Pyrodex loads

[jdb]

Jdb, I like your logic and I'm not disputing it. I'm just accounting my stupidity.
Around about '91 I had the to go-head to write an article for Muzzleloader Magazine on turkey hunting with a smoke pole. The gun I would be using was a T/C New Englander with a 12 guage barrel, no choke. I needed to develop load with a tight turkey pattern out to 25+ yards. I had 5 days left until I was to head to Alabama to meet up with my guide.

I was at the range ( friends back yard range) frantically pouring powder down the barrel while switching out powder cards, shot wadding and even using modern shotgun wadding to tighten up the grouping.

This was over 20 years ago some my memory is not completely clear on the minute details. I do know I was using at least 110 grains of powder that I'm pretty sure was FFg. I was using a new fangled ( at the time ram rod) that was said to indestructible. It was one you could tie in knots and had a big handle on the end.

If memory serves I was using 1 1/4 ounce of #5 shot.

Well in my haste, I left the ramrod in the barrel. KABOOOM! The jar rattled my teeth. I heard shrapnel hitting the tin roof on a barn that was 45 degrees to my left and 50 yards away. Part of the indestructible ram rod was sticking out of the particle board back stop. The barrel was ine, but the wood stock was split at the grip. My shoulder was soar for a couple days and black and blue for over a week.

I called T/C and they said they had problems with the stock and sent my a synthetic via over night delivery.

No I didn't get a turkey on my hunt.

LOL...you ARE the first guy to ever do that one Moon. ;~0

Just kidding of course. I can't tell ya how many times I've seen it done. It's in the dozens of times. As a matter of fact, I've done in it ON PURPOSE on more than one occasions. And the reason I did it was because the ram rod became lodged in the barrel and wouldn't come out on every one of those occasions.

As a matter of fact, you reminded me of one time it happened that applies directly to this discussion about pressures BP, Pyrodex and gap.

Once, a friend and I were shooting off his back deck. He'd just gotten a CVA in .45 caliber. The one that looked like a Pennsylvania style long rifle with the 2 part stock, but he wanted me to help him sight it in for deer season. This was back in like 1975 or 76 and he was using that new fangled Pyrodex stuff. Being a purist, I didn't and still won't touch the stuff in my muzzle loaders cause it's too corrosive and hard to clean out of my front stuffers for my liking. But anyway, we were trying different loads and just having a good time trying to work up a load for hunting.

Well, one Budweiser lead to another and one shot to the next till we soon forgot to wet swab out the barrel of his little CVA fro several shots. Guess what happened? You got it, the ball didn't seat. The mark we had made was at LEAST an 1"-1 1/2" above the barrel.

He swore he hadn't double charged it and pounded the ramrod against the post on his back deck a couple times more times. I tried it and no joy. SO...we set the gun down for a while and continued shooting my .54 cal TC Renegade. After a few more shots with my gun, I had him pour a little Joy detergent and water down the barrel to soak a couple minutes an then try it again. STILL no joy.

He was REAL worried about shooting it like that because he'd been told by the same hardware store experts who talked him into Pyrodex that it would explode if you didn't seat it. So, I told him the only other choice was to TRY and pull the bullet and pulled my puller out of my ditty bag. Well, it didn't come out. They almost never do. I don't even know why I carry a dang puller!?!? LOL

So we let it soak a couple more minutes and he stuck the ramrod in and bumps it a couple times to see if it will move. No joy, but one thing DID happen. The ramrod became stuck. I mean, two full growed men with vise grips, pulling in opposite directions until the screw end of the rod came off kind of stuck...stuck! LOL

Now he's frantic. Me, I've been there and done that and had just enough liquid courage to offer, but not enough to forget the sight of guys being knocked on their butts at the range from shooting the ramrod, so I come up with the notion of putting the butt of the gun up against the 4x4 of his back deck and striking her off. He agrees and that's what I do.

The concussion was AMAZING. It kicked so hard that it rattled the windows on the house bad enough that our wives came running out to see which of us was kilt! ;~)

But the gun, the gun was fine. Not a bulge in the barrel. Not a bit of damage to the fixtures...nothing. I was AMAZED. At the time, CVA had a, shall we say, less than stellar reputation. That changed my notion about CVA enough that I actually recommended one just like it as a starter gun to my youngest brother that same year.

