gunlaker wrote on Jul 10
th, 2015 at 5:46pm:
I only use smokeless in my Shiloh Sharps rifles, and am aware of what Shiloh's recommendations are. But to add fuel to the fire, Kirk has said on multiple occasions that the Shiloh Sharps is as strong as a Ruger #1, so I don't think that the barrel, or action, are limited to black powder pressures. I know they advise against smokeless in the larger cases.
Back in the mid 1980's, Wolfgange showed me a barreled action they had blown up on purpose with smokless powder. If I remember right it was a 45-120. I forget what the charge was, but it was pretty hefty. The barrel was clamped in a vice in front of the action and toutched off. The barrel burst just past the jaws of the vice. The action "held" but the receiver ring was severely bulged. Someone shooting that rifle from the shoulder would have kept his forhead intack, but probably lost his hand.
Yes Chris, the strength is there with the Shiloh. No question about that. The problem lies with the LONG cases and SHORT powder charges. Simply put, you are just asking for trouble. That's why I said if you must insist on smokless, use a short case. That way the powder charge comes closer to filling the case. It isn't just the possibility of double charges either. The longer the space between the powder and the base of the bullet, the more the bullet acts more like an obstruction than a projectile.
I have never understood why someone would spend $3000 for a black powder rifle and then insist on shooting smokless powder in it. It is kind of like filling up your deisel truck with gasoline.
George