is that they should not be claiming a proof when there is no assurance of proof past what the company itself is doing
as such it is not considered a true proof .

just because a barrel can or has withstood a heavy charge , does not mean it will continue to .
this has and still is a very long standing issue in the muzzle loading industry .
both at the smith level clear to manufacturing .

Until about 20 years back many folks recommended double charging as a way to proof .
The assumption was that if the barrel withstood a double charge , it would continue to withstand charges up to that point .
But then gunsmith began to stand up and state NOT NECISSERLY SO .
A heavy charge can do damage that is unseen .
Thus when a true proof is done the barrel must be properly analyzed. The bore and outside must stay true in all its measurements. The metal of the barrel but maintain its integrity.
Even with batch testing , where every so often a given barrel is removed and subject to proof .
If that proof fails , the company loses its ability to stamp barrels until such time as its found out WHY something in the manufacturing has changed .
This is not something that one can do themselves . it’s a lengthy process and requires specialized equipment

Under eroupian proofing laws . Which by the way also includes India proofing laws , a firearm cannot be exported or sold that has not been certified to be in proof by a independent certified proofing house .
The exception is India which requires all firearms be certified to be in proof , by the government .
The reason behind this , is so that companies cannot shirk standards and still claim proof

While savage my very well state that they test their barrels to meet SAAMI standards , there is no one who checks to ensure that is actually happening . That Checking is defined to be an actual proof .

In so many words what savage is doing is stating they fire all their barrel to X pressure .
They could very well be doing that OR they could be mechanically pressurizing the barrel to that pressure . Apparently in their mind they are calling this a proof . Just as not to long ago double charging was called proofing .

What im telling you is that this is NOT a Certified Proof . Its an opinion
Next time you have your barrel off . Take a look . Does it carry a proof and viewers mark ?
If so look that mark up . If it’s a true PROOF , those marks will tell you who and where . You will also be able to call or write that company for a write up telling you what the standards of proof are , that your barrel met .

If it does not carry those marks then the barrels are not certified to be in proof .

Anyone can say , they proof an item . Anyone, you , I billy bob . Joe blow ,,, anyone
They can even say they proof to the SAAMI standards .
It however still remains to be seen as to if that item truly meets those standards and until an un bias evaluation has been made to indeed assure that Yes this item meets proof . The item is simply not proofed to anything but an opinion.
that’s what IMO savage I doing . I find it very highly unlikely that every barrel goes through a complete full proof . Again not only would it take a lot of specialized equipment . Equipment that would have every gun company and maker in this country clamoring to have them use on their barrels as well . But it would also create such a backlog of testing that production numbers would be hampered .

Again if savage was indeed doing a complete and certified proof . It would be all over the gunsmith forums , Magazines and write ups .
To this date I have not seen any such writings or information .
So in so many words again their proof is a proof in the eye of the beholder , nothing more and nothing less

[captchee]

Smokeless is cleaner, less recoil, and smoother shooting than black powder. You'll not get the consiistent accuracy you will with smokeless powder either. This whole smokeless thing is a fraud anyway. Powder is powder. Anything not Black Powder is no different than smokeless anyway, they are all propellants. You don't have any moisture problems with smokeless and no crud ring.

Smokeless powder presents no more of a threat to a muzzleloader than does Black Powder. Get used to it. Smokeless is hard to light off. That is the major issue with smokeless and it eats nipples with a vengeance, hence the use of ventliners. There is a synthetic bias against smokeless that is unwarranted. Look at the thousands upon thousands of hours, shots, of smokeless shooters with the Savage, the Ultimate Muzzleloader and several others .

I'd appreciate you keep the "It'll blow up your muzzlelader" to those in kindergarten or who are otherwise not intelligent enough to load a firearm properly.

Not completely true rattus .
The difference is that smokeless burns a lot different then BP .
The reason BP is an explosive is because its ignition is very quick . Once ignited it gives no more pressure . Thus the bore pressures start to drop as the projectile moves down the barrel .
Smokeless is not that way . It continues to burn most all the way down the barrel , thus accelerating the projectile un tell such time as the pressure is vented .
Each type of smokless powder also does this at lesser or greater existents

As I stated before if its safe or not depends on the design .
The design of the rifle has to be done based around that type of powder . Not only in ist receiver and ignition system but also in its barrel make up .

Another issue with it in muzzle loading applications , is venting ..
Smokeless can produce so much pressure that it gas cuts .
A liner is nothing but a harder material that is less subject to gas cutting .
that’s the hard part when it comes to muzzle loading .
How do you stop the gas cutting with the designs we have .
Basically you cant , it takes a new design such as the ML10 . But even it has issues and thus the need to recommend checking and replacing the plug when needed ,
In any other design , even if the barrels and breech would hold , it would not take long before there would be a failure basically because of the gas cutting issue . Either in the flash channel itself .

I would agree that designs should be able to be made to properly hold smokeless charges . The very same charges used for center fire applications .
But to this date none have really came about .
The ML10 most certainly is one . The ultimate is another . But both use two completely different applications .

Right now smokeless applications are in their infancy . I would be willing to bet though that in the next 20 years or so there will be vast improvements made .
It would not surprise me to see even traditional designs coming about that are capable of withstanding smokeless. Only time will tell .
But right now using smokless in rifles that are currently on the market , the ML10 and ultimate are the only two I would feel safe shooting .
Every company has barrel failure’s I don’t expect that to change . Its just the nature of the beast with to many veriables to completely eliminate that ever happening .

[sharpshooter94]

seeing as how matter shrinks when exposed to cold temperatures, could the barrel have shrunk enough to increase pressure on the steel. It would make sense. The steel shrinks, the bullet has more pressure on it from the decreased barrel diameter, the bullet is trying to move out of the barrel and since the diameter of the barrel is decreased it requires more pressure to push the bullet out. More than the ss can hold. Just a theory, I don't know whether or not it could happen.

[Rattus58]

Hi Captchee.... No argument, and basically what I said. There are problems with smokeless even with the ultimate and the savage that are dealt with by virtue of the ventliners and the 209 or other primers (I use magnum pistol). The problem of pressure is another thing. Any sidelock makes a poor candidate for high pressure and even with black powder, one can get hurt if they are careless. If you have ever had your hammer cocked for you or are missing a cap, you are virtually on the edge. The powder is a great advantage for the shooting part especially if you keep pressures to your muzzleloader pressure values for your most accurate loads for black powder. Browning tested a muzzlelloader with smokeless that I have the report; very interesting and debunks a lot of the bs about smokeless. They ultimately destroyed the gun but the destruction started with a deiberately shortstarted bullet test. Nonetheless, 90 grains of 3030 is twice as much as a 45-70 smokeless load so the destruction was not unexpected.

Smokeless for muzzleloaders especially I feel with nipples like the "accra-shot" which used a selfcontained chamber for a pistol primer is probably the route to follow for sidelocks and smokeless. Pressure is the key... ignition is the key. Keep them both or get them both under control with a sensible load, you can have hours of shooting pleasure for a lot less money than with black... about half as much actually or more.

I'm hoping people get off the bias and start working toward solutions.

Aloha... :cool:

[Rattus58]

I'm certain of increased pressures by virtue just of the temperature. Dense air, the possibility of the molecules shivering together.... I'm sure it does... but hte bullet is also affected by the cold, so it may also shrink up a little too... but cold is cold, and pressures do go up. Some metals become brittle in real cold, but I'm not likely to be found shooting anywhere near below zero.... :)

Aloha... Tom :cool:

[Bill Gunn]

but I'm not likely to be found shooting anywhere near below zero.... :)

Aloha... Tom :cool:

L O L....

At least not until "Hell and Hawaii freeze over" !!

[Bill Gunn]

Captchee,
First I must say that your last two posts were two of the best posts I've seen on H.A. in a long time...

A lot of very good factual information...

BUT, that doesn't mean I fully agree with your conclusions :wavey:

Savage says they not only proof EVERY gun to SAAMI standards, but they also test fire every ML II.
Obviously, unless Captchee is physically standing in the room, their statement is useless in your eyes.
I personally think you are being a little ridicules. Is nobody (Including you and I ) to be trusted?
You say you don't believe they could keep up production if they proof test every firearm....
Please reread my post in this thread that I made 01-30-2010 06:32 PM....

THEY CAN'T KEEP UP WITH DEMAND !!!!

Isn't it possible in your eyes that Savage does care about safety?

