Can you shoot smokeless in a black powder rifle

[jednorris]

I have noticed many new B.P.C.R. shooters want to know if they can shoot smokeless in thier cartridge reproductions. The design of modern B.P.C.R. have better steel in them than was originally used many years ago. The Rifles designed back then could not withstand the pressures that we can get with smokeless. Currently produced Rifles can now withstand those pressures but because the original design was not made for such pressure the manufacturer cannot state that the new manufacture rifles will take it. The government and Insurance companies will not allow manufacturers to say that a 1885 rifle can withstand the pressure of smokeless even if it can.

[M-Tecs]

I have noticed many new B.P.C.R. shooters want to know if they can shoot smokeless in thier cartridge reproductions. The design of modern B.P.C.R. have better steel in them than was originally used many years ago. The Rifles designed back then could not withstand the pressures that we can get with smokeless. Currently produced Rifles can now withstand those pressures but because the original design was not made for such pressure the manufacturer cannot state that the new manufacture rifles will take it. The government and Insurance companies will not allow manufacturers to say that a 1885 rifle can withstand the pressure of smokeless even if it can.

All the current manufacture B.P.C.R. for SAAMI cartridges are rated for smokeless. Cartridges like the 40-65 that don't have a SAAMI spec will be Black Powder only due to the lack of SAAMI standards.

More detail here http://www.texas-mac.com/BPCR_Firearms.html

Same for the Italian guns.

[skeettx]

Yes and no
I shoot smokeless in my OLD Sniders, Martinis, Rolling Blocks, etc, they were manufactured when all there was, was black powder. but I keep pressures low at black powder pressures.

I shoot smokeless in my 1886 Winchester

Muzzle loaders NO
Flintlocks NO
Cartridges guns Perhaps, specify

Mike

[country gent]

In the BPCR there is some leeway if several issues are addressed. first is pressure levels and pressure curves between smokeless and black powder. These can be quite diffrent and show up alot diffrently. Next is the size of these cases, they were meant to be full or even compressed with black powder, leaving no airspace in the cases. With smokeless loads there is alot of airspace under the bullets base to deal with. Some use a filler of dacron, a certain sized sheet of toilet paper, or other fillers here. While modern steel they are still a 120 year old desighn and should be treated as such. I shoot true black powder in my BPCR rifles and dont feel any disatvantages to it. And most times feel it is an advantage. A good manual and current data along with proper loading techniques are needed. You should have data that gives some idea of pressures. As an example look at the lyman data in the cast bullet handbook for 45-70, Trapdoor loads and pressures, lever action loads and pressures and the Ruger modern loads and pressures. Pay attention to the pressure figures velocities and load densities. ( You may even want to dump a charge into one of your cases to see how well it fills it). When you get into the gigger cases 45 2.4 - 45 3.25 or the 50s density becomes more of an issue. These are big cases with alot of volumne. It can be done but care and attention need to be there every step of the process.

[oldred]

With smokeless loads there is alot of airspace under the bullets base to deal with.


Well yes and no, it depends on powder choice. I shoot smokeless quite often in my 45-90 which is of course a fairly large case and using Varget, H4895 or AA4064 there is very little air space, depending on the bullet and load there is very little air space at all! Now with 5744, which is a very common powder for this round, there is plenty of air space with even enough to double charge if the loader gets careless but even that much air space does not seem to be a problem with that powder even without a filler (which is not recommended by the manufacturer). All of my loads are rated at 28,000 CUP or less.

Going to stray off the exact topic a bit, I don't see the advantage of the low volume 5744 (at least in the 45-90) but it seems to be the most recommended powder for that round, the other powders I mentioned give slightly better velocity in the same projected pressure range while they also seem to be every bit as accurate, in fact the Varget load fills the case nicely and is the most accurate load I shoot (except for real BP). I suppose economy might be an advantage since the 5744 yields more shots per pound but that stuff doesn't seem to burn any cleaner than the other powders!

