Advice needed

[versifier]

Duplex loading in a bp cartridge rifle and in a m/l are two very different things. The brass case seals the chamber and permits higher pressures. Personally, I think if you want to get better performance in a cartridge rifle than you can get with bp, you can use (surprise) SMOKELESS. If you aren't happy with the power level of your .44mag with max loads, what do you do? Do you use overpressure loads, or do you get yourself a .454Casull or other larger case? We aren't talking rocket science here. Duplex loads in m/l are an accident waiting to happen. They are not designed to contain the pressure levels or the pressure spikes that can happen when using unsuitable propellants. You are setting off a powder charge in a HOLLOW TUBE with YOUR FACE at one end. If you want to make it into the Darwin Awards, there are many more creative ways of going about it that don't risk the lives of bystanders. If it's "not clean enough" or "not powerful enough" with bp or subs without adding a smokeless powder, the shooter has an attitude that is frankly dangerous around m/l's and should stick to cartridges (at the other end of the firing line from where my kids and I are shooting, thankyouverymuch.) There is all kinds of useless and dangerous information floating around that has been published by fools (often well intentioned, but still fools). Anyone who regularly dabbles in unsafe practices is sooner or later going to run into either the law of avarages or Murphy's Law and end up a statistic. I have no problem with such people removing themselves from the gene pool, but too often they take others with them, and I do have a problem with that.

[StarMetal]

Verse,

You're wrong with that type of attitude (about what you consider unsafe practices). Alot of the technology we have today is from people taking risks....of the unknown. You know, and I know you know this, that scientist were divided on what would happen when they set that first nuclear bomb off. The naysayer ones said it would start a chain reaction of the atoms in the atmosphere and set the whole world off. Well, we now know that didn't happen. But they weren't sure. So let's get back to smokeless in ..ooo aaah errr bp guns. Look where it's led. Where you say? Savage's smokeless muzzleloader. Yeah, before you say it's a different rifle then the regular bp inlines even.....where do you think they come up with the idea? Hmmmm? Pull it out of the clear blue? I doubt it. Look at Mr Diesel when he invented the diesel engine, damn near blew himself up. Fool, shouldn't have been messing with dangerous stuff like that you say huh? Not so.

Sorry if it seems I'm coming down hard on you, I'm not, I'm really trying to make you see another point of view. Alot of things today were brought to light by taking risks. But, one has to take them safely. The two fellows that know about my experiment didn't say: Boy what an ******* you are. Damn Joe, You're an idiot. My goodness fool, what were you thinking. They both were intrigued and interested and amazed at the results.

If those ancestors really would have believed the world was flat and if kept sailing towards the horizon out of sea to fall off into who knows where, the world would have never gotten discovered.

So I guess you think Clarkm is a fool for blowing up firearms to find their weaknesses?

Joe

[omgb]

I've got Robert's book too. He was using Dupont Bulk, a powder designed to be substituted for BP at a time when BP and smokeless technologies were transitioning. If he had access to either 777 or Pyrodex I seriously doubt if he would have continued in experimenting with duplex loads in a ML. All of the advantages gained were achieved with 777 and Pyrodex.

Feel free to experiment but you've got to know that its a risk with very few rewards. The outcome is pretty well documented and there is not much more to be learned on the subject nor is there much to be gained by re-investigating it. Well, that's my opinion any way and we all know what they are worth. I don't pass jugement on you. But what you're doing is not my idea of reasonable risk so I for one, intend to leave that sort of fun to others.

I might add that in the process of developing atomic power, accidents ruined the lives of several hundred men and women over the course of the last 5 decades. The old AEC did some hinky things out there in St. George Utah (not to mention the Pacific) and as a result, the accident/injury/death rate may be even higher. Was it worth it? I think so. Would I want to try all of that stuff over again just in case somebody missed soemthing? Not in your life.

[44man]

I agree, a lot of experiments were deadly. Some continue to kill to this day. I will follow the rules learned the hard way. Nothing more can be learned by playing with fire! It burns and it hurts!

[StarMetal]

The powder I was experimenting with wasn't around when that DuPont bulk smokeless came out, in fact the rounds this powder was made for weren't even invented yet. I did my experiments, got data, then quit. I didn't push it. Far as I could tell I could have kept pushing it, but I didn't. Will I use this for shooting? NO I've always been a safe experimenter, even when I was a kid. I don't know where I got the habit from, surely not Dad. Now later on as I went through industrial jobs I learned even more safety. You don't work around me without wiring steamhoses, airhoses, etc., nor walking around with a rag sticking out of your pockets, or not wearing your safety glasses and hearing protection, or checking vessels for flamables, oxygen, inert gases, etc., before you work on them or enter them.....you get the picture. Oh forgot my favorite, maintenance definately doesn't work on any electrical powered equipment when I'm the plant operator without locking out and tagging out the breaker boxes for such equipment. Every maintenance man that will be working on that equipment will have his personal lock on the lockout tab, along with mine, the operator. No maintenance men ever got hurt because of me.

