Has any old powder ca 1750-1880 been studied?

[rdlowe]

I got to wondering if there have been any 20th or 21st century academic studies/ analysis of surviving powder from the days of yore. I’m curious how it might compare chemically to what we have available today, especially stuff that was produced here in the early US cottage industries and our early arsenals. Does anyone have any resources for anything like this?

Dave

 

[Phil Coffins]

Good question, I posted your question on another forum to widen the search,

 

[rdlowe]

Good question, I posted your question on another forum to widen the search,

Thank you Phil.

 

[tenngun]

Looking at ballistic data done in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century the performance recorded with ballistic pendulums and penetration test seem to be inline with the averages of today’s Chronograph.

 

[rdlowe]

Looking at ballistic data done in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century the performance recorded with ballistic pendulums and penetration test seem to be inline with the averages of today’s Chronograph.

Can you tell me where you found that info? Would like to read it as well.

 

[tenngun]

A little in Lyman’s black powder ballistics, and in Russels books gun of the American frontier and fire arms traps and tools of the mountain men. Some out of firepower weapons effectiveness in the battle field 1630 -1850 by Hughes.

 

[Tasbay]

My understanding is that powder was just corned and not granulated as in FFg until cartridge guns came along, can anyone clarify this?

 

[rdlowe]

My understanding is that powder was just corned and not granulated as in FFg until cartridge guns came along, can anyone clarify this?

And was this the case universally, or was it done differently in different places? (Guessing it probably varied)

 

[Okie Hog]

IABTI tested black powder from Civil War cannon in an attempt do determine if black powder deteriorates with age. They also compared the Civil War era powder with Goex in muzzleloader tests.

http://www.jpyro2.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Kos-806-806.pdf

 

[Coot]

Granulation is mentioned as far back as the 1500s. Sir William Congreve patented an "improved" granulating machine in 1819. If it was an "improvement", obviously it replaced earlier methods.
"The Big Bang" (a history of explosives by G. I. Brown - not the TV show) has lots of information re manufacture & use of BP.

 

[Zonie]

Corning powder is the same thing as granulating it. The slightly damp press cakes of powder are put into a mill which grinds up the cake into fine particles which are then screened to separate them into the various sizes. The sorted powder is then dried.

Perhaps you are asking about polishing and glazing the granulated powder?

This step of the operation involves putting the dried powder granules into what is basically a tumbler and adding graphite to the mixture. The polishing process can take several hours to complete. The polishing part of this breaks off the small sharp edges of the powder grains while the added graphite causes the powder to resist clumping up and helps it pour smoothly and easily.

I'm not sure that the black powder made in the 1700's were polished and glazed or not.

 

[tenngun]

I think it’s older, but was quantified by ‘musket powder’’rifle powder’,’pistol powder’.

 

[rdlowe]

IABTI tested black powder from Civil War cannon in an attempt do determine if black powder deteriorates with age. They also compared the Civil War era powder with Goex in muzzleloader tests.

http://www.jpyro2.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Kos-806-806.pdf

Thanks Okie, this is pretty close to the kinds of questions I’m interested in answering.

 

[1950DAVE]

I don't know about modern studies but you might find , A Treatise on Gunpowder, Firearms, etc. by Allessandro Vittorio Papicino D'Antonio , 1789 interesting. It can be found at survivorlibrary.com under firearms books.
Dave

 

[Eddie2002]

Some of the earlier black powder recipes had more sulfur or carbon than what we have commercially available now. I think I read somewhere the British BP manufactured in the 1700's had more carbon while the French BP manufactured during that same time period had more sulfur. The burn rate was comparable to the commercial BP we can currently buy but a lot dirtier. Can't go into specifics with the recipes due to form rules.

 

[Rudyard]

Mat I suggest reading the third & forth Volumes of David Harding's major work on' The small arms of the United East India company ' He did comparison tests .finding original powder gave better performances . in some cases.
Rudyard

 

[rdlowe]

Thanks for the reading recommendations, guys. It gives me something to go looking for.

 

[Phil Coffins]

From the other site.
I looked that one over and read it. Directed at pyrotechnic uses. Limited relationship to firearms use and no real work on what constitutes chemical and physical stability in black powders.

