And why would you disagree? That's all a measure is, a volume that'll throw a known grains weight charge. It's the same for the Lee Powder Dippers. You look up the WEIGHT of the powder in the slide chart and use it to pick the CC volume measure that'll throw that weight.
-
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
FFF OR FF?
- Thread starter Norseman
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
I do have faith in the Lee Powder Dippers. I have several (never got the whole set), and use the adjustable shot one frequently when playing with shot loads.
In practice I use an RCBS 5-10 scale to measure a load, pour it into a horn or bone measure, mark and and trim back the measure, checking it frequently against the known charge.
In practice I use an RCBS 5-10 scale to measure a load, pour it into a horn or bone measure, mark and and trim back the measure, checking it frequently against the known charge.
Ok, I see what you're getting at. Moisture content, grain size, ect. can effect the actuall weight of the powder charge in a given volume. But, in a perfect world a powder measure set to 60grains should throw a 60grain charge of powder when weighed on a scale. Here's a couple links.[url]
http://members.aol.com/illinewek/faqs/dipper.htm
http://www.gunnersden.com/blackpowder/index.htm.blackpowder-measuring-accuracy.html[/url]
A volume measure of powder should still be pretty close when weighed to the listed grains on the measure scale. If it's off by a lot then you need to get a new measure or calibrate the measure so it'll be closer.
A volume measure of powder should still be pretty close when weighed to the listed grains on the measure scale. If it's off by a lot then you need to get a new measure or calibrate the measure so it'll be closer.
Last edited by a moderator:
"I disagree."
What else is new?
What else is new?
mikee51848
54 Cal.
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2005
- Messages
- 1,599
- Reaction score
- 2
Swampman said:
Not a good comparrison as both have equal, or similar density. It's more like comparing a cup of peas with a cup of rice. Isn't that why they have different "f" designations?
Guest
Swampman said:
I love your certainty. Actually, however, fg is used in cannons. I have also read that chargers are calibrated for ffg. I have also seen reports of tests made with several different brands of powder measures and they varied considerably in the amount of powder thrown for equal "measures" marked on the tubes. Whether a particular tube throws 65 or 70 grs from the 70 mark is not of any real consequence if it is what your tests prove is most accurate in your rifle--after I reach a preferred load, I make an antler measure of the preferred volume for each rifle I have. I am quite sure ol' Dan'l didn't sit around the campfire at night weighing out fffg powder with little brass scales. In fact rifle powder of that day was close to our ffg. Ffg goes off quite easily, does not foul appreciably more than fffg and has lower pressures than fffg. In some rifles/guns ffg is a better choice than fffg, but feel free to continue your own path--please don't experiment with ffg--stay away from the nasty stuff that 1000s of shooters have used for hundreds of years. :grin:
:grin:
Maestro
Moderator
(Not a reply to roundball directly, just my 2 cents...)
After all I've read on this forum extolling 3f, I've tried it, desperately wanting it to outperform 2f in my guns (.50 cal. rifle & .62 smoothbore) and it just doesn't do it for me. I don't even find it cleaner burning when using 10-15% less. I do like 3f better than 4f to prime but when hunting, I've even used 2f in the pan.
Jus' different strokes (and finicky barrels), I guess.
After all I've read on this forum extolling 3f, I've tried it, desperately wanting it to outperform 2f in my guns (.50 cal. rifle & .62 smoothbore) and it just doesn't do it for me. I don't even find it cleaner burning when using 10-15% less. I do like 3f better than 4f to prime but when hunting, I've even used 2f in the pan.
Jus' different strokes (and finicky barrels), I guess.
I think you have been mislead. A cup of peas and a cup of rice are both a cup of something. 60 grains of 2f and 3f are the same amount of powder. 3f creates more pressure because the smaller granules burn faster, not because there is more powder.
"Ffg goes off quite easily, does not foul appreciably more than fffg and has lower pressures than fffg."
1. actually it doesn't go off very well in flintlocks, and it's not good for priming.
2. it fouls a lot more than 3f.
