muzzle loader vrs cartridge gun... charge per charge... how do they compare ???

[Magnum Wheel Man]

is there any advantage or disadvantage ( energy wise ) between one system or another ???

for example, I was looking at Black Powder double rifles, & ARCTICAP was nice enough to give me this link...

http://www.traditionsfirearms.com/es...ctCode=REX-100

in which they state the gun can be loaded with up to 150 grains of black powder...

so would that out muscle a 50-110 cartridge gun & in escence equal a 50-150 ??? or is there a loss of some kind I don't see with either the cartridge gun, or the muzzleloader ???

any thoughts ???

[cookhj]

I can't really give you a good scientific answer, but I have a .45 T/C omega that I shoot with 150gr of loose BP (pellets don't work well in my rifle) and it's got all the power I need to take anything in north America.

[4V50 Gary]

Wouldn't compression come into play. Given two guns, one cartridge and one muzzle loader, both loaded with 150 grains of powder and the difference being on a muzzle loader the bullet sits atop of the powder (with a patch or felt wad between) and the cartridge gun, there may be some airspace between the two), I would suspect that the muzzle loader has the advantage. I'm waiting for more scientific and better learned members to respond more intelligently than myself.

[noelf2]

If the muzzleloader and cartridge are both charged with black powder, the cartridge gun might have the advantage of holding the bullet in place longer (a good crimp) and allowing more of the powder to burn in the barrel to increase energy. I could be wrong, but the barrel on the rifle in the link just doesn't seem long enough to burn up a 150 grain charge within it. I'd bet a lot of the powder exits the muzzle unburnt and doesn't contribute to velocity/energy. 100 grains and 150 grains in that gun might be about the same, energy wise, with the same bullet.

[MacGille]

The only advantage of a cartridge gun is that it is easier to reload. the Physics of the gun are the same. Barrel length beyond a certain point only has the advantage of a longer sight radius. BP burns Fast.

[Brian Pfleuger]

I have read that the limiting factor in cartridge guns is in fact the pressure that the cartridge itself can handle, something like 60k psi +-, whereas a good muzzleloader like the Savage Smokeless, is tested to 110k psi.

I know that the Savage will push a 300gr 45/70 bullet to 2200+fps with a charge around 58gr of Viht 120 and the gun can handle 63gr and more.

It looks like the cartridge guns wins by a bit with modern guns. (45/70)

[simonkenton]

Just because you can load it with 150 grains doesn't mean it will burn all the powder.
But, a .50 will burn 110 grains.
So, yes, a .50 muzzleloader with 110 gr. of powder equals a 50/110 cartridge gun.

[simonkenton]

Here is a double rifle that I have always liked.
Pedersoli make beautiful rifles.

http://www.dixiegunworks.com/product...oducts_id=3515

[Hawg]

Cartridge guns have more velocity for the same bullet weight and powder charge. A lead bullet in a cartridge is larger than bore size so it develops more pressure from the rifling. A muzzleloader has rifling engraved on the way down the bore unless you're using minies which even tho it opens up to bore size it's not larger than bore size to begin with. No muzzleloader is going to completely burn 100 grs. of powder in the bore unless it's got a hellatious long barrel. Using more powder than it can burn does give more velocity but it's a diminishing return. Lay out a sheet in front of your muzzle and you'll see how much unburned powder you're getting.

[darkgael]

A couple of things to think about.

the cartridge gun, there may be some airspace between the two)

Not if the cartridge is properly loaded. Airspace in a BP cartridge is a no-no.

The burning of powder in a long barrel. Some of the originals did indeed sport VERY long barrels compared to what we mostly find for sale nowadays. I have a PA fowler with a 42 inch barrel - I'm told that it's on the short side. 48 and 50 inches in fowlers and rifles is not uncommon for very traditional guns. That's why they are called "long rifles"

[longranger]

Twist rates of barrels and length of barrel must be considered for pratical comparisons. Are we talking modern in line .50 cal barrels @ 26",1:28" and 50-70 Gov with 30" or longer barrels and as slow as 1:48" with 500gr bullets ,light for cartridge guns.Traditional 50 cal M/L's percussion had twist rates in 1:72" for round balls.Pressures rarley would exceed 25,000 psi with real black powder and the heaviest bullets.Guys are shooting 50-90's with 700gr. bullets out to 1000 yds.You can go several directions with .50 cal M/L's or cartridge guns..50 cal cartridge guns are Shilo's not a inexpensive in line.

[arcticap]

I agree with Hawg Haggen that cartridge guns often do produce more velocity from the "virgin" bullet of equal weight and powder charge. However no one expects to obtain best accuracy from maximum charges out of a muzzle loader and cartridge guns sometimes need careful handloading to deal with headspacing.

