Jump to content
APC Forum

Recommended Posts

Posted

This is just the start of the conversation, but first I'd just like to know.

Posted

I am not. Should be. I have enough BP to  outlast my ball mill media by far :D Actually, switched to brass. And there’s no apostrophe needed in your title.

Posted
27 minutes ago, Richtee said:

And there’s no apostrophe needed in your title.

Well then, just let me step outside, shoot some flintlock, launch a salute, and finish smoking ths 12 hour brisket, whilst my latest concoction spins on the mill, and I cast a few more .490 lead balls!

Damn. You were so close!

  • Haha 1
Posted

Flintlock eh? That’s REALLY old skool. I have shot a couple, but they all used the primer ignition. I’d imagine the FL takes a little getting used to, what with the “FizzzzzzzBOOM"factor.

Posted

I have several muzzleloaders of various grades of antiquity. As a general rule I don't shoot the antiques and stick to shooting the reproductions. My favorite antique has an 1864 dated percussion lock with a very heavy octagon barrel with hexagonal rifling. It is half-stocked with a brass tip, brass trigger guard with an aesthetically pleasing scroll and a brass buttpad with a heavy curve. The stock was broken at one point before I acquired it and is held together with a steel strip with some screws and has a hole in the stock where the rear old-style scope mount used to be positioned.

Posted
4 hours ago, ThrownBiscuit said:

I have several muzzleloaders of various grades of antiquity. As a general rule I don't shoot the antiques and stick to shooting the reproductions. My favorite antique has an 1864 dated percussion lock with a very heavy octagon barrel with hexagonal rifling. It is half-stocked with a brass tip, brass trigger guard with an aesthetically pleasing scroll and a brass buttpad with a heavy curve. The stock was broken at one point before I acquired it and is held together with a steel strip with some screws and has a hole in the stock where the rear old-style scope mount used to be positioned.

As we all know, sulphur is the enemy of the muzzleloader as far as corrosion goes.

Watching a particular yootoober making powder using almost everything imaginable for the fastest cleanest results, I can't but wonder....

A good BP makes a decent break, but not so much in a small aerial shell, whereas H3 does better, but not necessarily by leaps and bounds, but better.

I'm rather curious if a granulated (smaller) amount of H3 might work just as well with a whole lot less fouling?

Posted

One CAN make Sulphurless BP. The nitrate will still have some corrosive byproducts tho. And ignition would be problematic Id think. Of course the modern BPs are much cleaner

Id be leery  of H3- due to the much faster burn rate- increasing chamber pressures, especially in vintage weapons.

Posted

Is there good evidence that chlorates (as in H3) even existed in the era of muzzle loaders? Do you really want to have open BP and open H3 in the same pan?? You certainly do NOT want H3 inside the barrel. First research the way that muzzle loaders were used and charged at the time when they were the only weapon. If you have a historic muzzle loader you have a responsibility to use it correctly within it's limits and proof. IMO H3 didn't exist then so don't use H3 in it or in the pan.

Mixing H3 and BP gives you a disposal problem to be handled very carefully.

Posted

I know Claude Louis Berthollet attempted to conduct experiments with utilizing chlorates in gunpowder. The results were rather tragic with 2 fatalities. To be fair this was still during the mixing phase, and they were working with multi-pound quantities, but the mortar did blow up and launch the pestle a great distance.

Also of interest is that some percussion caps were chlorate based but quite corrosive.

Posted

It's not quite H3, but just to add to the conversation, Pyrodex is offered for muzzleloading firearms.  It's more or less BP with about half of the nitrate replaced with perchlorate, plus some additional trade secret ingredients. It's advertised as being cleaner firing, and I believe has a less restrictive hazard class. From what I've been told the cleaner firing claim may not be entirely accurate, and there are varying opinions on it's performance.  It does still contain sulfur.  

×
×
  • Create New...