Journey with the 10ML-II

I’ve had some interesting moments when first starting out with the 10ML-II. Boy did I make some compounded mistakes from lack of knowing what I had to know that I now chuckle at.

In the initial package came some sample XTP’s and MMP sabots along with a super flexible ramrod that many began referring to as the Noodle Rod. Pulling the breech plug I wanted to push a bullet sabot load down the bore to see what it felt like. There was no way I was going to get this combination down the bore with this flexing ramrod. So with the aid of a cleaning rod and some difficulty I pushed that bullet sabot back out bore.

Keep in mind this was late summer with deer season fast approaching and I wanted to get my 10ML shooting. A friend of mine said why not try a lighter bullet with a shorter bearing surface that actually went down real smooth with no real resistance. Hey it felt good with the noodle rod and now unto the powder. At that time 4227 was a recommended powder and I happened to have a near full lb on hand. Okay off to the range to see what I had.

It was a nice warm day and my shots went off one after the other. Not an impressive group but doable out to about 75yds for this deer season hunting the woods. The hunt was not productive that year but at the end when I went to discharge it I got a misfire one after the other in the cooler weather. Oh crap and I was getting ugly mad to what happened.

Later that late fall I came across a board specializing in the 10ML-II. Here my education really began about smokeless muzzle loading. To keep this post shorter I’ll cut to the chase a little faster.
Before my next range session the noodle rod was replaced with a solid aluminum ramrod.
A minimum 250gr bullet and sabot combination that produced around 40lbs load resistance was constructed.
Here my transition of smokeless powder went from 4227 to 4759.
Next range session that following spring in cooler weather generated encouragement big time with what I started to produce. Okay I’m on the right path now.

Believe it or not there is still more to learn for even more improvement.


Ed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

No, that's not the reason...

I don't know why you guys are being so defensive, my intention is not to criticize your purchases or the use of smokeless powder in a ML....I'm just trying to figure out why they became so popular. I haven't seen any reasoning as to why there is such loyalty to them. So I'm asking if guys are shooting them out 300+ yds, primarily to see if changing to smokeless would have any benefits beyond buying a high end BP gun.

---

I'm not sure if I understand your question, is it why did Henry Ball develop a smokeless muzzleloader or why it was built on a Savage action?
I know for a fact that Savage was the only company that would build it available on a production non custom basis all other manufacturers felt they didn't want the liability. TC wouldn't touch it because it would eat into their BP market.
As to the benefits over buying a higher end BP gun, the most basic advantage is cost in shooting. Smokeless powder is cheaper initially to purchase let alone more shots per pound.
And yes they do have an extended range, my furthest kill was 294 yrds (lasered) one shot one kill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smokeeter

I'm not sure if I understand your question, is it why did Henry Ball develop a smokeless muzzleloader or why it was built on a Savage action?

---

The question is; "Do you know why did Henry Ball decided to design a smokeless ML ?"

He designed to be a safer muzzleloader. One that would not be affected by the corrosive properties of black powder or their substitutes. By eliminating the use of BP and replacing it with less damaging smokeless powders, which incidentally produced better ballistics.

When I asked this question not long after the SML hit the market I could not get an answer. It was a few years later, on his passing, that I was reading a bio on him from Randy Wakeman that I found the answer.

He choose Smokeless primarily because he felt it was safer than Black Powder.

Quote:

---

"Black powder burns with an almost instantaneous flash even when burned in the open and unconfined. Moreover it is easily ignited by even a very slight spark, and hence it is much more dangerous to handle than smokeless is." Dangerous to manufacture, highly impact-sensitive, corrosive, and inefficient- the far safer smokeless powder propellant was the first successful blackpowder substitute, displacing black powder as a small arms propellant in the late 1800s.

---

http://www.chuckhawks.com/column75_henry_ball.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

When I asked this question not long after the SML hit the market I could not get an answer. It was a few years later, on his passing, that I was reading a bio on him from Randy Wakeman that I found the answer.

He choose Smokeless primarily because he felt it was safer than Black Powder.



http://www.chuckhawks.com/column75_henry_ball.htm

---

That link seems to be broken try this one

http://www.chuckhawks.com/instant_slamification.htm

and

http://www.chuckhawks.com/savage_10ML_success.htm

or

http://www.chuckhawks.com/interview_ball.htm