Most Power By Volume

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
horner75 said:
The pressures of modern FFFFg powders are to high for main charge handgun or long gun loads...period!
You may be correct - I can't find any current loading data that recommends FFFFg in a pistol.
https://www.muzzle-loaders.com/articles/pietta-recommended-powder-loads
http://poconoshooting.com/blackpowderballistics.html
http://www.goexpowder.com/images/LoadCharts/RB-Pistol-Revolvers.pdf
http://www.goexpowder.com/images/LoadCharts/Cartridge-Pistol-Revolvers.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.blackpowder.ch/powder/shooting-powder

Swiss 4f is coarser than US 4f (very bottom table) so it's not as fast burning. Notice their 4f pistol load is only for the single shot pistol and maxes out at 12 gr. Their #2 (3f) is recommended when moving up to 16 gr. Revolvers also get a #2 recommendation.

I'd be really leery of stuffing a cylinder full of 4f.
 
In percussion revolvers the trade off is always between powder or lead. You increase one then you decrease the other. So you have to increase the strength of the explosion to run up the power on the ammunition. Seems pretty clear that the reduced space behind a typical elongated bullet loaded in factory cartridges would dictate the use of a strong formulation of powder in a relatively fine granulation to develop sufficient power for military use. And that's apparently what was done.

All this makes me wonder whether a chamber full of 4F behind a round ball or of 777 would run up the greater pressures.

Reckon I'll stick with Jacks Battle in the .41 1858 Remington behind those 195 grainers. It works.
 
So in essence the powder Swiss showed was designed for pistols is about 3.5F in comparison according to the chart.
 
Regardless to say it isn't traditional or proper is a lie.

Some may not like it and, those like me, may not see it necessary. But that doesn't make it untrue.
 
Your first link shows an error.

The second link shows what?

The third and fourth link doesn't compare well with many others. It's a quite weak powder compared to many others and doesn't show much.

And it doesn't negate, somehow, history.
 
This might sound a little strange, but I was just wondering, since this is about volume of powder, not weight...how do you measure that accurately for each shot? I made some fixed powder measures out of old plastic .410 shotgun hulls to save time loading, and they will differ from load to load by just pouring the powder in. If I tap the base on the bench after filling, I can get several more grains in each measure. Example of what I'm saying, my 60 gr measure will only hold 55 if I just pour it from the flask, but if I tap the base a couple of times I can get the whole measured 60 in...Having the powder settle to make a measurement, seems to me, to be the best way to get consistent performance.
 
I'll jump in here..... :grin:
All historical loading data should be taken with a lot of "salt"...........it should only be used for informational purposes.. This doesn't matter whether you are shooting an early model Brown Bess or you are you are reloading 30-06 ammo for your 1950's bolt action.
Materials, techniques, formulations, processes etc...change over time.....Historical information can be full of inaccuracies and typos, it also usually has been reprinted and interpreted.
Always us the most current, proven and reliable data.
 
As this conversation has turned to whether or not 4F was or should be used I interpreted this:

"You may be correct - I can't find any current loading data that recommends FFFFg in a pistol."

...to acquiesce to that idea. Maybe I misjudged the statement. I took "may" to have meant may or may not have, and with the rest seemed to say that because we don't have anything lately it should be dismissed. Sorry if I misunderstood.
 
The finer the powder grain size, the less variation. The APP, which I like for various reasons, is a very large particle size, and it's pretty easy to get inconsistent amounts in the measure without settling it a bit. The 3F Pyrodex is really consistent, and the 2F RS is in between. I went to the range with my restocked Bobcat today and used several measures to try and work up a good load. I found 70 gr RS gave me these results. https://goo.gl/photos/T3HAHrypDRrR8WFa7 I used somebody else' target that was already hanging. Using my fixed measure and settling the powder before loading gave the consistent powder charge I was looking for. Can you tell which holes are mine?
 
"All historical loading data should be taken with a lot of "salt"...........it should only be used for informational purposes."

Ah, but the Hazard's Pistol Powder .44 paper cartridges that were analyzed and tested were by modern standards. It isn't "load data" but actual historical loads that were used. Not much there that can be misinterpreted nor adultered. Nor can the abundance of finer than 3F powder found in disassembled metallic cartridges, also from the period, by the curator of a museum, who is also a BP enthusiast. However the strength is unknown.

If these products were known to disassemble cylinders it would have been noted as the Walker cylinder issues were, and subsequently changed in a hurry, right?
 
To reiterate I'm not saying anyone should use 4F, though there's no good reason not to in small calibers with small chambers. There are a few more than adequate powders available if one is looking for something more useful than just making smoke or punching paper.
 
