Question about black powder firearms

[Daylate]

OK, you Doper gun enthuiasts! I’ve about decided to pick up a nice pistol, primarily for home defense. (The area where we have lived in for going on 47 years has started a seemingly rapid slide downwards, with quit a a few strange goings-on in the neighborhood.)

Now I’ve already got a few long guns - .222 Remington, .45-70 Martini Henry, .22 LR pump gun, and so forth. However, I would be reluctant ot use any of those for home defense, in particular the first two, and whose bullets can go thru a lot of stuff without stopping and there are relatively close neighbors on all sides that I wouldn’t want to cause problems for. The ideal thing would be a shotgun, but those things, with a minimum barrel length of at least 18 inches, are awkward to keep at hand.

Now, here in the Great State of Washington, a muzzle loading black powder firearm (even a replica firearm), if it replicates a firearm built before 1898, has no restrictions of any kind, and requires no paperwork to acquire it. And I’ve found several double barreled smoothbore pistols, of about .60 caliber, that would essentially be legal sawed-off shotguns. One has 11" barrels, and uses percussion caps, and the other had 6" barrels, and is a double flintlock. Now why wouldn’t either of these be a pretty good home defense weapon - besides being fun to shoot anyway? One can pack a lot of double-ought buckshot into a .60 calliber gun, and I think that looking down those two yawning holes would make any burglar think twice about his chosen profession.

I already own and have shot (a lot) a .45 caliber rifled flintlock pistol, and have never had a miss or hangfire. The thing is very accurate and hard-hitting too. But that’s only one shot. I really think having two shots would be much better - and I can’t contemplate requiring more than that.

The only thing that I would be concerned about is the stability of black powder if it were loaded in the gun for extended times, say of a month or more. I’ve checked on the Internet regarding this subject, and have found answers that are alll over the map, ranging from “it will last forever” to “you’ve got to empty the gun and reload it each day”. What say you dopers? Any knowledge or thoughts on this very interesting subject?

[Shagnasty]

It could technically work but I have never heard of someone making a black powder gun their personal choice for a home defense weapon. Any doubts about the long-term stability of the powder would be the deal killer to me. Modern powder is good essentially forever as long as the conditions are reasonable. You don’t want to worry about that if the time comes to use it.

I think that for pure home self-defense, the standard answers of a pump 12 gauge shotgun and/or a handgun in the 9 or 10mm semiautomatic, .357 magnum revolver, or .45 automatic are the best bets.

[Chimera]

Take a look at the Taurus Judge line. Revolvers that can handle .45 colt or .410 shells. In the latter article, he complains about lack of penetration using .410 shells with buckshot (approx 4.5", quite enough to hit vital organs), but it seems that if you’re worried about over-penetration, you don’t exactly want the 15 inches of penetration he’s demanding from a defensive round.

[thelurkinghorror]

@Shagnasty

I think that for pure home self-defense, the standard answers of a pump 12 gauge shotgun and/or a handgun in the 9 or 10mm semiautomatic, .357 magnum revolver, or .45 automatic are the best bets.

I’m sure you mean .45 semiautomatic, despite people calling non-revolvers “automatic.” Unless you’re suggesting the OP get a NFA Tommy gun, then I agree. Not many people get 10mm from what I’ve heard, but the “cut down” version, .40 is used. 20 gauge is fine too. I’m not too sure about the Judge.

[ducati]

IMHO, muzzle loaders are great for recreation, hunting, and re-enactments. Self defense? Not so much.

There’s a couple of reasons why firearms have progressed to the point they are today. A mis-fire on powder is far more common than a bad modern cartridge. You’ll have to shoot hundreds of thousands of rounds to find a dud.

Black powder is hydroscopic. It **will **absorb moisture. How many days will it take until your charge is rendered feeble or un-ignitable? I’m not willing to risk my family’s life to find out, are you?

Smoothbore and accuracy are not really terms that belong together. It’s the very reason rifling was invented. No, I don’t want to be in your hallway while you test the theory. Of course at close range a derringer will kill someone, but I’d like to avoid a close meeting with my intruders if I can help it.

