Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Hello Folks,

Does anyone here know the logic behind the prohibition on using smokeless powder in black-powder muzzleloaders? We hear it all the time, but nobody ever really says why. If smokeless powder can be substituted for black in black powder cartridge arms, including those from the 19th century, why can’t the same be done with black powder muzzleloaders?

I suspect I know the answer to my own question. It probably has nothing to do with the powder per se, but is a precaution against a person loading it in ignorance. Sooner or later, someone will pick up his powder measure and scoop up 100 gr by volume of whatever powder is at hand, and blow up a gun.

This summer an interesting project might be to obtain an inexpensive side-lock rifle, build a plywood fixture to hold it within a plywood box, with a remote firing device (a string), and develop some loads.

Before anybody asks me why I would do such a hare-brained thing, the answer is, because I want to know. But if any of you already know, please tell me.

Take care, Tom

---

For one thing MLs are not breech loaders.
Smokeless is notoriously hard to light compared to BP.
Poor ignition of the charge can turn a firearm into a bomb. Don't matter if its in a cartridge or not. I would never attempt to ignite smokeless with a conventional percussion nipple and cap, musket or otherwise.
Also note that smokeless powder charges used in BPCRs generally use a fraction of the charge weight of the BP charge.
Reduced charges of smokeless blow up at least as many guns as overloads and in the world of SA colts and other firearms chambered for BP cartridges probably more.
You can play around with smokeless if you want but I recommend something more substantial than plywood for containment.

It is impossible to control other people's ignorance. Trying to do so is a fools errand. Thus worrying about some one using smokeless in a ML is simply a waste of your time. They would likely blow the gun up with ANY charge of smokeless based on the above explanations so how large the measure with the gun might be is simply irrelevant.
Dan

---

I Think that the "other peoples ignorance" comment may be a little harsh old chap.
The revolver above was built specifically for the task. The cylinder is 4140 and the wall thickness exceeds that of a 454 casuall by a substantial margin. The internal volume is carfully calculated to give a 100% load within the min/max range of any 38 loading with a 125 grain head. You can and I have, fired it with a cylinder full of bullseye.
To address your remark about ignition, you will see that a conventional cap is not used.
The problem that SASS has with reduced loads in 45 cases can proberbly be attributed to very light loads of fast powders in large cases and some form of flash over or stalled ignition/re-ignition. You are quite correct, it is a problem and a bit of a mystery.
Trail boss was developed for NFB applications,Some nitro powders have a kinder pressure curve than black powder. the origional poster has been around for some time and appears to be a sensible chap. With some care then, there is no reason that an experiment should not be undertaken.

Regards

Post Extras