|
|
Post by silverdragon on Mar 16, 2015 10:46:24 GMT
Modern smokeless powder hurts the barrel.
I dont know if this is even a myth.... I have not heard it before.
I have heard the getting the mix wrong and putting too much in, as modern stuff is more energetic and the like?...
Anyway, someone has been suggesting that modern smokeless is "not the same" as old black powder, snd it "hurts the barrel"....
Erm, what?...
To be clear, this is the ingredients, not size of charge, its I suppose like running a older car on lead free petrol...
Ok, so we went all lead free petrol and the older cars needed lead additives to run right, as older engines were designed to run with lead in the petrol as a lubricant.
But you dont exactly get lead free powder do you?....
In fact, the whole idea, is to project the lead very fast down range?...
So what the heck is all this about?...
Is it true that newer smoke free powders do "Something" that may be detrimental to older firearms.
I aint got a clue on this one....
[I have weapons proficiency as RAF, did some small barrel 22 target shooting with my Dad at a Police range, have taken an interest in older firearms with those who take great care to keep it safe, and may be wanting to get my Kid enrolled soon at a local range, as he is a keen (and good) shot with the local TA Cadets (Getting high 90's and the occasional 100's at their local range)
But I have always been handed the necessary and instructed on the required, I have never owned anything myself.]
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 16, 2015 15:00:56 GMT
there are two factors:
factor one: modern smokeless powder is much more energetic than black powder, or its modern equivalent. if you use a modern smokeless powder, even in quantities that produce the same muzzle velocity, you get higher chamber pressures, and if you use the same quantity of smokeless as black, you get much more total energy as well - either of which can cause chamber failure.
factor two: some formulations of smokeless powder produce corrosive by-products. many modern barrels are lined with corrosion resistant linings to be resistant to that, but even with modern firearms, many nonmilitary shooters make an effort to shop for ammunition using noncorrosive formulations. (military shooters being assumed to shoot what they are given when they are "at work")
so comparing to gasoline is somewhat inaccurate, because the history of gasoline has gone from more "raw" to smoother burning. shooting a black powder musket with modern smokeless would be more comparable to running a new high performance engine on old leaded gas.
|
|
|
|
Post by wvengineer on Mar 17, 2015 0:32:19 GMT
To add to TLW's Factor 2, there is history to support this.
During Vietnam, when they first brought out the M-16, they had LOTS of problems with the guns misfiring and jamming in the field. They found several causes. 1. The barrels were not properly condominium lined to protect against corrosive elements. 2. They changed the type of power that was being used to a different formulation at the same time and the new powder wasn't fully tested for comparability. 3. The guns were being used in a environment with much higher humidity and overall environmental water than they were tested in. This lead to the guns getting a very bad reputation in the field. In the end a combo of better barrels and better troop training on handling and care turned a dud into the modern standard it is today.
So the Silver's question, in a way it can be true, but there are more factors than just the type of powder being used.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 17, 2015 14:28:14 GMT
To add to TLW's Factor 2, there is history to support this. During Vietnam, when they first brought out the M-16, they had LOTS of problems with the guns misfiring and jamming in the field. They found several causes. 1. The barrels were not properly condominium lined to protect against corrosive elements. 2. They changed the type of power that was being used to a different formulation at the same time and the new powder wasn't fully tested for comparability. 3. The guns were being used in a environment with much higher humidity and overall environmental water than they were tested in. This lead to the guns getting a very bad reputation in the field. In the end a combo of better barrels and better troop training on handling and care turned a dud into the modern standard it is today. So the Silver's question, in a way it can be true, but there are more factors than just the type of powder being used. add in the fact that the gun was built to very close tolerances, and only tested in a clean environment - and many of the troops had the impression it required less care than the previous guns. |
|
|
|
Post by wvengineer on Mar 18, 2015 0:36:52 GMT
Just realized an autocorrect error in my previous post. "Condominium" should say "chromium."
Sorry.
|
|
|
|
Post by oscardeuce on Mar 18, 2015 3:51:53 GMT
To my knowledge there is not corrosive smokeless powder. Black powder is quite corrosive.
The primers used in some cartridges are the corrosive element.
When I shoot corrosive ammo I rinse in plain old soap and water then clean as normal.
The head stamp will tell you tell the original load and primer. Sometimes the primer was sealed with a different colored lacquer. This is helpful in some original and remanufactured ammo.
