# smokeless powder for muzzleloading



## rzdrmh (Dec 30, 2003)

any thoughts guys? seems to me there's a lot of misconceptions floating around about smokeless powder and muzzleloading.. 

given that:
- the department of transportation classifies 777/pyrodex/blackmag3/etc as smokeless powder
- these substitutes bear no resemblance whatsoever, chemically, to black powder.
- max loads published by knight, TC, using 150 grains 777 exceed 2400 fps, faster than any recommended max load with smokeless
- smokeless is safer, easier to store and transport, less corrosive, less maintenance, etc

shouldn't we allow smokeless powder?

i don't get it. powder is either black powder, or its not. why is one substitute allowed and another is not?

tradition? smokeless powder has been around about 100 years longer than 777.

ballistics? again, based on published max loads from many muzzleloading manufacturers, a max load of 777 will outperform a max load of smokeless.

does anyone have a good argument as to why smokeless powder should not be allowed during muzzleloading season? i'd like to hear it.. note that michigan is one of the few midwestern states that have issues with smokeless powder.


----------



## Nick Adams (Mar 10, 2005)

rzdrmh said:


> i don't get it. powder is either black powder, or its not. why is one substitute allowed and another is not?


The technical answer is that the 'approved' BP substitues are all more or less equivalent to black powder on the basis of volume. The smokeless powders we normally use in centerfire firearms are not.



rzdrmh said:


> does anyone have a good argument as to why smokeless powder should not be allowed during muzzleloading season? i'd like to hear it..


I'd prefer to see the muzzleloading season remain somewhat different from the firearms season and not simply become an extension of it. I think the black powder/black powder sub rule helps maintain the difference between the seasons by putting a limit on effective muzzleloader shooting distances. Wouldn't hurt my feelings any if we did away with optical sights, too.

-na


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Probably the most practical reason is that it might prevent some idiot from using it in a muzzleloader that is not designed to handle the pressures that are created by smokeless. Since only a handful are designed with using smokeless in mind, very few people would take advantage of it anyway. I can just see some guy at the range watching the guy next to him shooting smokeless out of his Savage 10 and then deciding "gee, he is getting great groups with that Varget, maybe I should try some in my CVA bobcat."

While I am generally not in favor of laws protecting us from ourselves, in this case there are enough yahoos out there that maybe it's not a good idea to encourage them to try something stupid. 

On the other hand, maybe it's better to allow them to become candidates for the next Darwin award and cleanse the gene pool. :lol:


----------



## No.4shot (Oct 22, 2002)

Munsterlndr said:


> Probably the most practical reason is that it might prevent some idiot from using it in a muzzleloader that is not designed to handle the pressures that are created by smokeless.



That is it exactly......to many idiots.


----------



## rzdrmh (Dec 30, 2003)

Nick Adams said:


> The technical answer is that the 'approved' BP substitues are all more or less equivalent to black powder on the basis of volume. The smokeless powders we normally use in centerfire firearms are not.


not true. both pyrodex and 777 generate more energy with equal volume than black powder. pyrodex is closest to black powder in terms of volume/energy, but 777 is far more substantial. as much as 20%. that is, 100 grains of black powder is comparable to 80 grains of 777.

as a handloader, i find it offensive that the muzzleloading industry finds it appropriate to recommend a standard load (ie: the generic 100 grains of 777) regardless of projectile weight and firearm. can you imagine what would happen if i recommended to people to use "56 grains of h4350" for 30 caliber firearms?

by the way, nick, all of savage's loads can be measured by volume as well..



Nick Adams said:


> I'd prefer to see the muzzleloading season remain somewhat different from the firearms season and not simply become an extension of it. I think the black powder/black powder sub rule helps maintain the difference between the seasons by putting a limit on effective muzzleloader shooting distances. Wouldn't hurt my feelings any if we did away with optical sights, too.
> 
> -na


nick, tell me how black powder substitutes put a limit on distance.. ballistically, they don't (well, not anymore than any other powder,that is). you can only move a 45/50 caliber projectile so efficiently, no matter what speed it starts at.

can you address the fact that both knight and TC publish max loads for their firearms using 150 grains of 777, using saboted bullets that achieve speeds anywhere from 2400-2600 fps? then consider that savage doesn't recommend a load that exceeds 2400 fps, and actually recommends many loads in the 2000-2100 fps range? how exactly are you limiting effective distances with the current black powder substitutes?

as far as doing away with optical sights. thats unrealistic in today's age... the season has become a management tool, as with any other season. that reason alone will keep the dnr from limiting the effectiveness with such a provision.

we've accepted inline muzzleloaders. we've accepted scopes.. we can legally use a bp express muzzleloader, with 200 grains of 777, that blow all speed considerations out of the water.. 

we can't accept a safer propellent, even though the *only *advantage it gives the hunter is _less recoil and less cleaning?_
muzzleloading is still a one shot deal. still a challenging endeavor. powder has no bearing on that.

so thus far, the best argument is that some idiot might use smokeless powder in a firearm not rated to use it, even though those firearms are stamped with a warning against smokeless powder usage?

hmm.. kind of like how i can chamber a 204 round in my 223? or a 20 gauge round in my 12 gauge?


----------



## rzdrmh (Dec 30, 2003)

Munsterlndr said:


> Probably the most practical reason is that it might prevent some idiot from using it in a muzzleloader that is not designed to handle the pressures that are created by smokeless.


true, there _can_ be more pressure associated with smokeless powder, but not what one would think..

pressure is determined by caliber, charge and projectile weight. consider this quote from Randy Wakeman's website:

" Lyman Ballistic Laboratories has published three Pyrodex pellet-powered saboted bullet loads that develop 27,000 PSI out of a 22" test barrel; Triple Seven pellets can produce more pressure than that. "

the savage recommended loads generate 35,000 psi or less. nowhere near the centerfire pressures of 50,000 psi +.

then consider shotgun shells, which are in the 11,000-12,000 psi range, using smokeless powder (see the lyman, 4th edition shotshell reloading manual).

smokeless powder doesn't automatically mean high pressure.


