Guest
scalper said:
But you said it as an assumption and RB was looking for something more definitive. RB, why the reduction of 10%?
-
Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.
We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.
Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103
Drams Equivalent
- Thread starter roundball
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
But you said it as an assumption and RB was looking for something more definitive. RB, why the reduction of 10%?
To maintain pressures in a similar range...I've just adopted the industry rule of thumb which says if substituting 3F in place of a 2F charge, reduce the 2F load data figure by 10-15% to account for the higher/faster pressure spike & pressure levels generated by the faster burning 3F.Cody said:
And years ago when I heard that 'rule-of-thumb', I took the same approach as I just did with the Dram issue...looked for a more solid reference source instead of just a couple comments on various Internet forums...called TC and without hesitation they verified that was correct..."said a 10-15% reduction will keep pressures in the same ballpark".
And you can definitely tell the difference in the report and recoil...simple test, next time you're at the range using a rifle that you normally use 100grns 2F for example, shoot a couple rounds using 100grns 3F...you'll definitely know & feel that you've shot a hotter load.
Guest
Ahhhh :thumbsup: , I didn't realize you were useing fff. You likely said so somewere and I missed it.
- Joined
- May 28, 2006
- Messages
- 1,692
- Reaction score
- 15
yes. the higher number before the "F" means the powder is "HOTTER" or in other words " will burn quicker..therefore producing higher pressures"
therefore 4F is hotter than 3F which is hotter than2F which is hotter than 1F.
but in the phrase on the box of shotshells
" equivalent to 2 1/2 drams" 2 F is used as
THE STANDARD...... one could use 3 FFF but a reduction in volume is needed when doing so since pressures with 3FFF are Higher than the pressures with 2 FF powder.....
therefore 4F is hotter than 3F which is hotter than2F which is hotter than 1F.
but in the phrase on the box of shotshells
" equivalent to 2 1/2 drams" 2 F is used as
THE STANDARD...... one could use 3 FFF but a reduction in volume is needed when doing so since pressures with 3FFF are Higher than the pressures with 2 FF powder.....
I hope I'm not too late with this, but thought it would be a good addition.
I have a repro of the 1902 Sears catalog, and it shows "cuts" of the blackpowder for showing size of the grains.
They actually list fffg, ffg, and fg as "rifle powders", and other grades for "choke bore guns". Looking at the cuts--and understand it's a sketch, the DuPont Choke Bore powder was available in No5 and No7. In the drawing, there is very little difference between the two, and they both appear to be about the same density as the 1F "Dupont Rifle" powder. DEFINITELY more dense than the FFg sketch. Hope this helps.
I also have a repro 1891 Winchester Catalog, but I haven't found their reference to the size powder they were using in their shells.
Hugh
I have a repro of the 1902 Sears catalog, and it shows "cuts" of the blackpowder for showing size of the grains.
They actually list fffg, ffg, and fg as "rifle powders", and other grades for "choke bore guns". Looking at the cuts--and understand it's a sketch, the DuPont Choke Bore powder was available in No5 and No7. In the drawing, there is very little difference between the two, and they both appear to be about the same density as the 1F "Dupont Rifle" powder. DEFINITELY more dense than the FFg sketch. Hope this helps.
I also have a repro 1891 Winchester Catalog, but I haven't found their reference to the size powder they were using in their shells.
Hugh
- Joined
- May 28, 2006
- Messages
- 1,692
- Reaction score
- 15
ACTUALLY...it just complicates things for me..
are you saying that back in '02 they were using 1 f in shotguns and from that we are to infer that the modern shotgun shell box saying equivalent to 2 1/2 drams....means equivalent to 2 1/2 drams of
(1F)......?????
are you saying that back in '02 they were using 1 f in shotguns and from that we are to infer that the modern shotgun shell box saying equivalent to 2 1/2 drams....means equivalent to 2 1/2 drams of
(1F)......?????
No. Actually, the same Sears catalog lists SMOKELESS loads as Drams, (3, 3 1/2, etc.) and not drams equiv. So I don't don't know when the Dr eq came into being. Just thought it was interesting that they were loading 1F-size powder in their shotshells. I did take it to be documentation of that.
Hugh
Hugh
paulvallandigham
Passed On
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2006
- Messages
- 17,537
- Reaction score
- 89
Guys: Back in the 1890s, and early 1900s, companies came out with a new powder that eventually was referred to as " Semi-smokeless ". At the time, it was just called smokeless. It could be measure out by volume, instead of on a scale, much the same way pyrodex can be measure by volume. It was not until the true Nitro-cellulose based smokelss powders came on the scene in 1903-4 that the older powder became called " semi-smokeless. Bullseye was perhaps the first of the true smokeless powders, and Unique was the second. Both have stayed in production constantly for more than 100 years, now.
