AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Black Powder Shooting => Topic started by: zimmerstutzen on August 12, 2011, 06:43:30 PM
-
The subject has come up elsewhere that powders are not the same as they were in the past. And that indeed may be true. However, I noticed on another forum, that when posters give their current chronograph results, they seem to generally be about 10% less than the figures in the Lyman Black Powder Handbook 1st ed.
I also ran across an article about testing US military powders in the 1840's and it seemed that the test results then showed the powder had more energy than today. (I realize that they were testing with pendulums back then, and in 1970, CUP measurement wasn't all that precise. )
Has anyone actually tested samples of old powders vs new? Has our powder of today, been "dumbed down?"
-
I have a dozen cans of DuPont 2f, 3f and 4f from 1972 and 1973- some that have been open for decades and some that are unopened. Chrono comparison with contemporary Goex showed no difference that would stand up to statistical analysis. We're talking a few fps one way or the other with the Goex 3f showing the biggest difference. In fact it was consistently a few fps faster than the DuPont 3f. Based on a friend's history using 4f for a main charge in his 32, I tried a few loads of each powder in one of my 32's. No difference I could see, but a lot of shot to shot variation in both.
All shooting with 3f and 2f were moderate charges (80 grains) in the same 50 cal rifle. Maybe hotter or lighter charges would show more difference, but that's academic to me. I'm keeping the remainder of my DuPont rather than shooting it up, mostly for sentiment rather than any ballistic decision.
As for 150 year old powder? Someone will have to rob a museum to test that one.
-
Actually, I know of some privately owned stuff from the War of Northern Aggression period Don't know if I could persuade him to part with a sample. And I have some from the 1880's.
-
Shoot it and tell us what you learn.
-
Recently chronographed my .58 Musketoon with 24" bl. Match that up with the shortened Zouave barrel Lyman used (I think) at 24" as tested by Lyman. I used the same ball, .562" and what I measured as a .020" patch. I used a water based lube which gives lower velocities than any oil/crisco (actual tests) lube. I got an average of 10 shots at 1,308 fps using 75gr.2F GOEX-with 8 fps variation, high to low speed. Greater variations occur with oils or greases. Check your Lyman book & see how much powder they needed to get 1,308fps in their .58, with any barrel length.
I disagree that speeds today are lower at least my .40 and .45 both develop higher speeds than Lyman's book gives, with the same charges and same barrel lengths- within an inch. My test length was 42", theirs, iirc, 43".
Even in 1978, my 32" .58 developed higher speeds than Lyman's book when using a larger and heavier ball - with both Curtis and Harvey's 2f and GOEX 2F (or was it called GOX in '78?). The ball I used weighed 285gr. at somewhere around .575"- didn't measure them. The slugs I tested in that .58 ran 480gr. through to 675gr. (or 625gr.-I have that recorded my my Lyman book) My bullet speeds were also higher than Lyman's - different chronograph (Oehler M12- 4' spacing sky screens) than used in the recent tests, which were recorded using a PACT Timer 4' sky screens & (Chrony Master Beta - whatever the box measures out flat and locked, for comparrison. The Chrony and Pact are usually within 3fps on every shot.
I find Lyman's book valuable for other things than absolute velocity stats. methods, trends, terminal ballists, ballistic coefficients - good for beginners to see there is NO PLACE for a .010" or .012" patch in a round ball loaded longrifle.
-
daryl re the patch thickness. That is entirely a matter of matching patch and ball to the rifling. Some rifling has grooves that are rounded and are 5 or 6 times wider than the lands. Such barrels do well with thin patches. Alex Henry rifling would also do well with a thin patch.
I have a muzzleloader barrel that has (IIRC) 8 lands and grooves, but the grooves are .020 deep. Deeper than any other muzzleloader I have ever examined. It is nearly impossible to load without a mallet. Because the grooves are so deep that they permit blow by unless the ball is mashed into the rifling. Perhaps a thick felt patch would work.
Point is that some types of rifling require a thin patch and others require an extremely thick patch.
-
Years ago, Ross Seyfried waxed eloquent on a barrel of 19th Century British BP that he had access to or owned. Oh he went on about it and its soft fouling and uniformity...
When I wrote out the list of Black Powder suppliers, the one thing that I found interesting was that there were no "boutique" BP makers. I would have thought that there would be a few gys putting a few hundred pounds of "designer" BP out there... I wonder why not? There are lots of guys making it for pyrotechniques, why not for shooting?
Best regards,
Albert “Afghanus” Rasch
The Rasch Outdoor Chronicles™ (http://trochronicles.blogspot.com)
Albert Rasch in Afghanistan: She had Beautiful Green Eyes (http://inastan.blogspot.com/2010/12/greetings-from-bagram-air-field.html)
-
Liability I expect, the costs of insurance alone would be staggering.
-
Hmmm,
Maybe so, I think I may look into this further. Everybody and their mom made BP back in the day, or at least it seems that way. Something else dangerous to entertain myself with!
Best regards,
Albert “Afghanus” Rasch (http://trochronicles.blogspot.com)
Mama Domicenti’s Kitchen and Albert tries Market Hunting (http://trochronicles.blogspot.com/2009/06/market-hunting-in-tri-state-metro-area.html)
-
Zim, good point on patch thickness. Another aspect of patch thickness relates to consistency while loading. I've found that when patches are too thin they load easy on the first few shots but don't scrape the fowling very well on successive shots causing the loading to become harder and harder, i.e. tighter. Subsequently creating velocity increases and vertical shot stringing. Also solved with larger a RB as well.
