Author Topic: FFFg in rifles  (Read 42622 times)

Harnic

  • Guest
Re: FFFg in rifles
« Reply #25 on: March 20, 2011, 05:53:36 AM »
I use Goex 3fg in everything from .32 to .75. For me it burns cleaner and gives better accuracy.

Centershot

Thanks for that tidbit CS, I was going to buy some GOEX ffg for my new 58 cal Rice barrel, but I have LOTS of fffg, so I'll play with it first.  As well as cleaner, one can achieve good velocities with less powder using fffg compared to ffg.   Your observations make sense to me!
« Last Edit: March 20, 2011, 05:55:06 AM by Harnic »

Daryl

  • Guest
Re: FFFg in rifles
« Reply #26 on: March 20, 2011, 04:05:10 PM »
I'd rather find out what the rifle preferred. What I's rather use is imaterial, to me.  I still don' t get the cleaner burning deal.

Before Taylor and I knew what we were doing with loads, ie: ball and patch combinations, we both discovered that found 2 F fouled less than 3F - go figure.

Harnic

  • Guest
Re: FFFg in rifles
« Reply #27 on: March 20, 2011, 04:36:58 PM »
discovered that 2 F fouled less than 3F - go figure.

It would make sense for 2f to burn cleaner as it burns more evenly down the barrel rather than all at once in the "chamber".
I will eventually try 2f Daryl, I just have 8 pounds of 3f on hand, why buy more powder if this will work?  I'll know with the first can if 3f will work.  I can always burn the remaining 3f in my ROA. ;)

Offline Dphariss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9577
  • Kill a Commie for your Mommy
Re: FFFg in rifles
« Reply #28 on: March 20, 2011, 06:02:51 PM »
I'd rather find out what the rifle preferred. What I's rather use is imaterial, to me.  I still don' t get the cleaner burning deal.

Before Taylor and I knew what we were doing with loads, ie: ball and patch combinations, we both discovered that found 2 F fouled less than 3F - go figure.

There are so many variables here that a person can run in circles.
I was out shooting the 50 a couple of days ago with FF Swiss, first try of this but I have lot more FF than FFF and found that equal volume, same measure, the FF fouled worse. Lots worse.  ???
I did not expect this but thats what I found. From what I "know" FF should have shot as clean as FFF maybe a little cleaner. I would also point out that Swiss is pretty uniform, no significant variations from lot to lot.
I was shooting offhand for practice  and did not do a serious accuracy test. Had I not been wiping every shot I would have had real problems. This will require more shooting I think. I was using water soluble oil soaked patches that are allowed to dry before use leaving only a slightly greasy feeling patch.

I have no idea of all the variables. Breech designs can/may/should effect how the powder burns.
I tested a 58 with FF and FFF swiss and at 110 grains it fouled REALLY bad. At 90 it shot clean.
My 16 bore with 140-170 grains of FF will not show this. Though in percentage of ball weight 110 in a 58 is still a heavier load.

It has a Nock breech, the 50 has a patent breech with a smaller diameter chamber running back to the vent. The 58 has a cupped breech.
Why did the 58 show really nasty fouling, I was REALLY surprized, with a 110 of either granulation and the 50 shoots clean with a larger charge relative to bore size? 

Did the 58 have just the right bore size to charge volume to produce this?  I never saw it with my 58 years ago shooting Dupont and GOI.

I have been told by someone I trust completely is such matters, that the heavy white fouling that I found in the 58 and to s lightly lesser extent in the 50 with FF is the result of high burn temps. Swiss is hotter than other powders. But FFF in the same volume in the same barrel should produce the higher temp ???

So...
As with powder charges the rifle will make the choice.

Gotta run
Dan
He who dares not offend cannot be honest. Thomas Paine

Daryl

  • Guest
Re: FFFg in rifles
« Reply #29 on: March 20, 2011, 06:49:46 PM »
I don't know what the answer or reasons are Dan - I hear you - but feel it's got to be something to do with the Swiss powder.  I've never used it, but would like to test it sometime in my .40 and .45 along with the big .69.