Something a lead in story here. One evening at Dixon Muzzleloading. Chuck was working on a flintlock from the 1800s. The guy who brought it into the shop stated that the gun was not loaded. Chuck took his word on that. BAD MOVE. Chuck tripped the lock. Spark into vent. Gun discharged putting a ball up through the ceiling. That charge had been in that gun for close to 100 years with the vent open to the air. And that powder was as strong as when it was first loaded.

Prior to the late 1800s almost every powder maker had to purify the "raw" saltpeter than came out of India. Generally about 95% pure when purchased. Purification required at least one re-crystalization and most of the time two re-crystalizations. A single re-crystalization would yield a 99.5% purity saltpeter which Du Pont thought was good enough for any of their powders. Others went with two re-crystalizations to give a 99.9% pure product. As long as the powder plants were purifying their own saltpeter they used only distilled water in the powder at different steps in the manufacturing process. NEVER any plain potable water supply. But once these companies purchased finished purified saltpeter they simply used plain potable water in their powders. And that simple change in water changed the picture on the chemical stability of the resulting powders. Very high purity saltpeter and distilled water was the main key to a chemically stable black powder. With very high chemical stability the resulting powder grains were very stable in physical properties. Unstable powder could undergo physical changes in aging.

The writers comment on a slight difference in grain color between the Civil War powder and GOEX. That relates almost directly to the fixed carbon content of the charcoal. For a rifle burn rate powder the ideal target fixed carbon content of the charcoal is 75%. Slower burning musket, cannon and blasting powders would use a higher fixed carbon content charcoal. A true sporting powder would use a lower fixed carbon content charcoal. Usually down around 65% fixed carbon. These lower carbon chars were often a red color. I had seen samples of black powder from the 1800s in Austria where the powder grains were brick red in color.

I had found that when I stored my black powder out under the deck in an ATF approved magazine that the freeze and thaw cycles over Winter would result in a slight drop in grain density. In some cases the muzzle velocity would go up as a result. Grain density plays a role in the burn rate of the individual grains. Lower density gives faster burning while increasing density slows burn rates.

Moisture content. Generally black powder is made to a finished moisture content of 1% maximum. What you find in the powder will depend almost entirely on the purity of the saltpeter used to make the powder. Even small amounts of other chemicals might make the powder hygroscopic. And excess moisture may start the deterioration process. Finely ground sulfur particles will form a molecule thick coating of sulfur oxide. When combined with any moisture(water) in the powder you get traces of sulfurous acid that then attack the saltpeter. I have seen samples of one commercial powder that went almost totally inert in a few short years of storage. Could be ignited only with a propane torch. A checked out in the lab as having a very high level of sulfuric acid in the powder grains.

The article closes with a comment that pyrotechnic compositions rarely become more sensitive (unstable) as a result of deterioration. This is basically correct. This does not hold true with nitrocellulose gun powders that underwent any chemical change. They may become more sensitive in that ignition temperatures drop and burn rates may increase dramatically.

Bill K.

 

[rdlowe]

Tons of great information

This is great stuff and does in fact answer the question I asked quite neatly, so thanks and please send my thanks to the fellow on the other site as well. There’s every indication in this post that such vintage surviving powder samples have indeed fallen into the right hands and undergone a pretty extensive examination.

I had two thoughts when I asked the question. One thought was if this hadn’t already been done under controlled conditions, then why not try to do it? Seems that wheel’s been invented.

The second thought was regarding a fragment of info I have in my memory regarding musket charges in a source or 2 being listed at 200+ grains of powder. It made me wonder if it was a mistake, crazy or if this powder in question had different properties than my can of Swiss or Goex.

 

[tenngun]

Britis did get thirty to fifty cartridges to pound. So 200 grains was in their listing
I often wondered if they were thinking spillage when priming or loading, or if a bigger cartridges was just eaiser for hands under pressure to handle, or if it reflected different powder strength.
Gentleman often carried a powder tester to compare batches in different area or times.
And buying the ‘best powder’ is referenced a lot in the old days in journals letters and ledgers.