4F Black Powder Question

[Britsmoothy]

i may have replied this before i dont know. a shooter in england on another site uses 4f in all his guns up to 70 cals. hunts rabbits and such over their. says it works fine with no problems for him raised a storm on that site but he stuck by it. i tried it in a 50 round ball gun and liked it. 70 grains behind a linen patched round ball. accurate and a lot cleaner than the other courser stuff. when ever this subject is brought up it raises a storm. i live in a high dry climate and moisture isnt a problem way up here.

That's me.

 

[Britsmoothy]

I'm talking about the fur trade era. It's mostly from books I own. It's hard for me to show that.
Do you think the MM carried two powder horns?

No idea. But I ain't going to assume nothing about them

 

[user 36911]

Yes, anything is possible but I believe the majority just kept loading simple and used one horn. When you have Indians trying to get your scalp. You'd want to load as quick as possible. Now, did they have 4F in the horn? They could have if that's all that was available. They didn't have the choices we do today.

I know personally I prefer just one horn.

 

[Cattman]

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

 

[TNGhost]

I'm talking about the fur trade era. It's mostly from books I own. It's hard for me to show that.
Do you think the MM carried two powder horns?

Did the one horn they carried contain 4f? If so how do you know?

Many of us have the very same books, and if not, access to them. Give us some references, titles, authors, etc.

If you want to use Swiss 4F as a main charge I won't stop you. I prefer not to and it's what i'd advise if asked.

Mighty nice of you not to "stop" me.

 

[user 36911]

Did the one horn they carried contain 4f? If so how do you know?

Many of us have the very same books, and if not, access to them. Give us some references, titles, authors, etc.




Mighty nice of you not to "stop" me.

Where did I say they carried 4F? Slow down, you're reading too fast.

 

[Carbon 6]

Well they don't, and that link is to the "Americanized" flyer that bows to our litigious society and the hordes of lawyers in this country sucking the lifeblood out of the nation, that are responsible for $50 gas cans that are impossible to use, and $400 ladders.

If lawyers are the reason that 4F isn't recommended then there surely must have been a lawsuit or two that were the result of catastrophic failures using 4f.

I would like to see some proof that there was no 4f in those powder horns of yore as well.

That's easy, all you have to do is figure out when and where the 4f grading system began. That will give you the answer.
You can't put the cart before the horse if there were no horses.

 

[Carbon 6]

So no experience with 4f as a main charge?

I am curious what your experience is ?

The reason I ask is because when you give loading recommendations, you quote the books and don't recommend 4f in the barrel.

Like this example;

So, my copy of the Gun Digest Black Powder Loading Manual, by Sam Fadala, copyright 1982, lists a max load of 55 grains of 3f black powder for 1205 fps and a muzzle energy of 455 ft. lbs. And a load of 57 grains of Pyrodex P for 1215 fps and 1215 ft. lbs of muzzle energy. Pretty potent if you ask me.

Why didn't you simply suggest 4f here ?

 

[TNGhost]

If lawyers are the reason that 4F isn't recommended then there surely must have been a lawsuit or two that were the result of catastrophic failures using 4f.

There are many instance of companies referring to lawyers for advice in advance of any legal actions, in fact they way outnumber those as a result of real legal actions. Not to say there has not been an attempt by some nancy to sue because of a mistake he made and blame it on 4f, but I have never seen such.

That's easy, all you have to do is figure out when and where the 4f grading system began. That will give you the answer.
You can't put the cart before the horse if there were no horses.

If the grading system was not contemporaneous then there is no way to prove there was not 4f in those horns.

 

[TNGhost]

I am curious what your experience is ?

The reason I ask is because when you give loading recommendations, you quote the books and don't recommend 4f in the barrel.

Like this example;



Why didn't you simply suggest 4f here ?

I have used 4f in a double barrel 12 gauge shotgun and prefer it for lighter game loads as it gives me better performance, less fouling and more shots per pound. I also use it under a patched ball in a .50 flintlock mountain rifle and find there too is gives less fouling.

Why not suggest 4f to the man with the Walker? Simple answer, he was looking for published data, and the book I had in front of me at the time was the Gun Digest loading manual. Had my Lyman manual been handy I would have noted the 4f loadings.

