bp vs. synthetics

[caliber45]

OK, no surprise: you guys are right, as always. After building eight caplock rifles (carbines, actually), I decided to try a flinter. I had trepidations, having had a bad experience with a flinter dueling pistol. (Took 18 tries to get it to ignite the charge). Second flinter (rifle this time) looked OK, and I took it out to try it out -- sadly, with "synthetic" bp. (I know, I know, you guys scoff at "synthetics," but they work fine in percussion rifes . . .). Took it out (with synthetics), and it took more than two dozen (!) tries to get three rounds fired. Snarled about that, and retired the flinter in favor of the cap lock I had taken along for insurance. After returning home, I placed an order (thanks to your advice) to Graf & Sons for some "real" bp -- FF and FFFF.  I was thrilled that the cost was only about $18 per pound (including the hazardous shipping fee) vs. something like $28 a pound for the "synthetic" stuff from the one (crappy) local supplier in Tucson.  With the real bp in hand, I went to the desert and fired about two dozen rounds, and had only four "misfires" -- one, because I didn't put enough FFFF in the pan (I think; flashed, but didn't ignite the main charge) --  and three because I didn't get enough spark to ignite the main charge. (New flint getting adjusted to the frizzen?) Thrilled me no end, and restored my faith in flinters. I guess real bp is necessary for flinters to function properly. Good news, too: I was at sighting-in range (25 yards), and of the two dozen shots fired, all but about four "wingers" were inside a 2-inch circle. Guess I was only minimally affected by "flintlock flinch." I forgot to take along my file, so wasn't able to file down the front sight to "zero" it in; next time. Thanks for the "real" bp advice. (Also: noted no more fouling with real bp than with the synthetic). Sorry if this is boring to most of you. Wanted to acknowledge your good advice and faith restored in flinters. -- paul

[Roger Fisher]

Tolja


A couple or three years ago at a shoot at Langhorne, Pa a flint 'shooter' was having a terrible time trying to get ignition, we were doing our own thing and paid little attention.  Line was full of shooters... Finally we asked him what 'fer' powder he was using and it turned out tobe some make believe I'm black powder.  Some generous soul handed him some real stuff and fixed that 'problem'.

[Scott Bumpus]

Ya done gone and done it now, won't be long till ya give up them cap guns!

[Daryl]

Yes - the lure of the Dark Side is strong, I can feel it again as the Musketoon with it's big caps calls strongly in my mind - the instant ignition - the easy accuracy - the lack of necessity for follow through - it is strong indeed - but - resist the temptation of the Dark Side.

[Mad Monk]

Yes - the lure of the Dark Side is strong, I can feel it again as the Musketoon with it's big caps calls strongly in my mind - the instant ignition - the easy accuracy - the lack of necessity for follow through - it is strong indeed - but - resist the temptation of the Dark Side.

But it is your destiny!

Darth Ogre

[hanshi]

   This force is strong in this one.

[Mad Monk]

  This force is strong in this one.

One day I was at the range looking at two ascorbic acid based subs versus GOEX and Swiss powders.
Now the ascorbic acid based subs are mainly gas generating comounds that burn at fairly low temperatures.  By way of comparison black powder has a much higher degree of "expansive force".  The 19th century term used to describe the strength of a black powder.

So I line up on the target with the first round of Bp in the series.  The thing went through my mind.  May the Expansive Force be with you.  I had to set the rifle aside and take a break to restore my concentration.

E. Ogre

[hanshi]

Ahhhh, the flintlock.  A more civilized weapon than the common "blasters".

[frontier gander]

i like pyrodex in my sidelocks. My flinter does pretty good with pyrodex P but i have to use 4f goex in the pan. It helps to just push a small amount of 4f into the touchhole.

[Roger Fisher]

i like pyrodex in my sidelocks. My flinter does pretty good with pyrodex P but i have to use 4f goex in the pan. It helps to just push a small amount of 4f into the touchhole.

I would guess that most folks are pondering your post!

We wonder why don't you use the real McCoy and have it over with?  More bang for your buck! And you would be helping your loading to be more the same shot to shot

[hanshi]

I've never used synthetic powders in any long gun, flint or cap.  I have three plastic bottles of various grades of Pyrodex that I've had for years.  A friend gave them to me and they've just been stored away since then.  I did once try pyrodex in a c & p revolver (5 shots) and found the velocities very eratic from shot to shot.  Can't remember what they chronographed but I do remember being UNimpressed.  Go gen-you-wine black!

