Author Topic: Powder differences - 150 years ago, 40 years ago and today.  (Read 26702 times)

zimmerstutzen

  • Guest
Powder differences - 150 years ago, 40 years ago and today.
« 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?"

BrownBear

  • Guest
Re: Powder differences - 150 years ago, 40 years ago and today.
« Reply #1 on: August 12, 2011, 06:57:32 PM »
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.

zimmerstutzen

  • Guest
Re: Powder differences - 150 years ago, 40 years ago and today.
« Reply #2 on: August 12, 2011, 07:50:23 PM »
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.

BrownBear

  • Guest
Re: Powder differences - 150 years ago, 40 years ago and today.
« Reply #3 on: August 12, 2011, 07:55:39 PM »
Shoot it and tell us what you learn.

Daryl

  • Guest
Re: Powder differences - 150 years ago, 40 years ago and today.
« Reply #4 on: August 13, 2011, 02:09:26 AM »
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.

zimmerstutzen

  • Guest
Re: Powder differences - 150 years ago, 40 years ago and today.
« Reply #5 on: August 13, 2011, 05:59:41 AM »
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.

Rasch Chronicles

  • Guest
Re: Powder differences - 150 years ago, 40 years ago and today.
« Reply #6 on: August 13, 2011, 08:46:00 AM »
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™
Albert Rasch in Afghanistan: She had Beautiful Green Eyes

squire

  • Guest
Re: Powder differences - 150 years ago, 40 years ago and today.
« Reply #7 on: August 13, 2011, 10:10:40 AM »
Liability I expect, the costs of insurance alone would be staggering.

Rasch Chronicles

  • Guest
Re: Powder differences - 150 years ago, 40 years ago and today.
« Reply #8 on: August 13, 2011, 10:41:37 AM »
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

ironwolf

  • Guest
Re: Powder differences - 150 years ago, 40 years ago and today.
« Reply #9 on: August 13, 2011, 02:14:33 PM »
  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

Offline Roger Fisher

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6805
Re: Powder differences - 150 years ago, 40 years ago and today.
« Reply #10 on: August 13, 2011, 05:30:10 PM »
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

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.... :(

Daryl

  • Guest
Re: Powder differences - 150 years ago, 40 years ago and today.
« Reply #11 on: August 13, 2011, 06:26:08 PM »
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.
 

Offline T*O*F

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5123
Re: Powder differences - 150 years ago, 40 years ago and today.
« Reply #12 on: August 13, 2011, 06:34:35 PM »
Quote
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.
Dave Kanger

If religion is opium for the masses, the internet is a crack, pixel-huffing orgy that deafens the brain, numbs the senses and scrambles our peer list to include every anonymous loser, twisted deviant, and freak as well as people we normally wouldn't give the time of day.
-S.M. Tomlinson

Offline hanshi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5335
  • My passion is longrifles!
    • martialartsusa.com
Re: Powder differences - 150 years ago, 40 years ago and today.
« Reply #13 on: August 13, 2011, 06:46:53 PM »
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.
!Jozai Senjo! "always present on the battlefield"
Young guys should hang out with old guys; old guys know stuff.

Offline T*O*F

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5123
Re: Powder differences - 150 years ago, 40 years ago and today.
« Reply #14 on: August 13, 2011, 06:56:07 PM »
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
Dave Kanger

If religion is opium for the masses, the internet is a crack, pixel-huffing orgy that deafens the brain, numbs the senses and scrambles our peer list to include every anonymous loser, twisted deviant, and freak as well as people we normally wouldn't give the time of day.
-S.M. Tomlinson

BrownBear

  • Guest
Re: Powder differences - 150 years ago, 40 years ago and today.
« Reply #15 on: August 13, 2011, 07:34:35 PM »
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.

Offline davec2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2957
    • The Lucky Bag
Re: Powder differences - 150 years ago, 40 years ago and today.
« Reply #16 on: August 13, 2011, 07:42:32 PM »
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
"No man will be a sailor who has contrivance enough to get himself into a jail; for being in a ship is being in a jail, with the chance of being drowned... a man in a jail has more room, better food, and commonly better company."
Dr. Samuel Johnson, 1780

Offline T*O*F

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5123
Re: Powder differences - 150 years ago, 40 years ago and today.
« Reply #17 on: August 13, 2011, 08:05:15 PM »
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.
Dave Kanger

If religion is opium for the masses, the internet is a crack, pixel-huffing orgy that deafens the brain, numbs the senses and scrambles our peer list to include every anonymous loser, twisted deviant, and freak as well as people we normally wouldn't give the time of day.
-S.M. Tomlinson

ironwolf

  • Guest
Re: Powder differences - 150 years ago, 40 years ago and today.
« Reply #18 on: August 13, 2011, 08:46:25 PM »
  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

zimmerstutzen

  • Guest
Re: Powder differences - 150 years ago, 40 years ago and today.
« Reply #19 on: August 13, 2011, 11:19:17 PM »
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.  



« Last Edit: August 13, 2011, 11:38:02 PM by zimmerstutzen »

Offline davec2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2957
    • The Lucky Bag
Re: Powder differences - 150 years ago, 40 years ago and today.
« Reply #20 on: August 14, 2011, 12:05:26 AM »
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.
"No man will be a sailor who has contrivance enough to get himself into a jail; for being in a ship is being in a jail, with the chance of being drowned... a man in a jail has more room, better food, and commonly better company."
Dr. Samuel Johnson, 1780

roundball

  • Guest
Re: Powder differences - 150 years ago, 40 years ago and today.
« Reply #21 on: August 14, 2011, 12:48:44 AM »

"...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...

Daryl

  • Guest
Re: Powder differences - 150 years ago, 40 years ago and today.
« Reply #22 on: August 14, 2011, 01:30:55 AM »
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.

 

ironwolf

  • Guest
Re: Powder differences - 150 years ago, 40 years ago and today.
« Reply #23 on: August 14, 2011, 02:06:23 AM »
  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

zimmerstutzen

  • Guest
Re: Powder differences - 150 years ago, 40 years ago and today.
« Reply #24 on: August 14, 2011, 04:12:13 AM »
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!  
« Last Edit: August 14, 2011, 04:15:15 AM by zimmerstutzen »