2F vs 3F for large caliber RB

[Salkehatchie]

Just an updated and informal poll.

What powder size do you folks prefer and why; for shooting larger caliber RB?  .58 and larger for instance.  It has always seemed to me in the past, that it splits about down the middle when it comes to 2F compared to 3F.

Thanks!

[roundball]

Personally I prefer 3F as its always been faster, cleaner, and at least as accurate if not more so than 2F for me, in both rifled PRB and smoothbore shot loads.

Its all the same powder, even coming off the same manufacturing run just different size granulations...and if I substitute 3F in place of 2F I follow the time honored rule-of-thumb of cutting the amount by 10% to keep pressures in the same ballpark.

.58cal case in point, in doing initial sight in work on a new Virginia this year I started using 100grns Goex 2F as I still have a few cans left over...then checked zero using 90grns 3F and it was good, so that's the load I settled on.

Other mileage may vary of course...

[hanshi]

I use 3f for everything; cheaper and simpler.  Got a couple cans of 2f and will probably still have them a year from now.

[BrownBear]

I let each gun decide for itself.  I'll try them all (including 1f in the largest).  My current range of calibers is 32, 36, 44, 45, 50, 54, 58 and 75.  But if there's little difference in performance, I settle on 3f for simplicity, since that's what's most of my guns prefer.  Just a whole lot easier than keeping track of which powder is in which horn, as well as ordering another stock of 1f or 2f when there's almost always lots of 3f on the shelf.  Out of curiosity, I just did an inventory: 3f=19 pounds, 2f=4 pounds, 1f=2 pounds, 4f=2 pounds.  Considering I haven't bought 1f, 2f, or 4f in years, that tells you something.

[Daryl]

I use 2F in everything except for the .32 as that one gets only 3f - so far.  My .40 and .45 both have accuracy loads developed for both 3f and 2F, while the .58, .62 and .69 get only 2F.  
I find no difference in fouling with 3F or 2F but have always received more consistent velocities with 2F.  Both are cleaned as the next patched ball is loaded, so no fouling can build up with either powder granulation, so both load identically for me - I see nor feel any difference between them.  Roughly 10gr. more 2f has to be used to get the same speed, point of impact and accuracy.  Both granulations are equal in accuracy with greased or oil lubed patches in both rifles, while 2f has shown to be more accurate with spit patch, in both rifles.  Consistancy usually means better accuracy, expecially with low velocity guns, and perhaps this is the main reason 2f has shown to be more accurate in both rifles, .40 and .45.  Too - perhaps I've not tested this extensively enough at this time, and who knows, perhaps 3 will prove as accurate with 3F as well, with enough variation in loading.

Each time you change something, you generally have to re-develope the most accurate load.  With the change from 2F to 3f in these two rifles, merely adding an extra 10gr. of 2f with no othr change will give the same speed and accuracy as 3F.  Perhaps if I worked up specific accuracy loads with 2F, it would prove to be more accurate, no matter which lube was used.

The vents on both .40 and .45 seem to foul more with 2f than 3f and so far, that's the only detriment to 2F.  If pricked, there is no difference, except as noted for accuracy when using spit (or windshield washer fluid) for lube.

[sonny]

I lov 3f an use it for my 32-45-50 cal.......but my 54 wants 2f even when i tried everything to make it like 3 f.darn things shoots 2f better........hummm i never get my way..sonny

[Acorn Mush]

I use 3fg in my .58 caliber Zouave replica. Haven't yet gotten up the nerve to try it in the 12ga. side-by-side.

[Daryl]

Long ago, Taylor and I found 2f to give better overal performance - lower pressures at any given velocity, and as far as clean shooting, all powder, even 1f shoots cleanly if you use a good tight combination.  In those days, were were shooting .36's thorugh .62's all with 2f.  I find that if you give any powder a chance to build between shots with patches that don't or won't maintain their integrity shot to shot, you're in for trouble - by trouble, I'm referring to having to wipe the bore when you'd rather be loading and shooting some more.

[Mike R]

Use of fffg for 'everything' is a relatively new fad.  I use fffg in my small bores [.50 and under] and ffg in my big bores [.54 and over].   But I know some folks who use fffg or ffg for everything.  Some report that ffg gives better accuracy in their rifles. For what it is worth, our ancestors used something like ffg or fg/ffg for rifle powder and priming.  I would not even buy any more ffffg.

[Daryl]

I guess then, unlike our ancesters, I use 4f for priming.  It delivers faster ignition than 3f or double, which translates into better overall offhand accuracy.  The more 'lag' in ignition timing, the farther you can be off the mark when you squeezed or pulled off the shot.  A flinter is difficult to 'time' for, unlike a percussion or modern rifle, where the shot is timed to hit the bull, yet the trigger is pulled for ignition before the sights are perfectly aligned with the centre, but are moving in that exact direction.  That is the method most likely to produce 10's and x's in an offhand match and 4F helps in that regard.

