Back in the 70's I petty much switched over to double F. At that time, I was shooting .50's and larger, but even in the .45, it gave better accuracy and less fouling than the 3F then available.
: Around '86, when I had (Brother)Taylor make me up the .69 English rifle(a joint effort), I used 3F for 3-dram target loads, but 2F for the large hunting charges as it seemed more accurate due to the lower pressures generated. When loaded to the same pressure/velocity with 3F, the accuracy wasn't there using 3F. The 3F fouled more and burned the patches I was comfortable with loading at that time, especially with the WW balls I generally used.(they would't Obturate to fill the rifling & therefore gass cut) With 82gr.(3dram) loads, the velocity of 1,225fps was sufficient to give accuracy to over 100yds, yet when loading 2F to get the same velocity, it took 115gr. and kicked a lot more therefore the 3F loading.
: With hunting charges of 165gr. 2F, accuracy was all that could be hoped for. The third leaf of my rear sight was regulated for 300yds and held that setting, with that load till today.
; That said, I think a guy has to try both to see what shoots best with his/her style and combinaton of loading. I have used 2F in as small as .36 with perfect results, albeit lower velocities per charge.
: It wasn't until late 1990's that I switched to 3F for most of my shooting,(.45 cal flint) however the 14 bored rifle still got 2F for it's massive charges. It took 200gr. of 1F to match velocity with 165gr. 2F which matched 125gr. 3F. In firing, the 3F obviously developed too-rapid pressure which caused problems with my ball-patch combo. It FELT and SOUNDED too high in pressure and had "Sharp" recoil.
: 2F thumped a good deal, but lacked the sharpness of 3F recoil. 1F in 200gr. loads merely thumped a GREAT deal, but didn't seem to foul much more.
: I've seen it written that you must use 3F due to 2F fouling to much, but that hasn't been my experience.
Daryl