Chamber in a muzzleloader

Modern Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Modern Muzzleloading Forum:

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

jims

Well-Known Member
*
Joined
May 18, 2005
Messages
1,873
Reaction score
419
I realize a muzzleloader has in effect a "chamber" the entire length of the barrel that permits many different powder weights and loadings. I have wondered if however there would be any advantage at all of having a chamber in a muzzleloader, similar to the short, fat efficient Winchester WSM and WSSM chambers. The powder would fill the chamber with the bullet on top so there would be no gap and it would not fall into the chamber, if larger loads were needed the rest of the barrel would in effect be an extension of the chamber.
 
chamber.

Jim

I think you have just that effect (short fat) with a .50 cal ML chamber!

by reducing it to a smaller chamber area would make it less efficient.
 
The more I think of a chamber the more I think it is un-needed. It may offer a certain advantage for instance it may provide something akin to bullet crimping making ignition more positive. Still with ignition not a major problem I don't see a great advantage.

Adding a chamber does something that is very negative as well. One great advantage of a smokeless muzzle loader is the case capacity is unlimited. A chamber will add a lower limit and possibility an upper limit as well.

I haven't seen a caliber that won't shoot so fast that your shoulder can't take it and I haven't seen a caliber that is not as accurate as needed so I guess you could say I'm looking for something that would justify the great time and expense adding a chamber incurs.
 
Re: chamber.

wildworks said:
Jim

I think you have just that effect (short fat) with a .50 cal ML chamber!

by reducing it to a smaller chamber area would make it less efficient.

I don't think I understand. Help me out.
 
There seem to be relatively few centerfire rifles with straight chambers, most have some sort of true chamber. As we approach some centerfire speeds with smokeless powder and sabotless I understand the theory that a chamber is of no value in a muzzleloader but in actual practice does anyone know if someone has used a chamber in a muzzleloader and how it has worked or not?
 
I've wondered that with smaller bores, but shooting sabotless, ie the 375 and 40 cals, if the long, thinner powder column might be better shortened and widened also. The efficiency seems to increase with squatty type cartridges - 6PPC,the BRs,308 vs 30-06(80% the powder, 95% the performance),Rem Ultra-mags and all the Win short/ss mags. I'd like to see a chamber under my 40 with a 35 degree shoulder angle that would hold appx the volume of 50-60 grains of whatever I'd like to use, such as 60g H-4198 with 200SST or 63-64gs of same with 175 Barnes. Would need to get a measure of the volume and never load much under full capacity and don't know how over-loading would do. I think as the columns of powder get longer and thinner, not only less barrel length will be available but suspect efficiency will go down. Will likely use a little different speed of powder in 40 over same bullet in 45. Will probably be close and maybe the same. The long column , I think, would lend itself to a slower powder, but trying to keep powder volume down encourages faster powder.
 
chamber.

Rb
sorry i miss interpreted that first post!

I see what you mean now !

It could be a good thing in the smaller cal ML!

get a rifle reamer and chamber the ML to a case size that would be most effecient but that would be alot of trial and error! more work than it would maybe be worth
 
Whats going to happen when you have a chamber length of 2" and someone decides to put a lite powder load and only fills 1" of the chamber then the bullet drives down in that chamber. I dont want to be the one pulling the trigger.
 
Could an insert of some type be placed at the end of the chamber slightly smaller than the bore size so that the bullet itself could not be pushed into the chamber?
 
jims said:
Could an insert of some type be placed at the end of the chamber slightly smaller than the bore size so that the bullet itself could not be pushed into the chamber?
That might work. How are you going to keep the powder from resting between this insert and the bullet? It would have to be beefy to make it last awhile.
 
