How Much Powder Did They Take?

[tenngun]

Just some thoughts on 50% raitio.
A hundred.36 would weigh just short of a pound. And half a pound of powder. It would yield a hundred 30 grain chargers, a mite heavy but very normal.
A .54 weighs about 220 grains, so a 110 grain charge is no means low or high for a hunting charge. A hundred shots a little over three pounds of lead and a little over a pound and a half of powder.
Less then five pounds in all.
A .62 smoothie, or rifles as they ain’t unheard of is running around 350 grains, a powder charge here is a whomping 175 grains, watch out Jumbo. A hundred tips the scale at seven and a half pounds.
A .69, tosses a around a one ounce ball, and a hundred shots of 220 grains of powder. If Jumbo ain’t dead he soon will be.
A 75? That’s a tad over twelve bore so let’s forget the bess and go just with a twelve. 290 grains of powder, Ahab wanted one but had to use a harpoon instead, some OSHA requirement I guess. A hundred shots is just over twelve pounds

 

[Daveboone]

The long hunters were largely deer hunters...collecting hides and meat. They were not doing much trapping.
The trappers...were concentrating on ...trapping. I doubt they individually brought a very large stock. They certainly were not at war with the locals, and would certainly have eaten the easy meals a trap line provided. Beaver and muskrat are both highly palatable. Certainly the trappers would have taken an occaisional deer/elk, etc. , but I doubt it was their primary meat source. I am willing to bet a couple horns of powder (my large horn holds a full lb, which equals out to about a hundred shots ) and an equivalent amount of lead/round balls would have seen them through a season.

 

[smoothshooter]

Reading the thread on the bag molds made wonder how much lead did the trappers take with them since they had to use horses to take everything that they needed to trap and survive.

Then they had to take powder with them, again the trusty horse was needed. I know Lewis and Clark took their powder in lead canisters and melted the lead.

I read a lot and never have seen any mention on how much powder the trappers took with them. Also I never heard how the powder was package any idea? When and if they ran out of powder, they were out until the yearly gathering.

Any speculation on how much powder and how it packaged?

They took whatever the could afford without it being too much much of a burden, and still have space to transport all the other stuff they wanted to take.
One almost universal standard was to always have powder and lead in ratios of 2 to 1 ( the rule of thumb was that it took one pound of powder to shoot two pounds of lead for generally useful loads ).
This was the standard all through the 1700’s and into the 1870’s, at least.

 

[R Ellis]

Why does anyone else care what amount of supplies a man takes for a 2 hour hunt its his business and not ours also 100 small caliber round balls don't weight much and guess what a pound of powder is just that a pound jmho

 

[smoothshooter]

Reading the thread on the bag molds made wonder how much lead did the trappers take with them since they had to use horses to take everything that they needed to trap and survive.

Then they had to take powder with them, again the trusty horse was needed. I know Lewis and Clark took their powder in lead canisters and melted the lead.

I read a lot and never have seen any mention on how much powder the trappers took with them. Also I never heard how the powder was package any idea? When and if they ran out of powder, they were out until the yearly gathering.

Any speculation on how much powder and how it packaged?

There is no hard and fast answer.
Also depends on how long they were going to be out, and if they were going to trade, sell, or give any to the Indians.
Some would have only taken a small amount if they were part of a group and they were supposed to be a camp tender, while one or more others would do most of the hunting.

 

[smoothshooter]

Just some thoughts on 50% raitio.
A hundred.36 would weigh just short of a pound. And half a pound of powder. It would yield a hundred 30 grain chargers, a mite heavy but very normal.
A .54 weighs about 220 grains, so a 110 grain charge is no means low or high for a hunting charge. A hundred shots a little over three pounds of lead and a little over a pound and a half of powder.
Less then five pounds in all.
A .62 smoothie, or rifles as they ain’t unheard of is running around 350 grains, a powder charge here is a whomping 175 grains, watch out Jumbo. A hundred tips the scale at seven and a half pounds.
A .69, tosses a around a one ounce ball, and a hundred shots of 220 grains of powder. If Jumbo ain’t dead he soon will be.
A 75? That’s a tad over twelve bore so let’s forget the bess and go just with a twelve. 290 grains of powder, Ahab wanted one but had to use a harpoon instead, some OSHA requirement I guess. A hundred shots is just over twelve pounds

 

[smoothshooter]

We have to keep in mind that a lot of powder made in those was not as good as it is in modern times, and would require heavier charges to get the same velocity we expect to get now.
Wasn’t the standard paper cartridge load for the King’s muskets somewhere around 175 to over 200 grains, and the French .69 caliber almost that much?
The beauty of the 2:1 ratio is that it is easy to weigh or measure out in military storage places and frontier outposts around the world.
I have looked at copies of many Bills of Lading for sailing ships, supply wagons, and trading post ledger books, and with very few exceptions the 2:1 ratio is the rule.
If sometimes the ratio seems a little heavy on the powder that is a good thing because is a small part of the powder gets wet and it is not practical to dry it out, there is still enough powder available. People were known to recover fired bullets when possible and extra powder would be needed for those when melted end recast.

 

[smoothshooter]

Well the longhunters carried a lot of powder and lead, usually 1:2 in the ratio of powder to lead (if I correctly recall Baker's book), BUT they were shooting everything, and had to carry much more ammo. So a trapper could likely get away with a lot less as they were trying to trap their products. Now I have a horn that holds a pound of powder and a .54 rifle so a pound of lead is roughly 28 round ball. A pound of powder will give me roughly 70-100 shots. I likely could alone do with two pound of lead and a pound of powder. Figuring I'd need to shoot a deer or something like it once a week. In the course of a year.....