The firearm also matters. Different powders have different burn rates. Take the M-1 Garand for example. Many modern powder have a burn rate that puts too much pressure at the gas port. This can bend your operating rod. Not only the correct charge, but the correct burn rate.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Mar 18, 2015 7:50:46 GMT
I am beginning to realize the extent of my ignorance...
There is now more I dont know in what I know.
As in, I have only ever used operational firearms on Military ranges, so they didnt bother teaching me the historical bits I "Didnt need to know"..?
My knowledge of historical has been "This is what they had, this is what they used", and that has been what I used.
I have never mixed old and new, or had reason to do so, so I just didnt know.
So in saying that, my original proposal that New Modern powders WILL damage old equipment even if it has a matching burn rate is quite valid?...
You learn something new every day.
|
|
|
|
Post by oscardeuce on Mar 18, 2015 12:09:54 GMT
I reload for my Garand all the time with modern powder. You just have to use the right powder and charge.
Off the shelf modern 30.06 is not made for Garands and will bend your rod.
There are modern 45-70 rifles out there and modern "45-70" ammo. Put modern ammo in your 1884 Springfield and it will kaboom. There is load data for some modern powders for the trapdoor ( Varget, Benchmark and others). They are in the 40 something grain range when the original mashed 70 grain black powder in the cartridge. They do not take up as much volume and ignition can sometimes be difficult.
The long and the short of it is match the firearm to the ammo, and realize there are differences.
As to your original question, modern powder smokeless powder will not corrode the barrel.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 18, 2015 14:47:34 GMT
I reload for my Garand all the time with modern powder. You just have to use the right powder and charge. Off the shelf modern 30.06 is not made for Garands and will bend your rod. There are modern 45-70 rifles out there and modern "45-70" ammo. Put modern ammo in your 1884 Springfield and it will kaboom. There is load data for some modern powders for the trapdoor ( Varget, Benchmark and others). They are in the 40 something grain range when the original mashed 70 grain black powder in the cartridge. They do not take up as much volume and ignition can sometimes be difficult. The long and the short of it is match the firearm to the ammo, and realize there are differences. As to your original question, modern powder smokeless powder will not corrode the barrel. they also make modern versions of black powder, which are safe for use with firearms intended for use with black powder - assuming they are in such condition as to allow firing AT ALL. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 18, 2015 15:12:56 GMT
for an example of powder grades, when I'm loading target loads for my shotgun, I run 1ΒΌ ounce of shot, and high speed powder, because it has to burn fast enough to not leave bits of unburnt powder in the barrel (and the shot leaves the barrel in a big hurry) but if I were to load maximum weight hunting loads, I would use a much slower powder, to accelerate the shot a bit more gently, and not produce so much chamber pressure.
|
|
|
|
Post by oscardeuce on Mar 18, 2015 18:47:47 GMT
I reload for my Garand all the time with modern powder. You just have to use the right powder and charge. Off the shelf modern 30.06 is not made for Garands and will bend your rod. There are modern 45-70 rifles out there and modern "45-70" ammo. Put modern ammo in your 1884 Springfield and it will kaboom. There is load data for some modern powders for the trapdoor ( Varget, Benchmark and others). They are in the 40 something grain range when the original mashed 70 grain black powder in the cartridge. They do not take up as much volume and ignition can sometimes be difficult. The long and the short of it is match the firearm to the ammo, and realize there are differences. As to your original question, modern powder smokeless powder will not corrode the barrel. they also make modern versions of black powder, which are safe for use with firearms intended for use with black powder - assuming they are in such condition as to allow firing AT ALL. You have to be careful with these too. Some,like Trail Boss are better in pistol rounds, and can be too high pressure in rifle rounds like the 45-70. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Mar 19, 2015 7:22:17 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Mar 19, 2015 7:27:29 GMT
Back to being serious....
So to continue, and to perhaps get this as a show idea.
I can get modern smokeless fuel that will not hurt the barrel....
The myth that it will is perhaps from getting the wrong type of powder?....
