• 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.
Volume would be how many gills in a pound.

The old saying IIRC is a pints a pound the whole world round what ever that means Zonie did all that kind of math that folks needed.
I think a "gill" (pronounced as Jill) is four fluid ounces, or half a cup.

It is my understanding that the volumetric measures we use for black powder are actually calibrated with water. That is, your 100 grain measure would hold 100 grains by weight of water. Black powder of any granulation is lighter than water, which is why we find that a given powder charge, weighed on a grain scale, is invariably lighter than the stated amount of the volumetric measure. However, I will say I have not taken the time to weigh volumes of water thrown from specifically-sized powder measures to verify this.

I think the bottom line is we may be overthinking the issue. Black powder is normally measured by volume, and as long as we are sensible and consistent, we should be fine. There was another couple of threads recently about determining a starting volume of powder for working up a load. So many moulds full of powder, or pouring just enough powder to cover a ball lying on your palm, etc.

The rule of thumb I have practiced is to start with a charge of grains (by volume) equal to the caliber you are shooting, and work up or down (usually up) from there. I.e. start with about 45 grains (by volume) for a .45 caliber rifle, and work up in increments until you find the most accurate load. All I can say is that it works for me.

I have never tried weighing a "pound" of powder to see if it is actually a pound. Grocers have pulled a fast one on us with coffee. We used to get coffee in one-pound cans. Then they came up with "bricks," which might have twelve or even ten ounces of coffee. People just assume these bricks weigh a pound.

Maybe I don't want to know.

Best regards,

Notchy Bob
 
View attachment 104471

Synopsis as I understand it* :
Figure there are 7000 grains in the pound of powder that you have bought. Divide 7000 by the grains of powder that you are using for your main charge, and you get an estimate of how many shots you will get from that pound of powder. Understand that the number of actual shots will vary due to a host of variables. For most of us, the variables do not make sufficient significance to be worried about the results. Just use the same size powder and the same amount of powder shot per shot, and the black powder shooter should get acceptable results.


Long Answer:


OK guys..., there are as numerous posts have written...., 7000 grains in a pound of powder...these days....,



Correct, but because we have agreed upon a standard unit of measurement.

But they are not absolute terms. They are arbitrary and agreed upon. ;)

Today we have standardized a lot of units of measure, units that go back to Elizabethan times if not farther, but as time progressed, folks settled on arbitrary amounts, gave them names, and we use these as a "standard" of measure today. World wide trade, and cooperation in engineering, has fostered this now World Wide agreement on a host of standards. BUT sometimes we run across odd units of measurement used in some places but not others, and this would be a discussion for a different thread...

For example, if we had adopted what is known as the "troy ounce" as our "ounce" today (the troy is still used in precious metals) then our pound of 16 ounces would contain 7630 grains, because what we call the troy ounce is 9% heavier than the "ounce" that we use today....
🤔



The problem... on paper..., is that the volumetric measure Might be accurate for weight, or it might not. The problem is not created simply going from weight to volume. :) I can't find my notes, but on another forum a shooter measured out several different brands of adjustable measures, and none were "accurate" and they didn't even come close to each other.....

To illustrate:

X brand powder is measured out, and when 16 ounces is reached, it is packaged and sold. Along comes the shooter, who measures out the powder by weight of grains (the "grain" is a weight unit of measure that was first dry, but was standardized with a volume of water, a liquid, and then calibrated and finally standardized...). When the shooter reaches 100 grains of powder by weight, he stops. He then fashions a container that when a level measure of powder is made with that container, it weighs 100 grains..., or so close he doesn't care. He now has a 100 grain measure by volume that is equal in weight to 100 grains as well. Life is Good...

Our shooter after some time and some successful shooting buys another pound of powder...but that powder is Y brand. 😶

Y brand is made with a slightly different set of ingredients and mix ratio, so it's denser than X brand. The shooter as Old Hawkeye points out, still gets his 16 ounces, but it takes up less volume. So when our shooter uses his powder measure that was made to measure X brand and thus is calibrated to X brand powder..., that measure then gives him more powder by weight when he uses it for Y powder. ☹ Is it enough of a difference to matter?

Complicate that further..., The X brand powder was 2Fg, but the Y brand powder was 3Fg...so our shooter gets even more powder by weight in his measure, because Y brand is denser, and there is less unused space when he uses the Y brand 3Fg powder in his volume measure. NOW YES, our shooter notices that his bullets hit significantly higher on the target and he is feeling more recoil, because he is actually using enough extra powder that it makes a difference for what our shooter is doing.
😣

(We won't even get into discussing burn rates between the two brands of powder)

So IF one is are curious, or IF one is shooting long range targets where the variation of the true weight of the powder, the ability of the shooter to be consistent with measuring, the burn rate of the powder, all result in the shooter hitting the target where the shooter needs to hit that target..., then you will want to check your particular powder load and ensure that you get it right every time, AND pay attention to the brand, the granule size, and the lot number of that powder's batch....
🤯

At the distances that I shoot..., variations in Muzzle Velocity (which is where this powder stuff leads) don't make enough of a difference, to me.

