4f as a main powder charge

[coloradoclyde]

Ok!....I have seen thy error in my ways....4f for everyone..................................

 

[rodwha]

I'd never be foolish enough to try something like that. However I wouldn't be so hesitant to reduce the 3F max by 15% and use that as a max load if I felt some desire to do so. It's about pressures and not granulations.

400 grns is a ridiculous charge. 80 grns likely isn't that hot but likely about max or a hair over for a 4F charge in a .50 cal, all depending, but then I don't see a reason to push the envelope.

But then I'm quite happy using 3F Olde E and T7 in my revolvers and .50 cal rifle and don't see a need to work with 4F, and wouldn't bother with it when I get a flintlock or a .32 cal rifle. Maybe a .36 cal Colt Police...

Does the 1st Edition show pressures for 3 vs 4F charges in a .50 cal rifle? Unfortunately I own the 2nd Edition.

 

[rodwha]

My issue isn't about using 4F as a main charge in a large caliber rifle or handgun. Just that it isn't historical to say 4F is only for flash pans or small caliber guns with small powder charges.

As there isn't load data for 4F you cannot say for sure where the max is making it potentially hazardous. 4F can safely be used in any muzzleloader as long as you don't overdo the charge and keep the pressure in check. But then without data we can't say where that is for certain, and with every model and make of gun being different you really couldn't even use a blanket load.

 

[nkbj]

The March issue of the Rifleman has an article about the British military flintlock Baker rifle and mentions that it used a 90 grain charge of fine powder between FFFg and FFFFg.

 

[varsity07840]

I don't understand the desire to push the envelope. What is there to achieve that can't be done safely with 1 1/2F to 3F? To me it's just this side of "let's try smokeless." It borders on being irresponsible to tout
the possibility of using 4F when there's the chance that someone will
pick up on the idea and try it in a gun that may not hold up, especially
if the person is without much experience. Just my humble opinion.

 

[nit wit]

I say they have been warned, if they injure themselves, that's fine. If one of these smarter than me shooters injures someone else, I hope they don't own anything. Also a smart para legal would love this thread. There is a saying, never put anything to print that you can't defend in court!I have been shooting muzzle loaders regularly since 1972 and safety is of the utmost importance. I have one question though, Why take a risk when there is no gain?
Good luck
Nit Wit

 

[M. De Land]

Loading a muzzle loader is actually quite dangerous but no one gets over excited about that but then there is no good reason to add any more risk to the equation.
It just makes sense to limit risk when there is no appreciable gain to be had.

 

[George]

To the board, not to any individual...

I'm curious. When you read reports such as that of Fadala, or see demonstrations like the one currently on another forum about filling a rifle barrel completely with powder, about 1/2 lb., apparently, loading 2 balls and firing it, and there is no damage to the barrel, what do you take away from that? It certainly counts as evidence of a sort, but what do you learn from it, if anything?

Spence

 

[coloradoclyde]

To the board, not to any individual...

I'm curious. When you read reports such as that of Fadala, or see demonstrations like the one currently on another forum about filling a rifle barrel completely with powder, about 1/2 lb., apparently, loading 2 balls and firing it, and there is no damage to the barrel, what do you take away from that? It certainly counts as evidence of a sort, but what do you learn from it, if anything?

Spence

I learn that intelligence is a rarity... http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/iqtable.aspx

 

[varsity07840]

To the board, not to any individual...

I'm curious. When you read reports such as that of Fadala, or see demonstrations like the one currently on another forum about filling a rifle barrel completely with powder, about 1/2 lb., apparently, loading 2 balls and firing it, and there is no damage to the barrel, what do you take away from that? It certainly counts as evidence of a sort, but what do you learn from it, if anything?

Spence

It would seem to me that 1/2 lb of powder would be more of an obstruction than an actual ignitable charge. Regardless, there's nothing to be learned other than perhaps the next time you use what would be a "normal" load, that barrel could be all over your face. It proves nothing.

 

[George]

I can see already that I asked the question poorly, even though it is said there is no such thing as a dumb question. So much for dogma.

Forget about your ideas of whether the test should even have been done, whether there is ever any reason for such tests, the way the test was done, the IQ of the people doing it, yaddida-yaddida-yaddida. If you concentrate just on the results of the test, is there anything to be learned there?