KW
-
Hmmm,
Maybe so, I think I may look into this further. Everybody and their mom made BP back in the day, or at least it seems that way. Something else dangerous to entertain myself with!
Best regards,
Albert “Afghanus” Rasch (http://trochronicles.blogspot.com)
Mama Domicenti’s Kitchen and Albert tries Market Hunting (http://trochronicles.blogspot.com/2009/06/market-hunting-in-tri-state-metro-area.html)
Oh yes, 'back in the day'!!! Back in the day the trail lawyers association was unheard of, and one accident did not result in a multi million dollar law suit.... :(
-
Ironwolf- there are several guys here with deep rounded rifling - one is .025" deep. He has no difficulty shooting 20 to 50 shots without having to wipe - no one wipes during a day's shooting & none of us has to use a mallet to load - I suggest it's because we don't use .010 to .012" patches.
I've found shallow rifling benefits from the same ball and patch thickness as those combinations do in deeper rifling.
I learned to load and shoot accuratly with a muzzleloading rifle back the early 70's using a TC Hawken in .50 cal. I read Robert's book and what he said struck home - that the Hawken loaded as easily with the 100th shot as the 2nd. When I shot that TC with .004" rifling, I used a .022" denim patch and a .495" ball. Yeah - I had to smooth and radius that sharp machine cut crown. I used my thumb and emery. I don't know if the .495" ball was necessary, but it shot very well indeed. A .490" ball might have worked. I never had to use a mallet, but I sure learned how to use a short starter & have used it ever since. I realized early on that the rifle wouldn't load itself- that some effort was actually needed on my part. Funny how that works.
-
I would have thought that there would be a few gys putting a few hundred pounds of "designer" BP out there... I wonder why not?
In addition to the liability, a federal license is required for powder manufacturers which has its own set of costs, taxes, and rules.
-
From my experience with prb I've come to much prefer as thick a patch as I can load a ball with without using a mallet. Also some barrels are "faster" than others as I've discovered by shooting identical guns both MLs and CFs. It doesn't affect accuracy, however, whether fast or slow.
-
One cannlot randomly compare today's powder with old powders because you would be comparing apples to oranges. Firstly, it was not offered using the (X)Fg system, but rather a numeric one. Secondly, there were numerous grades. A listing of powders available from several suppliers shows the following:
Laflin and Rand
Orange Lightning Powder nos 1-7
Orange Ducking Powder nos 1-5
Orange Rifle
Orange Creedmoor
Dupont (did use the (x)fg system. Perhaps they invented it?):
Dupont's FFFG
Dupont's Eagle
Dupont's Eagle Duck
Dupont's Diamond Grain
Hazard's
Hazard's American Sporting
Hazard's Rifle
Hazard's Kentucky
Hazard's Duck
Hazard's Sea Shooting
Hazard's Electric
Hazard's Diamond Grain
Curtis and Harvey's English Diamond Grain nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, and Grain
-
One cannlot randomly compare today's powder with old powders because you would be comparing apples to oranges. Firstly, it was not offered using the (X)Fg system, but rather a numeric one. Secondly, there were numerous grades. A listing of powders available from several suppliers shows the following:
Laflin and Rand
Orange Lightning Powder nos 1-7
Orange Ducking Powder nos 1-5
Orange Rifle
Orange Creedmoor
Dupont (did use the (x)fg system. Perhaps they invented it?):
Dupont's FFFG
Dupont's Eagle
Dupont's Eagle Duck
Dupont's Diamond Grain
Hazard's
Hazard's American Sporting
Hazard's Rifle
Hazard's Kentucky
Hazard's Duck
Hazard's Sea Shooting
Hazard's Electric
Hazard's Diamond Grain
Curtis and Harvey's English Diamond Grain nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, and Grain
That's waaaaay to rational. This is all about idle speculation in lieu of shooting.
-
Albert,
Both my girls made black powder as science projects in 7th and 8th grade. They made the projects politically correct by mentioning that it was a good way to recycle hardwood scraps. Here is a post I did on the old board.
http://americanlongrifles.org/old_board/index.php?topic=598.0
Also on the old board are many discussions between Bill Knight and I about powder making. While it is hard to make powder as consistently good as the product that comes from commercial mills, it is fairly easy to make a very acceptable powder in small quantities.
Keep your head on a swivel over there. All the best.
Dave C
-
Correspondents from Australia have reported that, because of cost and new import regulations, they are making their own powder to keep shooting. They also report the results to be slightly better than the old Elephant powder.
-
Daryl, same here. I shoot mostly with a barrel with deep round grooves, shoot all day with out wiping. My point is that I can do that because I use a big enough ball and thick patches.
Would'nt have it any other way.
KW
-
Daryl, and Ironwolf, the guys you mention may have deep round rifling, but that is only half of the facts, How wide are the grooves compared to the lands? How many grooves? Without that, essential facts are missing. Please tell us the rest of the information about the barrels used in these anecdotal stories, before alledging they are proof that a thin patch affects shooting.
Beyond twist and groove shape very few shooters know much about the different styles of rifling. Some styles of rilfing don't even have grooves as such. Some styles of rifling have raised swales running the length of the grooves. Pope cut his grooves so that the center of the groove was up the same height as the lands . Only the rounded corners of the grooves were cut and he made some of the most accurate guns in history. The problem with many of the round groove rifles is that the diameter of the arc of the curve is less than the diameter of the bore. For Pope and some others the curve of the cutter arc is actually a larger diameter than the bore.
