4F Black Powder Question

[Britsmoothy]

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.

You were doing really really well.
Right up to the point you assumed what is best for accuracy!
Any proof?

 

[ugly old guy]

4F burns faster. The faster a powder burns the greater the pressure.
You don't need 4F pressure data to verify that.
80 grains 3F produces higher pressures than 80 grains 2F.
80 grains 2F produces more pressure than 80 grains 1F.
There IS pressure Data that proves this.
Tbe pressure also developes FASTER the finer the powder.
'THE IOWA' and 'THE MISSOURI' was. I know it was near fist size ganulations.
I know that if someone put the same charge of 1F powder in one of those 16 inch guns, it would blow up the gun.
1F is normally used in cannon, by the way. The 24 pounder used 1F.

2F is for .45 and above rifle and musket.
It was NEVER used in Cannon during any battle.

3F is for under .45 caliber rifle, musket, pistol, revolver, and pepper box.

I don't know what the grain designation for the black powder used in the 16 inch guns of 'THE IOWA', 'THE MISSOURI' and other battleships.
I do know that if someone put the same charge of 1F in one of those 16 inch guns, you would blow up the gun.

Why the F' anyone would want to ise 4F as a main charge eludes me.
What do they think they are going to gain?
If you want to increase velocity, move UP a granulation or two and increase the charge, (example: .45 caliber side lock percussion, using 1F can go up to 140 grains safely 2F up to 110 grains. 3F 90 grains)

On every can of 4F I have ever seen, it states on the lable "FOR PRIMING ONLY"

Why do some think they know more than the manufacturer?
"Back in the day" 4F was NEVER used as the main powder charge. I just do not understand how some are so stupid.
They should turn on their brain before picking up their ML, and leave it on when shooting.
They are not only endangering themselves but those in the area, as well. (shrapnel)
Want "hard data"? Refer to the reloading manuals.

Would you use a fast furning powder in you .458WM? Of course not! You would use a slow burning powder, just like the reloading manuals say to.
Same thing with a ML and 4F as the main charge.

I don't know if Lyman, for instance, in their ML loading manual bothered with 4F main loads and the pressures involved.
They may have forgotten "There is no limit to human stupidity." (A. Einstein)

 

[Bledfor Days]

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.

Hmm..... That would probably explain why those Jim Shockey solid Gold Sticks of bp substitute don't work worth poop. I bought 10 jars of it for $8 Cdn each from a store that wanted them gone real bad.

 

[nhmoose]

Yes, it makes a ball go faster, but WHAT BLOWs UP BARRLES, 4 F increases the pressure lots more than 3f

And what were YOUR measurements?

 

[Carbon 6]

4F burns faster. The faster a powder burns the greater the pressure.

And yet blasting powder is the size of gravel.

I think we are missing something.

I do know that if someone put the same charge of 1F in one of those 16 inch guns, you would blow up the gun.

1f, 2ff and 3fff are all I've ever used in my howitzer. Granted, it's not a 16" bore though.

In the old days granulation size was probably a critical factor when using cast, wrought iron, or Damascus barrels. Not to mention powders that were formulated differently than today.

 

[rodwha]

Sure seems to. I'm not sure what it was that I said that caused people to burst into flames, but they sure did.

My apologies if I upset anyone, it was unintentional.

What I’ve read of your posts so far is that it could be used, but that information about safety isn’t necessarily as there are some YouTube videos of people doing dumb stuff.

I’ve long argued about 4F being used in revolvers during the Civil War and afterwards when they morphed into metallic cartridges. But I’ve also stated I’d never suggest to go against the manufacturer’s warnings, which tend to stay away from 4F, only because I can’t say for sure if something is safe or not. I don’t feel comfortable giving advice on something I don’t fully understand. But I’ve pointed out it’s usage from at least the Civil War and on into the metallic cartridge era.

I sent out some cast custom bullets I designed to a fellow who was following the threads when I was designing them. One I designed specifically for my ROA as it’s built to handle much more than anything BP I could throw at it. I thought we were moving to Virginia, which would put black bears as something to potentially try so I created a short for weight 285 grn WFN that had long bearing surfaces to increase the pressures and therefor the velocity as 25 grns of 3F T7 was a max charge. He put it in his Walker under a double charge of 26 grns or 52 grns of Pyrodex P and blew his cylinder. Needless to say nobody gets those anymore. This was the instance that Richard loved to rib me on despite not knowing what happened.

 

[RAEDWALD]

Blasting powder is formulated for 'heave' rather than 'shock'. It produces it's gasses more slowly, giving the rock time to split and move instead of shattering locally. In the old days they would add sawdust to the powder for this reason.