Now go ahead slap me with a wet fish and call me Susan, but, and I am just thinking maybe this is to intelligent for some, especially the knurd who started all this with me, but seriously, if you have an old antique weapon, and I know a few who do have such, and you want to fire it, wouldnt you go out and make damn sure that the modern stuff you are buying in to fire it with is the right stuff in the first place?...
|
|
|
|
Post by oscardeuce on Mar 19, 2015 13:14:06 GMT
Back to being serious.... So to continue, and to perhaps get this as a show idea. I can get modern smokeless fuel that will not hurt the barrel.... The myth that it will is perhaps from getting the wrong type of powder?.... Now go ahead slap me with a wet fish and call me Susan, but, and I am just thinking maybe this is to intelligent for some, especially the knurd who started all this with me, but seriously, if you have an old antique weapon, and I know a few who do have such, and you want to fire it, wouldnt you go out and make damn sure that the modern stuff you are buying in to fire it with is the right stuff in the first place?... You would be surprised.... I learn new things every day. I had some 9mm which felt a little hot for my pistol. Made by the Czechs I the early 50's. Looked it up online and yup not regular 9x19mm, but a hotter load designed for submachine guns. Luckily no big kaboom, and I was paying attention to the recoil. Many just blast away. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 19, 2015 13:44:14 GMT
Back to being serious.... So to continue, and to perhaps get this as a show idea. I can get modern smokeless fuel that will not hurt the barrel.... The myth that it will is perhaps from getting the wrong type of powder?.... Now go ahead slap me with a wet fish and call me Susan, but, and I am just thinking maybe this is to intelligent for some, especially the knurd who started all this with me, but seriously, if you have an old antique weapon, and I know a few who do have such, and you want to fire it, wouldnt you go out and make damn sure that the modern stuff you are buying in to fire it with is the right stuff in the first place?... right. if you do not get powder specifically for the antique gun, it is likely that the powder will be too potent for the chamber, and will at minimum overstress it and damage it. worse case: |
|
|
|
Post by oscardeuce on Mar 19, 2015 14:58:09 GMT
Back to being serious.... So to continue, and to perhaps get this as a show idea. I can get modern smokeless fuel that will not hurt the barrel.... The myth that it will is perhaps from getting the wrong type of powder?.... Now go ahead slap me with a wet fish and call me Susan, but, and I am just thinking maybe this is to intelligent for some, especially the knurd who started all this with me, but seriously, if you have an old antique weapon, and I know a few who do have such, and you want to fire it, wouldnt you go out and make damn sure that the modern stuff you are buying in to fire it with is the right stuff in the first place?... right. if you do not get powder specifically for the antique gun, it is likely that the powder will be too potent for the chamber, and will at minimum overstress it and damage it. worse case: So, was this ignorance or "experimenting"? With only one chamber loaded ( at least smart about that) sounds like an intentional act. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Mar 20, 2015 6:43:17 GMT
So how to put this as a good idea for the show.
Any ideas?
|
|
|
|
Post by c64 on Jun 27, 2015 21:28:57 GMT
The projectile is what hurts the barrel most. The powder doesn't make much of a difference unless you let it soak in its own dirt for a long time without cleaning, then any powder is bad for the barrel.
But there is an effect where old powders protect the barrel from wear. If you shoot a smoke flag revealing your position to anybody, the enemy will soon make you stop wearing out your gun.
Modern barrels which last much more rounds are not lined or something, they don't have the classic groves and lands any more, instead they have a polygon pattern to reduce the wear. The wear comes from the projectile and the polygon barrels have much less friction between the barrel and the projectile.
When I was a soldier, polygon barrels for the MG came up and there were great discussions about performance and accuracy. I was one of the few who preferred the new polygon barrels since you can keep shooting much longer before the barrel overheats or the MG jams caused by clogged pneumatics.
And for the leaded fuel example:
First they added lead to increase octane cheaply. Then the car industry figured that you don't need to harden the valve shafts any more since they become lubricated by lead residue so they could be made a lot cheaper.