You PO PO the fact that they ONLY test to 46,000 psi (when their HIGHEST approved load generates only 36,000 psi) and state "seamless and cromolly can be rated at over 120 thousand PSI and also is tested to insure that rating ."
With just a little research on the web, (Google; Savage 129,000 psi ) you will see that the Savage ML II action and barrel have been tested to 129,000 psi WITHOUT FAILURE. The tests have split stocks, and bent recoil lugs, but the action and barrel always held.
Now..... would you prefer that the actual rifle action & barrel you have bought had been subjected to a test of 120,000 psi ?? If you do, I would prefer to be standing at least 100 yards from you any time you shot it.
As you stated, there is accumulative damage done to any firearm during it's lifetime. I would have to say that for myself, an action design that is known to have passed tests of 129,000 psi, and if the gun I bought has been tested to SAAMI standards (just for you, I didn't use the word "Proofed") to 46,000 psi, and the MAX. recommended load was 36,000 psi (and I shoot the lowest recommended load of V V-110)

well.... I'm a happy guy.

[captchee]

All systems are subject to failure.
Most people do not fully understand or appreciate all the details that go into a firearm .
Even a side lock .

With a percussion side lock the hammer does not only act as a source for firing the cap . It also acts as a check valve . Very much like the pressure valve on a hot water heater .
If the simply system is subject to much pressure it will push the hammer back and vent the barrel.
This also can be a sign of needed maintenance. IE new nipple , mains spring and such .
An interesting point to this that is often also overlooked is PROOF .
Many times the proof standard is based on the total system , not just the barrel .
. To much venting can be catastrophic and remove parts .
With smokeless center fire systems you have a double lug . This lug helps stop the bolt from being driven back and venting the chamber .
that’s a good thing because other wise the bolt could be driven back . Under very high pressures that’s not a good thing .
The other issue with muzzle loading is the USER .
With smokeless in center fire there is a relatively small % of folks “ compared to % of users” that actually reload their own ammo . As such its lesser of on issue of overloading .
With muzzleloaders its frankly to common . As we as a community accept higher and higher loads , as a practice , the manufactures have to keep up . If they don’t then there is issues .

Now that’s not to say this person overloaded the rifle . Having the barrel analyzed WILL tell if that happened .

One thing that myself I find rather odd and frankly does lead me to question the barrel itself , is the way the barrel ruptured . Normally when a modern steel barrel fails , it splits evenly. Almost like tearing a seam .
This one , and maybe its just the photos , looks like what one would see in a soft barrel that has been subject to much pressure .

The + , if there is one . The receiver held . So did the plug . What ever happened , happened forward of the breech . Thus IMO its very clear that the barrel itself is the wink link .

Now its just up to the experts who can actually handle the piece , to evaluate it and find out why ..
Could this person have been at a range shooting at temps that would be so low as to effect the barrel steel ???
Possible but I would think in common .
Even then though , how many stainless barrels are on shotguns which often get shot and shot hard while waterfowl hunting .

This also in my mind is dissimilar to TB situation .
On his rifle the photos showed clear high pressure gas venting around the rupture area .
This one does not . At least not that we are being shown .
Also looking at the injuries, im wondering what caused them ?
What im getting at is , what parts cause the wounds ,, the stock pieces .
If his hand was indeed up on the scope , how did he get these ?
Im thinking he must have had his hand forward of the scope and down on the barrel or down under the stock , holding it .
Both would better explain the injuries


As to the video clip . I have seen that one before .
Am I the only one who thinks the reaction is odd ?
If I had a gun blow up like that , there would have been a whole lot more !@#@@# and I I seriously doubt I would have threw it down and then ran over to see if I could help another hunter get into position ?
Does not seem natural to me somehow

[captchee]

Bill , come on now , your missing my point here completely .
There are standards that define what a proof is .
Those standards are not just firing a load . They are not just using material rated to be able to withstand a given pressure ..
Proofing is a heavily detailed process .
None of us have to be standing anywhere or witness anything .
Lets make a comparison here .
A company makes a car . It tests that car to ensure that its meets a set of guidelines put out by the government .
We assume that because the company builds cars and does tests that they have met all the standards that society says must be met ., basically we put our trust in the company .

But all to often when those cars are tested , there are short comings found .
Fords with gas tank issues , GM pickups with side tank issues ,
Most recently with Goodyear and their tiers . Right now with Toyota .
Yet these vehicles are on the road because we trust the companies to do what they say they do .
The reality is sometimes they don’t .
Down the road , it always seems to come out that a company knew there were issues . But did nothing because the chances or amounts of lawsuits would be less then the cost of remanufacturing .

This is with firearms Europe has such strict proofing laws . Its an added step to help reduce the possibility of harm .

Here in the US we rely more on lawsuits to keep companies honest and in line .

Lets say for a second that savage did a complete 100% proof to SAAMI standards . Every last detail . Each barrel is completely tested . The barrels are mic’ed , X-rayed , bore mic’ed , stresses applied , read and recorded ,, the whole ball of wax .
The only way to do that is to be so far ahead of production demands that it would not slow down the process of getting the product to the consumer .

Now again , who are you trusting to say every last one of the required tests have been done , done properly and that the rifle met or exceeded everyone of those tests ?
Savage , the company who made the product .

An actual proof tells us that YES that companies product meets every standard of regulation for its product . Does that mean the product will not fail . NOPE . But it does mean that the companies product met all the standards of the time of its production .NOT just the production companies word on it .
Its been confirmed by some one who could care less if the company sells the product or not . They have nothing to gain .
So in so many words what the company stated , has been substantiated

Here though we go about it different . We trust the company un tell such time as there are a given number of issues . Then we try and decide if the company did everything they said they did .

So now lets jump to this failure. Whats going to happen is a legal team will take that barrel and have it analyzed
What will come back is either they steel is of quality that meets the SAAMI standards or not .
Most likely it will . Thus this will then be claimed as operator error . In so many words the shooter did something that caused the bore pressure to exceed the rating of the steel .

If that barrel had actually been proofed , Savage could right now come out with all the data on that serial #
Right down to the nats Ass .
But my bet is that they will not be able to do that because they don’t do a complete and proper proof .

If they did there would already be information circulating.
Instead what Im betting we get is just another pointing of fingers just like was the case in the TB insistent .
WHY because there is no definitive proof to show beyond a doubt that prior to this person buying this rifle that yes indeed the rifle was in proof when it left the factory

So while you may accept the word of savage that they do what they call a proof .
Untell such time as they come out and openly state that they have a full and proper 100% facility that is ran an overseen by a governing body that is task with ensuring each and every barrel meets all standards .
Then IMO savage is doing nothing but making claims and calling those claims a Proof

[Rattus58]

Captchee.... Proofing proves that only at the day of proof, the gun met standards. Proofed barrels still blow up with even proper powder. Loading causes failures. I'd bet with muzzleloaders and handloaders, that loading causes/caused the most typical failures. This is the brain behind the trigger.

Aloha... Tom :cool:

[Bill Gunn]

Captchee,

Because I don't agree with you does not make anyone "Wrong", I just don't agree.

Stick with me here a second and I'll explain a little of why...

I did about 15 minutes of surfing on the net to find this info, imagine if I was a lawyer with a staff that was about to start a lawsuit and had weeks to research the subject...

You go on, and on about the European proofing system.
Well lets pretend your the owner of a company that makes guns, and through no fault of poor workmanship one of your guns blows up and hurts the shooter, and the guy standing next to him on the firing line.
You go on to tell a lawyer how you have all your guns proofed by someone else that goes by the European proofing laws, which is a system so much better than ours here in the states.
Then the lawyer shows the jury the following pictures of rifles made by Sako that were proofed by the exact same system that you use.
(I'm posting pictures of 2 rifles, there are pictures of 5 all over the internet)

http://pic90.picturetrail.com/VOL2250/777751/1527241/382107027.jpg

http://pic90.picturetrail.com/VOL2250/777751/1527241/382107031.jpg

http://pic90.picturetrail.com/VOL2250/777751/1527241/382107029.jpg

in about 15 minutes, a trial lawyer could make you look like the Jeffrey Dahmer of Idaho.

No system is perfect, we all know that, but I don't see how an AMERICAN company not use the system used in America, even if you feel there is a better system.

By the way, the Savage ML II was invented by Henry Ball and his son William because of corrosion in a side lock Lyman ML that used Pyrodex powder (weakened bolster drum screw) . The corrosion caused the side lock to explode while Henry was shooting it, putting him in the hospital, and nearly costing a friend of his, his life.

[GF.]

Makes me wonder how you check for that sort o' thing... I've always cleaned thoroughly, but seems like you just never really know until something gives way.....

Scares the crap outta me, honestly....