The really big old late 19th century cannon used fist sized lumps not grains. Hence the term 'pebble' powder. Or a similar size in hexagonal prisms with perforations through them. It was this work and the trials of compressed single solid pellets of black powder for the last of the black powder military unmentionable arms, that provided the information on what shapes and sizes of holes through the solid pellets would provide the desired control of the speed and timing of pressures in solid cartridges and rockets that are the still used technologies for modern solid fuel rockets. However we digress well away from the poor OP poster and his interests.

Just to show that black powder is far more complex than one might think. A good part of the pressure that drives the bullet comes not from the production of gas but from the expansion of said gas by the heat of the combustion. Hence the decision of the Swiss factory to use slightly more saltpetre than the chemical formula would suggest in order to further heat the gases for a better performance. The famed firm of Curtis & Harvey added charred peas to one of their target powders to change it's fouling characteristics. The more I learn of black powder the more I find I do not know and the more even the academic/research experts state that they do not know. Black powder formulation and use is a whole field of it's own for research without even having to shoot the stuff and make a mess.

 

[TNGhost]

4F burns faster. The faster a powder burns the greater the pressure.
You don't need 4F pressure data to verify that.
80 grains 3F produces higher pressures than 80 grains 2F.
80 grains 2F produces more pressure than 80 grains 1F.
There IS pressure Data that proves this.
Tbe pressure also developes FASTER the finer the powder.
'THE IOWA' and 'THE MISSOURI' was. I know it was near fist size ganulations.
I know that if someone put the same charge of 1F powder in one of those 16 inch guns, it would blow up the gun.
1F is normally used in cannon, by the way. The 24 pounder used 1F.

2F is for .45 and above rifle and musket.
It was NEVER used in Cannon during any battle.

3F is for under .45 caliber rifle, musket, pistol, revolver, and pepper box.

So if we use scale and compare the 1f as used in a cannon and 2F in a ,50 rifle......????

Yes seemingly 4F would produce more pressure, but how much more? Also the Lyman actual test results published indicate that 4f does not always produce more pressure than 3f. Which makes sense, since there are many, many other factors that contribute to the amount of pressure produced in a gun barrel in addition to powder charge.

All indications are 4F is safe to use in rifles and shotguns. There has been not a single shred of evidence produced by those who say otherwise. Whereas there has been a sizable body of evidence provided here to the contrary.

Why the F' anyone would want to ise 4F as a main charge eludes me.
What do they think they are going to gain?
If you want to increase velocity, move UP a granulation or two and increase the charge, (example: .45 caliber side lock percussion, using 1F can go up to 140 grains safely 2F up to 110 grains. 3F 90 grains)

Why use it? In order to get better performance, including less fouling, which is verifiable, and because it is as perfectly safe as using 3f or 2f.

On every can of 4F I have ever seen, it states on the lable "FOR PRIMING ONLY"

Why do some think they know more than the manufacturer?
"Back in the day" 4F was NEVER used as the main powder charge. I just do not understand how some are so stupid.
They should turn on their brain before picking up their ML, and leave it on when shooting.
They are not only endangering themselves but those in the area, as well. (shrapnel)
Want "hard data"? Refer to the reloading manuals.

What the manufacturer knows is that they furnished data using 4f until lawyers got involved, so they added the legalese. Fact is 3f or 2f even will work in the pan and using part of the main charge from a paper cartridge as priming powder is historically correct and what many soldiers actually did. So we don't even really need 4f, in which case if it was truly "dangerous" they would quit selling it, or put it in a much different looking can and a smaller one at that.

Lawyers and Nancies.

Would you use a fast furning powder in you .458WM? Of course not! You would use a slow burning powder, just like the reloading manuals say to.
Same thing with a ML and 4F as the main charge.

Well actually, at the risk of getting off topic, yes there are fast powder, light projectile loads for the ,458 as gallery, plinking, target or small game loads, and there are data sources that list them.

I don't know if Lyman, for instance, in their ML loading manual bothered with 4F main loads and the pressures involved.
They may have forgotten "There is no limit to human stupidity." (A. Einstein)

Is that why all of the older loading manuals are edited as well? Because "There is no limit to human stupidity."? Nope. Lawyers and Nancies are the problem.

The stupidity here is not in using 4f in a main charge, but in not using it because one is afraid of something that doesn't exist, as with so many other things these days.

Look on the internet and in printed books. There are no cases whatsoever that I can find that show 4f causing any damage whatsoever to a muzzleloading firearm when used as a main charge. Plenty on smokeless sure, but NONE with 4f.

Sure you might be able to blow up a barrel with it, but you could also blow up a barrel with 3f or 2f.

