20 gauge smoothy which powder

[Artificer]

but 1FG is a slow burning powder designed to burn the entire length of the musket barrel.

-The Irish Mick
Arizona Territory

Irish Mick,

I applaud you using the recommended powder granulation listed in the historic documentation. Using the same powder charge and powder granulation gives a much more accurate sense of the total experience of shooting historic arms in historic context.

Please do not take the following as a personal criticism of you as it is not intended to be in any way, shape or form.

However, the Royal Society of London in the mid to late 18th century put the above emboldened myth to rest by scientific experiment even with the limited equipment they had at the time. They proved that all black powder in small arms (with normal and even some larger than normal powder charges) is burnt up (as much as it will burn) in the first few inches of a barrel. What caused the myth that black powder continued to burn in the length of the barrel was the fact they did not completely understand the properties of the propellant gas causing an increase in velocity of the projectile with longer length barrels. So many people assumed the powder continued to burn in the length of the barrel. The amazing thing is the myth continues to this day about black powder supposedly burning in the entire length of the barrel, long after it was proven it doesn't.

Irish Mick, I am not trying to put you on the spot, but just pointing out another "long established dictum" of muzzle loading is not scientifically accurate.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

Why stick to the "wisdom of the ages" that blindly argue of the flat earth,

I'm going a little off tangent here, so I hope I will be forgiven.

As much as we use the example of ridicule of the "Flat Earth Society" in modern times, we tend to forget something important about it. The people who argued most vehemently about the Earth supposedly being flat were often the most learned and highest educated people of the day.

The funny thing about this is that the most ignorant and illiterate Phoenician Sailors of MANY centuries before, knew the Earth was rounded thanks to their knowledge of the horizon on the seas.

My point here is certainly not that higher education makes one stupid, but it can lead to them believing nonsense just because someone of higher learning had "said it was so" for many years. Rather, it is important to test "long established beliefs" to see how valid they truly are and do they stand up testing.

Gus

 

[Leatherbark]

Has anyone ever reported in modern internet forum times pictures of a rifle/smoothbore that was destroyed by using 3f in lieu of 2 F ? If not then I would gather it has never occurred. Maybe a fold welded original got a bulged barrel? (topic reply in general)

Bob

 

[Alden]

...proved that all black powder in small arms (with normal and even some larger than normal powder charges) is burnt up (as much as it will burn) in the first few inches of a barrel.
Gus

More verbose udder shullbit. Anyone with any reasonable amount of practical experience knows this isn't true. We've got pinholes in our clothes, seen stippling on close targets, and even pelted and been pelted by people in reenactments with large grained powder (i.e. Scheutzen Reenactor Powder) at relatively close range despite "elevating."

:shake:

 

[coloradoclyde]

I'm waiting for Dan Phariss to chime in......He wrote a nice article entitled The Making of Black Powder, printed in the Black Powder Report, March 1985.

I can't post the article because it would be a rule violation...But, it offers insight into the "who, what, why, and where's" concerning our topic....

In short, the powder we shoot today is not the same as what the had back then....

Example: one particular change to the process improved the power of powder by as much as 30%.

Nothing to sneeze at there...

 

[Dane]

Alden,

Still no documentation to prove your "rules"?
Show us...... Maybe we'll convert!?!?

 

[Dewey]

In short, the powder we shoot today is not the same as what the had back then....

Example: one particular change to the process improved the power of powder by as much as 30%.

Nothing to sneeze at there...

I'll say this again ... we aren't using the same barrel metal as they had back then ... any argument for or against 3F pressures needs to take modern barrel strength into account.

According to one source:

"Steel has been around for several hundreds of years. The first steels that were refined were called "Crucible Steel" and this steel could only be produced in small quantities as the process produced a thin layer of steel that was skimmed off the top of a crucible of molten iron.

Using the "Crucible Process" not only a small amount of steel was produced at a time but the quality was pretty much "hit or miss" and varied widely. Hence steel was a valuable metal that was so expensive that it could only be used for such high value things as clock springs, gun lock parts, cutting edges of axes, etc.

All of that changed in the mid 19th Century when the Bessemer process of producing steel was developed. Using the Bessemer process, large quantities of steel could be produced at reasonable prices. So it was only in the post Civil War era that the widespread use of steel became the preferred material for manufacturing rifle barrels.