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

The law states: "A muzzleloading rifel or black owder handgun must be loaded with black powder or a commercially manufactured black powder substitute". 

According to the law, vertually any commercially manufactured powder can be used in a muzzleloader in Michigan. It says nothing about smokeless or anything else for a reason. Can you imagine a law that would stipulate that only certain brands of powder can be used? That would be an open invitation to lawsuits from other manufactures. In my opinion, people that think that Pyrodex and 777 are legal where as other brands are not are mistaken. I challenge anybody to provide an example in Michigan where a judge and jury have convicted someone for using smokeless powder in a muzzleloader. There might be a few missguided COs out there that might write a ticket for it, but just becasue a CO writes a ticket does not necessarily mean that someone has broken the law. 

I tested a Savage 10ML a couple years ago along with a bunch of other modern Muzzleloaders (Knight, TC, HR, CVA, Winchester) and found the Savage to be the best of the lot by far. I used it on a sucessful deer hunt in Indiana in 2004 and it performed flawlessly and I highly recomend the gun. But what do I know, I'm primarily a bowhunter.


----------



## rzdrmh (Dec 30, 2003)

yeah, TS, but most CO's interpret the law to mean "no smokeless powder". and who's got the time or money to spend in court - i know i don't...

fact of the matter is that 777, american pioneer, pyrodex, blackmag3, etc - they all pass the bill because a savy marketing person labeled it as "black powder substitute".


hmm.. when the venerable 45-70 case went from black powder to a "black powder substitute", decades upon decades ago, it was conventional single base nitrocellulose based smokeless powder.

black powder subs, ie: the ones listed above, are far more costly to shoot. but not to produce.. the companies that make them aggressively keep the public under the guise that smokeless powder in muzzleloading is a bad thing. all about $$.


----------



## Nick Adams (Mar 10, 2005)

rzdrmh said:


> black powder subs, ie: the ones listed above, are far more costly to shoot. but not to produce.. the companies that make them aggressively keep the public under the guise that smokeless powder in muzzleloading is a bad thing. all about $$.


I can still buy real blackpowder for around $11/lb. When you take into account the cost of blackpowder/flints or caps/cast round balls/patches as opposed to the cost of brass/primers/jacketed bullets/smokeless powder, its cheaper for me on a per shot basis to shoot a muzzleloader than it is to shoot my centerfires. Even without factoring in the cost of the equipment neccessary to reload centerfire shells. ;-)


As far as your original question, the answer doesn't lie in the technical minutia of firearms technology. It revolves around what we collectively want from a muzzleloader season. If it simply boils down to killing as many deer as possible, as fast as possible, with the least amount of effort, as a recreational activity, then we should do away with special seasons altogether and simply have an 'any weapon' season open for a couple of months.

MUzzleloading season means different things to different people. I find it interesting to develop the personal skills to successfully utilize old technology. You are looking for ways to advance the technology, making the personal skills less necessary. Nothing wrong with either approach. But we don't have a "primitive weapons" season or an "unlimited single shot" season, we have a compromise called muzzleloader season.

I'm pretty open minded about what others choose to use as a muzzleloader. If it were legal, I wouldn't have a problem with the use of smokeless powder during the muzzleloader season. At the same time, keep in mind that if we keep liberalizing the rules in small increments, to the point where we eventually arrive at 'any rifle, only one shell loaded' you've effectively eliminated the entire point of having a seperate muzzleloader season. Then we all lose.

-na


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

You are creating the wrong impression that there are no substantive differences between modern smokeless power intended for use in centerfire cartridges and modern black powder substitutes, like 777 & pyrodex.

Regardless of what TS claims, the use of modern smokeless powders in muzzleloaders is not allowed in Michigan, during muzzleloading season. 777 is classified as a smokeless powder by the DOT. This is a federal interpretation regarding whether it can be shipped by interstate commercial carriers and has absolutely nothing to do with it's classification as a black powder substitute under the Michigan law regarding muzzleloading use. 

A black powder substitute means that it is designed to be substituted in firearms designed for using black powder. Modern smokeless powders clearly do not fit this definition, no matter how convoluted your legal reasoning may be. Are you saying that it would be safe to load a Traditions hawken with a load of IMR 4064? 

If 777 is a smokeless powder why is it not included in the list of smokeless powders manufactured by Hodgdon, the manufacturer?

Rzdrmh, you clearly want to use smokeless in a muzzleloader. Why don't you just go ahead and do it? If you are ever stopped by a CO, I'm sure they will let it slide because you can tell them that you have it on good authority from TS that it is legal to use smokeless during muzzleloading season.  

But do the novice muzzleloaders that read this forum a favor and make it explicitly clear that it is *not* a good idea to try and use smokeless powder in a muzzleloader, unless you happen to own a Savage 10.


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

Munsterlndr said:


> Regardless of what TS claims, the use of modern smokeless powders in muzzleloaders is not allowed in Michigan, during muzzleloading season.


OK then proove me wrong. Show me one case in MI where a judge and jury convited some one that used smokeless powder in a muzzleloader. 

