Black Powder Guns

[Tom Schindler]

Anyone here into Black powder Rifles/Pistols? I got the hankering to build a Pirate Pistol to shoot a couple of times and then hang on the wall.



The gun is a flint lock type made by "Traditions Performance Firearms".



Your experience about the brand, style, etc?





Tom



p.s. If you know nothing about these type of weapons, are a gun hater, or just feel the need to ramble on with useless chatter, please do not comment.

 

[Bill Barber]

have Built three rifles, one flint two perccusion, got the kits from Dixie gunworks.

was alot of fun.

Don't use blackpowder tho, use pyrodex, much safer.

 

[Kevin Palmer]

I know very little, but my younger brother knows more than he should...



He has built several up to an including drilling (boaring) of the actual rifle itself.



I can ask him his thoughts on specific brands as to what to and what not to buy if you would like???

 

[Tom Schindler]

I can ask him his thoughts on specific brands as to what to and what not to buy if you would like???

Please do. I am not looking to spend a crapload of money on this. I do not plan to shoot this on a regular basis. Maybe a few times, then it either goes on the wall at my current home (Small home at that), or it goes in a box to be hung at my new home when we buy one.



I want something nice that will look good, but easy on the wallet.





Tom

 

[Rich Stern]

Tom, proceed with caution. Black powder is another branch on the gun tree, and entirely addicting itself. I started out with a simple muzzleloading rifle so I could hunt during our state's primitive weapon season. Next thing I know, I've got a replica 1858 revolver that has become one of my favorite handguns. Really fun to shoot. It is highly unlikely you will shoot that gun and then just display it. When you head out to the range, it will beckon to you from the wall.



The big drawback to blackpowder is the amount of support gear and cleaning. You MUST thoroughly clean the gun the same day you shoot it, or at least spray it down heavily with some type of ammonia cleaner like Windex until you can get to it. Otherwise, you will have a rusty mess on your hands in less than 24 hours.



Support gear: The gun you are considering will come with a ramrod, but you'll also need patches, solvent, powder, caps (unless flintlock), various cleaning jigs, powder flask, powder measuring tool, and probably some stuff I am forgetting.



Have fun. Be safe.

 

[Rich Stern]

Meant to add: I believe the Traditions barrels and lockworks are made in Spain. They don't have a great reputation for robustness, but if treated reasonably, i.e., not overcharged, they should be fine.

 

[Bill Barber]

Richs post is why I said to use Pyrodex, is non-corrosive.

 

[Rich Stern]

Bill, if you leave Pyrodex residue or powder in a firearm, with even modest humidity in the air, it will rust quickly. Pyrodex itself is not corrosive, but, like black powder, it is hygroscopic. It readily attracts and absorbs moisture from the air.



A stainless steel firearm will tolerate extended pyrodex exposure for a while before the rust penetrates the stainless. Blued steel, depending on the humidity and the specific makeup of the steel, will start rusting within 12 to 24 hours.



You've got to clean black powder firearms religiously after shooting them, if you want to keep them in good shape.

 

[Bill Barber]

True Rich, but nowhere as bad as real black powder

 

[Rich Stern]

Bill, I'm going to stage a Pyrodex rust show-and-tell for you with a piece of barrel steel from a rifle I cut down. I'll post pictures later this week.

 

[Bill Barber]

Over a week Rich:lol:

 

[Rich Stern]

Keep your pantyhose on, wild Bill. I got busy. I did the experiment.



Here's the sequence:



I couldn't find the piece of barrel steel I had in mind, so I used the front band/bayonet mount from a Swiss K-31 rifle. The quality of steel in this piece is far superior to what you will find in the average $150 muzzleloader from Walmart, as is the bluing finish. The K-31 guns were made to be hiked over the Alps, and for a non-stainless, ordinance grade steel, they do very well against corrossion.



To simulate the residue from being fired, I placed about 10 grains of Pyrodex RS on a piece of tin foil, placed the test piece on the Pyrodex, and lit it. While it wasn't near as fouled as the barrel and lockworks of a muzzleloaer that had just been fired (far less pyrodex, missing the 10,000psi of a muzzleloader blast semi-contained in a small chamber, etc), it was acceptable for this test.



Next, I poured about 20 more grains of Pyrodex onto the tinfoil and wrapped it up with the test piece, leaving some space for air to get in, to simulate a muzzleloader that had been reloaded with a fresh charge. I left it outside, under cover, for two nights. I had initially planned only one night, but it was very dry that night, so I gave it one more day. Good thing, because we had rain the next night, and the air was damp. The package was never directly exposed to water. Only the humidty of the air. At the end of two days of exposure to both residual and unfired Pyrodexand, without cleaning, the final photo shows the corrosion.



This is far less extensive than what would have happened to a muzzleloader in similar weather, with a lot more Pyrodex residue on less high quality steel, and another 50 to 150 grains of Pyrodex tightly stuffed in the barrel.



