early powder

[George]

I've seen many opinions expressed about the quality of gun powder in the 18th century, mostly negative. I've generally not agreed with them, so I keep my eyes open for references about powder in my reading. It's usual to see powder offered for sale at retail, in large quantities, and usually described in general terms, such as best powder, fine pistol powder, cannon powder, rifle powder, etc, but a few have caught my attention lately. One thing frequently heard today is that glazed powder is a modern idea and wasn't done then. But, as early as 1736 there is an offer for "best glazed gun Powder, Deer Shott", and in 1739 "Gun Powder glazed and unglazed in twelve Pound Caggs.." As to granulation, "bullets, shot, F FF FFF gunpowder" was offered in 1736.

I think their powder technology was better than many believe.

Spence

 

[necchi]

Very interesting indeed :thumbsup:
Source?

 

[George]

The Pennsylvania Gazette (1728-1800) and the South Carolina Gazette (1732-1775) for those . I subscribe to Accessible Archives which makes available several databases of 18th century newspapers.

Spence

 

[Dphar]

I've seen many opinions expressed about the quality of gun powder in the 18th century, mostly negative. I've generally not agreed with them, so I keep my eyes open for references about powder in my reading. It's usual to see powder offered for sale at retail, in large quantities, and usually described in general terms, such as best powder, fine pistol powder, cannon powder, rifle powder, etc, but a few have caught my attention lately. One thing frequently heard today is that glazed powder is a modern idea and wasn't done then. But, as early as 1736 there is an offer for "best glazed gun Powder, Deer Shott", and in 1739 "Gun Powder glazed and unglazed in twelve Pound Caggs.." As to granulation, "bullets, shot, F FF FFF gunpowder" was offered in 1736.

I think their powder technology was better than many believe.

Spence

Thanks for posting this.
My experience with a nock breech I made for a rifle indicates that the powder available in England circa 1780 had to be pretty good, better than some stuff sold today. This breech does not work well with powder that fouls heavily.
True glazed powder requires a press to create a "cake" and a way to break the cake and sift the powder to certain sizes then polish it for a glaze. Unpressed powders will not tolerate the polishing process very well. This was not the common way to make powder in the mid 18th century at least from the surviving literature.
But I am not the expert in this. But will pass it on. Also without knowing the screen sizes the actual size of a historic powders is still unknown.

Dan

 

[54ball]

I too believe that the powder available then was as good or more likely better than any available today.
It seems I read that the Royal French had the reputation as the best powder makers in Europe. One of these esteemed makers migrated to America. He set up shop after the Revolution and started producing powder for the United States. This Frenchman's name was Du Pont.
One thing to consider, The Eighteenth Century was most likely the cultural peak of civilization, and specifically the peak of true Craftsmanship. Look at any item produced then from furniture to buildings from buildings to boats, anything produced then, even the most mundane, by a true craftsman approaches what we would consider high art today. Why would gun powder be any different.

 

[Pete Gaimari]

In all these years we haven't learned to make better powder?

 

[LaBonte]

Powder was not always as good as one might think.....

The powder brought up in the Summer of 1827, was of an inferior quality.
It was so bad, that it became a saying, that the men would snap the gun and lay it down on the ground, before it went off. The Indians knew this.

A NARRATIVE OF COLONEL ROBERT CAMPBELL'S EXPERIENCES IN THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN FUR TRADE FROM 1825 TO 1835 - the whole narratice is available on line here... http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/amm.html

For more on powder quality check with Bill Knight aka the Mad Monk....

 

[Josh Smith]

Without listing all the ingredients, I'll mention that the saltpeter content used to be 6x% instead of today's 7x%.

When this changed, I am not sure, but while opinions differ, it would seem that the older stuff may have been lacking a bit in oxidizer.

Josh

 

[JMinnerath]

Without listing all the ingredients, I'll mention that the saltpeter content used to be 6x% instead of today's 7x%.

When this changed, I am not sure, but while opinions differ, it would seem that the older stuff may have been lacking a bit in oxidizer.