[captchee]

Bill your still missing what im saying . thats ok , there are no issues on this end . i just want you to get some idea that what savage is speaking of isnt a "proof " its an opinion of proof .
as GF said and i said well before , any system can fail , proofed or not . proofing does not mean a gun is always in proof . nore for that mater in proof for its entire life time .
Anything like a double charge , bulge barrel , obstruction , faulty or worn receiver can take the gun out of proof .
but what it does mean is that at the time of testing the barrel was in proof and would withstand X load .
If it does not , then why ?
Only 2 reason
1) the proofing system was faulty “ highly un likely “
2) operator error

As to you comparison. I build guns , that’s what I do.
What your saying is also why I do not make my own barrels . It is also why companies like GM and Colerain no long breech their custom barrels unless its paid for .

If I breech a barrel and the breech fails im liable . But if the barrel fails and I have not modified it . Then guess what , the issue is GM .
Not 100% though . Because as was also said , a good trial attorney could probably even find liability in the shipping company .

Simply put guns fail all the time and for many different reasons . I have no issues with that .


But when it comes to the so called savage proof . We simply have to agree to disagree





as to the henery ball situation , yep drum bolsters can fail as well . especially when they are not maintained as they should be.
Lyman as I reacoll uses a snail breech , thus does not have a drum bolster .

The drum bolster issue was often found on CVA rifles . Hence CVA attempt at so many different bolster designs .
But again this comes back to proper maintenance. IE taking out the clean out screw and cleaning the bolster . Not letting it seize in place and then thinking < OHHH welll .
If the bolster comes lose and becomes miss aligned , it needs replace . NOT just tightened back up .

Again everything is subject to failures.
The old fella I learned gunsmithing from , a long time ago used to say ;

EVERYTHING HAS A BUILT IN SELF DISTRUCT DATE . WE HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING WHEN THAT DAY WILL COME . ALL WE CAN DO IS MAINTIAN THE ITEM IN HOPES OF PRUSHING THAT DATE BACK AS FAR AS HUMANLY POSSIBLE .

[Bill Gunn]

CVA or Lyman.....

I could be wrong, but this is what his son (William Ball is "1Shot-1Kill") posted on another site...

Posted by: 1SHOT-1KILL - 12/6/2001 (9:21 p.m.) - 63.15.175.210
In September 1990, we were at the range, for final sighting in of muzzleloaders for the upcoming season, in October. He was shooting a Lyman percussion .50 Cal trade rifle. He shoots left handed and was shooting it when the bolster drum cleaning screw blew out, enter his right forearm just about 2" above the wrist and traveled up his forearm about 3/4" deep, and lodged about 1" behind his elbow in the lower tricep. Any way, he got back to the shop, examed the trade rifle, and found the threads had stripped out of the bolster drum, were the screw was screw into it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

According to Sako the guns were made with a "Bad" batch of Stainless Steal. They recalled a bunch of guns back in 2005....

http://www.hs.fi/english/article/1101978285825

Finnish gun manufacturer recalls faulty hunting weapons
American man injured when Sako rifle explodes

The Finnish hunting rifle manufacturer Sako has recalled nearly 3,000 of its guns with a potential defect that could cause it to break apart when fired. In October, Mark Almeida, a 45-year-old American living in University Place, Washington, suffered injuries to his hand when his new Sako 300 Winchester Short Mag Finnlight model rifle exploded while he was shooting at a firing range.
"The target was 200 yards away when I pulled the trigger. The gun let out a powerful explosive sound that I had never heard before, and it broke up in my hands", he explains. He was rushed to hospital with four broken bones in his hand. He was in surgery for four hours.
After the incident, Sako ordered a recall of its series of 2,700 weapons.
Sako CEO Henry Paasikivi says that a total of six guns are known to have malfunctioned in the same way - one of them in Finland. In one case, a Swedish boy lost the tip of his thumb.
The barrels would break up lengthwise into several fragments, and in some cases, other parts of the gun also broke. The problem was attributed to a weakness in the stainless steel used in the manufacture. Guns of the series in question were sold to several countries, from the United States to New Zealand, before the defect was noticed.
All buyers have been notified, and most of the guns have been returned to the factory for repairs or replacement, except for a few in the United States.

The faulty rifles were manufactured at the company's factory in Riihimäki last year. They include Sako and Tikka models.
When the problems arose, Sako immediately discontinued production and deliveries of the models, and began to recall them from retailers, and contacted individual buyers.
However, the company did not make any public statements at the time. "We did not consider that necessary, because we were able to reach all owners of the weapons in other ways", he said.
"We have got all of the guns back, except in the United States, and 90 percent of the weapons we sold there have been located. All consumers have been contacted a long time ago."
Paasikivi says that the weapons will be repaired, if necessary, and sent back to the owners.

Helsingin Sanomat


Captchee,

I've seen some of the guns you made, they are truly works of art....

Bill

[captchee]

ohh ya,, bill , I agree whole heatedly ,the make doesn’t mater

if that cleaning screw is not maintained , it will come out . doesnt mater if its a small one on a snail bolster or a bigger one on a drum bolster . the problem i think is , most folks dont know what that screw is for . its not made of hardened steel and as such many times fouling will seize them in place . if its a heavy thread that may not be an issue for along time . but on the ones that are frine threaded , the fowling will eat those out . it also doesn’t seem to mater the powder . be it black or one of the synthetics .

I also think that for some misguided reason many shooter think that these rifles , past cleaning the bores , have no maintenance needs . I cant tell you the amount of rifles I look at for people where the nipples are about to blow out , have weak main springs , lose bolsters or seized cleanouts .
One would think that people would notice that the threads are looking bad and have the gun worked on . But for some reason , they don’t.
Its almost like they say ; well its holding now as long as I don’t tighten it up to much .
The forget though that those parts “minus the main spring “ are subject to the same pressures as the bore . The fail and its like a 22 shooting right at you

[Dwayne]

Smokeless is cleaner, less recoil, and smoother shooting than black powder.

Sorry Rattus. . . Smokeless is MUCH more recoil. GP ignites very easily and is extremely slow to ignite throughout the charge. The result is GP burns throughout the entire time the bullet is traveling through the barrel, but the pressure is not as "instintanious" because of the slower burn factor. Result is far less kick, needs more charge to move the projectile through the barrel, and will not be able to achieve the speed of smoleless powder as easily. GP is much dirtier, but you got to pay for something :smile:

Smokeless is extremely fast in ignition once ignited. It is so fast, it WILL blow up barrels that are not made for it. This fast ignition means more kick, faster bullet, and Whether it is smoother or not, I really can't say. I guess one would have to define "smoother". I know I cannot shoot a 30-06 anymore because of my neck injury, but I can shoot a 50 cal loaded with 80 grains of BP 2f. I think they use about 50 grains of smokeless behind a projectile that is at least 50 to 100 grains lighter than my 50 cal.



You'll not get the consiistent accuracy you will with smokeless powder either. This whole smokeless thing is a fraud anyway. Powder is powder. Anything not Black Powder is no different than smokeless anyway, they are all propellants. You don't have any moisture problems with smokeless and no crud ring.

And I agree with much of this. . .One of the main reasons why you do not have moisture problems with smokeless, is because it is usually sealed inside a chamber or shell. It is also nitro based and burns a hell of a lot cleaner.


Smokeless powder presents no more of a threat to a muzzleloader than does Black Powder. Get used to it. Smokeless is hard to light off. That is the major issue with smokeless and it eats nipples with a vengeance, hence the use of ventliners. There is a synthetic bias against smokeless that is unwarranted. Look at the thousands upon thousands of hours, shots, of smokeless shooters with the Savage, the Ultimate Muzzleloader and several others .

Smokeless is the most dangerous form of powder for any muzzleloader, period. It is the most explosive/fastest acting powder there is that we can shoot. The pressures created from smokeless far exceed the standard GP used for muzzleloaders.

Granted when you get into 4f powders of GOEX, that is extremely volital with high pressure too. I do not know how much more or less than smokeless powder.

But I, like you, could care a less whether it is smokeless or regular GP. .. If you purchase a smokeless muzzleloader, then by golly go have fun firing all the smokeless powder you want. . . Chances are, if a smokeless ML blowes up, it is probably because of double loading or something stupid the user themselves did. And the exact same thing can happen with GP. . .You load up 4x in your barrel, or overload GP in your barrel with two projectiles. . . feces will hit the fan. . . Lets pray that nobody gets hurt. .

Dwayne

[Rattus58]

Dwayne, since when is smokeless powder EXPLOSIVE?

Tell me, how much more recoil do you get with YOUR SMOKELESS IN YOUR SMOKELESS MUZZLELOADER over black powder, triple seven etc. for an IDENTICAL foot per second result?

Tell me, how much more dangerous is 30,000 PSI with smokeless over 30,000 PSI with Black Powder?

Aloha... :cool:

[GF.]