The long and short of it, we weren't using super heavy loads. Just a standard patched, .45 caliber round ball and about 70 grains of Pyrodex and not the the 90 grains max, but it was a hot load for a .45 cal none the less. And IF he was as sure as he claimed that he had not double charged the thing, and I tend to believe him cause he was a pretty sharp guy with that kind of detail, we shot a ramrod and round ball with 70 grains of Pyrodex and an at least 1" air gap between the load and powder...and survived.

But that is NOT the only time I've seen it. I saw a guy do the same thing with his 50 cal TC Hawken rifle at the range one day. Only he got the ramrod stuck trying to pull the round out. The rod broke about 3" down into the barrel. So, he put it against the post for the range cover and struck her off. Scared the CRAP out of everybody, but the gun was fine and he just borrowed a rod and kept shooting. LOL

They build HUGE safety margins into both the gun's components AND the load data for powders and components on these things. Not only with muzzle loaders, but with modern firearms as well. We have become a VERY litigious society and the practice of CYA has been raised to an art from nowadays.

Now I'm not advocating that anyone go out and push their luck by repeating ANY of the stupid stuff I've done or seen done. DON'T DO IT...EVER! ;~)

I just offer it as some sense of calm to what can become an overly intellectualized subject. Black powder has been propelling rockets and making fire works for 2000 years. It's properties are WELL know and predictable. Pyrodex is a black powder substitute designed to simulate black powder with less smoke and be less susceptible to moisture. It's just as predictable. Even more so really.

So I wouldn't hesitate to do anything with Pyrodex that you would do with black powder if Pyrodex is your preference. Just don't be stupid about it. I seriously doubt you can damage your modern guns with either one of them. UnLESS you forget to clean that corrosive crap out after ya shoot it that is. LOL

Heck, it's the guys that take modern smokeless powders and try to work up crazy loads for muzzle loaders that worry ME! LOL

Oh, and by the way. Once we had fired my buddies gun, I dropped a dowel rod we scrounged up down the barrel and marked the bottom. Then reloaded it with the load he was shooting and the gap where it was when we shot the rod out was nearly 3 times the distance of a load. So unless he triple charged it...he was right. He hadn't double charged the load. Which is ALso a very common mistake at the range. ;~)

[akuser47]

Good stuff.

[aragornelessar86]

Great vid by Hickock, as most of them are. The burn rate demo was eye opening to say the least!

JDB, I never got a ramrod stuck, but I've double charged a .54 Hawken. Like to have broken my shoulder, but the gun didn't care. I never did put a mark on any of my ramrods, so I'm sure I shot more than my fair share of air-gapped shots, and never had a single issue.

I did civil war reenacting with some guys who were at an event where the practice was to run the ramrod down the barrel after dumping in the powder charge, just to simulate the real thing, and a guy literally forgot to take the rod out. Thankfully no one was killed, but no group I ever fell in with allowed ramrods on the battlefield after that.

EDIT: None of the above should be taken as an endorsement of my own stupidity. I was young and had no one with experience to tell me any better.

[Archer]

Just a note and hopefully not preaching...

Some safety margins are better than others and some modern designs have more safety built into them than others.

The old 1896 (1894 / 1896 /1838) Swedish Mauser was in service in some capacity up until 1995.
The design did not include a safety lug on the bolt as in later Mauser style designs and clones like the 1903 Springfield. Even when they put out the 1838 short rifle versions (40 years later) they maintained the same action and the same design / pressure limits of around 51-55 KPSI.

The Mauser 98, 1903 Springfield, 1917 Enfield all added a third safety lug to the Mauser bolt design. Hopefully adding to the margin of safety a bit. BUT when you try to load a surplus 7.92x57 bullet into a .30-06 (7.62x63) chamber OR you are using rifleman's bullet grease (a practice where the tip of the loaded round was dipped in a small tin of grease prior to loading to ease it down the bore, inevitably getting grease inside the chamber and inhibiting the friction force on the brass cartridge case with the chamber wall due to pressure thus increasing the force on the bolt and bolt lugs greatly) OR when you decide to tin (or was it zinc? See Hatcher's Notebooks) plate your bullets and the tin molecules migrate to the brass cartridge case and vice versa essentially welding the bullet to the case mouth THEN you are going to exceed the pressure limits for the 1903 Springfield in question. The .30-06 operates around 60 KPSI max. IF I recall correctly the proof pressure round for the 1903 Springfield was right about 80 KPSI. There are also improvements in metallurgy and processes during this time period. We've all heard about the potential problems with 'low serial numbered' 1903 Springfields due to potential problems with the heat treatment processes used early in the production. Whether these problems are real or they are the result of the idiot factors mentioned above or some combination of both is a matter I'm not going to get into at this time.