The wording of the law is too vauge to ever stand up in court. I've asked a half dozen COs about their interpritation of the law and about half of them thought it would be illegal to hunt with nitrocellulose based powders. The other half thought that it was legal. Every year manufactures are comming out with new and improved muzzleloading powders. Michigan needs to revise the law and clearly define what powders are legal. There are a couple other manufactures producing muzzleloaders that are capable of shooting nitrocellulose based powders. If the DNR does not clarify the law and keeps allowing COs to interperit it anyway they want, then a lawsuit by gun and powder manufacturers against the state of MI is almost a certainty. Illinios just clairied it's muzzleloading rules for just that reason. They now allow nitrocellulose powders to be used in muzzleloaders designed for its use.


----------



## Nick Adams (Mar 10, 2005)

Trophy Specialist said:


> OK then proove me wrong.


You can always "Ask the DNR". What the DNR/Lansing publishes on the topic is pretty clear.

http://midnr.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/MiDNR.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_sid=D*EpPlci&p_lva=&p_faqid=226&p_created=1019243384&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9ncmlkc29ydD0mcF9yb3dfY250PTMmcF9zZWFyY2hfdGV4dD1zbW9rZWxlc3MmcF9wcm9kX2x2bDE9ODcmcF9wcm9kX2x2bDI9OTImcF9wYWdlPTE*&p_li=

-na


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Trophy Specialist said:


> OK then proove me wrong. Show me one case in MI where a judge and jury convited some one that used smokeless powder in a muzzleloader.


So you are saying laws are only valid if someone has been successfully prosecuted for violating them? Which institution is your law degree from? You should ask for a refund.


----------



## rzdrmh (Dec 30, 2003)

Munsterlndr said:


> You are creating the wrong impression that there are no substantive differences between modern smokeless power intended for use in centerfire cartridges and modern black powder substitutes, like 777 & pyrodex.





Munsterlndr said:


> Regardless of what TS claims, the use of modern smokeless powders in muzzleloaders is not allowed in Michigan, during muzzleloading season. 777 is classified as a smokeless powder by the DOT. This is a federal interpretation regarding whether it can be shipped by interstate commercial carriers and has absolutely nothing to do with it's classification as a black powder substitute under the Michigan law regarding muzzleloading use.


tell me where michigan law defines what constitutes a blackpowder substitute. chemical composition? pressure? brand? it doesn't exist out there, my friend.

again, i have to ask.. if a recommended load of smokeless ballistically shoots the same as a recommended load of "black powder substitute", why is one legal and the other is not? why not allow any powder recommended for use by the firearm manufacturer?



Munsterlndr said:


> A black powder substitute means that it is designed to be substituted in firearms designed for using black powder. Modern smokeless powders clearly do not fit this definition, no matter how convoluted your legal reasoning may be. Are you saying that it would be safe to load a Traditions hawken with a load of IMR 4064?
> 
> If 777 is a smokeless powder why is it not included in the list of smokeless powders manufactured by Hodgdon, the manufacturer?


wait a minute.. 777 and pyrodex generate more pressure per volume than black powder. loads are not interchangeable, and if you are doing so, you're asking for a trip to the hospital. you're own criteria has already been violated.

my legal reasonings are convoluted?

777 is not included in the list of smokeless powders because they learned their lesson with pyrodex, which was classified and labeled as a smokeless powder for many years. marketing my friend. they are willing to call it smokeless for the purposes of transportation. make a choice.



Munsterlndr said:


> Rzdrmh, you clearly want to use smokeless in a muzzleloader. Why don't you just go ahead and do it? If you are ever stopped by a CO, I'm sure they will let it slide because you can tell them that you have it on good authority from TS that it is legal to use smokeless during muzzleloading season.
> 
> But do the novice muzzleloaders that read this forum a favor and make it explicitly clear that it is *not* a good idea to try and use smokeless powder in a muzzleloader, unless you happen to own a Savage 10.


oh, munster, i clearly will use smokeless in a muzzleloader.. i forego shotguns during general firearms season. smokeless muzzleloading is completely legal during general firearms season, i've verified it with boehr on this site, and with 2 other LT's. i just don't want to have to get my omega out during muzzleloading season. i will for the time being, though, because of the law.

i have no obligation to novice users of this forum. muzzleloading is handloading, period. this is a handloading forum, for God's sake. should someone be so foolhardy as to use powders inappropriate in their firearm, that is their responsibility. i cannot possibly account for these people. do i need to tell them not to use Blue Dot in their .30-06?


----------



## rzdrmh (Dec 30, 2003)

Nick Adams said:


> You can always "Ask the DNR". What the DNR/Lansing publishes on the topic is pretty clear.
> 
> http://midnr.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/MiDNR.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_sid=D*EpPlci&p_lva=&p_faqid=226&p_created=1019243384&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9ncmlkc29ydD0mcF9yb3dfY250PTMmcF9zZWFyY2hfdGV4dD1zbW9rZWxlc3MmcF9wcm9kX2x2bDE9ODcmcF9wcm9kX2x2bDI9OTImcF9wYWdlPTE*&p_li=
> 
> -na


yep, that answer is wrong..

i've confirmed with other CO's that the answer is wrong - says i can only use smokeless in rifle zones.. completely false..

seems to be some confusion about the law? how can that be?