-
Zim,
Good point...however..I would only really be interested in how all this works with currently available barrels. (I think Pope died in 1950 and I believe all his barrels were for cartridge guns - no patch and ball). So, I for one really appreciate the info from Daryl and Ironwolf with regard to shooting with the barrels that are being made and sold today.
-
"...really appreciate the info from Daryl and Ironwolf with regard to shooting with the barrels that are being made and sold today..."
Agree...information based on actual hands on experience trumps theory every single time.
My own experience is the same with thin vs. thick patches...snug fitting PRB combos using thick patches has always produce less fouling, better accuracy, and solid protection as a firewall. Having to use a short starter is simply part of my shooting regimen, and shooting 40-50 shot range sessions without wiping between shots is a personal requirement, unless doing load development / sight adjustments from a clean cold barrel.
Switched to round bottom groove barrels the past few years and after using only the first one, decided I'd skip a couple double whopper meals a year and pay the difference to only use round bottom barrels from then on.
Ed Rayl bored out a .45cal GM barrel to .50cal RBG for me, and the others were Rice RBG barrels used on new builds.
When I switched to them I continued to use the same under bore sized balls I used with straight grooved barrels, and bumped up to even thicker patches to accommodate the roomier space in the RBG bores.
My only regret is that I didn't get into round bottom groove barrels from the very beginning...
-
You guys are correct - I was referring to 'today's barrels - GM, Rice, both square and round, Getz round, Goodioen which has square-appearing grooves - with quite narrow lands. In that one, I use a .398X.397" pure lead RB with .0225" patch - no starter needed (but I use one, or a .400" X .400" RB with .020" patch - no starter needed, but I use one - it's simply a very simple, fast, & easy way to start a snug combination perfectly centred in a bore that isn't coned.
The 'shape' of the crown allows the ball and patch to form together to enter with little trouble. If you search Corbin's (swage and drawing dies for making bullets, etc) site, you might find what I'm referring to. There is an angle that allows easier movement of material, with less pressure required. It isn't a long even tapered cone as many might think as that is not good as it increases friction due to length of engagement, but a more radiused, short angle, which allows this material movement with less pressure. The slipperier the lube, the easier the movement. The shape is easily accomplished on one's machine (angle) cut muzzle, merely using the end of your thumb and emery or wet/dry paper. A lathe can speed up this operation, from 10 to 30 minutes down to mere seconds, depending on what you start with in shape.
As Taylor noted here some time ago, I once re-crowned a fellows TC .50. He couldn't start let alone load the combination I gave him - no wonder, his muzzle still had the machine cut crown as when purchased, except it was sharper than any I'd see till then, without much angle at all. I re-cut the angle with my pocket knife, then with a strip of 'used' 320emery from my bag, 'ground' him a new crown. After that, he could load quite easily and achieved much improved accuracy. No wiping, no loss in accuracy - of 1" at 50 yards - 48" twist, .004" rifling and all.
-
Very true Zim. I'm building a .40 right now with a Goodein barrel exactly as Daryl described. Very tiny lands indeed. Looks like it will favor large ball and thick patch. It figures, since I already have a .395 mold. All these variables just reinforces my theory of load testing. At least I've got a good excuse to spend more time at the range.
K
-
1. pope made muzzle loading barrels. Many were made to load either as breech loaders or muzzle loaders. Pope learned from a champion muzzle loading gun smith. AND pope style rifling is available for muzzle loaders.
2. Saying the lands are narrow. How narrow, how many grooves. Alex Henry's rifling had 7 lands,, only .03 inches wide. In a .472 diameter bore. That comes to roughly 1/6 the width of the grooves. Some of Pope's rifling had lands that were only 1/8 as wide as the grooves. W.W. Greener favored sporting muzzleloading rifling with even narrower lands.
I had Hoppy of H&H barrels make/ cut a barrel with a modification of Pope rifling for a 45 cal muzzleloader barrel. It shoots great, with .008 patching. It also has a choked bore. I also swab the bore between shots when match shooting.
There are many who claim they can shoot without doing so. I have yet to see any of them shoot 5 shot MOA groups at 100 yds.
There is a difference between buying a hunting barrel and what consitutes the best for for match shooting. There is also a big difference between buying what is available because it is available and getting an absolutely best bore for match shooting. Some makers sell great hunting barrels or barrels that match original swamped lines for balance. Do they guaratee MOA accuraccy? pope did!
-
TOF just because powder was called a different grade doesn't mean it can't be compared. Military Musket powder in the 1840's was neither cannon powder or priming powder. The standardized screens to specify size of granuales, have changed only in what they are called. A granual of powder the same size as modern 2 fg is every bit as comparable. It isn't like the all the laboratory screens have suddenly been destroyed.
powders are easily comparable.
Lastly, there have been comments like, "Who cares, just shoot" If the subject holds no interest for you why even read it much less submit a post which adds the sum total of nothing. One can only wonder what type of person would waste his time reading something of no interest and why even further wasting time with such non-contributory posts. There are those of us who actually care, who actually desire to know what differences may have existed and why. Some of us actually want to know if improvements can be made.
-
Zim, I like your approach to shooting muzzle loading rifles. You and Daryl have a lot more in common than you think.
-
Quite frankly, I find this all very fascinating, it appeals to the mad scientist in me. Of course, it's also how I learn.
I use a .398X.397" pure lead RB with .0225" patch - no starter needed
Daryl, you mention Corbin after you described the roundball, do you swage your projectiles to facilitate loading in that particular weapon? and only .001! Or did I misread what you meant?
