Black powder?

[Flintlock_bob]

I have a couple of cans of something called "Kings Semi-Smokeless, A New Composition, for rifles and shotguns, Quick ignition, Extreme Cleanliness. It also says it "loads by measure and manner of loading same as black powder" in FG and FFFFG granulations.

Any one know what this is? Would it be for use in BP cartridge guns only or muzzle loaders too?

 

[desi23]

Kings Semi-smokeless was created as a cleaner substitute for black powder a long, long time ago. It's primary use was in loading cartridge ammo but was supposed to be suitable for muzzle loaders according to some sources. It has been out of production for many years (before WW II if I remember correctly) If you have full cans of it they are probably worth far more to a collector than as shooting powder. Even empty cans have some collector value.

The Ohio based Kings powder company went out of business in the late 50's/early 60's. Anything from them is likely collectible, especially around here (southwest Ohio).

 

[Feltwad]

Only 4 grades of sporting powder later Fg etc were changed to numbers also tins with names .There was a powder used in the proof house and also used by riflemen was TPPH powder.
Feltwad

 

[Feltwad]

Do you remember these black powder if so are they still made ?
Feltwad

 

[excess650]

DuPont has not made BP for many years. They sold the business to Gearhart Owen in 1972. The other can pictured was Gearhart Owen (GO), later GOI, and became Goex which was made in Moosic Pennsylvania until their last explosion THERE in 1996 or 1997 (?). They relocated the plant to Minden Louisiana and first lots of powder were in early 1998. They have since been purchased by Hodgdon and still sold as Goex.

 

[Feltwad]

DuPont has not made BP for many years. They sold the business to Gearhart Owen in 1972. The other can pictured was Gearhart Owen (GO), later GOI, and became Goex which was made in Moosic Pennsylvania until their last explosion THERE in 1996 or 1997 (?). They relocated the plant to Minden Louisiana and first lots of powder were in early 1998. They have since been purchased by Hodgdon and still sold as Goex.

Thank you for the information the two tins I bought many years ago at a antique fair here in the UK
Feltwad

 

[ZUG]

I bought my first BP in the mid 60's and the cans were red & white and said DuPont on them.

 

[Boston Bill]

From NORTH AMERICAN MUZZLELOADER HUNTING Blog

http://namlhunt.com/namlhuntcom-blog/shooting-black-powder-ffg-or-fffg

An old accepted rule of thumb that served muzzleloading shooters and hunters 150 to 200 years ago tended to be loading with FFg black powder if the rifle was .50 caliber or larger, and loading smaller caliber .32 thru .45 caliber rifles with FFFg black powder. The number of "F's" represents the granulation of the powder. The more "F's", the finer grained the powder. For "sporting" purposes, there are typically four grades, or granulations - Fg, FFg, FFFg and FFFFg (or 1F, 2F, 3F, 4F).

I do use 3fff for my 54, 50 and 45 caliber Sharps. Seems to work perfectly.

 

[ugly old guy]

From NORTH AMERICAN MUZZLELOADER HUNTING Blog

http://namlhunt.com/namlhuntcom-blog/shooting-black-powder-ffg-or-fffg

An old accepted rule of thumb that served muzzleloading shooters and hunters 150 to 200 years ago tended to be loading with FFg black powder if the rifle was .50 caliber or larger, and loading smaller caliber .32 thru .45 caliber rifles with FFFg black powder.

Also accepted old rule of thumb was 1 grain powder per caliber minimum and 2.5 grains per caliber maximum.
(caliber rounded to nearest that ended in "0" or "5". A .577 or .580 used a minimum of 60 grains. A .54 a minimum of 55 grains, and a .36 caliber used a minimum charge of 35 grains, for example.)

I am "Old" and "Old Fashioned". I still follow those two old rules of thumb.

 

[SamTex1949]

I have a couple of cans of something called "Kings Semi-Smokeless, A New Composition, for rifles and shotguns, Quick ignition, Extreme Cleanliness. It also says it "loads by measure and manner of loading same as black powder" in FG and FFFFG granulations.

Any one know what this is? Would it be for use in BP cartridge guns only or muzzle loaders too?