Here is a bit from the research I mentioned earlier that we were given authorization to share:

"The new powder for revolvers was at first called "Cartridge Powder", due to its initial use for revolver combustible cartridges. Using "Cartridge Powder", a charge of only 25 grains would move a 220-grain conical close to velocities requiring 40 grains of rifle-grade gunpowder in the Colt Dragoon. The use of a smaller charge of gunpowder for the same performance, also gave the advantage of less fouling, so that a revolver could be fired more often until disabled by fouling buildup.

In 1855, at the time Colt's Cartridge Works began operation, Samuel Colt and Colonel Augustus Hazard were well acquainted. Colonel Hazard was the owner of Hazard Powder Company, so it is no coincidence that Colt's Cartridge packets are all marked "Made with Hazard's Powder", as shown on the Dragoon combustible packet illustrated in Photo "A". It seems likely and probable, that Hazard Powder Company was the originator of a "Cartridge Powder" formulated for best performance in revolvers. The early 1860's packet of D. C. Sage .44 Army Combustibles illustrated in Photo "B" are marked "Made of Hazard's First Quality Cartridge Powder".

In AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS of COMBUSTIBLE AMMUNITION (AMCA), author Terry White discovered the gunpowder type "Number 1 Pistol Powder" in the records of H. W. Mason. Both Hazard Powder and American Powder Company supplied this gunpowder type to Mason's combustible cartridge shop. Illustrated in Photo "C" is a .44 Army combustible packet made by H. W. Mason marked "Made with Hazard's Powder". Hazard's "First Quality Cartridge Powder" and "Number 1 Pistol Powder" are trade names for the generic powder type clearly identified as "Revolver Powder" in "THE GUN" (TG) by author W. W. Greener.

Knowing that a special "Revolver Powder" existed for percussion revolvers, and even knowing all the names for that special powder still does not describe what it is and how it differs from the familiar FFFg and FFg powders, for those of us in the 21st Century rediscovering the percussion revolver. Lucky for us, however, in the last half of the 19th Century, Major John Symington at the Allegheny Arsenal near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, dissected and test fired some of Colt's revolver combustibles and wrote a very clear description of "Revolver Powder". W.W. Greener went even further, and provided an illustration of gunpowder granulations in his book "THE GUN"! Pictured among those granulations is a grade marked "Revolver Powder" and it precisely matches the written description of Major Symington.

Major Symington's written description of the Hazard Powder used in Colt's combustible cartridges is quoted from pages 5 and 7 of "ROUND BALL to RIMFIRE, PART 3" (RBRF3), and is from reports written to Chief of Ordnance Colonel Henry K. Craig in June 1860.

Major Symington describes Colt's combustibles as, "The larger bullet was .456 in. diameter, and weighed 230 grains; the charge of powder weighed 20 grains. The small bullet was .383 in. diameter, and weighed 120 grains; the powder charge weighed 12 grains. The powder of both sizes of cartridges was of very fine grain called sporting powder, manufactured specially for these arms...."

After test firing Colt's combustibles, Major Symington reported, "The severity of shock [recoil] was due to the rapid combustion of such fine grained powder, particularly noted in Colt's cartridges, the powder of which is of special make.....'.

On page 552 of "THE GUN" (TG), the powder granulation illustration (Photo "D") shows "Revolver Powder" to be very fine grained exactly as Major Symington described the Hazard gunpowder used in Colt's combustible cartridges. The Hazard Powder described by Major Symington, and the "Revolver Powder" illustrated in THE GUN, is practically identical to FFFFg granulation today.

Original Colt revolver nipples are illustrated in Photo E. In Photo F, modern Uberti revolver nipples are pictured. Notice how tiny the flash holes are on the original Colt nipples compared to the much larger flash holes of the modern Uberti nipples. Very fine-grained gunpowder can be loaded without dribbling through the tiny flash holes of the original Colt nipples. The much larger diameter flash hole of the modern Uberti nipples allows very fine-grained gunpowder to dribble through the nipple. This dribble through of powder creates a danger of chain-fire, which is one of the two dangers of using FFFFg in a percussion revolver that will be addressed later in this article.

The charge of 20 grains under a 230-grain bullet sounds very underpowered to those of us accustomed to firing low-performance modern-made gunpowder in the years of the 1970's through 1990's. However, the low powder charge described by Major Symington apparently generated excellent performance, because the Major commented on the sharp shock [recoil] of the Colt combustible cartridges in particular! Sharper recoil equals higher velocity, as stated by Newton's Third Law of Motion, where every action is followed by an equal and opposite reaction.

In the section on "Black Powder" in UNDERSTANDING FIREARMS BALLISTICS (UFB), author Robert A. Rinker's clear explanation of gunpowder characteristics, clarifies the Hazard Powder Company decision to provide FFFFg sporting-grade gunpowder for revolver use. "Experience and experimentation taught early gunners that particle size controlled the speed of combustion...............FFFFg was the smallest particle with the fastest burn rate and is used mainly in handguns." (UFB, page 23).
With a bit of thought, it becomes clear why the short chambers of a revolver's rotating breech would require a special powder capable of rapid combustion. Obviously, coarse-grained musket and rifle-grade gunpowders designed for use in barrel lengths of 30 inches and longer are not going to perform efficiently in a combustion chamber averaging a bit over an inch in length. With that bit of reasoning in mind, the Hazard Powder Company decision that very fine grain (FFFFg) gunpowder was best suited to the percussion revolver's combustion dynamics makes a lot of sense.