You sound pretty sure of yourself, but I'm not so sure that you're right...:hmmmm:

I believe smokeless powders are classed as propellants because they burn progressively, while BP is classed as an explosive because it detonates - as in Ka-BOOM, all at once. If smokeless powders - being as energetic as they tend to be - were to cook off all at once instead of burning progressively, there's probably not a rifle barrel made that would be able to withstand the pressure spike.

If I recall correctly from Swamp's recoil calculator, muzzle energy boils down to MV and Mass. So if you use the same rifle and generate a comparable MV with the same bullet, then the difference in recoil is going to have to come down to the mass of the powder charge, and smokeless just packs a bigger punch on a grain-to-grain basis. If you use a comparable mass of smokeless, then your MV is going to be substantially higher so yes, then the smokeless will kick the snot out of you, but I don't think that's what Ratt was suggesting when he said smokeless kicks less...

[GF.]

Ratt - cross posted.

Question fer ye, though.....

What MV do you from a 30,000 psi peak pressure BP load vs. a 30,000 psi peak pressure smokeless load?

I'm thinkin' the smokeless will generate a higher MV due to the progressive burn rate. Just like a hard-cam compound vs. a recurve; the peak force level is applied to the arrow over a longer distance/time, resulting in - take your pick - either a faster arrow or a lower draw weight required on a feeps-to-feeps basis.

That seems that it should make the smokeless powder the safer choice - when everything goes right - because you can achieve the same MV at a lower peak. Where that breaks down, of course, is operator error; even carefully-measured volumetric loads of smokeless will have a far greater variability in MV/Peak Pressure, because the tolerances are less forgiving. And that should lead to less consistent accuracy, so I'd think a guy would have to be nuts to not weigh his charges at home on a good scale.

[swamp]

I am certainly no expert on the subject but here is what i believe to be true..

1) smokeless powder is more difficult to ignite than BP and/or BP substitutes
2) BP and BP substitutes burn more slowly and generate less pressure than equivalent amounts of smokeless powders that are commonly used for center fire rifle cartridges
3) I think some folks are drawn toward the smokless MLs because the powder burns cleaner and is probably cheaper and makes for easier clean up as compared to BP and/or BP substitutes and for the most part they achieve higher MV's as well with smokeless powder..

As for me I wouldnt shoot a smokeless load in a ML that was designed for smokeless... just nothing i'd care to try...each to his own....

If i were getting a new ML it would be a TC triump and i would probably use triple 7

[Rattus58]

Ratt - cross posted.

Question fer ye, though.....

What MV do you from a 30,000 psi peak pressure BP load vs. a 30,000 psi peak pressure smokeless load?

I'm thinkin' the smokeless will generate a higher MV due to the progressive burn rate. Just like a hard-cam compound vs. a recurve; the peak force level is applied to the arrow over a longer distance/time, resulting in - take your pick - either a faster arrow or a lower draw weight required on a feeps-to-feeps basis.

That seems that it should make the smokeless powder the safer choice - when everything goes right - because you can achieve the same MV at a lower peak. Where that breaks down, of course, is operator error; even carefully-measured volumetric loads of smokeless will have a far greater variability in MV/Peak Pressure, because the tolerances are less forgiving. And that should lead to less consistent accuracy, so I'd think a guy would have to be nuts to not weigh his charges at home on a good scale.

Hi GF... yer right on with your observations. One thing... the mass part you indicate is true, but part of mass is powder too, and the amount of powder is vastly reduced with smokeless. Accuracy with smokeless is excellent and in MY EXPERIENCE with my guns recoil is much more pleasant with smokeless.

As to 30,000 psi comparisons I cannot address that accurately, though I'd be happy to explain to you what we do if you want to email me. Suffice it to say, your 45-70 with handloaded charges runs from 17 or 18000 psi to the rugers and such at 50. In our guns, we're using loads that mimic the black powder loads of the trapdoor which tap out at about 25000 psi. We're using 28.5 grains of powder for my normal shooting where the trapdoor maximum is 41 for my bullet. The biggest problem is ignition, and so we use magnum pistol primers.

I totally disagree with people that smokeless is dangerous. Knowledge is power, ignorance is deadly. Have a properly run muzzlelloader system, and any powder works.

Aloha... :cool::beer:

[swamp]

In my opinion smokeless MLs are inherently more of a risk to shoot than black powder MLs....

I doubt you will ever see TC Arms producing smokeless MLs and Cabelas refuses to sell smokeless MLs so there must be a good reason for that...

[captchee]

GF is correct smokless is slower burning then Black . a lot slower . Test it for yourself .
Lay a little line of smokeless.
It will sizzle and pop along like some disney pirate movie.
Now if you lay 20 X the length of line of BP that complete line will go up so fast the smokeless will not have burned 1/4 the distance .. in the movies they show folks making a line of powder and setting of the barrel of powder . this is not true . the whole thing will go up before you even knew you had lite the trail of powder. well relitivly

Smokless however puts off a lot more gas for its weight. Thus the higher pressures .
Ist also a progressive burn in that it burns and build pressure , completely down the barrel

Smokeless is also harder to ignite . But once ignited even water will not put it out .
I forget just were it was but back in the 70’s a powder plant went up .
The FD had a heck of a time because even though the plant was flooded with water , the powder stores kept right on burning .
Water will however make the powder harder to ignite
Smokless also burns faster under pressure. But it still does not spike like BP does .

IMO recoil with BP is less then recoil with smokless . But its hard really to say because the recoil is different .
With BP you can littelry rest you rifle and not grip the for stock . Even 100 grains of 3F with a 300 grain ball will not jump the rifle from your hand ,
Try that same hold with a 30.06 shooting a much smaller projectile , with lest powder by weight and if you have a scope on the rifle it’ll give you a 3rd eye very quickly

Another test for this is to go out and shoot a 45x125 a couple times , then shoot your choice of hunting rifle which has a much smaller projectile and less powder .

[captchee]

here you go .
first synthetic
2nd Smokless
3rd BP
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3P5wXu6ev8

[swamp]

http://www.tcarms.com/firearms/muzzleloaders.php

at the bottom of this URL ... hummmm

"Black Powder or an approved Black Powder substitute, such as Pyrodex, are the only propellant powders that are safe to use in muzzleloading firearms."

[captchee]

here is a myth busters usingalot more BP . notice how much faster it burns



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WYhvSR9r4c&feature=related

here is one showing what smokless can do when contained . notice the heat and gas cutting


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKNBeEkG3Gg&feature=related

[swamp]

http://ezinearticles.com/?Difference-Between-Black-Powder-and-Smokeless-Powder&id=2476504

"There are some differences between black powder and smokeless powder that will be describe shortly in this article.

Black powder (the "original propellant") is very pressure sensitive, produces a lot of smoke when ignited, and is not very efficient (meaning it takes a lot more to produce the gas to propel a slug). It is the old charcoal, sulfur, saltpeter mix that the Chinese invented a thousand years ago. It's common "gunpowder". It burns badly and creates huge amounts of smoke. When it burned, only produces propellant gases with approximately 35% of it's mass. 65% of the mass of this powder, when burned, becomes useless solid byproducts in the gun barrel and in the air. If that's not "burns badly" in your opinion, perhaps you need to go back to the third grade again, bud? Your comprehensive skills are obviously lacking.

Smokeless powder is composed of two basic materials. One is nitrocellulose and the other is nitroglycerine. Some smokeless powders are made of only one of these materials and is called a single base powder. Others are composed of a mixture of both components and are called double based powders. The reason for using mixtures of the two components is to control their burning rates. Faster burning powders are used for shotguns and handguns. The slower burning powders are used for rifle powders.

Smokeless powders are all progressive burning powders. That means that as the pressure within the cartridge increases, so does the burning rate. It produces a more gentle acceleration than does black powder and achieved much greater final pressures and higher total velocities. Black powder burns at the same rate regardless of the increasing pressure. The maximum pressure is reached more quickly but is significantly less than smokeless powder. These lower total pressures of black powder are the reason that we cannot use smokeless powder in a gun designed for black powder. We will blow it up and ourself along with it...... snip"

[captchee]

and another
smolkess , pyrodex and black
notice the smokless lights first , then the pyro , then the black . notice whats still butning at the end
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LULHT-pfqR0&feature=PlayList&p=71747859B454B980&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=76

[Rattus58]

Swamp, while I appreciate the intent of your efforts here, you need to honest up a little. No one is saying that smokeless should be used in black powder guns but it isn't because of the smokeless wouldn't work, it is because of peripheral issues, like gas cutting, probably the most troublesome issue. Igniting smokeless in a caplock is difficult too. That is why an inline is the most appropriate. And pressure. Yes, grain for grain, smokeless probably has more pressure. So.... if 10 grains of black = x pressure, how many grains of smokeless = x pressure. This is why smokeless can be used in blackpowder cartridges... you use your head... and maybe if you're saying that people are too stupid to figure out how much powder to use, then say people are too stupid... don't blame the powder.

