Why can’t you load muzzleloader with smokeless powder?

[hawg]

In a gas operated system bp fouling builds up in the gas tube and shuts it down pretty quick. My 1911 will run for at least five mags with no problems at all.

 

[Onty]

Here's an 1858 Remington with a smokeless conversion cylinder that was overloaded.

View attachment 1121361

And a cap and ball Remington loaded with smokeless.

View attachment 1121362

I just don't get it! Why on the earth some folks use 1858 with 6 bore conversion cylinder, and in such cylinder, with paper thin walls, they load rounds that are on the limit even for some SA centerfire revolvers? If I have any standard 45 Colt revolver, and want conversion cylinder for 1858, it will be 5 bore ONLY.

 

[hawg]

I would. I wouldn't want a five shot full size revolver. They're safe as long as you don't load them hot.

 

[ericuda]

I have a savage ml that lists smokeless powder loads in the manual. I use 5744 which I also like in 45/70. If wise or not in others I have no clue. This is my first and only ml ok have ever been around. It has never been loaded with anything but smokeless.

 

[4v50 Gary]

Why? Without older guns you can have failure (kabooms) and even with modern steel/metallurgy, you still have higher pressure and unsealed breeches. You have a vent hole hot gases will shoot out of in a flintlock and a nipple on a cap gun. Metallic cartridges helped to seal the breech and allow for higher pressures. Progress!

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

The reason manufacturers strongly advise against smokeless powder in muzzle loaders is because it can blow up the gun, not because it always will blow up the gun. If you sell any product you must also assume that a certain percentage of those that buy it are morons and will hurt themselves or others with it if possible.

 

[AlexanderA]

If I have any standard 45 Colt revolver, and want conversion cylinder for 1858, it will be 5 bore ONLY.

That was my thinking also. But I also realize that modern 6-shot conversion cylinders have not been shown to be unsafe.

Here are my '58 reproductions, with Howell 5-shot conversion cylinders. I prefer the Uberti (lower) because it's generally more robust than the Euroarms (Armi San Paolo -- upper). Look especially at the difference in the top strap.

 

[hawg]

That was my thinking also. But I also realize that modern 6-shot conversion cylinders have not been shown to be unsafe.

Here are my '58 reproductions, with Howell 5-shot conversion cylinders. I prefer the Uberti (lower) because it's generally more robust than the Euroarms (Armi San Paolo -- upper). Look especially at the difference in the top strap.

View attachment 1121641

The top strap isn't the weak point. Look at the frame at the lower front of the loading window.

 

[Onty]

That was my thinking also. But I also realize that modern 6-shot conversion cylinders have not been shown to be unsafe.

I agree with you. However, if shooter has some loads for "Ruger only", that is where things could go wrong.

Regarding hot loads for S&W 38-44, some folks use nickel plated cases for those, just make them easy to distinguish from standard 38 Special loads. I am not aware that anybody makes nickel plated 45 Colt brass.

 

[AlexanderA]

The top strap isn't the weak point. Look at the frame at the lower front of the loading window.

That's also a bit heavier on the Uberti (compared to the Euroarms). This doesn't show up clearly in the picture, but it's evident when looking directly at the guns.

 

[hawg]

It should be. The Uberti is bigger and beefier than the ASP. The ASP is the same size as the originals.

 

[Dave T]

I just don't understand people who buy muzzle loading (flint or percussion) firearms, then want to try smokeless powder in them. There are thousands of guns out there designed to shoot smokeless gunpowder. Why take technology from a different time frame, designed to operate within certain limitations associated with the era of the design (like using black powder) and make it something it isn't? Particularly when the manufacturers warn against it.

By the same token, what on earth makes people want to shoot black powder in a modern center fire rifle. The Garand was mention earlier as a gun in which someone tried black powder. What on earth for? Just because you can? That's "Hold my beer and watch this." reasoning and rational. Good grief!

Dave

 

[Malachi Leviticus Blue]

...By the same token, what on earth makes people want to shoot black powder in a modern center fire rifle...

This is not so crazy in my opinion.
One can make their own black powder, so in a shortage or survival situation it might be good to know what load of BP works in which firearm.
Many smokeless powders have recently been hard to come by so having a Black Powder option could keep you shooting.
As an engineer, I always am interested in how things work and what can be done (withing reason)
Playing with Black Powder loads is actually pretty safe, so why not?

 

[david58]

Actually I’m interested in the reloading and ballistic aspect. One of the main reasons I’m interested in guns is reloading.

Yes muzzleloader is a way to extend my season. But if I could load it with smokeless I’d be inclined to shoot it for fun. Like I do my 30-30.

But so far, cleaning it takes an hour. And it’s an hour of pretty hard work. Scrubbing constantly. Then, checking it several days and often times recleaning when rust is found.

I normally clean at the range after shooting, because I like to come home and just put things away. 15 minutes, max, with plain old Windex.

David
NM

 

[AlexanderA]

It should be. The Uberti is bigger and beefier than the ASP. The ASP is the same size as the originals.

In addition, the ASP is more like the Remington Beals (for example, in having the frame covering the barrel threads) than like the New Model Army.

The overall size difference between the ASP and the Uberti is not that noticeable. The robustness of the individual parts is more noticeable.

