Barnes Comments on Smokeless

[DeerNut]

Will the MZ work in my smokeless muzzleloader?
Barnes tested the Savage 110 ML-II smokeless muzzleloader using Barnes 250gr MZ bullets, with excellent results. Savage recommends fast-burning powders such as XMP 5744, IMR 4227, &VV N110, all of which develop considerably higher pressures than will black powder or Pyrodex. Although the Savage rifle can safely handle the higher pressures, most of the sabots we tested cannot. Excessive pressures cause the sabot to fail, which results in inconsistent velocities, poor accuracy, and even bullet tumbling. Barnes tested several slower-burning powders such as H4198, and RL-7. These two powders gave pressures similar to black powder and Pyrodex, accuracy was sub-MOA, and velocity was excellent. Barnes has not yet conducted sufficient testing to publish starting and maximum loads for these powders, however about 65 grs of either powder appears equivalent to 150 grs of Pyrodex pellets.

Many of you have likely seen this before, but when I read it several months ago I found it interesting they recomended RL-7 and H-4198 for 250 grain bullets, because of pressures similiar to BP. This was one of the reasons I used RL-7 for a significant time, albeit with 300 grain bullets. Its my feeling, N-120 falls within this realm and I personally have had greater consistent success with this powder.

 

[Rifleman]

Deernut what is the source of your quote ? I wa not aware that the Barnes bullet company actually had enough interest in the Savage to conduct testing with smokeless. I think that in of itself is highly interesting as I do not know of any other bullet company that has actually conducted testing with smokeless muzzleloaders.

 

[DeerNut]

http://www.barnesbullets.com/faq_expander_mz.php

I was cruising through the FAQ section and found this response. I was suprised they had done testing, too.

 

[dwhunter]

Interesting.

 

[Grouse]

These two powders gave pressures similar to black powder and Pyrodex.


Now that is a really stupid comment to make to the public by Barnes bullets. They are basically saying 65grns of 4198 is okay to shoot in any Muzzleloader. I think that is a poor way to phrase something.

 

[FWF]

These two powders gave pressures similar to black powder and Pyrodex.


Now that is a really stupid comment to make to the public by Barnes bullets. They are basically saying 65grns of 4198 is okay to shoot in any Muzzleloader. I think that is a poor way to phrase something.

I think it's pretty obvious that they're comparing the performance of these powders solely in the context of being shot in a smokeless-rated muzzleloader.

If their pressure data supports this claim (it wouldn't surprise me if it does as triple-pellet loads no doubt make more pressure than many would like to believe), what are they supposed to do with this info? Bury it? I'm simply gratified to see another manufacturer (besides Savage) that's willing to touch the "smokeless ML" subject without muttering incantations and surrounding themselves with a circle of chicken blood.

 

[SW]

These two powders gave pressures similar to black powder and Pyrodex.


Now that is a really stupid comment to make to the public by Barnes bullets. They are basically saying 65grns of 4198 is okay to shoot in any Muzzleloader. I think that is a poor way to phrase something.

I agree, Tom, that this is a potentially hazardous statement; but, 71g IMR-4198/250XTP gets appx 30,000psi in RB's pressure trace testing and he does have all parameters fudged upwards so the actual pressure is likely a little less, as much as 1000 - 2000 psi less. So, 65 g would likely be in the 25,000 range or so, just where 3 pyrodex pellets are reported to be. A 250 Barnes MZ should generate more pressure than a 250XTP due to bearing surface and loading tightness. Still, I agree, I would not put that statement in my ad because of the very conclusion people may jump to. They might be tempted to shoot smokeless in their Encore!

 

[savagebrother]

mmm comparing h or imr-4198 to blackpowder or substitutes is a very serious thing here. the 2 dont live in the same world. oh well at least they tested their product in a savage smokeless muzzleloader. and also remember, the question was asked of them about a smokeless load for their bullets. just hope no one thinks its ok to use 4198 in a cva.
sb

 

[DeerNut]

I think everyone is worried about nothing. Every inch of TC literature (and other ML companies) screams not to use smokeless in their MLs or any other ML, including the Savage. Would a BP shooter even read this answer (quote)? We are smokeless shooters and it seems few of us have read this before. And really, if the pressures are truly equivalent, could someone explain to me what would happen in an encore barrel if they DID use a load of 60 grains of H-4198? We compare our Smokeless pressures to Triple 7 in a BP gun and equate the safety of the Savage as no mystery. Why is it suddenly Mythical to extrapolate backwards to the BP gun using Smokeless? I don't plan or care to shoot smokeless in anything other than the Savage, but why aren't equivalent pressures compatible for "BP" guns if they are proofed for those pressures. I must be missing something.

 

[Rifleman]

but why aren't equivalent pressures compatible for "BP" guns if they are proofed for those pressures. I must be missing something.

Your not missing a thing Deernut, your learning. :wink:

 

[Anonymous]

Deernut what is the source of your quote ? I wa not aware that the Barnes bullet company actually had enough interest in the Savage to conduct testing with smokeless. I think that in of itself is highly interesting as I do not know of any other bullet company that has actually conducted testing with smokeless muzzleloaders.

That was the original testing-- they have a 10ML-II AT they are working with now, and sabots have changed.

This: Will the MZ work in my smokeless muzzleloader? makes it obvious as to the specific question that was being addressed.

 

[savagebrother]

randy i dont think any of us had a problem with the question. its the part about 4198 and blackpowder and b/p substitutes having similar pressures. that is a bad statement, period.
sb

 

[Grouse]

randy i dont think any of us had a problem with the question. its the part about 4198 and blackpowder and b/p substitutes having similar pressures. that is a bad statement, period.
sb

It's a real shame.

 

[Anonymous]

randy i dont think any of us had a problem with the question. its the part about 4198 and blackpowder and b/p substitutes having similar pressures. that is a bad statement, period.
sb

It is also true. :shock:

Maybe Barnes will want to add a disclaimer "smokeless powder should never be used in a muzzleloading firearm not SPECIFICALLY designed for its use."

That should please most everyone.

 

[oldsnow]

http://www.barnesbullets.com/faq_expander_mz.php

I was cruising through the FAQ section and found this response. I was suprised they had done testing, too.

Just wandering if any one had stones big enough to try this.