[Dphariss]

i like pyrodex in my sidelocks. My flinter does pretty good with pyrodex P but i have to use 4f goex in the pan. It helps to just push a small amount of 4f into the touchhole.

Eventually you will learn the error.
But I get tired of posting it.

Dan

[Daryl]

I actually did some chrono testing in two rifles with Pyro vs. black powder.  Both rifles, a .58 and .69 were loaded using spit patches for both experiments. The black powder loads resulted in velocity spreads of less than 10 fps - rarely over 8fps over a 10 shot string. The Pyrodex ran about 24fps to 35fps extremes shot to shot. Since consistency in everything is important to obtaining accuracy with a muzzleloading rifle, I stopped using pyrodex at that time.  I did buy some T-7 and Black Mag 3 for ctg. testing, but have only tested the BM3 so far - probably will never use the T-7 - I understand it gives pressure excursions in ctgs guns - sometimes - again, not conducive to good accuracy.  Oh yeah- I also found more than double the shot to shot spreads in a .45 3-1/4" when using Pyro. At long range, that means elevation changes with the same point of aim. Too- it's hard on bores.

Stay with the black.

[voyageur1688]

 I switched over to real BP for all my M/L's a few years back and now only use sweet oil  for cleaning and oiling them as well. Seems real BP has proven the best to me for reliable shooting, and the sweetoil has made cleaning so much easier. Guess the old ways were used for a good reason. They seem to be best for M/L's compaired to the modern replacements.
 Todd

[JCKelly]

Seven hundred years experience with saltpetre-charcoal-sulphur.

Maybe three decades with pretend powder.

nuff said

[Mad Monk]

Seven hundred years experience with saltpetre-charcoal-sulphur.

Maybe three decades with pretend powder.

nuff said

Now the pretend powders in the form of Pyrodex has a place in my scheme of things.

A few years back a neighbor had a mouse problem in her backyard.  Hollow cement steps leading up into her garage was home to a whole host of mice.
So I poured a few ounces of Pyrodex into a sandwich baggie.  Stuck in a foot length of safety fuse.  Fired up the fuse and stuffed the baggie into the hole going under the steps.  A not too loud poof and end of mice colony.  That dicyanamide will do it every time.  A lot easier than any other control method.
So RIP came to mean Rest In Pyrodex!!

E. Ogre

[wmrike]

My only brush with a sub (Pyrodex) was perhaps 30 years ago when I was at the range with a cap gun (I've gotten over it).  Using black powder and everything was right in the world.  Some other shooter thought I was being backward, using real blackpowder, so he offered me some Pyrodex.  Told me to load it volume for volume, which I did.  I saw my bullet land downrange about fifteen yards, and thanked him very much.

[chuck-ia]

It just doesn't seem right using anything but black powder in a cap lock or flintlock, to me it would be like using sabots in my flintlock, just doesn
't belong. I like to think, this is the way they did it 200 years ago. Different strokes for different folks. chuck-ia

[Mike R]

the only reason I hang on to a couple of caplocks is that I have seen BP shortages and unavailability locally--and I fear national shortages may not be far off--or too much gov't controls--at least I'll still be able to shoot my caplocks with 'synthetic' powder....but so far I have not used it...I simply have to question statements like ..."my ball fell 15 yds from the muzzle"...tests I have seen do not support that big a difference in performance; although there are other drawbacks to pyrodex, etc...

[Mad Monk]

the only reason I hang on to a couple of caplocks is that I have seen BP shortages and unavailability locally--and I fear national shortages may not be far off--or too much gov't controls--at least I'll still be able to shoot my caplocks with 'synthetic' powder....but so far I have not used it...I simply have to question statements like ..."my ball fell 15 yds from the muzzle"...tests I have seen do not support that big a difference in performance; although there are other drawbacks to pyrodex, etc...

Mike,

As to BP availability in the future.
It will become a question of price.  It has become increasingly more costly for little gunshops to stock black powder.  This raises the cost of insurance on the business.  Then you have the ATF with new licensing at the gunshop level that adds to the cost.  Then here in PA we have the state getting into the act recently with a licencing scheme and site inspection program.  Which adds yet another layer of costs.
In the future the shipment of BP from distributors will become increasingly more important which is why the producers/importers have been in the processing to go to smaller boxes for 5 to 10 pound shipments rather than 25 pounds in a box.


