4F Black Powder Question

[Carbon 6]

So if you are afraid of it, don't use it.

I'm not afraid.

 

[Britsmoothy]

nice to see you again, is it still working for you with the 4f?

Sure is, check my last addition to the hunting section.

 

[jerrywh]

Probably best for the Henny Penny types to avoid all but the least energetic 1F powders (stay a way from Swiss, Goex Olde Eynsford and some of the subs) to minimize pressures in their bores and get the best moisture resistance. Those looking for fastest ignition, and optimum accuracy and best performance, etc, with their particular gun, can make their powder selection based on performance with what’s available to them for optimum load development. Have to get those ‘why doesn’t my gun......? and ‘why does my gun.......? forum topics from somewhere. There are those out there that honestly believe for example, that Shockey’s Gold sticks are the best, and will make that argument until their death, and they could be correct, at least from the limited propellants they have tried. I know a few of these guys and gals.

Can you also submit evidence that proves 4f as a main charge is akin to loading dynamite.
Can you please show me a firearm, a muzzle loader that clearly has stamped on it DO NOT USE 4F BLACK POWDER?

No black powder guns are marked do not use 4f black powder. But all the manuals say what the charge is suposed to be and it never is 4F. But there is always some know it all who knows more than all the manufacturers and powder makers. It is a vain attempt to let all the others know they are smarter than anybody else. I have a friend who is a ordanance engineer and a graduate of the naval acadamy. He is a rocket engineer who develops rocket engineer for the military. He sometimes posts on this forium. It seldom fails that some novas argues with him over chamber pressures. I read this forum for entertainment. Some people are outright dangerous. Shouldn't own a pair of pliars.

 

[Britsmoothy]

No black powder guns are marked do not use 4f black powder. But all the manuals say what the charge is suposed to be and it never is 4F. But there is always some know it all who knows more than all the manufacturers and powder makers. It is a vain attempt to let all the others know they are smarter than anybody else. I have a friend who is a ordanance engineer and a graduate of the naval acadamy. He is a rocket engineer who develops rocket engineer for the military. He sometimes posts on this forium. It seldom fails that some novas argues with him over chamber pressures. I read this forum for entertainment. Some people are outright dangerous. Shouldn't own a pair of pliars.

Please submit your rocket scientist experiments in the destruction of black powder muzzleloaders, traditional style, barrels using 4f so we can put it to bed.
If you can't submit any evidence any assuming of me or others and comparing amateurs to rocket scientists is I am sorry to say, a mute point

 

[VADSLRAM]

For those that want scientific evidence of 4f characteristics.
It aint gonna happen. Proper testing facilities are expensive, once a test is published then there are liability issues, They can test on a sample barrel but that doesn't take into account antique shooters, cheap knocker new barrels , home forged barrels, etc. Barrel makers aren't going to stamp "do not use X powder" unlike plastic bag makers who put "this is not a toy, do not place on head". There is a level of maturity expected and a large safety margin in the barrel construction.

This is a fringe hobby and the money is not there to justify the cost.
For those that posit on the powder used by the REAL old timers... the grain size was much less consistent than today's standards. partly because of improved manufacturing and partly because a mixed grain has less consistent characteristics and leaves the companies open to liability suits. So they did use the same pan and charge powder, We can't tell how many misfires happened.. 1 in 10, 1 in a hundred, never, every other... no data collection servers in the 1700s. There is evidence of barrel failures though. Whether it was charge or barrel construction caused ?? who knows. Here around Jamestown, Yorktown and Williamsburg there are a ton of historical digs two examples I've seen of burst barrels. One in Williamsburg and one at Jamestown.
.All we can do is maybe trust the CURRENT manufacturers recommendations.

OR NOT
live free or die hard.

 

[RAEDWALD]

Have I missed the scientific evidence that fine black powder does not produce a higher and earlier higher pressure than coarse? That would certainly demonstrate that there is no problem and I would change my opinion based upon such evidence. Until then I remain of the opinion I have posted earlier.