----------



## rzdrmh (Dec 30, 2003)

Nick Adams said:


> I can still buy real blackpowder for around $11/lb. When you take into account the cost of blackpowder/flints or caps/cast round balls/patches as opposed to the cost of brass/primers/jacketed bullets/smokeless powder, its cheaper for me on a per shot basis to shoot a muzzleloader than it is to shoot my centerfires. Even without factoring in the cost of the equipment neccessary to reload centerfire shells. ;-)
> 
> 
> As far as your original question, the answer doesn't lie in the technical minutia of firearms technology. It revolves around what we collectively want from a muzzleloader season. If it simply boils down to killing as many deer as possible, as fast as possible, with the least amount of effort, as a recreational activity, then we should do away with special seasons altogether and simply have an 'any weapon' season open for a couple of months.
> ...


nick - my point on cost is that smokeless is far cheaper than 777, black mag3, american pioneer, etc. that's it.

please explain to me how smokeless muzzleloading is different from what we have now.

number one, the vast majority of muzzleloaders are using a substitute. given that, they all load from the muzzle.

now, that substitute can shoot just as flat and far as smokeless, which is loaded from the muzzle. 

how does this liberalize the rules? still as challenging. just have less recoil and cleaning. does less recoil and cleaning kill more deer? do you think, because i don't have to swab my barrel after a shot (which many don't in the field with 777 or black mag 3 as well) that i'll be able to kill significantly more deer with my muzzleloader?


----------



## rzdrmh (Dec 30, 2003)

Nick Adams said:


> MUzzleloading season means different things to different people. I find it interesting to develop the personal skills to successfully utilize old technology. You are looking for ways to advance the technology, making *the personal skills less necessary*. Nothing wrong with either approach. But we don't have a "primitive weapons" season or an "unlimited single shot" season, we have a compromise called muzzleloader season.
> 
> 
> -na


that statement is laughable. i'll wager my knowledge of ballistics, loading, firearm, and whatever else you classify as personal skills against anyones. its something i take extremely seriously.

that's naive at best to assume such a thing.


----------



## Nick Adams (Mar 10, 2005)

rzdrmh said:


> do i need to tell them not to use Blue Dot in their .30-06?


Now *there* you finally have a technical question that the minutia of firearms technology *can* answer.

Good reduced load powder with jacket or cast bullets in a variety of mid sized bottleneck cartridges, including the 30-06.

Using a 100-150 gr bullet, start at 10gr Bluedot (~1100 fps with a 150 gr jacketed sp). No filler. Work up as desired. Pressure-wise you should be good to around 20-22gr Bluedot, but procede at your own risk.


I don't think this is legal to use in muzzleloader season, either. On the other hand, no one has been convicted for using it to shoot a deer yet, so who knows. Maybe you could work up some 30-06/Bluedot loads for us where you seat the bullet from the muzzle.

;-)

-na


----------



## Nick Adams (Mar 10, 2005)

rzdrmh said:


> nick - my point on cost is that smokeless is far cheaper than 777, black mag3, american pioneer, etc. that's it.


So is blackpowder. ;-)

The reason these are more expensive is that have active marketing campaigns behind them. Companys want to sell new guns, powders and bullets to deer hunters. It's in their interest to keep tweaking the state hunting rules in order to sell expensive new and improved gear. They employ guys like Randy Wakeman to do that for them.

My point is that deer hunting shouldn't be about buying new gear. It should be about improving your skill sets.




rzdrmh said:


> please explain to me how smokeless muzzleloading is different from what we have now.


This has been covered before. What we have now fallls within the legal guidelines of muzzleloading deer hunting in Michiagn. Smokeless muzzeloaders using smokeless powder do not.

You have a legal problem, not a technical problem. You need to approach it from a legal/political standpoint. Something along the lines of _"The state governement is trampling on my constitutional right to kill deer with the firearm of my choice in the season of my choice"_. Call the ACLU.

-na


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

Munsterlndr said:


> So you are saying laws are only valid if someone has been successfully prosecuted for violating them? Which institution is your law degree from? You should ask for a refund.


Classic Munsterlndr: When he can't come up with any facts he slings insults. 

That law has been on the books for many years and so have muzzle loaders that can handle nitrocellulose based powders. I have no doubt that many people are using muzzleloaders in MI with nitrocellulose based powders. You'd think that if it were truely illegal, as some would have you believe, then there would have been at least one sucessful prosecution. The DNR does not decide what is ultimatly legal or illegal. Thankfully that duty is up the the courts. I once heard on a radio progam that DNR COs have the worst prosecution rate of any branch of law enforcement in Michigan. If they issue a ticket for someone using illegal powder in a muzzle loader, then that will be just one more loss on their record. Anybody with a lick of common sense can see that the law is too vauge to be enforcable on powder brands.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Trophy Specialist said:


> Classic Munsterlndr: When he can't come up with any facts he slings insults.
> 
> That law has been on the books for many years and so have muzzle loaders that can handle nitrocellulose based powders. I have no doubt that many people are using muzzleloaders in MI with nitrocellulose based powders. You'd think that if it were truely illegal, as some would have you believe, then there would have been at least one sucessful prosecution. The DNR does not decide what is ultimatly legal or illegal. Thankfully that duty is up the the courts. I once heard on a radio progam that DNR COs have the worst prosecution rate of any branch of law enforcement in Michigan. If they issue a ticket for someone using illegal powder in a muzzle loader, then that will be just one more loss on their record. Anybody with a lick of common sense can see that the law is too vauge to be enforcable on powder brands.


Oh, you are interested in facts? Interesting since you have not provided any "facts" in your previous posts, just a bunch of pseudo-legal hypothesizing that is pure speculation.

Fact: Michigan law states that only Black Powder or Black powder substitutes are legal for use in Muzzleloaders during deer season.

You want to argue with this "fact" by speculating that it is unenforceable because it's too vague? Does that mean that dozens of other laws in numerous other states and Federal BATF regulations that use the term "Black powder substitute" are also not enforceable? I would like to see you argue that one with the BATF. 

The "fact" is that the term "Black Powder Substitute" is a widely accepted term and anybody that is not a moron or is being intentionally obtuse knows that it refers to non-nitrocellulose powders that can safely be used in muzzleloading rifles. You guys can argue semantics all you want but it's obvious that you are not after any "facts".