So, to understand those early catalogue directions you have to understand what was available. The Winchester 94 .30-30 is credited with being the first smokeless rifle cartridge in the U.S. The .30-40 Krag, then the designated rifle cartridge for the Army, began as a black powder cartridge, then transitioned to the new (semi) smokeless powder, and later to the true smokeless powder. However, by 1903 the ordinance board began new trial to find a better, fast, and flatter shooting cartridge to match the 7mm, and 8mm cartridges that were becoming adopted in Europe. For some reason, we passed over the 6.5 mm cartridges adopted in the early 1890s by half a dozen countries. They also first used the semi-smokeless powder, and transitioned nicely to the true smokeless powders that came on the scene in the first decade or two of the 20th century. By WWI, most of the countries were using ammo that employed true Smokeless powder ammo. We adopted first the .30-03, and finally the .30-06, in 1906 as our standard rifle cartridge, and it remained our main cartridge until the adoption of the 7.62mm( .308 Winchester) cartridge in the mid 1950s. The main difference between the .30-03, and the .30-06 was that the earlier cartridge still used the same 220 grain bullet that had been loaded in the .30-40 Krag cartridge, while the newer round used a 150 grain bullet at 2700 fps.
So, to understand those early catalogue directions you have to understand what was available. The Winchester 94 .30-30 is credited with being the first smokeless rifle cartridge in the U.S. The .30-40 Krag, then the designated rifle cartridge for the Army, began as a black powder cartridge, then transitioned to the new (semi) smokeless powder, and later to the true smokeless powder. However, by 1903 the ordinance board began new trial to find a better, fast, and flatter shooting cartridge to match the 7mm, and 8mm cartridges that were becoming adopted in Europe. For some reason, we passed over the 6.5 mm cartridges adopted in the early 1890s by half a dozen countries. They also first used the semi-smokeless powder, and transitioned nicely to the true smokeless powders that came on the scene in the first decade or two of the 20th century. By WWI, most of the countries were using ammo that employed true Smokeless powder ammo. We adopted first the .30-03, and finally the .30-06, in 1906 as our standard rifle cartridge, and it remained our main cartridge until the adoption of the 7.62mm( .308 Winchester) cartridge in the mid 1950s. The main difference between the .30-03, and the .30-06 was that the earlier cartridge still used the same 220 grain bullet that had been loaded in the .30-40 Krag cartridge, while the newer round used a 150 grain bullet at 2700 fps.
Guest
Dear Dr. Roundball of the MLF. First it was wax RB's, then wooden ones, and now the mad Alchemist is experimenting with grams, and Drams, and ounces and grains. :rotf: :rotf: Well you gots me so confused that I thought I'd try and help out yer spearmints. I have to lone you if you so wish my original, antiquey shotgun dipper, marked in drams on one side, and ounces for shot on the other
They are marked as such as equal amounts down the scale
1 oz. -2&1/2 drams
1&1/8 oz.-2&3/4 drams
1&1/4 oz.-3 drams
and so on at the rate of 1/8 oz. to 1/4 dram till the measure reads 2&3/4 oz of shot equivilant to 5 drams of powder.
this measure is of course a volume measure, as before the advent of the smokeless powders, regular black powder was equal in weight, and volume when it came to grains. So bill if you wish to use this for some spearmintin, just PM me with yer address, and I'll ship her out to you, as I won't need it til next turkey season, or some such time in the distant future. Actually I just use my powder measure. 80 grains of powder, and 90 grains of #5's. This measure makes no differentiation between FFG or FFFG powder, so if you use FFG instead of FFG you need to use the 10% rule, and increase or decrease yer loads accordingly. Good luck with your Saturday morning fun!
Bill
Mayor of Nagasaki's last words--What the heck was that noise?
They are marked as such as equal amounts down the scale
1 oz. -2&1/2 drams
1&1/8 oz.-2&3/4 drams
1&1/4 oz.-3 drams
and so on at the rate of 1/8 oz. to 1/4 dram till the measure reads 2&3/4 oz of shot equivilant to 5 drams of powder.
this measure is of course a volume measure, as before the advent of the smokeless powders, regular black powder was equal in weight, and volume when it came to grains. So bill if you wish to use this for some spearmintin, just PM me with yer address, and I'll ship her out to you, as I won't need it til next turkey season, or some such time in the distant future. Actually I just use my powder measure. 80 grains of powder, and 90 grains of #5's. This measure makes no differentiation between FFG or FFFG powder, so if you use FFG instead of FFG you need to use the 10% rule, and increase or decrease yer loads accordingly. Good luck with your Saturday morning fun!
Bill
Mayor of Nagasaki's last words--What the heck was that noise?
Well that's very generous of you to make such an offer...I think I'm OK in that department though, as I do the same as you...and use a powder measure to measure the amount of shot for a particular load.
