How much does 90 grains FFF weigh?

[Stumpkiller]

I'd love to know how folks are measuring by volume if it is not by using a measure that was originally crafted to hold a weighed sample. Does anyone have a measure marked in a volume unit? Like cubic inches or cubic centimeters? Ever hear a shooter say: "My powder measure displaces .75 cubic inches."

Do they measure the displaced amount of pure water and then compare the specific gravity (ratio of mass to unit volume) of the powder vs. that of water? That's the "official" method. I don't believe it is even possible to use specific gravity of the relatively large grains in blackpowder because of the airspace.

 

[Rifleman1776]

Guys, I fear we may be driving a new shooter into taking up knitting or something. :shocked2:
It ain't that complexkated. Agreed, measures do vary. But a commercial measure is intended to throw a weight measure equal to it's volume markings. But, we all know they do vary. When I make a measure (from wood, antler, whatever) I adjust it against a commercial measure I have experience with. That way with the commercial measure set to 70 grains my new measure will throw the same charge. And, really, I don't care if it is actually 68 grains on a scale or 73. If it works, it works.
And, for the originial poster, please learn the difference between "grains" and "grams". That is a major safety issue.

 

[George]

The 454 comes directly off a can of FFF GOEX "NET WT. 16 OZ. {454 G.}". Perhaps the G. is Grams?

That G does stand for grams. One gram equals 15.4324 grains, 15.4324 X 454 = 7006.3 grains.

Spence

 

[Stumpkiller]

Guys, I fear we may be driving a new shooter into taking up knitting or something. :shocked2:

:surrender: :surrender:

Agreed. I whittle out my measures with a pen-knife blade from antler or else fix a wood cap on a length of turkey bone. This ain't rocket science. The only reason I know the weight is so I can duplicate the load that my fixed sights are regulated to or that throws a good pattern.

As I understand it one method was to set the ball in the palm of your flat hand and pour just enough powder on it to cover the ball. I've tried it and it works pretty well.

(and for those interested the force on the sides of each particle of that blackpowder where it begins to slip can be calkeylayted with Bishop's Method)

:rotf: :rotf:

 

[Snow on the Roof]

Guys, I fear we may be driving a new shooter into taking up knitting or something. :shocked2:
It ain't that complexkated. Agreed, measures do vary. But a commercial measure is intended to throw a weight measure equal to it's volume markings. But, we all know they do vary. When I make a measure (from wood, antler, whatever) I adjust it against a commercial measure I have experience with. That way with the commercial measure set to 70 grains my new measure will throw the same charge. And, really, I don't care if it is actually 68 grains on a scale or 73. If it works, it works.
And, for the originial poster, please learn the difference between "grains" and "grams". That is a major safety issue.

Don't worry about me being driven out, I shot my first muzzle loader in 1964 and have never hunted with any thing but a muzzle loader or longbow. By chance that is why the confusion. I was taught grain by volume and grain by weight where not the same, just as a bushel of corn does not equal a bushel of peaches in weight or volume. My understanding is this all based in an old English standard of weights and measures which at times can be confusing and difficult to convert one measure to another. Part of the argument for converting to the metric system as our standard. As they say about old dogs and new tricks...
To further complicate the discussion, what about drams? Is dram a weight or volume based on a weight? One Dram equals 27.5 grains, correct?
One thing for sure I am going to get my loading scale and my digital scale out and do a cross check with my volume measures.

Snow

 

[necchi]

Here's hard data from the Mad Monk;
The small g is for grains and the CC is cubic centimeters

Grain sizing.
Swiss #2 powder, 18 mesh to 32 mesh, loading density 1.08 g/cc.
Goex 3f powder, 20 mesh to 50 mesh, loading density 1.05 g/cc.
Elephant 3f powder, 20 mesh to 50 mesh, loading density 1.09 g/cc.

Here's what happens when the dried powder is polished, load density is the weight by grams vrs volume. Becasue of non-american measure. Even during the process powder weight vrs volume changes.

A study was performed on this at the S/A Pernambuco Powder Factory. Dried
powder going into the polishing barrel gave a loading density of 0.90 grams per cubic
centimeter (g/cc). As the polishing cycle proceeded samples of powder would be removed
from the barrel at periodic intervals. In a 6 hour polishing cycle the loading density had
increased to 1.10 g/cc. At 8 hours in the barrel the loading density had increased to 1.15
g/cc. This last figure being excessive in that when the loading density reaches this level the
burn rate of the powder is depressed considerably. In most powders intended for use in
black powder small-arms the ideal loading density range is around 1.05 g/cc, plus or minus
0.03 g/cc.