3. just reduce the load if lower pressures are desired.
3f is superior in everyway to 2f. 2f is ok for use in cannons, and for blank charges.
"Ffg goes off quite easily, does not foul appreciably more than fffg and has lower pressures than fffg."
1. actually it doesn't go off very well in flintlocks, and it's not good for priming.
2. it fouls a lot more than 3f.
3. just reduce the load if lower pressures are desired.
3f is superior in everyway to 2f. 2f is ok for use in cannons, and for blank charges.
Norseman
My 50 flinters (3 of them) preferred FFg over 3F, so I use FFg. The difference was small. All three liked between 80-90 grs. I hunt elk with mine and these loads do very well on elk( out to 100 yds my limit) and of course deer. I have found little if any difference in cleaning or dirtyness of 2F VS 3F. Either granulation gave more than adequate minute of elk(around 2" at 100 yds off a bench). I use goex and schutzen powder. Lots of shooters use 3F. I suggest you let your rifle decide which is best.
Othern
My 50 flinters (3 of them) preferred FFg over 3F, so I use FFg. The difference was small. All three liked between 80-90 grs. I hunt elk with mine and these loads do very well on elk( out to 100 yds my limit) and of course deer. I have found little if any difference in cleaning or dirtyness of 2F VS 3F. Either granulation gave more than adequate minute of elk(around 2" at 100 yds off a bench). I use goex and schutzen powder. Lots of shooters use 3F. I suggest you let your rifle decide which is best.
Othern
Swampman
I use patched round balls. I generally shoot them in the lungs and the ball goes clear through and out the other side, the elk goes 50 to 100 yds and falls over. Around the same distance they go with my 270 or 308. When you hunt elk you should use whatever cal YOU are comfortable with. If you don't think a 50 is adequate then I suggest you don't use it.
P.S.
I get the same results with my 54, 58 and 62 using round balls.
Othern
I use patched round balls. I generally shoot them in the lungs and the ball goes clear through and out the other side, the elk goes 50 to 100 yds and falls over. Around the same distance they go with my 270 or 308. When you hunt elk you should use whatever cal YOU are comfortable with. If you don't think a 50 is adequate then I suggest you don't use it.
P.S.
I get the same results with my 54, 58 and 62 using round balls.
Othern
Guest
Swampman said:
Ahh, but not so...there is a little parameter called "packing". In any set of objects, size, shape, orientation and packing control the texture of the aggregate. Larger irregular bits may "pack" into a tube differently from small irregular bits--the void space can differ and part of the tube 'fill' is void space. If the voids were compressed out, then maybe ffg and fffg would be the same amount in a given measure.
Archer 756
40 Cal.
:rotf: I was tough that a pound of feathers and a pound of dirt is A POUND.
Mike Roberts said:
Mike, you're right of course...more kernels of 3F fill a powder measure than kernels of[url] 2F...in[/url] fact, a 100grn volume measure of 3F will actually "weigh" more than the same volume of 2F due to less air space, and the overall aggregate amount of powder is one step closer to filling the measure as a solid if you will, than the larger kernels of 2F.
An excellent analogy is 'shot' in a modern shotgun shell...IE: a .12ga shell may only hold about a dozen '00' buckshot pellets with huge amounts of open space between them, but the same shell will hold hundreds and hundreds of #9 shot pellets, all packing so close together that they almost constitute a solid projectile.
As to 3F vs. 2F...too many people view the distinction in absolute terms, usually by caliber, when pressure and accuracy are really the ultimate issues.
I use 3F for round ball loads in .45/.50/54, but when I occasionally use a heavier conical even in my .45's, I switch to 2F to hold down the pressure and recoil...and the 2F ignites fine in my rifles;
Then I use 2F in the .58 & .62 regardless of what I'm shooting, and they all ignite perfectly...if they didn't, I wouldn't use it.
It's interesting to see such positions taken with such absolute certainty by some people...when we know different powder granulations can affect accuracy in a given rifle...yet these same people make claims of absolute certainty that 1:48" twists are inaccurate...those absolute certainties might change if anything other than 3F had been used.