Your idea that laws are not valid unless someone has been successfully prosecuted under them is just plain silly.  

By the way, I see you still can't resist bashing the DNR any chance you get. A leopard never changes it's spots.


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

Munsterlndr said:


> Oh, you are interested in facts? Interesting since you have not provided any "facts" in your previous posts, just a bunch of pseudo-legal hypothesizing that is pure speculation.
> 
> Fact: Michigan law states that only Black Powder or Black powder substitutes are legal for use in Muzzleloaders during deer season.
> 
> ...


I'm not going to lower myself to Munsterlndr's level by further response to his blatant personal, insulting attacks on me and others. This is his typical tactic on any subject that he disagrees with in an attempt to get the thread closed. Do we not have any moderators on this site? Why is he still tolorated on this sitehere?


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Give me a break, Mike, I'll get out my violin. You make a bunch of baseless assertions like a Michigan law in unenforceable and then when someone calls you on it you start crying foul?  

If memory serves me correctly, you made this same silly argument about two years ago and when Boehr called you on it you used the same silly argument about "show me a case where a person has been found guilty of using smokeless powder in a muzzleloader.?"

Boehr was right in his response then and he was also right when he said in the same thread " _LOL TS...I haven't posted much to your polls regardless the methods you have constantly used because everyone is seeing through you._"

http://icefishingmichigan.com/forum/showthread.php?p=505544


----------



## rzdrmh (Dec 30, 2003)

Nick Adams said:


> Now *there* you finally have a technical question that the minutia of firearms technology *can* answer.
> 
> Good reduced load powder with jacket or cast bullets in a variety of mid sized bottleneck cartridges, including the 30-06.
> 
> ...



LOL, i see, nick (you know that example wasn't chosen at random, right? ;-) .. and to think guys are worried about someone advocating smokeless powder in muzzleloaders.. 

you've conveniently not answered any questions posed, but you have one thing right - its a legal issue. i'd agree.. 

i'm not so foolish as to place all of my efforts into a internet forum - there certainly are a multitude of avenues to pursue.

munster - actually, michigan is one of the few states that doesn't allow smokeless. if i remember correctly, indiana had a law that was too vague. when the legislators tried to write the law to specifically ban smokeless powder, there was such a backlash that it never went anywhere, and smokeless is used quite happily in indiana. now, clearly the dnr perceives it to be illegal, and therefore, i'll continue to use my omega and 777 during muzzleloading season. however, the dnr, by their own admission, cannot set or change policy. to challenge the law, i would not bother contacting the dnr, nor challenge them, it would be a supreme waste of time. other organizations can clarify the law.

munster and nick, i've understand the perception of what constitutes a black powder substitute (although i doubt the BATF has any thoughts on it whatsoever). i understand that the dnr perceives certain brands to qualify as black powder substitute. i simply am seeking acknowledgement that the criteria for those substitutes are arbitrarily set. we know that:
- 777/pyrodex/blackmag3/etc CANNOT be arbitrarily substituted for black powder. those produce far more pressure for loads measured by the same volume.
- those very substitutes mentioned above can shoot just as flat,or flatter, than any recommended smokeless load, so there is no ballistic advantage.
- those very substitutes bear NO resemblence, chemically, to black powder.
- as far as "tradition" goes - smokeless powder was the first black powder substitute, first used a century ago. pyrodex came out in the mid-late 60's, triple 7 came out only a few years ago.
- smokeless powder truly is non-corrosive, has a much higher flash point making it safer for transport and usage. (furthermore, pyrodex is made with a chemical that produces cyanide gas when exposed to heat. nice touch)

and furthermore, they are all still loaded FROM THE MUZZLE! so, apparently it seems to me that a black powder substitute is acceptable as long as its labeled as such.

once hunters made the leap from traditional muzzleloaders to inline muzzleloaders, along with saboted bullets, they made a quantum jump in performance. the usage of smokeless powder is but a minor afterthought in that scenario, providing only the advantage of less recoil and cleaner shooting.

i'm still waiting for a valid argument against smokeless powder. we've been told time and time again on this thread that its illegal.. ok, that's established. now explain to me why it _should_ be.


----------



## rzdrmh (Dec 30, 2003)

Nick Adams said:


> So is blackpowder. ;-)
> 
> The reason these are more expensive is that have active marketing campaigns behind them. Companys want to sell new guns, powders and bullets to deer hunters. It's in their interest to keep tweaking the state hunting rules in order to sell expensive new and improved gear. They employ guys like Randy Wakeman to do that for them.
> 
> My point is that deer hunting shouldn't be about buying new gear. It should be about improving your skill sets.


randy wakeman is not employed by anyone in the industry, and he has more "skill sets" that you or i. i'd love to see you challenge his articles.. lets see those skills.. LOL..

hunting shouldn't be about buying new gear? i bet you've contradicted that little piece of wisdom about a 100 times.. ;-)

tell me nick - when did improving skills and technology become mutually exclusive for you? its unfortunate that you've limited the scope of your perceptions.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Rzdrmh -

Personally, I could care less if someone wants to use nitrocellulose powder in a muzzleloader. I am not a traditionalist, I use an encore and if it was legal and the Encore was built for it I would have no problem trying smokeless powder in a muzzleloader.

You asked for reasons why the law exists the way it does and I answered that it is probably designed to protect uninformed muzzleloaders from using smokeless in a muzzleloader. I read the same article by Randy Wakeman that you did where he claims to "debunk" the myth of high pressure resulting from smokeless nitrocellulose powder. Despite what a couple of authors might say, virtually every powder company and every muzzleloader manufacturer clearly urges people not to use smokeless nitrocellulose powder in any muzzleloader other than a Savage 10. The fact remains that it is generally safe to use Pyrodex, triple-7 and clear shot in traditional muzzleloaders, albeit not in the same volume as Goex. 