There is more discussion about the hygroscopic properties when individual powders take on weight because of ambient moisture.

And the all important screening process that deterimnes the 2f-3f-4f quantity we purchase. Note that varied screen size will have different weight "grains" vrs CC "Volume".

Screening.
The grain sizing system in use in the United States today was first introduced around
1836 as a means of standardizing grain sizing within the industry. These sizes were not
universally accepted or adhered to until very late in the 19th century.Under this standard sizing:
Must pass through Must be retained on
Fg 14 mesh 16 mesh
FFg 16 mesh 24 mesh
FFFg 24 mesh 46 mesh
FFFFg 46 mesh 60 mesh
There is something of a logic behind these screen sizes. If one looks at the opening
size in these screens and averages each set one will find a mathematical relationship.
If each screen size range is averaged to get a “mean diameter” one finds that the
mean diameter of 2F is half the mean diameter of 1F and 3F is half the mean diameter of 2F.
In other words, as one goes down in grain size the average grain size is halved.
This is a way of exercising some control of the amount of surface area per unit of
weight in a powder charge in a gun. All the grain sizes come out of the same black powder.
There is no difference in chemical reaction rates during powder combustion. Black powder
is a surface burning propellant and altering the grain size will alter the amount of time a
given charge of powder takes to burn completely.
There are suggestions that the screen sizes introduced in 1836 are not the ones in use
today in the U.S. There is a possibility that 2Fg is now 16 mesh to 30 mesh while 3Fg is 20
mesh to 50 mesh. The change is of no importance in the use or performance of these
powders.
Other powder manufacturers may work to other standards. The Swiss being a case in
point. Little differences in grain sizing does not become significant until one gets into the
very fast and very hot burning sporting type powders.
Swiss grain sizing.
U.S. Swiss Rough conversion to U.S. Standard Screens.
FFFFg #1 powder 32 mesh to 60 mesh
FFFg #2 powder 18 mesh to 32 mesh
FFg #3 powder 12 mesh to 24 mesh
1.5Fg #4 powder 12 mesh to 18 mesh
Fg #5 powder 10 mesh to 14 mesh

Here's a link to the Mutterings of the Mad Monk; http://www.laflinandrand.com/page2.html

If you really wanna know about powder, weight and size and much more, these pages are a must read.
If there is disaggreement with this data please bring it to Bill Knight an not me, I just trust Bill Knight as the premere expert in modern powders.

 

[FishDFly]

The 454 comes directly off a can of FFF GOEX "NET WT. 16 OZ. {454 G.}". Perhaps the G. is Grams?

That G does stand for grams. One gram equals 15.4324 grains, 15.4324 X 454 = 7006.3 grains.

Spence

Okay, 90 grains of 2F is the same "weight" as 90 grains of 3F by weight. Weight measurement is weight measure once the measure is defined, see above.

A gallon of gasoline does not weight the same as a gallon of diesel, but a gallon is a gallon, is it not?

One (1) pound of feathers is the same weight as one (1) pound of lead, volume is another discussion.

Weight measurement is a defined measured standard, what is so confusing about weight measurement?

 

[tg]

The volume measurement will also be a different formula for various vessels, most just use the manufacures type of a home made one that is close and adjust the load untill you get the AMOUNT of powder you want in a particular container, as lone as the original conversion was close there is no danger of an over load, I have not weighed any powder on a scales for over 30 years when we used to play around checking various measures for the weight/volume comparison

 

[roundball]

Its still not quite that simple to make an across the board statement that Weight & Volume are the same.
In a simple world where the only thing being referred to is 2F granulation from one repeatable / predictable powder manufacturer it would be one thing. Because the standard was that a 100grn setting would hold enough 2F so that it actually weighed 100grns weight...and converted into Drams at 27.5-ish grains per Dram, that old standard has carried forward and is printed on boxes of modern shotgun shells as Dram Equivalent...based on 100grns of 2F actually weighing 100grns.

But that goes out the window as soon as you use that same volumetric measure for different size granulations of powder such as 1F, 3F, 4F, 5F, 7F, etc...as all those actual "weights" will be different...not each weighing 100grns weight.

Again the analogy...fill the same 100grn measure with #5 lead shot and weigh it, then fill the same measure with #9 shot and weigh it.

They wouldn't weigh the same, right?

