Hey let's get something straight guys

[olyinaz]

I was simply asking WHY something is not done, not recommending that it BE done. With the exception of the guy who mentioned blow back through the nipple holes and the venerable Captain who mentioned pressures in the cylinder during the long travel out to the forcing cone every other post in the now locked thread was little more than hair pulling and wailing. About as helpful here as it is anywhere/anytime else...

Regarding the fellow who asked me why one would want to do something, I guess someone should ask Savage that question as well because they have introduced a muzzle loading, 209 primed rifle that is rated for...[GASP]...smokeless powder! And I assume they're selling some.

At any rate, it is that rifle and the initial introduction of semi-smokeless powders back in the 19th Century that prompted my simple request for information. Both current and historical would have been (and was) appreciated. Hysterical was not.

Edit: Let me state categorically that I do NOT (!) suggest loading smokeless in a BP revolver! It's a simple technical question and NOTHING MORE. Does anyone know what sort of maximum pressures BP is capable of generating in a typical revolver?

Regards,
Oly

[Hawg]

I dunno about maximum pressures but bp cartridges run around 14,000 PSI and modern Ruger loads run around 30,000 PSI. It MIGHT be possible to load a very light smokeless load in a ROA but get just a tad too much and top of the cylinder and top strap are going bye-bye. Ain't worth the risk.
A buddy of mine had a very old .22 revolver and he fired a modern .22 short in it. It broke the gun into three major pieces and a bunch of tiny ones. Granted it was an old gun but you'd think a wimpy load like a .22 short wouldn't hurt anything. WRONG! Leave the smokeless to guns or at least cylinders designed and built for it.

[B.L.E.]

It is my belief that smokeless shouldn't be used in percussion guns because the muzzleloading percussion cap and nipple system was not designed to ignite smokeless powder. Unlike black powder, smokeless doesn't like to simply be set on fire, the primer in a modern cartriage not only ignites the smokeless powder, it also establises the initial working pressure in the chamber. If you simply set smokeless on fire, you get squibs and bloopers and that fools you into thinking it's an underload so you put in more and then it finally burns up to smokeless's working pressure and BLAM, a gun destroying detonation, a modern gun destoying detonation.
There's a real good reason that designed-for-smokeless muzzleloaders use 209 primers and not percussion caps.
That also explains why it's safe to use mild smokeless loads in cartriage conversions, the powder is being ignited by a powerful primer, not by a weak flame through a tiny hole in a nipple.

Some people also claim that the blowback through the nipple with smokeless pressure will instantly erode the nipple hole but I don't buy that theory. If that was true, the cylinder to barrel gap on a modern .44 magnum would not be long in this world.

[olyinaz]

Hey thanks guys - that is EXACTLY the kind of information I was looking for. Very very good point about modern smokeless squibbing and blurping along until BLAMMO - bad news. I think that's honestly got to be the key to the whole thing but I suppose the other major factor simply must be that you can't (usually...) cram enough BP into a cap and ball firearm to blow it up so it's easy to make them and relatively liability free on top of it all.

The Savage muzzle loader is only approved (as far as I know) for one powder and load other than BP and, frankly, I suspect that Savage is taking on one heckuva lot of liability but I hope it's a successful product.

Cheers,
Oly

[olyinaz]

>>>I dunno about maximum pressures but bp cartridges run around 14,000 PSI and modern Ruger loads run around 30,000 PSI. It MIGHT be possible to load a very light smokeless load in a ROA but get just a tad too much and top of the cylinder and top strap are going bye-bye. Ain't worth the risk.<<<

Oh absolutely I agree.

What would be an interesting product, in my view simply because I love all firearms, is a replacement cylinder for the ROA that takes 209 primers and is approved for very specifically certain smokeless loads. Same theory as the Savage muzzle loading rifle. I think it would be a hoot stuffing balls or conicals on top of the approved/proven safe loads and I suspect that 209 primers would be loadable in a ROA without any modification of the frame (the cutout is already pretty large) but any mod would need be pretty mild if so.

After all, R&D and Kirst sell plenty of drop in cylinders (one even to me), another interesting variant could be a lot of fun for ROA owners.

