Why use gunpowder?

Modern Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Modern Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Rifleman

Well-Known Member
*
Joined
May 18, 2005
Messages
1,873
Reaction score
4
Well this might be somewhat "out there" but since the sky is the limit and alot of what we talk about here is somewhat theoretical and since RB is an expert in different types of propulsion I thought I would bring it up.
Why even limit ourselves to gunpowder? Well the answer to that is probably just practicality. However I can think of 3 other methods of propulsion that would possibly work in a smokeless muzzleloader.
1. Air - Did you know that the Lewis and Clark used an airgun on their expedition?
2. Liquid fuel- Or perhaps a gel. Regardless some sort of propellant. I would be real interested in hearing RB's comments on this, as I know he knows more then just a little bit about rocket fuels.
3. Electro magnetism- Thats right, a muzzleloading rail gun. I know the military has/is working on developing a modern combat viable rail gun. Velocitys on the proto-types are just unreal. The first prototype was over 30,000 fps and the last one I heard about was over 15,000 fps.
Obvious problems, power source and proper conductors. However if the actual velocity level desired was kept below 5000 fps would it not stand to reason that the power source requirement would be less and the demand on the conductors less demanding as well?

Ok I know this is a little bit far fetched, but then again, I am sure that lightbulbs were considered wacky at one time as well.
 
Why even limit ourselves to gunpowder? Well the answer to that is probably just practicality. However I can think of 3 other methods of propulsion that would possibly work in a smokeless muzzleloader.
1. Air - Did you know that the Lewis and Clark used an airgun on their expedition?

Sure I did! :D

I love air rifles and have at SOME time, owned a good number of them(60+).

MOST of the more common commerically available air rifles suffer by comparison when compared to say even a .22LR. Although many boast of developing 1000fps and even MORE, this is urdesirable as most air rifles acheive best accuracy and performance in the 500fps to 900fps window. Your common Gamo or the excellent Beeman R-9 break-barrel .177cal air rifles are typically 11 to 14 ftlb guns. That's what you get with a 8gr pellet at 800fps. Of course these rifles use a powerful spring to push a piston that compresses air to propel the pellet. Even the most powerful spring-powered air rifle, Beeman Kodiak, pushes a 31gr .25cal pellet to about 650fps for around 30ftlbs of muzzle energy. Also consider even the most aerodynamic .25cal pellet has a bc of around 0.04!

The only air rifles that deserve consideration for big game hunting are those that are termed, pcp, or pre-charged pneumatic. These involve using a reservoir of air as a component of the rifle to propel the projectile. The power these can develop are actually quite impressive. The PROBLEM with pcps are where to get the air, how much air per shot, and velocity spead between shots(IF more than one shot!). Calibers here should be familiar as well. Those being .308, 9mm, and even .50cal! The most powerful that I am aware of is those offered by Dennis Quackenbush. His .50cal pcp is the most powerful that is commonly available. Fill the 3000psi reservoir from a high pressure pump or a scuba tank of the .50cal Outlaw and you have a two-shot repeater which throws a 430gr conical to 732fps which is 509ftlbs. Although he offers a single shot that will do 600ftlbs, that's about it as far as protable, practical air rifles go. And unforunately none are muzzleloaders! :(
 
I read somewhere where a hunter took a large boar with an airgun. One shot to the head and it went right down.
 
Air is a useful tool at times but it is limited by the amount of exchange. Since air pressures must be low compared to chamber pressures produced by gun powder the amount of energy exchange must also be lower. Put another way, you can't carry enough compressed air around with you to near the energy you can get from carrying around gun powder.

Still the fastest guns in the world work on the indirect compression of air (actually it's nitrogen but that's the majority of air). You might also be surprised to know these super fast guns need sabots to reach maximum speed of 30,000+fps.

A liquid fuel is fine by me. As you mention liquids from hydrogen peroxide to kerosine have been used in high energy fuels. Still that's uncommon today. Even the space shuttle does not use all liquid fuels. The SRBs (solid rocket boosters) use a mixture of aluminium dust and amonia preclorate. The only problem I see with a liquid is the obvious. What do you do when you spill it? How do like dealing with a mess?

Electric guns are also high speed experiments. The problem is the same as with air rifles. Electricity (battery) is heavy. How do you carry enough to have quanity and power?
 
Well Rick I certainly do not know the answers to the questions you pose. Just as I mentioned the problems I was aware of, I know the challenges exist but that does not mean I have the answer. Point of my post was to simply expand the horizon. We typically get caught thinking "inside the box" and quite frankly that is boring. I reread an article on the air rifle used by Lewis and Clark and was reminded that it was a 20 shot repeater. And it used just air. Hmmm, Well if we had a limit of say 3 shots and used a different compressed gas, who says we could not come up with a workable solution, IE, a muzzleloader that would shoot at higher velocities with less stress on the sabot due to less heat and a longer time under the pressure curve.

As far as liquid fuel, well it would not have to be a liquid. Maybe I should say just a fuel other then gunpowder. I know for a fact that this is allready being done with reportedly excellent results.

