# Fouling the barrel of a ML



## SHANK (Apr 5, 2006)

I have a White ML and have always ran a full powder charge through the barrel to foul it before loading.

I've read in here that some guys are just firing off a primer instead. What's the consensus here?


----------



## BarryPatch (Jul 21, 2004)

Why would you dirty the barrel prior to shooting? I swab it between each shot. Some people fire a primer to insure that the breech hole is clear. I just look in the breech and if I see light, I load.


----------



## Swamp Monster (Jan 11, 2002)

I never ever do either. I site in with a clean barrel, I take every shot with a clean barrel, and I hunt with a clean barrel. I will never foul my barrel for the season, because the last thing I want to do is run around for two or three weeks in the elements with a dirty muzzleloader...the fouling will just hold any moisture thats present....not good. A fouling shot with a centerfire is a good idea, but doesn't necessarily crossover to the muzzloading world. I also never ever fire a primer. Primer fouling is just as nasty, but more importantly, there really is no need. If the gun is clean properly to begin with, the primer hole should be clean and dry. Now, feel free to run one or two dry patches down the bore before loading, but thats all that shouldbe needed. Firing a primer comes from the sidelock world and a little bit from the #11 era of inlines.

At the range I run 2 wet patches and a dry patch between every shot. This has led to the best accuracy in both my muzzleloaders. Accuracy with a second shot without cleaning is still good enough that I can make a quicker 2nd shot in the field without cleaning if necessary.

Clean+Dry+Consistancy=Accuracy


----------



## SHANK (Apr 5, 2006)

Ok...just what I was told when I bought it. Thanks guys.


----------



## Banditto (Jun 9, 2000)

I was told the same thing... but another thing to think about is how detrimental that can be to your barrel. If you are like me and hunt both morning and evening your powder residue is going to sit in your barrel all day and by evening it will start pitting. 

I found out the hard way...

If I were you I would just hunt with a clean gun.


----------



## QuakrTrakr (Apr 4, 2001)

SHANK said:


> I have a White ML and have always ran a full powder charge through the barrel to foul it before loading.
> 
> I've read in here that some guys are just firing off a primer instead. What's the consensus here?


How did you sight in your gun? Did you clean it between shots? Did you shoot it dirty? However you sighted it in is how you should shoot it. Why would you want to change? 
Last year I sighted mine dirty, so I shot that way. This year I sighted clean, and found it shoots better dirty. I'll be shooting a fouling shot.


----------



## Outdoorzman (Jun 5, 2001)

A fouling shot is recommended with traditional muzzleloading rifles for accuracy. I notice a definite advantage when I use a fouling shot with both patch and ball and maxi balls. Todays modern firearms most likely do not require it.


----------



## lumpy (Sep 3, 2004)

Here is what I do . I own both a traditional sidelock that I shoot roundballs out of and a modern inline that I use sabots with.

Inline - no need for a fouling shot twist rate of 1:26 with modern sabots . Always practice with a clean barrel . swab with cleaner and a dry patch followed by a lube patch . you do not shoot with a dirty barrel so why practice with one , Field clean the barrel between shots no matter what you shoot out of it. Fouling shot not needed. 

sidelock - with a twist rate of 1:48 or 1:66 BETTER ACCURACY WILL BE OBTAINED WITH A FOULED BARREL. this will necesitate cleaning the barrel after each hunt no mater if you shoot a roundball or a conical. more work but it is accuracy that you are after. 