Doesn't seem to make any difference to the deer, or small game, or birds... the paper target and the gongs have no opinion.

LD

* "as I understand it"... I could always be full of baked beans....
And this is why drams were used as it was volume not weight
 
I thought drams were by weight, also... Sixteen drams per ounce, times sixteen ounces per pound, equals 256 drams per pound, or 27.34375 grains per dram.

When Horace Kephart completed his famous range test with an original .54 caliber Hawken rifle, he used charges in multiples of 41 grains... That is, he started with 41 grains, then 82, then 123, 164, and so on. I think he was well over 200 grains when he decided enough was enough.

Why 41 grains? He never said, but I suspect he was using an old military pistol flask for charging his rifle. The service load for .44 caliber percussion revolvers was 41 grains, or exactly one and one half drams.

Best regards,

Notchy Bob
 
14 more posts & you will make my 100 post prediction, so keep this insanity going guys. It's almost getting to be entertaining in a way. Remember the OP answered his own question in post #2 but multiple people have written dissertations worthy of a PhD on this great controversy of how many grains to a pound for two days now. I don't know if I should laugh or cry.
 
#1 Depends on how long the inch worm is and whose foot we are talking about.
#2 Have to candle each egg for double yolks and did you get them from a baker?
#3 My head hurts trying to figure this one out.
;)
 
Here are the measurements from the 2Fg GOEX tests. I used a balance beam scale for the measurements. The diameter and depth measurements were taken using a Mituyoyo Vernier caliper.

Powder BrandGOEXGranulationffgCode:02-6699N019C
Desired Weight
100​
GrainsVolume Constant0.00403
NameCan ValveFinialGostomskyGostomsky
Settled
HawkenHawken
Settled
Large
Swivel
Nikky
Diameter
0.433​
0.433​
0.430​
0.430​
0.520​
0.520​
0.490​
0.430​
Depth
3.130​
2.650​
2.907​
2.907​
1.017​
1.017​
2.138​
2.750​
Calc. Wgt.
100.053​
96.793​
104.714​
104.714​
99.398​
99.398​
100.005​
99.059​
1​
102.3​
97.9​
107.6​
107.5​
99.5​
102.1​
99.8​
2​
101.7​
99.0​
107.8​
109.2​
100.0​
103.2​
97.3​
3​
101.7​
98.3​
106.0​
109.7​
100.4​
103.4​
98.4​
4​
102.3​
97.7​
106.0​
107.1​
99.0​
103.0​
100.6​
5​
100.0​
98.4​
106.2​
107.9​
100.2​
102.1​
100.1​
6​
103.2​
99.6​
105.8​
107.9​
100.0​
102.1​
98.5​
7​
103.2​
97.2​
106.8​
109.9​
101.1​
102.2​
98.5​
8​
103.2​
99.2​
106.1​
108.4​
100.3​
100.1​
100.5​
9​
102.8​
96.8​
108.9​
108.5​
100.4​
101.2​
98.2​
10​
102.4​
99.3​
109.0​
107.4​
100.6​
101.0​
98.8​
Average
102.28​
98.34​
107.02​
108.35​
100.15​
102.04​
99.07​
Std. Dev.
0.983​
0.941​
1.226​
0.976​
0.582​
1.038​
1.108​
Maximum
103.2​
99.6​
109.0​
109.9​
101.1​
103.4​
100.6​
Minimum
100.0​
96.8​
105.8​
107.1​
99.0​
100.1​
97.3​
Conf. Int.
1.140​
1.091​
1.422​
1.131​
0.674​
1.204​
1.284​
Lower Limit
101.710​
97.795​
106.309​
107.785​
99.813​
101.438​
98.428​
Upper Limit
102.850​
98.885​
107.731​
108.915​
100.487​
102.642​
99.712​
See? There's always one in the crowd. Now I'm mentally constipated with it all.

wm
 
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 :horseback:
Another variance to consider is how much you spill when loading your gun and priming your pan.
 
With this info now I can guestimate how long a pound of powder will last me. With my .45 rifle I use 65 grains so I should get about 107 loads. With my .54 that I charge with 70 grains I should get a neat 100 shots.
I think I need a lot of powder or a smaller caliber gun to satiate my muzzleloading addiction...
 
With this info now I can guestimate how long a pound of powder will last me. With my .45 rifle I use 65 grains so I should get about 107 loads. With my .54 that I charge with 70 grains I should get a neat 100 shots.
I think I need a lot of powder or a smaller caliber gun to satiate my muzzleloading addiction...
For general in the yard plinking I load my .45 with 25-30, great load for small game head shots. 47 grains for most use and can load up to 60 grains without a great change in accuracy. Great thing with muzzleloaders is you can load down and make powder last twice as long.
 
I think a "gill" (pronounced as Jill) is four fluid ounces, or half a cup.

So this movie could have been called Two Cups in a Jeep? 🤔😉

iu
 
A few jokes make me numb but ML math jokes make me number.

Didn't they make a movie about that? Numb and number.

Another variance to consider is how much you spill when loading your gun and priming your pan.

You been spying on me at the range?

I'm just trying to help the guy who made the 100 post prediction.
 
Back
Top