Josh

How do you know, can you provide any proof.
The making of gunpowder was a closely guarded secret.
Any reports on just what the recipes were is pure guess.

 

[Dphar]

I too believe that the powder available then was as good or more likely better than any available today.
It seems I read that the Royal French had the reputation as the best powder makers in Europe. One of these esteemed makers migrated to America. He set up shop after the Revolution and started producing powder for the United States. This Frenchman's name was Du Pont.
One thing to consider, The Eighteenth Century was most likely the cultural peak of civilization, and specifically the peak of true Craftsmanship. Look at any item produced then from furniture to buildings from buildings to boats, anything produced then, even the most mundane, by a true craftsman approaches what we would consider high art today. Why would gun powder be any different.

It was not better than all the powder today just some of it and I was not speaking of the 1730s powder but powders from 50-70 years later and this was based on the breech not tolerating powders that produce hard fouling. It is entirely possible that the modern powder would outperform the old in every criteria of performance but some component(s) produce the hard fouling in flakes that will stop up the powder passage in the Nock. While the older powder, while inferior in someways had better fouling charateristics, perhaps due to better charcoal or better charcoal processing etc.
Much of this is supposition at this date.

I got some feed back from "back east".
The glazed powder from the early 18th century was not the same powder made in the late 18th century and certainly not the same powder as late 19th century.
It was not uniformly compressed (the technology used is documented and the friend made some for testing) and thus it does not have a consistent burn rate due to have a soft core under the "glaze". The fast burn rate of these porous powders may have been part of the reason that firearms had a relatively short service life as the bores enlarged with use due to the rate of pressure rise associated with the porous powders and the high temp actually carburizing a molecule thick layer of iron every shot which was then scoured off with the subequent firing and then replaced. Even if "glazed" this powder would have produced pressure spikes after the glaze was consumed and the soft core of the grain exposed.

Dupont could make better powder than most Americans were using at the time of his migration. But they specialized in miltary powder after being here for awhile and their powder was far from the best available by the American Civil War and was not used by serious shooters. There were several makers in the US and in Europe that made high performance BP after the Civil War and perhaps before. The military powder is what would be termed "musket grind"/burn rate based on the milling time and generally less care in making it.
They made it to the minimum standard after all.
There was a great jump in powder quality from 1770s to 1812 when the charges for field pieces were reduced about 1/3. I believe these advances during the late 18th century are what allows the use of the Nock antechambered breech.
Better understanding of the components, adoption of the wheel mill, sophisticated pressing of the "cake" and better finishing of the granulated powder.
The glazing of the early 18th century allowed the powder to be shipped with less damage by making it more durable. But burn rate control was not as good as with the later powders pressed to a higher and more consistent density.

The burn rate of BP is controlled in several ways. The length of time it is milled and how well. Long milling times reduce the particle size of the ingredients and allow faster burns. Increasing the saltpeter by a few percentage points, 1-2. Pressing the powder to a higher density will slow a high chemical rate finely milled powder. Finally granulation size and the way the powder is polished after its granulated. A well polished powder with a thin film of saltpeter on its surface (a small amount migrates to the surface during the final drying) will not propagate the flame a fast as less polished powder. But if the powder is milled for best performance, has a fast chemical burn rate and is pressed to the proper density it will outperform a less dense powder that has a faster initial burn rate but has had less time and care lavished on it by the powder mill.
Craftmanship in powder making and gun making in general peaked in the late 19th century. Fit and finish of the best grade double rifle by Holland and Holland or other high end English maker will explain this well.
There are still individuals and firms doing equal work but 1880-1920 was likely the peak.
Only Swiss BP is similar to the late 19th century Sporting powders like Hazard's or Laflin & Rand's or C&H's best.

Dan

 

[Dphar]

Without listing all the ingredients, I'll mention that the saltpeter content used to be 6x% instead of today's 7x%.

When this changed, I am not sure, but while opinions differ, it would seem that the older stuff may have been lacking a bit in oxidizer.

