"There are a lot of people saying that 2f and 3f work just as good as 4f. How can they tell? Did they run tests and time the difference? The only test that I know of proved 4f faster. This is not to say that 2 and 3f dont work, I used 1&1/2f once and it worked. BUT Larry P.s tests did prove that the 4f was faster and Null B I think is even faster yet. I think the majority of the serious flint bench shooters use 4f or Null B"
Ditto Smylee. Larry's high speed camera tests proved that there is a difference in 2f, 3f, 4f and Null B. Yes, 2f in the pan will probably set off a charge just fine. That is not what matters to me. I want a priming powder that set off the charge, and FAST. Larry's test showed that 4f is significantly faster than 2f, but the human senses are not good enough to detect that. A muzzle can move a lot in a split second. I am guessing the offhand winners at Friendship are not doing it with 2f in the pan either. If I am pulling a trigger, I want all the advantage I can get to hit what I am aiming at. Hence, using priming powder versus main charge powder in the pan. Yeah, back in the day they only had one powder. We have choices today, and I choose to shoot what is faster igniting.
Daryl, just FYI, I used Null B for a while as it is faster by a frog-hair smidgen than 4f. Not much, but it gave me a mental edge. That said, I quit using it. Why? It basically plates the pan with graphite with each shot. It was wiping with alcohol to clear it off between shots. Bill Knight correctly deduced what was happening. The Null B has a much greater percentage of graphite as compared to 4f. I switched to 4f and the problem reduced greatly. No biggie, but Null B is much more expensive than 4f Swiss. Like double the price. Just thought you should have all the info before going after Null B.
God Bless, and best wishes, Marc