 Just why your .50 shoots cleaner than and with much more powder than the .58 is a puzzle for sure. Perhaps the breech is part of the answer - maybe not. My Pedersoli Kodiak has cupped patent breeches in it's .58 tubes.  It seems to foul not at all with GOEX - from 82gr. 2F GOEX to 120gr. 2f GOEX, the highest I've shot due to regulation problems starting with that load. There is seemingly no 'felt' difference in bore fouling, over that 40gr. charge increase.  I use the rifles' 3/8" hickory rod for loading.  It does best with 110gr. 2F, where the barrels regulate perfectly shooting exactly parralel at all ranges - neither converging nor diverging and shoot exactly the same elevation as well.  It is my most accurate 'trail walk' rifle. Imagine- a DR!  The 50th load goes down exactly the same as the first.

 I have, over the years, used about 4 other makes of powders and all of them have shown me virtually the same deal - for me, 2F fouls less than 3F - I had always chocked it up to faster, hotter burning thus higher early peak pressures of 3F, which would logically tax the patch/ball seal intergrity more greatly, due to higher pressures exerted on the ball/bore junction, ie; patch seal.  Seems this would be especially prevelent in the smaller bores, with their higher working pressures to start with, the trend indicated in Lyman's BP loading book.  This goes to the powder weight vs. ball weight that Dan was hinting at. Incredibly, look at how much powder it took to develope even modest pressure in the .58 and .75!!

Cleaner shooting and patch integrity is why Tracy shot only 2f in her .36 Seneca - and used to beat us (Taylor and I) both- o, we didn't shoot at 25 yards- hardly every except for card and string cuts- small stuff - yeah- we could see then.  The cleaner burning trait also showed in the larger bores, which is why we then used 2F exclusively in just about everything.

When I got the .45(re-barreled .50) - my first ML since the .69 in .'86, I tried 3F GOEX in it at the range as the local store didn't have 2f and I was out of powder.  I found it would print nice 1/2" groups with LHV lube and 75gr. 3F GOEX. I had no fouong problems using a .445" ball and .022" denim patch.  It also printed the same groups using 85gr. 2F, later on in testing, with what seemed identical fouling - virtually none.  I also found, with a water based lube, I could reduce those powder charges to 50gr. 3F and 60gr. 2F and maintain the prior accuracy, although muzzle velocity was very much lower than before - dropping to the piddly 1,600fps range.

Incidently, where the LHV (slippery) lube demanded relatively huge powder charges & had a very narrow accuracy range of charges it would allow, the water based lube (WWWF/Oil) gave virtually identical accuracy as the slippery lubes(1/2"-3/4" @ 50yds) - accuracy over a very WIDE charge range. 

The oil was just not so easy to get long with as it had very narrow range of working well - but - knowing what charge is needed for an oiled patch for hunting, is necessary.   The only way to find out what powder granulation and how much of that granulation is needed, is to shoot both and find out what the gun wants. 

It is a foolish 'guess' to work up a load for trail walks, sighting, of course for that load, then merely switching to a 'hutning-type charge with an oiled patch for hunting, without first seeing what the gun wants to use with that oiled patch- with the granulation. It could be, it wants X grains of 3F for oil and Y grains of 2f for water lubed patches - only after testing all the varaiables, can an 'accurate' decision be made.

Dave Faletti

  • Guest
Re: FFFg in rifles
« Reply #30 on: March 20, 2011, 10:05:27 PM »
I shoot a 50 and 58.  Same mfg barells, same powder (GOEX FFG), same patching, breaches.  100gr in both shoots clean.  120 in the 58 is noticably more fouled but not so bad I can't load it easy enough. My 58 does seem to foul worse for what is effectively a lighter charge for the bore size.  Only difference in this example is bore diameter and rifling dimensions(same twist and number though).

 It would be interesting to shoot several along side Dan's to have indentical loads and weather conditions and see how they all compare.

Harnic

  • Guest
Re: FFFg in rifles
« Reply #31 on: March 21, 2011, 12:26:39 AM »
I shoot a 50 and 58.  Same mfg barells, same powder (GOEX FFG), same patching, breaches.  100gr in both shoots clean.  120 in the 58 is noticably more fouled but not so bad I can't load it easy enough. My 58 does seem to foul worse for what is effectively a lighter charge for the bore size.  Only difference in this example is bore diameter and rifling dimensions(same twist and number though).

 It would be interesting to shoot several along side Dan's to have indentical loads and weather conditions and see how they all compare.

