Agreed... That was what I was trying to point out.Originally Posted by dondiego
Also, I noticed that the round balls did not go all the way through the hog since I only saw the tissue damage on one side.
|
   
   
|
|
Agreed... That was what I was trying to point out.
Also, I noticed that the round balls did not go all the way through the hog since I only saw the tissue damage on one side.
Ken
Sorry if I am coming off as disagreeing with you. That is not the case at all. Not too many of us that shoot SML. While I cast my first round ball in 1974 and I have been shooting ML's since 1972 the SML is relative new to me. I first started SML about 3 1/2 years ago. I like most forms of shooting and almost all types of firearms. As a toolmaker and a part time smith I enjoy building guns almost as much as shooting.
As I stated my experience level with SML's is relative low. The load I am using was recommended to me by Luke at Arrowhead. It has worked very well for me. I did try 5744 but the H4198 load is scary accurate for me but it does thump on both ends. The outstanding accuracy of this load ended my R&D on load development for the 50. Still playing with the 45 full form loads.
Depending on my mood you can find me ML hunting with a sidelock using a RB and real black to a state of the art SML. Same for handguns. Could be anything from a Ruger Old Army or a Colt 1873 Peacemaker to a state of the art scoped hand cannon. For centerfire my favorite rifles are Trapdoors or Highwall but that is not the only thing I hunt with or shoot.
Yes very much so but not until the weather gets better up here in the frozen north.
I attended my first Rendezvous in 1974 built my first BP kit gun in the same year. Built my first from scratch ML in 1978 and did a fair amount of Rendezvous in the 80’s but I ultimately got turned off by the BP crowds intolerance of anything not period BP. Still have my capote coat made out of a 6 point Hudson Bay Blanket. Wished it was still a blanket and not a coat.
Last edited by M-Tecs; 01-10-2015 at 05:30 PM.
M-Tecs
I didn't think you were disagreeing, my last comments were about the round ball being perfect and some havn't learned that yet kind of statements.
Ken
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Je suis Charlie
Remember Lavoy!
I'll cling to my God and my guns, and you can keep the "Change".
Been following this thread for a bit and find it interesting. I have shot muzzleloaders for quite bit since about he 70's. I kinda gave it up in favor of the 45-70 single shots. As for doing smokeless in a muzzleloader, I'd be very reluctant except in a emergency/survival situation to give it a try. One might get away with it,99 out of a 100 times, then, boom and ouch.
Big bore 99, there are guns made specifically for shooting smokeless powder. if you are unsure of what the gun your shooting was built for, to use for fuel that is, please don't use any smokeless in it for any reason.
Some people even load the 45-70 with smokeless powder.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Je suis Charlie
Remember Lavoy!
I'll cling to my God and my guns, and you can keep the "Change".
My 45-70's are all modern manufacture, made for smokeless. I shoot mostly smokeless in them but have a time or two used black and the subs. I meant using smokeless in an older muzzle loader.
Since you brought up the 45-70 let’s use that as a base. I just don't understand the apparent lack of understanding by some that you NEVER use inappropriate loads for that firearm whether it's a muzzleloader or a cartridge firearm.
I load 45-70 for Trapdoor Springfield's, Marlin 1895's (both original & modern), Winchester 1885's & 1886's and a Siamese Mauser. For the TD’s 28,000 PSI is max but most of my loads are 18,000 or under same as Lyman’s recommendations. The original Marlin 1895 is loaded same as TD’s. The Siamese Mauser is safe with 50,000 PSI. Some feel the modern Marlin 1895’s are safe up to 43,000 and the current 86's are safe up to 50,000. I keep loads for them under 35,000 psi.
A safe max load for the Siamese Mauser will take the TD apart. Same for the various levels I load 45 Colts to. The 1873 Peacemaker is rated for 14,000 psi max with Contender’s, Blackhawks, RedHawks (don't have one) and Win 1892’s on the other side. The S&W are in the middle. I have no doubt that my 92 loads will take a Peacemaker apart.
Since shooters have been successfully segregating loads for 45-70 and 45 Colts for a very long time how is using the appropriate load for the design of a muzzleloader any different?
