AmericanPioneer

I saw in another post where someone mentioned a smokeless muzzleloading barrel for the encore. I went to their site and they also make them for other muzzleloaders.They seem to be making them from douglas barrels. I am going to contact them next week and see about one for my encore. I figure if I am going to get one for it sooner or later, it might as well be able to shoot smokeless if I desire. Does anyone own or have any experience or info about them. This is the link to their site.
http://www.smokelessmuzzleloading.com/index.html

Triple Se7en

T/C may have to strengthen the breech area of that Encore rifle first. Then they may have to off-color the barrel for smokeless liability reasons.

I'm not sure there's a large-enough buyers market for expanding smokeless MLs.Are sales of smokeless even at 1% of total inline retail sales?

MOTurkeyTamer

You might check this out.....
http://modernmuzzleloader.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=3914

Pittsburghunter

I think your wrong on that buddy, have you seen the size of some of the center fire caliburs that are out there for the Encore? The breech area would be covered by whomever makes the barrel. The receiver of the Encore is built to withstand about the larger magnum rounds out there.

I personally have no interest in using smokeless in a m/l. Hell the smoke is half the fun

Pglasgow

There is really nothing magical about smokeless powder. The opportunity to design muzzleloading weapons for use with smokeless powders has been around a longtime and, really, only one major gunmanufacture "wants" to participate.

With the right selection of powder, bullet, and ignition, smokeless powder has the opportunity to offer more safety than typical muzzleloading systems. Even so, smokeless powder, as it currently is utilized in muzzleloading rifles,isn't any safer than BP or its "substitutes".

I don't know of anybig-borecenterfires which are designed to propell250-300 grainbullets at high velocity using the powders which are recommended in the 10 ML. I would note. That the powders are recommended by Savage, not by the powder manufactures. I have noted that there doesn't seem to be a Hodgdon powder which is in the "approved" list (although IMR now owned by Hodgdon is there). I think IMR will soon, if not already, be lifted from the list cause Isuspect thatHodgdon doesn't want to be associated with smokeless muzzleloading. Anyone who recommends a Hodgdonpowder for use inmuzzleloading firearms will be recommendingHodgdon powder (to include IMR)for ause which is prohibited by the manufacturer.

Sabots and relatively light bullets are the major reason smokeless muzzleloaders are not any safer than a typical black powder muzzleloader. We are being sold "features" not safety. These areactual goals of smokeless muzzle loader.

1. Less recoil (powder chargeof less weight and light weight bullet for the caliber)

2. High velocity (flat trajectory)

3. Velocity and energy which can't be achieved in a convential black powder weapon, meeting also, both conditions above.

This is specifically what is beingsold, not safety. Safety, actually,must be compromised in order to deliver those three things.Those objectivesrequire an earlier, spikier (higher) peak of pressureand is whycharges of moderately fast burning powders are recommended. Powder's which would never be reccomended for use in cartridges ofrifles of .44 to .50 calibers.

If the Smokeless powders selected, were so selected toincrease safety only, this is what you'd get. A ML which is recommended to be used with moderately heavy projectiles,charged withfairly light charges of slow burning powder, which generate greater muzzle energy at some reasonablefraction of the peak pressure one would encounter with the same muzzle-energy while using BP or equivalent BP. So for your trouble, you get safety,much less fouling, and less recoil, but "notall three objectives above". You still have a potent 120-150yd MPBR weapon, it just isn't going to act like a high power-rifle.

IfT/C or Savageever designs a weapon along these lines, I just might buy one. But then I don't know.The only things I really see changing for me would be that my powder costs would be lower, my rifle would foul less, and I'd have a little less recoil. Features which are notunbearable with BP and equivalents.

Happy Hunting, Phil

Underclocked

"67 grains of IMR 4198 with .75" to 1.3" accuracy. ..don't have a chronograph yet, but by the results had by others, that should put me around 2450-2500 fps with a 250 grain bullet."

Given that statement is true (and there is every reason to believe it is) - figure the ballistics of that round even with a .190 BC. Or a 200 grain SST at 3000 fps. Savage shooters probably know those are achievable results.

AmericanPioneer

I have a 375 H&H magnum in my encore and thats not the biggest TC offers. It has the 416 rigby and the .450 marlin. There are 3rd party barrel makers like ssk that make some awesome rounds. I saw a video of an encore in 600 nitro express.Strengthen the receiver more I think not. I dont think a smokeless blackpowder round would ever get close to the pressures generated by some of the bigmagnum rifle calibers in the encore.

txfireman

If you are gona do that, dont even shoot a muzzle loader. Just buy a centerfire. I think the smokeless powder in a ML guys are missing the whole point. Try archery soley for about 15 years and you will appretiate trying a ML and having up to 150 yards to take the animal. The whole thing is still get them in close.

Pglasgow

4198 is about the fastest powder one would want in a 45 - 50 cal rifle. But then it is alot slower than the Powder's Savage recommends. Can it do 2450 fps with 250 bullet? I would think so, considering that only 49 grains does the same in 444 Marlin.

Is it safer than the loads Savage is recommending. NOT! and it is prohibited now both by Hodgdon (who bought IMR) and Savage unless Savage has added it to its recommended loads.It's more unsafe not because of its peak pressure, rather, because of its potential of much higher pressures than the Savage recommended loads. You simply can't put 75% more powder by weight into your Savage and be as safe, even if the pressures are about the same, normally. Things don't go quite as planned and you have 75% more energy being released in the breech. Safety is compromised.

My idea of safer (with 4198)would be to use only 42 grains of 4198 and a 300 grain bullet and get say1950 fps (of course not many folks are going to get excited about that). Then you get 2500 ft-lbs for a fraction of pressure of a typical Savage Load or the load U.C. posted. By the way, I'm not recommending use of 4198 for use inanyone'sSavage. I consider it prohibited by Hodgdon and Savage.

As to whether 67 grains of IMR4198 will yield 3000 fps with 200 grain projectile? WHUT!? Charge being equal, it is impossible to get greater muzzle energy with a lighter bullet. One is going to have to put alot more than 67 grains of IMR4198 to get a 200 grain bullet up to 3000 fps. I figure in excess of 80 grains. I would not do that if I were a Savage owner.

Slower powders are terribly inefficent in big-bores when they are used with light bullets. So much of the powder is unburned when the bullet exits. Sure you can pumpmore powder to them keeping pressures below the operating limit, but if one is going to play that game he needs to know that he is putting alot more energy in his breech and it has more potential to do him harm.

Happy Hunting, Phil

Doegirl75

The cost of that SMI barrel ($ 425) is pretty darn close to a brand spankin' new Savage rifle, stainless steel, laminate stock version ($550 or so). Why blow that kind of money on a barrel that hardly anyone knows anything about? The Savage is talked about all the time online and the manufacturer has has tested the living crap out of them. I'm a newbie to all this, but common sense is telling me to spend my hard earned pennies on a rifle BUILT to shoot smokeless, than to try altering a weapon to use smokeless powder safely.