Cheers,
Oly

[arcticap]

There already are safe smokeless C&B conversion pistols being made and there's also other smokleless ML rifles besides the Savage.

http://westlakeengineering.com/

[olyinaz]

>>>There already are safe smokeless C&B conversion pistols being made<<<

Well I'll be dipped in doo!! They make EXACTLY what I was talking about - a 209 primed conversion cylinder for the ROA that runs smokeless powder. Sheesh, the Good Book is right - nothing's new under the sun.

Too bad it's British and a bit pricey as a result...

Thanks,
Oly

[B.L.E.]

I looked at those British nitro cap and ball revolver conversions in the link also, pretty neat. I guess that's what results when cap-n-ball revolvers is all that the government lets you own.

Another thing about primers is that you can read spent primers for warnings of excessive pressure. You can't do that with percussion caps.

Loose nitro powder has been used in large artillary pieces for as long as artillary has been using nitro powders. I believe that the 16 inch naval guns use a small bag, about 2 kg I think, of black powder behind the 600 pounds of nitro powder to get the nitro powder lit and establish the initial chamber pressure that nitro powder needs to burn efficiently. That bag of black powder essentially does the job of a primer in a cartriage.
If any of you readers have first hand knowlege of these guns, please correct me if I'm wrong.

[olyinaz]

>>>I looked at those British nitro cap and ball revolver conversions in the link also, pretty neat. I guess that's what results when cap-n-ball revolvers is all that the government lets you own.<<<

Bingo!! And even so I'll bet it's a pain in the arse to own one. Nuff said.

Cheers,
Oly

[ClemBert]

oly - personally, I like your question. I think a forum should be where you can discuss what to do and what not to do. Your topic is/was a good one to discuss or make comment on. It just doesn't make sense to me that one should fear asking a question on this forum. Good job...we need someone to stir the pot every once and a while.

Cheers

[sundance44s]

I`ve read this about the Nitro converted ROA .....I don`t care for it myself ....but it is being done ...you can read about it here if it interest ya ..
http://www.muzzleloading.co.uk/nitro...geroldarmy.htm

[darkgael]

How different, in use, are those Westlake conversions from what you get with an R&D conversion cylinder? They are neat looking and probably work well but looking at the cylinder itself - two parts, etc - it looks ever so much like an R&D cylinder.
Pete

[mec]

somewhat off to the side. I am happy to completely avoid loading smokeless powder in a non cartridge revolver. I'm convinced that, ceteras parabus, it blows them up. Some people have, for whatever reason, used minimal amounts of smokeless in with the black powder chage-maybe hoping for cleaner burning. I've heard that that blows them up too. Interestingly though, some guy in france designed a revolver to use pistol primers and smokeless powder with .357/358 wadcutters. It seems to have held together alright but the velocity spreads were huge as were the groups he shot.

It would seem that smokeless in a c&b is a loose/loose proposition. I am not criticising anybody for wondering if it might work while refraining from recommending it.

[olyinaz]

>>>How different, in use, are those Westlake conversions from what you get with an R&D conversion cylinder? They are neat looking and probably work well but looking at the cylinder itself - two parts, etc - it looks ever so much like an R&D cylinder.<<<

Other than both being two part units they're quite different. An R&D conversion cylinder simply opens to allow the insertion of standard caliber metallic cartridges. For example mine is in .45 Colt for the ROA.

The Westlake splits like the R&D cylinder but only so that you can load 209 primers into an appropriate primer pocket with a flash hole into the main cylinder volume - it's still a muzzle loading cylinder.

Frankly, the splitting design is the main stumbling block for me with the Westlake because I just get tired of fooling around with that. I'd much rather see an SAA style loading gate at the back of the cylinder but I'm also concerned with getting the 209 primers back out. Don't the inline muzzle loaders have an ejector for the 209 primers?

Thanks,
Oly

[CaptainCrossman]

Oly,

good thread, very informative- thanks for reviving it. I stayed away initially, and didn't even read it 'til now, expecting much of the same from last thread. But this one looks calm, and the flames haven't derailed it- yet.

