10ML-II Firing Weakness

[ET1]

In my early days with the 10ML-II I periodically got misfires and couldn’t understand why. One day when I had a misfire at the range I noticed my bolt handle was not all the way down. I re-cocked the bolt and it went off. Upon examining the operational mechanics of the firing pin I now understood why the bolt handle must be completely down to allow the firing pin to deliver a full impact to the primer.

While out hunting I also found out my bolt handle would sometimes shift upwards when slinging and un-slinging the 10ML-II from my shoulder. Now when I take my 10ML-II off my shoulder I always check that the bolt handle is completely down. I would hate to miss a chance of a lifetime shot and just hear the click of metal on metal contact.


Ed

[MikePal]

If I remember correctly the 10ML-II had an issue with head spacing and breach plugs from the factory. In your case I wonder if the head spacing was a little off...but at the same time...you really do want the bolt to be fully seated to prevent some of the issue guys were having with the cap pushing back and flaring. Makes you wonder about some of the misfire reports that were submitted.

Good reminder ED, never hurts to ensure that the bolt is well seated before you prepare to take that shot at your dream buck..not the time you want a misfire.

[ET1]

MikePal

I never had an issue with head-spacing when using recommended book loads.
Same for breech plug as it really is a good design IMO. Where the major problem existed
was proper maintenance instruction. Between the primer and vent liner there is an open space some of us call the Flame Channel. This also acts as a reservoir for returning pressure from the bore preventing high return pressure buildup.

This flame channel carbons up from primer residue decreasing the volumetric space that in turn allows higher return pressure buildup and higher pressure exposure to spent primer.

Breech Plug Fouling A.jpg

Above is a picture of a new BP and one after 25-primer firings.
Keep this flame channel reasonably clean that I normally do after 20-25shots and there never was any issue say with primer bulging.

I do agree that head spacing wasn’t done the best from factory and can be improved for better primer support.


Ed

[ET1]

An additional thought for firing weakness with the 10ML-II and using smokeless powder.

There are 2-additional points to consider.
1) Load resistance of say 35-40lbs helps to produce reliable ignition. A known fact is that the acceleration of the powder burn is dependent on the pressure it is exposed too. With what is considered a good load resistance (bullet/sabot) requiring 35-40lbs load pressure this helps to ensure as the powder begins to burn pressure can be quickly built up before the bullet/sabot begins to move.

2) Powder compression again helps to start the burn or ignition. The powder needs to be heated to its flash point in order to burn. By compressing the powder you reduce the open spacing between powder granules that allows less spreading of heat migration into the load. When the primer ignites a regulated flow of thermal energy is allowed through the vent liner orifice into the powder. Here if this flow is restricted from migrating around the powder granules then this thermal energy is more concentrated in a smaller area.

Added Note:

Trying to push down a sabot bullet load with 40lbs resistance and only using a 3/8” ramrod can be hard on the hands. Acquire say a T handle that slips on the ramrod that distributes the loading force across your hand and it will be simple to load with this required load resistance. I can load these loads all day with 1-arm without discomfort or pain afterwards.

When using smokeless powder in a muzzle loader designed for it (and I can’t emphasize this enough) there are more variables to understand than say with black powder. Once understood you’ll soon enjoy a new experience with muzzle loading.

Ed

[MikePal]

Thanks Ed for introducing the topic. I've never had any dealing with a nitrocellulose based smokeless powder like Accurate Arms 5744, so your post got me doing some reading/research last night. Interesting topic.

I wasn't aware of the need to provide load resistance/pressure to the powder itself to ensure a more efficient burn. Your right you'd want a good palm saver to continually have to exert 40 lbs pressure on a day at the range

As an aside...I've also never used pellets, so I learned something in my readings; When they first came out with them they were a lot of guys saying that you had to apply enough Ram Rod pressure to collapse the 'tube' to remove any air space in the powder. In truth, as pellets burn progressively down the bore, from the base in, from the outside in, and--due to the hole in the center--from the inside out, crushing them is actually detrimental to a good burn.