Also being faster burning, 4f, to me is more suited to lighter loads, as with smokeless, faster powder lighter loads, slower powder, heavy loads. So suggesting 4f for the heaviest possible load was counter intuitive.

Never said 4f was the best for everything simply that it works and is safe when used with the same care used with any other BP.

 

[TNGhost]

Where did I say they carried 4F? Slow down, you're reading too fast.

You are the one reading too fast, I was asking(note the question mark), how you knew they did not.

Did the one horn they carried contain 4f? If so how do you know?

Many of us have the very same books, and if not, access to them. Give us some references, titles, authors, etc.

You have references on the subject, let's see them.

 

[user 36911]

You are the one reading too fast, I was asking(note the question mark), how you knew they did not.

Now, wait a minute. This was my quote:

"Now, did they have 4F in the horn? They could have if that's all that was available. They didn't have the choices we do today. "

Then you said:

"Did the one horn they carried contain 4f? If so how do you know? "


Does this still make sense to you? I never said they did or didn't carry 4F. I said they could have because I didn't know for sure. I'm sure they used whatever was available. Considering the barrels they used in those days. 4F might not have been a good idea compared to doing it with todays steel.

 

[Carbon 6]

Also being faster burning 4f to me is more suited to lighter loads, as with smokeless, faster powder lighter loads, slower powder, heavy loads. So suggesting 4f for the heaviest possible load was counter intuitive.

Thank you,
I agree with that statement, but the weight of the projectile must also be taken into account.

Never said 4f was the best for everything simply that it works and is safe when used with the same care used with any other BP.

I also agree that it " is safe when used with the same care used with any other BP" of course that "care" and safety" does involve published data and manufacture recommendations most of the time.
Experimentation can be done with care, but it is not something for everyone to attempt.
Both muzzleloading and reloading are not for everyone.

 

[user 36911]

15 pages on 4F powder. We must be bored.

 

[Grenadier1758]

The Lyman manual, "Lyman Black Powder Handbook", has pressure numbers for several open top revolvers modified for pressure readings. These revolvers were an 1851 Lyman Navy in 36 caliber, a Lyman 1860 Army in 44 caliber. Pictured with the Army revolver was a Lyman 1858 Remington revolver. Velocity tests were also conducted on a Lyman Baby Dragoon in 31 caliber. No pressure results were recorded. Velocity tests were done on a Ruger Old Army, but it was not modified for pressure readings. Test loads for the ROA did include 4fg powder and 3fg. There are no tables for a Lyman Walker revolver.

It is interesting that Pressure readings for the Lyman 1851 Navy Revolver are recorded as 8,600 Lead Units of Pressure (LUP) with 26 grains of 3fg and 8,820 LUP using 4fg. (Page 72). When I looked at rifle data for the 36 caliber rifle (all loads were reported with 3fg Gerhardt - Owen, GOEX predecessor), the LUP readings for 40 grains of 3fg in the 20" barrel were 9,800, 28" barrel 9,000, 32" barrel 9,600 37" barrel 9,400 and in the 43" barrel 8,460. This would imply that the 4fg might produce similar pressures in the rifle with 26 grains of 4fg powder that were produced with 40 grains of 3fg.

That's the data in the Lyman book.

Takeaway: The Lyman data for the revolvers has very little difference in LUP for 3fg and 4fg powder. There is a lot of difference in LUP between the pistol data and the rifle data. Make your own decisions.

 

[Carbon 6]

15 pages on 4F powder. We must be bored.

All things muzzleloading are the cure for boredom.

 

[Bob McBride]

Yes it is.

 

[Cattman]

im amussed, this subject really brings out the replys. have not heard of a gun blown up by it yet. however in the back of my mind their seems to be a single action army colt that was hurt with it many years ago. does anyone remember that or was that just a rumor?

 

[TNGhost]

Thank you,
I agree with that statement, but the weight of the projectile must also be taken into account.




I also agree that it " is safe when used with the same care used with any other BP" of course that "care" and safety" does involve published data and manufacture recommendations most of the time.
Experimentation can be done with care, but it is not something for everyone to attempt.
Both muzzleloading and reloading are not for everyone.

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

Don't go around spreading unsubstantiated fear among others either.

Don't you think there is enough misinformation on the net already?

 

[Crow-Feather]

From Goex, their recommendations for different calibers

https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/attachments/rb-rifle-musket-pdf.34325/
Nuff said

Bye