Note that the beginning of the use of steel barrels throughout the firearms industry dovetails nicely with the end of the muzzleloading era."

We use higher strength steel barrels today, not iron.
For example, Green Mountain muzzleloading barrels are 4140 steel.

Older guidelines for iron barrels don't apply unless you are shooting an original muzzleloader !!!

 

[coloradoclyde]

I agree! Dewey.... :thumbsup:

 

[Rifleman1776]

MCMXL

That is 1940 for those of us who don't speek Roman. :wink:

 

[LaBonte]

You might actually look up the scientific facts from actual scientists such as Bill Knight aka the Mad Monk - black powder burns about 50% of the solid matter, the rest is ejected as smoke and unburnt but HOT particles (that's what's stipling your clothes), or left behind as residue.
Now that's a fact not your unscientific observations. You can read Bill's treatise on the modern manufacture of BO here: http://www.laflinandrand.com/madmonk/Part_9.pdf

During the latter half of the 19th century the two leading black powder researchers in
England were Captain Noble and F.A. Abel. Through extensive test firings in closed bombs
they determined that about 55% of the original charge weight will be found as solid
particulate matter in the residue left by the burning of black powder.

http://www.laflinandrand.com/madmonk/Part_9.pdf
Scroll down to the section on fouling.

As for your tenets set by the old timers - many have been proved wrong (placement of prime in the pan, speed of flintlocks as compared percussion, etc.) by folks like Pletch who has posted her many times about his use of hi-speed photography.
some links regarding BP and it's history, manufacture and use.
http://www.ctmuzzleloaders.com/ctml_experiments/bp_burning/bp_burning.html
http://www.chuckhawks.com/muzzleloading_pressure.htm
Regarding peak pressures from the page

From the Lyman Black Powder Handbook, 2nd Edition, p.p. 171-172: 13,500 PSI, 15,400 PSI, 15,100 PSI, 16,800 PSI, 22,600 PSI, and 23,400 PSI. That is a spread from 13,500 PSI to 23,400 PSI, with one load developing over 73% more pressure than the other. So far, so what? It just looks like a bunch of numbers, and so it is.

However, all these pressures came from the SAME .50 caliber 22 inch 1-24 rate of twist test barrel. All these pressures were developed using the SAME 240 grain Hornady saboted bullet. All these pressures were developed using the SAME 100 grains volumetric measured charge of black powder or a black powder substitute.

Conventional wisdom is that the courser FFg should be used in larger bores such 16 gauge guns and larger. The thinking is that the courser powder will burn a slightly slower rate and produce better patterns with a lower peak pressure. However, many shooters use the FFFg granulation in 12 gauge guns with good success.

Where and when the different grades can be used and why sometimes a coarser powder with it's generally lower peak pressures albeit quoting peak pressure alone without the duration is only part of the story.

The screen size of 2F and 3F - note the overlap
Sporting Powders
mesh range

Fg -12+15
FFg -16+30
FFFg -20+50
FFFFg -40+100


and a couple of Historical treatises on BP:
From an 1862 British Gov't/Military tome:
Link 1

From "A Treatise on Gun-Powder" British publication 1790's:

Link 2

anyway science speaks facts and not hear say which so far as many others have noted has all that's been spouted from the "cheap seats".

 

[Artificer]

...proved that all black powder in small arms (with normal and even some larger than normal powder charges) is burnt up (as much as it will burn) in the first few inches of a barrel.
Gus

More verbose udder shullbit. Anyone with any reasonable amount of practical experience knows this isn't true. We've got pinholes in our clothes, seen stippling on close targets, and even pelted and been pelted by people in reenactments with large grained powder (i.e. Scheutzen Reenactor Powder) at relatively close range despite "elevating."

:shake:

And that is supposed to be scientific evidence or proof? Really?! That is truly sad.

Of course there is ejecta from the bores of black powder guns (also smokeless powder guns, btw) and even from under power loads or blank loads. That is part of the reason why I mentioned the qualifier "(as much as it will burn)" in the post above.

There is no such thing as perfect deflagration/combustion and/or total consumption of the powder in a gun barrel. The most elementary study of internal ballistics tells us this, if not empirical evidence from anyone who ever cleaned powder residue from a black powder or modern gun. That is why there is a residue left in the bore after the powder burns.