Aloha... :cool:

[Rattus58]

Ratt - cross posted.

Question fer ye, though.....

What MV do you from a 30,000 psi peak pressure BP load vs. a 30,000 psi peak pressure smokeless load?

I'm thinkin' the smokeless will generate a higher MV due to the progressive burn rate. Just like a hard-cam compound vs. a recurve; the peak force level is applied to the arrow over a longer distance/time, resulting in - take your pick - either a faster arrow or a lower draw weight required on a feeps-to-feeps basis.

That seems that it should make the smokeless powder the safer choice - when everything goes right - because you can achieve the same MV at a lower peak. Where that breaks down, of course, is operator error; even carefully-measured volumetric loads of smokeless will have a far greater variability in MV/Peak Pressure, because the tolerances are less forgiving. And that should lead to less consistent accuracy, so I'd think a guy would have to be nuts to not weigh his charges at home on a good scale.

Oh... fergot to answer the question... with my loads and a 440-470 grain bullet, I'm running velocities about 1300 to 1350 on average. If you're wondering why I'm not up to 2000 fps or so... it's cuz I don't want to blow up my gun.... :D
Much Aloha... :cool:

[swamp]

Rattus, is gas cutting more of an issue with smokeless as compared to black powder?

How is lets say a tc encore ML constructed differently than a ML10 as far as its ability not to handle smokeless powder as where the ML10 is designed to handle smokeless

[Rattus58]

Rattus, is gas cutting more of an issue with smokeless as compared to black powder?

How is lets say a tc encore ML constructed differently than a ML10 as far as its ability not to handle smokeless powder as where the ML10 is designed to handle smokeless

I don't know anything about the encore and the only thing I know about the ML10 is that it uses a vent liner that I also use because of the wear my stainless breech plugs suffered from the smokeless. These are replaceable and much cheaper than the breech by itself. I'm convinced that all heat will wear steel if in a jet... including black powder.. that is why I have to replace so many nipples in my sidelocks... take a hot slow burning powder .... and well... vent liners...

Aloha... :cool:

[Twanger]

Rattus, is gas cutting more of an issue with smokeless as compared to black powder?

How is lets say a tc encore ML constructed differently than a ML10 as far as its ability not to handle smokeless powder as where the ML10 is designed to handle smokeless

Who said an Encore was built to use smokeless? Certainly not T/C.
You're confusing the issue again Swamp. Comparing apples to oranges.

Savage 10MLII was built to use smokeless.
Encore was not.

How hard is that?

[captchee]

Rattus is correct , bp can gas cut as well . But it takes much longer .
Again because the pressure isn’t continues with BP.
Once ignited , that’s basically it once the projectile starts to move , pressures start dropping .
But with smokeless it continues to build and vent long after BP has done all it can do .
Also Smokless as I understand it , smokless also produces much higher heat during its combustion , then BP does . This added to the pressures , produce much greater gas cutting

The other thing we have not spoken of here is that this all depends on the smokeless powder .
All smokeless is not equal .
The big thing right now is a concern of measuring smokeless by volume .

However for those of us that do reload our own shells , we can tell you that especially concerning reloading shotgun shells, the press loads by volume .

This is another area issues arise . The end user MUST understand not only the powder they are using , but also the rifle they are using it in . you can easly make to hot of loads even for a rifle designed to shoot smokless and either damage or completely destroy the rifle . Basically even smokless rifles are designed around a given pressure rating

When it comes to pressures . BP also can reach very High pressures if placed in the right conditions .
for instance a 50 grain charge of 3 F in a 50 cal shooting a 177 grain RB , produces in the ball park of 3,800 psi
BUT you put that same charge in say a 36 cal , shooting a small 65 grain RB and suddenly that charge is producing in the ball park of 14,000 psi . there is less space for the pressure to expand within the bore

As to the differences, Ill have to yield to rattus on the ML10 . But as I understand it , the biggest difference is in the breech plug design .
The design is much longer and also is supposed to seal differently . Thus the non threaded forward portion of the plug .
Basicly in very simple terms the plug acts like a brass casing . When a shell is fired , the bolt acts to hold the casing strongly in place . Thus the brass casing expands and seals the bore

As to the inline ignition being the best ? Well there are a few reasons for that .
Basically igniting any charge from the center produces the best bang for the buck, concerning consistency of pressure .
But this doesn’t mean all inline ignition designs are suited for smokeless.
The design itself must be capable of withstanding the back pressures and not fail ..

Now if I understand ratus’s comparison. What he is saying is that a person should be able to reduce the Smokeless charge to a level where it would not produce anymore pressure then a given load of BP .
If we threw out the issues with gas cutting , I would have to agree with that . But again , it depends on the design.
For instance . How many folks hear know how many grains of BP your breech system holds ?
Lets use a simple example here . If we look at manufactures load recommendations , we find a minimum load . This isn’t what they feel is needed to blow the projectile from the barrel . Its what they feel is needed to completely fill the breech and not produce an air space between the projectile and the powder .

But as I stated before , smokless gets its high burn rate and pressure from being contained under pressure . This a basic reason for the air space in cartridges. When fired , that space instantaneously gives the powder what it needs to quickly build to a given point before the projectile becomes unseated from the casing and travels down the bore .
To much space and things start to act like there is an obstruction .
So lets again go back and say it takes 25 grains of BP to fill that space in the plug .
Depending on the smokless powder , that 25 grains can be a substantial load equaling well more then the max load of the rifle , when using BP ..
So lets say that ohh 15 grains is all that’s needed to produce the pressures of a comparable load of BP .
What you now have is a very large area that’s un filled in the plug even with the projectile seated all the way to the face of the plug .
Now we have an issue . Not only from the air space but again we run into gas cutting .
Not the video I posted where the kids put smokless in a can sealed with foil . that’s pretty much the same thing that’s happening within the barrel when the powder is ignited . But its all coming from the breech plug. The plug becomes that can Thus the outer edge of the plug is eroded .

Now add in the consumer factor .
Take a look around fellas . Right now the trend is hotter loads .
Back in the 70’s when I started into muzzle loading , a hot load was 100 grains .
Not to long ago even for modern muzzle loading , we were looking at 120-150 grain charges . Now we are seeing folks talking 150- 200+ even in traditional muzzle loading .

The ML10 is no different . Savage recommends X powders .
But there are folks testing those limits and proclaiming they are finding no issues .
This is not to say the same thing isn’t happening in other smokeless applications , it is.
Most all of us who reload , know of folks who go outside the reloading manuals.

Its just with out type of firearms , its so much easier to really do something stupid .
I also think this is why many manufactures place warnings of not using smokless .
Not only are they speaking of their design but they are also covering their back sides concerning liability .

I have know many , many folks who have for years used duplex loads of smokless and BP in their side locks and proclaim no issues . But I have worked on a few of those rifles and I can tell you that not only do the breech plugs show the effects , but also bolsters and subsequent flash channels .

Follow the manufactures recommendation no mater what it is your shooting . If you want to shoot smokless , then do it in a rifle designed for it . Regardless of what you thoughts on reduced loads are .
Unless you qualified , you don’t know what effects your having on the weapon .
We don’t live for ever and someday be it when you sell the rifle or your family sells it , the next person is probably not going to have any idea of what you were doing . So while the rifle may not have failed for you . Its just might fail for them

[swamp]

Twanger, I didnt say an encore was built to handle smokeless ... try reading my question again... and look for the word "not" after the word "ability"

[Bill Gunn]

Here's an article on that subject...

http://www.chuckhawks.com/smokeless_thompson.htm

[Bushman]

That begs the question of why Savage is the only arms manufacturer that has seen the demand for a smokeless powder muzzle loader? I could see how they could have come up with something innovative and had the market share for a few years, but being the only one with a good idea for 16 years seems kind of strange. I'm not so nostalgic over black powder that I'm not leaning toward a M10ML .50 myself because I don't like to clean guns that much. Heck, I think that if the state wants to get rid of more deer and get more kids out there hunting that they should let anyone with a single shot shotgun hunt during the muzzle loader season and just call it a single shot season.

[Dwayne]

Dwayne, since when is smokeless powder EXPLOSIVE?

Tell me, how much more recoil do you get with YOUR SMOKELESS IN YOUR SMOKELESS MUZZLELOADER over black powder, triple seven etc. for an IDENTICAL foot per second result?

Tell me, how much more dangerous is 30,000 PSI with smokeless over 30,000 PSI with Black Powder?