IF I got into a fight, I'm still using a muzzleloader and maybe a backup pistol, so perhaps one extra pound of lead and an extra half-pound of powder. An extra horn holding some of that powder to ensure that I don't loose all the powder to an accident ???

I also own a "garrison horn" a rather large, complete horn that holds about three pounds. There was often a chap assigned to each "mess" of light infantry in the British Army who was assigned to care for this reservoir horn for the lads to refill their horns on the march or at an outpost. That's good for a group of men.... so IF I was a trapper that would likely be more than a few year's supply.

I think that I'd be carrying a lot more salt than gunpowder, not only for my furs, but also so that I could jerk the meat of deer/elk/bison/moose that I didn't immediately eat and for the winter, as well as processing hides for leather for my use. I know that "luxavated" corn was also something the longhunters often took with them (parched corn) in a large amount and perhaps a trapper would do the same? I don't think the ammo was taking up nearly as much room as salt, and perhaps parched corn.

LD

There would be the traps, chains, extra camp ax or two, and extra knives.
I don’t think very many shots were fired on average. If a trapper could go all week without having to fire his gun he would be pretty happy about it as long as he still had something to eat.

 

[SDSmlf]

Why does anyone else care what amount of supplies a man takes for a 2 hour hunt its his business and not ours also 100 small caliber round balls don't weight much and guess what a pound of powder is just that a pound jmho

Kind of like asking how much lead did the trappers take with them, you know like the OP. Basically keeps the banter going and helps make things more interesting…. I regularly hunt with roundballs guns from 32 to 62 caliber. 1-1/2 buck is a bit lighter than a bag of .60” diameter lead balls, no doubt. Does it really matter?

 

[SDSmlf]

It's called a Texas Heart shot.

Hunted in the Rio Grand Valley years ago and the locals I hunted with called it a Texas Brain Shot. Who knows what it’s called over the next ridge….. No matter what it is called, messy and not my first choice.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

Why does anyone else care what amount of supplies a man takes for a 2 hour hunt its his business and not ours also 100 small caliber round balls don't weight much and guess what a pound of powder is just that a pound jmho

I don't know..., perhaps the OP is trying to duplicate some of the conditions from two and a half centuries ago to physically experience what was carried "back then", and that way if he's not getting a shot at game, he's learning and experiencing something all the same. Yes it's his business, and he is asking about it.

LD

 

[Coinneach]

Why carry so much extra weight?

Why would they ?
They werent fools thats for sure, like most habitual wilderness travellers they would have cached in stages along the journey out to wherever they were headed, so there was ample enough for what they needed step by step when they needed it.

When I was a Soldier in the 70-80's when we couldnt rely on Air resups for LRRPs , we prepped the same way well before the mission.

 

[tenngun]

Long hunter or Mountain man, they weren't running around on foot, with a years supplies on their back.
They had horses, or out east some had some sort of boat.
For all I love to trek, they didn’t, unless it was an emergency.

 

[Kansas Jake]

They also cached items for later recovery. I wonder it there is still a cache or two to be discovered somewhere on the prairie or up in the hills. Wouldn’t that be a great archeological find.

 

[sheriff john]

My guess (and it's strictly supposition) is the situation dictated what was needed and those folks either planned well or suffered the consequences. Some tend to focus on firearms, etc., but in reality, that was only part of necessities required. Best to have a good horse (or two) and a good partner with the same thing.

 

[stikshooter]

My guess (and it's strictly supposition) is the situation dictated what was needed and those folks either planned well or suffered the consequences. Some tend to focus on firearms, etc., but in reality, that was only part of necessities required. Best to have a good horse (or two) and a good partner with the same thing.

Trapping back then ,I would have relied on a bow not a gun ! The bow can be replaced/repaired on site and trapping in hostile ground (a gun shot )invited a fight ! So that's my guess ,sort of like in Alaska ( shooting ) is like ringing the dinner bell for bears only red skins could shoot back (and maybe better) hence the stealthy part of trapping with bows/Ed

 

[smoothshooter]

Why does anyone else care what amount of supplies a man takes for a 2 hour hunt its his business and not ours also 100 small caliber round balls don't weight much and guess what a pound of powder is just that a pound jmho

It’s a mental exercise type of speculation.

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

It’s a mental exercise type of speculation.

It's also a chance to shoot the breeze with our fellow muzzleloading folks. A mix of history and practicality. It's just plain fun.

 

[tenngun]

Trapping back then ,I would have relied on a bow not a gun ! The bow can be replaced/repaired on site and trapping in hostile ground (a gun shot )invited a fight ! So that's my guess ,sort of like in Alaska ( shooting ) is like ringing the dinner bell for bears only red skins could shoot back (and maybe better) hence the stealthy part of trapping with bows/Ed

That makes sense but we have little references to bow use among whites in America. Spanish colonist in New Mexico made some use, but even the Métis chose guns first

 

[stikshooter]

That makes sense but we have little references to bow use among whites in America. Spanish colonist in New Mexico made some use, but even the Métis chose guns first

Maybe they did not want to spread rumors to be overheard by hostiles . You don't tell the enemies red or white what you got ,and it does make sense . Not everything was written down ,lots of folks did not write by choice or lack of schoolin just further imitating what worked for the redskins !!!!!!!!!! Ed