HEAD0001

I asked a question on another thread about the compound the powders are based on.

I have been doing a good bit of reading trying to find the correct answer.

From what I can find it seems that T7 actually is a sugar based propellant. Which is what my original point was. But then some said it was not sugar based. Bu everything I can find says it is.

I also asked about BH-209. And whether it was, or was not sugar based like T7?? No one answered about BH-209. Does anyone know what the BH powder is derived from??

And I also do not understand the big deal about why a powder has to have charcoal if all it provides is smoke. If it serves no purpose then why put it in there?? And also if it serves no purpose then the powder should not be considered a BP substitue!! It should be considered Smokeless Powder?? If the charcoal is not needed for the actual momentum of the projectile??

Me thinks someone is trying to pull a fast one?? Tom.

oldsmellhound

According to a chemist on another site, BH209 is a nitrocellulose-based powder (i.e. Smokeless) with some other additives. Western powders does not admit this, however. It is desinged to function safely in muzzys, unlike other smokeless. I'm not sure what T7 is based on, but it is not nitro based.

MountainDevil54

This is what true smokeless powders do to muzzle loaders, http://www.cva.com/dangerous-loading-practices.php

sabotloader

Tom, I have not come to the same conclusion as you have on T7 the listed ingredients in T7 do not include sugar or even Ascorbic acid. THere is some speculation that the Charcoal listed might not be wood charcoal and that is certainly possible, after all you can make charcoil from news papers - just burn it.

The two different Potassium's that are used are certainly is not sugar. And do not believe that Graphite is either.

When you look at the ingredients for White Hot - T7 without Charcoal or Graphite you can see neither is needed for the powder to work. They are cosmetic.

BH...



Here is some additional information...



There was an extensive article written in the January/Febuary 2009 Vol 62 No. 2 of Single Shot Rifle Journal Magazine. Starts on page 13. I chemical analysis was down on the powder. That is the first known article that I have seen that discovered small amount of sulphur in the powder.

The information clip is from that article. I could email the whole article to you is you would like it complete...

HEAD0001

The point I iwas trying to make was with the charcoal. According to what I understand(which is limited), charcoal is a necessary ingredient of BlackPowder?? And it is the charcoal that causes the "Smoke" in blackpowder?? Correct??

So if the sub's do not require charcol. And charcol is only added to make smoke appear. But that smoke is totally unnecessary for the actual combustion of the powder. Then the charcoal is only added for effect. So therefore the powder that adds charcoal for "effect" only should be listed as "smokeless Powder". Since the smoke is NOT necessary for combustion.

So basically these advanced powders are a less powerful smokelss powder. And therefore SHOULD NOT be considered as a sub. For Black Powder(Since smoke is a required effect of blackpowder). These powders should be considered as low power subs. for smokeless powder. But definitely not as a sub for BL since the charcoal is not a "necessary" ingredient for combustion.

I think these powder mfgs. are just trying to skirt around laws of states that do not allow smokeless powder in MZ's. But why else should the powder smoke. If not for "effect" only.

I realize this is just for discussion. But from what you other guys are saying. You could just as easily use a powder like Trail Boss as a sub also. Except it does not smoke?? Just an opinion. Tom.

HEAD0001

The main reason why I started this as a separate thread was not so much about my concern as to whether the powders were sugar based.

I was wanting to get a discussion started about whether the powders should be considered as a sub for BP, or as a sub for less potent smokeless powders?? Since charcoal is NOT a necessary ingredient of the subs. Tom.

falcon

Black powder substitutes have been around for more than 150 years. During the civil war the South sometimes used a BP substitute. There was a white powder called; of all things, white powder, and a red powder. Brown powder used charcoal from straw: The sulfur content of brown powder was drastically reduced.

At the time of the Spanish American war the US Navy used a very powerful brown powder. Unfortunately the stuff was dangerous and had a limited shelf life. After the war all stocks were destroyed. All those early BP substitutes went away when black powder became obsolete in the late 1800s-early 1900s.

Pyrodex and 777 are among the most modern propellants. Pyrodex pellets, 777 pellets and White Hot pellets are a type of rocket fuel technology adapted to muzzleloading.

Black powder substitutes have their place in world history and they also have their place in shooting and hunting today. Maybe "holy black" wasn't so holy after all.

polaris754

man that is one freak in asome vid ,its just a shame , it wasted good iron , next time they get a notion at cva to do that test again ,they should give me the guns before they do it , i will check to see if there worthy , nope there to good , i guess i will just keep em LOL!

Grouse45

Wow....That video validates how strong the action is in a Knight ML. That video also shows how weak break actions are. That's a pretty good test done by CVA.

BTW- 120grns by volume of a smokeless powder is like being triple loaded. Smokeless powders should always be weighed by weight not volume.

Muley Hunter

I've seen no proof from anybody that charcoal is added to subs for just smoke.



btw BH 209 is not legal in CAS shooting. They aren't fooled that it's a smokeless powder. Any BP or sub that won't clean up with water is smokeless.

btw btw.. Does BH have charcoal for smoke?