As a result of the destruction due to stupid that occurred with the 1903 Springfield John Garand decided to insure his design was somewhat more robust. If I recall correctly he increased the proof test round to 120 KPSI. I don't recall how many elevated pressure rounds he fired through the gun in succession until he managed to crack one of the bolt lugs or if those rounds were all 120 KPSI or just the first one was followed by a diet of the standard proof 80 KPSI version. AFTER he cracked the bolt lug the weapon continued to fire a rather large quantity of standard 60 KPSI rounds without the crack getting any larger. In addition the design of the receiver wraps around the bolt and chamber on the LHS and rear which puts that much more metal between any failure and the most common right handed shooter hopefully directing any unplanned energetic disassembly or escaping gas event away from the operator. (The robustness of the receiver and bolt unfortunately were somewhat reduced when it came to the gas system however.)

There's a rumor out there that the CZ-52 pistols in 7.52x25mm are much more robust than the Tokerev guns in the same caliber. As near as I can figure it this is the result of someone getting the CZ and some rather warm surplus ammo in 7.62x25 probably designed for use in sub machine guns and shooting through early soft body armor with the CZ and assuming the CZ was designed with the hotter ammo in mind. In reality the CZ-52 chamber gets rather thin at the cutouts for the roller bearing lock mechanism. The Tokerev barrel may be stouter since it doesn't have those cutouts. The real reason the CZ shot through the vest and the Tokerev wouldn't is that the CZ barrels were reasonably high tolerance CZ grade barrels. The Tokerev barrels, especially on the surplus guns, communist wartime production and Chinese knock offs we got at the time were low tolerance shot out chunks of sewer pipe. The Tok generally wouldn't stabilize the bullet in the first place and often keyholed paper targets at 3 yards while the CZ put the same bullet into a stable nose forward flight. The CZ-52 is probably a better gun than the Tokerev (assuming you want to hit anything with it) but the Tok can probably survive higher pressure events than the thin spots in the CZ-52 chamber.

Remington just came out with a new pocket pistol design in their R51 9mm guns.
Essentially they just issued a invitation for anyone who purchased them since they came out earlier this year to send the gun back for replacement with a newly manufactured one they say has been debugged for manufacture this time. They didn't do that because their safety margins were many times more than required.

We've talked a lot about the differences we see in the Rossi guns and use the terms 'Friday gun' or 'assembled by Popeye' or 'Quality Assured by Mr. Magoo'. Just because there's a safety margin in the design does not mean that manufacturing followed the design or that it can survive poor or unauthorized maintenance. (The DC10 was a great airplane when you didn't substitute a forklift for an engine hoist and/or take a break with the engine halfway attached to the pylon. Remington claims they had no problems with the R51 guns until they were going through mass production. They claim the pre-production guns the gunrag writer's reviewed a year and a half ago or so six months before production models came out were flawless.)

To say there are huge safety margins in modern designs and that load data is lower than true maximum for lawyer proofing and litigation mitigation MAY be true in general BUT EXPECTING to be safe when you exceed the design working pressure limits on a regular basis with any given design is IMO not the most wise choice one can make.

[NavyDoc76-80]

Archer, I appreciate your litany on the subject. I think though for the discussion of using real BP, or any substitute, I have found no evidence that the pressures can every exceed that of a smokeless powder charge. In another way of saying, you are not going to damage a Ruger 357, or a Rossi R92 in 357 doing a full charge of Pyrodex because these weapons can handle far greater psi then will be realized with Pyrodex and alike. All things being equal, I am referring only to good and safe loading practices. It's unfortunate that the ballistics for these powders are somewhat hidden but should not discourage the use of them by new enthusiasts in hand loading as an option. Know your powder, know your compression, have fun, make smoke.

[akuser47]

Archer, I appreciate your litany on the subject. I think though for the discussion of using real BP, or any substitute, I have found no evidence that the pressures can every exceed that of a smokeless powder charge. In another way of saying, you are not going to damage a Ruger 357, or a Rossi R92 in 357 doing a full charge of Pyrodex because these weapons can handle far greater psi then will be realized with Pyrodex and alike. All things being equal, I am referring only to good and safe loading practices. It's unfortunate that the ballistics for these powders are somewhat hidden but should not discourage the use of them by new enthusiasts in hand loading as an option. Know your powder, know your compression, have fun, make smoke.