 

[tg]

I gotta go with Spence on this one, your volume measure comes directly from a given weight and is then given a volume value in weight terms via a marking on the device or a vessel which can only contain that weight when full.so every time you fill that container it will weigh the same in grains alowing for any variance in the powder, obviously this will not work with golf balls used to make the measure then try withing the same volume of ping pong balls,This is the same reasoninh as with the various sizes of powder, so weothg and volume atre the same for one who makes up a measure or uses a commercial one and shoots one type of powder +/- and manufacturing variables which should not be enough to effect, this is the concelt that folks refer to when saying K.I.S.S. and one equals the other. anytthing it depends on a weight consistant item being measured.I think there is a lot of apples and oranges going on with this post and in some ways it is being made more difficult than it is, some are going for exacting technical results, others for the practical simple fool proof application to shooting ML's.

 

[Stumpkiller]

My brain hurts.

 

[Vaino]

I think we're greatly over complicating things. When I bought my calibrated brass powder measure I checked multiple "throws" of the powder measure settings...some lower and some higher on my balance beam scale. Seeing I don't "tap" the measure on a table, etc.. when in the field, I just flick the measure to settle the powder. All throws were w/in 4 grs which is satifactory to me because the energy in a gr of BP is a lot less than smokeless and accuracy won't suffer w/ 4 grs differential of BP. After the brass measure was checked, all further loads are developed using only the brass powder measure. Don't really care what the exact weight of the charge is, I trust the volume thrown by the powder measure. When making a powder "thimble" for a specific load, the "thimble's volume is determined by a throw from my brass powder measure. Just like to keep things simple....Fred

 

[Semisane]

Let's make up a little story.

In the mid-1800's Charlie Wingshooter went to the local gunmaker to pick up his new gun, and bought two pounds of "FF Grade" black powder. He paid $1.60 per pound for that powder because black powder was sold and measured by weight.

So Charlie worked up a load for his new .40 caliber rifle and found a certain amount that shot best in his gun. He took a piece of river cane and cut it off so that it held exactly that amount and tied the measure to his powder horn. Now old Charlie was wondering how many shots he was going to get out of his powder purchase. So the next time he was in town he stopped in at the local apothecary with his powder horn and asked his buddy Abe, the pharmacist, to weigh his charge.

Abe filled Charlie's measure with Charlie's powder, dumped it on the scale and said "it weighs 50.3 grains, but let's try again". The second charge Abe weighed was 49.8 grains, and the third charge was 50.1 grains. So Abe says "Charlie, you've got yourself a 50 grain measure. Now there are 7,000 grains in a pound, so you're going to get about 140 shots per pound of powder". Charlie is happy as a coon in a corncrib, and uses his knife to scratch "50 Gr" on the side of his river cane measure. Is it an accurate and true 50 grain measure? It sure is - for Charlie's powder (because it's based on the actual weight of Charlie's powder, and 50 grains volume = 50 grains weight).

Now let's suppose that last week you bought an old wood chest at an auction and when you got the rusty latch opened at home found it contained a nicely made powder horn with a river cane measure attached to the stiff leather strap. The side of the measure is crudely marked "50 Gr". Out of curiosity you fill it with GOEX FFg and weigh the charge. It weighs 58 grains. Why? Because it's not the same powder the measure was made for. However, the GOEX charge is the "volume equivalent" of Charlie's 50 grain load. You fill the measure with Triple Seven FFG and that load weighs 45 grains, and it too is the volume equivalent of Charlie's 50 grain load. As the manufacturer of that measure, Charlie established the base level for what volume produces a load that weighs 50 grains of the black powder he used as a base level.

Today, as in Charlie's day, there are no standards for "volume equivalent". We are all using approximations based on whatever the manufacturer of the measure thinks is appropriate.

 

[hanshi]

Being a NON expert on such matters I'll just give the short, simple answer as my brain is short and simple. :hmm:

454 is the number of GRAMS in a pound. 7000 is the number of GRAINS in a pound. The actual WEIGHT of powder depends on any number of factors ie, moisture content, milling density, lot, granulation, etc. Black powder was/is meant to be measured VOLUMETRICALLY, not by weight. A given 80 grain measure may weight (on a scale) exactly 80 grains. It may also be 2-3grns over or under. It really doesn't matter one whit. Don't "weigh" powder then make your measure to hold just that amount; MAKE your measure and THEN weight it to see what you get. Regardless, go with volume.

 

[Bill Hall]

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:

Snow, after reading all the replies, I think Stumpkiller has given you the best answer. There really is NO exact standard when weighing/measuring black powder. It's important to remember that this is an old standard, akin to weighing grain in STONES, and horses in HANDS. Back in the day, the weight and yield of black powder varied greatly from maker-to-maker, batch-to-batch, place-to-place, etc. It isn't much better today, since black powder isn't used for anything commercially, or in the military, where exact standards are needed. When you start comparing real black to substitute powders, you just need to completely ignore that old standard.

