Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3  Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Front stuffers and substitute propellant (Read 7515 times)
svartkruttgris#369
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline



Posts: 2980
Location: Colorado, Norway, Sweden
Joined: Oct 28th, 2014
Re: Front stuffers and substitute propellant
Reply #15 - Sep 11th, 2018 at 3:29pm
Print Post  
KFW wrote on Sep 11th, 2018 at 2:20pm:
I would consider the Quigley match a creditable shoot, a review of the top shooters powder choice would confirm my view. Also the match results as posted in Black Powder Cartridge news will confirm very few serious shooters are using a sub.
kw


OK, both of those sources are outside my field-of-view. 

Question: When use of sub is reported, which ones are they using?  Also, given how "conservative" most shooters of "real BP" are and how widespread dislike of "subs" is with them, how surprizing should it be that few are using any "sub", other than regular nitro powders, in those two venues??

Actually, given how well Swiss BP has always performed for me, I would most likely just take the easy way and use Swiss or a well proven "nitro for black" powder. Might use 777ffg, because it too has always performed well in same applications where I used Swiss. Might be very tempted to try Blackhorn 209. All would be cartridge rifles.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Cbashooter
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline



Posts: 1631
Location: Eastern Wa.
Joined: Mar 31st, 2018
Re: Front stuffers and substitute propellant
Reply #16 - Sep 12th, 2018 at 12:11am
Print Post  
When I was shooting my Parker Hale Enfield Triple 7 actually gave me the best groups compared to even to Swiss. I'm currently shooting Alliant Black MZ in a pair 40 caliber cap locks and find it shoots every bit as well and I get far more shots before cleaning then with the goex fff I have 40# of in my shop.
Don't get me wrong if push came to shove I would choose traditional black powder over the substitutes but typically there's nothing wrong with them and most of the people that bad mouth them have never tried it.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Schuetzenmiester
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline



Posts: 6707
Location: Cool Wet Side of WA
Joined: Apr 27th, 2008
Re: Front stuffers and substitute propellant
Reply #17 - Sep 12th, 2018 at 2:55am
Print Post  
The reason I would never try them is they do not work in flintlocks and they were never allowed in the BPCR matches I shot. Closest I ever got was using a maximum of 15% smokeless in a duplex load.
  

"some old things are lovely, warm still with life ... of the forgotten men who made them." - D.H. Lawrence
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
svartkruttgris#369
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline



Posts: 2980
Location: Colorado, Norway, Sweden
Joined: Oct 28th, 2014
Re: Front stuffers and substitute propellant
Reply #18 - Sep 12th, 2018 at 10:05am
Print Post  
Schuetzenmiester wrote on Sep 12th, 2018 at 2:55am:
The reason I would never try them is they do not work in flintlocks and they were never allowed in the BPCR matches I shot. Closest I ever got was using a maximum of 15% smokeless in a duplex load.


By duplexing you are effectively duplicating, maybe even exceeding, one of the advantages of 777 and other, more recently marketed BP subs, that is, much less powder fouling.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
marlinguy
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline


Ballards may be weaker,
but they sure are neater!

Posts: 18049
Location: Oregon
Joined: Feb 2nd, 2009
Re: Front stuffers and substitute propellant
Reply #19 - Sep 12th, 2018 at 11:30am
Print Post  
I don't think it's fair to call those who thought Pyrodex was cleaner burning and didn't require immediate attention, "lazy". Considering the makers of Pyrodex touted it's clean burning attributes in their own advertisements, it's only normal for users to accept the maker's statements. I seriously doubt most users of Pyrodex were not immediately cleaning their guns because they were "lazy". They didn't immediately clean their guns because Pyrodex indicated they didn't need to. Nobody would chance damaging even an inexpensive gun if they knew that Pyrodex wasn't as clean as the maker touted.
And Pyrodex was even worse on brass for those who used it in their BPCR rifle loads. It attacked the brass so fast that unless you dropped the brass straight into a milk jug of solution, it could already be damaged by corrosion by the time you got home hours later.
  