Aloha... :cool:

You missread my post Smokeless is MORE explosive than BP. It is consumed at a much higher rate than BP, thus creating great pressures much more rapidly. BP creats the pressure much slower, giving time for a ML projectile to start moving before max pressure is attained.

You can not go by "pressure". of PSI. You must go by the quickness it gets to that pressure. The quickness of it getting to the pressure determines whether it is a explosive or not.

Lets take an example. a Barrel rated at 10k PSI

For example Acitone proxide. This is an explosive. In certain amounts (whatever amount that is) that obtains 30,000 PSI will explode a barrel so darn quick you wont even have time to pull the trigger <smile>.

1f GP on the other hand *will* reach 30,000 PSI, but it is so slow that the projectile is moving down the barrel by the time the PSI in the barrel reaches 10K. You can probably load as much 1f as you want down that barrel and not even affect it. It just can't burn fast enough because pressure increase is not fast enough to "beat" the projectile out of the muzzle.

2f GP burns much faster. . .it will reach 30,000 PSI much faster than 1f, The speed of the burn is fast enough that the pressure CAN exceed 10K before the projectile leaves the muzzle. Thus much care should be taken to not overload with 2f. we must make sure we do not put too much powder in the barrel, or the burn will definitely reach our limits and past.

3f GP Burns faster yet. . . It will reach 30K PSI faster than 2f, and definitely will beat the projectile out of the muzzle. thus we must lower our charge so that it does not burn and reach our limits and past. That is the reason why loads of 3f are lower than 2f.

4f GP is extremely fast. . .Want to blow up your gun? It will reach the limits of 10K and beyond so fast, that the projectile may not even moved a few inches inside the barrel.

Smokeless is extremely fast. . . it is like 4f and beyond. It burn so darn fast that the top pressure is reached so quickly that the projectile hasn't moved hardly at all. Thus blowup. This is why guns that shoot smokeless are very much hardended, reinforced, and are also usually encased with a copper/metal casing for added strength. Nitro based GP is fast, furious, and reaches its peak quickly. If your projectile is not moving before it hits its peak, your barrel not reinforced and hardended to withstand such pressures, you will blow it.

The game of Powder is how fast it burns. too fast with to heavy of a projectile means a explosion. But that same projectile will work wonderfully with a proper slower burning powder. It is not about PSI, but it is about how fast it gets to that PSI in relationship of the mass of the projectile.

So, to answer your question. . .how much more dangerous is 30,000 PSI with smokeless to Black Powder??

Smokeless is far more dangerous, because it reaches the 30K in a far shorter time than (lets say) 2f BP or 1F BP. By the time BP reaches 30,000 the projectile is moving on down the barrel and is probably exiting, thus 30K may never be reached depending upon the mass of the projectile, length of the barrel, and speed of the BP.

Dwayne

[Dwayne]

I am certainly no expert on the subject but here is what i believe to be true..

1) smokeless powder is more difficult to ignite than BP and/or BP substitutes
2) BP and BP substitutes burn more slowly and generate less pressure than equivalent amounts of smokeless powders that are commonly used for center fire rifle cartridges
3) I think some folks are drawn toward the smokless MLs because the powder burns cleaner and is probably cheaper and makes for easier clean up as compared to BP and/or BP substitutes and for the most part they achieve higher MV's as well with smokeless powder..

As for me I wouldnt shoot a smokeless load in a ML that was designed for smokeless... just nothing i'd care to try...each to his own....

If i were getting a new ML it would be a TC triump and i would probably use triple 7

Hello swamp .. Yes, this is it in a nutshell. . . BP is extremely easy to ignite EXTREMELY easy. I believe it is the MAIN reason why our government incorrectly labeled it as an explosive a few years back. BP substitues have added chemicals that make it much harder to ignite than real GP. Those substitutes are like Pyrodex.

smokeless is difficult to ignite, but once ignited, the nitro based powder goes like wildfire. This is why they usually have a primiary explosion to ignite it (primer) in guns for ignition assurance.

GP WILL generate the pressures of smokeless *if* it is contained well enough. Granted it make take a little more volume to achieve that pressure, but it will get there. But, like you said, it burns much slower, and by the time the pressure gets too high, the projectile is already moving down the barrel, and probably out of the barrel.

Dwayne

[Dwayne]

Here is a graph of GP speed vs pressure and projectile speed. It is not cosmedically accurate, but the idea behind the graph is what is important. . .to high of a pressure in too short of a time. . .explosion.

[swamp]

Dwayne, when you look at the images at the start of this thread what do you think caused that barrel to fail?

[Rattus58]

Dwayne.... You need to educate yourself before I respond further to your posts on THIS subject. You are incorrect on almost every point you consider facts, first and formost is the rate of burn.

Aloha... :cool:

[Rattus58]

Hi Captchee... very good post. For the record, I agree with you. For the record, I'm not suggesting that folks use smokeless in their guns unless they are rated for that. You made a very IMPORTANT STATEMENT about smokeless. They are all not created equal. We use powders that they use for black powder cartridge loadings... 3031 and 5744. We stay within clear parameters. Your argument on gas cutting was right on... not only a much hotter gas jet, the duration is also problematic in aggravating the gas cutting experienced.

Much Aloha... :cool:

[swamp]

BP Advantages
In firearms, black powder allows loading by volumetric measure, where as smokeless powder requires precise measuring of the charge by weight to prevent damage due to overloading, though damage by overloading is still possible with black powder.

In quarrying, high explosives are generally preferred for shattering rock. However, because of its low brisance, black powder causes fewer fractures and results in more usable stone compared to other explosives, making black powder useful for blasting monumental stone such as granite and marble.

Black powder is well suited for blank rounds, signal flares, burst charges, and rescue-line launches. Black powder is also used in fireworks for lifting shells, in rockets as fuel, and in certain special effects.

Disadvantages
Black powder has low energy density compared to modern smokeless powders and produces a thick smoke that can impair aiming and reveal a shooter's position.

Combustion converts less than half the mass of black powder to gas. The rest ends up as a thick layer of soot inside the barrel. In addition to being a nuisance, the residue from burnt black powder is hygroscopic and an anhydrous caustic substance. When moisture from the air is absorbed, the potassium oxide or sodium oxide turns into hydroxide, which will corrode wrought iron or steel gun barrels. Black powder arms must be well cleaned both inside and out to remove the residue. The Matchlock musket (an early gun) would be unusable in wet weather due to powder in the pan being exposed and dampened, in which case soldiers would use the ends as clubs or use bayonets

[captchee]

Fellas ,Dwayne is actualy on the right track but off in his discription

Basically thus confusing a couple things .
Burn rate and pressures .

Burn rate is the speed in which a powder burns freely .
In that since Bp far exceeds smokeless. It literally burns so fast it seems to explode .

Smokeless does not . It needs pressure and high heat to speed up its burn . This it gets when used in firearms ignition . But that is not a free burn , it’s a contained burn .

As to pressure .
Bp pressure curve is very much a spike when compared to smokeless . The reason is that it burns so fast .

Smokless is called a progressive burn . This is why it achieves much higher pressures . it burns much longer and produces much more gas .
When that burn is contained , it in simple terms compresses the powder under pressure thus again enhancing the burn and putting out even more pressure untell such time as the gas is vented or the powder has completely burned

So if we contain the two powders and compare the pressure spike . Smokeless produces a much higher spike then Black . After that BP pressures begin to drastically drop off . Smokeless however drops much slower because of the progressive burn .
This is also why smokeless is defined as a propellant and not an explosive.

with synthetics like Pyro and T7 the carbon used as a fuel in BP has been replace with basically sugar .
This reduces the rate of free burn , but still provides the carbon needed to combust .
In their complaint to the Fed when the rating for BP was increased . Goex pointed out that the differences were marginal and in fact synthetics like pyro and T7 should also be defined as explosives , not propellants . Reason being is that while the slower burn rate is a minuscule slower , it produces more pressure for = amounts and thus can also be used as an explosive.
Thus defining BP as an explosive while not applying the same standards to BP synthetics was a contradiction.

As to why savage and not TC ?
Now this is just my opinion. But again it comes down to liability and who is ready to take on that liability . Savage also had a large modern muzzle loading consumer base . But they have their main base of business in center fire
While TC’s base , even though they have a large modern market and a much smaller base in center fire , its still a company whos muzzleloader base is in the traditional area .

Thus I think it was much easier for savage to make the step .

I also think that its much easier to learn from someone else’s mistakes , rather then your own .
This is why , a few pages back , I stated that I think in coming years we will see a vast improvement in smokeless designs .
IMO a lot of companies are simply holding back and watching the savage and Ultimate designs .
Just waiting to see what issues may come about and if there is a large enough consumer base to provide a profit .
Myself , I don’t think savage has proved that base with the ML10 . I also think that with these lawsuits any returns are going to be marginal . Reason being is that even if these are found to be operator error , which im sure they will be , savage is going to have to consider revamping their design . That will cost them even more as they try to take the stupid out of the consumer base … and thus reduce liabilities

The real question in my mind is will they be able to hold the market and provide the product ???? Only time will tell . I think really there are issues that have not even came about yet .