Best regards,
Albert “Afghanus” Rasch (http://trochronicles.blogspot.com)
Mama Domicenti’s Kitchen: Albert Tries Market Hunting (http://trochronicles.blogspot.com/2009/06/market-hunting-in-tri-state-metro-area.html)
-
I have yet to see any of them shoot 5 shot MOA groups at 100 yds.
Come up here and I'll show you some 5 shot groups, shot with you present- of 1", 5 shot groups at 100 meters. That's 109yards. The rifle still does it, at least a couple years ago it did- as did in the 90's as well as in the 80's. It hasn't changed - but I have but will bet cash I can still do it - oh yeah - open iron sights - Express, no less.
I do admit to shooting over 1 moa at 200 yards just a few weeks ago - it was 1 1/2 moa - still not too bad. A hunting quality barrel only - GRRW of 1986.
Even my rough 38" twist Bauska barrel that I lapped and choked would shoot into 1" at 100yards. That was 1976 I think? That barrel was easy so I threw it away and started testing a 48"twist, .028" rifling Bauska barrel - looked like a chevy drive shaft female spline. I could easily get 1/2" at 50 yards, but never did bench it at 100. Don't know why. It used a .457" ball and .022" denim patch. It had a .448" bore. I also did a seneca run with it and lost my starter 1st step off of the starting line, loading that combination with the 3/8" rifles rod - no starter. Had to choke up and push a bit.
I don't wipe between shots - ever - hate it, won't do it. I firmly believe any barrel that will shoot 1" if wiped between shots, will do better if shot 'dirty'.
I've also never seen anyone else shoot a 5 shot, 1" group at 100yards with a muzzleloader either - so we're even.
-
Zim, it's all about consistency. If the ball/patch is tight enough to CONSISTENLY scrape the bore, you're shooting a CONSISTANTLY DIRTY gun. Hence tight groups without wiping, no vertical stringing etc.
K
-
K- exactly my thoughts and feelings. The 50th or 100th shot load easier than the first. Was just remarking a while back while shooting my .40, that it loads quite easily with only 2 fingers on the rod - yeah Don, their big fingers - HA! That's the Goodioen barrel, grooves 3 times wider than the lands- just a guess. .010" I think, might be .012" - never measured it. 48" twist - .397"X.398" ball, pure lead .0225" denim patch (10oz.) never wiped. it only shoots 1/2" aty 50 ayrds off bags, but that's probably my lower limit with the open sights.
-
I have read two articles that address the differences bewteen 19th cent BP and later made BP. I cannot offhand remember the exact reference citations [I'll see If I can locate them], but one was an article in an old Guns and Ammo special pub on BP guns &shooting. The military did tests on BP types to determine efficiencies. The 18th cent powders were less "powerful" per unit weight than todays by measurable amounts--that is it took more 18th cent powder to equal the energies of any given charge of modern powders--and there was an evolution to todays. Part of this was due to the mix [ratio] of elements, part to the purity of elements, etc. On top of this are all of the other variables, many of which have been mentioned above....
-
I wonder about those tests, Mike.
Most of the 18th century powders pre-date the methods created (pressing, corning, milling & screening) in powder production in the early 1800's ie:19th century. Powder charges normally used in the 1700's for military purposes were reduced in the early 1800's due to the improvments in powder quality. The redcution in US paper ctgs. alone, amounted to 35gr. weight, form 165gr. down to 130gr. It was felt these loads delivered 1,700fps, the military goal. Did they deliver that?- hardly or did they? In my own .69cal., 165gr.2F in a cap-lock, without a flint rifle's vent loss in pressure, nor the loss in a loose fitting ctg. my rifle delivers only 1,550fps, albeit with a 50gr. heavier ball (9%).
By the end of the 19th century, BP powders had reached a very high plateau in development. Swiss powder today is said to almost duplicate the performance of the best of the sporting powders, Curtis & Harvey's #6 sporting rifle powder but only in speed delivered per gr. weight, not in the 1800's powder's superior burning qualities- ie; moist.
The Ogre could enlighten us "again" as to how the powders of the 1960's and 70's through to today sucked compared to those of the late 1800's - I'd rather hoped he would 'refresh' our memories.
-
Ooooo,
This is obviously going to get fun...
Best regards,
Albert “Afghanus” Rasch (http://trochronicles.blogspot.com)
Mama Domicenti’s Kitchen: Albert Tries Market Hunting (http://trochronicles.blogspot.com/2009/06/market-hunting-in-tri-state-metro-area.html)
ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!
-
I won't state something as fact unless I can provide the correct references, but the thought occurs that military powder was provided by government contractors who did not always supply a quality product.
-
....provided by government contractors who did not always supply a quality product.
Tell me it isn't so, Joe!!!!!! :o
Politicians never shade things for their rich buddies and sponsors. And the world is flat.
Good insight, and a valuable reminder.
-
easy
-
A friend of mine is a Serious CW artillery shooter (originals rifled and smoothbore) and shoots full service loads when target shooting. He is convinced that the CW era powders were superior to that available today because he consistantly gets about 90 percent of the range the CW range tables indicate you should get at a given elevation.
BTW, he uses GOEX and LOTS of it :O
I don't think he has ever tried swiss - I'll have to ask next time I see him.
Lynn
-
Back in the 1970's a friend of mine who was not only a black powder shooter but also a relicer dug into an old Confederate ammo bunker.