Another factor to consider about unburnt powder is the more powerful 209 primer which can combust powder faster and more fully than less powerful caps.
And not quite as easy to compare is when it comes to a muzzle loader's ability to shoot monolithic conicals without needing to reduce the powder charge due to having a limited amount of powder capacity in the case.
So in some instances the muzzle loader has some additional benefits that a cartridge gun just can't offer.
Different gun designs aren't going to be equal because they each have their own unique characteristics.

[W. C. Quantrill]

Cartridge guns are more efficient because the primer ignites the powder mass straight up through the center and the powder tends to burn from the center to the outside of the case. In a typical muzzleloader, the powder is ignited from the back corner of the powder mass, and it is not compressed as solid as in a cartridge, and thus tends to burn like a bottle rocket from back to front soon creating an overbore as charges are increased.

[Magnum Wheel Man]

In a typical muzzleloader, the powder is ignited from the back corner of the powder mass, and it is not compressed as solid as in a cartridge,

doesn't a muzzleloader normally have a more compressed powder charge than a cartridge gun ???

[Jim Watson]

Depends on the load. It is quite feasible to fill a cartridge up to the mouth, compress it with a die in the press, and seat the bullet gently down onto an over powder wad. Goex is said to do well with about .340" compression. You are not going to lean that hard on a ramrod.

I don't know the efficiency of 150 grains of powder (or more likely three pellets of fake), but that is getting up in the range of big British Black Powder Express rifles. The .500 BPE shot 140 grains of powder and a 400 grain bullet.

[Wild Bill Bucks]

One of my favorite loads is a 2160 fps arena 300 gr. Barnes MZ-Expander, pushed by 46 grains of Accurate Arms 5744. That is a 200 yard 6" kill MPBR range load, retaining nearly 1500 fps and 1500 fpe on target at that 200 yards.

We can get more out of our Savage by using 60 grains by weight of Vihtavuori N120, pushing a higher BC Barnes "Original" .458 45-70 bullet, with an orange MMP .458 sabot. That is about a 2300 fps load, has a 220 yard maximum point blank range, and retains 1743 fps and 2023 fpe at that 220 yards.

By comparison with the better long range center fire cartridge loads, such as the .300 Win. Mag., this load is not even close. A .300 Magnum can be had with much higher ballistic coefficient factory loads, can place another 800 foot pounds of energy on your target at 200 yards, and can easily be loaded to a muzzle velocity of over 3000 fps, achieving a MPBR of in excess of 325 yards and over 400 yards for larger game animals. The tortured thinking that the Savage 10ML-II is even remotely comparable to high-powered center-fire firearms is delusional.

This is taken from an article I recently read, but thought it answered the question.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Cartridge guns are more efficient because the primer ignites the powder mass straight up through the center and the powder tends to burn from the center to the outside of the case. In a typical muzzleloader, the powder is ignited from the back corner of the powder mass, and it is not compressed as solid as in a cartridge, and thus tends to burn like a bottle rocket from back to front soon creating an overbore as charges are increased.

"Modern" muzzleloaders (any which use a 209 primer) light the powder straight through the back just like a cartridge gun.

Muzzleloaders are DESIGNED to have a compressed charge. Many, if not most, cartridge loads are NOT compressed.

It's certainly possible for a muzzleloader to not be compressed and a cartridge gun to be compressed but any valid comparison should be based on the proper use of the gun. So, a compressed cartridge could be used in comparison but an uncompressed ML charge should not be used.

Any fair comparison should also be based on similar potential energy of the powders, not just how much is packed in the tube.

All this is why I say that if you want a truly fair comparison of which is a more efficient design then you should be using the same powders and bullets.

The Savage 10ML uses smokeless powder and can shoot a saboted 45/70 bullet. It is the best platform available to compare efficiencies.

The Savage will fire a 300gr 45-70 bullet at about 2200+fps with 58gr of Viht N120. The Lapua load data shows a modern 45-70 will fire a 300gr bullet at 2271fps with 57.1gr of N130.

I don't know exactly how 130 compares to 120, so that's a potentially large variable but the power level seems awfully close to me.

By comparison with the better long range center fire cartridge loads, such as the .300 Win. Mag., this load is not even close....The tortured thinking that the Savage 10ML-II is even remotely comparable to high-powered center-fire firearms is delusional.

.... and thinking that an RPG is as effective as a 1000lb bomb at killing tanks is also delusional.... but who actually makes that comparison?

[Magnum Wheel Man]

same powder, same powder charge, same denisity of charge, as close a primer or ignition & as similar a bullet as possible...

looking only at the systems for efficiency, not trying to prove one is "better" than the other...

[CraigC]

The Savage 10ML uses smokeless powder and can shoot a saboted 45/70 bullet. It is the best platform available to compare efficiencies.