You can't say the same for nitrocellulose smokeless powders and therein lies the distinction. I would not advocate using nitro powders, even in very reduced loads, in any muzzleloader other than a Savage 10 and I'd be surprised if you would either. 

Regardless of what Mike says, the law is the law, and a number of other states also prohibit the use of smokeless nitro powders in muzzleloaders during muzzleloading season. And yes, if you read the BATF regulations they do differentiate "Black powder substitutes" from regular smokeless powders. .If you can get the law changed, great, more power to you. Most of my responses to this thread have involved the notion that just because someone has not been convicted under a certain law it's not a valid law. I realize that you did not put forth this theory and my earlier comment about legal reasoning was not directed towards you.

Whether you agree or not, there is a substantive difference between modern nitro smokeless powders and what are commonly acknowledged as black powder substitutes. One is safe to use in the majority of muzzleloading rifles and the other is not.


----------



## rzdrmh (Dec 30, 2003)

Munsterlndr said:


> Rzdrmh -
> Whether you agree or not, there is a substantive difference between modern nitro smokeless powders and what are commonly acknowledged as black powder substitutes. One is safe to use in the majority of muzzleloading rifles and the other is not.


yes, i'd wholeheartedly agree that one should only use powders recommended for their firearm, by the firearm manufacturer.

and i conceded several posts ago that smokeless powder generates pressures higher than black powder subs, although its been shown that they are not as high as one might think (ie: much lower than centerfire rifle pressures).

but there's an important distinction in your message. because, if smokeless powder is not allowed because of its potential usage in rifles not rated for smokeless, then the possibility of smokeless down the road remains.

however, if smokeless is not allowed, because the powers that be want it to be a "black powder" season (regardless of how misguided their belief in black powder substitutes are), then there's little chance of a change in the future.

personally, i feel that smokeless is not allowed because of the "perceived" advantages, ballistically, that it has over black powder and black powder subs. i think you are correct as well, and that there is also a belief that smokeless powder would be used improperly.


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

Munsterlndr said:


> Give me a break, Mike, I'll get out my violin. You make a bunch of baseless assertions like a Michigan law in unenforceable and then when someone calls you on it you start crying foul?


You're a real class act. You come on this forum under the disguise of anonymity and shoot off your mouth with insults. I doubt that youd have the guts to spew your inflammatory verbal abuse to my face. I know youre capable of carrying on an intelligent debate without the attack tactics, so why do you choose those tactics in violation of the rules of this forum. It makes you're arguements seem a lot less intelegent.


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

I have no dog in this fight. In fact, Id vote for the elimination off all non-traditional muzzleloaders, scope sights, modern powders and saboted bullets during the muzzle loading deer seasons. I havent hunted during the ML deer season in MI in over a decade. This issue is strictly a legal one. Because of the ambiguous wooding of the law and the constant evolution of muzzleloaders and gun powders, this issue will eventually be addressed in the courts. If a court challenge comes in the form of a law suit (very probable), then it will cost the state lots of unnecessary money win, loose or draw. The wording of the law needs to be changed to make it clear what is legal and what is not. If the wording of the law were too specifically say that nitrocellulose based powders were illegal -- or legal in firearms designed for that type of powder, then eithor would do the trick and would be fine with me. 

The safety argument really doesnt hold water though. Many other states allow nitrocellulose based powders to be used in muzzleloaders and I have not heard of a rash of accidents in those states. Look at Indiana. When Ive hunted down there during their muzzleloader season, it seemed like half the hunters down there were using Savage 10MLs. I have not heard of any cases of people blowing themselves up down there because they were using the wrong powders for their MLs. Can anybody give us some examples of such accidents in states where any powder is legal?


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Trophy Specialist said:


> You're a real class act. You come on this forum under the disguise of anonymity and shoot off your mouth with insults. I doubt that youd have the guts to spew your inflammatory verbal abuse to my face. I know youre capable of carrying on an intelligent debate without the attack tactics, so why do you choose those tactics in violation of the rules of this forum. It makes you're arguments seem a lot less intelligent.


Mike,
I would hardly call my tongue-in-cheek question about where you got your law degree and that maybe you should ask for a refund, a vicious personal attack or even an insult. Slightly sarcastic? Maybe but hardly an insult. If your skin is so thin you you perceive this to be "inflammatory verbal abuse" than maybe you need to post about less controversial subjects. 

When you make the claim that one of the laws of Michigan is valid law and offer no proof other than your own opinion, you better be prepared to get called on it. You slam me for not having any "facts" yet when your original premise was challenged, your response was "oh yeah, prove it." This is hardly a cogent argument based on "facts" of the type that you seem to be seeking. You make a silly statement it is up to you to offer supporting evidence, not up to others to disprove your assertion.

You have the right to say anything you want but don't expect the rest of us to sit by and listen quietly when you make highly questionable statements.


----------



## Nick Adams (Mar 10, 2005)

rzdrmh said:


> i'm still waiting for a valid argument against smokeless powder. we've been told time and time again on this thread that its illegal.. ok, that's established. now explain to me why it _should_ be.


I'm not the one interested in getting the law changed. The burden of proof doesn't fall on me to defend the existing law, it falls on you to provide clear and compelling evidence as to why it would be in the state's interest for the law to be changed. I don't think the "I don't like to clean my gun" argument crosses that threshold, but you are welcome to take it to the state legislature and see if it flies there.