My SAFE load for my SML will probably take my sidelock’s apart on the first shot. A SML designed for use with high pressure smokeless loads is very different from a ML designed for black or black subs.
Last edited by M-Tecs; 01-10-2015 at 08:10 PM.
M-tecs, words well choosen, and very good anologys, I proudly stand with all your examples.
All forms of firearms need to be respected for what they are.
Ken
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Je suis Charlie
Remember Lavoy!
I'll cling to my God and my guns, and you can keep the "Change".
To be clear the OP is about using smokeless in a BLACK POWDER rifle and it's been pretty much established that trying to use smokeless in this type of ML is kind of like playing Russian roulette. The last few posts are about MLs designed and built specifically for use with smokeless powders and these rifles are in a class all by themselves, none of the warnings about using smokeless in a conventional ML are in any way negated by what can be safely done with these very different rifles.
the recent explosion (pun intended) in stupidity in firearms is appalling.
Stupid is as stupid does...
I think there is a lot of ignorance with some of the new shooters, ignorance not at all being a slap at them or in any way meant to be insulting since ignorance simply means not yet familiar with the task at hand. Because of the internet there is LOTS of advice available with some of it being not so good and when this advice becomes dangerous it really needs to be addressed. To the experienced the difference between a purpose designed ML and BP only firearm is just a given and they are not likely to try the same loads in a BP rifle that the smokeless rifles use. To the uninitiated some inlines may look to them to be "modern" MLs because they look like modern bolt action rifles instead of side lock traditional types, I know this to be true in at least one case where a local guy (while admitting both were designed for BP) was trying to argue that an inline was at least "safer" than a side lock for smokeless use! That kind of talk plus suggestions on these forums that some smokeless loads are well within BP pressures in some cartridge loads is all that it might take to get someone to try it, unfortunately some are just going to have to learn the hard way!
I can't help noticing that none of the suggested links in your message are from actual firearms manufacturers.
The use of smokeless propellants in firearms designed for black powder propellant is not safe, nor is it prescribed or recommended by ANY legitimate firearms manufacturer. If I am wrong about this please show us a copy of the owners manual from a legitimate firearms manufacturer stating otherwise.
Google searches and internet forum activity does not constitute "research". Research is a scientific process and method which involves forming a hypothesis, testing that hypothesis under very controlled conditions, arriving at a conclusion, and publishing that data thereby submitting it for academic peer review. That is research and it has already been done by legitimate firearms manufacturers. The data has revealed that firearms designed for black powder propellant with its associated chamber pressures, and the steel used for those firearms, is UNSAFE for use with modern smokeless propellants.
I take exception to folks stating otherwise and quoting sources of "authority" which are not actually sources of authority nor vetted by the firearms industry. Telling new shooters that your information supersedes that of legitimate sources of information is not only dangerous, it is irresponsible. It also facilitates a lawsuit naming YOU as a defendant.
Let's instead refer new shooters to legitimate sources of information, suggest they read and comply with industry published safety information, and stop referring them to third and fourth party sources of information whose credentials are suspect - to say the least.
Last edited by Tar Heel; 01-13-2015 at 02:03 PM.
You would be wrong. Here is one for the Savage ML II. https://s3.amazonaws.com/savagefiles...der_10mlii.pdf
http://petesdiscountfirearms.com/man..._QuickTips.pdf
Same for the Savage ML 1 or some of the smaller manufactures.
http://www.performancegunworks.com/B...leloaders.html
http://www.richardscustomrifles.com/...zzleloader.htm
http://www.badbullmuzzleloaders.com/
http://www.dsscustomguns.com/custom-...leloaders.aspx
http://www.piercisionrifles.com/smok...muzzleloaders/
Last edited by M-Tecs; 01-13-2015 at 02:33 PM.
I agree with your points but I have a slightly off topic question. Can you provide links or copies of Research by Legitimate firearms and Ammo manfacturers related to sporting firearms? I would be interested in reading some such papers. I understand that some research is proprietary (done some of that myself but we still publish results with proprietary info withheld). I get tired of reading the same old stuff by media writers and would be interested in reading research by Engineers and Scientists.