Not really. The Savage's larger bore will result in lower pressure. For the same powder charge in the smaller chamber and bore of the .45-70 cartridge gun, pressure will be higher and thus so will velocity.

[Brian Pfleuger]

The Savage's larger bore will result in lower pressure. For the same powder charge in the smaller chamber and bore of the .45-70 cartridge gun, pressure will be higher and thus so will velocity.

Yes, I suppose that's true but I still think it's the best platform AVAILABLE.

I think it's the best data available because the over arching theme of the Savage ML is the ability to produce rifle like performance in a gun that can be used when a "true" rifle cannot.

Now, comparing the Savage to something like a 300win mag is ridiculous. It should be compared to a gun that shoots the same bullet.

Almost no one shoots 50cal bullets in the Savage, mainly because of the idea of replicating rifle performance.... hence, the Savage is most often replicating the 45-70.


I did find a load that uses N120 in a modern 45-70....

Barnes lists 57.0gr of N120 launching a 300gr bullet at 2567fps.

Without the numbers in front of me, I think that the Savage produced around 2100fps with the exact same load....

Assuming that's correct, I guess we can say that, in this comparison, the ML is only 82% as efficient as a "true" rifle.

[Jim Watson]

Going back to the original Creedmoor matches of 1876, the Irish team said the only advantage the Americans' Remington and Sharps breechloaders had over their Rigby muzzleloaders was being able to wipe the bore between shots. Range and accuracy were comparable.

My only use of black powder is in BPCR silhouette and target shooting. Everybody I know there compresses their powder charge from a little with Swiss to a lot with Goex.

I think the Savage smokeless powder muzzleloader is an unfortunate mutation.

[Hawg]

I think the Savage smokeless powder muzzleloader is an unfortunate mutation.

I think all inlines are abhorrent mutations.

[Jim Watson]

I do too, even though I have seen pictures of period inlines, clear back to an 18th century inline flintlock.

But the Savage makes me worry about the risk of somebody loading another make with nitro and then moaning from his hospital bed... "But Joe shoots Veetavoory in HIS muzzleloader."

[Brian Pfleuger]

the Savage makes me worry about the risk of somebody loading another make with nitro and then moaning from his hospital bed... "But Joe shoots Veetavoory in HIS muzzleloader."

I find that to be a bit unreasonable. The same argument could be made about almost any product on the market.

What about reloading? Plenty of potential for injury there.

What about the guy with a diesel truck that see his buddy put gas in his truck?

Or the guy who puts waste oil in his furnace because he saw his buddy do it?

Knowing how to use a product and being safe about it is the OWNERS responsibility, not the manufacturers.

[arcticap]

muzzle loader vrs cartridge gun... charge per charge... how do they compare ???

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

is there any advantage or disadvantage ( energy wise ) between one system or another ???

for example, I was looking at Black Powder double rifles, & ARCTICAP was nice enough to give me this link...

http://www.traditionsfirearms.com/es...ctCode=REX-100

in which they state the gun can be loaded with up to 150 grains of black powder...

so would that out muscle a 50-110 cartridge gun & in escence equal a 50-150 ??? or is there a loss of some kind I don't see with either the cartridge gun, or the muzzleloader ???

any thoughts ???

The question still isn't really thoroughly being answered although I don't really think that it can be adequately with the known data.

What's the velocity of a .50-110 BPCR verses the velocity of a 50-150 muzzle loader?

My response was basicially that with equal charges and the same bullet, the velocity would probably be greater with the BPCR. However when more powder is added with the stronger primer, we don't really know what the ML's velocities will be. That's the comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of the 2 systems. The data is unknown and we can only guess.
The other major difference as noted is that the BPCR is limited by powder capacity as the size of the loaded bullets are increased, which doesn't limit a muzzle loader.
As far as smokeless powder comparisons go, that makes for an interesting comparison. However, isn't the question really about the BPCR system vs. this .50 over/under muzzle loading rifle? That's black powder vs. black powder and not to do with smokeless as the question was stated. A BPCR system vs. a similar ML system using similar ML powders.
The muzzle loader may have more power with the greater 150 grain loads, and the BPCR may exceed that when loaded with smokeless powder. But then the muzzle loader may be loaded with even larger caliber conicals, sabots and plastic ballistic bridge sub-bases (gas checks), and except for the missing velocity data, that's where the practical known comparisons end. The muzzle loader can be loaded with .40 caliber (10 mm) and .458 bullets too if sabots are used, as well as .50 conicals, .429 and .451 bullets. That's another advantage to a muzzle loader besides velocity and it's power factor.

*Brass cartridge re-loading beforehand is not required, but loading with brass cartridges is quicker and easier.
Every system has trade offs.