To debate each of your questions in detail is to play Wakeman's game on Wakeman's terms. Each question carries the implied assumption that if it's kinda-sorta like what's already allowed then the smokeless muzzleloading should be allowed, too. Unfortunately for you and Wakeman, kinda-sorta the same isn't good enough in Michigan where the law explicitly states blackpowder and blackpowder subs only.

-na


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

Nick Adams said:


> .... in Michigan where the law explicitly states blackpowder and blackpowder subs only.


So if the law is clear in your mind, what happens when someone comes out with a nitrocellulose powder specifically for muzzleloaders capable of handling that powder, and they label it black powder substitute? Would that be legal in MI?

You can bet that within the next few years youll see powders that are smokeless and non-corrosive, yet they will be safely useable in most muzzleloaders. Will these powders be legal in MI?


----------



## Nick Adams (Mar 10, 2005)

Trophy Specialist said:


> The wording of the law needs to be changed to make it clear what is legal and what is not. If the wording of the law were too specifically say that nitrocellulose based powders were illegal -- or legal in firearms designed for that type of powder, then eithor would do the trick and would be fine with me.


The law says blackpowder or black powder substitutes only. 

I have 25 - 30 containers of conventional smokeless powders on the shelf. Every single one of those cans (that are less than about 15 years old), regardless of manufacturer, has a warning printed on the can to the effect that it is not a substitute for black powder. 

The definition a "black powder substitute" is a lot less ambiguous than it has been made out to be here.

Alliant: "Never substitute this smokeless powder for black powder"

Hodgdon: "Never substitute this powder for blackpowder or Pyrodex powders, or use in a muzzeloading firearm."

IMR: "Never use this smokeless powder in firearms designed for blackpowder"

-na


----------



## Nick Adams (Mar 10, 2005)

Trophy Specialist said:


> You can bet that within the next few years youll see powders that are smokeless and non-corrosive, yet they will be safely useable in most muzzleloaders. Will these powders be legal in MI?


I am not a lawyer and I do not pretend to be one on the internet.

-na


----------



## rzdrmh (Dec 30, 2003)

Nick Adams said:


> I'm not the one interested in getting the law changed. The burden of proof doesn't fall on me to defend the existing law, it falls on you to provide clear and compelling evidence as to why it would be in the state's interest for the law to be changed. I don't think the "I don't like to clean my gun" argument crosses that threshold, but you are welcome to take it to the state legislature and see if it flies there.
> 
> To debate each of your questions in detail is to play Wakeman's game on Wakeman's terms. Each question carries the implied assumption that if it's kinda-sorta like what's already allowed then the smokeless muzzleloading should be allowed, too. Unfortunately for you and Wakeman, kinda-sorta the same isn't good enough in Michigan where the law explicitly states blackpowder and blackpowder subs only.
> 
> -na


sheez, nick, i'm just looking for opinions, not asking you to define proof for the state.

wakeman's points *are not *"kinda-sorta". its apparently that you've put little effort into understand what he's written - probably because you don't care whether its legal. but if you choose to dis-credit him, don't you think you ought to give some reasons why? you really think you're making a good case by saying, "i can't refute each of the individual arguments, but on the whole, i'm right"?

as far as compelling evidence for the state.. the state doesn't require compelling evidence _to support the usage of smokeless powder_, it only require demonstration that there's not compelling evidence _against the usage _of smokeless powder. 

that is, if it can be demonstrated that smokeless powder does not create an unintended ballistic advantage, and that its safe in firearms (designated for its usage), then why restrict it?

but your insistence on compelling evidence comes at a cost. i could make a stronger case against the usage of black powder substitutes than smokeless powder. black powder is relatively dangerous, defined as an explosive by the DOT, a low flash point, and fragile kernel structure (for those unaware, kernal structure is used in part to control burn rates. crush the structure, and it changes the burn characteristics). black powder subs, such as triple 7 and pyrodex, are more dangerous, imo. both have fragile kernel structures. both have higher flash points than black powder, but are still relatively low. pyrodex produces a poison gas when burned, and remains explosive - it is still used as a blasting compound, and the original creator of pyrodex died when the facilities exploded. triple 7 states right on the package that the compound can be altered to make it a flammable solid, a low grade explosive. it is sensitive to friction and impact, characteristics of black powder, and reasons to classify it as an explosive. (compelling enough?)

smokeless powder cannot be altered to create an explosive. smokeless powder has a high flash point. smokeless powder is not sensitive to impact and friction. smokeless powder is clean burning. smokeless powder is the better propellant, and that's why it was the original black powder substitute.
is that compelling enough?

its becoming apparent to me that you don't want to consider allowing smokeless powder in muzzleloading, simply because you don't use it. when asked for reasons that it shouldn't be used, you hide behind the excuse that the current law doesn't allow for it, and its not your burden. the law is sufficient and requires no examination. do you wish to unnecessarily restrict fellow hunters?

you argue that, with every advancement, we move closer to an "anything goes" type of season. i think that's a huge stretch, given the topic of discussion. conversely, i'd argue that if hunters continue to oppose new avenues of hunting for the purposes of protecting their own ways, we only accelerate the demise of hunting in general. you oppose, for no other reason than, "its the law".


----------



## rzdrmh (Dec 30, 2003)

Nick Adams said:


> The law says blackpowder or black powder substitutes only.
> 
> I have 25 - 30 containers of conventional smokeless powders on the shelf. Every single one of those cans (that are less than about 15 years old), regardless of manufacturer, has a warning printed on the can to the effect that it is not a substitute for black powder.
> 
> ...


that really means little, don't you think, nick? the savage 10 has been in production now for, what, 6 years? and to my knowledge, there are no others making guns for smokeless powder usage.. so the cans have a valid disclaimer, right? that only means that smokeless powder is not a valid substitute for certain firearms. savage says its perfectly fine to use.. and some of those imr powders that you referenced are RECOMMENDED loads by savage.

a disclaimer of usage is by no means a definition.


