4f as a main powder charge

[stikshooter]

I also am a member at that other site and was sending that same member a current copy of march NRA backpage (I have this old gun)where it references in a British Baker rifle valued @ $10.000 a (STANDARD LOAD) of 100grains of fine rifle powder between 3F/4f and the gun seems to be in great condition !I myself am using up 3 cans of 4F 25-32 grains in a H+A 45 cal underhammer shooting a 440 PRB with excellent accuracy @ 50yds and yes less fouling !That other member is a highly respected, knowledgeable member whom I often seek advice from ,just my 2 cents /Ed

 

[rodwha]

There's a pretty vocal lot here so who's going to let the Europeans, specifically those at Swiss that was shown to make a product designed especially for what those here say shouldn't and can't, know they are a bunch of dangerous buffoons?

Guess you'll need to round up some of our historians and give them a stern lecture as well. Theres a few of them so make sure you get them all. Oh, and find all of the Lyman 1st edition BP handbooks too. Seems to be far too much evidence to the contrary. That is unless you discount a few not so historical books...

Never seen so many who claimed to espouse history but get all ruffled up when you put it before them. Instead of, at the very least, looking at it they stammer and spit and get all red in the face...

 

[rodwha]

Indeed he is.

Don't go blowing more holes in their beliefs. Not sure what they'll do... Funny how not one has been able to refute even a pinch of what was before them. Instead they holler from afar.

 

[rodwha]

Don't disturb their 1960's version of history...

 

[rdstrain49]

Good grief, take a breath and calm down.

 

[Scota4570]

" i used 80 grains by volume (4F*) behind a patched 50 cal round ball."

Why are folks writing about pocket revolvers? Modern Ruger revolvers? Ill-advised book quotes from 60 years ago are irrelevant too. I’d like to think we have learned something since then. We now know that BP can create very high pressures. The old myths about not being able to get significant pressures with BP are bunk.

Just because one did something dangerous and escaped unharmed it does not make it safe. BP rifle strength depends on many things. Steel alloy in the barrel, barrel diameter, breeching method, how many times it has been fired? I would guess such a load generates way over 25K PSI. The Italians proof their guns at 14K psi. Americans don't proof BP guns. Is it an older rifle made of cold drawn leaded steel??

You may get away with it forever. You may be maimed or killed the next shot. I have no idea. IMHO it is not safe. If an accident occurs it is not only the shooter but also bystanders than can be injured. Why risk tragedy for want of a pound of the correct powder?

 

[Scota4570]

Don't take my word for it, refer to the manufacturer.
http://www.goexpowder.com/goex-black-powder.html
http://www.goexpowder.com/images/LoadCharts/RB-Rifle-Musket.pdf

 

[rodwha]

Nobody truly knows the pressures he created, which is what makes it dangerous. There isn't any loading data for 4F in a large caliber rifle. Indeed it is all about pressures and a reduced load of 4F can be safe, but we don't know where the line is between safe and unsafe.

As pointed out this thread was about 4F in a large caliber rifle, and it did wind around to uses not specified by the initial post. It becomes quite easy when incorrect statements such as 4F is only for priming pans gets said. It seems to happen almost every time.

And I did indeed mention to the fellow on the other forum that the OP is about that using 4F really wasn't a good idea as we don't know where the unsafe point is. Like you said we don't have much info on what he is using. Maybe his .50 cal is 1" or more and is rather robust. I doubt it though.

 

[coloradoclyde]

It becomes quite easy when incorrect statements such as 4F is only for priming pans gets said. It seems to happen almost every time.

Incorrect statement!... :bull:
I'll quote Goex directly...

ӢFFFFg (or 4Fg): Priming powder for flintlocks

You can't get any more correct than that....

 

[coloradoclyde]

Sure enough. But weren't you just replying to its use in pistols as well, which is where the thread wandered to? Come now CC...

NO! I wasn't....But I will address it now.
There are some pistols that would indeed use 4f powder...The belt buckle revolver and some "muff" pistols come to mind, but these are the exceptions....not the rule.....Beyond that one should refer to appropriate published data....Data from the 1960's and the 1800's is NOT appropriate.

