4F Black Powder Question

[Britsmoothy]

Of course there is the observation that parachute manufacturers get very few letters complaining of failures but many thanking them for successes.............

I thought there was investigations involving parachutist deaths!

 

[RAEDWALD]

Another observation comes from reading Ned Robert's 'Muzzle LoadingCap Lock Rifle' book.

In that he notes, in those days when black powder was a standard, that some state that one should use as fine a powder as is available.. Others a coarse. Equally that it is imperative to use a more powerful centre fire primer. Or as weak a no11 as you can find. A gaining twist is the canine's testicles. Or a constant twist is the thing to have.

In truth we do not know. What we do know is that the peak pressure, ceteris paribus, is a function of grain size and cannons have demonstrated that with no room left for doubt and quite large pieces of wrought and cast iron scattered about the field. Pebble powder was invented for a reason.

However I would have no qualms myself in using 4f in a 0,32" given the small volume of powder and thickness of walls.

 

[Brokennock]

Of course there is the observation that parachute manufacturers get very few letters complaining of failures but many thanking them for successes.............

If at first you don't succeed,,,,,,,







skydiving is not your sport.

 

[TNGhost]

Another observation comes from reading Ned Robert's 'Muzzle LoadingCap Lock Rifle' book.

In that he notes, in those days when black powder was a standard, that some state that one should use as fine a powder as is available.. Others a coarse. Equally that it is imperative to use a more powerful centre fire primer. Or as weak a no11 as you can find. A gaining twist is the canine's testicles. Or a constant twist is the thing to have.

In truth we do not know. What we do know is that the peak pressure, ceteris paribus, is a function of grain size and cannons have demonstrated that with no room left for doubt and quite large pieces of wrought and cast iron scattered about the field. Pebble powder was invented for a reason.

However I would have no qualms myself in using 4f in a 0,32" given the small volume of powder and thickness of walls.

Cast and wrought iron and quality of manufacture were the problem not the powder.

Modern barrel steels are an entirely different vessel of pressure.

 

[Carbon 6]

I thought there was investigations involving parachutist deaths!

There is, and they are published every month in Parachutist Magazine. (Military accidents excluded).
Here is the 2019 fatality summary.

https://uspa.org/p/Article/striving-for-zerothe-2019-fatality-summary-1

 

[Britsmoothy]

Another observation comes from reading Ned Robert's 'Muzzle LoadingCap Lock Rifle' book.

In that he notes, in those days when black powder was a standard, that some state that one should use as fine a powder as is available.. Others a coarse. Equally that it is imperative to use a more powerful centre fire primer. Or as weak a no11 as you can find. A gaining twist is the canine's testicles. Or a constant twist is the thing to have.

In truth we do not know. What we do know is that the peak pressure, ceteris paribus, is a function of grain size and cannons have demonstrated that with no room left for doubt and quite large pieces of wrought and cast iron scattered about the field. Pebble powder was invented for a reason.

However I would have no qualms myself in using 4f in a 0,32" given the small volume of powder and thickness of walls.

Again. Assumption.
We don't know what burst those cannon. May of been nothing to do with powder granulation.
Please please stop assuming. It frightens some people!

 

[Zonie]

Interesting data from the picture shown in post #26.

Interesting but confusing to me.

Noticing that two different powder companies powders are being tested and looking at the data from the G-O company, it looks like the 3Fg powder is producing higher pressures than the 4Fg powder.
For instance the 3Fg powder at 22 grains load is 7520 LUP while the 4Fg powder with the same load was at 7400 LUP. At 25 grains, the 3Fg was giving 7880 LUP and the 4Fg was giving 7660 LUP.
Something doesn't look right here though. The 4Fg powder produced higher velocities than the 3Fg powder did. IMO, this is not possible. Lower pressures will never produce higher velocities than higher pressures will.

With the C & H powder (not the sugar company) I'm seeing what I expect to see with the 4Fg powder making more pressure than the 3Fg powder does. Notice, the 25 grain load of 3Fg was giving 6280 and the 4Fg powder was giving 6800 LUP.
That is only a 8 percent increase in pressure.

I'm sure the difference between the same loads for the different powder companies is explained by the quality of the companies powder. This same sort of difference can be seen between GOEX powder and Elephant powder. Elephant powder is almost always weaker.

In any case, with the above data, I'm not seeing anything that could be termed dangerous by using 4Fg powder in place of 3Fg powder.

About the "LUP" values.
The letters stand for Lead Units of Pressure. This method uses a lead disk and measures how much it deforms after it is subjected to a very high pressure. Although the numbers look like they are in pounds per square inch, they are not. There is no good way to convert LUP to PSI.
They are a value that are useful only to compare one LUP test from a different pressure's LUP test. LUP is used to test pressures in low pressure firearms.
For testing high pressures in firearms they use a copper disk and the values are given in CUP (Copper Units of Pressure).