He found dozens of unfired shells. He carried them home, drilled into them with a regular hand drill [I made it a habit to NOT be around when he was "unloading" those shells.]
Anyway, the powder he recovered from those shells was a combination of very large, medium size and small grains of black powder. We screened some of the powder and recovered enough in the FFg/FFFg size to shoot a couple of dozen rounds in our muskets.
What I recall is that when we shot it, the powder produced a very GRAY cloud and from what we could tell was roughly equivalent of DuPont powder.
My guess that the powder was from the Confederate Augusta Powder Works but that is a guess only.
-
Amongst black powder cartridge shooters, for those shooting sighted original English guns - to shoot to the sights and match regulation, one must increase the GOEX powder charge by 20% just to equal the original loads the guns were designed for. Unfortunately, many ctgs. will not hold another 20% powder.
Fortunately, Swiss powder, must more powerful than GOEX, which is more powerful than GOX, Meteor and 1970's Curtis and Harvey, will regulate in many of these fine original double barreled guns.
One only needs to read Seyfried's articles in old Handloader mags. and now DG &SS Journal when he's writing about loading for these guns, to find that information concerning shooting to the sights and regulation of both barrels. That is where the differences in our powders to the best of the day, show most prominently.
-
I have read two articles that address the differences bewteen 19th cent BP and later made BP. I cannot offhand remember the exact reference citations [I'll see If I can locate them], but one was an article in an old Guns and Ammo special pub on BP guns &shooting. The military did tests on BP types to determine efficiencies. The 18th cent powders were less "powerful" per unit weight than todays by measurable amounts--that is it took more 18th cent powder to equal the energies of any given charge of modern powders--and there was an evolution to todays. Part of this was due to the mix [ratio] of elements, part to the purity of elements, etc. On top of this are all of the other variables, many of which have been mentioned above....
It will depend on the powder.
"Trade powder" made for natives in Africa and America in the 18th, 19th and 20th century was not very good stuff. Read "A Hunters Wanderings in Africa" by Selous and note how his 4 bores were loaded in the 1870s.
The best powders made in America and Britian, Orange "Extra", Hazards "Kentucky Rifle" and the much preferred C&H Diamond Grain along with a few others were premium powders.
Read "The Muzzleloading Caplock Rifle" by Roberts. Or look at old Winchester cartridge boxes. They did not even mention Dupont for reloading in many cases.
The plant that made Dupont, GOI, GOEX through the 20th century never made premium powder.
Duponts forte was military powder, thats still where the real money is in BP, and by the end of WW-1 the military had little use for powder of the quality that was being demanded in the 19th century. So the powder was good enough for fuzes, large artillery primer cartridges and booster charges for igniting large volumes of smokeless but not the same as the old high end sporting powders and it apparently never was.
The closest thing we have today to the late 19th century high end sporting powders is Swiss.
The ingredients (the sporting powder makers were extremely picky, phobic even, about ingredients. For example the charcoal for the C&H Diamond grain was made from wood from Spain I am told and was cut as a certain time of the year then C&H made the charcoal carefully in a retort to control the burn to maintain a good creosote level. When the wood was no longer available they stopped making Diamond Grain. It was that important.), the milling time, the pressing and the polishing ALL effect the powder. The Military never would pay for a premium powder. Cost too much since it needs to be milled much longer than musket or fuse powder.
Picky customers and even the British military would not accept propellant powders with a graphite coating since it increases the fouling.
Anyone who claims that any American Powder made since about 1910 is better than the high end powders of the 19th century is simply guessing and really does not understand what makes a good powder and probably would not know a good powder for a mediocre one.
Dan
-
Ran across this from Frank Mayer:
Two leading brands of American powder were Dupont and Hazard, both good enough except they burned hot, dry, and cakey in the barrels, making cleaning a more or less unsatisfactory operation.
Then I accidentally got a one-pound canister each of Curtis & Harvey's and Pigou, Laurence & Wilks FG grained powder, made in England, both of which burned so decidely moister and seemingly developed so much greater energy that I used them continually thereafter. I bought English powder from Tyron of Philadelphia. It cost 50 per cent more than American powder, but it was worth it.
-
Might have said this earlier, but back in the 70's I came across a 25 pound barrel of american Deadshot. It was less than 1/2 full. The American Deadshot company blew up in 1898 or 1902, I believe, so the powder predated that. The information I found at the time, said it was one of the high quality powders available in the States at that time. It was the original powder to the can as that was obvious. It looked like no powder I'd ever seen and that included Dupont. It had hard, exceptionally hard angular, sharp cornered and edged granuals. I was sure it was marked 2F- but that might be incorrect. It appeared to be about 2F in size- maybe 2F/1F cross.
In burning, it was incredibly accurate and burnt 'cleanly' with the slugs I was shooting - no wiping needed, even with the 480gr. HB .50 cal. Lyman obsolete bulet with only 3 square grease grooves. I should have kept that mould! The shank of the that cast the hollow base was same diameter as the slug .506", so it was completely adjustable, like the 570gr. .58 minnie mould is that one to about 800gr.Yeah- they kick when shot from a Hawken. I'd pre-engrave the slugs in a section of barrel. They, and the TC maxi's shot into MOA@ 100yards - virtually every group. 38" twist, narrow land - Bauska barrel, .008" rifling depth - open sights.