Joe

[versifier]

Joe, it's one thing to be carefully experimenting in an overengineered barrel under controlled conditions, but it's quite another thing to be playing with duplex loads with a used m/l that was of questionable quality when it was brand new, then subjected to unknown abuses over time by an unknown number of owners. Now it comes into the hands of a newby who by his own admission does not yet understand the relationships of ball size to patch size to bore size, nor has enough experience to begin to have an understanding of patch lubes. Everyone has to learn and to do that you have to start somewhere, but a little more experience is in order before that kind of experiment is even considered. No, Joe, that is an accident waiting to happen, and the circumstances clearly dictated to me that I advise extreme caution in the given situation. At least a season of experimenting with bp and subs, prbs and slugs, different lubes, etc. I am not against experimenting, even taking some unavoidable risks on occasion, but I have enough experience along those lines to realize when it is a risk, and how to minimize it when necessary. I spend a lot of time in the real world teaching people how to handle guns and bows safely, how to hunt safely, and how to reload safely. When I realize someone knows just enough to be dangerous, I advise caution and time to learn enough to be safe.

[StarMetal]

versifier,

I agree with you, what you said about the newbie and duplex loads and such. I've fortunately have had alot of years of experience. I've fooled with duplex smokeless loads, but frankly to tell you the truth, alot of hassle. I want something easier to load.

Before I'd take on a questionable experiment, I'd find out all the information I could about it. Talk to those that attempted to do it, or have done it and failed, etc. If possible I'd always try a small scale attempt first.

Had some friends in Colorado that were kind of crazy, machines, silencers, bombs, you know what I mean. They made this homemade plastic explosive one time. I won't discuss the ingredients. One of the friends, the milder one of the group, was a photographer, went with them to the mtns to set this plastic explosive off. They found an old abandoned mining shed made of wood covered with corrigated steel siding. They set it in there. My photographer friend said he got back 150 yard and behind a big boulder, to observe and take pictures. Well they weren't any pictures to be taken. He said at the blast a piece of corrigate (4 foot x 8 foot went sailing over his head like a flying saucer. He hit the deck. Well I asked how much of this plastic explosive did so and so set off. The answer was 4 pounds. MY GOD I said. First off I told him I wouldn't have gone with them, that I would have tried to talk him out of doing it, or if he was to use a much much smaller example. That's me, that's how I think, how I would have approached it. Personaly I'd never made the stuff. The photographer quit hanging with them. I also told him that 150 yards away wasn't far enough for 4 pound of any explosive.

Anyways my experiment was entirely different then a duplex load.

Joe

[44man]

Blowing into the barrel will soften fouling but is not looked upon with favor at shoots. They do not like to see someones head over a muzzle. But don't blow through a drop tube.
I have achieved good accuracy with a smaller ball but a THICK patch must be used. These are sometimes very hard to find. Some old timers used buckskin for a patch. This requires a very small ball and if you don't believe me, try to load your ball with some.
The ball and patch can't have a gap between the bottom of the grooves and them or gas will leak, cut the patch and ruin accuracy. The patch has to provide lube, a gas seal and the weave imbedded into the ball provides rotational grip. This is much stronger then a bare ball on the steel.
You can't get a gas seal if the patch is not compressed into the ball in the bottom of the grooves. Sorry, but thin patches and small balls don't work.
My friend and I were sitting in the coffee shop in Cle Hopkins airport. He had just asked when I would be ready to shoot. I said I don't have any balls, the waitress had just stepped up and heard me. Did I get some funny looks! We both laughed so hard she left.

[waksupi]

There was a recent conversation about blowing down a barrel on the Muzzleloader Magazine forum. General consensus was, most old timers blow down them, and consider it unsafe to not do so. Gotta watch the pilgrims who have a misfire, and want to blow down the bore to see if they loaded it. Darwinism once again rearing it's head.
As to buckskin patches, I took some thin flank buckskin, braintanned, and tried it out for patching. It was thin enough, I had no problem loading the rifles, and accuracy was good. Of course, I don't load as tight as 44 and some others. If I can't start it with my thumb, I don't want to shoot it. Probably bothers some of the people I beat at the shoots.

