4F Black Powder Question

[Crow-Feather]

This is the problem.
Assuming!

If 4f increased pressure so much that it could burst a barrel it would either have warnings plastered all over the can or be removed from sale.

Do you people not realize that manufacturers of barrels will have a very good value of the required pressure to burst a barrel!
So if 4f could come remotely close to the required pressure to burst a barrel don't you think a barrel maker would have it written on the barrel " do not use 4f"!!

Why oh why do some spout this dumb mantra about pressure. Shooting a firearm depends on pressure! With out it our iron tubes would be useless.

Some of us must be absolutely petrified every time they pull a trigger. Give it up, give up shooting. Your mental health is far more important than getting stressed about an imagined dangerous amount of pressure in a barrel that does not exist.
Give me strength....how the heck did we get to the bloody moon? How did we get to do brain surgery. How, how, how did we ever do anything with so many folk about messing their pants with worry all the freaking time.......

The letter from Hodgdon is laughable. They first admit they have NO PRESSURE DATA, then go on to say pressure will be very high. If they have no data, how do they know??? Double talk & gibberish, or should I say Old Wives Tale? If it's so darn dangerous why are they keeping it a secret from the people that buy 4f? Shouldn't the can be marked with some kind of WARNING???? Did their lawyers go on vacation?

I guess they figure that most people have common sense. Sorta like not looking down a loaded barrel, it don't say anything on the rifle barrel, but you just know it's wrong.

It does say black powder only on the barrel but most people have sense to use what is the recommended black powder for the rifle. Nowhere have I seen "If other powders are not available, 4fF powder may be used. I do pray that all those who use 4F for their rifle main charge have success and never regret their decision.

 

[Crow-Feather]

I use 4F as the main charge in my .32 and .36 flinters with no problem.

Yet.

 

[Crow-Feather]

Boy, does this topic not cause some people to spontaneously combust. In my younger days there was never any concern about using different granulation of blackpowder. You used what you had. Finer grain powder typically required less powder for your accuracy load vs a not so fine powder. Different manufacture’s powder many times required different weight charges for your accuracy load. Guns weren’t blowing up, they just shot and fouled differently with different granulation and powder manufactures. Here are photographs of both sides of the same can of DuPont ffff powder (pre dates G-O purchase, which pre dates.... cost $2.10 back in the day). Notice the yellow underlined ‘fine print’. ‘SUITABLE FOR MUSKETS, PISTOLS & SHOTGUNS’. Interesting.

View attachment 33343
View attachment 33344
Below are photographs of pages 76 and 77 from the first edition (1975) Lyman Black Powder Handbook’ showing 44 caliber handgun loads. Note powder granulation underlined in red with round balls and Lyman hollow base conical.
View attachment 33345
View attachment 33346
Below is a photograph of my original 1858 that has used pounds of ffff powder. Still have powder in the horn, and yep, it was ffff. It is the granulation that came with the gun when my old man gave it to me.
View attachment 33347

If the Lyman data is to be believe (some will argue it isn’t), it would seem very safe to start around 40 grains of ffff in a rifle and work up from there for accuracy. I would not hesitate for a minute to shoot ffff in any muzzleloader in sound mechanical condition. Would just need to work up a load like any other granulation.

Just my opinion. With published load data and actual experience with actual period guns.

Show me the data for loading in rifles please.

 

[Crow-Feather]

I was young, dumb, and unafraid. I simply poured the ffffg into my CVA powder horn and started shooting! I used the same brass powder measure i got in 1979, and i didn't change the load. I don't recall it kicking more, or shooting to a different point of impact. I also used it in my 45 Kentucky pistol, my 31 baby dragoon, and my 1860 Army.
Im still here and have all my fingers and toes.

I personally don't think any amount of ffffg could damage a muzzleloader, if loaded properly, ie, no gap between powder and ball.
I'm basing that on actual world experience, something hard to find on most forums.

Used in pistols, talk about how you used it in your rifles please

 

[Crow-Feather]

Below is the Goex powder recommendation chart. I guessed they changed their minds since 1923.

 

[Eterry]

Used in pistols, talk about how you used it in your rifles please

Simple, i used it grain for grain in my CVA Kentucky rifle. My standard load was 60 grs behind a prb. I don't recall any noticeable difference between 3f and 4f.

 

[Britsmoothy]

It does say black powder only on the barrel but most people have sense to use what is the recommended black powder for the rifle. Nowhere have I seen "If other powders are not available, 4fF powder may be used. I do pray that all those who use 4F for their rifle main charge have success and never regret their decision.

