|
|
Post by dougedwards on Mar 12, 2009 13:08:31 GMT -5
Tom Post of Swinglock is working on a powder chamber for his new muzzleloaders. I have also read that some of the more experienced and knowledgeable members of this forum speak of the possible need of a powder chamber in smaller caliber muzzleloaders. I am not sure how a powder chamber would work in a muzzleloader. Since it's depth would have to be determined and unchangeable, how could you make it work for varying loads? Would not the bullet possibly seat into the chamber on very light loads where the capacity of powder would not take up the entire chamber? Just thought that some would have a better handle on this idea than I do.
Doug
|
|
|
|
Post by edge on Mar 12, 2009 13:29:42 GMT -5
The bullet could not be allowed to enter the chamber!
You would need to know the minimum amount of each powder to ensure 100% filling of the chamber.
OR
you would need to ensure that your ramrod would not allow the powder to enter a not full chamber. If you would not fill the chamber, then certain powders could not be used.
Obviously if you have a bottleneck chamber then you would need to pick powders that are compatible as your pressures will be very different from those with a straight chamber.
edge.
|
|
|
|
Post by rangeball on Mar 12, 2009 13:31:21 GMT -5
Seems like a better bet would be to just use a longer barrel with smaller calibers?
|
|
|
|
Post by dougedwards on Mar 12, 2009 14:56:08 GMT -5
The bullet could not be allowed to enter the chamber! You would need to know the minimum amount of each powder to ensure 100% filling of the chamber. OR you would need to ensure that your ramrod would not allow the powder to enter a not full chamber. If you would not fill the chamber, then certain powders could not be used. Obviously if you have a bottleneck chamber then you would need to pick powders that are compatible as your pressures will be very different from those with a straight chamber. edge. That all makes good sense. I am just wondering what the purpose of the chamber would be. In a centerfire, it is obvious that there must be a chamber to house the shell but in a muzzie there is no shell, only powder. Doug |
|
|
|
Post by edge on Mar 12, 2009 15:01:05 GMT -5
I would imagine that a short fat powder column is more efficient than a long skinny one.
Also your barrel taper could be modified to carry less weight or fluting could be a little longer. Not big savings, but some.
edge.
|
|
|
|
Post by fletch on Mar 12, 2009 15:58:47 GMT -5
First things first. I don't want to be put in the group of more Experienced and Knowledgeable shooters here. I do however like to try to find better ways to improve any thing I do and tend to question established procedures.
That said as far as I know adding a powder chamber is uncharted territory and could be very dangerous. In a cartridge case you can vary the amount of powder and leave a space below the bullet. This is very dangerous to do in a muzzle loader. I am guessing but the tight seal of the bullet on the case neck allows the powder to ignite up to a point at which it is a smooth pressure. In a muzzle loader you can get harmonics and a bounce of the pressure up and down if you leave a space. (with bulged barrels as a result) (not sure if I am explaining this correctly as I am trying to remember what was told to me.) When I posted a while ago about this my idea was to find a way to change how far the breach plug extended into the powder chamber so you could safely vary the amount of powder used and types.
|
|
|
|
Post by Richard on Mar 12, 2009 16:19:18 GMT -5
fletch........You got it right. There would be a lot of problems with that system. You would pretty much limit yourself to a very few charges that would allow seating the bullet to rest on the powder and still be engraved in the rifling. I suppose some filler could be used to allow for a lesser charge but in reality, this would (In my opinion) be something strictly for a very experienced accuracy freak who is also a machinist. Unless someone like Bad Bull or SMI or whoever, did the R&D and then sold it to you with very specific instructions, it would be beyond the average hunter/shooter. Don't get me wrong, the theory is good! But practical  Richard |
|
|
|
Post by tasaman on Mar 12, 2009 20:43:42 GMT -5
I like the ideas in this post. I have been thinking of them for some time now. Think about it, why is there so many different .30 cal and .300 rounds in so many different shapes and sizes? The way I understand it is because powder burns differently depending on the shape and volume inside the case/chamber. Yes you would be limited to what you can do with each individual rifle but isn't that the same as a centerfire rifle case? When you find a powder and bullet combo that your rifle likes your set.