(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
svartkruttgris#369
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline



Posts: 2980
Location: Colorado, Norway, Sweden
Joined: Oct 28th, 2014
Re: Front stuffers and substitute propellant
Reply #20 - Sep 12th, 2018 at 6:44pm
Print Post  
marlinguy wrote on Sep 12th, 2018 at 11:30am:
I don't think it's fair to call those who thought Pyrodex was cleaner burning and didn't require immediate attention, "lazy". Considering the makers of Pyrodex touted it's clean burning attributes in their own advertisements, it's only normal for users to accept the maker's statements. I seriously doubt most users of Pyrodex were not immediately cleaning their guns because they were "lazy". They didn't immediately clean their guns because Pyrodex indicated they didn't need to. Nobody would chance damaging even an inexpensive gun if they knew that Pyrodex wasn't as clean as the maker touted.
And Pyrodex was even worse on brass for those who used it in their BPCR rifle loads. It attacked the brass so fast that unless you dropped the brass straight into a milk jug of solution, it could already be damaged by corrosion by the time you got home hours later.


What you post above was not my experience with Pyrodex at all. There were widely reported variations in corrosivity, thanks to maker having to use commercial grade components to make any proffet. None of users I shot with ever quit cleaning their guns when they tried Pyrodex. NONE of my modern made muzzle loaders or cartridge guns suffered any degree of corrosion from same cleaning of guns and brass as used with Dupont and Goex. We took even more care in cleaning after using crappy, really corroisive Dupont and later Goex. Touting maker's advertising sounds like just another excuse to me -- blame maker for one's own laziness. In any case, I never saw any such claims from maker. All sounds like another bunch of "Anything other than "real" BP is BAD" Nonsense!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Schuetzenmiester
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline



Posts: 6707
Location: Cool Wet Side of WA
Joined: Apr 27th, 2008
Re: Front stuffers and substitute propellant
Reply #21 - Sep 13th, 2018 at 1:24am
Print Post  
svartkruttgris#369 wrote on Sep 12th, 2018 at 10:05am:
Schuetzenmiester wrote on Sep 12th, 2018 at 2:55am:
The reason I would never try them is they do not work in flintlocks and they were never allowed in the BPCR matches I shot. Closest I ever got was using a maximum of 15% smokeless in a duplex load.


By duplexing you are effectively duplicating, maybe even exceeding, one of the advantages of 777 and other, more recently marketed BP subs, that is, much less powder fouling.


Duplexing was invented a century before 777.  Maybe it is trying to duplicate duplex?  Shocked 

Duplex can be fine tuned where premix is stuck in one spot.
  

"some old things are lovely, warm still with life ... of the forgotten men who made them." - D.H. Lawrence
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
svartkruttgris#369
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline



Posts: 2980
Location: Colorado, Norway, Sweden
Joined: Oct 28th, 2014
Re: Front stuffers and substitute propellant
Reply #22 - Sep 13th, 2018 at 10:17am
Print Post  
Sure, "pre-mix" is "stuck", which is just great for most of us that simply want reliable, better than required, performance from year-to-year. 

However, messages I got for years and years is that duplexing is dangerous and therefore denied for many major matches, eg., All SASS matches, ditto for BPCR, and how many others? Sure, I could have used duplexing for hunting, should performance with Swiss, Pyrodex and 777 not been more than adequate.

There used to be all sorts of BS floating around about 777 being a loose copy of "duplexing". Sounded much like all the BS about how corrosive Pyrodex is.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
marlinguy
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline


Ballards may be weaker,
but they sure are neater!