Have had this can for sometime (empty) View attachment 21528 View attachment 21528

 

[Erwan]

Also accepted old rule of thumb was 1 grain powder per caliber minimum and 2.5 grains per caliber maximum.
(caliber rounded to nearest that ended in "0" or "5". A .577 or .580 used a minimum of 60 grains. A .54 a minimum of 55 grains, and a .36 caliber used a minimum charge of 35 grains, for example.)

I am "Old" and "Old Fashioned". I still follow those two old rules of thumb.

 

[SDSmlf]

From NORTH AMERICAN MUZZLELOADER HUNTING Blog

http://namlhunt.com/namlhuntcom-blog/shooting-black-powder-ffg-or-fffg

An old accepted rule of thumb that served muzzleloading shooters and hunters 150 to 200 years ago tended to be loading with FFg black powder if the rifle was .50 caliber or larger, and loading smaller caliber .32 thru .45 caliber rifles with FFFg black powder. The number of "F's" represents the granulation of the powder. The more "F's", the finer grained the powder. For "sporting" purposes, there are typically four grades, or granulations - Fg, FFg, FFFg and FFFFg (or 1F, 2F, 3F, 4F).

I do use 3fff for my 54, 50 and 45 caliber Sharps. Seems to work perfectly.

I put no faith in anything Toby Bridges has to say on his North American Muzzleloader Hunting blog. Over the years he has flipped his point of view to whatever he thinks can earn him a dollar. Early on he wrote books about traditional muzzleloader hunting, then he was on a mission maybe 10 years ago to change state hunting regulations to basically ban the use of patched round balls for hunting. Not a topic for here, but just as an example, he became a proponent of a certain muzzleloader that didn’t smoke, then came to hate them when the money coming his way dried up. Google will provide examples of his flip flops and distorted opinions.

Again, I have no faith in anything that is posted on Toby Bridges’ North American Muzzleloader Hunting blog.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

An old accepted rule of thumb that served muzzleloading shooters and hunters 150 to 200 years ago tended to be loading with FFg black powder if the rifle was .50 caliber or larger, and loading smaller caliber .32 thru .45 caliber rifles with FFFg black powder. The number of "F's" represents the granulation of the powder. The more "F's", the finer grained the powder. For "sporting" purposes, there are typically four grades, or granulations - Fg, FFg, FFFg and FFFFg (or 1F, 2F, 3F, 4F).

Funny thing about that....., I was told that too, but I found the "cutoff point" varied from rifle company to rifle company in the 1990's. Some companies wrote that smaller than .45 use 3Fg. Another wrote .45 and smaller, a third wrote .50 and smaller, and finally another I found wrote smaller than .54 bore, use 3Fg, GOEX shows the transition at .50 caliber for round ball on their website, with one load for 3Fg for .50 and any larger they show only 2Fg.

Then I found in The Muzzle Loading Cap Lock Rifle by Ned Roberts, that he didn't use 3Fg for anything. NOW is that because it wasn't available OR was that because the above "rule of thumb" didn't go back 200 years ??? Although the following comes from the book published in 1942, according to Roberts his uncle was buying Fg and FFg in 1880 according to the rules for calibers mentioned later on the same page....these were....

"Generally speaking, a very fine grain black powder should not be used in muzzle-loading rifles unless they are of small calibre. Rifles of 38 calibre and larger usually give the best accuracy with F.g. powder while those of smaller bore do best with F.F.g. However, there are, of course, exceptions to this rule and we occasionally find muzzle-loaders of 40 to 45 caliber that require the F.F.g., powder to make their smallest groups."

This goes pretty contrary to the rule-of-thumb that I was taught, which was the same rule-of-thumb as listed above. Further I found that 3Fg in my .54 slow twist barrel burned much cleaner than the 2Fg that I was supposed to be using according to the rule in the quote at the top, and much much cleaner than 1Fg which I should be using according to what Roberts wrote. So...I wonder how "old" that rule really is since it isn't mentioned in a manual written 77 years ago, and it's demonstrated as not being the "rule" almost 140 years ago in the same book.....

On the other hand Roberts may be assuming that since he's shooting at 220 yards and 110 yards that the "rules" for powder for his portion of the hobby are universal. He never really clarifies if his uncle is participating in 40 rod matches, or if the granulation size was the same for all applications.

