Author Topic: 4f?  (Read 3922 times)

Offline Darkhorse

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1658
Re: 4f?
« Reply #25 on: October 10, 2021, 12:07:42 PM »
I had a few "exchanges" with that british fellow. Also I butted heads with a guy who only a few years ago posted all over the net. He was a proponent also of using 4f as the main charge. So one day I wrote an email to Goex about it. Here is the reply in full. You can make up your own mind about it.  Me? Never have and never will.



 
 
From: >
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2019 3:03 AM
To: Help Account <Hpchelp@HODGDON.com>
Subject: New submission from Contact Us on IMRPowder.com
 
First Name
    Ronald
Last Name
    Lane
Email Address
    

Send us a Message
    I am an old traditional flintlocker. I use 2fg and 3fg Goex for my main charges and 4fg Goex to prime my pans.
However an increasing amount of younger shooters wish to try 4fg as the main charge citing a lack of testing data showing there is a real danger of blowing up a gun.
Fact is, it's hard to successfully argue the point because I myself can find nothing definite against using 4fg as a main charge.
Do you have any data that you are willing to share with me to help me convince some of these shooters against the use of 4fg as a main charge?
Thank you,
Ronald Lane

Hello Ronald
 
Thank you for reaching out to us.
We appreciate your work and effort in passing along the traditions of muzzleloading to new shooters. We do not have pressure testing data for 4f powder. As you already know 4f should only be used for priming pans. If 4f were used as a main charge the pressures would be very high but the velocities would remain low, you would be gaining nothing and risking everything. A good point is to remind these young shooter what is at risk: eye sight , use of your hands, possibly death, the dangers are real.
 
Thank you again for your contribution to our youth and the tradition of muzzleloading.
 
Luke Otte
Technical support
6430 vista dr.
Shawnee, Ks 66218


American horses of Arabian descent.

Offline Bob Roller

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9345
Re: 4f?
« Reply #26 on: October 10, 2021, 03:19:13 PM »
This letter to me is contradictory.It states that NO test were made using 4fg as a main charge so how can that be stated as an absolute??I am sure in a barrel made of quality material like McLemore or GM would easily handle it.Antiques are another thing and a lot of them are wall hangers only.Just HOW does a substance like black gun powder which is said to be a mechanical and not a chemical mixture change pressure so radically when the mixture is idntical in the manufacture of it? Pressures high and velocities low??
Let's see some REAL DATA and settle this forever and not rely on speculation and untested opinions.
Bob Roller
« Last Edit: October 10, 2021, 03:22:39 PM by Bob Roller »

Offline Bob Roller

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9345
Re: 4f?
« Reply #27 on: October 10, 2021, 03:26:26 PM »
AZ, be nice. That is research, whether it's good or bad is determined by careful evaluation. For my part, I would never load with 4F. Among other things, it's fine enough that you might end up self-priming when running a patched ball home.

Dave

I think there were self priming English flintlocks and they did NOT use any coarse granuled powders.
Bob Roller

Offline smylee grouch

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7677
Re: 4f?
« Reply #28 on: October 10, 2021, 05:07:00 PM »
About 20 years ago I had one of the powder sales men explain it to me that the pressure from 4f was about the same as other granulations but it got to peak pressure faster which he claimed was the real danger.  :-\

Offline martin9

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 283
Re: 4f?
« Reply #29 on: October 10, 2021, 06:21:24 PM »
I don't know if anyone else ever noticed this but I've got one horn I've been using for 3f for a couple years. It's never gone completely empty before I'd refill it. I finally emptied it a couple weeks ago working on .45 loads. Those last few charges that came out of it were FINE....about like 4f . It seemed to crack and kick a little more when shot as well.

After I noticed that I thought of our spice grinder. Whenever I grind something in it the bigger pieces always stay at the top and the fine stuff sits on the bottom. 

No real point to this really.I just remembered it reading through this thread.


Offline Daryl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15078
Re: 4f?
« Reply #30 on: October 10, 2021, 08:42:35 PM »
I think there were self priming English flintlocks and they did NOT use any coarse granulated powders.
Bob Roller

Seems to me C&H #6 sporting powder was quite fine - about like 3F. That was supposed to be the best of the powders
in use at that time(late 1800's). Earlier during the flint period, I've no idea what the powder looked like. I still recall the
blown up rifle pictured in Greener's "The Gun and it's Development", blown up with "fine" powder that "detonated" rather
then burned.
A perusal of Lyman's old handbook will show "like" charges of 3F and 2F giving much different pressures, Smylee G.
Also, if you look at the .58 cal. data comparing the 70's C&H 3F or 2F against GO 2F and 3F- quite interesting in itself,
as-are the charges listed as maximums. :D
Daryl

"a gun without hammers is like a spaniel without ears" King George V

Offline smylee grouch

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7677
Re: 4f?
« Reply #31 on: October 10, 2021, 08:57:52 PM »
Thanks form that pressure  info Daryl. When the powder sales man told me the pressure was "about the same" I took it with a grain of salt. When we compare burn rates of the different granulations of  powders we can note the difference in recoil when shooting same charges of 2f over 3f as the 3f spikes or peaks faster and seems to create more recoil IMHO. 