The equipment:

Ready for ignition:

After burning, residue on the steel:

After two days of exposure to humidity:

Conclusion: Clean your muzzeloader at the end of the day, regardless of what propellant you use.

 

[Bill Barber]

Nice experiment, but flawed, shoot smokeless powder, leave it in a humid area it will rust.

you want to do a real experiment, do the same with real black powder.

I think even you will admit the later is far more corrosive.

try the same experiment with triple 7:lol:

 

[Rich Stern]

Bill, early in this thread, you wrote:

Richs post is why I said to use Pyrodex, is non-corrosive.

Can we agree this little experiment shows your statement to be false?

 

[Bill Barber]

No Rich, without any powder, any piece of steel will rust when exposed to water. plain and simple.

all i said was that true black powder is more corrosive than pyrodex. can we agree on that?

 

[Rich Stern]

Bill, if I had left that piece of steel outside, in the exact same conditions, for the same amount of time, minus the Pyrodex residue and powder, it would have no rust on it. I didn't expose it directly to water. I left it outside in humid conditions. Again, Pyrodex, just as with black powder, is hygroscopic. And, as with black powder, a primary ingedient in Pyrodex is sulfur. Add moisture absorbed from the atmosphere, and you have a corrosive compound in contact with the metal.



It's really not a problem, every once in a while, to say, "Hey, I was mistaken." Really. No big deal. Try it sometime.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Referee time...



Bill said:

Richs post is why I said to use Pyrodex, is non-corrosive.

Then, Rich said:

Pyrodex itself is not corrosive...

Then, Rich said about Bill's statement that Pyrodex is non-corrosive:

Can we agree this little experiment shows your statement to be false?

Ah, no offense, Rich, but for the record, you already admitted that Pyrodex is non-corrosive.



Anyway....



I've read the whole thread and it seems that you guys are actually debating degrees of protection/corrission caused by black power vs pyrodex vs cleaning gun thoroughly.



But, if that is what the debate is ultimately about, why not just discuss that topic. It seems to me the ultimate question being posed is as follows:



Which is better for a gun?



a) Clean it thoroughly, regardless what you use.



b) Use black powder and clean, clean, clean like no tomorrow.



c) Use Pyrodex and clean, clean, clean, but not as much as if using black powder since it doesn't attract rust as much as black powder.



Just trying to help. Or maybe you guys are just trying to prove who is wrong, I don't know.



Later,

TJR

 

[Rich Stern]

TJR, read the entire context more carefully. Bill makes a statement strongly implying that Pyrodex solves the problem of needing to clean a black powder gun. I described and then demonstrated how quickly Pyrodex will rust a gun because of the properties it shares with black powder, simply by introducing humidity, which turns Pyrodex into a corrosion inducing compound.



I'm sorry if my semantic approach confused you.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Rich, respectfully, I did read the thread very carefully.



You said several assumptive things when he said:

TJR, read the entire context more carefully.

I read it several times, carefully each time, thank you. Why would you assume that I didn't read it carefully before sticking my nose into this?

Bill makes a statement strongly implying that Pyrodex solves the problem of needing to clean a black powder gun.

Did he, or did you ASSUME he implied such a statement. Seems to me you assumed that implication and because of that then suggested to him in your very next post the relative merits of Pyrodex use and that its use still requires the good cleaning of a gun. Note how Bill AGREED with you. Read his very next post where Bill said:

True Rich, but nowhere as bad as real black powder.

Also, Rich said:

I described and then demonstrated how quickly Pyrodex will rust a gun because of the properties it shares with black powder, simply by introducing humidity, which turns Pyrodex into a corrosion inducing compound.

I'm not sure why you even offered to run such a test, given that Bill had already agreed with you on the merits of Pyrodex. At that point in the thread what was the point?



Lastly, Rich said:

I'm sorry if my semantic approach confused you.

I wasn't confused at all. But if you think that I may have been or if something I said implied that I was confused why not ASK me if I am confused or ask me what in the thread confused me, if anything. Wouldn't that be more civil; more respectful?







I've said it before, I'll say it again, most of the posturing and debating on this website comes from perceived implications in the typed word, and people jumping on them. Often is the case that an author has some idea they want to convey; they then conjure up some text in their head to describe it, and they post that text. That posted text can have any number of meanings when read by different people. What the author of the post is trying to imply, or what, specifically the author meant by the text in question is best left for the author to define.



When I see someone post something that I think is wrong, given the way I am reading it, I try to follow it up with a question of the type: "So, when you say ______ are you also saying that ____?", and in that way I can clear up any confusion. If the author then agrees with my supposition, then we discuss why I disagree. If they dont agree with the supposition, then I am educated by what they meant.



It seems to me that you tried to do this. You clarified what you believed the relative merit of Pyrodex use is and then Bill agreed with you. The only thing I am confused by is why the debate continued after that? Were you simply looking for Bill to say: "I originally misspoke?", or "I was wrong when I said..."???? If so, why? He already said you were right.



TJR

 

[buzz worth]

So much for getting a straight answer, huh, Tom?



buzz