Electromagnetic propulsion. Again most experimentation so far has had a different goal. That purpose being military with the requirements being quite high. If that bar was lowered it would still be much higher then what we can currently attain with our current approach, and the system requirements would logically be much lower.
 
Rifleman said:
Well Rick Point of my post was to simply expand the horizon. We typically get caught thinking "inside the box" and quite frankly that is boring.

As far as liquid fuel, well it would not have to be a liquid. Maybe I should say just a fuel other then gunpowder. I know for a fact that this is allready being done with reportedly excellent results.

OK Dwight I agree that's why I going to tell you something I've had under my hat for a while hoping someone with big money would want to buy. Since that doesn't seem to be in the furture I'll tell you.

If you wanted to change the future of sporting arms you can do it with existing technology. Since you have a military background you might take my example a bit more serious than the average guy. The example is the M1A3 battle tank's main weapon, a 120mm SMOOTH bore canon.

The weapon system for the M1A3 has been copied by a good many military outfits. There is a German concern that claims with their new targeting computer they can hit a 20 X 20 cm target at 3000 meters with their own version of a smooth bore canon.

Now you have military knowledge. SO what would the military give for a weapon that could fire from 2000 to 2500 meters with accurate hits and be 30 to 40% lighter in weight than the current 50 BMG models?

The secret is firing a heavy fletched bullet just like the Abrams. For very long range target a very high BC bullet needs to be used and with a fletch it can be housed in a sabot and made most any length and profile. This means bullets that are impossible to shoot in a rifle because they can't spin enough to stabilize are now shootable. Using depleted Uranium (as in the M1A3) will allow heavier bullets to not be so large in length and profile for even better results.

Improvements over a rifled barrel include more precision without a difficult machining job (cutting rifling is over) and bullet flight improvements because a fletch does not yaw due to rotational forces. Gyroscopic bullet tilting will also be a thing of the past.

Now if someone will help me make the ammunition I think I can produce the rifle. Then we could enter it in the military 1000 meter shooting matches and if all went right and we won- instant gazillionaires!

Boy can I dream or what? For the sports shooter this idea has great merit as well. Imagine having the possibility of caliber changes by switching ammunition? That's right I said ammunition not rifles, Suitable ammunition could be made to shoot any sized sabot-ed fletches such as a 105 grain .22 caliber fletch for varmints. This load would shoot perhaps 3200fps with very little recoil and be a fine long range ground hog buster. If you wanted some other past time throw in the 300 grain .325 caliber fletch and re-zero the scope. Now you are ready for that elk of moose out to 500 yards. Can you think of other possibilities?

So tell me Dwight is this far enough outside the box??

From a strick accuracy concern fletches are the best way to shoot because they don't spin or spin very slowly. A very high BC bullet must rotate very quickly and that introduces additional force that affect accuracy.
 
Well allright Rick! I like it and have heard some little whispers hear and there about such things. As far as making ammo, sure there are a few fellas I know who have the capablity. However I am sure there is a downside to this but I don't have enough info about this subject to comment. Guess I need to do some research....
 
amen rb, i think i posted some pics of a fin stabilized bullet i drew in autocad, on the green board last year. i think this is where we will go eventually in the industry as a whole some day.
sb
 
All these helpfull suggestions, and no one even thought to consider the options with just a little bit of today's sub-minature electronics in the mix. Imagine the .25 cal Laser Guided Munition that could be accelerated in a smoothbore muzzleloader and chucked at a ground squirrel at 3500 fps from 500 yards . . . as long as you hold your laser sight on the target its vaporised rodent!! Wow.. Blood and guts all over the countryside . . . in the next county even! Sort of gives a whole new meaning to the old smoothbore musket don't it. Now who'se got an old blunderbus for testing?
 
IndianaHunter said:
I read somewhere where a hunter took a large boar with an airgun. One shot to the head and it went right down.

If you go to the Gamo website I think there is the video of it


That being said, I have a Gamo air rifle that claims 1,000fps and 1,200fps with the gold pellets. I sighted it in for 15 yards and I took this grey fox at 40 yards holding on his back. The Pellet entered behind the shoulder and exited near the back of the animal. You can see where he chewed the fur off his skin where the pellet exited

Backstabber00.jpg
 
I had a small groundhog do that once when I was a kid. I did collect him however. It's nice to see new activitiy on this site, it is one of my favorities as it always has new and interesting questions/ideas/comments.
 
RBinAR said:
The secret is firing a heavy fletched bullet just like the Abrams. For very long range target a very high BC bullet needs to be used and with a fletch it can be housed in a sabot and made most any length and profile. This means bullets that are impossible to shoot in a rifle because they can't spin enough to stabilize are now shootable.

Interesting concept. Very interesting. Makes the mind wander... :)

RB, any thoughts to what size the fletch would have to be in relation to the size of the projectile? How many? What about weight distribution for the projectile, would it need to be weighted forward or could weight be evenly distributed? Does the shape of the projectile matter, or could it simply be a long bullet with fletch attached?

Lots of questions... :)
 

Latest posts

Back
Top