I do agree but without full disclosure. This is rare we must strive to provide. The necessary information to this in regards to the absence of it's official publication. We may be the pioneers in such venture. Less all work towards a common goal. I love this thread. Please don't let it die. Guys less try to keep it alive.

[NavyDoc76-80]

Re:ohio3wheels

Spoke of using blackhorn 209 in his new rifle. It is worth looking up and reading about. It is made by Accurate. Sounds like the the perfect BP substitute powder.
And has a full page of loading data!!! For many many cartridges

[Ohio3Wheels]

The components sit on the bench as I type. Now to find some of that spare time the retired are supposed to have .

The plan is to do just a few rounds at about the minimum listed for the 45-70 and then a few more at about the middle of the suggested range. Also going to do a few round for the Sharps and I'm thinking while the powder measure is full I might also throw a few rounds of 45 Colt to try in the 92 and the Blackhawk.

Got to dig out my 35P and see if it still works so I can velocities. Going to be a busy few days with other commitments tossed in.

Later

[jdb]

Archer, I appreciate your litany on the subject. I think though for the discussion of using real BP, or any substitute, I have found no evidence that the pressures can every exceed that of a smokeless powder charge. In another way of saying, you are not going to damage a Ruger 357, or a Rossi R92 in 357 doing a full charge of Pyrodex because these weapons can handle far greater psi then will be realized with Pyrodex and alike. All things being equal, I am referring only to good and safe loading practices. It's unfortunate that the ballistics for these powders are somewhat hidden but should not discourage the use of them by new enthusiasts in hand loading as an option. Know your powder, know your compression, have fun, make smoke.

Very true Doc. As an example, the cup on a typical 45/70 black powder load is less than 10,000 psi. The cup on typical 45/70 factory smokeless ammo is between 2 and maybe more than 3 times that or 21,000-35,000 psi. Heck, on one of the guns I think Archer mentioned, which is an American version of what in my opinion is the finest bolt action ever designed for any martial weapon, the 303 British MK4, the cup can be nearly 50,000 psi.

Now that's way more than what the average lever gun would likely see. I mean the max recommended cup for Marlin's 45/70 is only about 44,000 cup and that thing chunks Volkswagens down range. ;~)

But as you can see, with a max load of 70 grains of black powder only producing about 10,000 psi, there is about a 2-300% safety margin built right in to the modern Marlin for any mistakes or load inconsistencies we hand loaders might introduce into the process with black powder or Pyrodex BP substitutes.

Here's the thing, we are discussing this and we aren't the only ones that face the same thoughts. Some ammo makers, like CorBon, load 45/70 rounds that produce up to 35,000 cup. Well within the max cup of Marlin and other lever actions, including our Rossi 92s. Other ammo makers, like Remington, Federal and Winchester, keep the cup at around 20,000 cup because they are afraid some yahoo will drop one of their rounds in an old Springfield trap door and loose an eye. They do it to keep the lawyers away of course, but even at that, that cup is more than twice the cup a typical black powder 45/70 produces or produced when the gun was introduced.

So the fact that the big boys consider a 100% over pressure in what is universally accepted as the most dangerous metallic cartridge design ever built, the trap door, ought to tell us something.

By the way, we all know that one of the most beloved 45/70 designs of all time is the Sharps. Just about everyone knows about the 45/70 falling block rifle, but what a lot of people don't know about is some of the other Sharps 45 calibers produced...including the 45/90 and even a 45/120.

Heck, there were even some custom 45/160 Sharps produced, but in very limited amounts because there is no advantage to gain at ALL after about 110-120 grains of black powder in any black powder rifle because the barrel length has to be so long. Even with the longest barrel sharps, a lot of the powder of a 120 grain charge usually wasn't burned in the barrel. At that point, it just becomes unused and unnecessary weight that reduces muzzle velocity and bullet energy.

But ALL of them were the exact same gun, same barrel, same block, same everything except that the the cartridge was long enough to hold more black powder and the barrel machined to accommodate it. And as you might suspect, it produces much higher barrel pressures. ESPECIALLY since most of them were used so they could push much larger bullets down range more accurately.

However, as Archer points out, NONE of this is meant to encourage anyone to get reckless when loading. Not with black power, smokeless powder or any gun design. As he points out, all guns are NOT created equal. If you've ever seen the bulge the size of a golf ball in an old wire twist barrel shotgun that someone stuck a low brass modern smokeless shot shell in thinking it would be safe...you KNOW that's true.

The point is, have fun experimenting, but KNOW THE DATA before you start and then go from there. You really can safely push the boundaries on this stuff, but you must FIRST know where the boundaries lay!

