Powder differences - 150 years ago, 40 years ago and today.

[zimmerstutzen]

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. 

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

Zim, I like your approach to shooting muzzle loading rifles.  You and Daryl have a lot more in common than you think.

[Rasch Chronicles]

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
Mama Domicenti’s Kitchen: Albert Tries Market Hunting

[Daryl]

 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.

[ironwolf]

  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

[Daryl]

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.

[Mike R]

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....

[Daryl]

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.

[Rasch Chronicles]

Ooooo,

This is obviously going to get fun...

Best regards,
Albert “Afghanus” Rasch
Mama Domicenti’s Kitchen: Albert Tries Market Hunting
ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!

[squire]

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.

[BrownBear]

....provided by government contractors who did not always supply a quality product.

Tell me it isn't so, Joe!!!!!!   

Politicians never shade things for their rich buddies and sponsors. And the world is flat.

Good insight, and a valuable reminder.

[Daryl]

easy

[LynnC]

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

[Southron]

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.

[Daryl]

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.

[Dphariss]

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

[zimmerstutzen]

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.

[Daryl]

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.

[Rasch Chronicles]

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

[Dphariss]

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

[Rasch Chronicles]

Thanks Dan!

I really appreciate your taking the time to explain that so well.

Thanks,
Albert

[Daryl]

YUP- well done, Dan.

[dannybb55]

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
Mama Domicenti’s Kitchen and Albert tries Market Hunting

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

[dannybb55]

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.

[Rasch Chronicles]

Guys!

Stop encourageing me!!!

Best regards,
Albert “Afghanus” Rasch
The Rasch Outdoor Chronicles™   
Learn to Shoot, Break the Flinch!
ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!