Priming Horns

[downrange]

How common was the use of a finer granulation of powder for priming, and the consequent carrying of a separate container for it prior to say, 1800?

[G-Man]

I think the general thought is that in the 1700s (on the frontier anyway) most folks probably used the same powder - and probably whatever was available  - for both the main charge and priming.  Especially on the trans-Appalachian frontier - the historic records are full of information about how powder was often in short supply - it was risky and expensive to bring it in from the east by way of the Wilderness Road or down the Ohio River.  Folks started making it in the region fairly early as well - lots of caves in Kentucky and Tennessee were used for obtaining nitrates for gunpowder prior to the War of 1812.

Guy

[Cory Joe Stewart]

That is an excellent question and I have heard both sides of the argment.  I have also seen original horns that could have been used for nothing but a primer.  However, I worked at a living history museum for years dressed up, living in and using the gear everyday, and I noticed very quickly that I stopped fooling with a primer horn.  I carry 3 F powder in my horn, sometime 2 F, either way the lock that I had could fire just as well with either one of those in the pan.  

So I think it is up for debate and personal choice.

Coryjoe

[Randy Hedden]

I have looked at several trade lists from the 1700's and all they ever mention is powder and lead. There is no distinction between various grades of powder. The lists I am talking about are from trade posts on the frontier.  Gary Brumfield has talked about there being various grades of powder, but I believe he is talking about more settled areas??

Randy Hedden

[Randy Hedden]

I have also seen original horns that could have been used for nothing but a primer.
Coryjoe

Cory,

Small salt horns were rather common during the 1700's.  These would be small horns that could be confused with small priming horn.  Only if we knew the contents would we know the use the small horn was put to.

On the other hand a primer horn could have been used, but with the same grade of powder as contained in the primary horn.

Randy Hedden

[Mad Monk]

I have looked at several trade lists from the 1700's and all they ever mention is powder and lead. There is no distinction between various grades of powder. The lists I am talking about are from trade posts on the frontier.  Gary Brumfield has talked about there being various grades of powder, but I believe he is talking about more settled areas??

Randy Hedden

Randy,

By way of "grades", do you mean specific grain sizes in the old writings?

The grain sizes we now use, 1F down through 4F, did not come into being until roughly 835 to 1840 when the gunpowder industry "attempted" to standardize grain sizing.  It was at that time, 1836, that du Pont came up with the term "Superfine" which became a trademark of du Pont.

In the 1700's well into the 1800's you see the terms "rifle powder" and "musket powder" used frequently.
With the Lewis & Clark expedition they ordered "rifle powder" and "best rifle powder".  You sometimes see this same terminology used for sporting type powders.

In dealing with the large military muskets you see the same powder used in the pan as in the main charge.
The musket powder of the 1800's might best be described as an equal mix of our 1F and 2F grain sizes.  From a number of screen analysis that I did on 1800's rifle type powder most proved to be an almost equal mix of 2F and 3F grain sizes.  What really surprised me was a sample of a rifle type powder brought into the U.S., from England, around 1880, Hall & Sons, that was also this equal mix of 2F and 3F.

According to my buddy who worked at the Hagley Museum, "the grain sizes we now use were first introduced in 1836 but were not used as such until late in the 1800's."  That was his response to the data I gathered looking at grain sizes of old powders in the lab.

With the military muskets where the lock was primed with the 1F/2F grain mix you see large frizzens throwing rather large sparks to ignite the powder in the pan.
With the rifles you have finer powder and smaller frizzens.
That raises the point that lock scale and powder grain size were connected?

E. Ogre

[flintriflesmith]

I have looked at several trade lists from the 1700's and all they ever mention is powder and lead. There is no distinction between various grades of powder. The lists I am talking about are from trade posts on the frontier.  Gary Brumfield has talked about there being various grades of powder, but I believe he is talking about more settled areas??
Randy Hedden

Randy,

By way of "grades", do you mean specific grain sizes in the old writings?

The grain sizes we now use, 1F down through 4F, did not come into being until roughly 835 to 1840 when the gunpowder industry "attempted" to standardize grain sizing.  It was at that time, 1836, that du Pont came up with the term "Superfine" which became a trademark of du Pont.

In the 1700's well into the 1800's you see the terms "rifle powder" and "musket powder" used frequently. ...

According to my buddy who worked at the Hagley Museum, "the grain sizes we now use were first introduced in 1836 but were not used as such until late in the 1800's."  That was his response to the data I gathered looking at grain sizes of old powders in the lab.

E. Ogre

I'm afraid your buddy has gotten some bad information about powder being not being designated by granulation until the 1830s. In 1758, in a letter to General Forbes, Col. Henry Bouquet requested “fine” powder for the riflemen and clarifies what he meant by fine powder by adding “FF.” Stores advertising in the PA Gazette advertise "single F " gunpowder in 1751 and "F and FF" gunpowder in 1755.

It is true that using the names like rifle powder is more common but both terms are out there in documents well before the Rev War.

Gary

Here's a link to an article I wrote for Muzzle Blasts:
http://flintriflesmith.com/Writing&Research/Published/priming_horns_mb.htm

Gary


PS Just looked again at the PA Gazette research and found this:

Publication: The Pennsylvania Gazette
Date: March 14, 1738
Title: TO BE SOLD, By ANTHONY PEEL, living in Arch Street, PHILADEL

"... also Sundry Sorts of Merchant Goods, viz. Ozenbrigs, Currants, Raisins, Gun Powder , both F and FF, Sowing Silks of cloth and light Colours, Ferits, Silk Qualities, Pins, Tapes, Garterings..."

I do not have time right now to dig any deeper but you can see that by 1738 folks knew what F and FF meant. Perhaps the reference from the Hagley Museum refers to the fact that different companies used different measurements for the sizes -- just like they do now!

[Mad Monk]

Gary,

You are probably right about the standardization of grain sizes versus the F designations.
Which is most likely what he meant by the sizes we now use, meaning standardization of screen openings.

The puzzle still remains as to when something like 4F came into use as a lock prime.

E. Ogre

[flintriflesmith]

Mad Monk,

I do not think there is any evidence for the use, or sale, of 4F priming powder until the second half of the 19th century. Look at all the fine cased pistols and rifles made in England 1800-1830 -- if priming powder was in use there would have been seperate containers for it in at least some of those cased sets of high priced target rifles & pistols or duelers.

Certianly in the 18th and early 19th centuries FF was considered "fine" powder her in America. I think special priming powder, loading blocks, and short starters all date from the target shooting era of the 19th century.

Also, I was trying to point out that even if there were efforts to standardize grain size in the 1830-40 time frame it did not stick. Just look at 20th century powders. FF DuPont was not the same grain size as FF Elephant, Curtis & Harvey, etc.

If you read my short little MB article and still have questions I will be glad to discuss.

Gary