Yes, it's all about the primers and ignition. Black is easier to set off, even if it's not compressed- which is why safety recommendations say don't fill a c/b from a full flask, an ember could explode the flask in your face. Use a small vial. Smokeless if more difficult to set off, requiring a hotter primer. Putting just 5 grains Bullseye in an ROA, it very well may not even go off with a std c/b cap- which has happened to people experimenting as such- somewhere was posted such experiments, and initially the gun did not even go off with smokeless.

now, smokeless in a BP cylinder- like Einstein said, it's all relative to need:

would I try it if my life depended on it, and no other powder was available, and I faced certain death otherwise ? yes, in an ROA I would- because that gun was proofed with smokeless, it may just survive the few precious shots I need, to save my neck

would I try it just for kicks ? heck no- not without a 100 foot string, vice, and shield- and why blow up a perfectly good ROA if it didn't work right anyway

would I try smokeless in a cartridge conversion cylinder, with a brass cartridge, using a c/b blackpowder frame/barrel/gun ? heck yeh, that's what the conversion cylinder is made for, by design- and I've run 100's of rounds through 2 of them, in the past few months, with no ill effects- but these are COWBOY ACTION LOADINGS, not full-house +P or hot/magnum loads.

would I try smokeless cartridges in a bored out blackpowder c/b cylinder, converted to cartridge w/conversion ring ? probably not- that would be risky- and again require the 100 foot string, etc.- the R&D would have to be done, and for what a conversion cylinder costs, it's not worth the time and risk. Colt started off doing cartridge conversions, by boring out the c/b cylinders, and fitting a conversion ring- but they used BP powder/cartridges for that- not smokeless.

on the ROA w/smokeless, here's the info I have on the original design, and proofing with full cylinders of Bullseye- again just for reference, anyone reading this, DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME- this was done in a Ruger lab under protection- but the ROA's are very strong indeed

click attachments, then use magnify and click to enlarge, to read it

[mykeal]

CaptainCrossman - please provide the attributes for the material posted as images in your message above.

[B.L.E.]

on the ROA w/smokeless, here's the info I have on the original design, and proofing with full cylinders of Bullseye- again just for reference, anyone reading this, DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME- this was done in a Ruger lab under protection- but the ROA's are very strong indeed

I'm not sure if that test proved how strong the ROA is or if it simply proved how erratic nitro powders are when simply lit on fire with a percussion cap. It's quite possible that the powder simply burned and the pressure needed to unseat the balls and push them out of the barrel was below the powder's fast burning threshold.
Set a small pile of nitro powder on fire with a match and it just burns up, quite slowly as a matter of fact, try the same thing with a small pile of black powder and you won't try it again.

Incorrect charges of smokeless powder will destroy modern firearms.





Do these pictures scare you? I sure hope so!

[Dingoboyx]

I bet the guy who shot that got a bit of a suprise

[CaptainCrossman]

mykeal
Senior Member

Join Date: 2006-10-08
Location: Northern Michigan
Posts: 871

CaptainCrossman - please provide the attributes for the material posted as images in your message above.




why certainly

Dennis Adler-BP Revolvers-Repros and Replicas

see pic

[CaptainCrossman]

B.L.E.
Senior Member

Join Date: 2008-12-20
Posts: 216

Do these pictures scare you? I sure hope so!



I can appreciate those pictures, but I say this with all due respect-
no, they don't scare me- here's why

#1 you can blow up a gun just as badly as in those pictures, with blackpowder, by using a bullet that is .007" too large, creating too much pressure- it's just that easy- it happened to the famed Elmer Keith- he blew the cylinder and topstrap off a Colt Peacemaker

#2, Bill Ruger knew more about firearms, than you or I ever will. Actually, he forgot more about guns, than you or I will ever know. And he proofed that ROA with smokeless for a reason, so it would survive some abuse without hurting the shooter, and triggering a lawsuit.

i.e. the ROA is overbuilt by a considerable margin. Ruger knew some dumb unscrupulous shooter, may eventually get the wacky idea of putting smokeless powder in, or maybe someone would put smokeless in by accident- so he wanted that gun to survive at least initially

#3, I see a bullet stuck in that gun, which makes me think someone reloaded it with a slug that was oversized, and it got stuck in the barrel/cylinder interface, and blew up the gun

it may have had nothing at all, to do with powder charge- any gun explosion must be carefully disected to find the cause

Elmer Keith blew the top off a Colt Peacemaker as a kid, on July 4th making noise shooting in the air, because he loaded larger 45-70 rifle slugs, in the 45 Colt cartridges

so that can happen with the slug being too large, even by a few thousandths of an inch.