Good luck hunting 

Lumpy


----------



## rzdrmh (Dec 30, 2003)

two swabs with an inline using 777 does not clean the barrel. only removes enough fouling to load another sabot.

unless you shoot, then COMPLETELY clean the barrel with brush, as well as clean the breech plug, then foul it. of course, you don't leave the barrel fouled for a long period - you then load it, and hunt. you shoot your load at the end of the hunt, and you clean it thoroughly. prior to hunting the next time, foul the barrel again. load. repeat.

swamp mentions that he hunts on a clean barrel each time. swamp, if you're simply swabbing twice between shots, you're not cleaning the barrel - at least not enough to prevent corrosion. either way, you are fortunate that you get the same point of impact with a clean vs. fouled barrel. in my experience, there's always been a different POI. since i shoot multiple times at each range session, i don't want to do a thorough cleaning between shots. my sight ins are with fouled barrels. therefore, i hunt with a fouled barrel.

i'll agree that snapping primers is worthless, though the fouling from a primer is not corrosive and is not going to hurt anything.

an empty sabot under 40 grains of 777 will effectively foul a barrel.

oh yeah.. i do have one muzzleloader that doesn't require a fouling shot. but then again, its using accurate arms 5744, smokeless powder. and it doesn't require any swabbing or immediate cleaning, either.. :coolgleam


----------



## jmoser (Sep 11, 2002)

My range experience with the Encore showed me that the first shot from a clean/stored barrel was off from the following group. So I now load an el-cheapo sabot/bullet and fire with one pellet [pyrodex] before hunting or sighting in. Please note that I swab the bore with bore butter prior to storage - I am sure this affects the 'first shot' behavior. 

For range sessions I run a spit patch between every shot to prevent major crud buildup over 10-20 shots.

Only way to tell is to clean it, go to the range, mark your first shot and then fire a 5 shot group. If there is a difference then you may want to foul, if they are all in the same group then no worries.


----------



## lumpy (Sep 3, 2004)

Jeff , I have a question for you???????

Have you bothered to shoot that first one downrange with the clean barrel , then clean the barrel and follow up with a second clean barrel swabbed with borebutter and shoot to see if the first and the second match each other???? I would think that hunting with a clean muzzle whould be easier than fouling it each time and having to clean it every day. If stored outside in the weather a Clean loaded (uncapped) gun can be left that way the entire season without a problem. Just makes sense to me. but then again maybe you are a cleaning freak (no offense some guys are like that). I for one don't mind cleaning the gun but not after each hunt as I hunt a ton of time.


----------



## QuakrTrakr (Apr 4, 2001)

I use American Pioneer, and it causes minimal corrosion. I foul my barrel, swab it once, and hunt the rest of the season.


----------



## Swamp Monster (Jan 11, 2002)

rzdrmh said:


> unless you shoot, then COMPLETELY clean the barrel with brush, as well as clean the breech plug, then foul it. of course, you don't leave the barrel fouled for a long period - you then load it, and hunt. you shoot your load at the end of the hunt, and you clean it thoroughly. prior to hunting the next time, foul the barrel again. load. repeat.
> 
> swamp mentions that he hunts on a clean barrel each time. swamp, if you're simply swabbing twice between shots, you're not cleaning the barrel - at least not enough to prevent corrosion. either way, you are fortunate that you get the same point of impact with a clean vs. fouled barrel. in my experience, there's always been a different POI. since i shoot multiple times at each range session, i don't want to do a thorough cleaning between shots. my sight ins are with fouled barrels. therefore, i hunt with a fouled barrel.


Clean is a relative term I guess. I use standard Pryodex, not 777....not a fan of 777 reallly. I've used T7 in my stepdads gun and also regular Pyrodex and T7 fouls the barrel and breech far worse, atleast in his gun. My barrel (not the breech plug) is clean enough that the 3rd wet patch (as I've tried numerous combo's) is a waste of cleaning supplies as it is completely clean except for the very bottom that is seated against the face of the breech plug. I don't run a brush, nor do I run a Plastic solvent while I'm at the range, only at home. Even at home this process takes but a few minutes after the barrel leaves the range. There is some powder residue, but not nearly as much as doing nothing, and as long as the lands are clean and dry, accuracy is consistant. I spend far more time cleaning the breech area. Most folks I know use the same procedure with more than acceptable results. Acceptable enough that I'm not going to waste powder or take shots in the pre dawn morning in my hunting area. Nor do I want to run around in December weather with a dirty moisture collecting barrel. 