It was the best powder I've burned by far, since 1972 until today, the present GOEX included in poorer grade powder. I do feel today's GOEX is better than anything I used in the 70's and I did have Dupont then, as well as everything out of Scotland, England and the States- whatever was available. I still have some Meteor 1F - that we called cannon powder. It's granuals are 3 to 4 times larger than GOEX 1F and with rounded corners- very dense. It is noticably slow burning- low pressure, low velocity, normal recoil per grain - yeah. A 3 1/4" .50 cal case holds 170gr. of it along with a 550gr. bullet, whereas any other powder 3F, 2F or 1F is maxed out at 130 to 140gr. I said it was dense. Kicked like h--l but very slow speed wise - 1,250fps to 1,300fps.
-
I wish someone would do a chemical analysis of those great powders. The only thing I can think of that might be different is the charcoal, or the processing. Unless of course the proportion are different too...
Albert
-
I wish someone would do a chemical analysis of those great powders. The only thing I can think of that might be different is the charcoal, or the processing. Unless of course the proportion are different too...
Albert
This is really Mad Monk's territory but here goes...
The better powders, the faster ones, used about 76% Potassium Nitrate rather than 75% or less.
This, coupled with proper charcoal and milling made for a fast chemical burn rate.
They then pressed it, broke it and final dryed the powder by tumbling it.
This helped remove sharp edges from the grains (which helped control initial burn rate) and some of the KNO3 to migrated to the surface with the water forming a hard shiny finish that also helped control the initial burn rate. Cheap powders used graphite for polish.
The key is charcoal made from the proper wood to a certain creosote content and absolutely pure KNO3 and sulfur. Long milling times compared to blasting or other low grade powders and overall care in making the powder. The real magic was in the purity/suitability of ingredients and the time and care taken in making the powder.
For example distilled water is a must, anyone remember the GOEX made some years ago with all the dust in the cans? Untreated ground water was the cause. Impure saltpeter can slow the burn AND make the powder suck up too much water from the air which also slows the burn rate.
Blasting powders were often made with sodium nitrate. ANY amount of this in a propellant powder is a disaster so propellant powders, the god ones anyway were made in a separate plant or unit than sodium powders. Blasting and low grade powders had a shorter milling time, much shorter in many cases. This resulted in a poorer mix of ingredients and a larger particle size which reduced performance in firearms. If the charcoal is too hard, often made from the wrong wood for a premium powder, it will not breakdown easily and the creosote level may be too low if its the wrong wood or burnt too long in the charcoal making process and/or not made by the retort method which gave much better control of the process.
Swiss powder is the only premium powder available right now.
The others are also rans. However, Goex is better now than it was when being made at Moosic, for several reasons. But its still not Swiss. Any of the better powders available today are superior to the powder used by many Americans in the 18th century. Some of which was unpressed powder granulated by being pressed through a screen by hand.
Daryl's American Dead Shot was pretty good stuff from the 19th century writings.
While Dupont might have been readily available to Frank Mayer this does not make it a "leading powder". It just made it commonly available.
Dan
-
Thanks Dan!
I really appreciate your taking the time to explain that so well.
Thanks,
Albert
-
YUP- well done, Dan.
-
Hmmm,
Maybe so, I think I may look into this further. Everybody and their mom made BP back in the day, or at least it seems that way. Something else dangerous to entertain myself with!
Best regards,
Albert “Afghanus” Rasch (http://trochronicles.blogspot.com)
Mama Domicenti’s Kitchen and Albert tries Market Hunting (http://trochronicles.blogspot.com/2009/06/market-hunting-in-tri-state-metro-area.html)
As far as I can find, gun powder making was a State Industry and in many places was heavily controlled. It all comes down to the charcoal and the purity of the three chemicals. The charcoal is the key, you need to use a wood that will mechanically bind with the saltpeter. Around here, when UK powder from the Blockade runners wasn't used, Cottonwood charcoal was the best feed stock, to get it right 5 ton iron rollers were used by Mr Raines at the Confederate arsenal. http://www.musketeer.ch/blackpowder/recipe.html. Have at it. I think I may mix me up a pound or two for this deer season.http://www.hmdb.org/marker.asp?marker=32882
-
I wish someone would do a chemical analysis of those great powders. The only thing I can think of that might be different is the charcoal, or the processing. Unless of course the proportion are different too...
Albert
The proportions aren't so critical, you can make powder without Sulfur which arsenals were starting to do too reduce smoke on the battlefield until nitro powders were developed. The sulfur reduces the flashpoint to a level that works better for firelocks, a caplock had no problem lighting it. The real secret was using brownish Charcoal, and milling it very fine with large rollers.
-
Guys!
Stop encourageing me!!!
Best regards,
Albert “Afghanus” Rasch
The Rasch Outdoor Chronicles™ (http://trochronicles.blogspot.com)
Learn to Shoot, Break the Flinch! (http://trochronicles.blogspot.com/2009/05/learn-to-shoot-break-flinch.html)
ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!
-
Meshack Browning mentions getting ahold of some Dupont powder in the early 1800's and if I remember correctly he seemed to express suprise at it's power, as compared to what he had used for so long. I think I remember it knocking him off his feet a bit. I'm suprised by this as I'm pretty sure Browing used rifles that were not big bores at all....some where in the 40's I believe. Always wondered about that Dupont powder of that time period.
-
Meshack Browning mentions getting ahold of some Dupont powder in the early 1800's and if I remember correctly he seemed to express suprise at it's power, as compared to what he had used for so long. I think I remember it knocking him off his feet a bit. I'm suprised by this as I'm pretty sure Browing used rifles that were not big bores at all....some where in the 40's I believe. Always wondered about that Dupont powder of that time period.