Regarding the subs.
Until recently the ascorbic acid based subs had problems with short shelf-life.  Ask anybody who had any experience with Black Canyon powder.  To cure the moisture sensitivity short shelf-life problem they had to get away from heat degrading the ascorbic acid.  Which results in a weaker powder.  There are a host of patents dealing with the ascorbic acid based subs.  With Black Mag you see a bunch of potassium perchlorate heaved into it to make it faster.  Which also makes it rather corrosive.

Pyrodex has a long history of shelf-life issues.  Shelf-life depended on how much moisture got into the container once the foam seal was removed from the container.

Back in the mid-1980's I was visited by a young man who was the East Coast ML rep for Lyman.  He had a question for me.
He shot Pyrodex in his percussion ml rifle in deer season in the state that he lived in.  The previous season he had scouted out a nice buck.  Come hunting season he got close enough for a good shot.  He fired the rifle.  As he described it.  He could actually follow the flight of the ball.  It was that slow.  It hit the side of the deer and bounced off!
So he took the gun and container of powder into work.  Ran some rounds over the chronograph.  He noted a wild range in velocities.  Running from around 600 fps to around 1100 fps.  Same charge volume, patch, ball, etc.

Pyrodex uses elemental sulfur in with the potassium perchlorate, potassium nitrate and a bit of charcoal. If you look in: The Chemistry of Powder & explosives by Tenny L. Davis, in the section on primer compositions you see a warning where a chlorate or perchlorate muist never be used with elemental sulfur.  That with the addition of moisture you will get a "self-souring" action in the powder.  The reaction makes the composition unreliable.  At first the composition becomes erratic in its behavior.  Then becomes weak and then finally stops working completely.

I was impressed with Hodgdon's 777 powder.  A change in formulation that should give a very long shelf-life with no deterioration in performance during storage. 

E. Ogre

[hanshi]

I can vouch for erratic velocities produced by Pyrodex at least in cap revolvers.

[arcticap]

Someone posted the following in a thread elsewhere in relation to a discussion about substitute powders.
At the very least it leads me to wonder why substitute powders are being referred to as "synthetics".
Are all of them really synthetic and only recent developments of modern chemistry?
Is anyone knowledgeable enough about the history and chemistry of substitute powders to comment about whether any of the following statements are true or not?

The idea that black powder (i.e. potassium nitrate/charcoal/sulphur) is in some way special, proprietary, exclusive, holy or THE preferred pre-20th century propellant is not grounded in fact. Even as early as the 15th century there were black powder substitutes, and by the nineteenth century there was a plethora of black powder alternatives.
One of the more popular varieties was white gun powder (available in a large variety of formulations), which was cleaner and more powerful than the typical black variety. There was also a red gunpowder and a gray, each utilizing different ingredients and manufacturing methods. Some of the more popular black powder alternatives of a hundred and fifty years ago include:
Augendre's white gunpowder;
Hafenegger's gunpowder, available in six different varieties;
Dr. Borlinetto's gunpowder, a very popular white gunpowder
that was even used to load paper cartridges for percussion
revolvers and was used by the South during the Civil War;
Sharp's and Smith's Patent gunpowder;
Spence's Powder;

In addition, there were numerous European proprietary propellants that were rare or unheard of in the US, including one made from sawdust.
Virtually all of the "black powder substitutes" in use today are simply reformulations of old patents, some aren't even altered, made from the same ingredients as they were when first introduced almost two hundred years ago.
I've also ran into shooters who disparage and insult anyone who doesn't use the "Holy Black". But putting down someone who uses Pyrodex, for instance, because it is a "substitute" is like putting down someone who uses HP-38 because it is a "substitute" for Bullseye.
There is nothing special or inherent about black powder, nor is it anymore authentic. It's only in the modern era that black powder has become anything more than simply another way of getting your bullet down the barrel.

