Matthew323
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2020
- Messages
- 1,428
- Reaction score
- 1,477
In another thread I posted that I could not see, did not understand, why BH209 could not be used as a substitute powder in a sidelock, flintlock, muzzleloading rifle?
The question that my inquiring mind had been asking myself was how could it be safe in an inline rifle with its virtually closed percussion breech, and not safe in a well maintained sidelock muzzleloading rifle? Especially, a flintlock?
The acceptable number of threads for maximum safe engagement by engineers is three full threads. This is with both the female, and the male threads being cut/machined to proper ANSI standards.
Therefore, a traditional, fixed, flint/percussion breech plug with its 8-9 full threads of engagement should theoretically be just as strong as any inline breech plug, especially those like the CVA QRBP plugs, which are supposed to be removable with only finger strength.
Nipples, drums, clean-out screws, & touch hole liners which generally only have 3-4 threads of engagement, should theoretically be OK, but I could see problems with any one of them becoming a flying missle if the threads were poorly machined, if corrosion had been allowed to set in, etc.
Several explanations by Mad Monk over on the American Longrifles Forum have now clued me in to the true reality concerning BH209 powder.
BH209 is not a substitute black powder in the chemical sense that Pyrodex, Golden, Shockey's, Triple 7, or Black MZ are.
According to Mad Monk's own chemical research on a bottle of BH209 that he purchased locally right after it came onto the United States market, it is nothing more than straight up nitrocellulose smokeless powder that has been chemically modified to temper, or slow down its burn rate response. He concluded that it burned exactly as the IMR smokeless powder that he used to reload his .223 Remington/5.56×45mm NATO cartridges.
While the breech pressures for BH209 cannot be as high as an unmodified smokeless powder, they are still high enough to cause potential catastrophic failure in a poorly manufactured, poorly maintained sidelock rifle.
Based on this new information from Mad Monk, I now understand why the original company in Canada that invented BH209, and now Hogdon, don't want to be bothered with the extensive pressure testing of all the various newly manufactured sidelock muzzleloading rifles that would be required in order to state with authority that a particular rifle was safe to shoot BH209 out of.
It's just far easier to restrict its use to a limited number of modern inline rifles of certain designs, and be done with it.
The question that my inquiring mind had been asking myself was how could it be safe in an inline rifle with its virtually closed percussion breech, and not safe in a well maintained sidelock muzzleloading rifle? Especially, a flintlock?
The acceptable number of threads for maximum safe engagement by engineers is three full threads. This is with both the female, and the male threads being cut/machined to proper ANSI standards.
Therefore, a traditional, fixed, flint/percussion breech plug with its 8-9 full threads of engagement should theoretically be just as strong as any inline breech plug, especially those like the CVA QRBP plugs, which are supposed to be removable with only finger strength.
Nipples, drums, clean-out screws, & touch hole liners which generally only have 3-4 threads of engagement, should theoretically be OK, but I could see problems with any one of them becoming a flying missle if the threads were poorly machined, if corrosion had been allowed to set in, etc.
Several explanations by Mad Monk over on the American Longrifles Forum have now clued me in to the true reality concerning BH209 powder.
BH209 is not a substitute black powder in the chemical sense that Pyrodex, Golden, Shockey's, Triple 7, or Black MZ are.
According to Mad Monk's own chemical research on a bottle of BH209 that he purchased locally right after it came onto the United States market, it is nothing more than straight up nitrocellulose smokeless powder that has been chemically modified to temper, or slow down its burn rate response. He concluded that it burned exactly as the IMR smokeless powder that he used to reload his .223 Remington/5.56×45mm NATO cartridges.
While the breech pressures for BH209 cannot be as high as an unmodified smokeless powder, they are still high enough to cause potential catastrophic failure in a poorly manufactured, poorly maintained sidelock rifle.
Based on this new information from Mad Monk, I now understand why the original company in Canada that invented BH209, and now Hogdon, don't want to be bothered with the extensive pressure testing of all the various newly manufactured sidelock muzzleloading rifles that would be required in order to state with authority that a particular rifle was safe to shoot BH209 out of.
It's just far easier to restrict its use to a limited number of modern inline rifles of certain designs, and be done with it.