Josh

How do you know, can you provide any proof.
The making of gunpowder was a closely guarded secret.
Any reports on just what the recipes were is pure guess.

The percentages were pretty well known and documentation was pretty thorough. The percentage of saltpeter increased significantly over time to 76% or slightly more for the high end powders.
Run of the mill or military powder would run 74-75%. Blasting powder less. I don't have all the numbers. But fouling is not a consideration in blasting. So blasting powders were sometimes made with sodium nitrate and the burn rate/fouling characteristics/moisture levels were not really suitable for firearms use.
While the purity of the saltpeter and sulfur is critical the secret to really good powder is in the charcoal and how its prepared and what wood its made from. How the powder was milled and pressed. THIS was what was carefully guarded if anything was these were the variables.


Dan

 

[George]

I didn't mean to say that all powder in the 18th century was top quality, because that certainly wasn't true. The British had a severe problem with the powder supplied to their military during both the F&I and Rev. wars, and they spent a lot of time and effort over many years immediately after the Rev war rectifying the problem. The problem was complicated, but consisted both of poor understanding of the best manufacturing processes and the dishonesty and inefficiency of the manufacturers. Read about Sir William Congreve, he headed up the effort to improve the situation.

A half-dozen other countries made much better powder than the British at the time. Some of the shortcomings of the British powder were peculiar to the military and didn't impact the civilian market, such as deterioration after very long-term storage in the hold of ships of war.

What I meant to say was that they had an understanding of the effects of glazing, granule size, etc., at the time. They knew what to do, just didn't always do it. And they had a lot of crooks then, as now.

I have a lot of material I've collected about the problem of the British military with their powder, but I don't know how that effected the civilian markets.

Spence

 

[hanshi]

Labor was cheap back then and I guess they could afford to put more work into the best powders. Also since black was THE powder the best of the lot was probably extremely well made. Technology is not the secret to really fine black powder; skill and good workers are.

 

[rabjr]

I read somewhere that the very best powder being made in this country at the time was in a plant in one of the Southern States. Which was dismantled or destroyed, I'm not sure now, I think before it was captured by the Union forces during the Civil war. I can't remember where but I suspect I read it in one of my 1960's gun digest, gun bible books. :idunno:

 

[Tumblernotch]

The Augusta Powder Works in Georgia which was built by the Confederate government. It was under command of Col. George Washington Rains. At its peak, it was said that the very best powder in the world was being made there, far better than DuPont's and Hazard's and equal and some said better than any of the English brands.

 

[rabjr]

Robert, that sure sounds exactly what I read. :thumbsup: Wish I knew where I read it from. Do you know if the plant was purposely dismantled or blown up on purpose? Just courious as I've forgotten.

 

[Dphar]

The Augusta Powder Works in Georgia which was built by the Confederate government. It was under command of Col. George Washington Rains. At its peak, it was said that the very best powder in the world was being made there, far better than DuPont's and Hazard's and equal and some said better than any of the English brands.

While this could be the case its not likely during war time.
Given the production they would have been forced into by the war I really doubt that were milling powder twice+ as long as the military required.
It takes a LOT more time to make a true sporting grade powder.
Military/musket grind powder may be a very good powder. But without the milling time a sporting can't be made.

Dan

 

[Coot]

For information on the Augusta Powder Works / Sibley Mill, go to: www.nps.gov/nr/travel/augusta/sibleymill.html
The Confederate mill was sold as surplus property in 1868-71 and most of the 26 buildings were demolished in order to widen the canal. The Sibley cotton mill was built on the remaining site in 1880 using many of the original bricks. The original chimney (a very large one) was left as a memorial to Confederate troops.

 

[Tumblernotch]

Robert, that sure sounds exactly what I read. :thumbsup: Wish I knew where I read it from. Do you know if the plant was purposely dismantled or blown up on purpose? Just courious as I've forgotten.