I never use bore butter, nor do I oil the barrel. I will add a little bit of oil if I plan to store the guns for 4-5 months, but then it will get a full cleaning without oil before it's heads to the range for it's first session in some time.


----------



## rzdrmh (Dec 30, 2003)

it must be your stepdad's gun, cause even hodgdon will readily admit that pyrodex is more corrosive and less efficient (ie: more residue left in barrel) than 777.

now, yes, i'll agree - clean is relative. i follow a similar process to you - except i foul the barrel. why? because on a _thoroughly_ clean barrel, the first shot is nearly 3" away from a subsequent shot, after i've swabbed with a wet and a dry patch. as you said, my lands are clean. as i said - you're fortunate that this doesn't happen in your gun. its a toss up whether its necessary.. but in 3 out of 4 that i've shot 777 from, its necessary.

now, the difference is that, it doesn't bother me to leave the gun in that condition (semi-cleaned) overnight as long as we don't have high humidity or wet conditions. that's how i foul my barrel for a morning hunt - by loading it, firing it, and semi-cleaning it the night before, and leaving it outside.

however, one thing i will NOT do is leave a charge loaded. not because i'm worried about corrosion (though that's a factor) but because pyrodex AND 777 is EXTREMELY prone to absorb moisture. when this happens, you're done - kiss that deer goodbye. its happened to my hunting partner twice, and its simply not worth it to leave a charge in the bore.

i'd far and away rather leave a bore semi-cleaned (for a short period), as you described, than to leave a charge in it.


----------



## QuakrTrakr (Apr 4, 2001)

RZ- That's a good reason to put a condom (or whatever) to keep the moisture out of the barrel.


----------



## Swamp Monster (Jan 11, 2002)

rzdrmh said:


> it must be your stepdad's gun, cause even hodgdon will readily admit that pyrodex is more corrosive and less efficient (ie: more residue left in barrel) than 777.


Actually, a friend just told me of a test (still in process) that shows this may not be true. 777 is the only powder showing any corrosion as of now but the test is not complete. If I remember correctly, this test includes real Black powder as well. I'm not convinced it's the holy grail of BP substitute just yet.


----------



## QuakrTrakr (Apr 4, 2001)

Swamp Monster said:


> Actually, a friend just told me of a test (still in process) that shows this may not be true. 777 is the only powder showing any corrosion as of now but the test is not complete. If I remember correctly, this test includes real Black powder as well. I'm not convinced it's the holy grail of BP substitute just yet.


AMERICAN PIONEER POWDER is the closest I found.


----------



## Swamp Monster (Jan 11, 2002)

QuakrTrakr said:


> AMERICAN PIONEER POWDER is the closest I found.


I know you've had good success with this powder. I plan to experiment with it next summer. I've heard good and bad about this stuff, but I don't remember the specifics. Can't hurt to try it though...(really just an excuse to spend a few hours at the range!)


----------



## rzdrmh (Dec 30, 2003)

swamp, quakr, i respect both of your opinions here. not trying to be confrontational at all... 

i'm a little curious as to how pyrodex could produce less fouling than 777. if 777 is more "efficient" than pyrodex, as its labeled to be, then it must be burning more of its solid state material. if its burning more, then its got to be leaving less in the barrel. maybe this is a simplified view of the process. 

clearly, pyrodex, 777, etc. are not the holy grail of BP subs. we all know what is, though - and its made with nitrocellulose powder. it was developed about 100 years before 777 as the first black powder sub. after season is over, after i've gone through another couple weeks of filthy 777, i'm going to start emailing our representatives in earnest about changing this silly law regarding what chemically qualifies as a black powder sub.

as you guys both know, i find randy wakeman to be an excellent source of information regarding muzzleloading in general. now, i view some of his articles with skepticism; sometimes i think he over-emphasizes certain aspects. and everyone should be aware of the dangers of relying on a single source of information. but there's no other author, in my opinion, that is doing and writing as much for the modern muzzleloader.