 

[Malachi Leviticus Blue]

I'm a big fan of the ASPs
Prefect for firing pinky under grip frame

 

[SomebodyMakeRiderRepro]

You can load a quality muzzleloader with smokeless powder but you MUST find a perfect charge (by weight) of suitable powder taking into account all the variables including how much space (if any) is left between the powder and the ball, is the powder compressed, what type of powder is used, exact weight of the bullet, type of steel used for the barrel etc. which obviously is beyond capabilities of ~99% of people who shoot black powder. If you do something wrong you will blow up you gun possibly leading to either death or serious bodily harm. Smokeless burn rate is fundamentally different from black powder and varies widely powder to powder. Without a perfectly fine-tuned charge of proper smokeless powder and projectile weight, you will more than likely blow up a gun designed strictly for black powder pressures.

So given all above it makes perfect sense to make a general rule of "NEVER LOAD A BLACKPOWDER GUN WITH SMOKELESS POWDER" (unless you use a proper conversion cylinder and follow manfucaturer's recommended loading data that is!)

Also there are more nuances to shooting smokeless including unreliable ignition from percussion caps, difficulty in setting proper gap between powder and projectile and pressure loss from the nipple.

That being said it is POSSIBLE to shoot smokeless from black powder gun but it is inherently dangerous, difficult and unreliable. Keep in mind that even with a perfectly fine-tuned load a difference of less than a grain in charge weight or wrong gap between powder and projectile might lead to detonation. A common mistake of double-charging will more than likely lead to a catastrophic detonation!

 

[SomebodyMakeRiderRepro]

Ruger proofed the Old Army by stuffing a cylinder full of Bullseye and shooting it, it didn't blow up, but that's a Ruger. Don't try it at home. There's an internet u tube video of a bonehead loading a remmie with smokeless powder using a spoon for a powder measure. It didn't blow up either, it's just a matter of time on that one. I don't recall what powder he was using.

I guess you meant this soon-to-be Darwin award recipient. It seems he had more luck than brains this time around.

But if anyone of you ever dares to try loading your muzzle-loeader with smokeless PLEASE consider this video a guide how NOT to do this!

 

[paul harm]

Mr Brownings auto-5 was designed to shoot nitro or BP. He considered it one of his greatest designed guns ever.

 

[Jackrabbit1957]

Agreed Paul, it works on long recoil so no gas ports to plug up. I have yet to shoot my 1148 with black powder shells so no real experience with that one.

 

[paul harm]

Punch in "auto 5 black powder" on u tube. There's a guy shooting 5 shots real fast with smoke. God, it gives a BP shooter a stiffy. Glad I don't have to clean that gun.

 

[KivPanther]

Because it isn't designed for it. That doesn't mean you CAN'T do it, just that you run a heavy risk of catastrophic failure even if you try to control as many variables as possible. I CAN use my '94 hardbody to tow a gooseneck trailer even though it isn't designed for it, but I run a heavy risk of breaking a great many things that just weren't designed for that size of load no matter how carefully I manage the weight and distribution. Same applies to a BP gun. It wasn't built for the pressure that smokeless puts out, and while you CAN engineer a load that maybe would work with one particular gun it doesn't mean it's a good idea.

I'm a fan of science, and I love trying to get something to do something it shouldn't be able to do just because I can. In this case, however, you will never be able to create a practical load simply because there are too many things that can go catastrophically wrong. As a thought experiment, you absolutely could! As a practical matter, why would you even want to?

 

[Bazoo]

Well I have another thought. If I was to get into it, and if I figured my load to be x, I would first proof the gun by adding powder to make extra pressure. Then if it held, it would certainly be safe for the intended charge.

Course I probably ain’t going to get into it since I don’t have a ML, nor quickloads.

 

[45 Dragoon]

I just don't understand people who buy muzzle loading (flint or percussion) firearms, then want to try smokeless powder in them. There are thousands of guns out there designed to shoot smokeless gunpowder. Why take technology from a different time frame, designed to operate within certain limitations associated with the era of the design (like using black powder) and make it something it isn't? Particularly when the manufacturers warn against it.

Dave

I just don't think the frames of the revolvers really know what they're made to do.
If you'll notice the Remington in the pic above, it was the cylinder that failed, not the frame. So, how do you differentiate the ones that "know" and the ones that don't? If that was a Kirst cylinder, it was definitely a double charge because I know what they'll handle.

Likewise, I shoot an open-top (1860 Uberti) with a 45acp cylinder in it. That's factory loads @ 21K psi per shot and it's a pussy cat to shoot ( and I haven't told it any different!!)!!

So, it's a shooter / reloading problem if a conversion "blows up", not that fact that it's a "copy" of a bp era arm.

Mike

 

[hawg]

I just don't think the frames of the revolvers really know what they're made to do.
If you'll notice the Remington in the pic above, it was the cylinder that failed, not the frame. So, how do you differentiate the ones that "know" and the ones that don't? If that was a Kirst cylinder, it was definitely a double charge because I know what they'll handle.

If it's the pics I posted I believe I said it was an overload with the cartridge cylinder. The other one was a cap and ball cylinder loaded with smokeless.