3F powder vs. 2F in .54cal flintlock rifle

[springfield art]

I used tons of 2F during 10 years of Rev War enacting, and simply got used to it; not too big, not too small! I do have 3F for pistol or whatever, and 4F for priming. I don't have the patience to try numerous combinations like some of the really dedicated guys; I'm more "minute of pie plate" as someone posted on here, and I haven't forgotten that quote!

 

[flatcreek]

My feeling is 3f starts the ball faster and 2f pushes it off a little slower. Sharper kick with 3f and maybe a better bite on the rifling with 2 f. I'm sure there are all kinds of variables that can affect the way your rifle shoots other than 2f or 3f, long barrel, short barrel, big bore or small, and many others, this is just one thing I surmise.

 

[springfield art]

It's a miracle how quickly Goex was rescued by our childhood pals, the rocket motor people!

 

[hanshi]

I've always liked and used 4F in the pans of my flintlocks. But I have to say that I've also had excellent results with 3F in the pan. Maybe just me but I can't tell the difference between them; they're both quick.

 

[RMH]

I use 3F for my 36, 45, 54 cal. muzzleloaders, and prime with it in my flintlocks.

 

[Nobody85]

As for rifles; I don’t think it matters all that much as to which powder is used. I’ve found that in fowling pieces; they pattern better with a courser powder. 2f, or even 1.5f does great for my fowler. It might have to do with slower powders don’t deform the shot column as much. All I know is what works best for me.

 

[TNGhost]

I have been using 2F powder in my .54cal flintlock rifles (T/C Hawken, Lyman GPR and my new Kibler Woodsrunner) for 30yrs. I did this because, this was always recommended in rifles over .50cal . My understanding for this was, because 3F powder created very high breech pressures. I'm told that modern steel barrels can handle the pressures. The upside being, you can use less 3F powder to get the same velocity as 2F and thereby save money. On the downside, I'm wondering if the 3F produces more kick or a lot more kick. Anyone have any experience or knowledge of this?

I tried at first to use 2Fg as a main charge in my .50 and 4f for the pan. It was sooo tedious for me, I decided to keep it simple. I switched to 3Fg in the main charge and the pan. It did burn cleaner, and I got more consistent chronograph of the muzzle velocity as well. I don't use what I consider a "large" main charge. The state minimum load for deer is 60 grains of whatever granulation that you use, so I tried 70 grains. It worked quite well back then, and I was using a .50 at the time. When I switched to a .54 I simply used the same bag and powder-charger. Worked fine, and has killed a lot of deer.

I think the recoil increase would be nominal. While the manuals all differ for when they recommend one switch from 3F to 2F for the main charge, they agree that there is about a 10% increase in results with 3F over 2F, right? 10% higher velocity should mean only a 10% increase in recoil, maybe?

Now the perceived recoil is another matter. All of my rifles and muskets are very wide at the butt. So backwards impact is spread out over a wide area. IF I was using a rifle with a much thinner butt plate, especially if it was metal and very crescent shaped, I might feel the recoil more, due to more pounds per square inch on my shoulder due to the reduced surface area in contact with that shoulder.

LD

As far as recoil, all else being equal (bullet weight, velocity, weight of the rifle, etc) the recoil is going to be the same. The pressure curve on the 3F, since it has smaller grains and theoretically will ignite faster (lots of variables there too) may be a little steeper, making the dwell time of the recoil shorter, causing the perceived "sharper" kick. Constants of weight and velocity maintained, physics dictates the force imparted remains the same. (that whole equal and opposite reaction thing)

About the 3F vs 2F vs 1F vs 4F, the recommendation of what size to use in what diameter/type of barrel is just that, a recommendation, that somehow along the way became "an old wife's tale" "rule"

The only issues to be concerned about are group size and fouling, so long as you use proper amounts of black powder

 

[TNGhost]

My feeling is 3f starts the ball faster and 2f pushes it off a little slower. Sharper kick with 3f and maybe a better bite on the rifling with 2 f. I'm sure there are all kinds of variables that can affect the way your rifle shoots other than 2f or 3f, long barrel, short barrel, big bore or small, and many others, this is just one thing I surmise.