Dave, I think I see a trend here.  It seems the larger bore might produce much less pressure, causing an incomplete burn of the charge.  I wonder if 3f might not be a better choice in the 58 to keep those pressures up?  If you reload modern cartridges, you'll notice the large bore shotguns use dramatically faster powders for that same reason: bore capacity.  This begs some serious experimentation!  I'll still have the 50 cal barrel & being a hooked breach Hawken, a simple switch to go from 50 to 58 cal.  As this thread progresses I am begining to think 3f may be the best powder in 58 cal after all!

Ron T.

  • Guest
Re: FFFg in rifles
« Reply #32 on: March 21, 2011, 02:01:53 AM »
I shoot FFFg Swiss Powder behind round, patched balls ("rpb") in my three .50 caliber traditional rifles... 2 percussion cap Hawkens (1:48 twist) and a flintlock Long Rifle (1:66 twist).

Mostly, I shoot light target loads consisting of 20-25 grains (measured by volume) at 25 yards and up to 47 grains at 50 yards.  FFFg Swiss Powder is somewhat "hotter" than FFFg Goex which gives higher velocity than the same amount of Goex.  Both the FFFg Swiss and the FFFg Goex produce more muzzle velocity than an equal amount (measured by volume) of FFg in either Swiss or Goex.

I haven't taken my shorter (26-inch barrel) Hawken deer  hunting yet and so I haven't "worked up" a hunting load for the little 6.5 pound Hawken Carbine as yet, but I intend to do that as soon as it warms up a bit this year.  However, from everything I've read at the several black powder forums which I attend, a charge of 65-80 grains of black powder will shoot a .50 caliber, 177 grain round, patched ball all the way through a deer at 80 yards or less... and my self-imposed range limit for taking a shot at deer is 80 yards.

I hope this post helps you...  :)


Strength & Honor...

Ron T.


Dave Faletti

  • Guest
Re: FFFg in rifles
« Reply #33 on: March 21, 2011, 02:27:35 AM »
Harnic.
I have wondered about using faster powder in larger bores.  I see some behavior in larger bores that seems contradictory and different from what I would expect.  To really look into it effectively and safely I need a pressure transducer, oscope and barrels rifled the way I want them to be.  A lot of my questions take a alot more time and money than I care to put into it to do it right, but I'm still curious.

Harnic

  • Guest
Re: FFFg in rifles
« Reply #34 on: March 21, 2011, 03:04:49 AM »
Dave, as with smokeless loads, rifle versus shotgun, the larger bore will require lighter charges of faster powder.  It's quite likely that to achieve the fastest velocities for hunting loads it may be advisable to use 2f powder, but in my case I will not be hunting & I bet I can come up with a great, clean-burning target load in my new 58 barrel, staying under 100 grs of 3f which will be plenty safe in a 1" across the flats barrel.  I'll be starting at 70 grs & working up until I get the best groups or I get to 100 grs when I'll switch to the slower powder.  As a test I'll try 2f as well, chronographing all loads to see how they compare.  It ought to be an interesting experiment!
« Last Edit: March 21, 2011, 07:14:22 PM by Harnic »

Daryl

  • Guest
Re: FFFg in rifles
« Reply #35 on: March 21, 2011, 03:34:16 AM »
Harry- you may have to increase the thickness of your patching to use anything over 90gr. 3f in that .58, due to the pressure, but if anything like my 2 .58's, 80 to 110gr. 2F will be a good all-round loads. 80gr. is just fine in the 24", 48" twist Musketoon and 100gr. shoots well in the Double Rifle by Pedersoli - whatever it's twist might be - I haven't measured it.  note, 2F - shoots cleanly and seems to give enough speed for the targets we have.  As 110gr. regulated perfectly at all ranges, it would be a long range load for shooting one set of sights.

This might all be a mistake, segregating 3f and 2F as the Ogre noted. Pehaps a mix of the two powders would blend their properties and be best overall.

Harnic

  • Guest
Re: FFFg in rifles
« Reply #36 on: March 21, 2011, 07:21:59 AM »
I have some heavy cotton duck which should fit the bill Daryl.  I haven't decided whether it'll be 2f or 3f, that will be decided by which meets my needs best.  I hope 3f will work well as I have a fair stock of it & it would seem to me it'll end up being more economical to shoot.  Time will tell.  ;)  As far as blending goes... no thanks!  I like my muzzle loading as simple as I can make it!  ;D
« Last Edit: March 21, 2011, 07:23:16 AM by Harnic »

Offline elk killer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1471
Re: FFFg in rifles
« Reply #37 on: March 21, 2011, 12:24:04 PM »
always used fffg in any and calibers and smooth bores as well..
prime with same horn..water clean up..simple cheap and easy.. ;D
only flintlocks remain interesting..