Not knowing what he was using previous makes the power generated relative.
If they were using unpressed powder or poorly mixed/milled powder etc etc it might have been pretty poor stuff.
The poor quality C&H imported in the late 1960s-and 1970s took a LOT of powder to equal velocities with Dupont/GOI which was not all that great and was incapable of duplicating velocities of old cartridges etc. Something that was not corrected until the advent of Swiss.
Dan
-
That thought ran through my mind Dan. I guess the quote is irrelevant as to powder quality overall but thought I would mention it. His one surviving rifle at the Smithsonian I believe is a 43 cal?.......think he probably had economy in mind with his rifles and probably did not shoot the big bores, as dear as his resources were to him. So the description of him shootingand knocking him back stuck in my head upon reading it. Here is his description on pg. 255:
http://books.google.com/books?id=OooYAQAAMAAJ&pg=RA2-PA255&lpg=RA2-PA255&dq=Meshach+Browning+Dupont+Powder&source=bl&ots=_t__cxUwQ-&sig=3JZeM4Iiv4u9ivr3x61rwhNBId4&hl=en&ei=S4BdTte8JrPE0AGmo-mBAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
-
That thought ran through my mind Dan. I guess the quote is irrelevant as to powder quality overall but thought I would mention it. His one surviving rifle at the Smithsonian I believe is a 43 cal?.......think he probably had economy in mind with his rifles and probably did not shoot the big bores, as dear as his resources were to him. So the description of him shootingand knocking him back stuck in my head upon reading it. Here is his description on pg. 255:
http://books.google.com/books?id=OooYAQAAMAAJ&pg=RA2-PA255&lpg=RA2-PA255&dq=Meshach+Browning+Dupont+Powder&source=bl&ots=_t__cxUwQ-&sig=3JZeM4Iiv4u9ivr3x61rwhNBId4&hl=en&ei=S4BdTte8JrPE0AGmo-mBAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
These things are always illuminating.
One of the reasons DuPont started making powder in the US, it is said, was the poor quality of the powder here.
If using cheap powder, powder that was not pressed and broken, was made by a stamp mill, perhaps of adequate rather than pure ingredients, its entirely possible that if using a volume measure to load his rifle and he surely was that Dupont being a pretty good powder may well have produced a significant increase in velocity. So if he were using a large charge of weak powder and substituted the same volume of a much stronger powder he could easily have experienced far more recoil than he was accustomed too since he was apparently in a tree stand.
I find it interesting that he shot the deer in the neck and then tried to spine the bear.
Neither would have required a particularly large bore rifle and before he was born a 42-44 caliber rifle would have been a common bore size and a good shot using neck shots one deer and bear would have needed nothing more.
Dan
-
Not my direct knowledge, but it was rumored that when du Pont stopped making powder on the Brandywine & went to the Moosic, Pennsylvania plant, the few round ball shooters in the 1920's did not like this Moosic powder as well. Also have heard that Moosic's normal production had been blasting powder. I presume that is a different grind.
Ogre showed me his test samples down in the basement, probably in the 1980's. He had an interesting story to tell about GOI powder. The appearance of his samples seemed to confirm it, and it was quite in line with what I knew about corrosion of metals. Odd combination, bear with me. When making black powder, the purity of water used is very important. It is not the taste or odd salts in the water that matter so much, but rather certain bacteria. These bugs live in rivers and definitely in wells, some where there is neither sunlight nor oxygen. Some like to eat sulphur. Incidentally their products of metabolism, i.e. Bug Pee, tend to be very corrosive. Moosic orignally powered the mill by a steam engine, so I've heard, and used the steam condensate for mixing powder. Fine, ideal. But at one point, maybe after the mill blew up around 1970 & du Pont sold it, that GOI/GOEX/Whatever plant began using deep well water. From the hard coal region of Pennsylvania. Them there little well water bugs were used to eating sulphur compounds, & now had the opportunity of being able got to chow down on nice fresh sulphur whilst the powder was being ground. Ogre might tell you what this did to the powder, I don't think it was a good thing. I presume that current GOEX powder is made with bug-free water.
The bug thing is a concern for industries running river water though service water systems (Salem Nuclear plant in New Jersey, Delaware River) or guys leak testing large newly-fabricated steel tanks using river water, maybe Texas or Louisiana. Best drain the tank when finished, lest it drain itself after a couple of months. Was good business for my former employer, selling a 6% molybdenum BugPeeProof alloy.
-
I read a similar account of sulphur eating bacteria in the 1970's powder, but the story I read claimed that in the old days, water was sterilized for powder making in large copper kettles. That the water so sterilized contained traces of copper, sufficient to kill the sulpher eating bacteria that are floating around in the air. When they switched to just using creek/spring water, the copper was no longer present and the powder after being opened and exposed to the air, would pick up this bacteria and begin the degradation process.
As I recall there was enough of a controversy floating around that there was a muzzle blast article in the late 1970's or early 1980's about it.
It seems in nearly every other county here in PA, there is a powder mill road. I don't think they were named after flour mills. If there were indeed so many powder mills, there must have been wide differences in powder.
-
Thanks for that info Dan. This is a very interesting thread.
-
I read a similar account of sulphur eating bacteria in the 1970's powder, but the story I read claimed that in the old days, water was sterilized for powder making in large copper kettles. That the water so sterilized contained traces of copper, sufficient to kill the sulpher eating bacteria that are floating around in the air. When they switched to just using creek/spring water, the copper was no longer present and the powder after being opened and exposed to the air, would pick up this bacteria and begin the degradation process.