Pressure is not bad. We need pressure to make the ball fly. It is all in how much pressure and correct charges of 4f will work as well, or better in some ways than 3f or 2f. Also as I said there are many other factors in how much pressure is generated in a given load.

 

[rodwha]

4F burns faster. The faster a powder burns the greater the pressure.
You don't need 4F pressure data to verify that.
80 grains 3F produces higher pressures than 80 grains 2F.
80 grains 2F produces more pressure than 80 grains 1F.
There IS pressure Data that proves this.
Tbe pressure also developes FASTER the finer the powder.
'THE IOWA' and 'THE MISSOURI' was. I know it was near fist size ganulations.
I know that if someone put the same charge of 1F powder in one of those 16 inch guns, it would blow up the gun.
1F is normally used in cannon, by the way. The 24 pounder used 1F.

2F is for .45 and above rifle and musket.
It was NEVER used in Cannon during any battle.

3F is for under .45 caliber rifle, musket, pistol, revolver, and pepper box.

I don't know what the grain designation for the black powder used in the 16 inch guns of 'THE IOWA', 'THE MISSOURI' and other battleships.
I do know that if someone put the same charge of 1F in one of those 16 inch guns, you would blow up the gun.

Why the F' anyone would want to ise 4F as a main charge eludes me.
What do they think they are going to gain?
If you want to increase velocity, move UP a granulation or two and increase the charge, (example: .45 caliber side lock percussion, using 1F can go up to 140 grains safely 2F up to 110 grains. 3F 90 grains)

On every can of 4F I have ever seen, it states on the lable "FOR PRIMING ONLY"

Why do some think they know more than the manufacturer?
"Back in the day" 4F was NEVER used as the main powder charge. I just do not understand how some are so stupid.
They should turn on their brain before picking up their ML, and leave it on when shooting.
They are not only endangering themselves but those in the area, as well. (shrapnel)
Want "hard data"? Refer to the reloading manuals.

Would you use a fast furning powder in you .458WM? Of course not! You would use a slow burning powder, just like the reloading manuals say to.
Same thing with a ML and 4F as the main charge.

I don't know if Lyman, for instance, in their ML loading manual bothered with 4F main loads and the pressures involved.
They may have forgotten "There is no limit to human stupidity." (A. Einstein)

Actually there is a museum curator who disassembled metallic cartridges from the end of the 19th century and guess what he all too often found even in the larger calibers. 4F and sometimes finer. Also a fellow had some Civil War Hazard’s paper cartridges for the .44 issued to the military. Guess what it contained and how energetic it was. 4F and similar to Swiss. That cartridge contained 36 of powder under a 211 grn conical.

As for the powder can explaining what it’s designed for how about Swiss powder’s previous bottles:

 

[SDSmlf]

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.

I have a 52 caliber rifle with no load data. Can’t find any published data. Do I conclude using the logic of your post that it is unsafe to shoot with any load combination? There is no load data to follow so it must not be safe. Do you agree?

And just to rant a bit, I have torn down War of Northern Aggression era Smith Carbine cartridges and found powder finer than what we call 4F today. I have shot original period guns since the late 1960s with fine grain powder, call it 4F. I have 4F powder cans that explicitly state that it is suitable for muskets, pistols and shotguns. But because you ‘don't recall any testing of loads using 4fg for anything but priming powder for a flintlock’ you imply it is unsafe. This of course is based on data and tests that you have chosen not to reveal. Have you ever used 4F as a main charge? You must have data that 4F is not safe, correct? Back to my 52 caliber gun, no data, so not safe, correct?

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

Nobody is telling you to put 4f in your barrel, they are saying you can if you want to, with no fear of hurting yourself or your barrel.

 

[Grenadier1758]

The only printed material that has measured loads for pressure exist in the 1975 Lyman "Black Powder Loading Manual". In that book, the loads are only published and measured in pistols and the largest 4fg load was 41 grains in a Ruger Old Army. The largest pressure measurement (in Lead Units of Pressure) was 37 grains in a 44 caliber Colt replica revolver modified for pressure measurements.

No 4fg loads were published for the rifle measurements.

While 4fg loads may have been used in the distant past, there is no modern published data for a 4fg load other than what has been offered up on boards such as this one. None of the Gun Digest Loading manuals have a 4fg load. They do load rifles up to 54 caliber with up to 60 grains volume of 3fg and document performance roughly similar to performance with 75 to 80 grains volume of 2fg.

For my practice and use, it will be 3fg and 2fg loads for the main charge and in some cases 1fg in the Land Pattern Musket, and 4fg for the priming pan.

 

[Grenadier1758]

I have a 52 caliber rifle with no load data. Can’t find any published data. Do I conclude using the logic of your post that it is unsafe to shoot with any load combination? There is no load data to follow so it must not be safe. Do you agree?

