As per the administration..........

[Richard]

You will not find me listing any TRIPLEX loads. If I am allowed, I may show a group or groups that I shoot with a Triplex, but will not reveal any details of the bullet or load............If that is OK with the board? I felt I was only exploring new ground at my personal expense but will abide with their decision.
Richard

[pposey]

sounds good to me but heck I've never used dueplex

[Rifleman]

Whats the difference? I mean if duplex is ok to discuss, why not triplex? I agree Richard you are doing the right thing by complying and I agree that admin has the right and responsibility to make the rules as they see fit. However I do think we have the right to disagree and I do. I also just do not understand the logic that it is Ok to discuss duplex, but not triplex, or even alternative propellants like liquid fuel. And I did not pull that liquid fuel thing out of my hat, I promise you that.
Pressure trace equipment is not an end all and for years duplex loads were developed without such equipment by RKI's. With the current duplex trace data, known properties of current powders, basic logical analysis would be sufficient to explore with caution. I believe those that have the ability can and will explore this, as well as there are folks who have no business trying kool aid in a squirt gun. But I suppose I have said my piece and will leave it at that.

[chuck41]

Most of us are more than just a bit laboratory equipment challenged so I can understand the conservative position of the admins. Shucks I can't even seem to come up with a barrel cooler, but I did finally manage to come up with a FAT wrench. Some boards won't even admit that smokeless muzzleloaders exist.

Triplex, quadplex, hexplex, or octaplex just seem to be a bit beyond the pail to me personally, but then again shooting 300yd groups is beyond me too. Come to think of it, a lot of things are beyond me these days.

[ET]

When certain topics like this appear I have to ask myself as to what the underlying issues or ramifications are before expressing an opinion.
After some thought I can see the concern that this board may be looking at.

To start with anyone who has spent some time here and gained experience with smokeless muzzle-loading has discovered there is more to it that meets the eye. Some claim that they have 25-years experience reloading well I have over 30-years and still needed to go through a learning curve. Some feel they can just simply take a mentioned load and feel they should be able to produce the same results. Now when that doesn’t transpire it’s like “What Happened?”

Now if a drastic result should occur who is too blame?
I bet that the 1st blame will fall on a defective barrel.
Then the board will be responsible for allowing such recommended load and yes this is how the shooter will interpret seeing this listed load used.
Then of course the person displaying his load results is too blame.
So what blame belongs to the shooter?

Now to compound with what is happening then there is the shooter who wants max velocity & flatter trajectory with a load. No problem with that if it can be safely achieved. But someone is going to come along and figure he can easily get a little more from a load with just a few more grains of powder. And this could cascade quickly into an unsafe condition. So to help prevent such an occurrence a step for safety needs to be employed IMO.

My personal belief is that Richard has made a fair request if he abides by only showing the results with no load information and just identifies the results as Experimental Triplex. This board is pioneering with smokeless muzzle-loading and at 1-time duplex was a hot topic before it became acceptable as Rifleman pointed out.

Just my thoughts on the subject from a person who basically uses a single powder load.
Also one who would like to see advancements with smokeless muzzle loading.


Ed

[Harley]

I'd never even heard of triplex ML loads until accessing this thread. My first reaction is to wonder if there is any reliable basic ballistic information on triplex loads, including pressure readings.

I personally have no objections at all to Richard's posting the results of his experiments. I do agree that the underlying load data should not (at this time) be revealed.

My guess is triplexing will prove to be no more than a passing curiosity. The Savage ML is already reliable past 300 yards, capable of accurately placing a bullet that is heavier and/or faster than a factory 300 Win Mag. I'm thinking that we're already approaching the upper limits of its practical application, being limited in some cases by the use of sabots and in all cases by the ballistic coefficient of the bullet.

Still, it'll make interesting reading.

Harley

[Jon]

Richard. I enjoy all your posts and would never think about calling foul if I tried it and it didn't work. I thought it was understood these were experiments only. I for one enjoy the learning curve. I also understand the world as we know it is sue crazy so there is both sides. There seems to be a enough disclaimers on this board to cover this.
Jon

[boarhog]

You can't keep people from doing stupid stuff! I am living proof. I stupidly bulged, not one but TWO, barrels. Perhaps it is because I am a slow learner, but it is a fact that no one, not this board, or our government, can protect the determined tyro from himself.

As for Richard posting any load information, single, double, or triple powder combination, it seems obvious that opening the Savage Smokeless section with a standard disclaimer should be enough to cover Richard's, or this board's, backside. Every loading manual, gun magazine, or other source that gives any technical load data has a statement like this in some form.
" Loading data shown here was safe in the author's rifle, but may not be safe in yours. It is strongly advised that, if you wish to try the listed data, that you should reduce the charge by at least 15%, and work up." That is what I have done when using Richard's recently posted load data. I started low and worked up with every duplex I've tried, and have found that my 45 Pac-Nor barrel doesn't like a couple of his max loads.