Is 4f black powder or something else?

 

[Britsmoothy]

Used in pistols, talk about how you used it in your rifles please

Check my hunting posts for the past two years, pretty much all the game taken is with 4f. In 5 long arms, some heavy, some light.

 

[Britsmoothy]

Yet.

So when European gun barrel proof tests subject the barrels to a huge excess in pressure they have unwittingly weakens the barrels integrity ?

 

[Britsmoothy]

One day....if this trend carries on we will be having this discussion about 3f and muzzleloaders will be all but banned under pipe bomb classifications!

 

[Britsmoothy]

Okay let's move on.
So. There appears to be no data that CLEARLY demonstrates 4f is dangerous.
There is however a move by the industry to label it for priming only!

Assuming aside, can any historical evidence be submitted that shows in times long ago shooters used two flasks? One for main charges and one with very fine powder for priming?
Thank you in advance.

B.

 

[Crow-Feather]

So when European gun barrel proof tests subject the barrels to a huge excess in pressure they have unwittingly weakens the barrels integrity ?

First time I saw you crack. Now I know you argue just to win a point. Barrels are not proofed with a huge amount of powder and certainly not a huge amount of 4F powder

 

[Crow-Feather]

One day....if this trend carries on we will be having this discussion about 3f and muzzleloaders will be all but banned under pipe bomb classifications!

another crack, pipe bombs have no exit for pressure.

 

[Crow-Feather]

Okay let's move on.
So. There appears to be no data that CLEARLY demonstrates 4f is dangerous.
There is however a move by the industry to label it for priming only!

Assuming aside, can any historical evidence be submitted that shows in times long ago shooters used two flasks? One for main charges and one with very fine powder for priming?
Thank you in advance.

B.

Sure, don't you watch the movies? (chuckle)

 

[Crow-Feather]

Is 4f black powder or something else?

beneath you

 

[Britsmoothy]

First time I saw you crack. Now I know you argue just to win a point. Barrels are not proofed with a huge amount of powder and certainly not a huge amount of 4F powder

To the contrary. I have asked repeatedly for facts, hard data. There is none coming. Only anecdotes and ghost like expert comments.
If you see that as a weakness then so be it and I guess no logical discourse can be gained any further with you.
Thank you but no thanks.

 

[rodwha]

Well, to be fair, I looked in the Lyman black powder Handbook & loading Manual. I saw no rifle loads for 4f black powder. I checked Wikipedia which lists 4F for extreme small bore pistol and priming. I checked Pyrodex. I saw RS for 2F and P for 3f but nothing for 4f. I looked at a Field and Stream article which lists 3F for small bores. 4F was not mentioned for a rifle powder. I checked Pedersoli and other companies for their recommended loads for their rifles. None listed 4F as a recommended charge for their rifles. I am not going to change your mind, and you will not change mine. I do ask that you tell new shooters the truth when you advise them about powder choices. That you use 4F even though most companies do not recommend it.

The 1st Edition has that info. My 2nd Edition does not.

 

[TNGhost]

It does say black powder only on the barrel but most people have sense to use what is the recommended black powder for the rifle. Nowhere have I seen "If other powders are not available, 4fF powder may be used. I do pray that all those who use 4F for their rifle main charge have success and never regret their decision.

If you are afraid to use it based on anecdotal stories, and narrow your options fine. Your a good man, and a good man knows his limitations.

Don't go around telling others something is unsafe when there is absolutely no proof of that.

Fake news and rumor is what that is.

 

[TNGhost]

beneath you

No, he makes a valid point.

Some in this thread seem to attribute magical powers to 4f that make it akin to smokeless powder and nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact some have posted stories and links to items discussing the use of smokeless in BP guns simply to obfuscate the issue here.

4f is not smokeless and does not behave like smokeless.

 

[Crow-Feather]

If you are afraid to use it based on anecdotal stories, and narrow your options fine. Your a good man, and a good man knows his limitations.

Don't go around telling others something is unsafe when there is absolutely no proof of that.

Fake news and rumor is what that is.

I say it is unsafe as it is nowhere recommended for a main charge in a rifle. Also, almost all informed shooters that care about the people standing next to them on the shooting line avoid non recommended powders. Especially flinters with a vent hole . Then there are those that don't give a darn. I would believe that there is proof. It's just that the person who had the problem wasn't about to admit his ignorance.