 

[SDSmlf]

Used to design and make pressure regulating valves, and was never shocked when crusher ‘data’ did not match what was expected or what had been previously tested, so not surprised with Lyman’s data when I posted it. Lyman also did a similar test with a ROA, using loads up to 40 grains of fff and ffff powder, but did not modify the cylinder for a crusher setup like they did with the open top, so they only got velocity data.

Worth noting that in their conclusion, they ‘had no difficulties with any phase of the Revolver Sequence ......... and there were no signs of strain, bulging or other pressure problems’.

I do find it strange that no one has posted the data and/or the test results that brings so many to the conclusion that ffff is so extremely dangerous in muzzleloaders.

 

[Grenadier1758]

What I find interesting is that in Lyman's second edition of the black powder manual, there is no loading data for ffffg loads.

 

[RAEDWALD]

OK. Comments noted.

1. The parachute comment was tongue in cheek. Don't be so literal chaps!

2. Re cannon and powder granulation I would suggest a bit of googling. Large late black powder cannon vastly improved their performance by using very large grain powders. It allowed larger charges which would burn progressively in the barrel. The old (large in a small arms context) smaller grains produced an earlier and larger peak pressure which resulted in cannon blowing up. The same effect happened with the much earlier introduction of corning whereby corned powder matched the old mealed powder with a much smaller charge. These were changes to artillery across the world as the powder technology changed. It is a simple fact that the same charge of powder will give a higher and earlier peak pressure with a fine powder than a coarse one. A quick google check would be to investigate 'pebble powder'. Yes cannon have always been known to burst from a variety of causes and any cannon will explode if abused but, in the context of the only variable being the granulation, the finer will be more dangerous than the coarse. Check out cannon powder in the manufacturers information (e.g. Shooting powder | www.blackpowder.ch) and you will note that the cannon powder is coarser than the small arms powder. It does not mean that 4f will inevitably cause a failure in small arms but it does mean that the gun will have higher peak pressures than it might. Personally I would have no qualms in using 4f in a 0,32" rifle but not in a 0,76" musket.

 

[SDSmlf]

What is the date of the 2nd edition? I have two copies, one printed in 1975 and another ninth printing from 1991. Both have the ffff pistol data.

 

[Whitworth]

What I find interesting is that in Lyman's second edition of the black powder manual, there is no loading data for ffffg loads.

Same thing with older reloading manuals compared to new ones. Max loads lowered and some just eliminated. I use Phil Sharps book (1930s-1940s) for all my unmentionables. It was printed before lawyers got involved.

 

[SDSmlf]

It does not mean that 4f will inevitably cause a failure in small arms but it does mean that the gun will have higher peak pressures than it might. Personally I would have no qualms in using 4f in a 0,32" rifle but not in a 0,76" musket.

One thing to note when working up a load, is we take projectile weight and powder granulation into account. Heavier bullet, typically start with a reduced powder charge. When going from a courser powder to a finer one (or changing powder manufactures), prudence says to reduce the starting charge. For similar velocity results with a finer powder vs a courser one, you typically end up with a lighter charge.

When I shot SASS, I used ffff pretty much exclusively, not because it gave higher velocity, but because it burned cleaner and gave me all the boom and velocity I needed. Name of the game was speed, and a fouled gun, be it a cap and ball pistol, lever action rifle or shotgun, was easier to deal with if less fouled. Don’t shoot SASS any more and have settled on fff Swiss for most everything muzzleloading (32 to 62 caliber rifles and pistols, and 20 to 12 gauge smoothbores), but still have ffff loads worked up for many of my guns. Just my opinion.

 

[Zonie]

What is the date of the 2nd edition? I have two copies, one printed in 1975 and another ninth printing from 1991. Both have the ffff pistol data.

2001 is the copyright date and no, it does not contain any data at all about loads with 4F powder.

 

[TNGhost]

Same thing with older reloading manuals compared to new ones. Max loads lowered and some just eliminated. I use Phil Sharps book (1930s-1940s) for all my unmentionables. It was printed before lawyers got involved.

And this is the answer to the mystery. Same as some laodings being dropped or reduced in smokeless reloading manuals, same as a ladder that costs $39 to make selling for $250, same as not being able to buy a gas can that can be used by a normal two handed human being and having to pay $40 for one. Same as not being able to buy decent insecticide for your garden.

Lawyers and insurance companies, and the Nancies that buy their line of self serving BS

Oooh 4f might be dangerous to the morons out there who aren't bright enough to keep themselves out of trouble, we definitely won't insure you if you say that it will work, and we won't be able to defend you in court.

That is why old loading books are the best loading books.

 

[TNGhost]

What is the date of the 2nd edition? I have two copies, one printed in 1975 and another ninth printing from 1991. Both have the ffff pistol data.