By the way guys, the 38/357s we are talking about and shooting today started life as a 36 cal, cap and ball conversion for the Colt Navy. And if my memory serves, it was designed to hold 15-20 grains of black powder. It's been WAY too long since I shot one. LOL

But the conversion was to a 38 short Colt that held 18 grains of BP. The next step was the 38 long Colt which is the precursor to the 38 special and I THINK it held 22 grains of BP...the best I can remember. As I said, it's been a LONG time, a lot of damaged brain cells and I never was that smart to begin with. ;~)

[Archer]

jdb,

Very true Doc. As an example, the cup on a typical 45/70 black powder load is less than 10,000 psi. The cup on typical 45/70 factory smokeless ammo is between 2 and maybe more than 3 times that or 21,000-35,000 psi. Heck, on one of the guns I think Archer mentioned, which is an American version of what in my opinion is the finest bolt action ever designed for any martial weapon, the 303 British MK4, the cup can be nearly 50,000 psi.

Now that's way more than what the average lever gun would likely see. I mean the max recommended cup for Marlin's 45/70 is only about 44,000 cup and that thing chunks Volkswagens down range. ;~)

The 1917 Enfield isn't part of the Lee Enfield family. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee-Enfield

In WWI the British contracted to produce the P14 or the Pattern 1914 Enfield mostly in the U.S.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_1914_Enfield

When the U.S. entered the war we also needed more rifles badly. Our expeditionary force was equipped with Krags if I recall my history correctly and we got hand me down squad automatics from the French. The U.S. standard at the time was the 1903 Springfield but production wasn't sufficient. As a result the U.S. contracted for a converted version of the P14 in .30-06 which could be had in quantity quicker and became the 1917 Enfield.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1917_Enfield
Both rifles took the same 5 round stripper clips. The 1917 was a somewhat more robust weapon but it was also heavier. Our troops were issued 1917s and 1903s at a ratio of about 2 to 1. After the war was over the 1917s were sold to civilians for something like $15-$25 each. Due to the inexpensive cost of the surplus guns they were often used for conversion to hunting weapons often in larger or higher pressure calibers than .30-06. Apparently Remington even made them as a commercial version after the war.

The Lee Enfield was a rear lugged bolt while the P14/M1917 guns is a forward lugged Mauser style action.
The P14 was more robust and probably more accurate but the Lee-Enfield with the 10 round magazine (to the P14's 5 round one) had a higher sustained rate of fire in spite of a similar action manipulation speed. The Lee-Enfield was also somewhat lighter.

WRT the .45-70
Here is the SAMMI cartridge list:
http://www.saami.org/specifications_and ... re_CfR.pdf
Looks like they're claiming an max average pressure of 28 KPSI and a max sample pressure of just shy of 30 KPSI.

The current Marlin 1895s tend to get loaded warm since the same basic action is also chambered in the .44 Marlin and that operates around 42-44 KPSI.

Also the KIND of projectile can make a big difference in the pressure results as well.

CUP, LUP, PSI, units of measure, method of measure and location(s) of measurement Pressure vs. time, Pressure vs. barrel location, Impulse due to the area under the (P,t) curve. There are a lot of variables that go into pressure measurements and calculations and more that go into data reduction.

I've read some folks have measured black powder pressures in the 20-25 KPSI ranges. I've read others give the opinion that, or claim they've seen published datat that indicate, high pressures similar to or in excess of most smokeless are possible with the right combination of components and high grade black.

A lot of that's on other forums and worth exactly what was paid for it however.
For example: http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthr ... r-Pressure
(Someone in the above thread claims the industry .45-70 Trapdoor pressure limits may have been set by attempts to convert the actions to one of the .30 caliber smokeless rounds at the armory.)
http://www.assra.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB. ... 2959756/15

A few more comments that might be worthy of reading on black and Pyrodex:
http://www.chuckhawks.com/blackpowder_pyrodex.htm
http://goexpowder.com/load-chart.html

You may well be right wrt the .357 Magnum cases. I dare say you are almost certainly correct using .38 SP cases. (and the old .38 Smith / .38 Colt (and possibly .38-200 British) was I think a black powder cartridge designed around operating with a full case of black.)

My comments were as noted not pointed particularly at this specific situation where things may fine.
Rather at the implication that, because things are generally designed with a safety margin and that the lawyers tend to increase that margin, that pushing on such a margin is generally safe. Any safety in pushing the limits is very much a matter of the specific circumstances.