Offline hanshi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5288
  • My passion is longrifles!
    • martialartsusa.com
Re: FFFg in rifles
« Reply #38 on: March 21, 2011, 07:10:43 PM »
always used fffg in any and calibers and smooth bores as well..
prime with same horn..water clean up..simple cheap and easy.. ;D

I'm with ya' on that.  'Cept I can't seem to pry myself away from 4F for prime.  Guess cause I got so much of it including an unopened can of Dupont.
!Jozai Senjo! "always present on the battlefield"
Young guys should hang out with old guys; old guys know stuff.

Offline James

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 627
Re: FFFg in rifles
« Reply #39 on: March 22, 2011, 01:52:32 AM »
When speaking of faster powders and larger bore, is there any chance that the energy is utilized better with the larger surface area of the projectile for the energy to act upon,  or does the larger ball get headed down the bore sooner?
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." P.Henry

Harnic

  • Guest
Re: FFFg in rifles
« Reply #40 on: March 22, 2011, 03:42:34 AM »
I believe it all boils down to "bore capacity".  Obviously a larger bore has much more capacity & therefore a more rapid build-up of pressure (within the safety limitations of the steel barrel) would aid in getting the projectile moving & achieving a good velocity.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2011, 03:43:01 AM by Harnic »

Daryl

  • Guest
Re: FFFg in rifles
« Reply #41 on: March 22, 2011, 01:56:39 PM »
Harry - the opposite rules. The sharper the blow the greater the pressure required just to get the ball moving.  You can push a heavier door to get it moving, than you can slap with your palm.  The slower (larger granulation) powder is more efficient and produces less peak pressure.

Shotguns used/use faster powders so the muzzle pressure will be lower, which is thought to impove patterns - makes sense.

Even in a modern shotgun, a fast powder cannot give the speeds a slower powder can, within pressure ceilings.

In other words, you can ultimately get a ball moving faster with 2f than 3F in a 12 bore at max pressure.  The pressure will be too great in most 12 bores using 3f and a 1 1/4oz. ball at a speed of only 1,600fps, yet with 2f, that velocity can be exceeded within pressure limits.  This is an example only, but explains the cause and effect.  I've shot 1 1/4oz. RB's from a 12 bore at 1,700fps - it is not for the timid.

Harnic

  • Guest
Re: FFFg in rifles
« Reply #42 on: March 22, 2011, 04:51:52 PM »
G'morning Daryl!  If a high velocity with accuracy was my goal I would more or less agree with you here, but as I stated earlier, a lighter, economical target load with decent accuracy is my target.  I don't need 1600-1700 fps for paper or steel targets, they're bloody unlikely to come after me if I don't knock them down.  I had a Parker Hale Musketoon years ago, but never tried round balls in it so I stuck with 2f Goex.  Up to now my rifle shooting has been 54 cal & smaller, all of which worked VERY well with 3f.  I suspect 58 cal in a rifle will prove to be the transition between the 2 grades of powder.  I plan on giving the old Chrony a good workout in a couple weeks to see what the difference in performance will be.  At least 95% of my muzzle-loading shooting happens at well under 100 meters, so I don't need to get a flat shooting, hard kicking load worked up in the new barrel.  It will be fun & interesting to see where this leads me.

The 1700 fps r/b loads in a 12 ga DO get your attention... especially in a light pump shotgun! ;)  I used to carry them all the time when bird hunting in bear country.  Very accurate in my gun, but painful!  :o
« Last Edit: March 22, 2011, 04:53:41 PM by Harnic »

Daryl

  • Guest
Re: FFFg in rifles
« Reply #43 on: March 22, 2011, 05:44:01 PM »
Sorry for the misunderstanding, Harry. 

In large bore round ball loads, 3F is inappropriate.  If it works for you due to physical stature & choice of using light loads for close paper punching - that's up to you.
What's best or proper for a bore size was the gist of this thread - I thought.

In the 12 bore heavy load, I was referring to 9 dram loads, Harry not smokeless - have you tried that load? That's 246gr. of 2F with a 545gr. ball.   If used in a ctg. gun as built in England in the late 1890's, it takes a 3" hull to hold it all, plus wads, of course. What fun!
Cherio!