I realize that I tend to be long winded, but I see no good reason to censor Richard's, or anyone else', load data. I probably would never consider a tripex load, but I am very interested in seeing Richard's results.
Boarhog/Robert

[grouse]

Why not start an advanced smokeless board? Maybe the requirement to access the board his atleast 300 post on the current smokeless forum??

BTW- I do not believe in Duplexing at all. And probably never will. I also think it's better to keep that stuff on a separate board and away from the open forums.

[Rifleman]

What is nice about message boards is that I just typed a great big long post and deleted it before I ............LOL!

[sw]

Oct 6, 2010 19:34:02 GMT -5 grouse said:

BTW- I do not believe in mixing powders at all. And probably never will.

TOM!!! "Mixing powders" is a term not normally used currently on this board. Someone else does us this term for duplexing, but this is incorrect usage. Duplexing is layering one powder on top of another. With SD's being in the single digits for many duplex loads, it is very unlikely that mixing occurs. "Mixing powders" has historically been one of those "begging the question" things. Remember the days when even mentioning "duplexing" was decreed as "mixing" powders and would warrent being removed from another smokeless board? Been there , done that. Both single and duplex powder loads work and both are correct techniques.



Just my opinion. Hope you have a great hunting season.

Steve

[grouse]

Oct 6, 2010 19:59:19 GMT -5 sw said:

Oct 6, 2010 19:34:02 GMT -5 grouse said:

BTW- I do not believe in mixing powders at all. And probably never will.

TOM!!! "Mixing powders" is a term not normally used currently on this board. Someone else does us this term for duplexing, but this is incorrect usage. Duplexing is layering one powder on top of another. With SD's being in the single digits for many duplex loads, it is very unlikely that mixing occurs. "Mixing powders" has historically been one of those "begging the question" things. Remember the days when even mentioning "duplexing" was decreed as "mixing" powders and would warrent being removed from another smokeless board? Been there , done that. Both single and duplex powder loads work and both are correct techniques.



Just my opinion. Hope you have a great hunting season.

Steve

First off, just offered a suggestion. Not looking for a debate. I did edit above the terminology.

[mike3132]

A little update........

The staff is debating this issue and we will have an answer soon.

The real sticky point is no one has any pressure data to show, so you are guessing what is safe and what is not. Do we really want to be guessing? Mike

[ET]

Grouse

I have to politely disagree that segregation is not the answer but regulation of information flow is a better choice IMO. Take away necessary info like load info then no starting point exist other than the concept with results.

My understanding is that in the past Triplex has been tried with the 50 and found ineffective. Now it’s moved into the 45 and who knows what is going to happen here. Also at 1-time there was consideration of splitting the board 50 & 45 with each it’s own segment on the board. That was not accepted then as a necessary move and would probably be resisted again.

For now like you I prefer the single powder load because it provides all I need at the moment. But I also won’t go against possible progress of someone experimenting to see if there is any validity there. If no validity exists then it will fall to the wayside and done.
I am against creating a situation that could influence others to try to move into an unsafe area thinking it’s okay because someone else tried it and didn’t show any immediate ill effects.

Mike3132

No we don’t want to see any guessing here and have it on our conscience if someone gets hurt. That should be the 1st priority IMO.
Now the next question, is there room for experimenting results without jeopardizing safety?
Look forward to what the Mods & Admins decide for their course of action.

Ed

[lwh723]

Personally, I really can't see much real world use for triplexing.

What's to be gained from it?

More accuracy? I doubt it. Afterall, this is a MZ. Lots of other big hitters in accuracy department (like bullet base radius ).

More speed? Does anyone really need anymore than what can be achieved currently?

More power to you (in a nice way, not meaning to be snarky) if you want to experiment Richard, but I really don't see a useful point in it other than just doing it to do something new.

[Harley]

Regarding the use of "disclaimers":

No disclaimer, no matter how well or completely it's written, will protect the author from a lawsuit. Whether or not that lawsuit is successful (and it may well be) it will cost the author time, money and aggravation to defend.

Harley

[Dave W]

Oct 6, 2010 21:14:17 GMT -5 lwh723 said:

Personally, I really can't see much real world use for triplexing.

What's to be gained from it?

More accuracy? I doubt it. Afterall, this is a MZ. Lots of other big hitters in accuracy department (like bullet base radius ).

More speed? Does anyone really need anymore than what can be achieved currently?

More power to you (in a nice way, not meaning to be snarky) if you want to experiment Richard, but I really don't see a useful point in it other than just doing it to do something new.

Pretty much my thoughts as well.
Weighing two powders is time consuming and a PITA, three- I'll pass.

[sw]

Oct 6, 2010 20:13:38 GMT -5 grouse said:

First off, just offered a suggestion. Not looking for a debate. I did edit above the terminology.