[captchee]

yes swamp and that the very reason why we see many different synthetic companies proclaiming less fouling with their powders.
Its actually not that there is less fouling but that there is less powder by weight , to create that fouling


Another thing to remember is fouling , even in BP can create an obstruction , even though not a complete obstruction .
As I stated a couple posts back . As a bore diameter is reduced , pressure climbs .

I think it was last spring ??? Maybe the fall before ???? There was a Indian made brown bess that s barrel failed in a reenactment situation . IE under blank load .
At first this was blamed on sub standard barrel steel . But after that steel was tested and found Not to be substandard even for live shooting . Imo that left only one possible reasoning, IF indeed no projectile was in the bore . Fouling had restricted the bore to the point it created over pressure again pressure follows the point of least resistance and once the barrel steel started to give , that was the point the pressure built against

[Dwayne]

Dwayne, when you look at the images at the start of this thread what do you think caused that barrel to fail?

Number one reason: CONTAINMENT

Containment that was way too much for the amount and/or type of powder used. This is the correct answer, whether anyone wants to admit to it or not.

if you overload a barrel with powder that burns very fast, and there is no way it can release the pressure fast enough, you have an explosion.

Then only way you can relieve pressure is the projectile. That projectile must be moving along the barrel and OUT of the barrel before critical pressure of the barrel is reached. That way the pressure is released out of the end of the barrel as the projectile exits.

I don't know how they loaded the gun. . . double loaded a projectile? used 150 grains by volume of smokeless instead of 50 grains of smokeless? I can't guess at what a person does, because I was not the one doing the loading.

[Dwayne]

Dwayne.... You need to educate yourself before I respond further to your posts on THIS subject. You are incorrect on almost every point you consider facts, first and formost is the rate of burn.

Aloha... :cool:

Sorry rattus. . . I *am* educated in explosives and GP.

[Dwayne]

Burn rate is the speed in which a powder burns freely .
In that since Bp far exceeds smokeless. It literally burns so fast it seems to explode .


In free air, yes BP burns faster than smokeless. . . It is a different chemical composition.



Smokeless does not . It needs pressure and high heat to speed up its burn . This it gets when used in firearms ignition . But that is not a free burn , it’s a contained burn .

Yes, this is correct smokeless needs containment to burn its best. as pressure increases, so does the burn.

This actually happens also with Black Powder. . . BP needs containment to burn its best also. As the pressure increases BP burns faster, But its chemical compount is not as volital under pressure like smokeless.




So if we contain the two powders and compare the pressure spike . Smokeless produces a much higher spike then Black .

In a shorter amount of time.


with synthetics like Pyro and T7 the carbon used as a fuel in BP has been replace with basically sugar .

yes, another way how to make BP. Many folks have actually gone to sugar and KN03 for rocket fuel. Harder to ignite, but burns great under pressure. In their rocket systems, they ususally run a tunnel up from the ignition point to facillitate faster and a more even burning of their rockets. They burn from the inside, out.


This reduces the rate of free burn , but still provides the carbon needed to combust .
In their complaint to the Fed when the rating for BP was increased . Goex pointed out that the differences were marginal and in fact synthetics like pyro and T7 should also be defined as explosives , not propellants . Reason being is that while the slower burn rate is a minuscule slower , it produces more pressure for = amounts and thus can also be used as an explosive.

Totally agree.



Thus defining BP as an explosive while not applying the same standards to BP synthetics was a contradiction.

Totally agree. . .Be honest with you, I am really surprised they haven't shut down Pyrdex and other synth. It wouldn't take much to do so, especially if they are going to "redefine" GP as an explosive. Doesn't make sense to me! I think the only reason why they did such a thing, is the volitability of real GP (ignition wise) compared to synthetic GP.


As to why savage and not TC ?
Now this is just my opinion. But again it comes down to liability and who is ready to take on that liability . Savage also had a large modern muzzle loading consumer base . But they have their main base of business in center fire
While TC’s base , even though they have a large modern market and a much smaller base in center fire , its still a company whos muzzleloader base is in the traditional area .

I agree. . .I could care a less about either gun. .. . Personally, if I were to weigh the differences, I would (without a doubt) say the ML10 is the safest gun out there for "error" in the human catagory. it would be harder to overload and error with BP. But smokeless. . .I don't know its limitations.

Safety wise all together? It is up to *us* to pay attention NOT to overload, NOT to put smokeless down a BP barrel, and NOT to put two projectiles down a barrel. In other words, for *us* to pay attention and do things right. Both guns are very safe IMO. But they are only as safe as the user makes them.


I also think that its much easier to learn from someone else’s mistakes , rather then your own .
This is why , a few pages back , I stated that I think in coming years we will see a vast improvement in smokeless designs .
IMO a lot of companies are simply holding back and watching the savage and Ultimate designs .
Just waiting to see what issues may come about and if there is a large enough consumer base to provide a profit .

Totally agree. . .



Myself , I don’t think savage has proved that base with the ML10 . I also think that with these lawsuits any returns are going to be marginal . Reason being is that even if these are found to be operator error , which im sure they will be , savage is going to have to consider revamping their design . That will cost them even more as they try to take the stupid out of the consumer base … and thus reduce liabilities


Totally agree. . . We seem to have a lot of RAMBO gunners out there. . .the bigger the better. The easier the nicer. Hey! Even *I* would LOVE to own a ML10 and not have to hassel with cleaning it right after a hunt. But I will fully admit that even *I* would like to shoot 40 grains of cheaper powder, that is cleaner, faster, and easier to get ahold of than deal with 85 grains of BP, dirty, and immediate cleanup. And with my Homemade powder, I run about 100 grains, and it is REALLY REALLY dirty compared to Pyrodex. The homemade costs about 5.00 a pound, while pyrodex runs in the 20+ a pound.


The real question in my mind is will they be able to hold the market and provide the product ???? Only time will tell . I think really there are issues that have not even came about yet .

This is what I am wondering myself. I look at it this way. . .It is like having every gas station with Nitro based Gas next to an unleaded handle with the exact same size nozzle. Out of all the people who fill up their vehicles, how many will pay enough attention to correctly pick out the Un-leaded instead of the Nitro? Every time? I am sure there will be mistakes and lawsuits. The question is, will the increase of sales be enough to offset the lawsuits. . .and keep consumer confidence at the same time.

Dwayne

[swamp]

No amount of conjecture is going to convience me that pouring smokless powder down a bbl and then putting a heavy projectile in front of it is a safer senario than using BP or BP subsitute... even when said ML is designed to handle smokeless... thanks but no thanks...

I think that there is a good reason for containing smokeless powder within a good solid brass case when you look at center fire rifles....

Cabelas still refuses to sell smokeless MLs ... I wonder why

[Dwayne]

No amount of conjecture is going to convience me that pouring smokless powder down a bbl and then putting a heavy projectile in front of it is a safer senario than using BP or BP subsitute... even when said ML is designed to handle smokeless... thanks but no thanks...

I think that there is a good reason for containing smokeless powder within a good solid brass case when you look at center fire rifles....

Totally agree with you. . . . totally.

Dwayne

[captchee]

No amount of conjecture is going to convience me that pouring smokless powder down a bbl and then putting a heavy projectile in front of it is a safer senario than using BP or BP subsitute... even when said ML is designed to handle smokeless... thanks but no thanks...

I think that there is a good reason for containing smokeless powder within a good solid brass case when you look at center fire rifles....

Cabelas still refuses to sell smokeless MLs ... I wonder why


ok so swamp let me put it this way
What exactly do you think the shell does that makes you need it ?

Shells didn’t come about because of a need of powder . They came about from a need of the consumer to load easier and quicker

When the modern smokeless first came about , even center fire people were having issues with failures.

Look at Damascus barrels all kinds of total off the wall statements were made . The barrels would un wind . Bow apart , bend , the metal was of poor quality ,, on and on .
But in reality it was an issue of over pressure of the design . What was perfectly safe with BP wasn’t with the newer powders .

Have the shells changed ? nope . But the designs and steels used have .

What a shell does is provide an easy manufacturing base for factory loads , that is easily maintainable .
This doesn’t however mean that they cannot also cause issues .

