How much does 90 grains FFF weigh?

[Snow on the Roof]

I like to make my own powder measures from horn, antler etc... Recently I checked the volume of one, using a commercially produced brass measure, at 90 grains volume. With a second brass measure it read 80 grains . Obviously there is some inconsistancy in measures. If I knew the weight of powder as in 90 grains volume = X weight I would be able to produce a measure with an accurate volume.
A can of GOEX FFF stated 454 grains I assume this is weight NOT volume. So is there a conversion chart available or a formula to convert volume to weight?

Snow

 

[Fred_Dwyer]

Probably won't find that because it will vary from can to can and manufacturer to manufacturer, let alone from Fg to FFFFg.
The variance from the 2 measures you mentioned might be from the 2nd measure being more packed during the transfer from the 1st. To avoid the "packing variance" I tap my measure to pack it in tight as it can go, level it off and charge the rifle. Maybe this is adding a few grains but it will be consistent. Consistency is the key anyway, we could call the "grains" anything else, even go scientific and use milliliters; so what does your gun like? 80 grains or 5.6 milliliters??

Bottom line: make the measure to suit the gun.

 

[Dave Rosenthal]

There are approx. 7,000 grains in a pound, so the number you have is about an ounce (approx. 440).

Using a good measure and tapping the side of it will enable you to get an accurate reading. That may be why you got a reading of 80 with the one measure?? I use a Ted Cash volumetric powder measure and don't have any problems.

In the Chats & Links section you might find what you're looking for....lots of good info in there!

Dave

 

[roundball]

I don't understand the reference to 454 :idunno:
And there must be a chart so hopefully somebody will turn one up on a link.
But in the meantime, since the "standard" is based on 2F I suspect if there is such a chart, it would be referencing 2F, not 3F.

You've got two issues going on...one is what's the 'weight' of 3F (not 2F) and apparently multiple powder measures throwing different amounts.
For your purposes of making an antler powder measure, one approach you've probably already thought of is to just use the powder measure that you use to charge your existing ML, and regardless of what it actually weighs, just use that amount as your guide to hollow out a corresponding sized antler measure...

 

[David W.]

One ounce weighs 437.5 gr whether it's 3f or 4f.
Antler measures do not need to be 100% accurate. If you have an adjustable measure, I would just use that for the basis of making the antler measure.

 

[Rifleman1776]

Like others I'm puzzled by your comments. Where did the 454 come from?
To answer your question: 90 grains weighs 90 grains.
Stick with one measure, if it holds an amount that works best in your rifle the weight/volume becomes a mute point.

 

[Stumpkiller]

I weighed all of my factory measures with FFg and FFFg. One I have that reads "100 gr" throws 127 gr of FFg and 135 gr of FFFg! I no longer trust factory measures. The T/C adjustable measures I have were both pretty much on with FFg - within 3% - and individual pour and tap difference can make that much variance.

I find a weight difference of about 6% between FFg and FFFg (of equal volumes the FFFg is heavier). There is likely more "oomph" than the added weight alone so I drop back 10% in figuring a volume to use if using FFFg. I don't own a chronograph so I'm going on sighting changes and sound - pretty vague.

When I make up a measure I weigh the powder and then work the measure until it holds the weight I want. So mine are all weight based rather than volume. I have no good method or equipment to measure volume (cubic inches of displaced water? - heck with that). I do have a reloading beam scale.

My old Lyman 55 powder dispenser works the same way. Adjust the cavity by weighing the charges it throws and then lock down the adjustment screws. Henceforth it dispenses by volume. ;-)

 

[TFoley]

There are approx. 7,000 grains in a pound, so the number you have is about an ounce

Sir, there are NOT 'approximately 7000 grains in a pound'.

There ARE 7000 grains in a pound.

It is an official measurement that goes back to medieval times, to the time of Henry II in the 13th century.

tac

 

[roundball]

I think his context is related to using a 90grn 'measure' of 3F. A 90grn measure of 2F and 3F will not weigh the same due to the smaller granulation size of 3F leaving less air space in a 90grn mesasure than 2F...packs tighter, more densely than 2F.
Like filling a measure with #5 shot pellets, then filling the same measure with #8 shot...the charge of smaller #8s will weigh more

 

[Snow on the Roof]

The 454 comes directly off a can of FFF GOEX "NET WT. 16 OZ. {454 G.}". Perhaps the G. is Grams? I am not certain. As to 7000 grains { by volume } in a 1 pound can would equal 100 shots with a 70 grain charge. That seems about right. Perhaps the 454 G. is weight not volume. This brings up an intersting point. Black powder loads are measured by volume NOT weight which is the standard measure for smokless powder. In other words Grains by volume is NOT equal to Grains by weight. In other words 90 grains by weight is a mighty stout load as oppossed to 90 grains by volume :shocked2: .
If a pound equals apx 7000 grains by volume perhaps with a calculator I can figure a weight to volume scale. In the mean time this is a heady discussion worth continuing. :thumbsup:

Snow

 

[necchi]

This comes up alot when folks try to compare different makers volume measures, and then complicate it by trying to "weigh" volume on a scale. All that is accomplished is confusion.