You can run an old Ford Model T just fine on unleaded gas since it was built long before lead was added to gas so the engine was built without cheating to cut costs.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 28, 2015 2:13:45 GMT
The projectile is what hurts the barrel most. The powder doesn't make much of a difference unless you let it soak in its own dirt for a long time without cleaning, then any powder is bad for the barrel. But there is an effect where old powders protect the barrel from wear. If you shoot a smoke flag revealing your position to anybody, the enemy will soon make you stop wearing out your gun. Modern barrels which last much more rounds are not lined or something, they don't have the classic groves and lands any more, instead they have a polygon pattern to reduce the wear. The wear comes from the projectile and the polygon barrels have much less friction between the barrel and the projectile. When I was a soldier, polygon barrels for the MG came up and there were great discussions about performance and accuracy. I was one of the few who preferred the new polygon barrels since you can keep shooting much longer before the barrel overheats or the MG jams caused by clogged pneumatics. And for the leaded fuel example: First they added lead to increase octane cheaply. Then the car industry figured that you don't need to harden the valve shafts any more since they become lubricated by lead residue so they could be made a lot cheaper. You can run an old Ford Model T just fine on unleaded gas since it was built long before lead was added to gas so the engine was built without cheating to cut costs. other way around, actually - they originally added lead to keep the valves from sticking, and then learned to make hardened valves. - but they left the lead in because they found it was a cheap way to increase the octane. older engines used to have to have regular valve and ring jobs to keep them running. |
|
|
|
Post by c64 on Jun 28, 2015 12:47:35 GMT
The projectile is what hurts the barrel most. The powder doesn't make much of a difference unless you let it soak in its own dirt for a long time without cleaning, then any powder is bad for the barrel. But there is an effect where old powders protect the barrel from wear. If you shoot a smoke flag revealing your position to anybody, the enemy will soon make you stop wearing out your gun. Modern barrels which last much more rounds are not lined or something, they don't have the classic groves and lands any more, instead they have a polygon pattern to reduce the wear. The wear comes from the projectile and the polygon barrels have much less friction between the barrel and the projectile. When I was a soldier, polygon barrels for the MG came up and there were great discussions about performance and accuracy. I was one of the few who preferred the new polygon barrels since you can keep shooting much longer before the barrel overheats or the MG jams caused by clogged pneumatics. And for the leaded fuel example: First they added lead to increase octane cheaply. Then the car industry figured that you don't need to harden the valve shafts any more since they become lubricated by lead residue so they could be made a lot cheaper. You can run an old Ford Model T just fine on unleaded gas since it was built long before lead was added to gas so the engine was built without cheating to cut costs. other way around, actually - they originally added lead to keep the valves from sticking, and then learned to make hardened valves. - but they left the lead in because they found it was a cheap way to increase the octane. older engines used to have to have regular valve and ring jobs to keep them running. Actually, that's a myth. During WW-1, they had to increase the power and decrease the weight of engines for airplanes. Gas engines were highly inefficient and failed after a few hours of operation because they choked due to all the residues from the combustion of gasoline. To make an engine last to be able to be used in airplanes, pure gasoline was needed but it was impossible to make it in large quantities. So there were two kinds of fuel, very expensive aerplane fuel and normal fuel. And even the expensive airplane fuel was real bad, it lacked octane. They couldn't make any engines with a reasonable compression to create much power. This was why Rudolf Diesel was looking for a way to make a high pressure engine and figured that this is impossible with gasoline so he had to look for alternative kinds of fuels and a different way to make use of it in an engine. The result was the diesel engine but back then it was way too slow and bulky for airplanes. So during the war they came up with Tetraethyllead which boosts octane in order to be able to increase compression to make smaller, lighter engines with more power. The effect of "microwelds" on the valves which makes the surface rough and cause grinding, pure lead and other materials could have been added. Tetraethyllead was originally used for octane only and the side effect was preventing microwelds. Actually Tetraethyllead has a serious side effect, it causes "spark plug fouling" but it was the only way to build engines with higher performance badly needed for WW-1 airplanes. Here is what Tetraethyllead does: If the compression ratio of an engine is too high, the fuel/air mixture spontaneously ignites due to breakups of the fuel. Tetraethyllead breaks up first binding the fuel radicals so the fuel can't ignite on its own in a low-temperature reaction. When Tetraethyllead is broken up, lead and lead-oxyde is a leftover which is actually bad for the engine. To prevent lead building up inside the engine, dibromoethane and dichloroethane is added to the fuel to get rid of the lead. The leftover lead is what is good for the valves. Leaded gasoline doesn't help for the piston rings - it is actually bad for them since it grouts them into place but they need to be able to move freely to prevent excessive grinding with the cylinder walls. And the reason old plain gasoline cars need a valve job is because all the "junk" in the gasoline (mainly sulphur but also tar and other stuff) coke the valves. Lead won't do anything about that, the solution was a much more sophisticated refinery process to make gasoline much more pure. If Tetraethyllead would be good for an engine, ask yourself why there never was any leaded Diesel fuel. The answer is simple, lead is actually bad for an engine, a Diesel engine doesn't need an octane boost and the only favour it does to the valve isn't necessary by using better valves in the first place. Using modern fuel in those old engines built before lead was added to all kinds of gasoline and not just for high-performing airplane engines is no problem. They don't need lead and with the modern, clean burning fuel they don't need the classic valve and piston ring jobs either. |
|