[44man]

A grain of truth there! It doesn't take me more then one quick pop to start a ball. Can't get carried away and if too hard to start, they won't shoot better. I used to watch guys beat the balls in with a hammer. Then others would CLEAN between shots. I have seen everything that can be done and I beat them all. I took home so many prizes and grocerys that they changed the system of giving out awards so even the worst shooter got something to take home. Kind of like a handicap award deal. Shoot bad, don't improve but get awarded for the effort. Liberal crap if I ever seen it. Kind of like never finding a job and let the taxpayers support you. I have not been back since! I could have stuffed toilet paper in my bore, made a boom and threw the ball down range and still got prizes. It turned guys dead lazy and removed the competition from the whole shoot.
This was at Fairfax Rod And Gun In VA. Bunch of rich people that could not take defeat.
Waksupi, it sounds to me that you are a better shot then all of the rest. I applaud you for it. But could not your groups be tighter if the ball fit better?

[omgb]

This is the result of using Hornady plastic patches and .490 round balls. Thumb pressure seated them. The two to the right were me getting the sights on target. The rest speaks for itself. You can't get results like this if you beat the heck out of the ball. It must be round and have a trimmed sprue if it is going to group. This is an old and very nasty Lyman GP rifle that I had just fire lapped. There was no cleaning between shots and no lube was used. Powder was GOEX 2F

[omgb]

Here are the fired plastic patches. These are designed so that they do not move in the barrel before shooting. Note the petals have raised dimples. These grip the bore and the ball so that everything stays put, not at all like the old plastic wads from the late 70s early 80s.

[44man]

.54 home made Hawken, 5 shots at 50 yd's with my method.

[44man]

You NEVER beat the heck out of a ball. The short starter, long starter and rod end must conform to the ball. The sprue does NOT have to be trimmed. The proper fit just takes one hard pop to enter the bore.
How many shots can be taken with the plastic wad before you can't get a ball in? Where is the lube to soften fouling. I can get my groups after firing 200 rounds without cleaning. Sorry, you can't convince me!

[omgb]

" The sprue does NOT have to be trimmed." Well, if not trimmed, it should be oriented the same way each time. That's my experience. if your is diffferent, then by all means, stick with it.

"How many shots can be taken with the plastic wad before you can't get a ball in? Where is the lube to soften fouling." I really don't know. I shot ten rounds and then wiped the barrel JIC. It may have gone on longer or it may have crapped out on the next round. I really don't know. There is no lube per se so I would imagine that one is not going to shoot 20 rounds let alone 200 without having a fouling problem.

I mentioned the patches simply because they worked when I tried them. There is a specific use for them that has nothing to do with what the average shooter is interested in. These are designed for shooting hardened balls in cases where one wants a lot of penetration. (as in busting through the back or shoulder of a wild boar or a mud encrusted moose) Frankly, I am not too sure I buy all of that but here's the deal, if you want to, you can shoot balls made from WW that are water dropped and still get the accuracy I got in the photo.

I figured that if the original poster was trying to get to know his gun, this might be a cheap way to figure out what kind of accuracy he can expect when he gets the right combination of patch, ball and lube.

I'm not saying these are the best way to get accuracy, but they do work without any real fuss at all. Just an option, not an endorsement.

[44man]

I always put the sprue straight out in front and my starter has a depression for it. I see your point about the plastic wad. Might be good for a beginner.
I can keep shooting all day because I use a good lube and if a ball gets a little hard to push down, I add a little more lube to the next patch which clears up the problem for a lot more shots. I can go all day without ever wiping the bore even though I use a tight combo.

[waksupi]

I'd experimented with different ball/patch combinations over the years. My biggest limitation any more, is my eyes. Since we don't shoot paper in the local BP competitions, I can usually get the gongs corraled fairly well. Many of us older shooters have went to smoothbores. Why have the rear sight, when we can't see them? In my exerience, the gain in usable accuracy wasn't worth the tighter combination. I do notice there is more recoil, and no doubt higher velocity, for the same powder charge with a tighter ball and patch. I just prefer not to need a short starter, and few of the older shooters here use them. Personal preference. If we all liked the same thing, we'd all be married to the same woman.

[44man]

That woman comment was the scaryest thing I ever read!

[joeb33050]

First, I kept cleaning the gun and finally looked in the barrel with a flashlight and it was RUSTY, I cleaned with Naval Jelly, got all the rust out but it's pitted.
Shot it yesterday with 70 gr equiv Pyrodex RS, .490" ball, TC .018" patch and Rem #11 cap. After each shot I breathed down the barrel, slowly. Didn't clean in ~45 shots.
The gun shoots, ~2" at 25 yards, about 4" at 50 yards, with no experiments.
But, I'm running out of eyes. The trifocals and the open sights are making it hard to impossible to aim right. When I call a shot, it's in there.
I need either a scope or a set of pertures front and rear.
After shooting the barrel cleaned easily, just a few patches, the third wet patch was almost wite, then solvent.
I won't report for a while, going to the goldn west soon.
Thanks;
joe b.

[omgb]

I haven't forgotten you. I bagged up ten of those cups and some loading instructions. They should ahve gone out yesterday but I missed the mail man. I'll get them out today.