The only exception to this inaccuracy of the standard I know of may be used in measuring modern shotgun shells. If you notice, they are measured in "drams equivelent", which is based on the old black powder standard. But I do wonder if that is really based on some measureable standard, or if it's just "pretty close".

Yes, those store bought measures are pretty inaccurate, but I never worry about it. I think it's important to find a certain VOLUME of your favorite powder, where accuracy is best, and use that as your personal standard. If you have a powder scale, you can measure that certain volume to duplicate a powder measure, or just to find out how much it really weighs, but don't expect its weight to have more relevance beyond that. For example, if you use 80 grains of fffg, and want to try ffg, the powder measure you use will throw a different weight with the ffg, the yield (strength) will be different, and your accuracy may vary.

In a nutshell, use the weight of powder as a ballpark figure when working up a load, or when comparing loads between different guns and shooters. But beyond that, simply find the best VOLUME for your particular gun, weigh it if you like, and just use that same volume in a consistant manner. I hope this helps. Bill

 

[Snow on the Roof]

My head hurts too but this is an interesting discussion. I did a very quick unscientific comparison of weight vs volume using three 90 grain measures and a calibrated digital scale. Using a 90 grain antler measure with FFF the average, three measurements, was 81.88 grains by weight. With an old Ted Cash measure set at 90 grains, which is the one used to calibrate the antler measure, the average was 81.88. Using a TC sliding brass measure set at 90 grains the average was 88 grains. With FF the antler measure threw 84.9, the Ted Cash measure 84.9 and the TC 91.

Conclusions and more questions. Does FF weigh more per volume than FFF? At least for GOEX black powder volume and weight are fairly consistant, though I will test for other volume measures
from 30 to 140 grains. One side note I did find that if I was casual about the volume filled I got as much as a 5 grain variation in weight. This would most definitely affect accuracy at the target range. Combine a 5 grain variation in powder with the 3 to 5 grain variation in ball weight and consistant accuracy would be affected at least enough to mean the diffrence between a 49XX and a 50XXX :hmm: ...


Snow

 

[Otter]

Not to intentionally add more confusion to the discussion, but just to put numbers to numbers, I went to my man cave and dragged out the electronic scale, a can of 3f Goex, a can of 1f Goex and the measure I normally use when I shoot my MLs, set at "50" (you can say that's grains, cc's, cf or whatever unit you want, I say it's grains :grin: ). The measure is an adjustable one with a hinged pour spout thah strikes off the contents level before pouring in the bore. I poured my powder in the measure, tapped it several times to settle the contents, strike it off level then poured it into the pan of the scale. The scale was checked and reset to "zero" prior to each weight being taken. I only weighed 5 samples of each powder, so you can take my results with a "grain" of salt :grin: .

3f (weights in gtains) - 50.3, 51.2, 48.2, 48.5 & 48.4. AVG = 49.42 gr

1f (weights in grains) - 49.9, 49.2, 50.7, 47.9 & 48.1. AVG = 49.1 gr

3f was about 1% off of weight equalling volume.

1f was just under 2% off of weight equalling volume.

It is not exact weight vs vol, but is actually closer than I had encountered in the past and what I expected. I still don't think weight gr is equal to vol grains.

 

[Snow on the Roof]

Incidently this all started because a friend liked one of my measures, this one was 90 grains. When he used it on the range he said his point of impact changed. When he used his brass measure to check the one I made it was 80 grains. That is why I wanted a weigth to volume scale. To produce consistent accurate measures.

Snow

 

[George]

The fact that different granulations of powder weigh differently, that different brands of powder weigh differently, that the same powder weighs differently on different days, that you can't measure the exact same volume of powder with your antler tip measure twice in a row, that no two brass measures agree, etc., etc., etc., have nothing to do with the principle.

When you say you are loading 90 grains by volume, you are saying I know that this volume represents 90 grains of powder by weight. The volume measurement is not a thing unto itself, it represents, stands in for something else, the weight.

Ever since I got into this crazy hobby there have been people trying to claim that volume measurement is some mystical, mythical, historical entity of its own, based on some completely undefined standard lost in the fog of time, not able to be understood or explained by ordinary mortals. It wasn't so then, it isn't so now, it will never be so. In principle, volume measurement and weight measurement are one and the same, interchangeable, inseparable.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Spence

 

[Dave Rosenthal]

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

tac,

Thanks for the verification. I hadn't checked today if that were the case, just typed it from memory. So it seems that my memory is still passable, LOL.

That's O-K, there's still HS Grads around here that believe that a ton of lead weighs more than a ton of feathers :idunno: :rotf: .

Amazing the amount of responses to this thread....

Dave