Some of the ejecta from a gun bore that peppers targets, etc., is actually the residue from burned powder. Some of the residue interferes with complete deflagration/combustion by coating some of the saltpeter in the powder and that keeps it from oxidizing inside the gun barrel. So some of those grains of powder, that did not burn in the barrel, will only burn once they are ejected and oxidized when the propellant gas hits the oxygen rich atmosphere in what is commonly called "the muzzle flash," though not all unburnt grains will burn even there. Some unburned powder will go through the muzzle flash and still not be oxidized enough to completely burn up in the muzzle flash. This results in the sparks or even some residue coated powder grains that will not burn because the residue does not burn off to allow oxidation.

Further, there is no such thing as a perfect mixture of black powder where each grain of powder has enough or the correct amount of saltpeter or exposed saltpeter to oxidize, even with modern manufacturing methods, let alone from less exact manufacturing techniques back in most of the black powder period. What this means is some grains of black powder won't oxidize or burn until they are ejected from the muzzle. They may burn in the muzzle flash or may burn as a spark or may not burn at all.

Thanks to modern science, we now know the reasons that some small amount of either black powder or smokeless powder or other propellants do not completely combust in a gun barrel or other container and wind up as ejecta along with residue that is ejected.

However, we also know from modern test equipment that MOST of the powder charge in a barrel that will burn in a barrel, burns up in the first few inches from the breech.

The somewhat amazing thing to me is that I am not a chemical or mechanical engineer or powder manufacturer, yet I have been blessed with the opportunities to speak with those who are on this subject and have been curious enough to do so. So it does not take one well trained in these sciences to learn these things.

Of course, Alden, if you have scientific evidence or proof otherwise, then please document it. In fact, the only evidence you have given so far is non-scientifically supported empirical evidence, not all that dissimilar to the empirical evidence you have admonished other members for using in this thread.

Gus

 

[coloradoclyde]

:bow: :thumbsup: :hatsoff: :grin: :bow: :thumbsup: :hatsoff:

 

[Artificer]

Great information! Thank you.

Wish I had seen this before I labored through my post above.:grin:

Gus

 

[Britsmoothy]

:bow: :thumbsup: :hatsoff: :grin: :bow: :thumbsup: :hatsoff:

:metoo:

 

[Alden]

So Labonte...

...you believe grain size doesn't matter as to what's expelled because all the powder burns up in the first few inches of the barrel. Where you are maybe it's different.

But of course that's not true everywhere else on Earth as even the simplest among us, now follow me, can have seen larger grain powders produce larger effluence bits (how can that be if it all burned up!?), projectiles are indeed faster in longer barrels (up to a point, but how can that be if, again, the powder all burned up and at the breech no less!?) and, oh yeah, there's that inconvenient fireball that comes out of the muzzle that's bigger and more bright the more powder you use. LOL

You see, if all the powder literally burned in the first few inches of a barrel grain size really wouldn't matter yet we know it does matter (they make them for a reason after all), and overloaded guns would all burst quite regularly. But at some points the velocity is peaked and the excess powder is burned out past the muzzle (you'd better hope) in one of those huge fireballs you might have also seen a picture of where the bright orange lines are BURNING powder kernels Labonte (how could that be if the powder was all burned two or three feet back in the steel tube!?).

LOL

Different grain powders burn at different rates both inside AND outside of barrels -- I know you don't want to believe that -- and almost no-one here would seem to follow the elementary science especially across the pond where Physics is an overlooked subject (except in public schools which are actually private -- don't ask -- and where few go to "university").

A little knowledge, perhaps including 18th C. snippets, is a dangerous thing. Take leeches for example... Very dangerous in this case of mild explosives. And a little, just a little, common sense goes a long way. In the 19th C. Mark Twain recognized, alas, that common sense is not so common though.

Labonte and new shooters should rely on the tenets of the sport that preceded people who aren't even ignoring them these days -- they apparently never even learned them yet think they know better. It's rather childish actually.

That all said, I'm not here to educate the unwashed masses in details. Pick up a darned book, try some real shooting, and pay attention! In the meantime...