and Elmer Keith was not an idiot, either- surviving that episode, led to the invention of the 44 Magnum cartridge- I'm not saying to push loads until the gun blows up as a practice, but your example is obviously one of blatant overloading or the wrong size bullet, or the wrong powder, or too heavy a bullet/too fast powder, etc.

sure, there are super-fast powders that will blow up any gun they aren't designed for- put super fast powder in any magnum rifle, it will blow it apart- that doesn't mean a 5 grain cowboy load is going to blow up a gun, like in your pictures- I've been reloading now for 30 years, so I know better than to get scared by those pictures.

because there are super-slow smokeless powders like H870, that you can top off the cartridges with, and the velocity and pressures are very low, pathetically low actually- and they could not blow up anything, by design- such as artillery shell powder- yet they are smokeless- many a shooter and gunsmith, started off a home-made gun using "full cases of H870" because it is just so safe due to low pressure- it's all about the speed of the powder, and weight of projectile

http://www.reloadbench.com/gloss/hh870.html


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...6/ai_90099727/

Who was Elmer Keith and what debt of gratitude do we owe him? Born in Missouri in 1899, Elmer grew up on ranches in Montana, Oregon and Idaho. In the 1920s, he decided to celebrate the Fourth of July by firing his .45 Colt 5 1/2" SA revolver, and a letter detailing this experience was published in the American Rifleman in 1925. This was the first, or at least one of the very first, times he appeared in print.

He recounted how his .45 Colt SAA, using black powder loads, blew up as he was firing it during his celebratory triggerwork. Elmer had been using heavy .45 loads in the old Colt, made up with 300 grain bullets with a diameter of .458", originally intended for use in the .45-90 lever action Winchester. The ancient blackpowder Colt gave up after enduring those high-pressure loads once too often.

Elmer was not the first to blow up a sixgun, and probably won't be the last. What's significant is what came next. He switched to the .44 Special after this episode, to come up with a sixgun that would safely handle the heavy loads he wanted for daily use. From that explosive encounter with the .45, Elmer Keith was launched on a path that made him the premier influence on sixgunning for over 50 years.

[CaptainCrossman]

this leads to the question- the remaining bullet in that blown up stainless gun, in the previous pictures- what is its weight in grains, what is its diameter, and what powder charge was behind it ?

there are many, many speeds of powders- simply go to the fastest one, put the heaviest bullet in, KABOOM the gun blows up, if it has a large capacity cartridge.

that doesn't mean 5 grains of the SLOWEST powder, will blow up a gun as strong as the ROA- as a matter of fact, I'd bet money at Vegas House Odds, that the slowest smokeless powder 5 grains in an ROA, could not blow up the gun, using the proper size/weight bullet.

for instance, look at 20N29 (Vihtavuori) powder, it's even slower than H870- and H870 was an artillery shell powder that is very, very slow and low pressure, due to the huge amounts used in artillery and very heavy bullet.

now the kicker- the ROA was proof tested with full cylinders of Bullseye, the 6th fastest smokeless powder on the entire chart-we are talking about a very, very strong gun, fellas. Stainless steel and chrome moly steel, is very, very strong indeed.

I'd wager the ROA would laugh at the slowest powder on the chart, if it could survive the 6th fastest.

If I had to save my life and all I had was smokeless powder and an ROA, I'd load the ROA with the slowest stuff I had, just so I could shoot, if I had to. But again, I'm not recommending it to anyone- don't do it. It's a "just in case" fact.