My Lyman Black Powder Handbook is marked thirteenth printing and dated 1999 and it has the FFFFg data

 

[SDSmlf]

2001 is the copyright date and no, it does not contain any data at all about loads with 4F powder.

I guess that explains why I am out of touch and date with the latest 4F black powder innovations and discoveries. I have two different printings of the first edition. If I don’t own a second edition of the book, I may be good to go with the 4F. Have been using it since the 1970s, and likely earlier (not sure what the old man gave me to load up when I was a kid), so I am not overly concerned.

Got to love progress..... makes all the traditional stuff obsolete and dangerous. I think I’ll start a new thread on the ineffectiveness and cruelty of hunting with round balls (NOTE, tongue in cheek, aka, sarcasm). A lot of data and information available on that topic, brought to us by the same deep thinkers and legal teams. If it currently on the internet, it must be true (still in tongue in cheek mode).

 

[Grenadier1758]

What I find interesting is that in Lyman's second edition of the black powder manual, there is no loading data for ffffg loads.

In the Lyman, 1975, "Black Powder Handbook", the descriptions of the powders used for the pistol (revolver) simply state that 3fg and 4fg Gearhart-Owen (now GOEX) and Curtis and Harvey powders are used. It is worth noting that pressure units are in Lead Units of Pressure (LUP). The maximum load tested that was measured was the 44 cal (Lyman 1860 Army revolver modified to measure pressure and velocity) of 37 grains by weight with a round ball producing 7,420 LUP. Maximum LUP of 8,480 was measured in the above revolver firing a Lyman #450229 projectile.

In the rifle section, using test barrels modified to measure pressure and velocity, only 3fg and 2fg powders were used. The barrels were fired using percussion caps. Note 3fg powder was used in the testing of the 54 caliber barrels as well as 2fg.

When we come to the 2001 Lyman "Black Powder Handbook and Loading Manual" 4fg is only used as priming powder for the flintlock tests. I will only be describing tests of the black powder loads using GOEX and Elephant (I know, Elephant powder is not available today) powders and I focus on the GOEX powders. In the 2001 book, powder measurements were measured by volume since black powder and black powder substitutes were used. In the description of the powder grades on page 142, it is stated "... The more 'F's' the finer the powder with FFFFG meant only for priming charges in flintlocks." Another mention of powder grades simply states that the very fine grades of 4fg and 5fg are recommended for pan priming.

There are inconsistencies. In the table for the 54 caliber, 32" barrel. 1-60 twist, page 260, both the 120 grain RB loads measured 8,300 PSI for 2fg and 3fg. At 100 grains the 3fg load measured 6000 PSI while the 2fg load measured 6,200. From 90 grains down the 3fg loads had higher pressure. The Elephant loads were consistently higher in pressure with the 3fg loads.

In the tables for the 54 caliber 28" barrel, 1-48" twist, the pressures for the 3fg loads were consistently higher than the 2fg loads of the same grain weight for both GOEX and Elephant powder.

Only 2fg powder is used for the pressure measurements for the projectile tests.

The main observation here is that 3fg was tested for use with round ball rifles up to 54 caliber and slower twists of 1 in 48 and 1 in 60. 4fg when mentioned is for use as a priming powder in the 2001 manual. 4fg was used in the 1975 manual in revolvers using about 30 grains weight black powder. Pressure data for the use of 4fg is limited to the tests done for the 1975 Lyman manual.

Basically, follow the manufacturer's loading limits. Yes, there may be concessions for liability reasons. There are users who have successfully used finer powders than presently recommended.

I haven't looked through all the Gun Digest related loading manuals with specific test done for specific rifles, but I don't recall any testing of loads using 4fg for anything but priming powder for a flintlock.

 

[VADSLRAM]

The powder by weight will produce the same quantity of gas, no matter what the grain size. The difference is the surface area. Smaller grains have more surface to burn on down to where the grains are so small (meal powder)that they effectively physically block flame propagation.
Example with only approximate values;A 1 gram solid piece of BP would be 1 cubic centimetre. That would give 6 square centimetres of surface for the flame to react. The rest of the BP has to wait until the compound above it reaches ignition temperature. Now make the grain size .1 CM That gives 1000 grains at .6 SqCM or 600 Sqcm of surface area. The extra surface area will allow the powder to burn completely much faster. Result is the entire gas production is completed while the available space is still small, possibly so small as to create dangerous pressures.
So like the letter says, it will result in higher chamber pressures... but only until the bullet gets down the barrel part way. By that point the pressure leaked around the projectile and out the nipple / flash hole will result in a lower pressure at the muzzle.
as for accuracy, having a more consistent pressure because the powder continues to burn producing gas and giving an increasing pressure through the majority of the barrel allows the projectile to engage the rifling more effectively.

 

[sportster73hp]

just when I determined that my gun would go off regularly with 2f in the pan someone wants to put 4f in the barrel