Well, my point is that black powder substitutes have been in use almost as long as black powder has. I'm just saying that b.p. substitutes aren't anything new, and that using a b.p. substitute in a two hundred year old gun (or reproduction) is just as authentic as using actual black.
I would also argue the point that the early use of black powder is solely in the hands of a Chinese proprietorship. Roman records detail a concoction that sounds just like black powder, and this information predates any Chinese source by at least 500 years. Of course, there was trading between the Chinese and Roman Empire, albeit on a limited basis, so perhaps the Chinese got it from the Romans or vice-a-versa.
And then of course there was Greek fire, not a propellant per say but certainly on the right track. This is all incidental to the topic but interesting nonetheless.

I'm quoting mid-eighteenth century sources, using the EXACT SAME oxidizers as manufacturers are today. And as for those who would call me foolish, you have yet to show me where so-called synthetic powders of today are made with anything other than ingredients known and used by various propellant makers for well over a century. There are only so many oxidizers capable of being used as a firearm propellant. Some are too powerful, others too unpredictable. Some are too hygroscopic, while others become unstable when mixed with certain other ingredients, such as the chlorates when combined with sulfur.
Nitrates, perchlorates, carbon and oxidizer stabilizers. Regardless of the century, they remain the same.
And as for 777 being authentic? I bet that the formula is just a modification of something patented over a hundred years ago.
Black powder manufacturing was at a greater height of perfection 150 years ago because that's what everyone used. There were literally hundreds of powder manufacturers and powder types available back then. When smokeless killed off black powder and it's relatives, almost everybody stopped making it. The level of technology attained with black powder and it's substitutes faded away. After all, hardly anybody used black powder anymore. It wasn't until a black powder renaissance occurred in the late 60's and 70's that shooters started using it again. And all of those old patents began to be looked at again. "New" propellants such as Clean Shot aren't just kind of similar to old obsolete 19th century stuff, THEY ARE THE EXACT SAME THING. Clean Shot is basically potassium nitrate and sugar.


Anyone could buy Clean Shot, with a different name, back in 1870. The origin of such propellents are original to the mid-18th century. That is the DEFINTION OF BEING AUTHENTIC for that time period.
I can buy Coca-cola in a shiny aluminum container. It contains corn syrup instead of sugar (and no longer cocain), but it is a turn of the century product/recipe/design.

[Daryl]

In addition, there were numerous European proprietary propellants that were rare or unheard of in the US, including one made from sawdust.
Virtually all of the "black powder substitutes" in use today are simply reformulations of old patents, some aren't even altered, made from the same ingredients as they were when first introduced almost two hundred years ago.
I've also ran into shooters who disparage and insult anyone who doesn't use the "Holy Black". But putting down someone who uses Pyrodex, for instance, because it is a "substitute" is like putting down someone who uses HP-38 because it is a "substitute" for Bullseye.
There is nothing special or inherent about black powder, nor is it anymore authentic. It's only in the modern era that black powder has become anything more than simply another way of getting your bullet down the barrel.

This one says it all.

[Mad Monk]

Not entirely.

The main ingredient used in Pyrodex and in 777 is unique to those powders and had not been used in the past in propellant powders.
The same is true for the use of ascorbic acid in powders.  Another one sort of unique to the present.

The only one with any straight historical background was GOEX's now defunct Clear Shot powder that was based on the combination of fruit sugar and potassium nitrate.  It has history back into the 19th century.

The information quoted by arcticap is the standard line when there is a debate on what is acceptable in black powder events.  The bp cartridge crowd has gone through this debate for almost 30 years now.  It comes up in cowboy action shooting.

The hardliners go with potassium nitrate, charcoal and sulfur as authentic.  Anything other than that is a bp sub.

I like to joke about it.  If you look at the writings of Noble & Abel you see nitrocellulose being described as one of the more important substitutes for gunpowder.

Just depends on how you want to stretch the concept of what is and what is not a black powder.
One thing quoted was the use of saw dust in Europe.
In fact, Du Pont's famous Lesmoke Powder was in part a black powder formula.  But part of the potassium nitrate and charcoal was replaced with nitrated sawdust.  Sometimes described as "wood meal".  This was produced at the old plant near Wilmington, DE until that plant ceased operations.  The Lesmoke wheel mill building is still standing.  Its walls being a lot heavier than any of the BP wheel mill houses.  This Lesmoke also had a bit of asphalt added to it as a binder and a way of trying to deal with the hygroscopic nature of the nitrated sawdust.

E. Ogre

[Daryl]

Well, there ya go - wrong again- and again, and again - oh well- selevi` on-ya -   tks, Ogre - again