here's his most recent "roundup" test of the black powder subs. as always, take it for what its worth.. 
*********************************************************
The premise is a simple one: what smoky "black powder substitute" is the better choice for today's inline muzzleloaders? The bulk of this specific shooting and testing was performed over a three day period. The selected muzzleloader was an Encore Pro-Hunter, the bullet a 250 grain .452 Hornady XTP married to an MMP "3 Petal E-Z" sabot. The primers used were all Winchester Triple Se7en primers. The range conditions were 65 - 72 degrees, at 500 feet above sea level. The testing was focused on sulfurless blackpowder substitutes, all promised to be less corrosive than blackpowder with "water only clean-up." I procured not one, but two CED Millennium Chronographs to capture the velocity data-- Boy Scout's Motto, I suppose. The CED chronographs are best and the most accurate chronographs readily available today. When volumetric powder measuring was required, I used the same T/C U-View powder measure for all propellants, never moving it from the 100 grain hash-mark.

Currently on the market are two broad sub-classes of sulfurless propellants: Hodgdon's Triple Se7en (2002) based on gluconic acid, and Black Mag 3, Pinnacle, American Pioneer / Shockey's Gold-- all ascorbic acid based propellants. There are somewhat colorful histories behind all the ascorbic acid propellants.

Another way to categorize blackpowder substitutes is how they are managed shot to shot. With properly fitting sabots, blackpowder, Pyrodex, and Triple Se7en all require spit-patching between shots. As few owners' manuals bother to tell new shooters the procedure, I'll touch on it now. To insure consistent bore conditions, you need to fire a fouling shot. Please, not a 'fowling" shot. Fowling is for the birds, literally. "Fowling" pieces are another way of describing blackpowder shotguns used for waterfowl, and so forth. Fowling has nothing to do with modern inline rifles at all.

When using sabots, you have a supply of .50 caliber cotton patches with you. After each shot, you lick a patch using saliva. The moistened patch goes on the end of your jag, moisture side out. Now, your ramrod and jag are moved down the bore in stutter-strokes. You go up and down, up and down, going a bit deeper with each up and down motion until the breech-plug stops you. Your ramrod / jag / patch is withdrawn, the patch flipped over, and the process is repeated. This is the only way to insure consistent bore conditions and resultant shot to shot accuracy, and is the proper method for sabots when using blackpowder, Pyrodex, and Triple Se7en. 

Conicals are a different matter. Horribly undersized conicals do not need spit-patching between shots. That's why Capt. Minie (or W. W. Greener, if you prefer) developed the "Minie-Ball"-- not a ball at all, but a conical. In the Civil War, supreme accuracy was hardly as important as reloading your rifle when there is a hail of bullets coming at you from across the pasture. Unloaded gun have never fared all that well on the battlefield. So, the no-swab approach is as old as the hills. Doc White analyzed and exploited that in more recent times, using slip-fit heavy conicals with comparatively clean-burning (smaller granulation) Pyrodex-P, though Doc certainly has developed and hunted with sabots as well.

So, the no-swab approach is far from new, nor is the ascorbic acid based Clean-Shot (now reappearing as APP) or the old Black Mag 2 or Black Mag 3. The residue from these ascorbic acid propellants is primarily potash. To have any luck with them, you need to start with a clean and dry barrel-bullet lubes and oil cause problems. A film of oil will drag the potash out of the hot gas, and clumping of residue in your barrel is the result. The vitamin C burners generate a small amount of water when burning. So, the procedure is to fire a fouling shot and then just keep loading and shooting. There is a small amount of grit in your barrel, but not much, and it accumulates at a very slow rate. You will likely have better results with a slightly loose fitting sabot on your first shot, and then the grit offers proper seating resistance for subsequent shots. 

So, how you wish to quantify these propellants is your choice. Sulfur or sulfur-less is one way, swab or no-swab with sabots is another, and pre-measured (pellets or sticks) or loose powder is yet another. All are reasonable ways at separating the respective propellant classes. Moving along, let's take a closer look at some of the tested propellants.