Offline Daryl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15078
Re: 4f?
« Reply #32 on: October 10, 2021, 09:17:13 PM »
Sorry Smylee - I was wrong, :-[ - Lyman's data only shows GO 2F and C&H 3F. The relationships between both of those 2 makes of powder are
quite interesting though, as well as the different pressures generated depending on the projectile used. Seems they put a "Zouave" barrel of
different lengths in a Universal Receiver for the pressure & velocity testing.  The relationship of powder charge to velocity is also interesting.
Note the differing velocities in short barrels, 24, 26 and 28" lengths with the differing powder charges up to 190gr. & the rates of increase of
speeds. Interesting indeed. ;)
Daryl

"a gun without hammers is like a spaniel without ears" King George V

Offline Darkhorse

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1658
Re: 4f?
« Reply #33 on: October 11, 2021, 03:54:37 AM »
This letter to me is contradictory.It states that NO test were made using 4fg as a main charge so how can that be stated as an absolute??I am sure in a barrel made of quality material like McLemore or GM would easily handle it.Antiques are another thing and a lot of them are wall hangers only.Just HOW does a substance like black gun powder which is said to be a mechanical and not a chemical mixture change pressure so radically when the mixture is idntical in the manufacture of it? Pressures high and velocities low??
Let's see some REAL DATA and settle this forever and not rely on speculation and untested opinions.
Bob Roller

Bob, if I could find any real data I'd gladly post it. But I could not, even though I suspect something must be out there somewhere. Perhaps it's old and moldy gathering dust in a british castle.
So, I wrote the maker of Goex thinking they surely had some data. Turns out they don't.
That email reply actually tells me nothing at all.
Good luck searching for some real data.
American horses of Arabian descent.

Offline Mad Monk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1033
Re: 4f?
« Reply #34 on: October 11, 2021, 06:20:01 AM »
Looking at just one brand of powder.
Grain size has an influence on what sort of pressure curve you are going to see in the black powder gun.
Going back to 1838 the black powder industry in the U.S. was then going to what we might call today our standard sizes.  That is when du Pont copyrighted the "Superfine".

The grains sizes were set up on a mathmatical rule.  2F powder is half the size of 1 F powder.  For the same weight the 2F powder will have about 1.45 times more grain surface area which makes that charge burn in a shorter time than the 1f.  The 3F powder is half the size of 2F powder.  So with equal weights it will have about 1.45 times more surface area than the same weight of 2f.  So with equal weights the 3f will burn in a shorter time than the 2f.
At one time the 4f powder was a specific grain size range that would be half the average size of the 3f.  But that was no longer the case with the Moosic, PA GOEX 4F I used in my flinters and looked at closely in the lab.  The 4F out of Moosic was simply powder sifter tailings going way down in size. 

You have a delay in the start of the projectile up the bore when you ignite the charge of powder.  Resistance to being accelerated and resistance to be turned by rifling.  So the more rapid  burning of the powder charge and projectile resistance will effect pressures behind the projectile.  Increasing pressures do not translate directly to the rate at which the projectile accelerates up the bore.

Some time do some calculations.  Calculate the square inches of the projectile the gasses are working on.  That is you bore diameter which when calculated at working rear surface are of the projectile on which the pressure is applied is well under 1 square inch.  You are not getting the full pressure pushing the projectile.  The pressure on the projectile is only a fraction of the pressure that would be shown on a gauge.


Offline Sparkitoff

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 53
Re: 4f?
« Reply #35 on: October 11, 2021, 03:57:36 PM »
I see a lot of references to some sort of “tests” that prove it unsafe ( mentioned in this thread and throughout the internet). What I don’t see is the actual test. Nobody has a valid study where 3F was safe but 4F wasn’t. Furthermore, there are numerous videos and photos of black powder guns that were destroyed with smokeless powder. Why aren’t there any showing detrimental results of using 4F? There are 3 or 4 current, active black powder shooters that use 4F as a main charge in a variety of arms. Unless they are each a bold-faced liar, they seem to be getting along good with 4F. A few years back I inquired directly from a manufacturer. While the lady said “ follow the recommendations from the gun maker “ , she also said 4F “probably wouldn’t be a problem” but she couldn’t recommend it. Well if the manufacturer knew it was dangerous or was going to blow up my gun I think her response would have been a lot stronger. The 4F can has no warning about using it as a main charge.  I have plenty of 3F that I use as a main charge in everything I have that burns black powder. People will tell you that is wrong and I need 2F for my big bored  and smoothbores. Personally, if I only have 4F I am going to work up a load until I achieve accuracy and “power” suitable for the task. Do what you think is best. I’m not making a recommendation to you. I am hoping you apply a large dose of logic to make your own decision.

Offline hanshi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5314
  • My passion is longrifles!
    • martialartsusa.com
Re: 4f?
« Reply #36 on: October 12, 2021, 12:04:32 AM »
I figure 4F should be fine in small caliber rifles and the small caliber revolvers.  But it is a bit like the guy who asked if he could eat a particular mushroom.  "You certainly can", he was assured, "once".  ???
!Jozai Senjo! "always present on the battlefield"
Young guys should hang out with old guys; old guys know stuff.