[leadman]

One exception to shooting only BP in original guns is the 71 Mauser single shot. This has been rebarreled by several countries to bottle-necked smokeless powder cartridges. Can't recall the proper name of the cartridge but I think it was Peru that rebarreled them to a 6mm or 6.5mm cartridge. I know there were a couple of other cartridges it was chambered in but can't recall them right now.
I use a load that the NRA in the 1960s recommended to load the 43 Mauser with, 20grs of 2400 with a 340gr boolit.
Still dealing with old steels so I load all my originally BP arms with light loads of smokeless.

[tweedmus]

I have used smokeless loads in many different original single shot rifles with excellent results. Many are as strong as modern bolt actions as long as it is understood that super hot loads are potentially hazardous in both. If you follow normal practice and keep your eye out for excessive pressure signs this is safe, and very accurate loads can be achieved.
it is also dependent on which actions are used. Strong actions are Martini (Peabody), Remington Rolling Block and Hepburn, Sharps-Borchart and hammer Sharps, Winchester Hi-wall & Low-wall, Stevens 44A, 44, Aydt and other European rifles. The weaker are Ballard, Stevens and other Tip-up rifles, Flobert (only used for small caliber rimfire) and similar, which can still be loaded to black powder pressures safely. Just go slow and easy and you should have no problems.
The best powders seem to be 4198 and 3031, but large capacity cases can use slower powders. If you can find copies of the P.O. Ackley manuals, they contain invaluable information on how, what and where pressure develops in rifle chambers; a great deal of which will surprise you.

[Lead pot]

New rifle:
http://i704.photobucket.com/albums/ww43/Kurtalt/th_P1000467_zpsomr6qoil.jpg (http://s704.photobucket.com/user/Kurtalt/media/P1000467_zpsomr6qoil.jpg.html)http://i704.photobucket.com/albums/ww43/Kurtalt/th_P1000466_zps95ysy7qg.jpg (http://s704.photobucket.com/user/Kurtalt/media/P1000466_zps95ysy7qg.jpg.html)

Old rifle:
http://i704.photobucket.com/albums/ww43/Kurtalt/th_IMG_0768.jpg (http://s704.photobucket.com/user/Kurtalt/media/IMG_0768.jpg.html)http://i704.photobucket.com/albums/ww43/Kurtalt/th_IMG_0762.jpg (http://s704.photobucket.com/user/Kurtalt/media/IMG_0762.jpg.html)

You decide if you want to keep your hand or life. Plus hurt the guy next to you.
Both rifles were said to have the right powder and safe load.
The Pedersoli was a .45-70 loaded with 5744 The Ballard was a .40-65.

[rfd]

i'm with lead pot. yes, most manufacturers of replica 19th century cartridge arms typically list smokeless as viable in their guns (however, pedersoli is specific that cartridges above 45-70 are bp only). i've shot way more than a few pounds of aa5744 out of pedersoli rollers and sharps, with trap door loads and no ill effects, but bp is just better in every way and that's all i load now. ymmv.

[EDG]

>>>The government and Insurance companies will not allow manufacturers to say that a 1885 rifle can withstand the pressure of smokeless even if it can.<<<

The US government plays NO part in the standards applied to US commercial ammo or firearms.
The insurance companies may only play an indirect role based on the insurance premiums charged.
So far as I know - NO insurance company has the knowledge to make the decisions made by the company that has the engineering data of its own products. That engineering data undoubtedly includes blow up up tests of the rifles. Some of the rifles probably cannot be blown up with BP but are easy to blow up with smokeless. There is nothing that would be more interesting for a design engineer than to blow up 4 or 5 rifles. When blown up the engineer gets to compare the destroyed rifles with the predictions of the FEA ) finite element analysis which is a part of the CAD design package. FEA is not a new computer play toy. The Feds do allow FEA analysis of the fatigue life of medical implants in lieu direct testing of all sizes.