SHOCKEY'S GOLD

Going back a bit, "Clean Shot Technologies" had their stuff on the market for a while. It gained a reputation as an aggressive moisture-sucker with fairly low velocities, but had a bit of a following in low-humidity areas for a time. Clean Shot Technologies made the mistake of infringing on Hodgdon's pellet patent. Hodgdon complained about the theft of their intellectual property, the courts agreed, and Clean Shot was no more. It is fair to say that Clean Shot was a fairly peculiar company, with sales offices in Florida, and leased production equipment in Colorado. Hodgdon had to find that out the hard way-- Clean Shot had very little in the way of tangible assets. Re-organized under the name "American Pioneer," CST has gained a very poor reputation in the industry-- but, for better or worse, they are back.

The results with Shockey's Gold were poor. Though American Pioneer claims a lot of things, including that Shockey's Gold is a "premium grade version" of American Pioneer, the only thing tangible that I have been able to detect is the different label on the bottle. The Shockey's Gold sticks are still clumsily packaged in a bottle with plastic beads, and are irregular in size and shape-- I've had bags of charcoal briquettes with better quality control. Some of the sticks shaved off parts of themselves going down the muzzle of the Encore, some didn't. A casual look at them shows how crudely made they are, with chips, cracks, and other very rough surface irregularities. This is cobby stuff, to be sure.

As for performance with my Pro-Hunter, it was decidedly inconsistent. With the 250 grain Hornady XTP and MMP 3 Petal EZ sabot, a typical three shot string was 1695 fps, 1773 fps, and then 1598 fps through the CED Millennium. This is the same type of low velocity and wild shot to shot deviation I saw with American Pioneer tested last year in a different Encore and a Knight Disc Elite using 300 grain lead saboted bullets, among others. Jim Shockey and I have talked about this stuff a bit, and I don't doubt for a Mexican minute that this is the stuff he hunts with. At the typically close ranges Jim hunts at, inconsistent velocities at the muzzle, even as bad as this stuff is, is unlikely to change the outcome. Those with nothing better to do can attempt to make out of this anything they will-- but I happen to like Jim Shockey; folks will just have to get over it. Jim doesn't make this stuff, has no hand in the quality control, and doesn't bother with chronographs. I could no more complain to Jim Shockey than I would send hate-mail to Irlene Mandrell if I got a bad CZ. 

Like APP and Pinnacle, if used sans lube, it is clean. There was a small amount of crud that formed at the end of the T/C QLA, and some minor amount of crud near the breechplug. It is easy enough to push through, and from shot to shot no swabbing was ever used, or is necessary.

As final, vivid testimony to the moisture attracting propensity of Shockey's Gold, the gravelly mis-named "FFg" loose powder and the "FFFg" loose powder are packed with desiccant packets, if that tells you anything. Due to the low, extremely inconsistent velocities and obviously deficient quality control, I would not bother to trust a hunt to this stuff. 

GOEX PINNACLE

Pinnacle has been reviewed elsewhere, and is closely related to American Pioneer-- it should be, as it is made by American Pioneer using the same packaging methods and exhibits the same crude quality control, the same gravel-sized "FFg" granulation, and so forth. There is something quite disturbing to me about a so-called manufacturer of a product that has no clue how to use it. Goex sells their APP manufactured sticks as "E-Z Loads." Amazingly, right on their website, Goex instructs you to, "Just drop the pre-measured charge down the barrel of your gun and use the ramrod to pulverize it." 