One of the ideas that I had was to make the breech plug slightly smaller than the bullet being used so there would be absolutely no way for the bullet to enter the chamber. Now this does present a few other problems but would make the rifle safer.
Hope that some of the better minds on here can hammer out some of the ideas into a tangible piece. I think the idea has lots of merits. In experienced hands and a fine tuned load there could be a new standard for MLs.
Ed
|
|
lc
Forkhorn
Posts: 72
|
Post by lc on Mar 13, 2009 2:34:37 GMT -5
Tasaman This statement doesn't compute to me? "One of the ideas that I had was to make the breech plug slightly smaller than the bullet being used so there would be absolutely no way for the bullet to enter the chamber"
1 difficult to thread a small breech plug in a bore that's larger.
2 It wouldn't really be a chamber if it's smaller than the bore.
I must be confused!
|
|
|
|
Post by youp50 on Mar 13, 2009 2:56:16 GMT -5
I would thread the powder chamber into the barrel, similar to the Breech plug. The throat of the breech plug would be smaller than the bore and tapered to match a boat tail bullet base. Like a center fire, more accurate loads would fill the powder chamber. I would expect weird erosions in this 'throat' and perhaps the area of the barrel directly in front of the PC.
I think that I do not understand why this small bore ML is desirable.
|
|
|
|
Post by rbinar on Mar 13, 2009 4:00:23 GMT -5
8-)If the chamber is limited to a small volume I think many of the problems mentioned here are negated.
A chamber that holds about 45 grains of powder seems reasonable. Almost no one would want to shoot less than 55 to 60 grains of powder so this leaves a margin for smaller and larger granules and still not worry about the bullet entering.
The fact some powder would be in the barrel is no concern the chamber serves to shorten powder length but it can't be eliminated.
As far as pressure concerns go the pressure would be about the same as a minor necked case. There are many cases that could act as load guides in such instances. As long as pressure restraints are held the worry about erosion is also minor. Barrel erosion is a matter of pressure (and friction) so as long as one doesn't get carried away a long lasting barrel is expected.
There is no reassurance it would work. There is implied evidence because 45 and 40 caliber success. However I must report at this time I'm less impressed with what I've shot in 35 caliber. Maybe a few adjustments will help future trials.
|
|
|
|
Post by dougedwards on Mar 13, 2009 5:52:24 GMT -5
I think that I do not understand why this small bore ML is desirable. Why would anyone want to climb Mt. Everest?? If there is a mountain to climb or river to cross or moon to reach and walk on.......man is going to try it. Actually the muzzleloader has been around much longer than the centerfire and now we seem to working backwards to reach the level of performance achievable by centerfire rifles using their bullets. The smaller bore might be desireable because of lighter recoil, more availability of higher BC bullets to shoot, flatter shooting and they can also be used as a varmit gun since much lighter bullets can be used. The limits are going to get pushed with the smokeless muzzleloader but we must be careful. I won't push them but I will follow those that do and ask questions all along the way. Tom Post is reporting shooting 75 grain bullets to 4100 fps and getting .375 center to center accuracy at 100 yards with his 25 caliber test barrel. My intuition tells me that these fast shooting, smaller calibers must be producing some pretty hefty pressures. The barrel has a 1/10 twist and is set up to shoot 117 grain bullets and I think that a muzzleloader that is set up to shoot groundhogs or antelope would be cool. I just sit back while others do the research and development and in the end all I do is pay ;D ;D |
|
|
|
Post by youp50 on Mar 13, 2009 6:39:05 GMT -5
Those are very impressive figures. Compared to a 257 Weatherby a 117 gr about 3300 fps. I have pushed a 117 grain down range at around 3100 fps from a 25-06. To exceed that by 1000 fps is awe inspiring indeed. I trust your intuition as to the pressures. For some reason I do not believe that there are any SAAMI limits on a ML.