The initial detonation can be a factor in projectile obturation and thus on the seal created, projectile to bore. The less the dwell time of the pressure curve the quicker the push and the more the projectile will obturate. More noticeable with hollow base bullets, and especially between black and smokeless (which is much slower). Many with older cartridge rifle shooters turn to loading black with HB bullets to "bump up the bullet to seal an oversize bore. Same principal as with Minies, and in theory, 3F will give you quicker and better flaring of the skirt to engage the rifling. The same is true of patch and ball but to a lesser extent

 

[Reno]

2f as pan powder goes off like lightning. i have killed several deer with 2f prime in the pan,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Agreed, I’ve used 2F as the main charge and primed with it as well. Great ignition and performance. I carry the one horn and it works.
54 cal rifle 50 cal rifle and 62 bore smoothbores

 

[Twisted_1in66]

Really? Wow!! What brand? I tried using 2F as pan powder once while shooting my Charleville with paper cartridges and priming the "historically correct" way (ie priming from cartridge) and my results were failure to ignite main charge about one in three attempts. If I remember right, it was probably Scheutzen.

I don't hunt or do live-shoots with 2F powder in the pan. I use 3f for everything. HOWEVER, I have used 2f literally thousands of times over the last 20-years in reenactments. I will typically file 100 or more blank charges (just powder, no ball) at a weekend reenactment. That's typically two main battle reenactments open to the public, - one on Saturday and one on Sunday - along with a tactical which is not planned for the public to watch on one of the two mornings. Tacticals are typically in wooded areas and over distances which are not easily observable by the public. They can watch, but the tacticals aren't designed for the public, but for the reenactor's experience.

For the first couple of years of my reenactment experience in Vermont, I rolled my own cartridges in powder that was provided by the unit. Usually that was 3F. We actually ended up using the equivalent of 3F powder in cannon powder (forgot the rating) because it was cheaper by the 25-lb bag than GOEX sporting powder. It was cheaper because it was not graphite coated (the "g" in an FFFg rating). That graphite coating helps keep the powder from turning to mush so quickly in the pan because the graphite coating slows down the absorption of moisture. It was kept in cartridges until it was used and didn't just sit in the pan all day waiting to take one shot, so it wasn't a real concern for reenactments.

When I got transferred to Virginia in 2005, the VA7th there provided cartridges rolled from 2F and for the next 10-years. 2F was used in the cartridges for both the pan and the main charge. Just didn't have a problem with it at all. In fact, since it is for shooting blanks and not for hunting purchases where you need consistent ballistics, they would sometimes use "Reenactor powder" in it which has all kinds of sizes of granules. Most are 2F, some 3F, and some 1F. It's like they didn't run it through the grading sifters at all so it had all kinds of granule sizes. Still, had no problems at all with ignition of pan and main charge with it.

Of much greater concern was the lock that you were using and what idiosyncrasies it might have. My first longrifle was a Traditions Pennsylvania longrifle that had a small lock - was the same lock they used on their pistols. Took me a while to figure out the idiosyncrasies of that small lock, but once I did, it was a reliable shooter. Trick with mine (YMMV) was to fill it no more than half full, close the frizzen and then snap my wrist sharply in a clockwise direction. That sent the powder to the outside half of the pan leaving a clear space between powder and the flash hole. Then it worked reliably with either 2F or 3F in the pan and as the main charge.

In about 2006, I bought an Early Lancaster .50-cal rifle from a forum member here with the screenname "tg". He built a beauty of a rifle! It has a swamped barrel and uses an L&R Queen Anne round-face lock. The pan on my Queen Anne lock is easily 4 times larger than the Traditions pan and it doesn't care how much powder you put in it. Fill it up, fill it half full, overfill it so powder falls out of the pan when you close it, it goes off first time, every time as long as you are getting a spark. It's a great lock.

Now I have to note here that there actually is a difference in speed between 2F and 3F powder just as there is between 3F and 4F powder used in the pan. But the speed difference between 2F and 3F, as well as between 3F and 4F, has to be measured by scientific instruments to detect the difference. The differences are so small they are not discernable to the human eye. If you think you can discern the difference, then go ahead and use whichever one you perceive to be faster. It's your rifle and your fun, so do what makes you happy. I use 3F for everything for my .50-cal and am very happy with the performance of my rifle using it.

 

[Reno]

I don't hunt or do live-shoots with 2F powder in the pan. I use 3f for everything. HOWEVER, I have used 2f literally thousands of times over the last 20-years in reenactments. I will typically file 100 or more blank charges (just powder, no ball) at a weekend reenactment. That's typically two main battle reenactments open to the public, - one on Saturday and one on Sunday - along with a tactical which is not planned for the public to watch on one of the two mornings. Tacticals are typically in wooded areas and over distances which are not easily observable by the public. They can watch, but the tacticals aren't designed for the public, but for the reenactor's experience.