Posts: 18049
Location: Oregon
Joined: Feb 2nd, 2009
Re: Front stuffers and substitute propellant
Reply #23 - Sep 13th, 2018 at 10:34am
Print Post  
svartkruttgris#369 wrote on Sep 12th, 2018 at 6:44pm:


What you post above was not my experience with Pyrodex at all. There were widely reported variations in corrosivity, thanks to maker having to use commercial grade components to make any proffet. None of users I shot with ever quit cleaning their guns when they tried Pyrodex. NONE of my modern made muzzle loaders or cartridge guns suffered any degree of corrosion from same cleaning of guns and brass as used with Dupont and Goex. We took even more care in cleaning after using crappy, really corroisive Dupont and later Goex. Touting maker's advertising sounds like just another excuse to me -- blame maker for one's own laziness. In any case, I never saw any such claims from maker. All sounds like another bunch of "Anything other than "real" BP is BAD" Nonsense!


I never said the users "quit cleaning" their guns. They simply didn't clean the same as they had with BP, or as quickly as they had with BP. And that was based on Pyrodex's statement that their powder was much cleaner than BP. 
You already stated you never changed your cleaning methods when you shot Pyrodex, so of course you didn't experience the same thing as those who believed Pyrodex's advertising. 
I really don't understand why you continue to call it "laziness" because shooters believed the maker? If someone told you smokeless powder was cleaner would you still clean your guns and brass as you do with BP or Pyrodex? Are you lazy if you don't? 
  

(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
svartkruttgris#369
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline



Posts: 2980
Location: Colorado, Norway, Sweden
Joined: Oct 28th, 2014
Re: Front stuffers and substitute propellant
Reply #24 - Sep 13th, 2018 at 2:54pm
Print Post  
Hi Marlinguy!

The answer to your question " If someone told you smokeless powder was cleaner would you still clean your guns and brass as you do with BP or Pyrodex? Is  "Nonsense question"!  

Question: Did not those wayward new user's of Pyrodex read the Materials Data sheet for Pyrodex?? 

Would you use a new propellant, not clearly classed as either normal nitro composition or normal BP composition in one of you treasured guns just cause someone, especially maker's propaganda, said "Not to worry! will not explode, not corrosive, etc., etc."
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Schuetzenmiester
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline



Posts: 6707
Location: Cool Wet Side of WA
Joined: Apr 27th, 2008
Re: Front stuffers and substitute propellant
Reply #25 - Sep 13th, 2018 at 3:15pm
Print Post  
svartkruttgris#369 wrote on Sep 13th, 2018 at 10:17am:
Sure, "pre-mix" is "stuck", which is just great for most of us that simply want reliable, better than required, performance from year-to-year. 

However, messages I got for years and years is that duplexing is dangerous and therefore denied for many major matches, eg., All SASS matches, ditto for BPCR, and how many others? Sure, I could have used duplexing for hunting, should performance with Swiss, Pyrodex and 777 not been more than adequate.

There used to be all sorts of BS floating around about 777 being a loose copy of "duplexing". Sounded much like all the BS about how corrosive Pyrodex is.

Duplexing is not more dangerous than any of the other numerous reloading errors.  Following proper procedures the LR shooters here in PNw shot millions of rounds in the long range matches before most of the rest of the country discovered BPCR.  Simply keep your smokeless less than 25% of of the BP by weight and you will be fine.   Most use just enough to clear the fouling.  Much more efficient and quicker than blow tubing or wiping after every shot. 

If I have trouble  getting a BPCR to shoot well, I make up a few duplex loads to see if the gun will shoot.  If the accuracy is acceptable, I continue working with the straight BP.  If it is not, it is time to address the issues with the rifle or get rid of it. 

The real issue here is short cuts to "traditional."  If one needs a short cut, how can it still be  considered "traditional?"
  

"some old things are lovely, warm still with life ... of the forgotten men who made them." - D.H. Lawrence
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
marlinguy
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline


Ballards may be weaker,
but they sure are neater!

Posts: 18049
Location: Oregon
Joined: Feb 2nd, 2009
Re: Front stuffers and substitute propellant
Reply #26 - Sep 13th, 2018 at 5:50pm
Print Post  
svartkruttgris#369 wrote on Sep 13th, 2018 at 2:54pm:
Hi Marlinguy!

The answer to your question " If someone told you smokeless powder was cleaner would you still clean your guns and brass as you do with BP or Pyrodex? Is  "Nonsense question"!  