« Last Edit: March 22, 2011, 05:49:10 PM by Daryl »

Harnic

  • Guest
Re: FFFg in rifles
« Reply #44 on: March 22, 2011, 08:14:49 PM »

In the 12 bore heavy load, I was referring to 9 dram loads, Harry not smokeless - have you tried that load? That's 246gr. of 2F with a 545gr. ball.   If used in a ctg. gun as built in England in the late 1890's, it takes a 3" hull to hold it all, plus wads, of course. What fun!
Cherio!


OUCH!  That sounds nasty!  No I never shoot bp in cartridge guns Daryl, it's a p.i.t.a to clean, brass, bore, inner workings & all.  I restrict bp to muzzle loaders.  I rarely shoot real bp from my ROA either, Triple Seven works so well in it.  I'm going to have to put at least another 50 pounds back on before I start shooting anything with much recoil!  No meat left on these shoulder bones at all!
« Last Edit: March 22, 2011, 08:15:12 PM by Harnic »

Daryl

  • Guest
Re: FFFg in rifles
« Reply #45 on: March 22, 2011, 11:09:31 PM »

In the 12 bore heavy load, I was referring to 9 dram loads, Harry not smokeless - have you tried that load? That's 246gr. of 2F with a 545gr. ball.   If used in a ctg. gun as built in England in the late 1890's, it takes a 3" hull to hold it all, plus wads, of course. What fun!
Cherio!


OUCH!  That sounds nasty!  No I never shoot bp in cartridge guns Daryl, it's a p.i.t.a to clean, brass, bore, inner workings & all.  I restrict bp to muzzle loaders.  I rarely shoot real bp from my ROA either, Triple Seven works so well in it.  I'm going to have to put at least another 50 pounds back on before I start shooting anything with much recoil!  No meat left on these shoulder bones at all!


BP fouling cleans from the barrels easier than smokeless fouling and plastic. There is no other cleaning to do - throw the hulls away. For a more gentle load, use only 6 drams (191gr.)  It's only good for 1,550fps, but kicks about 1/2 as much.  Only one 180 degrees of revolution. ;D

Harnic

  • Guest
Re: FFFg in rifles
« Reply #46 on: March 22, 2011, 11:35:41 PM »
Lol!  We're getting good at misunderstandings here Daryl.  I very rarely shoot smoothbores anymore & never with bp.  I was referring to my 45 Sharps & I found a small amount of fouling would find it's way into the action of my rifle after a day at the range, plus the brass needed to be washed out with water after use.  Just gettin' lazy in my old age!  ;)

Offline Dphariss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9577
  • Kill a Commie for your Mommy
Re: FFFg in rifles
« Reply #47 on: March 23, 2011, 02:18:06 AM »
Lol!  We're getting good at misunderstandings here Daryl.  I very rarely shoot smoothbores anymore & never with bp.  I was referring to my 45 Sharps & I found a small amount of fouling would find it's way into the action of my rifle after a day at the range, plus the brass needed to be washed out with water after use.  Just gettin' lazy in my old age!  ;)

Shooting smokeless in a BPCR can range from frustrating, at longer ranges at least, to dangerous.
Duplication of BP ballistics with smokeless especially in larger capacity cases is a prime cause of burst firearms.
IMR powders are especially bad for this both Dupont and Phil Sharpe learned this the hard way (I assume) back when the IMRs first hit the market. Faster powders, Unique especially, are notorious for ringing chambers.
I shoot HV smokeless in the Marlin. The 40-60 Maynard (chambered for pistol primers only) and 45-100 get black exclusively.
Shoots better at least past 100-200 yards and lower risk.

Dan
He who dares not offend cannot be honest. Thomas Paine

Harnic

  • Guest
Re: FFFg in rifles
« Reply #48 on: March 23, 2011, 03:40:01 AM »
Dan, my 45 Sharps (the Sharps version of a 45-70) is extremely forgiving & works exceptionally well with several different smokeless powders (& has for 20+ years) including 2400 with cork filler wads, which I prefer, but that's getting way too far off topic & belongs in a different forum! ;)

Leatherbelly

  • Guest
Re: FFFg in rifles
« Reply #49 on: March 23, 2011, 07:48:36 PM »
   2f is for rifles
   3f is for pistols.the end