For the first couple of years of my reenactment experience in Vermont, I rolled my own cartridges in powder that was provided by the unit. Usually that was 3F. We actually ended up using the equivalent of 3F powder in cannon powder (forgot the rating) because it was cheaper by the 25-lb bag than GOEX sporting powder. It was cheaper because it was not graphite coated (the "g" in an FFFg rating). That graphite coating helps keep the powder from turning to mush so quickly in the pan because the graphite coating slows down the absorption of moisture. It was kept in cartridges until it was used and didn't just sit in the pan all day waiting to take one shot, so it wasn't a real concern for reenactments.

When I got transferred to Virginia in 2005, the VA7th there provided cartridges rolled from 2F and for the next 10-years. 2F was used in the cartridges for both the pan and the main charge. Just didn't have a problem with it at all. In fact, since it is for shooting blanks and not for hunting purchases where you need consistent ballistics, they would sometimes use "Reenactor powder" in it which has all kinds of sizes of granules. Most are 2F, some 3F, and some 1F. It's like they didn't run it through the grading sifters at all so it had all kinds of granule sizes. Still, had no problems at all with ignition of pan and main charge with it.

Of much greater concern was the lock that you were using and what idiosyncrasies it might have. My first longrifle was a Traditions Pennsylvania longrifle that had a small lock - was the same lock they used on their pistols. Took me a while to figure out the idiosyncrasies of that small lock, but once I did, it was a reliable shooter. Trick with mine (YMMV) was to fill it no more than half full, close the frizzen and then snap my wrist sharply in a clockwise direction. That sent the powder to the outside half of the pan leaving a clear space between powder and the flash hole. Then it worked reliably with either 2F or 3F in the pan and as the main charge.

In about 2006, I bought an Early Lancaster .50-cal rifle from a forum member here with the screenname "tg". He built a beauty of a rifle! It has a swamped barrel and uses an L&R Queen Anne round-face lock. The pan on my Queen Anne lock is easily 4 times larger than the Traditions pan and it doesn't care how much powder you put in it. Fill it up, fill it half full, overfill it so powder falls out of the pan when you close it, it goes off first time, every time as long as you are getting a spark. It's a great lock.

Now I have to note here that there actually is a difference in speed between 2F and 3F powder just as there is between 3F and 4F powder used in the pan. But the speed difference between 2F and 3F, as well as between 3F and 4F, has to be measured by scientific instruments to detect the difference. The differences are so small they are not discernable to the human eye. If you think you can discern the difference, then go ahead and use whichever one you perceive to be faster. It's your rifle and your fun, so do what makes you happy. I use 3F for everything for my .50-cal and am very happy with the performance of my rifle using it.

Goex

 

[Cowboy]

With 3f pressure greater than 2f with same volume, I prefer 3f in all my shooting in .54 on down. Using 80 gr. of 3f is more than adequate for hunting deer size game out to 100 yards. If shooting a flintlock you can also use the same to prime as well!

Respectfully, Cowboy

 

[westrayer]

The old Lyman BP Handbook had an article detailing FFg vs FFFg in a .54 rifle. They found that 70 grains of FFFg performed as 90 grains of FFg.
I am cheap so I shoot FFFg. 80 grains in .50 cal and 90 grains in .54 rifles has always seemed to be the best RB loads for me.
As is often quoted.. your results may vary.

 

[William O.]

i don't like using 3f in larger calibers, it does have a sharper kick. i like the push of 2f instead. i have also found in 45 cal. they are just as accurate with 2f as 3f i have shot some good groups off the bench with 2f in the 45, i tried 2f in a 40cal. and it did not group well, but not to say another 40 wouldn't it's fun experimenting,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

I have been using 2F powder in my .54cal flintlock rifles (T/C Hawken, Lyman GPR and my new Kibler Woodsrunner) for 30yrs. I did this because, this was always recommended in rifles over .50cal . My understanding for this was, because 3F powder created very high breech pressures. I'm told that modern steel barrels can handle the pressures. The upside being, you can use less 3F powder to get the same velocity as 2F and thereby save money. On the downside, I'm wondering if the 3F produces more kick or a lot more kick. Anyone have any experience or knowledge of this?