I think I'll stick to loading with loose Black Powder...the performance I get on the range is excellent and it has never failed me in a hunting scenario...and I like the smoke

BUT...if I ever decide to shot out past 200 yds and looking for an ML to do that for me, I'm watching closely the performance ratings and reviews of Remington's new Model 700 Ultimate Muzzleloader. It appears to be the future for long distance Muzzleloader shooting.

[ET1]

MikePal

Muzzle loading has really taken on a new format with new options. Even bullet designs are improving to accommodate velocities over a wider range. In the BP and substitutes arena there are advancements for longer ranges but IMO still can’t compare with smokeless muzzle loading. The velocities and ranges for smokeless are far more reaching but limited expensive bullets are required. 200yd shooting is a cake walk for my 10ML-II. Yet my longest shot needed so far has been 90yds.
I’m not here to start a pissing match of which is better because hunters and shooters have different requirements and if your choice of propellant provides what you need then I’m happy for you.

Whichever method is your choice there is a learning curve to understand the operation and characteristics of your equipment to get the best results. The bottom line for me is that the 1^st shot when well placed will guarantee meat on the pole. This also says the key element is the shooter and how well he knows his equipment and how to use it.

As for the new Remington Ultimate Muzzle Loader all I can say it has a hefty price for some additional velocity and range. In the end it’s up to the owner of one to decide if it was worth it.

When I started out with a BP muzzle loader I also preferred loose powder over pellets. You can really tune a load for accuracy with loose powder.



Ed

[MikePal]

As for the new Remington Ultimate Muzzle Loader all I can say it has a hefty price for some additional velocity and range. In the end it’s up to the owner of one to decide if it was worth it.

The MRSP of the 700ML Ultimate has dropped below $1K (http://ultimatemuzzleloader.com/ ) which is comparable (in today dollar) to the original costs of the 10ML-II. Guys were happy to pay $800+ for the 10ML-II when it came out for the increased velocities (2,300 fps), so I will wager that since the 700ML is capable of shooting 2,400 fps, price will not be a real issue.

It'll be interesting to see what the next 2yrs hold for the Remington Ultimate gets into the hands of the shooters.

[ET1]

Mike Pal

Let’s see the price of say $949 American is what in Canadian?
Definitely over $1K and of course there are additional taxes involved that would probably put you over $1200.00 dollars. Did I forget to mention any commission the seller might add on.
I see no mention of the bullet or sabot combination or propellant used to go with their specs which would add a little credibility here.
The 10ML-II has a 1:24 twist as compared to the Ultimate that has a 1:26 twist.
The 10ML-II has a 24” barrel as compared to the 26” barrel of the ultimate. So 2” of additional barrel length would account for some additional velocity. The extra 2” I wouldn’t want hunting in the woods.
Okay if the test for 2400fps was done with say a 250gr SST or TC Shockwave I can easily produce over 2500fps second with a load 75gr of 4198 in my 10ML-II with a 24” barrel. Definitely a lot less powder usage with my smokeless setup.

So for me the Remington Ultimate would not even be considered for purchasing or be in contention as the ultimate in muzzle loading.
I agree it will be interesting to see how well the Remington Ultimate will do with Sportsmen across North America.



Ed

[MikePal]

I see no mention of the bullet or sabot combination or propellant used to go with their specs which would add a little credibility here.

Ed..I have no dog in the fight here as I don't have an interest in either gun at present and pissing contests are not my bag.

To answer your question:

Using 200 grains of Triple Seven® Pellets in combination with Barnes’ Spit-Fire T-EZ^TM 250-grain muzzleloader bullets, the Model 700 Ultimate Muzzleloader gives the shooter the ability to reach velocities over 2400 fps.

Of course since Remington is sistered with Barnes' thier performance achievements will be using their own bullets

[ET1]

Mike Pal

No dog fight here either as I’m just expressing my thoughts from my end.

The Spit Fire TEZ 250 bullet is an excellent choice and is in contention with the 275XPB for a moose load I want to develop. That load will also be around 2500fps to rip and penetrate into a big bodied animal.
For deer I will tame it down closer to 2300fps or less so as not to blow chunks of meat out at less than 100yds. I’ll still practice out to 200yds should I ever need it.


Ed