see link to powder burn rate chart

http://www.varminthunter.org/reloading.shtml

BURNING RATE CHART
Brought to you by www.ReloadBench.com

From fastest to slowest
*** Burn Rate Comparison Chart << FASTEST
1. R-1 (Norma) 59. HS-7 (Hodgdon) 117. Varget (Hodgdon)
2. N310 (Vihtavuori) 60. Blue Dot (Alliant) 118. 5000 (Vectan)
3. Titewad (Hodgdon) 61. 571 (Winchester) 119. AR2208 (ADI)
4. AS- 30N (ADI) 62. N105 (Vihtavuori) 120. 4064 (IMR)
5. Nitro 100 (Accurate) 63. No. 9 (Accurate) 121. 4064 XMR (Accurate)
6. Bullseye (Alliant) 64. Enforcer (Ramshot) 122. 2520 (Accurate)
7. Solo 1000 (Accurate) 65. 4100 (Scot) 123. 4320 (IMR)
8. Red Diamond (Scot) 66. Steel (Alliant) 124. N203 (Norma)
9. AS (Vectan) 67. 2400 (Alliant) 125. N140 (Vihtavuori)
10. Red Dot (Alliant) 68. N110 (Vihtavuori) 126. N540 (Vihtavuori)
11. Promo (Alliant) 69. Lil Gun (Hodgdon) 127. 2700 (Accurate)
12. Titegroup (Hodgdon) 70. R123 (Norma) 128. Big Game (Ramshot)
13. No. 2 (Accurate) 71. H110 (Hodgdon) 129. Reloader 15 (Alliant)
14. American Select (Alliant) 72. 296 (Winchester) 130. H380 (Hodgdon)
15. AA Plus (Winchester) 73. AR2205 (ADI) 131. 760 (Winchester)
16. Clays (Hodgdon) 74. SR-4759 (IMR) 132. Brig 4351 (Scot)
17. N320 (Vihtavuori) 75. N120 (Vihtavuori) 133. H414 (Hodgdon)
18. Competition (Ramshot) 76. 4227 (IMR) 134. N150 (Vihtavuori)
19. Royal D (Scot) 77. H4227 (Hodgdon) 135. N550 (Vihtavuori)
20. WST (Winchester) 78. 5744 XMR (Accurate) 136. 4350 XMR (Accurate)
21. AP- 50N (ADI) 79. 410 (Alliant) 137. 4350 (IMR)
22. HP38 (Hodgdon) 80. N130 (Vihtavuori) 138. 7000 (Vectan)
23. AO (Vectan) 81. SP-3 (Vectan) 139. AR2209 (ADI)
24. 452AA (Winchester) 82. 680 (Winchester) 140. H4350 (Hodgdon)
25. 453 (Scot) 83. N200 (Norma) 141. N204 (Norma)
26. 231 (Winchester) 84. 1680 (Accurate) 142. Hunter (Ramshot)
27. Zip (Ramshot) 85. AR2207 (ADI) 143. Reloader 19 (Alliant)
28. 700X (IMR) 86. H4198 (Hodgdon) 144. N160 (Vihtavuori)
29. Green Dot (Alliant) 87. N133 (Vihtavuori) 145. N560 (Vihtavuori)
30. AS- 50N (ADI) 88. 4198 (IMR) 146. 4831 (IMR)
31. International Clays (Hodgdon) 89. BM1 (ADI) 147. Brig 4831 (Scot)
32. 473AA (Winchester) 90. Brig 4197 (Scot) 148. AR2213SC (ADI)
33. HS-5 (Hodgdon) 91. 2015 XMR (Accurate) 149. N205 (Norma)
34. WSL (Winchester) 92. Brig 3032 (Scot) 150. 3100 XMR (Accurate)
35. Unique (Alliant) 93. Reloader 7 (Alliant) 151. WMR (Winchester)
36. Universal Clays (Hodgdon) 94. 3031 (IMR) 152. H4831 (Hodgdon)
37. N330 (Vihtavuori) 95. Benchmark (Hodgdon) 153. MRP (Norma)
38. AP- 70N (ADI) 96. BM2 (ADI) 154. Reloader 22 (Alliant)
39. Power Pistol (Alliant) 97. N201 (Norma) 155. 785 (Winchester)
40. SR-7625 (IMR) 98. Brig 322 (Scot) 156. H450 (Hodgdon)
41. HS-6 (Hodgdon) 99. AR2219 (ADI) 157. Mag Pro (Accurate)
42. Silhouette (Ramshot) 100. H322 (Hodgdon) 158. N165 (Vihtavuori)
43. WAP (Winchester) 101. X-Terminator (Ramshot) 159. WXR (Winchester)
44. N340 (Vihtavuori) 102. 2230 (Accurate) 160. 7828 (IMR)
45. 540 (Winchester) 103. 748 (Winchester) 161. 8700 (Accurate)
46. Herco (Alliant) 104. Reloader 10X (Alliant) 162. H1000 (Hodgdon)
47. WSF (Winchester) 105. BLC-2 (Hodgdon) 163. AR2217 (ADI)
48. SR-4756 (IMR) 106. AR2206 (ADI) 164. Magnum (Ramshot)
49. AP- 100 (ADI) 107. 2460 (Accurate) 165. Reloader 25 (Alliant)
50. Solo 1250 (Accurate) 108. H335 (Hodgdon) 166. AR2225 (ADI)
51. 3N37 (Vihtavuori) 109. TAC (Ramshot) 167. Retumbo (Hodgdon)
52. 800X (IMR) 110. H4895 (Hodgdon) 168. H870 (Hodgdon)
53. No. 7 (Accurate) 111. 2495 XMR (Accurate) 169. N170 (Vihtavuori)
54. Longshot (Hodgdon) 112. AR2206H (ADI) 170. 24N41 (Vihtavuori)
55. Solo 1500 (Scot) 113. Reloader 12 (Alliant) 171. 50 BMG (Hodgdon)
56. True Blue (Ramshot) 114. 4895 (IMR) 172. AR2218 (ADI)
57. N350 (Vihtavuori) 115. Brig 4065 (Scot) 173. 20N29 (Vihtavuori)