Tom,
I'd never have posted anything except the "mixing powders" phrase is a lightning rod to me. Remember those days?! I do appreciate the edit'd post.
Steve

[10ga]

I can hardly buy one can of powder at a time, much less 3. If I can buy 2 cans its one of 4759 and one of Goex FFF. You guys must be RICH! HA HA, 10 ga

[lundy]

Oct 6, 2010 19:34:02 GMT -5 grouse said:

Why not start an advanced smokeless board? Maybe the requirement to access the board his atleast 300 post on the current smokeless forum??

I don't think you should isolate knowledge from those that need it the most, the new members and shooters.

The number one way to ensure safety is through knowledge. The more that is shared here the better, including information on triplexing or whatever.

Just because something is discussed here it does not mean that many will immediately rush out to duplicate the process. I have learned a lot about appropriate powders, pressures, by reading about the various duplexes but I will probably never shoot a duplex, I am a single powder guy. I will never, ever, ever shoot a triplex, I'm not against it, I just have no need.

I assume that the triplexing position is a site liability concern and overall safety. In todays world do you really think that a lawyer would be less inclined to pursue a duplex suit over a triplex.

Please don't hide information or knowledge that benefits all shooters behind locked doors or make it be discussed in dark back alleyways.

Thanks,
Kim

[grouse]

Oct 6, 2010 21:42:01 GMT -5 sw said:

Oct 6, 2010 20:13:38 GMT -5 grouse said:

First off, just offered a suggestion. Not looking for a debate. I did edit above the terminology.

Tom,
I'd never have posted anything except the "mixing powders" phrase is a lightning rod to me. Remember those days?! I do appreciate the edit'd post.
Steve

I remember very well.

[Richard]

Boy, did I ever open up a "can of worms?" It was done harmlessly and with no intent of such an elaborate discussion? If noted, I started very low in powder amounts (60 gr. total vs. some 75 gr. totals I had shot in duplex loads). My intention was not to necessarily increase velocity, as I know I am about maxed out! Actually some of my last loads were, in fact, reduced. I am more interested in keeping to the 2900 to 3000 fps range even with my new 26" barrel. And, I had hit 3100 with the 23" barrel!
I found this load to be very mild, no big report and no harsh recoil. Even my friend Bill noticed is was no big boomer. Obviously, my first group was very impressive to me. Had I not run out of smooth sabots there might have been more good results. And to boot!, I even purposely mixed all three vials of powder together (and yes, throughly mixing them) and fired the load with no abnormal effects. So, my intent is that possibly this "progressive" burning of three different powders could produce better accuracy along with increased velocity at a lower pressure? Heck, if Edison had not flown that key on his kite in a thunder storm, we would all be still using oil lamps and quill pens instead of electricity and computers
Richard

[rangeball]

Ben Franklin just rolled over in his grave

[rbinar]

Oct 7, 2010 12:14:59 GMT -5 Richard said:

Boy, did I ever open up a "can of worms?

LOL I think I can tell you what it's like having excessive worms on your hands. However if I'm still capable of holding the can or not is up to debate.

Should I speak, directly of (meaning to) you about the subject? This board does not lend itself to my opinions because they likely will cause a stir as yours' have. I don't really like that, because despite what some say I never thought of myself as an authority. So me having an opinion on what you do seems to me to be, well, none of my business. But others are concerned so here's some friendly questions. That is the path I plan to stick to, very friendly, for you may know way more than I do on the subject and then I would turn out like a fool trying to direct your actions.

1 What goal do you have in mind? I mean by that: is there a problem you wish to solve, a speed you wish to reach, or a pressure you wish to establish as a goal?

2 Would this goal be reachable with another load, and does that load have an advantage? I think you mentioned 3000fps with a 200 grain bullet? Though that speed was never an objective, it can be reached in 45 caliber with a single, let alone duplex load.

3 Is triplex completely a personal experiment? By that I mean even if no shooting goal is had you'd do it out of curiosity?

Shooting triplex loads may be possible in theory but are you willing to express the idea in practicality? More bluntly: are you willing to develop the load then decide if it has a practical application? I say this because there is obviously no problem, shooter concern, or system demand calling for triplex loads to fix.

The first goal is to be safe. I don't know if that can be done or not at this point but I'm willing to let you decide considering you're taking all the risk. However giving a load for public use is different, how so? When duplex was started loads were not released till many shooters had tried them in many rifles. Just because a load was safe in one rifle meant nothing. It was not considered worth sharing till literally 100s of shots were fired in dozens of rifles. Without the help and work of several board members none of the loads would have seen the light of day. There was a system of checks and balances, would you establish such a system?

