Electrical ignition

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 tried posting this and seemed to have no luck so I hope this is not a duplicate posting.
I once read that the best place for ignition of powder is at the front of the powder charge near the bullet. In current systems that would seem rather difficult to do.
The question is: With the interest in electrical ignition systems for the powder could such a system provide the fire near the front of the charge and would it have value and why?
I am only looking for explanations pro and con and the reason therefore. Thanks
 
jims said:
I tried posting this and seemed to have no luck so I hope this is not a duplicate posting.
I once read that the best place for ignition of powder is at the front of the powder charge near the bullet. In current systems that would seem rather difficult to do.
The question is: With the interest in electrical ignition systems for the powder could such a system provide the fire near the front of the charge and would it have value and why?
I am only looking for explanations pro and con and the reason therefore. Thanks

What you say is true in some circumstances. For instance shooting BP forward ignition may be the key to a lot better efficiency. However the reason that this MIGHT (big might) be so must be understood before putting a lot of time in developing a system to work for smokeless.

BP and subs burn at a fixed speed and that speed is really slow compared to smokeless. Combine the really slow buring speed with a relatively inefficient fuel (a large percentage remains solid and is not converted to gas) and ways to improve overall combustion are welcome if bullet energy is to be had.

On the other hand smokeless does not burn at a fixed rate. It is "progressive". Rather than spend a page explaining what that means I'll just say that generally smokeless can create enough pressure that loads can be efficient (a good load can convert over 90% of the powder to gas) without any special ignition sequence.

When we go back to BP and subs one way efficiency has improved is with shooting compressed pellets. Not being completely knowledgable of pellet composition I can only give my rough idea why they offer an advantage. That idea would be their hollow construction, which allows the flame to reach deeper into the powder column. Also the extra room in the chamber (pellets don't fit in the barrel percisely) allows more oxygen and since BP and subs need oxygen (unlike smokeless) the total effect is more powder to gas.

So I don't see a great advantage to changing ignition position when shooting smokeless. But if you have a good idea I'd go with it: because it wouldn't be the first I was wrong.
 
mmm i have to disagree with you rb, blackpowder and any gun powder is anaerobic. patassium nitrate is the oxygen source in blackpowder, not sure what it is in pyrodex or tripple 7. blackpowder cartridges are loaded to 100% powder density for maximum burn efficency especially with fff powder. there is no air in there and very little fouling of the barrel except right at the case mouth.
sb
 
There is a new kid on the block with electric arc ignition as a production muzzleloader for '07. I have seen this advertised on several sites from CVA in their "Electra Arc Magnum" series guns. Haven't seen anyone that actually has them on the shelf yet, but there is lots of hype out there:
http://www.cva.com/products/rifle_electra.htm
 
I was "privy" to some blackpowder pressure testing several years back. If the projectile is not seated but positioned above the powder charge pressures and velocities increased.

This testing was done with pressure gun. It was loosely determined that an air gap of approx 1/2" increased pressures around 15 percent and velocity gains ran about 5 percent. Large air gaps ( 1 to 5 inches) produced unsafe pressure spikes with little or no velocity gain and in the case of very long air gaps velocity loss.

This was a controlled test in a pressure barrel remotely fired. I would advise one to NOT TRY THIS. I have seen several muzzleloaders that were "blown up" In most cases an improperly positioned projectile was determined to have caused ultimate failure.

Again, be advised..........DO NOT TRY THIS. You are risking limb and life.
 
I have one of the ill fated Remington Etronx guns. The electronic firing system has a lot of advantages and is very reliable. When you see that solid red light you know the gun will absolutely, positively go bang when you pull the trigger, the computer has verified you have a fresh round with a good primer and the safety is off. Also since the trigger is just a switch you have the lightest smoothest trigger you could imagine, the only downside is that every other gun you fire now has a trigger that feels like crap to you. It?s a shame that Remington priced these guns so high and cut corners on the barrels, these guns can be amazing if you handload. On an electric gun the bullet has left the barrel before the firing pin can hit the primer on a conventional rifle. That can make a few inch difference on a running shot at distance. Now that CVA has an electronic BP gun out at a reasonable price maybe this concept will get a second look.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top