To the 'Drams' question...I may not have explained it clearly...I was simply trying to ask if anyone knew which granulation of black powder was being used / referenced way back when, when a powder charge of xx drams is identified.
Was 2F the reference...was 3F the reference, etc, as there would be different pressures, probably different velocities, based upon which powder was commonly used...I assumed it was 2F but was looking for a credible source.
I since discovered in a Lyman manual that Drams of BP was referencing Drams of "2F" BP.
Therefore, if I see a box of modern shotgun shells with "3 Drams Equivalent" on it, I'll know it's original reference was 3 Drams of 2F BP.
And if I want to duplicate that modern load using BP, I do the math and it will be 82grns of 2F.
Then if I want to actually use 3F instead, I'll just reduce the 2F load data by 10% to keep the pressures in the same ball park. [ 82grns 2F minus 10% (8.2grs) = about 74grns of 3F ]
Thanks again for the follow-up and the offer of the loner but I'm good...besides...as neat as that dipper looks, if I got it I'd probably want to keep it :grin:
To the 'Drams' question...I may not have explained it clearly...I was simply trying to ask if anyone knew which granulation of black powder was being used / referenced way back when, when a powder charge of xx drams is identified.
Was 2F the reference...was 3F the reference, etc, as there would be different pressures, probably different velocities, based upon which powder was commonly used...I assumed it was 2F but was looking for a credible source.
I since discovered in a Lyman manual that Drams of BP was referencing Drams of "2F" BP.
Therefore, if I see a box of modern shotgun shells with "3 Drams Equivalent" on it, I'll know it's original reference was 3 Drams of 2F BP.
And if I want to duplicate that modern load using BP, I do the math and it will be 82grns of 2F.
Then if I want to actually use 3F instead, I'll just reduce the 2F load data by 10% to keep the pressures in the same ball park. [ 82grns 2F minus 10% (8.2grs) = about 74grns of 3F ]
Thanks again for the follow-up and the offer of the loner but I'm good...besides...as neat as that dipper looks, if I got it I'd probably want to keep it :grin:
For those interested in a further discussion on the developement of smokeless powder cartridge and hot the U.S. Army came to drop black powder a a small arms propellent I have started a new topic in the "Non- muzzle loading forum" and would appreciate any thoughts.
Regards, Dave
Regards, Dave
[quote=roundball To maintain pressures in a similar range...I've just adopted the industry rule of thumb which says if substituting 3F in place of a 2F charge, reduce the 2F load data figure by 10-15% to account for the higher/faster pressure spike & pressure levels generated by the faster burning 3F.
I think you do a great disservice by claiming there is some sort of "industry standard" involved here. There is no consistent correlation or "correction factor" between different grades of powder. The first edition Lyman Blackpowder Handbook shows the following loads.
.535" ball 140 gr. 2f 1779fps 8500LUP
.535" ball 100 gr. 3f 1740fps 11700LUP
Here you see that a 29% reduction in 3f versus 2f produced a similar velocity but with an increase in pressure of 38%. But here is another example.
.45 caliber, 300 gr. conical 70 gr. 2f 1300fps 15,140 CUP
.45 caliber, 300 gr. conical 65 gr. 3f 1414fps 15,755 CUP
Here you see that a reduction of only 7% in charge weight produced a 9% increase in velocity and an increase in pressure of only 4%. AND,
.445" ball 100 gr. 2f 2008fps 15,100 CUP
.445" ball 75 gr. 3f 2025fps 14,690 CUP
Here a 25% reduction produced nearly the same velocity with a pressure REDUCTION of 3%.
Plainly a shift from 2f to 3f would require a reduction in charge weight to maintain a similar pressure and velocity but exactly how much is anybody's guess. In some cases 2f produced a given velocity with lower pressure but in some cases 3f produced an equal or higher velocity with less pressure. Clearly there is no "rule-of-thumb" to be drawn from this data and if the "experts" at Thompson/Center promote such a rule it only confirms my suspicion that no one at T/C knows beans about muzzle loaders or black powder.
:wink:
I think you do a great disservice by claiming there is some sort of "industry standard" involved here. There is no consistent correlation or "correction factor" between different grades of powder. The first edition Lyman Blackpowder Handbook shows the following loads.
.535" ball 140 gr. 2f 1779fps 8500LUP
.535" ball 100 gr. 3f 1740fps 11700LUP
Here you see that a 29% reduction in 3f versus 2f produced a similar velocity but with an increase in pressure of 38%. But here is another example.
.45 caliber, 300 gr. conical 70 gr. 2f 1300fps 15,140 CUP
.45 caliber, 300 gr. conical 65 gr. 3f 1414fps 15,755 CUP
Here you see that a reduction of only 7% in charge weight produced a 9% increase in velocity and an increase in pressure of only 4%. AND,
.445" ball 100 gr. 2f 2008fps 15,100 CUP
.445" ball 75 gr. 3f 2025fps 14,690 CUP
Here a 25% reduction produced nearly the same velocity with a pressure REDUCTION of 3%.
Plainly a shift from 2f to 3f would require a reduction in charge weight to maintain a similar pressure and velocity but exactly how much is anybody's guess. In some cases 2f produced a given velocity with lower pressure but in some cases 3f produced an equal or higher velocity with less pressure. Clearly there is no "rule-of-thumb" to be drawn from this data and if the "experts" at Thompson/Center promote such a rule it only confirms my suspicion that no one at T/C knows beans about muzzle loaders or black powder.
:wink:
- Joined
- May 28, 2006
- Messages
- 1,692
- Reaction score
- 15
Roundball...yes! by golly...that is correct!
...but shucks...you all ready Knew it was 2F
But you just wanted documentation!!!!!
well....Lyman says so ( according to you)
so now that we got this all figgered out I guess I wont have to call Einstein .... :hmm:
...but shucks...you all ready Knew it was 2F
But you just wanted documentation!!!!!
well....Lyman says so ( according to you)
so now that we got this all figgered out I guess I wont have to call Einstein .... :hmm:
- Joined
- May 28, 2006
- Messages
- 1,692
- Reaction score
- 15
COYOTE...that sure is alot to remember...
how do ya keep all that information straight when yer out shootin? do you take a calculator? :rotf:
I did flunk chemistry Twice at college...but I still know that we are talkin bout 2 f powder...
I am just a hillbilly in WV...
how do ya keep all that information straight when yer out shootin? do you take a calculator? :rotf:
I did flunk chemistry Twice at college...but I still know that we are talkin bout 2 f powder...
I am just a hillbilly in WV...
- Joined
- May 28, 2006
- Messages
- 1,692
- Reaction score
- 15
geeze feller...it wernt meant to be negative...
I merely wanted to make light of how much dialogue we all went thru just tryin to clarify one statement...thats all... :surrender: no sarcasam meant either... :surrender:
I merely wanted to make light of how much dialogue we all went thru just tryin to clarify one statement...thats all... :surrender: no sarcasam meant either... :surrender:
scalper said:
There is nothing to remember in the field Scalper, before I take a gun to the field I will have worked out a load for that gun and I won't be changing from 2f to 3f or vise versa.
My point is that there is no arbitrary correction figure one can apply to equate one powder to any other powder. Anyone who suggests there is some "industry standard rule-of-thumb" that can be applied here is creating a new "old-wives-tale" which clearly can not be supported by existing data.
My argument is with the use of the term "industry standard", which infers some degree of credibility which does not exist.
If Mr. Roundball would like to call this "Roundball's rule of thumb" and if you choose to believe it as such then I would have no objection.
CoyoteJoe said:
Joe, I appreciate your opinion and you're certainly entitled to it.
But rather than allow a fellow muzzleloading enthusiast to perpetuate mistruths, I'll explain for you.
You're a grown man and I'm sure you're aware of the meaning of the phrase "industry rule of thumb" so we won't waste time disputing what that phrase means in the context that it was used.
And similarly, it certainly isn't roundball's rule of thumb for whatever purpose you made such a statement, and I'm also certain that you know that...so let's summarize:
The set of muzzleloading / blackpowder products and applications constitutes an[url] industry...in[/url] the same way that the "auto industry" is constituted by all those things oriented towards automobile products and applications. These aren't opinions, they are facts.
The main thrust of this thread was my question looking for a reference that established which burn rate powder was used for the dram reference...ie: 2F? 3F? Clearly an "industry" oriented question.
Only as a secondary element to the discussion was my own personal interest in using 3F instead of 2F and once I had a bona fide source indicating 2F was the powder for a Dram reference, I then used what I have referred to as an "an industry rule of thumb"...a 10-15% charge reduction from 2F load data when substituting 3F. To your possible chagrin, I'll clarify for you that "roundball" didn't invent this so called "rule of thumb" and as I said, I'm sure you know that...I've seen it talked about in several hundred posts over the last several years by coutless people on various ML forums.
But always the skeptic when it comes to serious matters like powder I went one step further and called a major US muzzleloader manufacturer to put the "industry rule of thumb" question directly to them, Thompson/Center Arms...to which they agreed without hesitation. No one will disagree that they qualify as a credible US source "in the industry" and I view their confirmation far more strongly than a stranger's opinion on an Internet forum...just like I used Lyman's Black Powder Handbook...another credible industry source...to resolve the 2F/Dram question...and of course, both of these credible muzzleloading resources are available to everyone for their own research and verification.
This should clear up your misunderstanding about this being "roundball's rule of thumb"...I know it will for everyone else.
:wink:
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