It's really unfortunate when two things occur simultaneously:
1) A lack of comprehension of the basics surrounding any sport/hobby such as muzzleloading;
2) And that lack of knowledge being propagated as absolute certainty.
Thanks for catching this so newcomers don't get misled.
:thumbsup:
Last edited by a moderator:
Blivetmaker
40 Cal.
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2005
- Messages
- 154
- Reaction score
- 1
A little knowledge of physics pays off doesn't it?
I've seen a number over-simplifications to the effect that caliber determines the appropriate
granulation.
BP isn't a progressive explosive and can for the most part only be regulated regarding it's combustion speed by increasing it's surface area to ignition source (lots of smaller granules is faster).
A conical bullet with several times the mass of
a RB has a much greater inertia that must be over come to put it in motion. A slower burning powder (2F)can indeed hinder a pressure spike behind a heavy projectile while constantly providing acceleration down the barrel. A faster burning powder can get the most speed behind a lighter (low mass) projectile before it leaves the barrel.
Caliber .45 is generally considered a "3F cuz it burns cleaner" gun. There are, however, great big honking conicals in .45 that go 400 grains! :shocked2:
It's also been my personal experience (YMMV) that bullet weight has an effect on how "clean" a powder burns. My T/C Renegade .50 loves 2f behind a Maxiball but cruds up much faster with a RB.
Here's a fun experiment to try at home!
1. Take your favorite cereal bowl and fill it even to the rim with cornflakes.
2. Declare this bowl, for the purpose of the experiment a powder measure with a 150 grain 2F
"Mr. Moose is gonna love this" charge.
3. Take your fist and scrunch those cornflakes a
bit.
4. Ask yourself if if the portion of cornflakes has changed except for the volume?
5. Ask yourself if Mr. Moose (or your shoulder) really needs the 190+ grains of cornflakes he's going to get if you now fill the bowl up with scrunched cereal :shocked2: :rotf:
I've seen a number over-simplifications to the effect that caliber determines the appropriate
granulation.
BP isn't a progressive explosive and can for the most part only be regulated regarding it's combustion speed by increasing it's surface area to ignition source (lots of smaller granules is faster).
A conical bullet with several times the mass of
a RB has a much greater inertia that must be over come to put it in motion. A slower burning powder (2F)can indeed hinder a pressure spike behind a heavy projectile while constantly providing acceleration down the barrel. A faster burning powder can get the most speed behind a lighter (low mass) projectile before it leaves the barrel.
Caliber .45 is generally considered a "3F cuz it burns cleaner" gun. There are, however, great big honking conicals in .45 that go 400 grains! :shocked2:
It's also been my personal experience (YMMV) that bullet weight has an effect on how "clean" a powder burns. My T/C Renegade .50 loves 2f behind a Maxiball but cruds up much faster with a RB.
Here's a fun experiment to try at home!
1. Take your favorite cereal bowl and fill it even to the rim with cornflakes.
2. Declare this bowl, for the purpose of the experiment a powder measure with a 150 grain 2F
"Mr. Moose is gonna love this" charge.
3. Take your fist and scrunch those cornflakes a
bit.
4. Ask yourself if if the portion of cornflakes has changed except for the volume?
5. Ask yourself if Mr. Moose (or your shoulder) really needs the 190+ grains of cornflakes he's going to get if you now fill the bowl up with scrunched cereal :shocked2: :rotf:
Your reasoning doesn't hold water. There's no point in perpetuating the corny myths that abound in this hobby. Campfire quaterbacks are the ones that feed this poop to newbies and they pass it along to others as fact. 60 grains of anything is still 60 grains.
Swampman said:
And "grains" are a unit of WEIGHT no matter how you get them, scale, volume measure or dumpin' it into the palm of your hand.
It's just easier to carry a measure that'll meter a known weight of powder then it is to carry a scale with you in the woods to measure out powder. :blah:
