Confusion and Paranoia

Since the inception and appearance of smokeless muzzle loaders like the 10ML-II there has always been a controversy surrounding the use of smokeless powder in a muzzle loader. The so called experts out there predicted gloom and doom if you used smokeless powder in any muzzle loader. The policy of a powder manufacturer such as Hodgdon does not support or recommend the use of smokeless powder in any muzzle loader.
For us that use smokeless powder in a ML that was designed for that usage we are in violation with an unsafe practice according to experts and a manufacturer of smokeless powder.

Now we have a manufacturer of a ML who claims their product is designed and safe to use with smokeless powder. Now they only give you a few recommended loads for a 250 and 300gr bullet with no information on the pressures generated by these loads like a CF rifle reload would. Yet they give you pressure ratings for their barrel such as yield and tensile strength.

The next advancement IMO with smokeless muzzle loading was the introduction of duplex loads that does mainly 2-things.
1) It does allow you to alter/tailor the velocity without producing excessive peak pressure.
2) By employing a booster with a faster burn rate this can offset an ignition problem in much colder weather and in some cases reduce the velocity loss in colder weather. The booster also helps create a jump point with the initial burn start.

The biggest thing I hear is it is an unsafe practice with no specific causes or effects so it’s an unsafe practice according to them. If you are unfamiliar with certain principles and how they function in unison then I agree it would be unsafe or even disastrous for you to explore this area alone. Even I have and rely on sources of information that will allow me to construct a safe duplex load for my particular application that I would like to share with others. Then with the aid of a PT unit and chronograph I can correlate certain results and responses to determine if it is a safe load and not just my word from my own assumptions.

Some might question my motives here but all I want to do is share knowledge that I will eventually acquired. Hopefully it will be beneficial to someone else down the road when I’m gone.
Because we are not a communist society where information flow is regulated and controlled to control people I will exercise my right to share certain information with others that I’ve acquired. Also I will be the first to admit an unsafe condition if I see one developing or even suspect.

If you are uncomfortable or not interested in learning about duplex loads then by all means stay away from it. If you need to strongly contradict anything please use another thread as previously done and I will not infringe on your right to express your opposite view as I’ve done so far. If you want a discussion in a civil manner concerning anything I’ve said then I’m receptive to that.

Ed

Amen! There is always going to be be people who hate new things and defend old ways. Some people just fall into the category of you can't teach old dogs new tricks.

I don’t think it’s about hating new things. It’s more about having to rethink something you were taught years ago and always believed it.
Years ago when I was first exposed to someone using duplex loads in a SML I also had apprehensions about using such a load. As I followed this the results were somewhat astonishing at the performance obtained from such loads. This was another incentive to research “Powder Burn Rates” and “Interior Ballistics”. Once I started to piece it all together unknown factors were no longer unknown.

For the record I would never use or recommend using a duplex reload in a CF cartridge because of the condition under which the smokeless powder burn is ignited and accelerated. In a SML the condition for ignition and burn is different enough to better regulate/control the burn property of a smokeless powders.

As seen through a PT peak pressure is not the only factor in a bullets final velocity. The decay of pressure also plays an important role here. To reduce the level of decaying pressure you need a slower burning powder to accomplish this. The problem with using a slower burning powder is getting it to properly ignite producing a self perpetuating burn with consistent results in a SML.

More will use this new knowledge to obtain higher velocities and some will utilize this knowledge for IMO tailored loads for more consistent accuracy. Regardless of what you choose to do with this knowledge I will always emphasize the safety of not exceeding a level of peak pressure.

Now on a different note where I experienced paranoia and confusion not long ago was learning how to use a modern cell phone and its capabilities. Talk about a frustrating learning curve at the start. Now what I have is not just a phone but a mini computer with all the Apps available. I have no regrets going through the learning curve to gain the knowledge I now acquired.
This also holds true with SML.

Ed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rippin_355

Amen! There is always going to be be people who hate new things and defend old ways. Some people just fall into the category of you can't teach old dogs new tricks.

---

I don't think it's all that, I think it's more along strictly anecdotal data vs non existent accredited lab data and testing from the manufactures. In addition, many here are previous or current military/LEO with a background/experience in explosives of some type.

For instance question about.....deflagration/detonation, burn rates, flame fronts, accelerates, etc. and how an individual might, in the field, absolutely and repeatedly control(or safely and effectively control) all of the variables is questionable and rightly so with no reputable, researched guiding data available.

I'd venture to say most sportsman are just the opposite of the "old dog/new tricks", in that they are proponents of do as you please as long as it causes no issues to others or is unlawful. However they likely view duplex loads as backwards research. (instead of serious professional research under lab conditions and then publishing safe effective data, it's viewed as trial and error with no future assurance of repeatable results of previous "empirical" data.

For example, as simple and safe as binary explosive targets are, experimentation and not heeding written warnings have resulted in numerous issues and some deaths.

In my mind, when duplexing loads, one in effect adds uncontrollable unknowns. Questions like how does one guarantee non-mixing of the two components if that is the recipe?(so as to not get into an issue with flame front/burn rates/pressure curve and to prevent an accelerant condition?) I have to believe others have the same questions.

How does one guarantee and insure against Deflagration Detonation Transition?
Finally, is the risk worth the reward and how is it? (honest question not being judgemental)

Skypilot

Those are fair and good questions to be asking and I’m surprised someone hasn’t asked them earlier.

Okay let’s start with smokeless powder formulation. Smokeless powder is designed to deflagrate and not to detonate. During the manufacturing of smokeless powder to control the burn rate heat retardants are even added during the manufacturing process.

As for mixing powder or loading the duplex in reverse what will happen is the purpose of the booster is now negated and your reduced burn will produce lower velocities.
On another board a retired individual shoots once a week with his SML using only duplex loads. He reports his findings weekly and now has exceeded 2,000 plus rounds without incident. From his testimony he has tried the above mentioned conditions and loss of velocity was reported.

The booster loaded first is covered by the main charge and powders held in position with the final seating of bullet and sabot, how would mixing occur?

As for lab results you won’t get any because we are a minority that are not worth the time, cost and effort. Most lab results are PT’d in a mock up of a barrel to verify the powder burn rate in CF cartridges only. Having my own a PT unit what advantage does a lab have over me?

In a Savage the ignition is regulated by a vent liner with an orifice to feed the thermal energy to the powder for ignition. So in a way the powder burn start is already regulated to begin with.

To me there is no more real additional risk of using duplex over a single powder.
If you want to focus on a possible danger that would involve reversing the amounts used for booster and main load. I consider the danger level here the same as a re-loader using the wrong powder.

Duplexing powder is becoming very common with the SML crowd in North America because of what it offers.
Okay I’m going to make an offer for those that want to keep SML in the dark. If the Administrator feels that information I want to share about duplex loads is inappropriate to the muzzle loading board I would ask he notify me and I will abide by his wishes. For those that want to know or learn I will PM my results when I have some.
Now one thing I will do when I show any target results I will mention if duplex was used but no info on the load if I’m asked not to show duplex info. I’m not in the habit of lying or plan to start when I share something.

Ed

I used to work for the Alcohol boys down South plus the FBI course disagrees with the smokeless powder won't detonate and my own personal, and BATF data disputes that statement via numerous confiscated pipe bombs with 1/2 lb of smokeless and a crude initiator.
But I get your terminology/context and it's common within the public.

Without teaching a bomb class on a hunting forum, there are technical terminologies that are not literally interchangeable, although the public attempts to. Deflagration as you mentioned and I agree is a reaction and considered by most to be a burn to pressure rather than a shockwave to overpressure but, to ME and technically speaking can be loosely defined or thought of as subsonic in reaction speed. Detonation is considered supersonic from above deflagration up to maybe 8500m/s.
So yes unconfined, smokeless powder is hard pressed to do much of anything when initiated. Different ball game confined, depending on numerous variables that we are considering here.

There are low grade explosives like powders or binaries where one component causes the other component(s) to behave(chemically and physically) much greater(reactive) than either alone. They are considered accelerants.

So, given the above, and back to your example of duplexing, I could physically separate components(temporarily as in explosives)but once initiated, all bets are off.(they may mix and propagate as they will). Without any accredited lab testing and research I can't guarantee anything in the progression of events physically/geometrically, or chemically. When the previous mentioned conditions begin, eddy currents, geometry, etc. can accelerate a subsonic deflagration to a supersonic detonation. "DDT"

With proper research, all (reactive components) such as single based powders(nitrocellulose) or others(nitrocellulose +nitroglycerine)up to arty rounds(nitrocellulose+nitroglycerine + nitroguanine) can be repeatedly and predictably manufactured and initiated.

Otherwise, everything else is literally trial and error. Having said that, some components mixed or stacked may actually "work" for some time if everything is exactly duplicated every time and can even be "viewed" as successful from purely a MV or accuracy standard.

A sober parallel is TATP. Great explosive(I first thought the Boston Marathon event was TATP from initial media videos), not easily detectable by certain un-named means, so from that viewpoint terrorist think it's great, but unstable and easily(too easily) initiated.
So "undetectable" is desirable, much like the BP goal of MZ/accuracy, but extremely risky.......

Now we're back full circle to Risk v Reward and predictability.

Just my 2 cents, it was free so..........

Skypilot

Yes smokeless powder can become a bomb if pressure of powder burn is allowed to accelerate beyond the confinement capability of its container. A ruptured barrel will attest to that.
Yes an initiator can change the characteristic reaction of a propellant.
You could call the booster charge in a duplex a secondary initiator that amplifies the primary initiator to start the main charge if you like because that is its purpose.

When we shoot firearms we use propellants for the specific reaction we want and need to propel a projectile. Given a bad batch of powder from a manufacturer and your firearm can become a pipe bomb. Use too fast a burning powder or too much of a specific powder and again you have a pipe bomb.

You speak of lab tests yet there is no testing done with access to such info anywhere for SML. There are many who reported usages of duplex loads by many shooters with SML’s with no recorded issues. There are numerous PT’s done of duplex rounds to determine what level of pressure from the reaction is seen in particular calibers.
So in your opinion, what risk value would you assign to this?
You can be as forward as you want with your answer because I’m not here forcing anyone to accept duplex usage.

I don’t see any substantial risk when something has proven itself many times over even if done in the field. My livelihood is dependent on my eyes and limbs and I would not expose them to any unnecessary risks. That is how confident I’m with using duplex loads soon. And before sharing any info I will be the first to test any load, verify what pressures are involved and any noted reactions observed.

Ed

You have acknowledged and accepted the risks in a free and democratic society, and I really have no further input that might convince you otherwise.

Is it really confusion and paranoia on behalf of the powder industry. In a litigation driven world, I think they are wise to use a blanket statement to protect their interests. i.e. staying in business.
We all know of, seen or read of instances where stupid people do stupid things and when it all goes wrong blame everyone but themselves and have a judicial system to support them.

HA

Skypilot

Your input and thoughtfulness was welcomed.
When you see something that has been in practice and applied for years it is hard to ignore its usefulness. Here the principle of deflagration of smokeless powders and practical aspect of using duplex falls in line as to how it should perform and so far it has. One just simply can’t ignore the results obtained over a period of time especially when they have a beneficial use in SML.
Yes there are some unknowns yet to monitor and a careful approach is needed which I’m aware of.

Huntaway

I agree with your line of thinking on that topic. Powder companies will even lie to you to prevent you from knowing the truth. Example; when I contacted Hodgdon about seeing the difference in using the new 4759 over the old 4759 and asked what changes they made their reply was no changes made. Then when I accosted that individual about producing less velocities and my PT unit was showing a substantial lower peak pressure he backtracked with the statement that some formulation adjustment may have been made. There is no “may have been made” for difference seen and experienced.
So now what trust should I place in a company that manufactures powder and outright lies to you by trying to use a blanket statement?
What was wrong with providing a truthful answer? Their own credibility is now in question.

Yes there are those out there that shoot and reload that should not be allowed firearms without additional training that would provide them an awareness they need to have about firearms. Whether it stops stupid is another story.


Ed

Any reloader knows that between lot #'s of powder , pressures and consequently velocity can and does vary.

Jaycee

Yes that statement is true but in this case with 4759 it does not apply. Powder manufacturers keep a reasonably close tolerance to the powder they manufacture. Not a difference of close to 10%.

The old 4759 came in 1/2lb cans and for years after many cans used the average velocity of 2300fps was experienced with 43grs. Then Hodgdon bought IMR and not long after that the 1lb plastic container of 4759 appeared. Here other shooters began to experience a loss of about 100fps with their 43gr load with the 1lb plastic container of 4759. In order to regain that velocity most found that by changing that load up 46.5-47grs they again acquired 2300fps. I also did a PT test to see the difference between the two 4759 powders and got a difference of about 5000 PSI.

Now if you want to believe your statement about lot variance applying here you go right ahead.


Ed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaycee

Any reloader knows that between lot #'s of powder , pressures and consequently velocity can and does vary.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ET1

Powder manufacturers keep a reasonably close tolerance to the powder they manufacture. Not a difference of close to 10%.

---

I find it hard to believe that a powder manufacture like IMR would allow a variance in production between lots outside a fairly tight tolerance to the spec. I used to do Spec Functionality Audits with companies like IMR who supply to the government and they wouldn't be in business long if they couldn't meet the specs with every lot #.

Mike normally you would be correct. 4759 had some pretty major swings. 200 fps has widely been reported.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Jack

Mike normally you would be correct. 4759 had some pretty major swings. 200 fps has widely been reported.

---

Makes me wonder how many of the issues that were reported were actually from a variance in the powder itself or simply the other variables affecting the load. A change in primer can see a 200 ft/sec change in velocity.

It would be interesting to find out the real reasons IMR stopped production, maybe more to the story than just "outdated technology, high manufacturing costs and low sales".

Not primer related. Even Chuck Hawk reported in on it.

With other powders I don't see that much of a swing maybe 30-50fps which is nothing much in my book with a cf.