When someone's brats want to jump off the roof and stick their hand in the oven or an electrical socket because they do not, cannot, understand the invisible and dangerous forces behind the cautions it is more important that they are at least told what to do than understand why. And that brings us full circle to functionally illiterate shooters creating arguments out of clouds of smoke and mirrors.

 

[George]

As Claude said, sort of, If you are the smartest person in the room, you are fooling yourself.

Spence

 

[Dane]

Alden,

Childish? What's childish is your response of name calling, with still no evidence to back up what you propose as fact. Come on man.....just your own beliefs? Oh, I forgot, it's not your job to educate the unwashed masses, just insult them.

 

[Artificer]

So Labonte...

...you believe grain size doesn't matter as to what's expelled because all the powder burns up in the first few inches of the barrel. Where you are maybe it's different.

I'm not Labonte of course, but you are right back to your well known pattern of using intellectually dishonest straw man arguments. That is not what Labonte wrote, but rather what you would like others to believe he wrote so you can argue against it. So typical of you.

But of course that's not true everywhere else on Earth as even the simplest among us, now follow me, can have seen larger grain powders produce larger effluence bits (how can that be if it all burned up!?),.

No doubt that larger powder grains can/will cause larger bits of burnt ejecta. With 55 percent of the ejecta as burnt powder residue, that Labonte mentioned, this can/will happen.

projectiles are indeed faster in longer barrels (up to a point, but how can that be if, again, the powder all burned up and at the breech no less!?) and, oh yeah, there's that inconvenient fireball that comes out of the muzzle that's bigger and more bright the more powder you use. LOL.

Here you are demonstrating a staggering ignorance of the effects of propellant gases in the bore of a gun and the physics involved in overcoming the initial resistance to get the projectile moving and then once the projectile is moving, it takes less force to accelerate it down the bore.

You see, if all the powder literally burned in the first few inches of a barrel grain size really wouldn't matter yet we know it does matter (they make them for a reason after all), and overloaded guns would all burst quite regularly.

This is nonsense dressed up to look like science or complete blather. Whether you realize it or not, you are trying to suggest that the powder detonates in the barrel rather than deflagration/burning. Again you demonstrate a vast ignorance of internal ballistics.

But at some points the velocity is peaked and the excess powder is burned out past the muzzle (you'd better hope) in one of those huge fireballs you might have also seen a picture of where the bright orange lines are BURNING powder kernels Labonte (how could that be if the powder was all burned two or three feet back in the steel tube!?).

LOL.

Already noted how this happens in my post above.

Different grain powders burn at different rates both inside AND outside of barrels -- I know you don't want to believe that -- and almost no-one here would seem to follow the elementary science especially across the pond where Physics is an overlooked subject (except in public schools which are actually private -- don't ask -- and where few go to "university").

What you are loosely describing is how finer powder burns faster due to more surface area exposed to oxygen. This is what causes steel wool to burn easily while a chunk of steel requires much more heat to burn. However, yet again you make up another intellectually dishonest straw man argument in this portion of your reply.

A little knowledge, perhaps including 18th C. snippets, is a dangerous thing. Take leaches for example... Very dangerous in this case of mild explosives. And a little, just a little, common sense goes a long way. In the 19th C. Mark Twain recognized, alas, that common sense is not so common though..

Labonte and new shooters should rely on the tenets of the sport that preceded people who aren't even ignoring them these days -- they apparently never even learned them yet think they know better. It's rather childish actually.

That all said, I'm not here to educate the unwashed masses in details. Pick up a darned book, try some real shooting, and pay attention! In the meantime...

When someone's brats want to jump off the roof and stick their hand in the oven or an electrical socket because they do not, cannot, understand the invisible and dangerous forces behind the cautions it is more important that they are at least told what to do than understand why. And that brings us full circle to functionally illiterate shooters creating arguments out of clouds of smoke.

Not necessary to respond to most of this, but it is getting amusing how you don't give scientific evidence and try to impress us with more tangential blather. Not working very well it seems by many of the replies in this thread.

Gus

 

[coloradoclyde]

op: Wow! this is better that the battle scene from Bravehart.... :haha: :thumbsup: :hatsoff:

 

[BrownBear]

op: Wow! this is better that the battle scene from Bravehart.... :haha: :thumbsup: :hatsoff:

Nah, just a case of Alden drowning in his own bile. THAT is fun to watch! op: