Curtis and Harvey #6

[Zonie]

This was posted on another MLF Forum. I thought it fit better over here in Shooting Accessories so here it is:

I've seen in mags 4or5 yrs back test of Curtis + Harveys #6 vs stuff made now and the C+H was a hands down winner,(it had something to do with the tree they used, Im wondering is cost of makeing it the reason someone doesnt make that powder again? (this was in Handloader or one of those mags/the C+H was closer to a smokeless amd moist when fired,and easy to reload. Justwondering.

 

[Zonie]

I don't have any information about Curtis + Harvey #6 so I can't help with this one.
Perhaps some of our other learned menbers know the answer.

I do know the type of wood the charcoal is made from has a lot to do with how much (or little) fouling Black Powder creates.
The percentage of Salt Peter also has a direct effect.
I think this is why Swiss powder is more powerful and burns much cleaner than most of the other brands.

 

[Pittsburghunter]

Zonie, this makes me ask the ultimate powder question for people who are trying to duplicate years gone by.

They must have had good powder to do all the shooting the did. months in the field no nice clean room to clean the gun. Rain/snow contamination and all.

So my question is was black powder made better in the 19th century?

We never read about fowling problems and such.

 

[faw3]

And Ive read how bad it was, the C+H did use only one kind of tree, they used it in a double 451 and no black powder made today could get it to print two shoots together, except the C+H at 75 yds almost the same hole, it took a smokeless reduced charge to get even close. Fred

 

[Zonie]

"So my question is was black powder made better in the 19th century?"
__________________________________________

Hel! I'm old, but not that old. :grin:

I honestly don't know.
I have heard some folks talk about the crummy powders we have today but I don't think any of them were around 150 years ago either so I don't know what they base their comments on.

Personally, I think their powder ranged from better than Swiss to as bad as Elephant (if not worse).
I know DuPont stole the French formula for making powder and brought it to this country. This powder kicked off the entire DuPont industry and from what I've read it was much better than the powder we had at the time. What does this say?
Here again, I don't know. Maybe we were making the equivalent of poor Elephant and DuPont brought the formula for GOEX??

As for writings from the past, I know they didn't seem to bother writing much about the commonplace things of their times like fouling and bullet lubes. They didn't write much about what they did to kill chiggers or what they used for toilet paper and they didn't write much about who makes the best gunpowder.
That's why we don't know so many things about exactly how they lived.

As FW pointed out, there are many examples of targets which were shot with black powder that are absolutly incredible.
Was this just good powder, or was it shot by some super marksman with a super rifle and hand weighed bullets?
I don't know that we will ever know much about their powder for sure.

 

[faw3]

I belive your right on it. The test Im writeing about was the same guy ,same gun, bench shooting this old ? rich guys 451 double. How he got half a can of #6 would of made a good story, anyway it put both barrels impact at 75 yds in about the same hole , Goex , Eflant, ect was all over the place, only a mild smokeless load came close. Liked the end of yours , no I dont guess we will ever know, and somethings I dont really want to! :rotf: Fred

 

[brubincam]

WHAT WAS THIS MILD SMOKELESS LOAD?

 

[faw3]

Very reduced and some kind of filler and a card on top of that, I get well Ill try and find it I keep everything but girls and wives, :rotf: Freed , oh thats Fred

 

[faw3]

I didnt find that story again yet but another on the same thing they used 52grs "codite" vs the 120 3f C+H load in a 450 Express, and breech press was LOWER! Fred