Good grief. The notion of taking a pellet or stick, first loading it as a unit, then using your ramrod to stick it, stab at it, and "pulverize it" is bizarre. Of all the nonsense spouted in muzzleloading, this one ranks quite high on the list. One of the few things that has remained true is that accuracy and consistency are synonyms. If I reported the Pinnacle "E-Z Load" results used as directed by Goex, it would be categorized as the worst blackpowder substitute ever offered to the muzzleloading community. You certainly not only do nor crack or break pellets, you take reasonable care to avoid it. If this was reasonable at all, you'd have to wonder why both .45 caliber and .50 caliber E-Z loads are even made. If you are going to pulverize this material, well-only offer .45 caliber sticks. At least that way you wouldn't be shaving off propellant outside the barrel. Dust is dust.

Not destroying pellets is really old news. The stuff that could really use some pulverizing is the "FFg" by Pinnacle or American Pioneer-- but it should be properly granulated before you buy it, not after. 

I have no particular explanation for this, but I did open one bottle of Pinnacle E-Z loads that actually was consistent-- recording velocity strings like 1805 fps, 1835 fps, 1819 fps, and 1804 fps. If it was all like that, it could be worth using. But, the good results were short-lived, sinking back into the same erratic velocities as recorded by Shockey's Gold, prior Pinnacle testing, and American Pioneer-- if at marginally better velocities. If you really feel you need to use this stuff, actual weighed charges of FFFg is your best chance at getting a usable field powder-- the same goes for the other APP produced compounds, American Pioneer and Shockey's Gold. You sure need to burn a lot of it to get any semblance of good velocity, though.

BLACK MAG 3

All of these powders seem to have stories behind them. Mag-Kor's "Black Mag 3" is no exception. The coarser Black Mag 2 and Black Mag 3 introduced in 1995-1996 vanished from the marketplace for reasons I'm not aware of, for some time. When it reappeared, I was of course looking forward to trying it. Well, a sample was hand-carried over to my house by a local distributor. I never did review it, and I'm happy to tell you why. My "factory fresh" sample could not be removed from the bottle. The bottle was swelled, and the 'powder' was one hard, solid, one pound mass. Despite promises that it would easily break up, mine sure wouldn't. It was jabbed, stabbed, crushed, and hurled against concrete-- more than I recommend anyone do with an impact sensitive propellant. Yet, it remained a lifeless, sordid, one pound solid plug of junk. Okay, things happen. Despite numerous calls to Mag-Kor as well as the local distributor, there was no interest in addressing anything. All I could glean from the conversations was that this was a fairly common problem, and I wasn't the first to get a useless blocky mass.

Much later, I learned that the "packager" had neglected to follow procedure, and that the matter was subject of some litigation. In the interim, Black Mag 3 appeared for sale by Cabela's; then it was discontinued by them a short while later at the fairly rich price, if memory serves, of $25 a pound. Between that, and a few friends who were able to remove some out of their bottles yet experienced erratic results, I decided to leave Black Mag 3 to the internment of merciful time.

Things changed, though. Dennis Dudley and his shooting team tried Black Mag 3 earlier this year, and had outstanding results. So much so, that Black Mag 3 was their powder of choice at Friendship. So, I did decide to revisit Black Mag. I was able to get a hold of a few pounds, and to my surprise-- it came out of the bottle. The current Black Mag 3 was granulated nicely, and metered without a hitch. 

Out of the Encore, using 100 grain volumetric loads, it did beautifully. Velocities ranged from 1815 to 1834 fps through the CED, and if anything-it is cleaner than the APP variants, with far better velocities. This batch was virtually the ballistic twin of Triple Se7en, without the requisite spit-patching between shots. It was easily the most pleasant surprise of the test. The current Black Mag 3 performed superbly; but that raises a whole new set of questions. I have no idea where to get it locally; distribution and availability seems to be a huge problem all over the place. Even Mag-Kor doesn't seem to have much idea where to get it in most locations. It seems to be popular in Virginia, but for most of the rest of the country-- trying to find it is quite a chore. I'm far better at foretelling the past than predicting the future-- but this powder is impressive. Whether Mag-Kor can repair their sullied reputation and get adequate distribution is another matter entirely. If you can get a hold of some, it is well worth your personal evaluation. It was the cleanest, most consistent propellant tested with velocities as good as the best, and better than the rest.