Tim
Words are weapons sharper than knives - INXS
The pen is mightier than the sword - Edward Bulwer-Lytton
The tongue is mightier than the blade - Euripides
The indicated firearms are DESIGNED for the use of smokeless propellants and can use black powder as well. I was perhaps remiss by not emphasizing the words designed for black powder. These discussions ultimately lead the new shooters to believe all BP firearms can thus use smokeless because one or another (by design) can.
They use the term "muzzleloader" and not "black powder firearm" which is a major part of the problem with the misunderstanding by most new shooters. The term "muzzleloader" used to mean black powder muzzleloader. Now we have two types of muzzleloaders: black powder muzzleloaders and newer inline smokeless muzzleloaders.
Please call the new guns designed for smokeless propellants "smokeless muzzleloading firearms" and do not group them into a common class convention of "muzzleloaders".
Last edited by Tar Heel; 01-13-2015 at 08:55 PM.
Tim, the manufacturers are not going to release their proprietary data because it's proprietary as you know, and because it contains data regarding their steel alloys and bursting pressures. That quest was fruitless for me and other designers. We had to perform our own tests on our own dime. The US Army Ordinance Center data however is available and I have some of it in printed form which I got many many years ago before the internet. I'll hunt this down online now and I am sure some of it, if not all of it, may be available online.
I think you misunderstood my request. The papers you find do not need to be on topic with this post and if you want to just point me with some search criteria that would be good. I was just looking for interesting and educational reading material.
Tim
Words are weapons sharper than knives - INXS
The pen is mightier than the sword - Edward Bulwer-Lytton
The tongue is mightier than the blade - Euripides
Sorry about that. I guess I really don't understand the focus of the request then. Good general firearms, ballistic, metallurgy, and other firearm related information can be had in the NRA Firearms Fact Book. It's a good read and one that stays on the nightstand for me to refer to. It's got lots of general stuff in it.
You said "Research is a scientific process and method which involves forming a hypothesis, testing that hypothesis under very controlled conditions, arriving at a conclusion, and publishing that data thereby submitting it for academic peer review. That is research and it has already been done by legitimate firearms manufacturers." I am tired of things like NRA Firearms Facts book or Reloading Handbooks etc. Have read a lot of them and they are geared more toward people with less experience. I was thinking that "academic peer review"ed research papers by legitimate firearms manufacturers would be more informative. Best would be papers about the development and testing for new powders or bullets. Papers that publish the results of tens of thousands of rounds tested with tables and graphs, you know a real research paper not a magazine article.
If the research is about test black powder muzzleloaders using smokeless powder that would be ok, but not as interesting as what I posted above. I just don't know where to look for these kind of papers, google is just not finding them.
Tim
Words are weapons sharper than knives - INXS
The pen is mightier than the sword - Edward Bulwer-Lytton
The tongue is mightier than the blade - Euripides
Maybe this will help. When we were evaluating the probability of penetration and no penetration from micrometeoroid and orbital debris on our spacecraft structures we were looking to get some testing done. I reviewed a number of papers of similar tests performed by both NASA and Independent labs. I could find and get copies of these papers because in talking to the labs they were glad to make the results of there work available to us unless it was proprietary property of a different company. I don't know anyone who works in the ballistics labs around the country to ask them for papers of their work so because you seem to be familiar with this kind of publication I figured it couldn't hurt to ask.
I did see one report on the FBI ammo selection testing and protocol, something like that is what I find interesting.
Tim
Words are weapons sharper than knives - INXS
The pen is mightier than the sword - Edward Bulwer-Lytton
The tongue is mightier than the blade - Euripides
Posting Permissions
| BP | Bronze Point | IMR | Improved Military Rifle | PTD | Pointed |
| BR | Bench Rest | M | Magnum | RN | Round Nose |
| BT | Boat Tail | PL | Power-Lokt | SP | Soft Point |
| C | Compressed Charge | PR | Primer | SPCL | Soft Point "Core-Lokt" |
| HP | Hollow Point | PSPCL | Pointed Soft Point "Core Lokt" | C.O.L. | Cartridge Overall Length |
| PSP | Pointed Soft Point | Spz | Spitzer Point | SBT | Spitzer Boat Tail |
| LRN | Lead Round Nose | LWC | Lead Wad Cutter | LSWC | Lead Semi Wad Cutter |
| GC | Gas Check |
Reply With Quote