[roundball]

I use 4F because it is faster...the black powder industry says its faster and we know its faster based upon the different ignitions speeds of different granulations.

The only down side for me is that I have to manage it when using it for priming powder while out hunting in high humidity, but knowing I have to do that makes hunting with 4F no problem at all.

Doing the math, every time I order a case of powder, its 24 cans of 3F and 1 can of 4F...the typical usage ratio works out pretty close

[hanshi]

I guess then, unlike our ancesters, I use 4f for priming.  It delivers faster ignition than 3f or double, which translates into better overall offhand accuracy.  The more 'lag' in ignition timing, the farther you can be off the mark when you squeezed or pulled off the shot.  A flinter is difficult to 'time' for, unlike a percussion or modern rifle, where the shot is timed to hit the bull, yet the trigger is pulled for ignition before the sights are perfectly aligned with the centre, but are moving in that exact direction.  That is the method most likely to produce 10's and x's in an offhand match and 4F helps in that regard.

Interesting you mentioned the practice of pulling the trigger on a flinter just before it aligns on target.  I've always done that and it does help grouping.  All along I thought I might be doing something "weird".   Funny how one can start doing things correctly (or at least well) by accident.  Goes to show that sometimes a blind squirrel DOES find an acorn.

[Mike R]

yes, a number of loading techniques used today owe their usage to target shooters, primarily of the late 19th and early 20th cent.: ffffg prime, short starters, tight/wet patch-ball combos, etc.  Our forefathers by and large practiced much simpler loading procedures [as described in several period writings--I have an article submitted on this to a mag].  As my interest in MLing has been largely historical -- I tend to generally practice "old time" shooting techniques, although I have been known to "cheat" when hunting and prepare follow-up 'cartridges' for quick reloads [there is some reason to think this was done--I have seen an original ca. 1800 longrilfle with two paper cartridges in the patch box].  My 'cartridges' consist of a few individual pre-measured loads in small glass vials [in my pockets]and prelubed patches and ball ammo in a small belt pouch. I use a priming device instead of carrying a horn. I usually just do this in bad weather as a short cut...and when not in period dress.

[Daryl]

With normal .010 to .012 rifling depth or shallower, paper ctgs. work wel in .54 calibres and above, showing as good or almsot as good accuracy as tightly cloth patched round balls. There no faster method of loading a muzzleloading rifle than with a paper ctg.  Including capping and firing, with pactise, I could make 2 aimed shots in 8 second with the 14 bore.  Aiming was simple as the gun points & sights automatically line up where you look.

[Leatherbelly]

  2F is for rifles,
  3F is for pistols.

  Lynton MacKenzie


  ...and later by Leatherbelly

[Daryl]

Hey LB - if you say it often enough, it becomes "Yours".

[northmn]

When I chronographed my 54 over hunting powder charges I found that 90 grains of 3f would do about the same in velocity as 120 2f, but the 2f was more consistant in velocity shot to shot to the level of about 30+ fps where the 3f would be at over 100.  Daryl states better accuracy with 2f which I believe is due to less variation.  For priming, I carry 3f as a primer when walking with my rifle as any little thing tends to cause the 4f to dribble out, such as a bit of fouling on the lip of the pan.  3f just seems to carry better.  On a stand I may reprime with 4f.  As to 3f vs 2f, some target shooters liked the 3f for lighter 25-50 yard stuff.  Then there is 2f Swiss which is better than either GOEX 3f or 2f.

DP

[Salkehatchie]

Seems as if 3F is the more preferred...although there are die hard fans of 2F too.

Now...one thing I have picked up in this post is the pulling of the trigger before perfect allignment of the sights?

Wow.  Never heard of that.  Explantions and ramifications please!

I do that [pull trigger before lock down on the sights] on occasion, but it ain't on purpose!!!


Thanks.

[northmn]

Howard Hill one time stated that a recurve was "to fast" for him to shoot accurately.  While that pertains to bows, in some ways I think it also may pertain to flintlocks.  I am sure that after shooting one a while the shooter gets to a point where he can start aligning or realigning to the flash.  Practical Pistol shooters went to other calibers as they got fast enough so that they had to wait for the 45ACP to cycle, where 38 Supers and new developments were faster.  Some used revolvers as they could cycle them faster.  Our ability to adapt to this sort of thing is amazing.  I think that a lot of good flintlock shooters can realign after pulling the trigger.

DP

[roundball]

I think that a lot of good flintlock shooters can realign after pulling the trigger.