Question: Did not those wayward new user's of Pyrodex read the Materials Data sheet for Pyrodex?? 

Would you use a new propellant, not clearly classed as either normal nitro composition or normal BP composition in one of you treasured guns just cause someone, especially maker's propaganda, said "Not to worry! will not explode, not corrosive, etc., etc."


It's only nonsense because it doesn't fit your idea of people being "lazy". And who gets an MSD when they buy gun powder? I sure haven't ever even been offered an MSD with gun powder, let alone have one given with it. That's silliness, or nonsense as you call it.
I wont even use real BP in my old guns, so I don't need to be concerned with the replicants. But I did indeed use some pyrodex in a couple BP revolver kits I assembled decades ago, and to answer the question, I did have corrosion issues, even though the info on the containers indicated it was "clean burning". And I did lose brass cases trying it in my 1881 Marlin many years ago. I also found it less than clean burning when the gun's action became sluggish after the 7th or 8th shot fired. So seeing it was not playing well with my lever action repeater, I took it home and cleaned it just like I would have if it had been BP. Had it not gotten jammed up with the Pyrodex, I might have waited a day to clean it.
But using anything not tried and tested in one of my prized guns is hardly a good example, as what I'd do with a replica Colt 44 revolver, and what I'd do with an original fine single shot are hardly the same. That's just more silly examples.
  

(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
svartkruttgris#369
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline



Posts: 2980
Location: Colorado, Norway, Sweden
Joined: Oct 28th, 2014
Re: Front stuffers and substitute propellant
Reply #27 - Sep 13th, 2018 at 6:21pm
Print Post  
Schuetzenmiester,

For those of you than can and do load duplex loads perhaps do not know of all the "horror" stories that went around, and probably still do, in some shooting venues. I never had inclination to do duplex loads for any reason cause loads with strait Swiss or 777 were more than adequate.

I quit getting all tangled up in what i "traditional" and what is not long ago. NO target shooting game interest me enough to really care. Whatever the constraints are for a given target shooting game have never been a serious issue for me.

Sorta the same for hunting. Muzzle loading deer seasons were an easy pick when I started: just buy a TC rifle, verify a good load and go hunting. Easy transition. Ditto for BPCR but with a much higher price tag, ditto for SASS. I no longer do any organized target shooting because too many essential body parts have gotten too degraded for firing many 10s of shots per day.
« Last Edit: Sep 13th, 2018 at 6:30pm by svartkruttgris#369 »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
svartkruttgris#369
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline



Posts: 2980
Location: Colorado, Norway, Sweden
Joined: Oct 28th, 2014
Re: Front stuffers and substitute propellant
Reply #28 - Sep 13th, 2018 at 6:40pm
Print Post  
marlinguy wrote on Sep 13th, 2018 at 5:50pm:
And who gets an MSD when they buy gun powder? I sure haven't ever even been offered an MSD with gun powder, let alone have one given with it. That's silliness, or nonsense as you call it..


Well, for starters, I got a MSD for Pyrodex shortly after buying my 1st can simply cause I wanted to know more about what I was getting into. But then, I had information that you probably never did. Pyrodex was hardly "just another gunpowder" and only of interest to BP shooters. I will leave it at that.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Gunfunpow
Full Member
***
Offline



Posts: 239
Joined: Jun 20th, 2018
Re: Front stuffers and substitute propellant
Reply #29 - Sep 20th, 2018 at 2:31pm
Print Post  
Wow! Msd's for black powder? Really? Your intelligence should warn you not to eat it, smoke it, or use it for anything other than what it was designed for. I wonder about the old timers on high looking over our shoulders at these remarks, rolling around, laughing their butts off! Like marlinguy, I had the same negative experience with pyrodex and a 51 navy colt (2nd gen). I just use swiss for rifles and trip7 for revolvers. Doesn't mean I'm not open to new advances in propellants or anything else, like cell phones, etc.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 
Send TopicPrint