Still if I want a fast 25 I go to the rack and pick it up...
|
|
|
|
Post by dougedwards on Mar 13, 2009 6:48:07 GMT -5
Those are very impressive figures. Compared to a 257 Weatherby a 117 gr about 3300 fps. I have pushed a 117 grain down range at around 3100 fps from a 25-06. To exceed that by 1000 fps is awe inspiring indeed. I trust your intuition as to the pressures. For some reason I do not believe that there are any SAAMI limits on a ML. Still if I want a fast 25 I go to the rack and pick it up... Actually I don't believe that there is any SAAMI regulation on muzzleloaders but there should be IMO. Please read that those speeds were reached with a 75 grain bullet not 117 grain shot during testing. Even though very impressive, after testing it might be recommended that pressures are too high for safe shooting. This is all speculation on my part. I only mention the stats to show that the limits of muzzleloaders will be tested and hopefully by those who have the right equiptment and experience. In the end it is critical that we have a safe rifle that we can have 100% confidence in. Doug |
|
|
|
Post by hankinindiana on Mar 13, 2009 7:12:23 GMT -5
I can't imagine it made commercially. Imagine the liabilities. Someone short loads it. Then shoves a bullet into the chamber where it gets sideways. If the shooter lives he would have a bunch of lawyers on his doorstep.
|
|
|
|
Post by edge on Mar 13, 2009 7:21:43 GMT -5
Muzzleloaders use Sammy specifications ;D
edge.
|
|
|
|
Post by screwbolts on Mar 13, 2009 8:07:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by fletch on Mar 13, 2009 10:15:07 GMT -5
I would go with the no fillers camp also. I know people that do in black powder cartages but it is dangerous and that is why i did not mention it as an alternative, and they shoot straight walled cases. If you have ever shot a maxim smokeless load over a chrono and not got the bullet all the way down on the powder you will find quickly how much the speed goes up dangerously with very little space. this is why you should have a witness mark on your rod and pay attention to it.
The more I think about it, I am starting to feel if you want to shoot this way, you should stick with a cartage gun.
|
|
|
|
Post by tasaman on Mar 13, 2009 14:34:43 GMT -5
In regards to hankinindiana and Ic questions about my thoughts I can clarify a little. There is a two piece breech plug that Dave D and Edge worked on for the Rem 700. Well, if it is two pieces then the inside can be made to what ever volume you desire provided you still have enough material to contain the pressure. The face of the plug can be made slightly smaller than the actual barrel bore diameter so the bullet cannot enter the chamber. youp50 hit it right on the nose by also adding his idea of a taper to the "neck" of the plug so the bullet will have a solid seating area and also act as a funnel to insure the powder all falls into the chamber. I'm sure someone will try it and who knows what will work out. Could go either way. May just end up being too much work for not much improvement or it could be the next best thing. No one will know for sure till it's tried.
|
|
|
|
Post by dougedwards on Mar 13, 2009 14:49:21 GMT -5
There is no reassurance it would work. There is implied evidence because 45 and 40 caliber success. However I must report at this time I'm less impressed with what I've shot in 35 caliber. Maybe a few adjustments will help future trials. <SNIP> There is no assurance what would work? I am still unclear as to the real advantages of having a powder chamber. Is it only to allow more barrel to be used? If so, I am with whoever said..... just get a longer barrel. What am I missing here? Doug |
|
|
|
Post by rbinar on Mar 13, 2009 21:44:31 GMT -5
There is no assurance what would work? I am still unclear as to the real advantages of having a powder chamber. Is it only to allow more barrel to be used? If so, I am with whoever said..... just get a longer barrel. What am I missing here? Doug I mean it's unproven in most calibers. A particular caliber might be a fit for a given bullet, I've stated that 270 bullets might be a fit for the 7mm bore. But since no one I know has done development it can't be assumed you can shove a bullet down and have an accurate rifle. It seems in theory it would work but one has to allow for the unknown. The reason for a chamber isn't to save barrel length as such but to ensure all the powder can be burned. This in itself is a theory, I can't tell how long a powder colume is acceptable and how long it would take to start throwing unburnt powder out the muzzle. But there is a place where it will happen. That is another reason there is no reassurance of function. It's not easy to develop an entirely different caliber along with the loads, bullets, and hardware it takes to make the entire system work. Anything I say (and anyone else unless they have a working syatem) at this point is somewhat conjecture and those who tackle the task should know that problems exist to work out. If a chamber is needed is just one. |
|