For the most part the company bears sole responsibility for its products. The only gray area may be when one brand of factory ammo is fired in a different brand of firearm.

In the case of an original rifle produced before the organization of SAAMI you are the only responsible party unless you can prove otherwise.
The original company no longer exists therefore it cannot be held responsible.

I am no a lawyer and this is not legal advice but as I remember when you are dealing with explosives you have unlimited liability. If you hurt someone you own them compensation or they may own you.

Based on the photo whoever loaded the ammo should go look in the mirror to find the guilty person.
The Ballard is the SOLE responsibility of the person that overloaded the ammo.

There is the potential the Pedersoli had a defective barrel
BUT the probability is that the cartridge was charged with the wrong powder or it was double or triple charged.

Accurate Powders has published pressure tested smokeless loads for many of the BPCR rounds using 5744.

Pedersoli information.

http://www.bpcr.net/site_docs-results_schedules/documents/pedersoli_proof_rules_and_allowable_limits_09-04.htm

There has always been a steady drum beat that the Montana produced rifles are superior to Pedersolis. But there is no proof that these little companies have ever had FEA done to their rifles.
Pedersoli has indicated that the side walls of the receiver have been beefed up compared to the original Sharps design.
You have to suspect they know more about the design based on engineering analysis.

[oldred]

Showing examples of new production versions of BP rifles failing proves absolutely nothing since we have no idea of what caused the rifle to fail, 5744? Yes but how much? We can easily find blown up modern 45/70 lever guns too!

Still the problem, at least IMHO, with shooting smokeless in an original BP rifle made with old tech steels or even a modern rifle of questionable design would be the safety margin when using smokeless. With BP there is only so much pressure that a cartridge is going to make unless there is a barrel obstruction or some other such factor involved but that's not a powder question. Some of these old rifles may be close to their strength limit with BP and while they should still be safe with smokeless of BP equivalent pressures the danger lays in making even a small error. In a modern steel rifle minor errors that can lead to higher than expected, but otherwise still within a safe range, pressure might be disastrous in a rifle that is near it's limits even with BP.

[bedbugbilly]

I have no dog in this fight . . . just an observation.

Lead pot . . . judging from those photos . . . it looks like the "new" would be a littler better than the "old" . . . only because there would be less shrapnel flying around! I say that with tongue in cheek. Personally, I wouldn't want to be shooting either of those nor be standing by when they "let go".

As I said, I have no dog in this fight. But . . .. I've been shooting for 50 + years and it always amazes me "how" or "why" some always want to "push the envelope". A person "can do" anything they want to . . .the question is "should they"?

Example - I load both smokeless and BP for SAA revolver loads. I keep my loads mild . . not hunting, not killing . . . I'm plinking. I have Uberti "clones" of SA revolvers - the original Colts were BP and as improvements were made in metallurgy, then smokeless. BUT . . .. every so often some "fool" will ask the question . . . "can I load "Ruger Only" loads for my 45 Colt clone and will they work . . . well, yea . . . you can . . but again should you? Basically . . a Ruger Only load in a 45 Colt Long WILL fit the chambers and WILL fire . . . and you might get "lucky" and you cylinder hold together . . . but probably not and the results will be like Lead pot's photos . . and hopefully the shooter and those standing by will not get hurt. The same principles apply to rifles.

It just seems to me that at times there are a lot of "assumptions" going on . . "the manufacturer doesn't state that you can use smokeless but today, the steel is better" and so on. And yes, there is a lot of "lawyering" going on as far as how much a manufacturer wants to "state" about their product . . and I don't blame them.

Flame me if you want . . . but I just wonder at times just why some folks seem to want to "push" their loads or do things that common sense should tell them that they shouldn't? If a firearm is designed for BP . . then use BP. "IF" smokeless can be used . . . then it should be stated so by the manufacturer . . . why guess about it based on a bunch of assumptions?

Just asking . . . .