[D.Delozier]

Elmer Kieth was one of my favorite gun writers, used to enjoy reading him in the gun mags back in the day,along with Skeeter Skealton and Jeff Cooper.
If you ever want to read a good book find a copy of Elmer Kieth's book titled Hell I was there, very entertaining reading

[CaptainCrossman]

addendum:

chrome moly vs. stainless

quote:

"The barrel maker must choose the type of steel the barrels are made from. Most often this would be either a chrome-moly steel such as 4140 or a stainless steel such as type 416. The important characteristics of the steel are its machinability, longevity, and strength. Other considerations are secondary, such as its ability to be blued or resistance to corrosion. Almost 100% of the barrels used in competitive bench rest shooting are made from stainless steel. The grades of stainless used for barrels are fairly machinable and offer a longer accuracy life over conventional chrome-moly. They are also more resistant to some of the harsh cleaners used by accuracy shooters. A side benefit is their ability to resist corrosion.

While SS has more resistance to throat erosion, it is still softer than Chrome Moly, so the remainder of the bore may actually have less accurate life due to friction. So, the barrel life question may be a wash between the two materials. Usually, throat erosion is the culprit when a barrel gets "shot out" to the point accuracy starts to suffer. CrMo is harder and more brittle, so it is reportedly more prone to tiny thermal cracks in the throat than stainless.

The main reason custom match grade barrel manufacturers use 416 stainless is simply that it's easier to machine, rifle, and lap to a smooth, close tolerance, uniform bore than CrMo steel."

[D.Delozier]

All this talk about reloading has reminded me I've got a brand new can of trail boss I bought to try out,I've been loading 45 colts with 35 grains of pyrodex with 250 grain lead bullets for my NMA with the R&D cylinder. I droped down to some new 200 grain with smokeless lube, The manual I have lists a starting load of 5.5 grains and a max of 6.5 grains with a 200 grain bullet.that Trail Boss powder is really light fluffy stuff so much so they can only fit 9 oz. in a 1 pound can, Just wanted to try something that did'nt require such a fast clean up and would let me shoot a bit longer between cleanings.

[B.L.E.]

Captain Crossman

The gun in the second photo was a Taurus stainless steel .357 magnum revolver. That makes the oversized bullet theory a little less plausible because the next size up from .357 is what, 10 mm? A bullet that oversized probably would not have chambered in the first place.

The site where I found that picture blames the blowup on an accidental undercharge of powder. Revolver blowups with "cowboy action loads" seems to be a problem lately and one theory is that smokeless can detonate under those conditions while others say that it was more likely an accidental double charge. The problem with proving the undercharge detonation theory is that you can spend all day trying to recreate this on purpose without it happening.

That bullet may have been in an adjacent cylinder for all I know. Or, maybe the pressure spiked so fast that the gun let go before the bullet had a chance to move a significant amount which supports the theory of detonation. A normal gunpowder explosion is like a bowling pin being hit with a bowling ball, the pin is sent flying but the collision does little or no damage to it. A detonation, like a high explosive such as nitroglycerine or PETN undergoes is like a bowling pin being hit by a bullet from a .22-250, severe damage to the pin yet the pin just barely tips over.

Anyway, my "does this scare you" comment should have been "does this give you respect for nitro powder?"
I have been reloading for just as long as you and I also have not blown up a single gun.