Sabot loader there are some doing it with encores to, I have been thinking on that subject myself with out coming to any conclusions.

Sabot: when you say quite a few MLers using smokeless, are you referring to firearms like the Savage that is designed to shoot smokeless or people who have decided to do it?

About this Why, why, oh why would anyone want to do something like that? I'm not inclined (no disrespect intended to your comment) to view as forward thinking anyone who would take a modern, well made efficient firearm and turn it into something less than it was. I have trouble believing that such a conversion would be more efficient than an equivalent cartridge. Let's say that they use a .45 caliber barrel on a Ruger #1 action. Are they going to come up with something as powerful and easily reloadable as the .45-70 in that gun? I don't think so.

I wonder about that. Smokeless is not nearly as forgiving as BP. Y'now...with BP if you are a few grains extra down the tube, it ain't no big deal. With smokeless....? Where do these folk get their load data? How do they know what is safe? (not saying that it couldn't be - but how do they know). And that question again.....why? Why take a gun and make it harder to use? It ain't as easy to load from the muzzle as it is to slip one into the breech.
Pete

My reference was to AA5744 in my Savage 10ML-II, and it's perfectly safe. The load data is provided by Savage in the owners manual. They did the necessary pressure testing in their ballistics lab and published it both in the manual and, I believe, on their website. There have been a number of others who've worked up reliable and tested, but "unofficial," load data with other powders than those recommended by Savage using their own pressure measuring equipment, that's been posted on various places on the internet. Of course, just like data for a CF rifle, one uses this data at their own risk.

As for forward thinking... are we talking about as forward thinking as the dudes who stuffed the first smokeless powders into .45-70 and 45 Colt cases without any pressure tested load data, circa 1870? Smokeless powder IS the first commercially successful BP substitute, with a full century on Pyrodex.

I find it mildly humorous that so many people will rush out to buy BH209 at outrageous prices, but will poo-poo the use of smokeless powder in ML's designed for it. In case anyone hadn't noticed, BH209 is IDENTICAL for all practical purposes to "modern" mid-burn rate smokeless powders (like AA5744 and Vihta-Vouri N110), except that it makes a cloud of smoke and can be volumetrically measured with conventional BP powder measures.

Let's look at a few of BH209's properties to compare:

1) It's a progressive burning powder, with burn rate effected by chamber temp and pressure... just like smokeless.

2) It's a cylindrical extruded powder of uniform size and shape rather than a crumbled mass of ground powder that's sifted through a screen to create a roughly uniform size... just like most smokeless powder.

3) It has a much higher energy density than BP and other subs... just like smokeless.

4) It leaves very little fouling in the bore, and requires a nitro solvent rather than water or a water-based solvent... just like smokeless.

5) It is totally non-corrosive and non-hygroscopic... just like, you guessed it, smokeless powder.

6) It makes a significant and satisfying quantity of smoke to obscure your view of the now running and wounded animal so you have no idea exactly which direction it's running. This is apparently Western Powder's way of both comforting and bamboozling uninformed ML shooters that what they're shooting isn't kinda-sorta smokeless powder.

The Savage is made and proofed the same as any CF rifle, and the official published loads (like 45 grains MAX load of AA5744 with a 300 grain 45/50 sabot bullet) are fully tested and safe.

My point was that people talk about how wildly expensive BH209 is, and how they're willing to pay so much for the convenience of it, when they could have bought a Savage (which is an EXCELLENT ML, IMHO), and could easily make up any difference in cost to the other "premium" ML's in just a few pounds of powder. For the cost of a single 10 ounce can of BH209 in many places I can buy TWO pounds of 5744 (32oz, or over three times as much), and burn roughly the amount by weight to get the same performance. I get 5 times the shots for my money.

I bought my Savage 4 years ago, and I'm less than halfway through my third pound of powder... which would have been my 13th or 14th can of BH209.

Mike

Here ya go Pete_D, these will bring ya up to speed:

http://www.modernmuzzleloader.com/ph...ic.php?t=13746


http://www.modernmuzzleloader.com/ph...er=asc&start=0



Please let us know how ya like the "Push-In" style plug, that let's you keep the 45-70 and the muzzleloader...Both

.

Here's another confusing tidbit for you to chew on. From the kitchen chemists I've heard describe their findings, BH209 IS a nitrocellulose-based (ie smokeless) powder. If I ever could find some I'd pull out some solvents and confirm it.

What is the difference between BP, a so-called BP substitute, and a smokeless powder with a similar burn rate??

Because they live where a .45-70 is illegal to hunt with but a smokeless ML is legal. It has nothing to do with efficiency.

Save your solvents...just find a jar, open and smell that sweet smell of Nitroglycerin....end of test

The Nose knows


.

Just so no one gets the wrong idea and thinks they can substitute smokeless powder for BH209 to save a few bucks. They might be similar but they are not the same.
As for myself, I have tried the BH209 but I am going to stick with triple 7 in my inlines.
Not wanting to blow my head off,
Art

Which smokeless? How do we know BH209 does not have the same properties as one of the dozens of varieties? What I have heard but not confirmed with any reliability is that the plant being used to produce BH209 was formerly used to produce a smokeless powder that is now off the market with VERY similar properties. Cooincidence, no?

The truth is we don't, and no reliable source is publishing tested and confirmed data, so I would never do it. But it's also wrong to say lump all smokeless powders in the same group, a gun that shoots fine with one smokeless powder may blow up with the wrong smokeless powder.

Lee

Yep, i know what you mean with the encore - I also know of Omega's, Knights DISC's and others but did not think it were a good idea to even suggest such a thing...