Hazard Powder Company's "Revolver Powder" was a fast-combusting FFFFg made from high performance Sporting-grade gunpowder, providing the most power possible from a given charge of gunpowder! This very potent Hazard "Number 1 Pistol Powder" is precisely the "First Quality Cartridge Powder" Hazard provided to Colt, D.C. Sage, H. W. Mason and other manufacturers of revolver combustible cartridges.
Now, before anyone runs out to buy a can of Swiss Blackpowder FFFFg to stuff in their favorite percussion "smoke wagon", be aware that FFFFg can be VERY DANGEROUS, ESPECIALLY in a revolver, unless you precisely understand the problems unique to FFFFg, that can arise from FFFFg use in a revolver.

Loaded properly with due caution, and with CORRECT charges, FFFFg is perfectly safe, and makes an excellent percussion revolver propellant. Near the end of this article I will detail the dangers that can arise from FFFFg use in a revolver. By understanding the possible dangers that can arise with improper use of FFFFg, the proper and safe use of this very fine grain powder in revolvers will be very clear.

As explained earlier, "Revolver Gunpowder" of the period from 1855 to 1875, was revealed to be sporting-grade gunpowder in FFFFg granulation. Combustible cartridges made by Colt's Cartridge Works used very fine grain sporting-grade gunpowder as documented by Major John Symington in June 1860. Major Symington of the Allegheny Arsenal near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, had dissected and test fired Colt's combustibles in .36 and .44 caliber, detailing their construction and performance in his June 1860 report to Chief of Ordnance Colonel Henry T. Craig.

Major Symington did not like Colt's combustible cartridges, because they recoiled sharply when fired, and because Colt's prices were too high. For test purposes, Major Symington constructed revolver combustibles at the Allegheny Arsenal, using tissue paper (similar to gift-wrapping tissue) envelopes and replacing the very fine grain sporting grade gunpowder with fine grain (FFFg) rifle grade powder. He thought the FFFg still generated too much recoil and recommended using musket-grade powder to keep recoil light! It appears that Major Symington was more interested in an easily controlled handgun rather than maximum power."
 
I think you might have stressed the point that these "cartridges" with their fine grain (4Fg) powder loads use powder charges that we, today, would consider puny but, that is the easiest way to keep the chamber pressures in a reasonable range.

I think the idea of loading a .44 cap & ball revolver with 20 grains of 4F powder under a ball or bullet will quickly get the "magnum lovers" jacking up the powder loads to the max that the chamber will hold.

This may explain why Lyman, in their 2nd edition of 'BLACK POWDER HANDBOOK & LOADING MANUAL', dropped all reference to loading a cap & ball pistol with 4Fg powder. :hmm:
 
rodwha said:
As explained earlier, "Revolver Gunpowder" of the period from 1855 to 1875, was revealed to be sporting-grade gunpowder in FFFFg granulation.
The OP was clearly asking about todays powder, both black and substitutes, not historical references.

GoodCheer said:
When dealing with the limitations of chamber size what powder will provide the most power by volume in revolvers? What are yall hand gun hunters using?

Some brand of black FFFFg?
777?
Some granulation of Pyrodex?
 
Indeed I did. Thinking about the long pointed projectiles the revolvers were originally used with and the faster burning small granulation powders that were used back then in order to get the needed power out of the reduced chamber space, thought I'd inquire as to what handgun hunters were using nowadays. I didn't think it would evolve into any thoughts of "magnumizing" a percussion revolver. It's just what folks did a century and a half ago and I was curious about the results on what folks were doing now. If there's any penetration tests comparisons that folks could post I'd love to see it.

My own experimenting with Dragoon, Walker, 1861, 1851 and 1858 led me to cook up the .41 I've talked about here on the forum, increasing the bore on a .36, a lighter handier six gun idea that I wanted to try out. Penetration tests run with the .41 have shown about what I expected, that with the same amount of powder behind different designed bullets of the same approximate weights, the shape of the nose determined how well it penetrated. So the other variable is the powder I stick behind the bullet.
And all that is stuff to think about too when I choose a powder to work up accuracy loads.
Any way, it's all good to me. I burn powder 'cause it's fun.
 
I've hunted very little with a cap and ball revolver so have no real body of experience to gauge power on game with how ever all I have read of historical application seems to advocate a round ball over conical bullet use.
Where not percussion revolvers designed around the use of loose powder and ball ammunition and then later on bullets came in to wide spread use with the advent of paper cartridges?
 
Back
Top