• 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

How many grains in a pound?

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
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.
Who you callin a “slug” there buddy? 🤣
 
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.

Likewise powder from the upper part of a can will measure different from powder from the bottom. The fines (4F) settle toward the bottom.

I agree with both of these statements. While doing some chrono work earlier this week I noticed that the speeds were creeping up as I worked my way down my powder flask. They peaked with the last load in the flask then fell back again when I refilled it.

I then made the assumption that the finer stuff in the bottom of the flask was giving me more weight per charge even though the volume of those charges didn't change.

Ok, i am with Woody Morgan on this. and just to cut out the nit picken I want to know how many GRANULES of fffg there is in a pound. forget about grains of weight.
I think that was pathfinders original question anyway.:ghostly:

Since the size of the individual granules would vary even within a given product there could be no one answer to the question. Most tables I see list fffg as passing through a #20 screen but not a #50 screen, so there is room for considerable size variation of granules that would all be in the fffg range. So fffg powder that just happened to have more granules close to the upper size limit would pack less and weigh less for a given volume and vice-versa.
 
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” 😞
Unlikely you will get a 100 shots from a 70 grain charge.
ifyou dish it out on a scale it will work. In the field you will get spillage. Your measure will always be off a bit
 
Unlikely you will get a 100 shots from a 70 grain charge.
ifyou dish it out on a scale it will work. In the field you will get spillage. Your measure will always be off a bit
Yes, but how can you quantify spillage? A percentage perhaps? Load over a small scale kept in your possibles bag?
This is about exact numbers, right? Inquiring minds need to know.
If this thread doesn't drive off the new people, nothing will.
At what point does a new member become...un-new, by the way?

wm (on a swerve)
 
Yes, but how can you quantify spillage? A percentage perhaps? Load over a small scale kept in your possibles bag?
This is about exact numbers, right? Inquiring minds need to know.
If this thread doesn't drive off the new people, nothing will.
At what point does a new member become...un-new, by the way?

wm (on a swerve)
You cant quantify the spillage. Fill your measure be careful and shoot.
i shoot a flinter and prime from the horn. Get overfill from that to at times. Try to be careful but ‘taint perfect’.
 
Ok, i am with Woody Morgan on this. and just to cut out the nit picken I want to know how many GRANULES of fffg there is in a pound. forget about grains of weight.
I think that was pathfinders original question anyway.:ghostly:
If you really want to know, there's a simple way to find out.
 
well, I was going to count the grains/granules in an oz of fffg.
but got to thinking that my homemade would be different than Goex.
so then i got to thinking i had a part can of Goex i could do the counting on.
discovered it wasn't Goex but Hurcules powder.
then i did see a can of Goex way back in the magazine.
dug it out to discover it was ffffg.
by then my head was hurting from the thought of all the possible outcomes so i went and took a nap.
sorry for letting society down. maybe tomorrow. or not!
 
Okay, here's the skinny on the history of the grain as measure of weight - don't blame me for posting it. It IS, however, at least the SECOND time I've posted it this year, so perhaps it ought to be made into a sticky.

Quote -
At least since antiquity, grains of wheat or barley were used by Mediterranean traders to define units of mass; along with other seeds, especially those of the carob tree. According to a longstanding tradition, 1 carat (the mass of a carob seed) was equivalent to the weight of 4 wheat grains or 3 barleycorns. Since the weights of these seeds are highly variable, especially that of the cereals as a function of moisture, this is a convention more than an absolute law.

The history of the modern British grain can be traced back to a royal decree in thirteenth century England, re-iterating decrees that go back as far as King Offa (eighth century).The tower pound was one of many monetary pounds of 240 silver pennies.
By consent of the whole Realm the King's Measure was made, so that an English Penny, which is called the Sterling, round without clipping, shall weigh Thirty-two Grains of Wheat dry in the midst of the Ear; Twenty pennies make an Ounce; and Twelve Ounces make a Pound.
— Tractatus de Ponderibus et Mensuris.
The pound in question is the Tower pound. The Tower pound, abolished in 1527, consisted of 12 ounces like the troy pound, but was 1⁄16 (≈6%) lighter. The weight of the original sterling pennies was 22½ troy grains, or 32 "Tower grains".

Physical grain weights were made and sold commercially at least as late as the early 1900s, and took various forms, from squares of sheet metal to manufactured wire shapes and coin-like weights.

The troy pound was only "the pound of Pence, Spices, Confections, as of Electuaries", as such goods might be measured by a troi or small balance. The old troy standard was set by King Offa's currency reform, was in full use in 1284 (Assize of Weights and Measures, *King Edward I), but was restricted to currency (the pound of pennies) until it was abolished in 1527. This pound was progressively replaced by a new pound, based on the weight of 120 silver dirhems of 48 grains. The new pound used a barley-corn grain, rather than the wheat grain.

Avoirdupois (goods of weight) refers to those things measured by the lesser but quicker balances: the bismar or auncel, the Roman balance, and the steelyard. The original mercantile pound of 25 shillings or 15 (tower) ounces was displaced by variously the pound of the Hanseatic League (16 tower ounces) and by the pound of the then-important wool trade (16 ounces of 437 grains). A new pound of 7680 grains was inadvertently created as 16 troy ounces, referring to the new troy rather than the old troy. Eventually, the wool pound won out.

The avoirdupois pound was defined in prototype, rated as 6992 to 7004 grains. In the Imperial Weights and Measures Act of 1824, the avoirdupois pound was defined as 7000 grains exactly. The act of 1855 authorised Miller's new standards to replace those lost in the fire that destroyed the Houses of Parliament. The standard was an avoirdupois pound, the grain being defined as 1/7000 of it.

The division of the carat into four grains survives in both senses well into the early twentieth century. For pearls and diamonds, weight is quoted in carats, divided into four grains. The carat was eventually set to 205 milligrams (1877), and later 200 milligrams. For touch or fineness of gold, the fraction of gold was given as a weight, the total being a solidus of 24 carats or 96 grains.

*King Edward I [AKA 'Longshanks because of his prodigious height of around 6ft 5", when most adult males were almost a foot shorter], was NOT a 'British king'. He was an English king. The term 'British' had yet to be taken into common usage - both Scotland and Wales were in the throes of becoming an unwilling 'partnership of nations' that eventually morphed into the United Kingdom and Ireland was a 'place over there, as yet not understood yet suffered'. With the Acts of Union 1707 it became the official name of the new state created by the union of the Kingdom of England (which then included Wales) with the Kingdom of Scotland, forming the Kingdom of Great Britain.
 
Back
Top