You think 2 shots is all you will need, ever? I sure hope you’re right, but statistics say not.
You simply can’t do the very minimums possible at every turn and expect a good outcome.
Your life and that of your family may rest on this decision. The likelihood of you having a home-invasion or catching a burglar are miniscule. Most of us go our whole lives without such a thing happening.
However. Robberies and home invasions do happen, and I just can’t imagine facing that with 2 lead balls on damp powder.

There is frangible ammunition for every caliber you mentioned, but what I would suggest is finding a nice, used .357 magnum at a pawn shop or gun shop and keep it handy. You’ll have to shoot through a window to hit anything outside of your house.

A modern cartridge-firing gun is your best bet, and you’re betting your life. Think about it.
Don’t make this decision based on easy paperwork or cost. Use the best tool for the job.

[Gary_T]

@ducati

Black powder is hydroscopic. It **will **absorb moisture.

[error correction]
Hygroscopic, not hydroscopic.
[/error correction]

[Johnny_L.A]

@thelurkinghorror

I’m sure you mean .45 semiautomatic, despite people calling non-revolvers “automatic.”

If you look at U.S.-issued service manuals, the Colt Government Model is called ‘Pistol, Caliber .45, Automatic’. Like it or not, the nomenclature for an auto-loading pistol is ‘automatic’.

[Johnny_L.A]

@Daylate

Now, here in the Great State of Washington, a muzzle loading black powder firearm (even a replica firearm), if it replicates a firearm built before 1898, has no restrictions of any kind, and requires no paperwork to acquire it.

I believe this is incorrect. I think the purchase of a muzzle-loading firearm is regulated the same as a modern firearm in Washington State.

[Rick]

@Daylate

And I’ve found several double barreled smoothbore pistols, of about .60 caliber, that would essentially be legal sawed-off shotguns. One has 11" barrels, and uses percussion caps, and the other had 6" barrels, and is a double flintlock.

That third shot is going to take a looooooooooong time.

[engineer_comp_geek]

I own several black powder guns, and they wouldn’t be my first choice for home defense. Although I will admit a 6 foot long .75 cal. musket does tend to look a wee bit intimidating if someone points it at you.

The one thing that would concern me is that not only does black powder absorb moisture very easily, but it also combines that moisture with the sulfur in the powder to make sulfuric acid, which then eats away at the inside of your gun. I wouldn’t want to go to shoot it and have the thing blow up in my face because the breech has corroded away to the point of uselessness.

@ducati

IMHO, muzzle loaders are great for recreation, hunting, and re-enactments. Self defense? Not so much.

I’m with you on that one.

@ducati

A mis-fire on powder is far more common than a bad modern cartridge. You’ll have to shoot hundreds of thousands of rounds to find a dud.

Flint is definitely the worst. If you don’t keep your flint in good shape and keep everything clean your misfire rate can get downright obnoxious, and the last thing you want to hear when you need to shoot a bad guy is that unsatisfying click. I maintain my flintlocks pretty well and I have a pretty low misfire rate though, but still, it’s definitely a concern IMHO.

Percussion seems much more reliable. I haven’t had a percussion misfire yet.

@ducati

Smoothbore and accuracy are not really terms that belong together.

To be fair, the OP did sound like he wanted to load them with shot. They won’t be as effective as a real shotgun, though. Pistols aren’t made to hold that big of a powder charge, and even if the barrel/breech/etc. all handle the stress, there’s still the issue of too much recoil in too light of a gun.

It’s the very reason rifling was invented. No, I don’t want to be in your hallway while you test the theory. Of course at close range a derringer will kill someone, but I’d like to avoid a close meeting with my intruders if I can help it.

@Rick

That third shot is going to take a looooooooooong time.

Yep, seems like a bad idea to me, too, for the same reason.

If I had to go with black powder, I’d go with a cap and ball revolver (no handgun paperwork in my state). I do happen to own one of these, but if someone breaks into my house they are going to meet the wrong end of something much more modern.

[voltaire]

@Rick

That third shot is going to take a looooooooooong time.

Well, at least he can hide in the smoke screen from the first two shots!

[Rick]

Good point, I didn’t think of that.

[thelurkinghorror]

@Johnny_L.A

If you look at U.S.-issued service manuals, the Colt Government Model is called ‘Pistol, Caliber .45, Automatic’. Like it or not, the nomenclature for an auto-loading pistol is ‘automatic’.