Spence

 

[coloradoclyde]

Wait! wait ! ....I know the answer....

 

[coloradoclyde]

Does it have anything to do with being impetuous?

 

[coloradoclyde]

Wait! wait ! ....I know the answer....

I fell asleep in the recliner and had an epiphany.....
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...NfPiC29qdu4GJBZ2dl6LAw&bvm=bv.149397726,d.amc

 

[Zonie]

What do I get from seeing an experiment like stuffing a barrel with powder and a double ball and setting it off?

The SOB was real lucky it didn't explode.

Then, I get some other thoughts like,

"Thanks a lot, bonehead.

Some other poor guy that's seen this is probably going to get maimed or killed because, thanks to your video he will have the idea he can ignore common sense and load whatever powder and ball load he dreams up."

In my past, I've seen some things take an unbelievable amount of stress without failing.

I've also seen the same things fail catastrophically with stresses that were just slightly greater than the loads they were designed for.

 

[George]

Why is it that when anyone tests barrels to destruction it invariably shows that an ungodly amount of powder loaded under multiple heavy projectiles fails to do damage, yet so many are constantly concerned that charges at the very bottom end of that scale are going to blow somebody up? I'll lay you odds that a high percentage of shooters today are afraid that if they mistakenly load their normal charge of 2F with 3F without reducing the charge they are in danger of bursting their barrel. Why is that? That's an irrational fear, disproven many times, why does it hang on so? The term fearmonger comes to mind, and I'm afraid there are an overabundance of them in the hobby. Caution and good safety habits are absolutely required, but a lot of the supposed wisdom about the way we load our guns is nothing of the sort.

Spence

 

[coloradoclyde]

Spence,
The way I look at it is.....
A gun should be built to withstand no less than 3 times the maximum charge .....Because if you accidentally double charge the gun you still want some "safety" room....

Switching to a powder that produces more pressure, encroaches upon that margin of safety.

 

[Zonie]

An irrational fear?
Does the number 25,600 pounds per square inch sound like something that couldn't hurt if it were unleashed?

That is a Pyrodex powder pressure Lyman recorded in their .32 caliber tests.

Your beginning to sound just like the guy I worry about.
The

"See! That proves it!
There aren't any dangerous charges when a gun is loaded with black powder!
Those guys are all worry wort's.
My gun is indestructible!
I am invincible!!!" guy who, after watching such a video goes out and loads up his gun with stupid loads.

IMO, it only takes once to be too often if the results are someones eyes are blinded or his nose or a hand was blown off.

As for killing him, that might be a blessing in disguise. It will just improve the gene pool.

 

[coloradoclyde]

I think I'm in Zonie's camp on this one...
Humans tend to "push" the envelope...

Sure,.... a smart person can safely experiment, having knowledge and a sound method of experimentation and proper safety protocols...

But the reality is that the "majority" posses none of these requirements... They just dive in head first...and upon surviving, they give it a green light.... :shake:

 

[George]

All we ever hear about this subject from the 'wolf criers' is speculation. What can possibly negate all the evidence of these destructive tests? We have it recorded many times that massive loads of powder and multiple projectiles loaded in a sound barrel in the normal way will not blow it up, in both conventional and DOM barrels, but no matter how many times we see it, all the wolf criers have to say is 'maybe next time'. Well, maybe next time someone loads a weak load it will blow his head off. Anything is possible. What I'm interested in is probabilities, not possibilities.

Tons of evidence counter to the claims of imminent disaster has been presented over the years. Where is the evidence in support of it? If this sport is as dangerous as some would have us believe, surely, with all the millions of shots fired in every gun imaginable by people of wide levels of experience and knowledge, someone has had his head blown off with a routine heavy charge. In 45 years in the hobby I don't remember even one incident.

I believe it's perfectly safe to shoot any charge I am comfortable shooting from the shoulder so long as my gun is sound and I've loaded it properly, with either ball or conical.

Everyone has to choose their own level of comfort with their loading. I found mine a long time ago, and have never seen an iota of evidence I figured it wrong. Aye, evidence, that's the thing.

I'm going to go crawl under my bed, now, in case those possibilities catch up to me.

Spence