to smoke or not smoke????

[savagebrother]

since it was brought up on another thread i thought we could clarify things.
smokeless powder-what does that mean??? well lets see.
most people think of it in very general terms-imr, accurate arms, hodgden, etc.,etc. or nitrocellulose based powders. this is because this is what we mostly have used for smokeless gun powder since 1888 because it has worked out for the intended purpose. but dont make the mistake that nitrocellulose is the only smokeless powder. remember what you are saying here-smokeless powder. tripple seven is a smokeless powder, it has an additive to make the white smoke you see. it is based on a suger alcohol, not nitrocelulose, but smokeless never the same. now the energy output is truly a different animal. so far are you with me?? whether it smoes or not is really not an issue here. its the energy output of a given powder in a given firearm that is what we need to know. this where we get into black powder substitutes-or powders that have the same or similar energy yields as black powder-it doesnt matter if it smokes or not.
we all know that the savage is tested with smokeless proof test loads, and that traditions are not, very simple huh.
so this is why the atf has said that these other powders are smokeless propellants. because they are. we should not call the black powder substitutes because they are not, they are smokeless powders that are acceptable to use in firearms designed for black powder.
sb

 

[encore4me]

I hope this dosent lead to a shouting match between the two. I use to go to another forum on MZ but the inline guys got kicked out by the traditional guys, we are all MZ shooters/hunters we need to stick together, I'm just glad I have a place to come, read and learn more about the sport I love.



Thanks Matt

 

[Admin]

savagebrother,
I have to disagree. They blackpowder substitutes are called that because they can substitute for black powder in any muzzleloader. You may have ignition issues in a flintlock but they are safe for use. Are they smokeless powders? Yes, low yield to be sure, but they are smokeless powders.

Now take the Savage approved powders, are they black powder substitutes? No, not strictly speaking. They are not because they cannot replace blackpowder in every muzzleloader. That's the line I draw when I determine if a powder is a black powder sub. Are they suitable for muzzleloading? Yes, in certain rifles.

Blurring the lines may help to get smokeless powders legalized, but is potentially dangerous from a safety standpoint. This is the reason we have two inline forums, one for smokeless and one for the blackpowder (and subs) guns. I did this because so and so may be talking about using say 5744 in his muzzleloader. Now you and I many know that he has a Savage, but someone who just bought a CVA and found our forum does not. He sees you calling 5744 a black powder sub, goes and buys some and measures out 100 gr by volume, loads it in that CVA then proceeds to blow himself up.

That's why the line is drawn. You may not agree with it and think it's stupid, but it's done for safety reasons. You also probably don't know, but the Smokeless forum was almost locked if you weren't a member of the group to prevent the potential occurrence I outlined above. It's something I still consider doing every now and then. I simply do not want someones death or horrible injury on my conscience.

 

[Mountain Man]

I thought you did have to join in order to view the forum? I couldn't view it when I first found the site. :?

 

[Admin]

Yes you do have to join to view the forum. What I meant was making it like the Advanced forum but instead of post count, you would have to apply for the usergroup to gain access.

 

[Mountain Man]

Oh, gotcha.

 

[Anonymous]

since it was brought up on another thread i thought we could clarify things.

There need not be any confusion at all-- only the manufacturer of a muzzleloader can state what is allowed or not, no other entity. Unfortunately, Traditions and CVA do a very, very poor job of it. And others in times past-- like Remington.

It is wrong to ASSUME that any muzzleloader is safe with 100 gr. of Triple 7 or Pyrodex-- or even blackpowder. Too many people do, however.

If you have Hawkentucky .50 caliber, the limit is 70 gr. FFg blackpowder, a Johnathan Browning Mountain Rifle .45: 90 gr. FFg or Pyro RS. CVA Kentucky Rifle in .45: 75 gr. FFg. A Dixie Brown Bess .74 cal. musket: 80 gr. Fg, a Dixie 1861 Springfield .58: 60 gr. FFg, Lyman Deerstalker: 80 gr. FFg.

Even the assumption of 100 gr. of Pyrodex can be way over a manufacturer's limit, much less dumping in 100 gr. of Triple 7. Much, much less dumping in three pellets without a moment's thought.

Muzzleloader powder makers do a horrible job-- in my opinion, negligent. "100 grains max." is a boneheaded, dangerous statement, as powder charge alone is meaningless. What is in front of that powder charge makes all the difference in the world.

If every single owners manual, every piece of muzzleloader ad copy preached that "muzzleloading" is RELOADING FIRST, and shooting second everyone would be better off.

That "60 gr. FFg Max. Load" for the Dixie Gun Works 1861 Springfield may seem anemic-- but, that is the Civil War service load, and is used with a 505 gr. Minie ball. The ditch gets even deeper when you realize that Dixie Gun Works' policy is not to recommend loads at all, leaves it up to the shooter more often than not, and several models are not hunting rifles at all-- but intended only for re-enactments or target shooting.

It is a mess, and it always has been. The major muzzleloading manudacturers have never been able to agree on any standards-- I can't tell if they have ever tried. :?

 

[JNewell]

<hoping this won't be misunderstood!>

There's another angle, too -- state F&G laws and regs. Even if the manufacturer of the firearm and the powder bless what I want to do, if the season I'm hunting in requires something specific, I need to do that. Where I live, the only remaining restriction during the ML season is BP "or approved substitutes," and smokeless isn't on that list. IMO, the arguments in FAVOR of smokeless are very compelling and the arguments against are not, but until it's changed, I need to be shooting BP, Pyro or 777. It's not what I want, but it's a lot better than it used to be and it may get better still. (Originally, requirements that have faded away over many years now included smooth bore, exposed ignition and no 209s, no scopes, etc. - so we have come a long way.)

 

[Anonymous]

State regs are another, unrelated issue-- safety is universal. Most serious gun problems happen while shooting at targets, not in the hunting field.

I've seen more than my share of destroyed guns, and muzzleloaders. Many are 100% operator error-- but, many are not.

There is the assumption that because an Encore 209 x 50 "Magnum" can shoot 150 grains of FFg AND shoot a 370 gr. Maxi-Ball all day long, any other muzzleloader referred to as a "Magnum" can too.

That is sadly not the case. :shock:

 

[savagebrother]

my point exactly randy, i knew you would say what i was saying in a different way. just because you call it this or that doesnt really matter sometimes, just as you said-some b/p only guns have limits with there specific powders with specific bullet weights. so my point is use the powder and bullet combo that is safe in your gun-whether it smokes or not is irrelvant.
sb

 

[Anonymous]

Here's where the real confusion comes in. Pellets are designated as "50 gr. BP equivalents," not nearly equivalents, kinda sorta equivalents, but EQUIVALENTS.

If there is such a thing as common sense, with that belief, you should be able to use 150 grains of pellets or 150 grains of loose powder interchangably. But, you can't-- 150 grains pellets "good" in some guns, but 150 grains loose powder bad, very bad in some guns. No wonder people are confused :!:

If a gun is so minimally constructed as to actually be UNSAFE with 150 grains of loose powder, then the limit should be 100 grains for everything without all the deceptive dancing around. That's one thing the muzzleloading companies ARE responsible for-- telling people things are "equivalent" and that they are "NOT equivalent" in the same paragraph. :?

 

[savagebrother]

i agree totally, we need the manufacurers to get off there dead a__'s and set some real and usable standards.
sb

 

[RAF]

Boy am I glad I live in Saskatchewan. No question what I can use in my Savage. No mention of Smokeless. :yeah: .