----------



## Nick Adams (Mar 10, 2005)

rzdrmh said:


> you really think you're making a good case by saying, "i can't refute each of the individual arguments, but on the whole, i'm right"


I ignored those arguments because they were not relevant to a) the issue of your being allowed to use smokeless powder during muzzleloader season in the state of Michigan or b) my opinion as to whether the rules should be changed in order to make that possible. They didn't need to be refuted because they were only introduced to confuse the issue. 

If you are making them in order to get the law changed you're wasting your time making them here. I am not a member of the state legislature. I'd be surprised if many members here are. 



rzdrmh said:


> do you wish to unnecessarily restrict fellow hunters?


 I don't restrict hunters from doing anything. The state has a monopoly on that.

As far as I know the state allows you to buy a smokeless muzzleloader and to hunt with it, even to the point of allowing the use of smokeless powder in it during the appropriate season. I'm not seeing any unnecessary restrictions in that situation.



rzdrmh said:


> you oppose, for no other reason than, "its the law".


 That's a pretty good reason in my book for refraining from certain actvities. ;-)

I noticed someone here the other day refer to baiting activity in the TB zone as 'an act of civil disobedience'. An inspiring rationalization. You might want to try approaching it from that angle. You could contact your local CO, explain the situation and ask to be arrested, providing TS with his much sought after muzzleloader season court precedent.


re: smokeless powder warning lables


rzdrmh said:


> that only means that smokeless powder is not a valid substitute for certain firearms.


 Not "only". It also means that it is not likely that any court of law is going to construe them as being 'commercial black powder substitutes' within the context of Michigan's hunting season restrictions.

;-)

-na


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

Nick Adams said:


> ...You might want to try approaching it from that angle. You could contact your local CO, explain the situation and ask to be arrested, providing TS with his much sought after muzzleloader season court precedent.


Some COs might write a ticket but you'd be hard pressed to find any prosecutor take it to court. Most prosecutors care very much about thier conviction records and I doubt any DAs would go after such a loosing case. Even though it is DNR Law Division policy to classify anthing but black powder, Pyrodex or 777 as illegal powders during ML season, there are still some COs that would never write a ticket on that one becasue they realize that it would be a huge waste of time and resources. 

Incidentally, when I tested that Savage 10ML I also tested it with 777 pellets and Pyrodex powder and it performed about the same as with nitrocellulous powders accuracy wise. It was just stinkier and dirtier to shoot.


----------



## rzdrmh (Dec 30, 2003)

Nick Adams said:


> I ignored those arguments because they were not relevant to a) the issue of your being allowed to use smokeless powder during muzzleloader season in the state of Michigan or b) my opinion as to whether the rules should be changed in order to make that possible. They didn't need to be refuted because they were only introduced to confuse the issue.


are you kidding? not relevant?



Nick Adams said:


> As far as I know the state allows you to buy a smokeless muzzleloader and to hunt with it, even to the point of allowing the use of smokeless powder in it during the appropriate season. I'm not seeing any unnecessary restrictions in that situation.


see, the continual truth comes out. you don't believe smokeless powder SHOULD be used during MUZZLELOADING season, for your own sentimental selfish reasons. even though you can't come up with a single argument. 



Nick Adams said:


> That's a pretty good reason in my book for refraining from certain actvities. ;-)


you're oh so good at twisting people's words. you knew exactly the context in which i was speaking.



Nick Adams said:


> I noticed someone here the other day refer to baiting activity in the TB zone as 'an act of civil disobedience'. An inspiring rationalization. You might want to try approaching it from that angle. You could contact your local CO, explain the situation and ask to be arrested, providing TS with his much sought after muzzleloader season court precedent.


ah, no intelligent arguments again, nick? just more sarcasm?



Nick Adams said:


> re: smokeless powder warning lables
> Not "only". It also means that it is not likely that any court of law is going to construe them as being 'commercial black powder substitutes' within the context of Michigan's hunting season restrictions.


fortunately for the rest of us, you're no lawyer (by your own admission) and your legal opinion is worth less than your opinion on black powder substitutes..

;-)

well, nick, we all know the current interpretation of the law. i started the thread because i wanted opinions as to why the law should stand or why it should be amended. was that not clear in the original post? you can't give any argument except, "its the law". and when challenged, you poke fun.. you have a unique way of debating - provide no points, and ignore all counterpoints.

feel free to refrain posting anything more, unless you can come up with something other than the mantra "its the law, its the law, its the law..." . we all know what the law is, i was asking for arguments for or against the law as it stands..


----------



## mparks (Sep 4, 2001)

Let's hear all the benefits we would gain if smokeless powder(i.e. nitrocellulouse based) were legal during the "blackpowder or commercially available substitute that does not include nitro-based powders season". And that's what I want to see the name changed to for 2007.:lol: 

Here are the only ones I can think of:
1. A little less recoil. Takes less powder therefore less total wieght to push out of the barrel.
2. Cleaner. Wouldn't have to clean except for plastic fouling or lube and maybe lead.
3. Savage sells some more rifles.
4. Freedom of choice.

What else? Not trying to stir the pot(I think it's fully mixed already:lol: ) I'm just interested in hearing some more reasons why we should care since I've already invested too much time reading this thread. I personally like to use my old sidelocks and I don't plan on dumping any I-4064 down the barrel of them anytime soon.


----------