In the Gun Digest "Black Powder Loading Manual", copyright 1982 on page 111 loading data for the Allen Santa Fe Hawken in 53 caliber is published. If your rifle has a 1" across the flats at the breech, muzzle velocity for loads for up to 60 grains of 3fg and up to 110 grains of 2fg are listed. The 110 grain load is listed as a maximum recommended load. The Allen rifle went through several iterations and is now for all practical purposed the Pedersoli Santa Fe Hawken. You should be safe. There are other rifles similar to that rifle. If your rifle is similar in barrel wall thickness, then it should be up to you to assess if your rifle is safe to shoot.

 

[SDSmlf]

On every can of 4F I have ever seen, it states on the lable "FOR PRIMING ONLY"

I am glad to show you something you have never seen before. Below are photographs of both sides of the same can of ‘Superfine Black Rifle Powder’. Note the ‘fine print’ underlined in yellow in the second photo. SUITABLE MUSKETS PISTOLS & SHOTGUNS.

 

[SDSmlf]

In the Gun Digest "Black Powder Loading Manual", copyright 1982 on page 111 loading data for the Allen Santa Fe Hawken in 53 caliber is published. If your rifle has a 1" across the flats at the breech, muzzle velocity for loads for up to 60 grains of 3fg and up to 110 grains of 2fg are listed. The 110 grain load is listed as a maximum recommended load. The Allen rifle went through several iterations and is now for all practical purposed the Pedersoli Santa Fe Hawken. You should be safe. There are other rifles similar to that rifle. If your rifle is similar in barrel wall thickness, then it should be up to you to assess if your rifle is safe to shoot.

Thank you. I used the old ‘rule of thumb’ of a starting load equal to the caliber, say 50 to 55 grains and worked the load up from there. The barrel I am talking about is 15/16” across the flats.

 

[TNGhost]

If we were to determine that any firearm without published data, specific to its caliber and component availability, was unsafe, there would be a pile of new wall hangers out there, both black powder and otherwise that could not be shot that are regularly used today.

There is, right now, a whole line of home reloader experimentation going on concerning loads for a certain semi popular cartridge in which brass has just recently become available and data is very scarce for.

The major reason manufacturers began publishing data, was to sell their wares, not to provide a "safety net". My how times change.

Use common sense, and as I once heard said: "A good man knows his limitations".

 

[TNGhost]

Actually there is a museum curator who disassembled metallic cartridges from the end of the 19th century and guess what he all too often found even in the larger calibers. 4F and sometimes finer. Also a fellow had some Civil War Hazard’s paper cartridges for the .44 issued to the military. Guess what it contained and how energetic it was. 4F and similar to Swiss. That cartridge contained 36 of powder under a 211 grn conical.

As for the powder can explaining what it’s designed for how about Swiss powder’s previous bottles:

Ah, those crazy Swiss. What are they going to come up with next?

 

[George]

Just for curiosity's sake, can anyone point me to a documented example of a normal barrel loaded in a normal way which blew up? No matter how much powder of any granulation or how many projectiles.

I'm not at all sure it can be done. Prove me wrong, I double-dog dare you.

Spence

 

[TNGhost]

I recall some discussion and perhaps experiments into the theory of actually filling a muzzleloading rifle barrel with BP and that it resulted in no explosion or damage providing th eball was firm;y seated on the powder and allowed to move with the powder ignition. I think Sam Fadala was a promoter of that idea.

I also dimly recall a game and fish agency, I want to say perhaps it was New Mexico, trying to blow up a muzzleloader barrel by adding greater and greater powder charges. IIRC they had to seriously plug the barrel at the end, creating in effect a pipe bomb out of it, to get it to destruct.

 

[Rich]

If you have a chronograph, could you shoot your standard load of 3f, then work up a load with 4f that give you the same fps? I have no idea, but it seems if you work it up that way, you would be in a safe zone. Experts, pls comment cause I aint no expert.

 

[mooman76]

I recall some discussion and perhaps experiments into the theory of actually filling a muzzleloading rifle barrel with BP and that it resulted in no explosion or damage providing th eball was firm;y seated on the powder and allowed to move with the powder ignition. I think Sam Fadala was a promoter of that idea.

I also dimly recall a game and fish agency, I want to say perhaps it was New Mexico, trying to blow up a muzzleloader barrel by adding greater and greater powder charges. IIRC they had to seriously plug the barrel at the end, creating in effect a pipe bomb out of it, to get it to destruct.

There were a couple of guys on youtube that did this with a CVA Kentucky rifle. They kept loading more and more until they filled the barrel leaving only enough room for the ball. The stock was damaged but that was more from the contraption holding the rifle than the load. The rest showed no apparent damage.