 

[Britsmoothy]

Have I missed the scientific evidence that fine black powder does not produce a higher and earlier higher pressure than coarse? That would certainly demonstrate that there is no problem and I would change my opinion based upon such evidence. Until then I remain of the opinion I have posted earlier.

No you have not missed that evidence. The evidence of higher and earlier pressure abounds.
What is mistaken is that this fact somehow gets linked with dangerous. It is that evidence that is missing!

 

[user 36911]

To those using 4F as a main charge.

So, as long as your gun isn't blowing your face off. It's safe?

Some of you ask for proof that 4F has blown up a barrel? That works both ways. Where's your proof that it hasn't happened? Muzzleloaders blowing up is always blamed on smokeless powder. I'm sure that is mostly true but do we know for sure it wasn't 4F powder too?

I don't take those chances. The word "safety" has meaning for me.

 

[Carbon 6]

No you have not missed that evidence. The evidence of higher and earlier pressure abounds.
What is mistaken is that this fact somehow gets linked with dangerous. It is that evidence that is missing!

So, with higher and earlier pressures it's not hard to extrapolate the potential effects.
What if you accidentally double charge your gun?
Where is your comfort level now ?

In the rare cases where we do see loading data for 4f it is almost always in a small handgun ( I don't recall any others) where capacity and projectile are limited.

Your Pedersoli is made from strong modern steel, but would you feel comfortable double charging an original Bess with 4f ?

 

[Britsmoothy]

To those using 4F as a main charge.

So, as long as your gun isn't blowing your face off. It's safe?

Some of you ask for proof that 4F has blown up a barrel? That works both ways. Where's your proof that it hasn't happened? Muzzleloaders blowing up is always blamed on smokeless powder. I'm sure that is mostly true but do we know for sure it wasn't 4F powder too?

I don't take those chances. The word "safety" has meaning for me.

The proof is in the fact that although many experiments to cause barrels to burst have failed, failed using black powder of any grade to huge doses and pressure increases. Relative proof comes from powder manufacturers of fine black powder not giving warnings on their product against certain uses. To the contrary some containers old and new suggest a wide range of use.

You and others keep mentioning smokeless powders which is folly.
Traditional muzzleloaders do explode from misuse with smokeless. Why? Because those powders most definitely can produce pressures scores of thousands of pressure units above 4f.
Even if smokeless was used in small amounts it's still dangerous due to the exposure by the user of the nipple or vent. Many just don't get the difference between black and smokeless.

I will add how strange it is that the na sayers are now asking for proof it has not happened, an accident attributed to 4f. Really.......there won't be any because it seems it doesn't happen. If it did the na sayers would already of submitted it no!

 

[Britsmoothy]

So, with higher and earlier pressures it's not hard to extrapolate the potential effects.
What if you accidentally double charge your gun?
Where is your comfort level now ?

In the rare cases where we do see loading data for 4f it is almost always in a small handgun ( I don't recall any others) where capacity and projectile are limited.

Your Pedersoli is made from strong modern steel, but would you feel comfortable double charging an original Bess with 4f ?

Experimenters have been loading black powder up to the muzzle for decades and demonstrated nothing harmful.

My 1976 Pedersoli double weighs just over 6lb and is much lighter than later models and yes I do load it with 4f.

The fact that there is or was data is sufficient data to suggest that there really is no problem hey?

Again, all I have ever asked is for evidence it is a bad thing and yet again no one is submitting any. I am not interested in what John said in an email or Sally said on the powder makers help line, they just cover their ***'s.
Hard evidence is only ever going to answer this so until I see it plastered all over the can like you get warnings on certain smokeless products I will indeed crack on.

 

[user 36911]

Brit.......To be honest. I didn't look for proof. It doesn't play into my not using 4F.

You seemed to have missed my point when I mentioned smokeless.