Other considerations were made. I posted here where many times loads were maneuvered in every manner (other than a purposeful overload) to try to make them unsafe. If that could be done the load would be rejected. Notably no load failed this because of the load nature but it still had to be attempted.

All through the development of duplex some idea of the pressure was known. That was because duplex was purposed as a fix to a problem. The problem was the unavailability of powders that would shoot a seriously light weight bullet in a sabot at moderate speed. So most all powders were too LOW a pressure at the best load levels. The reason for mentioning this, is to ask if there is some theoretical idea that would tell you about where the pressure would be in the base loads, or is this a matter of intuitiveness?

See this board has always had the backing of those who would conceive new ideas. You should not be condemned for a new idea, nor should an idea be dismissed. But the opposite is just true. Any observers should be skeptical. You should be willing to test results in a well established fashion. All results should be considered in a practical manner before a performance manner. Any problems with repeatability should be considered a stop sign!

These are a few questions and observations: anyone who thinks I've made a judgment is simply jumping to a conclusion. However I would say there are questions needing answers and to avoid the question only works in politics, not in shooting.

[edge]

A very well thought out and reasoned post RB.

edge.

[Jon]

And you think your words of wisdom are not need? I think you just proved your self wrong. I enjoy hearing about any thing some one is trying safely. I feel secure in the fact that Richard is. If he does not have a strain test gage I would bet He has availabily of one. If not I will be getting one soon and if he is interested I could ship it to him for testing purposes and thus settle some of the questions.
Jon

[Richard]

I'm sure Ben will forgive me ;D

Jon.....No I do not have a any pressure testing equipment and don't intend to buy it. I don't know where Tar can get an Oehler 43P for $800?

RB:
#1, Well, maybe? As I had indicated, possibly increased speed with less pressure and recoil along with good accuracy and maybe low ES's? Can I get this with my present loads? Maybe, maybe not? I know triplexing has been done before in other disciplines and by the Aussie's. I have played with a number of wildcats in the past and enjoy experimenting? You will note, I did not just jump into this head first. I have shot 10/60 N-110/N-120 and gotten good velocity and accuracy. (total 70 gr.) And these are the two fastest powders in the triplex. So a 60 gr. load with more slow powder, stands to reason, has to be much milder?
#2 Is a maybe? How will I know unless I experiment?
#3 You hit the nail on the head! Yes, personal, I just wanted to see what it would do? And from my limited testing, I like what I am seeing.
I think I am being safe in the way I am approaching this? As far as "giving" the load to the public??? I am not giving, I am simply reporting what I have found. I never said this is a load everyone must try? Here it is, this is what I found. Nothing more, nothing less! I also tested it via mixing up the powders to eliminate any fear that it is UN-SAFE. The board has seen fit to list all the single and duplex loads I have played with, that have far exceeded this triplex load. I am NOT arguing with the moderators and administrators. I have no fight here? They said "NO" I said "OK"
I would say "intuitiveness" describes it!
RB .........I appreciate your comments and as I said, I will abide by what the board wants. Meanwhile I will do more testing.
Jon........anytime you want to send that "pressure cooker" down here to NC, you have my address
Richard

[trooper1]

This can also work the other way. If this does not work people should know it before they try it themselves. I am not into duplex triplex or anything else. Hell my wife keeps me busy enough with her moves :+]. Everything that you read should not be taken as something that you should do. But the more information that you have determines the knowledge that you have. It is up to each of us to sort out reliable information from garbage. Looking forward to seeing your results and Ben Franklin is also.

[tar12]

Richard I dont know where you came up with $800 for a Oehler 43P. The $800 stems from the Pressure trace equipment thread.That was the price for a pressure trace equipment package.

[rossman40]

The main concern is board liability, we have seen it before with the Lil'gun craze back in 2001. Since then a lot has been done and I would like to think we are more sensible nowadays. The last thing I want to see is someone injured or their rifle destroyed from data here on the board. We want safe loads posted but then there will be brain cramps. We have already seen guys see a load using 4759 and then try it with 4756 (it was only 3 numbers off!!!). It is hard to see high pressure signs with the 10ML and we have learned that the sabot acting as a safety valve isn't something you can take to the bank. We are just asking before load data is published some kind of safety data to back it up.

With single powder loads there are programs to help guesstimate the chamber pressures. When you start playing with duplexs the playing field changes. But since the "booster" is a small amount we guesstimate not a substantial change. Then when you throw in another powder again variables. If your playing with a high percentage nitro double base powder you could be playing with fire. Smokeless powder thrives on pressure and as you change the pressure the burn rate changes adding fuel to the fire. Then what may be safe in your slick bore rifle may not be safe in one with a rough bore.

It often reminds me of mortars in Vietnam. The gooks knew the max range of the mortar so would assemble just outside of range. The American GI, being the resourceful type, found that adding a C-rat can of mogas (gasoline) down the tube before hanging the round was good for at least 300 meters.