"Magnum" is a term that is generally used for any cartridge of a perticular caliber that is capable of producing significantly great velocities by both burning more powder and creating higher pressures. The label serves both to differentiate the cartridge from its standard pressure cousins (7mm-08 Rem vs. 7mm Rem. Mag.), as well as a marketing tool to allow buyers to immediately distinguish the bigger cartridge. "Magnum" for rifle cartridges used to refer to only the belted cartridges similar to (and often based on) the .375 H&H. Today, the term "magnum" is used much more loosely and tacked onto just about any new cartridge the manufacturer want's to sell, even if the "magnum" doesn't significantly outperform the stardard pressure counterparts (the WSMs, except for the 270WSM, SAUMs, and WSSM's are examples of the the loose use of the term "magnum".) Then there are some true magnums that don't bear the magnum moniker, (i.e. the 7mm Shooting Times Westerner). As usual, there is no convention to this naming convention!
I be it actually has to do with a bottle of wine or champagn. I by no means am a fu fu type of guy that sips wine, but I believe thats its real meaning. Its been adopted as a marketing word here in US. Usually means more of a supposed "good" thing. Can you magnimize those fries. I don't know, it doesnt ring right.
If you are talking about a muzzleloader, the answer depends NOT on the length of the barrel, but the STRENGTH of the barrel. If the muzzleloader is rated to take the so-called "magnum" charges of powder. Generally with muzzleloaders, the term "magnum" means any muzzleloader rated to use more than about 120 grains of blackpowder or equivalent, and up to 150gr or equivalent. Barrel length has nothing to do with the ability to handle heavy charges of black powder (or subs.). If once took a "magnum" rated ML and cut the barrel down to 16" it would still be safe with "magnum" charges of powder. The only way barrel length effects the max powder charge is in terms of efficiency. BP and subs burn very slowly and inefficiently compared to smokeless powder, and as a result a large charge may not have time to burn while the projectile is in the barrel if the barrel is too short. The result is particles of still burning powder ejected from the barrel after the bullet is gone. This leftover powder does NOTHING but increase recoil (by increasing the mass of ejecta). With a ML, the shorter the barrel, the lower the efficient charge weight and vise versa. That's why most "magnum" muzzleloaders have 26-28" barrels. The longer barrel is useful only in that it gives the huge loads of powder a little more time to efficiently work. However, I have yet to see a ML shoot a 150 grain charge of powder without spewing a ton of unburned and still burning powder embers out of the bore. Makes for a cool fireworks show, but doesn't do squat for performance. From my experience, all muzzleloaders with barrels shorter than 28" reach their point of diminished returns somewhere between 120-130 grains of loose powder. Shorter barrels will reach this point with less powder, and longer barrels quickly become too heavy and impractical to carry and shoot well. Pellets, by virtue of being already highly compressed, tend to be more efficient and burn more completely with higher charge weights, but have always been prohibitively expensive so I haven't worked with them much.
So... with a 26" muzzy barrel...I can dump more powder? Thats it?
No, No, No
The length of the barrel has nothing to do with how much powder you can put in a ML. That has to do with the breech, breach plug design, and metal used. Most breech plugs are finely threaded to handle extra powder. Only thing the longer barrel does is get you more velocity over a shorter one. Probably around 25 to 50fps more per inch. And there is a limit past 28", where your increase is less and less.
BP and subs burn very slowly and inefficiently compared to smokeless powder
BP actally burns very much faster than most smokeless. Its like bullseye or unique or faster burning. Smokeless like Varget or H1000 burns extremely slower.
BP actally burns very much faster than most smokeless. Its like bullseye or unique or faster burning. Smokeless like Varget or H1000 burns extremely slower.
Not trying to start a fight, but I think that with contained charges of BP you're wrong. Why, if black powder burns so much faster, does a ML with large charges of powder almost always spew burning and unburnt powder out of the muzzle with large charges when the bullet spends a much longer time in the barrel due to the much lower velocity? Think about this. A ML with a 120+ grain charge and a 28" barrel at a MV of 1900fps will have unburnt powder leaving the bore, while a .300 RUM with 100+ grains of IMR7828 or similar at 3300fps out of 26" barrel will not, even when the 300RUM's bullet spends a fraction of the time in the barrel the that the ML bullet does?
The difference, to the best of my knowledge, is that black powder and subs COMBUST (meaning they need atmospheric oxygen to at least a limited degree to burn, they are partially self-oxidizing), while nitro-based smokeless powder DECOMPOSE (meainging that the initiating energy from the primer breaks the weaker molecular bonds and reforming the very strong N=N triple bonds and dual double CO2 bonds), needing no oxygen whatsoever to burn. That's why uncontained black powder is explosive (it's burned in the presence of excess oxygen), while uncontained smokeless just burns (relatively) slowly with a lot of flame and heat, but creates little pressure. But if contained, black powder burns much more slowly for lack of excess oxygen while the smokeless, due to concentrated heat and pressure, burns much more quickly.
Now, I want to say that this is based on my limited understanding of chemistry combined with empirical observation and reasoned conclusion drawn thereof. But I could still be partially or completely wrong.
Contained compressed charges, you may be right, but I don't think so. It burns different. Fast, but not efficient, or hot as smokeless hense the reason for powder spewing out on fire. Do yourself a test. Pour a thin line of H1000 on a sidewalk. Then pour a thin line of Goex on the sidwalk, For reference, pour some Unique down as a third line. Light them all and I bet the BP will race like a snake on fire but the smokeless will be much hotter and take its time. Maybe a few seconds.
Light them all and I bet the BP will race like a snake on fire but the smokeless will be much hotter and take its time. Maybe a few seconds.
My point exactly. The bp will, in the presense of excess O2, burn VERY vigorously, but when tightly contained in the breech of a gun with very little oxygen it will burn MUCH more slowly. Smokeless, on the other hand, when uncontained burns very hot but very slowly because the energy needed to break the chemical bonds of each nitrocellulose/nitroglycerine molecule and the reduced proximity of the resulting free unbonded nitrogen and carbon atoms which restricts their ability to form the very strong nitrogen-nitrogen triple bonds and the two oxygen-carbon-oxygen double bonds (which IS a conbustion reaction, but the reagents are created when the nitrocellulose decomposes and requires no external source of oxygen). When you contain the nitrocellulose powder and light it the molecules are confined in a high pressure environment where the as yet undecomposed molecules and the atomic products of that decomposition are very close to each other, resulting in the much more rapid and energetic recombination of atomic nitrogen into ultra stable molecular N2, combined with the release of a truckload of energy compared to the weaker reactions from combustion that occurs with BP. The energy to initiate combustion in black powder is also much lower than the energy needed to break the molecular bonds that starts the decomposition of smokeless, which is why black powder burns nearly explosively when uncontained.
Muzzy: 24" or 26" (Magnum)