[Don McDowell]

Going to stray off the exact topic a bit, I don't see the advantage of the low volume 5744 (at least in the 45-90) but it seems to be the most recommended powder for that round, the other powders I mentioned give slightly better velocity in the same projected pressure range

Seems as tho you might have answered your own question. The thing about 5744 is it will duplicate the velocity of blackpowder, and most times can equal the accuracy of blackpowder, and that's why it's so often the recommendation for smokeless in a bpcr.
Mtecs post was spot on. IMHO.

[BrentD]

The government and Insurance companies will not allow manufacturers to say that a 1885 rifle can withstand the pressure of smokeless even if it can.

Really? Where is that written?

[oldred]

As I said, I have no dog in this fight. But . . .. I've been shooting for 50 + years and it always amazes me "how" or "why" some always want to "push the envelope". A person "can do" anything they want to . . .the question is "should they"?

Example - I load both smokeless and BP for SAA revolver loads. I keep my loads mild . . not hunting, not killing . . . I'm plinking. I have Uberti "clones" of SA revolvers - the original Colts were BP and as improvements were made in metallurgy, then smokeless. BUT . . .. every so often some "fool" will ask the question . . . "can I load "Ruger Only" loads for my 45 Colt clone and will they work . . . well, yea . . . you can . . but again should you? Basically . . a Ruger Only load in a 45 Colt Long WILL fit the chambers and WILL fire . . . and you might get "lucky" and you cylinder hold together . . . but probably not and the results will be like Lead pot's photos . . and hopefully the shooter and those standing by will not get hurt. The same principles apply to rifles.. . .


I think sometimes the question of using smokeless in a BP firearm can actually be asking two different things, some are asking if it's safe to use smokeless at BP pressures for convenience while others may be wanting to "push the envelope". For a modern production BP style firearm it's reasonably safe to assume that smokeless would be perfectly safe as long as care is taken to assure BP pressures are maintained, due to modern steels and manufacturing they very likely will have some measure of a safety margin built in for SLIGHT over-pressures in the event of a minor error. Original BP guns may not have any meaningful margin of safety and may be seriously damaged by even a minor error and over-pressure event, for this reason I personally would never use smokeless in most original BP firearms but most BP replica guns should be safe.

For the "pushing the envelope" crowd it's a whole 'nother story! There simply is no excuse for trying to hotrod these old style guns that were manufactured even with modern steels, unless of course the manufacturer has approved such loads which is rarely the case.

Hotrodding old original BP firearms with heavier than BP equivalent charges of smokeless is just plain,,,,,,,,,,,well less than smart, a LOT less and is only attempted by those competing for the Darwin award!

[Lead pot]

When the Ballard let loose I was standing about 15 feet off to the left. I saw the barrel turning in the air and wood flying.
When the Pedersoli blew I met the meat wagon on the road. Both detonations caused severe hand damage. No bystanders were hurt.
Both loads bullets where pulled and loads checked. I don't use smokeless in powder rifles so I cant say if you can even double charge a "safe load" listed in the .45-70 or .40-65 case with 5744 powder. If you can get a double charge in those cases it would be right up to the top of the case mouth and I don't think you would even seat a GG bullet they used.
The sad part about the Ballard. We where sitting in camp the night before talking about the smokeless loads in these rifles and the response was "that's what I always have used with out any problems"
A light load of smokeless is potentially just as dangerous as one to heavy. Even Lyman used to say this in their old reduced load cast bullet loading section of the manuals

[BrentD]

Kurt, the answer is yes, but not by much.

That was a cast Ballard as well, and thus, more susceptible to flying apart. A forged one might not have liked it, but the end result might not have been quite as bad.