Interesting interpretation...I thought the point was that given muzzle wander usually occurs to some degree, it was being suggested to anticipate the front sight re-approaching the bull and squeezing off just before it gets into the  bull...learning to coordinate the timing of the release with the movement of the muzzle to result in a muzzle exit as the moving muzzle is momentarily aligned with the bull...may have gotten it wrong

[northmn]

Many shooters, from percussion through modern learn to antcipate the wiggle and try to get the gun to go off when the sights pass by, but I really do think that some good shots can also kind of "flinch" back ionto the target.

DP

[Daryl]

Many shooters, from percussion through modern learn to antcipate the wiggle and try to get the gun to go off when the sights pass by, but I really do think that some good shots can also kind of "flinch" back ionto the target.

DP

I think you've both got it right.  With a hangfire, we've all been able to hit the mark, even though ignition was way too slow, an occurance of moving the sights back to the bull between cock fall and before the shot went off.  I've also been able to miss with hangfires - more often than not as the gun continues it's travel int he direction it was moving.  That happens more often than not and gives the impression of flinching.  You expect the gun to go off at a precise instant and when it doesn't, the shot goes when the sights are well past - however those who try to hold on a specific spot and touch the trigger, get ore hangfire hits than one who takes the shot to put the ball on the target at a precise time.  This will show more at long range, than close, I think.

The fellow who tries to hold on a spot will put fewer shots into the exact centre than one who takes the moving, timed shot, but the moving, timed shot will have a few shots further out from the bull due to lagging ignition on those shots.

The cap-gun shooter is probably better for shooting the timed-during-movement shot, and the flintlock shooter might do better at trying to hold still.

[Dphariss]

Howard Hill one time stated that a recurve was "to fast" for him to shoot accurately.  While that pertains to bows, in some ways I think it also may pertain to flintlocks.  I am sure that after shooting one a while the shooter gets to a point where he can start aligning or realigning to the flash.  Practical Pistol shooters went to other calibers as they got fast enough so that they had to wait for the 45ACP to cycle, where 38 Supers and new developments were faster.  Some used revolvers as they could cycle them faster.  Our ability to adapt to this sort of thing is amazing.  I think that a lot of good flintlock shooters can realign after pulling the trigger.

DP

Ed McGivern used revolvers for speed shooting since the 1911 Colt was too slow. But he was exceptional by any standard. The 38 super allows a faster rate of fire due to the lighter recoil impulse.
Intentionally realigning a flintlock after the trigger is pulled is a stretch.
BUT
A good shooter once on the target tends to come back to the target so he could drift back to it if he is off slightly or starts to drift as the trigger breaks. I think this happens at times.
But an intention realignment would be impossible for someone with standard reflexes.
Given the speeds Larry Pletcher found in testing once the trigger is pulled things happen too fast for the human electrical system.

Dan   

[Dphariss]

Many shooters, from percussion through modern learn to antcipate the wiggle and try to get the gun to go off when the sights pass by, but I really do think that some good shots can also kind of "flinch" back ionto the target.

DP

I think you've both got it right.  With a hangfire, we've all been able to hit the mark, even though ignition was way too slow, an occurance of moving the sights back to the bull between cock fall and before the shot went off.  I've also been able to miss with hangfires - more often than not as the gun continues it's travel int he direction it was moving.  That happens more often than not and gives the impression of flinching.  You expect the gun to go off at a precise instant and when it doesn't, the shot goes when the sights are well past - however those who try to hold on a specific spot and touch the trigger, get ore hangfire hits than one who takes the shot to put the ball on the target at a precise time.  This will show more at long range, than close, I think.

The fellow who tries to hold on a spot will put fewer shots into the exact centre than one who takes the moving, timed shot, but the moving, timed shot will have a few shots further out from the bull due to lagging ignition on those shots.

The cap-gun shooter is probably better for shooting the timed-during-movement shot, and the flintlock shooter might do better at trying to hold still.

I heard of this when I was a kid but could never make it work.
I shoot a flintlock just like I shoot a 22 at 50 ft or a chickens in BPCR silhouette when the sights are on the target break the trigger.
Of course now I am trying figure out how to see the front sight.
Making new front sight blades in the AM most likely

Dan

[northmn]

I don't think one "intentionally" pulls back into the target as much as over time kind of develops a reflex or subliminal perception which is quicker reaction time. The time can include the time pulling the trigger as well as the lock time.  Mostly I developed the "follow through" that Daryl mentions, which also seemed to help in shooting percussion. I also am not talking about large adjustments as much as a small one.  Remember when Frizzen mentioned that flintlock shooters had better scores at Friendship? It takes a top IPSC shooter to have to wait for a 45 to cycle and few can shoot a bow as well as Howard Hill did, but I feel that may be part of the exceptional shooters process.  One of the reasons I built the 25 is for practicing form for shooting a flintlock as well as for small game.  Heavier recoiling firearms add other variables in shooting.  I definitely practice "follow through"   Maybe after many many shots its an unconscious adjustment of the follow through more than reaction to the sights being off?  Kind of off the subject again aren't we.

DP