The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

A charge of 2.8grn (a tiny pinch) if Bullseye is a good load for a 38 Special revolver. Thing is, the case volume was designed for black powder and most of it is empty. Use the same charge in .360 pistol or revolver and you ram the ball down on top of the powder. The resulting pressure is astronomical and will dis-assemble your pistol, probably sending parts of it through your head. This would be a good way to get rid of idiots on the range, but the resulting publicity is bad for the sport of target shooting, so we don't encourage it.
Fred

You would be charged, found guilty and punished (painfully) for heresy!

Besides that they wouldn't be proofed for nitro powder.

So, would the same apply to a single shot (ie non revolver) muzzle loading pistol like a duelling pistol ? We fancy a muzzle loader, fired by percussion caps, but still aren't sure about the whole black powder route...

What is the reasoning behind not using a tiny charge of modern smokeless powder?

Please do not use modern smokeless powders in a black powder gun.

We're still confused, oomans.

We can grasp the concept that using the same charge of modern powder in a muzzle loader is dangerous because it is potentially far more energetic, but we didn't suggest that. We were curious as to why one shouldn't use a smaller charge, of equivalent energy to the a black powder load. Let us say, for the sake of argument (plucks figure from thin air), a black powder load with a given weight of ball was 20 grains, why shouldn't one use a 2 grain charge of a modern powder that is 10 times more energetic? Is it because the modern powder would have a different pressure profile and reach its maximum pressure far faster, thus potentially over-stressing the barrel? We're interested in the thermodynamics and physics of the situation, not some wistful longing for a bygone era when black powder was used because it was all there was.

meles meles wrote:We're still confused, oomans.

We're interested in the thermodynamics and physics of the situation,

Why didn't you say that in the first place?

honestly ! just how dim are you badgers?

don't you think in your wildest dreams that this has been researched over the years ?

you can't reinvent the wheel

No, ooman, but maybe we can put a tyre on it, add hub bearings, reduce its rotational moment of inertia, generally make it better and more efficient, fit for purpose in the modern era...

We haven't yet heard a convincing, science based reason for not using a modern smokeless powder in an appropriate quantity. We don't deny there may well be one, and hints have been made in its direction, but the argument hasn't been clearly and irrefutably presented.

just how dim are you badgers

Actually, I'd second Monsieur Blaireau Tommy Brock question.
It is intuitively wrong to use modern fast powder in a black powder designed weapon but why exactly ?

I own a 1873 revolver, designed for the 11mm French ordnance round, a rimmed black powder cartridge. The cylinder has had its chambers ream-out by the French resistance during the WWII to accommodate parachuted modern 45 ACP rounds. It was quite common and I never tried it but also never heard of any accidents. My revolver is great as an "historical" piece but bloody annoying as a "shooter" because now the "correct" 11mm shells expend in the enlarged chambers

just how dim are you badgers

We're very dim: it's what allows us to suck in the light of education*...






*ex ducare - to lead out of darkness