TRIPLE SE7EN

Triple Se7en, as most folks know, took the marketplace by storm starting in 2002. I've hunted with both Triple Se7en powder and pellets successfully, and have burned more pounds of it than I care to think about. Although I received an e-mail direct from Hodgdon a long while ago insisting that the infamous "T7 crud ring" does not exist, everyone knows by now that it does. Enough breechplug changes have been made in attempt to address the problem that the T7 crud ring is a known issue. Olin's T7 209 primers have done a good job in reducing, but not completing eliminating Triple Se7en's hard, slag-like fouling crud. With Triple Se7en, it is spit-patch between every shot though certainly a quick reload in the field of one sabot is no issue.

The Triple Se7en "100 grain equivalent" of two pellets averaged 1833 fps through the CED, with shot to shot deviations of only 10 fps or less. Triple Seven FFg loose powder averaged 1837 fps, all shots falling within a 20 fps range. As a side note, I've not found three pellet T7 loads to be as accurate as two pellet loads as a generalization-- actually getting better consistency from Pyrodex pellets. My preference is actually for weighed charges of Triple Se7en. It is far easier to work up a load this way-just starting at 90 grains by volume in a new rifle, and increasing in 5 grain volumetric increments until accuracy starts to fade. Then, it is a matter of weighing the volumetric charge you've decided on, and duplicating that charge by actual weight. With weighed charges, I've been able to get shot to shot deviations down below 10 fps. In some cases, the talking chronograph registers properly-- then gives the identical velocity. 

PARTING SHOTS

The subject of corrosivity comes up from time to time, and as far as I'm concerned-- all of these propellants are corrosive, though markedly less so than blackpowder or Pyrodex. Sulfur salts have long been the main culprit. Once in a while, the topic of "seasoning a barrel" comes up. Anyone with a basic understanding of modern steels realizes that they are non-porous compared to a cast-iron skillet, and they cannot be seasoned one way or another. One can long for the return of primitive metallurgy and the return of Damascus barrels with porous welds on twisted steel, but I'm not one of them. Your local Ryerson's can educate you on the properties of modern steels, if you have any real interest.

The ascorbic acid based propellants aggressively attack and corrode brass. My impression is that they are somewhat less corrosive than Triple Se7en to barrels, but I'm not willing to intentionally ruin any rifle barrels to find out. The gluconic acid salts and alkali metal nitrobenzoate salt based Triple Se7en, with some carbon added to give it a little color, remains the best available solution for today's modern muzzleloaders that cannot use better, less smoky, non-corrosive propellants like the Savage 10ML-II can. 

The Black Mag 3, as tested, holds the most promise as competition to Triple Se7en, but availability may be a hurdle. Based on this set of tests, Black Mag 3 won the day.

So, for now, Triple Se7en remains the most readily available solution. Hopefully, by now, most muzzleloaders understand that all guns are individuals, it is the shooter's responsibility to work up a load, and if there are any questions as to the suitability or amount of a propellant-- the manufacturer of the rifle alone can tell you what is allowed and what is not. If you are in the mood to try a new powder, particularly if your breechplug is extremely filthy, or if T7 is hard to ignite for you-- I'd say Black Mag 3 is well worth your time to investigate.


----------



## glockman55 (Mar 9, 2006)

Back to the fouling issue, I hunt with a clean barrel. But I do see a difference in the first and second shots. The first shot is always a little high,( about an inch or so) then the shots after that are close to the same hole. I'm sure there is something to this but I can't leave my gun dirty, even if it's just for that day, let alone all season. Paid too much for it to let the barrel get all pitted.


----------



## lumpy (Sep 3, 2004)

glockman , AS previously stated , try to sight in with a clean barrel , if they are all the same a little high but remain tight, then just adjust sight for this new point. then you have the confidence in hunting with a clean barrel.


