Smokeless in a BP rifle = Big Kaboom

[NavyVet1959]

To find academic papers concerning firearm and powder development, you will probably need to find a university that offers a degree (and probably an advanced degree) in that subject matter. Considering how relatively few firearm manufacturers there are around and the fact that there really aren't that many new firearm models produced each year, I doubt that there would be many universities that offer such degrees. I suspect that most firearm designers start off with degrees in mechanical engineering and anyone designing powders probably starts off with a degree in chemical engineering. From there, I suspect that they get more experience while working at various companies, none of which would result in research papers being generated.

[Tar Heel]

Unlike medical research, ballistic research just doesn't hold the interest of a large portion of the society nor do the results of that research affect us like research into miracle cures would; ergo no significant funding. The research which has been done by private industry will remain under lock and key as proprietary unless it was funded by taxpayer money and published data was provided to the military sources. Having been duly declassified after a goodly period of time, we would have access to that information if we knew where the repository was.

Arguably, the firing of several thousand rounds of ammunition will not significantly change a statistical probability, in fact, the Z-Stat precludes precisely that. I can generate an average velocity of a batch of ammunition with 100 rounds where N=100 and n=50. Firing the remaining 900 rounds will not affect the Poussin Distribution of the data.

Of course the associated cost of those thousands of thousands of rounds for a engineering paper, would preclude the cost unless a significant result were realized. Unlike the loss of life potential with a NASA mission, group size reduction by .0001" is a ridiculous quest by comparison. Dare I mention the Challenger mission?

While the data would be informative, I think all of the manufacturers would need to provide all they have to some benign entity for data mining. Of course that simply won't happen and as one has mentioned previously, the data has probably been shredded by now due to lack of manufacturers with any continuity.

Were I going to seek this information, I would focus on military records which museums may help with. Locating an archivist with zing will be the key. I would NOT waste any time at the National Archives anymore. They went to hell in a basket 20 years ago.

[dtknowles]

Unlike medical research, ballistic research just doesn't hold the interest of a large portion of the society nor do the results of that research affect us like research into miracle cures would; ergo no significant funding. The research which has been done by private industry will remain under lock and key as proprietary unless it was funded by taxpayer money and published data was provided to the military sources. Having been duly declassified after a goodly period of time, we would have access to that information if we knew where the repository was.

Arguably, the firing of several thousand rounds of ammunition will not significantly change a statistical probability, in fact, the Z-Stat precludes precisely that. I can generate an average velocity of a batch of ammunition with 100 rounds where N=100 and n=50. Firing the remaining 900 rounds will not affect the Poussin Distribution of the data.

Of course the associated cost of those thousands of thousands of rounds for a engineering paper, would preclude the cost unless a significant result were realized. Unlike the loss of life potential with a NASA mission, group size reduction by .0001" is a ridiculous quest by comparison. Dare I mention the Challenger mission?

While the data would be informative, I think all of the manufacturers would need to provide all they have to some benign entity for data mining. Of course that simply won't happen and as one has mentioned previously, the data has probably been shredded by now due to lack of manufacturers with any continuity.

Were I going to seek this information, I would focus on military records which museums may help with. Locating an archivist with zing will be the key. I would NOT waste any time at the National Archives anymore. They went to hell in a basket 20 years ago.

This is very disappointing.

I was not looking for a paper where they shot thousands of the same load but more like hundreds of rounds of different loads in different condition and different firearms or some such for a totals of thousands of rounds.

Tim

[oldred]

All the discussion about smokeless MLs is just fine and Jim dandy BUT it is overshadowing the fact that the real problem is when discussing using smokeless in the FAR more common BP MLs! I don't think anyone is trying to say that shooting smokeless in a purpose built rifle designed for smokeless is dangerous but rather it's the suggestion that it might be safe to use certain smokeless loads in BLACK POWDER rifles based on those loads producing BP pressures or less in a given cartridge. THAT is the kind of misguided thinking that has, and probably will again, get people seriously hurt! Basically smokeless MLs are high strength cartridge guns that eliminate the casing for the powder and use a very different ignition system that is capable of sealing the gasses in the chamber, indeed at least some of these designs have used cut off brass cases for this purpose and to hold the primer. It makes no difference if a modern smokeless ML can be safely loaded with magnum loads of smokeless powder the real problem is when people start thinking they can use what is a relatively low pressure cartridge load in a BLACK POWDER ML!

The bottom line is that no smokeless loads of any burn rate can be safely used in a BP firearm no matter what the pressure might look like in any given cartridge. Besides that's only part of the equation anyway because of the ignition system and to make suggestions that it somehow might be safe enough despite past history clearly showing just the opposite to be true is being totally irresponsible!

[M-Tecs]

As I stated earlier you NEVER use inappropriate/ not recommended loads for a firearm whether it's a muzzleloader or a cartridge firearm. Very few firearms cannot be blown-up with inappropriate loads. Black powder and smokeless are very different in maximum pressures that can be generated in firearms by misuse. Black powder will max out at about 37,000 psi and smokeless can reach 200,000 pluspsi.

The village idiot really has to work to blow-up a firearm with BP. It can be done but they have to work at it. Smokeless is much less tolerant of double and triple charges/bullets or ramrods left in the bore.

Currently only one manufacture is producing a smokeless powder that is recommended for black powder only firearm’s. That is Western with Blackhorn 209. Western states that Blackhorn 209 is NOT smokeless powder but this does not jive with independent spectrographic and gas chromatograph analysis’s of Blackhorn209.

http://www.chuckhawks.com/blackhorn209_news_flash.htm

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2010/06/11/is-blackhorn-209-really-a-smokeless-powder/

http://www.theopenrange.net/forum/index.php?topic=6150.0;


Western has an interesting post on this. http://www.blackhorn209.com/nevada/

In September of 2011, the Board ofWildlife Commissioners specifically banned Blackhorn 209 because it was based on Nitrated Ester, which they believe made it a smokeless powder. This conclusion overlooked the simple fact that the powder base does not determine a powder's classification. It is the powder's burn characteristics.


Blackhorn 209 is nitrocellulose based powder with potassium nitrate and sulfur added for some smoke.

The original black powder substitutes were the bulk smokeless powders designed for volumetric measurement substitution for black powder starting the 1890’s and produced into the 1920’s. Du Pont #1 Rifle Smokeless and Du Pont Schuetzen come to mind along with Laughlin & Rand Sharpshooter. Since these powders have not been available for close to a hundred years until the introduction of Blackhorn 209 we had zero smokeless powders recommended for use with black powder only guns and BH 209 will only work firearms using 209 primers or in cartridges as a BP sub.

[oldred]

There is some disagreement as to BH 209's corrosive characteristics and it was addressed in at least one of the links above which said that due to the Potassium nitrate and sulfur it contains it has some of the same corrosive elements as real BP. That may very well be true but although it is hardly conclusive scientific testing I intentionally left an old CVA rifle and a cheap (junk actually) Cap&Ball revolver uncleaned for weeks at a time after using BH 209. All that happened was an odd grey-like coating formed that cleaned off with no apparent damage at all, I got a bit of corrosion around the nipples but the bores and cylinder were unharmed. While things very well may have been different had the humidity been higher I am sure that under the same conditions that Pyrodex, etc and even real BP would have ruined both of these guns.

Really good stuff except for the price!

[M-Tecs]

Same as you I don't consider BH 209 corrosive.

One of my dad's friends had a very large collection of old powder cans. In the later 60's I remember admiring some of his

Laflin and Rand Powder cans like these but Herb's looked like new. Herb started reloading about 1930.