Myself the main obstacle I see with muzzle loading smokeless guns is consumer based not manufacturing . How do you keep the consumer from doing what they are not supposed to do .
Simply put , you cant .
doesn’t mater if its firearms , cars , boats , planes .
People will always try and push the limits and proclaim it as being safe

[swamp]

Capatchee, i've felt the effects that adding just one grain of powder can have when reloading for the 30-06 once you start to reach max loads..

MLing with smokeless isnt for me... smokeless powder is far more energetic than bp.. nothing that appeals to me ....and makes me shudder just thinking about it... thanks but no thanks

I will let the big boys play with the smokeless ... i prefer to stick with the Cabelas attitude regarding smokeless MLiing

[Dwayne]

Hello Captchee,


What exactly do you think the shell does that makes you need it ?

Shells didn’t come about because of a need of powder . They came about from a need of the consumer to load easier and quicker

I agree with you on the shell for the need to hold the powder, as well as an pre-measured amount of powder, as well as ease of loading, and last, but not least, a safety factor for the consumer NOT to overload the gun when they bought their ammo. But I am willing to also include "extra strength" and support when the moment of truth comes. Brass allows for expansion against the barrel and adds integrity. Does it add a lot? No, not in comparison to the barrel, but when added with the barrel, there is more strength. This could be a non-issue, I don't know.

I seriously do not know how much extra strength a brass cartridge adds to the structure of a barrel. I honestly believe it is a very small amount, but enough to possibly make enough of a difference. It IMO is not the primary reason for support, but I believe it is primarily used for constant and safe loads for the consumer. Its lessor reason I believe is for strengthening the barrel upon moment of truth. Either that, we might as well use plastic shells and paper shells like shotguns. (yeah, I know this is a little much of a stretch. . . :smile: ) Another lessor use could be the holding of the primary fire (primer), keeping it protected from the elements, and consumer safety of loading.

But when I talk about this stuff. . .I feel I go into redundancy and stuff that is really not important per se on our conversations. Or I am babbling. . . .sorry.

I totally agree with you on consumer stupidity and wanting to take things to the limit while ignoring safety and manufactures warnings.

I wouldn't mind a smokeless job. . .but I think I am going to hold back and wait to see what happens. it is a little new right now.

http://www.ultimatefirearms.com/

This is a ML that I would love to have. I would take it over a smokeless. Problem is, burning 200 grains of powder gets very expensive. . .VERY expensive. I don't think it would be worth it to me.
If I remember right, there is 7000 grains to a pound. That equates to about 35 shots for powder alone. Then their ammo they recommend (for accuracy) runs about 2 dollars a pull. All in all, that equates to almost 3 dollars for every pull of the trigger. It isn't worth it to me. I would rather have fun with my old fashion flint and steel, or if I want to go modern, I can use my Electra ML.


Dwayne

[swamp]

the brass must have significance otherwise why would reloaders not use brass that is cracked and/or splitting... for good reasons that have to do with safety..

and Lapua brass such as with the 338 Lapua isnt your ordinary run of the mill brass..

[captchee]

There are a number of different brass types as well as other materials like aluminum alloys , swamp .

The reason spit and dinted casings are not used is they don’t alow for sizing. thus they are un usable for that caliber .

Yellow brass is good because its soft and is easily shaped . It also does not for the most part rust and thus holds the form needed to fit the tolerances of the chamber . The brass does nothing to build integrity to that chamber . The chamber is actually what keeps the soft brass from destroying itself on ignition .
Its also cheep to produce .

Early cartridges of the late 18th and early 19 century were of turned brass and expensive to make .
But in basic terms what it does in smokeless applications , is act like a very soft temporary breech plug .

This is one of the reasons that I say , . There is no reason that a smokeless design cannot be made , to withstand even the pressure of small bores of 30 cal and smaller . Basically its already being done in with relive safety concerning center fire .

What allows for that safety though is , again application . The larges % IMO of folks never reload their brass . Of those that do , most follow closely to loading manuals . Those that don’t , are even a smaller %
This cut down greatly on the numbers of those who COULD over load .
Simply put , that’s not the case with muzzle loading . Thus its something that has to be planned on .
But how do you do that ?
History tells us that there are a whole lot of folks that simply don’t bother to look or understand just what it is they are doing .
In the early 20th century when smokeless powders really started to catch on , there were a lot of firearms failures . The basic reason was that people simply didn’t understand the change .
So basically farmer john would send his some to the local mercantile to get supplies and a few boxes of shells . Never knowing his old SXS was designed for BP or very early smokeless .
When the gun failed , it was then the fault of the gun . When in all truth , it was the fault of the shooter because they didn’t know what they were loading .

This same thing happened again when manufactures started chambering and making 3 inch magnums for shotguns .
A gun chambered for 3 inch will shoot 2 ¾ but a gun chambers for 2 ¾ isn’t safe to load 3 inch in .
But people still tried to do it

Then add in todays tendency for folks to accept that companies don’t tell the whole truth .
How many times have we all heard
; Oh that recommended id well under what the rifle will actually hold . The manufacture just states that for liability reason

For the most part that’s only part of the truth . The manufacture also places those requirements for a safety margin to help cut down on brain dead customer who has a laps in judgment

Myself I think 3 things are going to have to happen for smokless to become relively safe for the general public
1) the manufactures need to improve their designs to allow for a large safety margin. A margin based on an industry wide line of accepted powder
2) powder manufactures in cooperation with firearms manufactures are going to have to change their labeling to include in large print “recommended or Not recommended for Muzzle loading use
3) the consumer is going to have to learn the rifle . Understand it . That also means that we as a community will have to stop second guessing the manufactures

#3 is the real problem . As I said , there is 0 reason why a muzzle loading firearm cannot be made that could not shoot all the very same powders as any cartridge rifle .
Simply put , that’s not where the problem lays . The problem is in planning of safety margins for a consumer base that has a record of doing what it should not do . Then turning around and pointing the liability finger at the manufacture

Apparently savage thought it could do that .
The real question is did they ????

[Rattus58]

On the issue of the cartridge adding strength, I agree. In the experimenting we do, we were advised to consider that a cartridge contained 8-10,000 psi and so our loads were adjusted to reflect that philosophy.

One other thing too, I'm not sure I've ever heard of a failure with a lead bullet of normal weight... IE.. less than 600 grains. The other thing I'm fairly certain of, is that none of the failures were of the original Henry Ball RECOMMENDED loads.

Aloha... :cool:

[Dwayne]

Hello Rattus,


On the issue of the cartridge adding strength, I agree. In the experimenting we do, we were advised to consider that a cartridge contained 8-10,000 psi and so our loads were adjusted to reflect that philosophy.

Though I have no "experience" in cartridge manufacturing or the ideas behind it, this is a conclusion that I came to. A cartridge IMO has got to be made to have a certain amount of strength for protection of explosion as well as the other functions. I figured it would be used also to strengthen the chamber at the moment of truth. if it wasn't important, then why not use plastic? Paper? and other stuff? We made shotguns With paper, plastic and other stuff.

Dwayne

[swamp]

All this having been said... I'd really like to know what the ambient temperature was when the ML shown on the first post blew up..

[Rattus58]

Hello Rattus,



Though I have no "experience" in cartridge manufacturing or the ideas behind it, this is a conclusion that I came to. A cartridge IMO has got to be made to have a certain amount of strength for protection of explosion as well as the other functions. I figured it would be used also to strengthen the chamber at the moment of truth. if it wasn't important, then why not use plastic? Paper? and other stuff? We made shotguns With paper, plastic and other stuff.

Dwayne

I can think of numerous reasons to not have a 30-30, or any other necked cartridge in plastic or paper.

[captchee]

Ia number of original cartridges were made of paper
In my library I have a casing from an M1 105 ,, . Its brass .
But I have been told the newer models now use a composite shell casing .

So we may very well be seeing the days of paper or composites , once again coming back .
But again we are not talking everyday paper LOL

[Twanger]

There's even case-less ammo... for full-auto guns this allows the action to cycle faster, and the ammo is much lighter.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caseless_ammunition

[GF.]

Cool thing about caseless ammo..... I recall reading something.... probably about the time that Remington introduced their electronic-ignition rifles, though it may have been long before that. Anyway, with caseless ammo, the thought was that you could seat the round on the shoulder and vary the powder charge (just as you can in a ML, although of course, you'd be limited to a handful of factory loads..).

But let's say you've got a .30-cal rifle; you could load it to .30-30, .308. .30-06, or pick-a-magnum velocities. That was the idea, anyway. I guess you'd just have to use the correct length 'bolt' for the length of the powder charge so that the electronic ignition would work ... Use too short a bolt for the charge, nothing happens. Use one too long, and it wouldn't shut.

[Twanger]

"But let's say you've got a .30-cal rifle; you could load it to .30-30, .308. .30-06, or pick-a-magnum velocities."

That would be way-cool!