As I recall there was enough of a controversy floating around that there was a muzzle blast article in the late 1970's or early 1980's about it.
It seems in nearly every other county here in PA, there is a powder mill road. I don't think they were named after flour mills. If there were indeed so many powder mills, there must have been wide differences in powder.
The sulfur eating bacteria were almost totally specific to black powder produced at the old Moosic, PA plant first owned and operated by Du Pont and then purchased by Gearhart-Owens in 1972.
The key in chemical stability in black powder centers mainly on the purity of the water used in the powder during the manufacturing process.
Into the late 1800's the powder plants purified raw "saltpeter" imported from India or Middle Eastern countries. Arriving in a 95 to 96% purity state. "Refined" in large copper pots using only distilled water in the process. Large volumes of distilled water were used since the process evaporates a lot of water. They were concerned that minerals in regular water would be concentrated in the process.
During WWII, and for some after, ICI operated a small black powder plant in Australia known as the Albion Works. One of their tech papers describes an experiment. One of the managers questioned the use of distilled water in the powder. Was it really necessary? So they made a batch of time ring fuse powder using distilled water and another using plant drinking water. Milled and bagged to keep it from drying. Periodically they sampled the bags and checked burn rates. They found that the burn rate did not change in the powder made with distilled water. The powder made with plant drinking water suffered a steady loss of burn rate. This was out of the question in a time ring fuse powder. So distilled water was used until the plant closed.
E. Ogre
-
Great thread you guys! ...and Daryls...stop telling these guys our secret...soon they'll be able to shoot as good as we do,lol!...no more,enough...we've pounded it into their heads...with our shortstarters! ;D ;D
~Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most~...Leatherbelly
-
I went back and checked the article that I mentioned above. It states that US Army tests indicated that the powder used by the 1840s was 29% 'stronger'/more powerful' than that of the Rev War period. In other words, it said that, for example, an 80 gr load of ca. 1840s was equal in power to a 103 gr load of 1770s [29% more]. I think I got that right--I keep forgetting to bring the mag to work with me...
-
Mike- the original .69 ctg. load with ball, including priming was 165gr. - Rev War period + until about 1820, when it was reduced to 135gr. due to 'improvement in powder quality and power'.
I wonder how many reinactors/shooters are loading 165gr. or even the reduced charge of 135gr. in their 1700 through 1822 designed US .69 calibre Muskets?
I'd strongly wager NONE.
-
I thought perhaps some period references might interest folks reading this discussion
A memoir on gunpowder
John Braddock - 1832
http://books.google.com/books?id=ua06AAAAcAAJ&dq=gunpowder&pg=PA1#v=onepage&q&f=false
Die Explosivköper und die Feuerwerkerei , Volume 6, Part 3, Issue 2
http://books.google.com/books?id=15dBAAAAIAAJ&dq=gunpowder&source=gbs_similarbooks
Das schiesspulver, dessen geschichte, fabrikation, eigenschaften und proben
, Volume 6, Part 3 (Google eBook)
http://books.google.com/books?id=MgINAAAAYAAJ&dq=gunpowder&source=gbs_similarbooks_s&cad=1
Report of experiments on gunpowder, made at Washington arsenal, in 1843 and 1844
http://books.google.com/books?id=s3UDAAAAYAAJ&dq=gunpowder&source=gbs_similarbooks
A treatise on gun-powder: a treatise on fire-arms; and a treatise on the service of artillery in time of war 1789
http://books.google.com/books?id=ThzZFyQ9FpAC&dq=gunpowder&source=gbs_similarbooks
Sketch of the mode of manufacturing gunpowder at the Ishapore mills in Bengal, with a record of the experiments carried on to ascertain the value of charge, windage, vent and weight, etc., in mortars and muskets; also reports of the various proofs of powder, with notes and additions by lieut.-col. Parlby
Mémorial des poudres et salpêtres , Volume 6 Gauthier-Villars et fils, 1893
http://books.google.com/books?id=XZYZAQAAIAAJ&dq=gunpowder&source=gbs_similarbooks
-
Interesting - the Washington arsenal url - results page 322/323 gives reference to a musket ball having 50 thou windage - which would be the normal pre 1820 .64 ball in the .69 calibre musket. The 1820's ball was increased to .65" which increased hits by 50%.
.64 ball and 120gr. of powder producing with:
musket powder - 1,500fps
new rifle powder - 1,600fps
fine sporitng powder - 1,800fps
Note that the pre 1820 issue paper ctg. load with the .64" ball was 165gr. which included prime - so perhasp 155gr. to 160gr. for the charge. The velocity listed by the Armories was 1,700fps with the OLD powder - mixed loose.
If we can trust the velocities obtained using ballistic pendulums which were used right up into the late 19th and early 20th centuries we can have a direct comparrison of those powders and our wonderful powders today.
25 years ago, in the mid 80's, I needed 165gr. of powder to achieve 1,500fps from my .69's tight ball and patch combination. With 140gr. 2F GOEX today, I get 1,500fps using the same tightly patched ball.
Some day, I'll try an unpatched, undersized 16 bore ball that is much tighter, ie: only 30 thou undersized and see what happens. Would I EVER like to get 1600fps or 1,800fps with a ball from my .69 with a safe black powder charge of only 120gr. I doubt it's going to happen in my life time. I did achieve 1,700fps, but to achieve that speed, I had to load 225gr. of 2f to do it.