I like to make my own powder measures from horn, antler etc...

K.I.S.S.,,,
One way or another. A person ends up actually shooting the gun to determine the best charge for accuracy. I use an adjustable volume measure to find that charge.
Then when making an antler measure I transfer that volume too the hole I'm making in the horn. I simply make the hole the same volume as the measure. I'll pour the measure out on a piece of paper then poor into the antler.

Different makers volume powder measures are different.
Different makers and different grain size Powders weight on a scale,, vary.
There is seldom a direct way to compare the two different ways too measure powder.

 

[Stumpkiller]

This brings up an intersting point. Black powder loads are measured by volume NOT weight which is the standard measure for smokless powder. In other words Grains by volume is NOT equal to Grains by weight.

1 pound = 453.59237 grams = 7,000 grains

Blackpowder is measured in grains (weighed) but dispensed by volume.

Volume and weight have nothing to do with each other. How many pounds is a one-cubic-foot sphere? How much does a shoebox weigh? You need a common reference. If you start to get specific - like how many cc's (volume of water that weighs one gram) of FFg powder equals 100 grains ... then you're getting somewhere.

How can a regular joe measure volume? Only by making a standard device that holds a known quantity. If you take someone else's word for how much the measure holds and they're off some you'll have no way to compare with the results others are getting. Say 50 gr of FFg is 1/2 cubic inch (I don't know if it is). You drill a hole that holds 1/2 cubic inch. How do you know when to stop drilling? Wne your hole holds a weight measured amount of powder. So you have established a conversion device that converts volume to a known weight.

Then there's Pyrodex. It's intended to be measured out by volume based on the relationship of volume-to-weight for blackpowder and, in truth, is nowhere close in weight.

 

[rafterob]

Perhaps the G. is Grams

Yes,exactly. The 7000 grains per pound can is weight also. As noted, some of the better volume measures throw amounts fairly close to the actual corresponding weight in grains. I have an adjustable brass measure that one could tell just by looking at the graduation marks that it is not accurate.So, like others I work up a load by volume and set the measure to that volume on that measure. It would probably be a good idea to get an average weight measure for that load in case I ever lose that measure, then I could more closely approximate any new measure's setting for the same load.

 

[George]

In other words Grains by volume is NOT equal to Grains by weight. In other words 90 grains by weight is a mighty stout load as oppossed to 90 grains by volume :shocked2: .

Don't think you've got that figured right. Grains by volume is exactly the same as grains by weight. The one comes from the other and they are interchangeable. Weigh out any amount of powder by grains, measure the volume of that powder and you have your volume measure. When we say we measure black powder by volume, not by weight, what we are saying is that we are measuring the volume occupied by a known weight. When you say 90 grains by volume you are really saying the volume occupied by 90 grains of powder.

People make this more complicated than it is because they think of "weight by volume' as something different than "weight by weight". It ain't.

Spence

 

[necchi]

"People make this more complicated than it is because they think of "weight by volume' as something different than "weight by weight". It ain't."

Ah, but the reality is,, it is different Spence.

 

[Stumpkiller]

Lets try this exercise. You make a measure the size of a pea and call it a "droople". You then play around and find that your rifle shoots best with eight drooples of FFFg powder.

You can be a happy man and shoot well and accurately and, unless someone wants to duplicate your load (or you lose your measure and want to repeat your results), it doesn't matter a henway how much a droople is compared to grains, or what volume a droople represents. When you measure out eight drooples you do it by volume because the measure you fill holds one droople. Till you get tired of that and make an eight-droople measure so you fill it just once.


PS - when you buy blackpowder the can will not be full because they sell it by weight and some settling may occur. :haha:

 

[George]

No, it isn't, Necchi.

Spence

 

[Stumpkiller]

When you measure powder by volume at seal level is it less than when you measure at 10,000 feet because of the atmospheric pressure?

 

[Otter]

Grains by volume is exactly the same as grains by weight.

No it isn't . . . get out your volumetric measure and your weight scale and try it. There may be some volumes of a certain granulation that weigh the same as the volume, but they will be flukes and not the norm.

 

[George]

All you guys who say weight by volume is different than weight by weight, tell me what you think the volume measurement represents. Do you actually think of a volume measurement, such as cubic inches, as a weight? What scale of standards do you find that in?

Spence