FF vs FFF in .50

[Ray-Vigo]

I've heard it said that "FF" is better for rifles above .50 and that FFF better for rifles below .50. What do you suggest for .50 rifles with a long (42 inch) barrels? I was leaning toward FFF, but would like to know the pluses and minuses of each. Priming a pan is irrelevant here as this is percussion, so I'm looking to get just one size.

 

[TA6319]

i'm picking up a .50cal smoothbore rifle soon and I was told advised to use ts2

 

[Lorne Johnson]

Chances are that you rifle will shoot better groups with one or the other, so that's the one to use. FFFg is very popular on this board. It is generally consider to be a little cleaner, and to kick a little harder. Since most people use about 10% less, it is also slightly cheaper.

 

[Coot]

Either 2f or 3f will work. Many, including myself, use 3f. But I suggest that you try both and see if your rifle has a preference.

 

[Tumblernotch]

Either will work, but I've found that ffg works the best in my 42 inch Hoyt barrel. Using the same charge (80 grs.) under a .500 ball, the recoil is softer and my groups tightened considerably. What you'll need to do is try both with the same ball and patch and compare. It may be that yours will like fffg better.

 

[BrownBear]

Yup, let your rifle do the talking.

It's funny, but my 50 flinter actually shoots a little better with 2f, but since I prefer to prime with 3f, that's what I use for the main charge too. I figure a group 1/2" larger at 50 yards isn't hurting my hunts a tiny bit. If I was a match shooter, that would be a different story altogether.

My 50 cal capper greatly prefers 3f over 2f, shooting groups half as large and fouling lots less.

 

[Little Wattsy]

I shoot .54's with the odd .50 throw-back...ill be ordering a case of FFFG soon.
:thumbsup:

 

[Tumblernotch]

The .50 I have is a chunk gun and the key to success in these matches is to have each ball hit in the same hole every time if possible. In regular target shooting you can have the ball wander a little and still get a 10. In over-the-log matches, we measure from the center of the X to the center of the hole and how you place is measured in thousandths of an inch. I tried fffg for a while, but ffg gave more of a "push" on the ball than a "wham". A little less recoil helps as well.

 

[Ranger1759]

I'm not a big fan of having to carry two powder horns when I go to shoots, however, I have tried all the different combos with both my .62 smoothbore and my .50 rifle and the rifle shoots much better with 3f and the smoothbore shoots better with 2f...I would love to be able to use and carry just one type of powder, but....it all comes down to what your gun likes best!

 

[roundball]

I've heard it said that "FF" is better for rifles above .50 and that FFF better for rifles below .50.

Old wives tale...

 

[Blizzard of '93]

the largest bore I have is .50, so far 3F has given tighter groups with prb but they open up over 80grs.
I've been experimenting with REAL slugs and 2F is giveing better groups - why I have no idea.

 

[Stumpkiller]

I use 3Fg in my .54 flinter as it is easier to carry one size for prime and main charge. In my .50 rifle I use 2Fg as that is what she is sighted for and it seems to work well. There is a wide envelope of leniency in powder granulation.

 

[Snow on the Roof]

I grew up with the same .50 cal FF myth. Experience has taught me different with a few exceptions. FFF is easier to ignite so in flintlocks I use nothing but, whether it be a .36 or a .62. Most all of my guns shoot better and cleaner with FFF. As stated earlier FFF will produce equal velocities with 10-15% less powder so it is more economical to shoot.
I did mention some exceptions. FFF will produce higher pressures. In some heavier loadings, significantly higher pressures so safety can be an issue with some guns. In old ML shotguns, especially with twist barrels, I use FF. I also think if one where shooting those really BIG guns such as 8 and 4 bore guns where 250 to 300 grains are used I would use FF or even 1F but that is fantasy world as most of us will never shoot such behemuths! :shocked2: :shocked2:

 

[vern faulkner]

I use FFF in all my rifles and prime with FFFF. Have done it from day one. Never have I had any problems. Vern

 

[Swampman]

I use 3f in everything all the way up to .72+ caliber and have for many years. I use it for priming too. I will use 2f if I can't find anything else.

 

[Dave K]

I personally like 2F in my 50's and larger. I like the felt recoil much better and I don't find it any dirtier than 3F. Now, I am using either Schuetzen or Swiss 2F and I personally find them cleaner and hotter than Goex. Your mileage may vary. :surrender:

 

[DTCoffin]

I'm heading out with my relatively new .54 IHaines from Chambers today to try 3f in it.I've been using 2f but I want to see what 3f will do b4 I mess with the sights to much.

 

[Ray-Vigo]

Ah-- if you get a chance, post back what you find. I think it may be interesting to have yet another comparison for the pile.

I've actually heard the ".50 Cal rule" repeated in a number of places, but it seems the evidence here suggests it's not really much of a "rule" at all.

 

[rabjr]

I worked up loads and use 3F in .54 and .58 cal rifles with excellant accuracy. I use 2F in my .12ga Smoothbore.

 

[BrownBear]

I really wonder about the powders that were around when "The Rule" was laid down in stone. Were they in fact coarser and slower burning than the same ratings today? I know that when you compare modern manufacturers, 3f to one is not the same as 3f to the other.

I base it on another chapter of my mis-spent youth, specifically the 1950's and friend's father who was a serious muzzleloader builder and shooter. He bought kegs of black powder rather than pounds, and his son and I used to appropriate quantities of it for our own entertainment. I asked recently about that powder, and he told me he wasn't interested in big bore, so all he ever bought was 3f and 4f. I don't remember there being two sizes, but I do remember that the stuff was a lot courser than the 2f I use today- on the order of 1f at least.

Anyone really familiar with the powders of yesteryear, familiar enough to comment on grain sizes and maybe burn rates compared to today's powders? If there's a big difference, that would sure put some more weight behind The Rule in its day.