Most of the works were demolished in 1872 to make room for widening the canal that ran close by. Colonel Rains persuaded the government to leave the big chimney alone. In 1880, the Sibley Manufacturing Co., using the bricks from the demolished powder mill, built a large cotton mill on the site. It remained in operation until 2006. Its water driven turbines still provide electricity to Georgia Power.

This site is within the boundaries of the Augusta Canal National Heritage Area and the chimney can be visited free of charge.

 

[Tumblernotch]

The Augusta Powder Works in Georgia which was built by the Confederate government. It was under command of Col. George Washington Rains. At its peak, it was said that the very best powder in the world was being made there, far better than DuPont's and Hazard's and equal and some said better than any of the English brands.

While this could be the case its not likely during war time.
Given the production they would have been forced into by the war I really doubt that were milling powder twice+ as long as the military required.
It takes a LOT more time to make a true sporting grade powder.
Military/musket grind powder may be a very good powder. But without the milling time a sporting can't be made.

Dan

Well, I don't know about sporting powder in this case since it's not mentioned in any of the comparisons I've read. The specified granulation of the powder used by the US during the War was about equal to a size between our modern ffg and fffg powders. I do know that quality doesn't stop with milling time. More importantly, the quality of ingredients, in particular the nitre, is the key. (Moderators please not that this is as far as I go in discussing the making of powder). There are numerous instances of comparisons with US made powder, including some incidents where US soldiers re-supplied themselves with the "finer grade of powder found in the cartridge boxes of Confederate dead". I've seen several references to the Augusta powder as "first quality" and being equal to (and sometimes as better than) the best English powder. (They didn't say "except sporting powder") Mind you, Rains got his plans from the English government powder works at Waltham Abbey and employed for some time a former workman of that place who greatly aided him. So the English get a great deal of credit in the success at Augusta. Here are some excerpts from a few documents talking about the quality of the powder. There are more but it takes too much space. I've included the sources where possible:

From: The History of the Confederate Powder Works by G.W. Rains

"...The foregoing appliances enabled accurate comparisons to be made at all points between different gunpowders, and to determine the various matters required in the manufacture of the first quality for the various arms of service. That this was successfully done was certified to by Boards of Artillery and Infantry Officers; after the war the captured powder of these works was used in the School of Artillery practice at Fort Monroe, on account of its superiority.
Mr. Davis, whilst President of the Confederacy, visited the works, then in active operation, and in his recent valuable book, speaks in more than one place in flattering terms of their products. Articles published in the London Times were highly commendatory of the Works and their results, which were copied in Continental papers. They were visited by many distinguished civil and military gentlemen, both native and foreign.
The great extent of the Powder Works and their immense capabilities, were the admiration of all visitors. This was mainly due to the foresight of the President of the Confederacy, who, comprehending the requirements of a great war, then scarcely commenced, strongly drew my attention to the probable necessity of very large supplies of gunpowder to meet the service of artillery of great calibre, which would probably be employed, as well as the largely increased quantities necessary to meet the rapid firing of the improved small arms, with which infantry and cavalry were now supplied..."

From: The Augusta Arsenal

"The Confederate Powder Works at Augusta would become one of the most amazing success stories in the history of American manufacturing. Armed with only a pamphlet describing the processes and machinery of the Waltham Abbey Powder Works in England, then the best in the world, Col. Rains in less than a year remarkably forged a complete powder production facility. This complex of twenty-six buildings, including refineries, laboratories, rolling mills and test ranges grew, by war's end, to rival if not surpass Europe's best facilities to produce, arguably, the finest grade of powder in the world."

From: Virginia Minerals, (Dept. of Mines, Minerals and Energy, Richmond, VA)

"In addition to quantity, the quality of southern niter was exceedingly high, and western Virginia's cave production ranked with the very best. The head of the Confederate Niter and Mining Bureau, Col. Isaac M. St. John, reported during the war
that niter from caves in southwestern Virginia was of superior quality and could be quickly refined (Powers, 1981). Consequently, the gunpowder made from such high-grade domestic saltpeter was also quite good, equal in quality to any that could be imported from abroad."