I think there are 3 issues here:1) would a chamber work?, 2) is it feasable to make a chamber even if it is determined it would work, and 3) if it is feasable, could it somehow be made to be "fool proof" or at least "fool resistant". I don't know any of the answers but expect the answer to # 1 is "Yes", answer to # 2 is "maybe", and 3, is "possibly" with great inginuity(a slightly smaller than bore diameter sleve screwed into a prethreaded section just ahead of the chamber - is one thought). I do think as bore size goes down this will become a greater factor. A 50 cal chamber is certainly different than a 35 cal chamber. 3.14 x r sg x length is a lot different in 50 cal vs 40 or less cal.
 
As regards the chamber issue, I do have the answers but certainly do have the questions and there are alot of good minds thinking and responding so I will keep watching. Thanks for the inputs from all.
 
On my post I meant to say I do NOT have the answers but I do have the questions. This new forum has certainly been thought provoking.
 
I'm still not for a chamber because I don't see much gain. Sure in theory there is the possibility of raising efficiency some degree but what does that accomplish? Will you be able to shoot 3% faster with 2% less powder?

A chamber is not going to raise practical chamber pressures and all the so-called highly efficient new cartridges rely on higher pressures to a degree. Another thing to keep in mind is straight cased cartridges are straight for a reason. That reason is the diameter of the bullet is near the diameter of the necessary case size. Most large caliber cases are not bottlenecked and those that are generally reach over kill (like the Weatherby?s).

So it?s likely a chamber could save an inch of barrel. That would equate to about 20 to 30fps. Some load adjustment would very likely reach the same speed but with some extra powder burned. So we are going to go to the problem of building a chamber all for the reward of saying we can reach the same speed but with 5 or 6 grains less powder. I?d rather burn the extra powder and save some brain cells.
 
:D The best I can tell, RB isn't seriously considering making a chamber in any of the calibers being considered. He must own stock in at least one of the powder companies.
 
SW said:
:D The best I can tell, RB isn't seriously considering making a chamber in any of the calibers being considered. He must own stock in at least one of the powder companies.

As much as I hate to admit it things are not as easy when you start out to build a rifle for a customer rather than yourself. In the old days when pure discovery was the idea I would take a 1/2" 67.5 degree countersink and there it would be, a chamber to play with. I could use a standard 10ML plug shortened a bit and save some machine time. Some math would be all it takes to determine the charge capacity.

Today I have to ask myself a question I never had to deal with before: how much does it cost? If I knew exactly what loads and powder it could shoot that would be one thing but it would take more time at the range than I could possibly relate. So to someone (that guy named customer again) it would be fairly expensive.

On the other hand I can offer a 40 caliber barrel that requires only basic fitting and will shoot to 405 Winchester straight case pressures with almost no load rsearch. If the 40 caliber shoots really well (I think it might but don't know) I have a rifle that anyone could own for the base price of a replacement barrel.

It could be a great idea but it needs someone who has more time to think than I do.
 
RB in AR Perhaps you answered my question before I asked it but could a combination breechplug/chamber be made in one unit? If the barrel was internally threaded long enough couldn't the first part of the breechplug be made/machined internally as a chamber/breechplug combination? The chamber then would not be machined/reamed in the barrel itself but the replaceable breeplug combo? Is that the thought of your previous thread?
As regards size of the chamber it would take a similar grain capacity as a proven load and type powder but perhaps on the smaller size. Then if an increase in powder volume was needed the barrel would turn back into the extra capacity "chamber".
The questions are cheap, the realities to do it as you say may not be practical and expensive. Thanks again for your experienced thoughts.
 
chamber.

By shooting a smaller than bore bullet in a sabot, you are doing this very thing! It's just that you are sending the top of the chamber out with the bullet. Maybe experiment with different sabot options. Seems like a lot easier way to figure out if it works.
 
Re: chamber.

lewistt said:
By shooting a smaller than bore bullet in a sabot, you are doing this very thing! It's just that you are sending the top of the chamber out with the bullet. Maybe experiment with different sabot options. Seems like a lot easier way to figure out if it works.
Bingo Could not agree more.
 
Back
Top