One final note, the g is for "glazing" which by the time of Roberts book included graphite, but the term was used for a powder finishing process before the use of graphite. This sometimes causes confusion. Glazing was, however, a 19th century addition to the process, from what I've read.

LD

 

[Erwan]

Again, I have no faith in anything that is posted on Toby Bridges’ North American Muzzleloader Hunting blog.

I don't know about who or about what you are talking about and I never read what say this man (really don't care of).

The only thing I know and I see is that I do this way since now sixty-two years and that weighting the powder in grain by caliber is right, this is a good approach (the best ?), adjusting the charge after that is really easier than searching the good charge by testing the weight/volume grain by grain from the beginning...

So is it, I may be in a wrong way since all this time but it's good and works fine for me. I don't have to care about one or other guy (which I have never heard of) say about this on a blog...

 

[Erwan]

One final note, the g is for "glazing" which by the time of Roberts book included graphite, but the term was used for a powder finishing process before the use of graphite. This sometimes causes confusion. Glazing was, however, a 19th century addition to the process, from what I've read.

That's right but I don't know if my explanation can be good for anybody: my english speaking is too poor to explain what is really technical..

Anyway I try this about glazing but it is very short and simplified...

When rolling the grains of powder, during drying, the potassium nitrate crystals are compacted and fused into a thin shell covering the surfaces of the powder grains.
The appearance of the glassy skin is the origin of the term "ice powder".
Coarse grains of powder will have a thicker glaze because coarse grains have a greater mass in relation to their surface area.

The thickness of the glaze formed on the grains partly determines the ease of ignition of the individual powder grains and determines the rate of flame propagation in a powder mass.
Heavy glazes slow down the ignition process and the combustion of the powder. Heavy glazes, or thick glazes, were used to slow down the powder charges behind heavy projectiles.

 

[Grenadier1758]

By the way, @Erwan, if it works for you it is the right way regardless of the rule of thumb that others may spout. There are many different ways to get good results when shooting muzzle loaders. Most of these old "Rule of Thumb" statements are at best guidelines to use while you find your best way. Do stay safe though.

 

[hanshi]

I use 3F black in .32 up to .62. 2F is used in only a few specialized loads.

 

[Zonie]

I have a couple of cans of something called "Kings Semi-Smokeless, A New Composition, for rifles and shotguns, Quick ignition, Extreme Cleanliness. It also says it "loads by measure and manner of loading same as black powder" in FG and FFFFG granulations.

Any one know what this is? Would it be for use in BP cartridge guns only or muzzle loaders too?

From what I can find, King's Semi-Smokless powder was basically black powder with about 20% nitrocellulose made from nitrated wood pulp in it. It was supposed to be safe to load into muzzleloaders and other black powder guns on a 1 to 1 ratio with a black powder load.
It was supposed to make less fouling than pure black powder. I didn't see any claims that it was more powerful than black powder but with the addition of nitrocellulose it should have been.

Personally, if I found a can of it I would sell it as a collectors item. There is no way I would load it into any of my muzzleloaders.

 

[Ames]

And if you want to sell it to my collection, P.M. me please.

 

[Erwan]

Do stay safe though.

@Grenadier...
I think this way of approaching the optimum charge for a weapon of a given caliber is safe and has been proven over time by the oldest shooters...

The empirical load determines the average base of the load without taking into account the calepinage and the rest, it is then that the final adjustment is carried out and there one starts to play on the 1/10 of gram .

Of course as I said it is only an approach and it is then necessary to estimate the liveliness of the powder and its granulometry if only according to the length of the barrel and the reference caliber ...

The process is good and has proven itself: my great-grandfather used this empirical method, my grandfather did the same, my father did the same, and grandfather myself now and shooter since more than sixty years (62 the next month to be exact) I always do it this way and we are not an isolated family using this empirical formula from grain to caliber: a lot of people do like this, of course the oldest but we do...

Now with the substitutes that I don't know and that I never use, I'm not sure that this formula hasn't become obsolete at the level of the weight-gauge, but here we're leaving the field of black powder to enter into something else, another thing I can't have an opinion on....