 

[Britsmoothy]

Brit.......To be honest. I didn't look for proof. It doesn't play into my not using 4F.

You seemed to have missed my point when I mentioned smokeless.

No I didn't miss your point. The fact remains. Smokeless has blown muzzleloaders up, it's well documented.
Alas what is not documented is that 4f has done the same. Why? Because it doesn't happen. Simple.

 

[Britsmoothy]

Does it not yet slap you in the face!
The logic?
All the talk of cannon powder. The bad cross referencing to smokeless. The claims and counter claims. The cries against recklessness and yet not one single person has submitted a single case of proof positive against its use but to the contrary there are users still alive and happy! That there is no one saying they use to use it but this happened so I stopped!
Can you not see that by default of this thread it is perfectly safe to use!
How did you guys get to the moon

 

[Carbon 6]

Again, all I have ever asked is for evidence it is a bad thing and yet again no one is submitting any.

Perhaps you are looking for "evidence" in the wrong place, or the wrong evidence, or you have simply been blessed with a charmed life.

Even if we deem 4f "safe", what advantage is there ?

How did you guys get to the moon

We blew up a lot of rockets first, but getting there was the easy part. Getting back home was the dangerous part.

 

[Bob McBride]

How did you guys get to the moon

The same way you guys did all the amazing stuff you used to do. Good old German Ingenuity.

 

[Britsmoothy]

Perhaps you are looking for "evidence" in the wrong place, or the wrong evidence, or you have simply been blessed with a charmed life.

Even if we deem 4f "safe", what advantage is there ?



We blew up a lot of rockets first, but getting there was the easy part. Getting back home was the dangerous part.

This is the muzzleloaders forum no?

Good performance, cleaner burn and economy.
If you blew a lot of rockets up first....where are all the blown barrels from using 4f?

 

[user 36911]

No I didn't miss your point. The fact remains. Smokeless has blown muzzleloaders up, it's well documented.
Alas what is not documented is that 4f has done the same. Why? Because it doesn't happen. Simple.

Yes, you missed the point.

It must be great knowing everything. Nothing is simple.

 

[TNGhost]

Have I missed the scientific evidence that fine black powder does not produce a higher and earlier higher pressure than coarse? That would certainly demonstrate that there is no problem and I would change my opinion based upon such evidence. Until then I remain of the opinion I have posted earlier.

As a matter of fact, you did miss it. Lyman's published data, included earlier in this thread, indicates in the same gun with the same load and the same volume of powder, 3f actually created higher pressures than 4f did.

 

[TNGhost]

For those that want scientific evidence of 4f characteristics.
It aint gonna happen. Proper testing facilities are expensive, once a test is published then there are liability issues, They can test on a sample barrel but that doesn't take into account antique shooters, cheap knocker new barrels , home forged barrels, etc. Barrel makers aren't going to stamp "do not use X powder" unlike plastic bag makers who put "this is not a toy, do not place on head". There is a level of maturity expected and a large safety margin in the barrel construction.

This is a fringe hobby and the money is not there to justify the cost.
For those that posit on the powder used by the REAL old timers... the grain size was much less consistent than today's standards. partly because of improved manufacturing and partly because a mixed grain has less consistent characteristics and leaves the companies open to liability suits. So they did use the same pan and charge powder, We can't tell how many misfires happened.. 1 in 10, 1 in a hundred, never, every other... no data collection servers in the 1700s. There is evidence of barrel failures though. Whether it was charge or barrel construction caused ?? who knows. Here around Jamestown, Yorktown and Williamsburg there are a ton of historical digs two examples I've seen of burst barrels. One in Williamsburg and one at Jamestown.
.All we can do is maybe trust the CURRENT manufacturers recommendations.

OR NOT
live free or die hard.

Can you find any published statement, by any firearm or powder manufactuer that 4f is unsafe as a main charge in a muzzleloading firearm.

I am sure all of us would like to see it if you can.