1. There are more pistols that fire .45 ACP than the 1911.

2. Nevertheless, it shouldn’t be put into a category separate from 9mm and 10mm.

[Tim_T-Bonham.net]

@Daylate

One can pack a lot of double-ought buckshot into a .60 calliber gun, and I think that looking down those two yawning holes would make any burglar think twice about his chosen profession.

By definition, a burglar is stealing from an unoccupied home. If a resident is home (to hold the .60 caliber gun), it is a robbery.

[Johnny_L.A]

@thelurkinghorror

1. There are more pistols that fire .45 ACP than the 1911.

That was just an example that illustrates that official nomenclature (reprint) has called a semi-automatic pistol an ‘automatic’. It’s true that TM 9-1005-317-10 properly calls the M9 semiautomatic, but more that a century of use has made ‘automatic’ correct terminology for semiautomatic pistols. One may as well insist that a photocopy isn’t a xerox unless it actually came from a Xerox machine, or that a kleenex must referred to as a ‘tissue’ unless it was made and packaged by Kimberly-Clark.

[Daylate]

Johnny L.A.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daylate
Now, here in the Great State of Washington, a muzzle loading black powder firearm (even a replica firearm), if it replicates a firearm built before 1898, has no restrictions of any kind, and requires no paperwork to acquire it.

I believe this is incorrect. I think the purchase of a muzzle-loading firearm is regulated the same as a modern firearm in Washington State.

Actually, the State of Washington does not require a muzzle loader to be regulated same as a modern firearm. The link below shows the Department of Licensing requirements for muzzleloaders - you will see that they specifically state “except for antique firearms”, and then go on to say that an “replica” of a firearm is considered to be “antique” if it was built before 1898 and does not use modern type ammunition (rimfire or centerfire).

http://imageshack.us/f/822/blackpowderlaw.jpg/

Anyway, thanks for all your advice - I sort of thought it was going to go like this.

[Johnny_L.A]

The last time I bought a black powder pistol in this state, I had to fill out the same paperwork as I had to fill out when I’ve bought modern pistols. If I had not possessed a CCW, then I would have had to wait five days before I could take my Remington 1858 home. This actually happened, in real life, to me.

However, RCW 9.41.090(7) says ‘This section does not apply to sales to licensed dealers for resale or to the sale of antique firearms.’ As defined, replicas count as ‘antiques’. So here I have my own experience with a dealer (as well as conversations with dealers), vs. the text from the actual code.

I’ve despatched an email to the Department of Licensing for clarification.

[Daylate]

The last time I bought a black powder pistol in this state, I had to fill out the same paperwork as I had to fill out when I’ve bought modern pistols. If I had not possessed a CCW, then I would have had to wait five days before I could take my Remington 1858 home. This actually happened, in real life, to me.

Your are probably right about having to fill out the paperwork. However, how I found about about the actual requirements was from another website where a chap had been required by a gun dealer to do just that. As he did not believe that this was required, he contacted the DOL and got them to send him the actual requirements, which you saw in my attachment. So you are doing the same thing in contacting them.

Please let me know how the DOL reqpons to your inquiry.

[yoyodyne]

@Johnny_L.A

That was just an example that illustrates that official nomenclature (reprint) has called a semi-automatic pistol an ‘automatic’. It’s true that TM 9-1005-317-10 properly calls the M9 semiautomatic, but more that a century of use has made ‘automatic’ correct terminology for semiautomatic pistols. One may as well insist that a photocopy isn’t a xerox unless it actually came from a Xerox machine, or that a kleenex must referred to as a ‘tissue’ unless it was made and packaged by Kimberly-Clark.

A mistake in an Army manual doesn’t redefine the words. There are enough lies and ignorance spread by the anti-gun crowd; they don’t need help from someone who knows better.

[Johnny_L.A]

@yoyodyne

A mistake in an Army manual doesn’t redefine the words. There are enough lies and ignorance spread by the anti-gun crowd; they don’t need help from someone who knows better.

It wasn’t a mistake. That’s what they were called. Insisting on the more-modern definition is being pedantic.