Sorry...I wasn't trying to start a "my way is better" debate. I was just wondering if there was a reason, that I didn't know about, why 3F was better than 2F.
You mention one having more recoil than the other. Which will produce the greater recoil? I've got a partial can of 3F that was given to me, but I've never tried it yet. I guess that I'm going to have to make a point of trying it & see how it works.
I didn't think you were...I just wanted to be sure you knew I wasn't trying to either.
The smaller the granulations, the faster and hotter they burn, causing a faster pressure spike, compared to the larger slower burning granulations.
The faster, sharper pressure spike results in increased recoil, and is more noticable as the size and weight of the projectile gets larger and larger...as you know, heavier objects tend to remain in place longer before they start moving and fast buring powder under those circumstances create higher pressure spikes and more recoil.
That's way I believe that granulation/burn time/pressure spike/recoil is more appropriately thought of in terms of the projectile size & weight regardless of caliber, instead of trying to peg a particular granulation to a particular caliber for all projectiles in that caliber.
In my examples above...FFFg is simply outstanding for me with patched round balls in those three calibers, with their particluar projectile weights.
However, even in the little .45, when I go to a 255grn conical (2 X the weight of a .45cal ball) I switch to FFg to avoid the sharp pressure curve and increased recoil I'd get with FFFg.
Do I need to?
Dunno........but that's what I do...accuracy is outstanding, fouling is minimal, recoil is routine, etc...