 

[coloradoclyde]

There's a pretty vocal lot here so who's going to let the Europeans, specifically those at Swiss that was shown to make a product designed especially for what those here say shouldn't and can't, know they are a bunch of dangerous buffoons?

Guess you'll need to round up some of our historians and give them a stern lecture as well. Theres a few of them so make sure you get them all. Oh, and find all of the Lyman 1st edition BP handbooks too. Seems to be far too much evidence to the contrary. That is unless you discount a few not so historical books...

Never seen so many who claimed to espouse history but get all ruffled up when you put it before them. Instead of, at the very least, looking at it they stammer and spit and get all red in the face...

Antiquated loading data is for informational purposes only...It should not be used..
Manufacturers come out with new, revised data ever few years...Because they change things and learn from their mistakes....
Anyone with an ounce of chemistry or historical reading on the subject would know that the source of the ingredients and the methods of manufacture greatly affect performance.....It was true back then as it is today.

 

[M. De Land]

I think we are actually talking past each other to a certain extent guys.
The Ruger is safe to shoot with 4F as a main charge because of the steel that is used in their construction where as the Italian gun manufactures make no such claim.
I won't use it in my Pietta's and probably only for experimental purposes in the Ruger as I prefer the balls over conicals at this point in my shooting experience which is primarily competitive in nature.

 

[rodwha]

False. History and Swiss both say otherwise. You cannot make a claim like that when it just doesn't stand up to the truth. Pretty simple really.

Funny how Swiss didn't use a picture of a flash pan on their 4F bottles... Maybe they just made a mistake, huh?

 

[rodwha]

So what do you say to Swiss? Or Lyman?

 

[Zonie]

I say that although the old 1st edition of Lyman's "BLACK POWDER HANDBOOK & LOADING MANUAL" shows some powder test loads using 4F powder, their 2nd edition of the same book had all of the 4F load data removed.

That might tell us something about learning from earlier mistakes.

 

[George]

This info has been posted before and convinced no one, and I have no illusion it will this time, but, what the hey?

In Sam Fadala's Black Powder Handbook he details tests he made trying to blow up rifle barrels. He tested 3 guns. One was just a barrel with patent breech and percussion lock, 1" OD, .58 caliber, 36", 1:72 twist, groove.010", wall thickness .2" , powder was Dupont 3F, projectile was 600 grain Maxi conical .570".

Test #1 was 8 shots.
#1-5, 100, 200, 300, 400 and 500 grains, no change
#6 400 grains, 2 conicals seated on the powder, no change
#7 500 grains, 3 conicals seated on the powder, no change
#8 400 grains, 2 conicals separated from powder 19", blew up

Test #2 was with same type barrel in a finished gun.
Repeated the above sequence with no change until the Maxi was separated, blew up

Test #3 was with a Morse .50 caliber rifle, replica imported by Navy Arms. This rifle was chosen because it had brass receiver and nipple and drum instead of bolster.
Repeated the same sequence, with both ball and conical, no change
one shot, 300 grains 4F and 3 Maxis separated, no change
200 grains Bullseye and 1 Maxi seated, blew up

FWIW

Spence

 

[Zonie]

Well Spence, why don't you stoke up one of your rifles with 400 grains of 4F under a patched roundball and let us know how well the gun took it when you touched it off?

Same goes for rodwha.

I'm sure we are all dying to know. :grin:

 

[coloradoclyde]

Well!....One of the problems with talking about using 4f in a .50 cal is that some idiot newbie will read it and think he can do it in a modern inline....Try it if you dare, but I'm not responsible and I did warn you....

We can't paint everything with broad brushes.... :shake:

 

[George]

We can't paint everything with broad brushes.... :shake:

Of course we can, what are you thinking about?

 

[George]

Well Spence, why don't you stoke up one of your rifles with 400 grains of 4F under a patched roundball and let us know how well the gun took it when you touched it off?

No need to do that. You may remember I shoot a DOM barrel, so I'm already doomed. It's only a matter of time.

Spence