As long as you work up an accurate load for your rifle, either granulation should work but you may find accuracy differs with each. I have a .54 Lyman barreled rifle that absolutely will not shoot decent groups using 3f. However, it's wonderfully accurate using 75-85 grains of 2f Goex. On the flipside, I had a fast twist Great Plains barrel mounted on a different stock. While working up a load I found that 2f was useless and the best powder charge was 95 grains of 3f and it gave remarkable accuracy! Some rifles work better with one or the other.

 

[Mike in FL]

As long as you work up an accurate load for your rifle, either granulation should work but you may find accuracy differs with each. I have a .54 Lyman barreled rifle that absolutely will not shoot decent groups using 3f. However, it's wonderfully accurate using 75-85 grains of 2f Goex. On the flipside, I had a fast twist Great Plains barrel mounted on a different stock. While working up a load I found that 2f was useless and the best powder charge was 95 grains of 3f and it gave remarkable accuracy! Some rifles work better with one or the other.

Yes, each rifle is an individual.bWe can only get in the ball park with loads that did best with recommended loads or one that that worked perfectly in another gun.

 

[Absoroka]

When GOEX was tough to get some years ago, I experimented with Elephant powder. I always used heavy charges of 2F GOEX for hunting. I found that the rifle required about 15% more Elephant 2F to produce velocities equal to GOEX 2f. The interesting thing on Elephant was that the standard deviation was about half that produced by GOEX. The slower burning powder produced a more consistent velocity. MIght not make a big difference for close up hunting shots, but consistency does offer more accuracy. The chronograph doesn't lie.

 

[ChrisPer]

I shoot .54 Mortimer flinter and .54 Tryon percussion, both by Pedersoli. This is Muzzle Loading Club matches, 13 shots per card, offhand at 50m, kneeling or timed at 50m, and benchrest or prone at 100m. I boof some powder for fouling before first shot.
I use 55gn WANO 3P or 3F for 50m cards and 75gn 2P or 2F at 100m.

The difference I find is in the fouling.
The 3P produces a buildup down early in the bore - bottom 6". If I use PPP with heavy charges, it builds up down the first 6"-8" very fast.

On the other hand early on I found (with a 50 cal) that with heavier charges of PP to 95gn, the heaviest buildup was higher up the bore, maybe 20-24" up.
Since then I dumped the .50 and got the .54 Tryon, and those charges really work for me. I still see that fouling pattern, and I manage it for the 40 or so shots by ramming with a damp patch on the ramrod. Buildup not a problem now, except in the extremely irritating patent breech.

 

[kyron4]

The old Lyman BP Handbook had an article detailing FFg vs FFFg in a .54 rifle. They found that 70 grains of FFFg performed as 90 grains of FFg.
I am cheap so I shoot FFFg. 80 grains in .50 cal and 90 grains in .54 rifles has always seemed to be the best RB loads for me.
As is often quoted.. your results may vary.

Wow ! that's a 25% increase. I've always read and tested myself it's around 10% . Wonder how Lyman came up with that number ?

 

[Frontiersman]

Thanks guys for the input. It gives me plenty to work on. I'm going to have to do some more experimenting. I just came back from the Eastern Primitive Rendezvous in Zion Grove, Pa. to deal with a personal issue, but i'll be heading back today. It' my first rendezvous and I was having a blast. The range there is offhand at 25 and 50 yards. I was shooting 80gr of Goex FF and was told by a couple of more experienced shooters that I was using too much powder. I said that I was practicing for hunting where I use 100 gr. because our early muzzle loading season (Pa.) in October is for doe and bear. Having taken a bear during the regular bear season, 10yrs ago with a modern rifle, I know how hard they can be to put down. I had a guy tell me that 100 gr is too much powder, as he had taken an elk and a bison with a .50 cal RB using 75. gr of powder. I have not taken game with a flintlock, but have taken deer with a .50 cal TC Hawken maxiball using 80 gr of Pyrodex 40yr ago. I don't know that there is any comparison with my current flintlock setup. I would like to hear input from some experienced flintlock hunters. Thanks again.

 

[Rifleman1776]

The old Lyman BP Handbook had an article detailing FFg vs FFFg in a .54 rifle. They found that 70 grains of FFFg performed as 90 grains of FFg.
I am cheap so I shoot FFFg. 80 grains in .50 cal and 90 grains in .54 rifles has always seemed to be the best RB loads for me.
As is often quoted.. your results may vary.

There are/were a lot of questionable results in the original Lyman bp book. Take their guidelines as suggestions only and use lower charges to begin your own load development process.