How many grains in a pound?

[PathfinderNC]

Anyone know how many grains of 3f powder, by volume, are in one pound of Black Powder?
(Yes, this will be on the test )

 

[PathfinderNC]

Anyone know how many grains of 3f powder, by volume, are in one pound of Black Powder?
(Yes, this will be on the test )

Never mind- it is 7000 grains (according to American Gun Facts)

 

[rich pierce]

Grains in this case is a measure of weight unrelated to actual grains of powder. Just stating the obvious.

 

[PathfinderNC]

Grains in this case is a measure of weight unrelated to actual grains of powder. Just stating the obvious.

Well then what is the answer?

 

[excess650]

The "answer" will be dependent upon the density of the powder in that particular lot/can. Volumetric measure and actual weight measure will likely never be the same.

 

[smo]

7,000 grains = 1 pound
100 round balls in a box.
70 grains per shot = No more powder or balls….

 

[PathfinderNC]

The "answer" will be dependent upon the density of the powder in that particular lot/can. Volumetric measure and actual weight measure will likely never be the same.
[/QUOTE

I think I got it….

 

[Notchy Bob]

If you measure out 70 grains of powder with a volumetric measure, like all of us use, and then weigh that charge with an accurate grain scale, you will find that the actual weight is less than 70 grains. So, in theory you should get more than one hundred 70 grain loads out of a pound of powder. Also, FFg, of a given volume, will weigh less than an equal volume of FFFg, because the finer grains compact more densely. Fg will weigh even less.

I think the right thing to do is go with the volumetric measure and don't worry about the actual weight, unless you aspire to become an anal-compulsive benchrest shooter who weighs every charge to the tenth of a grain. I've always believed that blackpowder is a very forgiving propellant, and a couple of grains variance from one charge to the next shouldn't make much difference.

Best regards,

Notchy Bob

 

[PathfinderNC]

If you measure out 70 grains of powder with a volumetric measure, like all of us use, and then weigh that charge with an accurate grain scale, you will find that the actual weight is less than 70 grains. So, in theory you should get more than one hundred 70 grain loads out of a pound of powder. Also, FFg, of a given volume, will weigh less than FFFg, because the finer grains compact more densely. Fg will weigh even less.

I think the right thing to do is go with the volumetric measure and don't worry about the actual weight, unless you aspire to become an anal-compulsive benchrest shooter who weighs every charge to the tenth of a grain. I've always believed that blackpowder is a very forgiving propellant, and a couple of grains variance from one charge to the next shouldn't make much difference.

Best regards,

Notchy Bob

Yup, I was wondering today about how many shots I would get per pound of powder. I gusss I am being more conscious of that because of powder supply issues. “Self Rationing”

 

[BigAl52]

When the can goes empty then I know Im outa grains.

 

[TFoley]

Powder is weighed in grains.

Just like there are 16 ounces in a pound, there are 7000 grains in a pound.

Here in UK and in the USA, and in many other countries once tied to Britain, the grain is a definitive amount, once based on the weight of a physical grain of wheat.

Since 1958, the grain or troy grain measure has been internationally defined with the metric system equation: 1.0gr = 64.79891mg - i.e. 1 grain is exactly 64.79891 milligrams. The grain is the only unit of mass measure common to the traditional three English mass and weight systems (Avoirdupois, Apothecaries' and Troy).

For me, at least, I'll be sticking to the UK/US definition of the grain weight - 7000 to the pound.

 

[smo]

If you measure out 70 grains of powder with a volumetric measure, like all of us use, and then weigh that charge with an accurate grain scale, you will find that the actual weight is less than 70 grains. So, in theory you should get more than one hundred 70 grain loads out of a pound of powder. Also, FFg, of a given volume, will weigh less than FFFg, because the finer grains compact more densely. Fg will weigh even less.

I think the right thing to do is go with the volumetric measure and don't worry about the actual weight, unless you aspire to become an anal-compulsive benchrest shooter who weighs every charge to the tenth of a grain. I've always believed that blackpowder is a very forgiving propellant, and a couple of grains variance from one charge to the next shouldn't make much difference.

Best regards,

Notchy Bob

Well, a mans gotta have little for priming the pan too…

 

[deerstalkert]

the volumetric measures most of us use,(see Notchy's post above for the others) are about as lacking in precision as it gets.
Yup! looks like its at the 70 grain line to me, OH wait i bumped it! , now it is only 60 grains!
the old English grain weight of pound was/is 7000 . BY Volume? depends how much you jiggle yer measure i suppose

 

[APG]

This is something I came up with a long time ago. Can't remember how or if it's even right.

 

[Old Hawkeye]

Once again we have conflicting information about weight & volume measuring. A Grain is a Grain & a Pound is a Pound & they are both defined in absolute terms. Trying to equate volume measure to definitive weight measures is absurd & will always invite confusion. There are 7000 grains (and grains are definitively defined) to a pound (which is also definitively defined). If you want to equate volume measure with actually weighing powder & try to somehow make them equivalent, I have some ocean front property in Arizona you might be interested in. Call BR549 & we can talk. The post by APG shows that a POUND by weight of a particular powder MEASURES OUT BY VOLUME to be different than 7000 grains, but that pound of powder still weighs 7000 grains on a scale. It just so happens that FFFg measures & weighs out the same because of powder granule size & the volumetric space it takes up when filling a void. Now, I'm going to make some popcorn & watch this go on for at least 100 more posts arguing about how many grains in a pound.

 

[Gun Tramp]

The OP already answered his own question correctly in post #2.

 

[K. D. Wood]

7000

 

[dave951]

Uhmmm let's muddy the water a bit.

In the world of measurements, a grain is a unit of MASS. Weight is a measurement of a given unit of MASS when acted upon by gravity. If you want to know the unit of mass for a pound, it's called slug. In the world of physics, you cannot mix mass and weight when doing calculations, ie X number of grains in a pound.

Ain't physics fun especially when using archaic units of measure.

 

[planefixer da50]

a brit king had a pound of wheat weighed then then counted out 7000 grains. that is how we get weight = volume

 

[ohio ramrod]

Once again we have conflicting information about weight & volume measuring. A Grain is a Grain & a Pound is a Pound & they are both defined in absolute terms. Trying to equate volume measure to definitive weight measures is absurd & will always invite confusion. There are 7000 grains (and grains are definitively defined) to a pound (which is also definitively defined). If you want to equate volume measure with actually weighing powder & try to somehow make them equivalent, I have some ocean front property in Arizona you might be interested in. Call BR549 & we can talk. The post by APG shows that a POUND by weight of a particular powder MEASURES OUT BY VOLUME to be different than 7000 grains, but that pound of powder still weighs 7000 grains on a scale. It just so happens that FFFg measures & weighs out the same because of powder granule size & the volumetric space it takes up when filling a void. Now, I'm going to make some popcorn & watch this go on for at least 100 more posts arguing about how many grains in a pound.

I called BR549 and Junior Samples said:" Misty has a beauty of a deal for you"