----------



## QuakrTrakr (Apr 4, 2001)

RZ- Good article, but like you said, anything by Randy Wakeman must be taken with a grain of salt. He has a tendancy to be prejustice. One inconsistancy in his story is Jim Shockey uses loose powder. Randy insinuated he's using sticks. 
As for the crud ring, you should already know, every gun is different. 2 new Omegas off the line will shoot different, as will crud rings appear. My Knight had so many crud ring problems, I got extremely frustrated. I used the Pyrodex, and the crud was almost eliminated. I think it's the heat generated by the 777 that is the major reason for it. There is NO perfect solution to an imperfect sport(for lack of a better word). I realize the imperfections in the APP sticks, but I haven't seen them on the paper at the range. One thing that makes a HUGE difference is temperature.Which Wakeman did NOT test. I learned, DO NOT sight your gun in in August and expect it to shoot the same in December. The velocity is greatly reduced in cold weather. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Swamp Monster (Jan 11, 2002)

rzdrmh said:


> swamp, quakr, i respect both of your opinions here. not trying to be confrontational at all...
> 
> i'm a little curious as to how pyrodex could produce less fouling than 777. if 777 is more "efficient" than pyrodex, as its labeled to be, then it must be burning more of its solid state material. if its burning more, then its got to be leaving less in the barrel. maybe this is a simplified view of the process.
> 
> .



No, I don't think you're or anybody else is being confrontational, just sharing information based on our experiences...thats what it's all about. You've probably done more researching on this subject in recent years than anybldy I know! Thats the cool thing about these guns....so much to experiment with and everyone may not get similiar results. Keeps it interesting and educational!

As for the 777, I'm not sure what to believe. If I can get the test info for you, I'll pass it along. I'm not sure if the test can prove anything, but the info might be interesting. I have heard good things about the Black Mag 3 stuff though and have wanted to try it as well. Since you never see it, I had just abou tforgotten about it until you posted that story.


----------



## rzdrmh (Dec 30, 2003)

yes, i'd be interested in hearing about the project, swamp..

my hunting partner tested black mag 3 with his knight disc elite, using a 300 grain barnes expander. he got 2.5-3" groups, though it was EXTREMELY clean. reason being that its even more efficient than 777..

based on my experiences with smokeless powder, i'm intrigued by the efficiency of black mag 3. according to Lyman, your average chamber pressure with 100 grains of 777 and a 300 grain saboted projectile is around 23,000 psi. it appears that, when developing loads with the smokeless powder, the sweet spot for chamber pressure is around 35,000 psi, not exceeding 38-39,000 psi. much more or less produces less than desirable accuracy. now, if black mag 3 has better efficiency than 777, it might be generating chamber pressure exceeding 23,000. what could it be? who knows - maybe 27-28,000 psi. when pressure rises, one needs to be much more concerned about the quality construction of the sabot. maybe the experiences that my hunting partner had were because he was using a weak sabot.

anyway, it warrants some time on the bench with it this winter.. he's got nearly a pound of it left. play with some different bullet weight and sabot combos to see if it can shoot tight. 

by the way, last time i was into "Classic Arms" on Lake Lansing road in Lansing, they were carrying black mag 3, for $30 a pound.


----------



## glockman55 (Mar 9, 2006)

lumpy said:


> glockman , AS previously stated , try to sight in with a clean barrel , if they are all the same a little high but remain tight, then just adjust sight for this new point. then you have the confidence in hunting with a clean barrel.


That's what I did.... I changed my load a little today. I was shooting 100gr. pyrodex pellets, with a 300 gr. Shock Wave sabot. It shot good groups, at around 1567. fps. So I thought I bump it up a bit, went to 130 gr. Pyrodex pellets, same 300 Shock Wave, and had tighter groups, plus increased the fps to 1797.6, big difference. Ft. pounds of Kinetic energy is over 2100. I think I'll stay with that load. On a nicer day I'd like to see the difference in Pyrodex and Triple 7 pellets. FPS. To see if there is that much dfference (15%).


----------