[oldred]

Actually you can double charge a 45/70 case with 5744 and it wouldn't even take a full double charge to cause that kind of damage. I know 5744 is popular for these large cases but I don't trust all that air space in spite of what the manufacturer says about it being safe, the smokeless loads I shoot fill the case, are every bit as accurate (at least they have been for me and my type of shooting) and the velocity spread is even better with the bulkier powders, especially with Varget. All these slow burning powders I have used leave some unburnt powder but then so does 5744! Honestly the only advantage I can see with 5744 over the others is it's more economical but for me that's not enough to make me want to stick a half empty case in my rifle!

Actually going by data provided by accurate arms the AA4064 loads under a 500 gr bullet are around 300 FPS faster than 5744 at the same 28,000 PSI max load for those who might be interested in shooting max performance loads, I am not so normally only load the more accurate and more comfortable to shoot starting loads.

I realize these are 45-90 loads but still a 45/70 case will easily accept a double charge of 5744 or at least it would be very easy to dangerously overcharge and still have room left in the case. Below is an example of the performance difference between 5744 and the slower more filling 4064,

Of course all this becomes meaningless if we choose to shoot real BP which I think most here will agree is the best choice for these old style rifles, and DEFINITELY the best choice for an original!



CALIBER: .45-90 Winchester. Case length: 2.4” Case capacity: ca5.714 cc (88.0 grains of H²O) Barrel length: 30” Max Pressure Spec: <28,000 PSI


Powder: Accurate -- 5744®. Bullet weight: 500 grains.
Start load: 29.0 grains (1225 – 1265 Fps)
Maximum load: 32.5 grains (1350 – 1450 Fps).


Powder: Accurate -- 4064®. Bullet weight: 500 grains.
Start load: 45.0 grains (1500 – 1600 Fps)
Maximum load: 50.0 grains (1650 – 1750 Fps).



Also they have this to say about 5744,


NOTES:
It’ important to note that SAFETY is our prime concern therefore we strongly recommend.
1.Caution re A-5744: Take care that double charging does not occur! Especially at low load levels. 2.TO ALWAYS BEGIN LOADING AT THE RECOMMENDED MINIMUM “START” LOAD and develop loads in 2% increments towards the MAXIMUM load.
3.If possible, measure the velocity and correlate with our data.


!

[rfd]

what oldred posted.

just check the load data for aa5744 and any 19th century cartridge and it surely doesn't take a double charge to spike pressures, it takes going beyond recommended load data.

i never saw the need to go beyond the range of start to mid data (never approaching max data) for aa5744 with both my 45-70 and 40-65. folks using smokeless powders other than aa5744 or sr4759, i'd be even more super careful.

better yet, far safer yet, only use black for any 19th century cartridge.

[M-Tecs]

The OP's original question was if you can "shoot smokeless in their cartridge reproductions". Some of the replies have been interesting to say the least. The 38 Special & 303 Brit were originally a black powder cartridges but they are very rarely loaded with black today. The 45 Colt and 45/70 are very popular today but only a small percentage are shot with black.

[rfd]

i read it that the op was referring to bpcr cartridges as they apply to those specific 19th century rifle types, not handguns, nor end of the 19th century bottle neck rounds. i think most if not all the answers rendered have been apropos to the opening thread post.

[oldred]

Well he mentioned modern BPCR reproductions so apparently he was referring to the old designs but built to modern standards and modern steels, he then went on to talk about the originals so I think his intent was quite clear. I think by far most modern built rifles will withstand much higher pressures than the originals but to me that means only an extra margin of safety vs a license to load them up to magnum levels! To each his own I suppose and I can fully understand someone wanting to shoot smokeless due to the convenience it offers but IMHO the heavy loads need to be used in modern rifles of both modern steels and design. Seems as if some folks just automatically think they should try to "improve" the performance and more power is better, but is it really? We all know people like this, I certainly do, one fellow shoots 45/70 loads in a Handi rifle that I would be leery of in a Ruger no 1 but why? Why take such a chance?

:EDIT:To be clear, what I said about heavy loads and people taking risks are just off-hand comments in general and were in no way aimed at the OP or anyone else here.