newbies like to learn thing from the masters, please forgive me.

[Carbon 6]

Again ... I only seek knowledge ... not sparing over what may be a nonexistent problem ... here on a forum that exists for " HISTORIC " times and items during those times.

Nope, You're playing a game and I'll have no part of it.

 

[Black Hand]

Why I get this, I do not know. This is typical of 21st Century cyber debate. Since you disagree, I must be one of the mud people. You do not agree, I get that. Because of this you have to make my opinion "not worthy" to do so I must be demeaned into an ignorant, uneducated and unenlightened jack wagon.
Feelings and anecdotes? Maybe so, but those feelings and anecdotes were from a barrel maker and someone I do consider an expert.

Anecdotal statements are still not evidence and as far as I can tell, no one has stated more than this. If you wish to read more into a statement, there is little that any of us can do. Your opinion, however well-meaning, is still an opinion.

Maybe there is an unknown boogeyman here. 4f as I originally pointed out in this thread will measure differently. Going back to Blackhill's original posting of 80grns of 4f, is that thrown from a 2f measure? If so what would be the equivalent loading in 2f?
From the Lyman Great Plains Rifle booklet...
2. Guard against overcharges. Follow the instructions and do not exceed suggested charges in this booklet.
Maximum Loads Lyman Black Powder Guns The following loads are maximum combinations of propellant and projectile for Lyman Black Powder guns except for the Mustang Breakaway Rifle which can be found on page 44. Do Not Exceed! Plains Pistol .50 - .495" RB 40 grs. 3Fg .54 - .535" RB 50 grs. 3 Fg Rifles .50 .495" RB 110 grs. 2Fg or 90 grs. 3Fg 240 gr. Sabot 100 grs. 2Fg or 90 grs. 3Fg 335 gr. Sabot 100 grs. 2Fg or 80 grs. 3Fg 420 gr. Maxi 100 grs. 2Fg or 80 grs. 3Fg .54 .535" RB 120 grs. 2Fg or 100 grs. 3Fg 335 gr. Sabot 110 grs. 2Fg or 90 grs. 3Fg 450 gr. Maxi 110 grs. 2Fg or 90 grs. 3F

Where's the 4F load data?

There isn't any currently published. In and of itself, this is irrelevant. Since nothing is published by the manufacturers, there is nothing more we can really say. Others may have information that isn't published.

Commonly called “Four F”, this is the finest granulation and is used for priming flintlocks. Due to its rather limited use, it is usually somewhat difficult to obtain. When necessary, FFFG may be substituted. There is no Pyrodex equivalent.

Note it says FFFG can be used in place of FFFFG,(for priming) not the other way around.

So what...?

Wow this is interesting. Considering that the SAA was one of the most proven and powerful handguns until 1935,(3fg according to Goex's .45 Colt recommended load) Why did this 4fg loading damage it?
Off topic for the forum but on topic for this discussion.....a strong and proven design damaged by 4f???

Irrelevant to the discussion. If it is to be discussed, show the data that came out of this testing - until then, all we can say is "we don't know..."

But wait? There's no proof that that's what happened. This is just the thing with muzzleloaders...there's hardly ever any "proof" with any failure. The default key board explanation is usually....smokeless....barrel obstruction....short start....it gets really tricky explain when these failures are blank loads.

Lack of evidence is a big problem...still tells us nothing about the current question.

This Dogma of which you speak, is it from these factory manuals? Manuals warning not to exceed recommended charges and powder?

Dogma: a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.
I don't give a flying fig who set down what. If you are willing to accept the dogma uttered by the dozens of "experts" who have nothing to back up a word they say - feel free. I am unwilling to do so until (more likely IF) they provide evidence to back their statement. Until then, it is still an opinion. If the claim is we should accept without supporting evidence what is said BECAUSE they consider themselves an authority - then you have just committed and argument from authority fallacy. I accept what an authority says if supported by evidence while ignoring anything the selfsame authority might utter that is unsupported.

I get it,I really do. I know where you are coming from. Here again like Britsmoothy demeaning or derogatory terms are used to describe those with an opposing viewpoint. This whole thing started under the guise of a "newbie". A newbie in any activity needs to be informed. I thought it best to inform the newbie that there may be risks with using 4f as a main charge in a big bore rifle.

Derogatory/demeaning terms? Really?
I used the term "Old Thunderlips" as a proxy name for one of those myriad of sages one finds at rendezvous who consider themselves as the repository of "universal truths" and feel their UNFOUNDED and UNSUPPORTED opinions should be blindly followed. I could have easily have used "Squirrel-sniffer", "Old Griz" or any other of the thousands of "mountain names" people have given themselves. I am interested in the information they can provide ONLY IF THEY CAN BACK UP WHAT THEY SAY WITH EVIDENCE. Until then, what they say is just another opinion.

Is this poor form and or dogma the...
loading manuals, opinion of a barrel maker,
the measurement of 4f in a 2f measure (One common thing that Blackhand,Britsmoothy and I agree on is the measurement factor with 4f), the load data from powder manufactures namely Goex,
and lastly my opinion that the 4f grade may be 4f grains and smaller, thus unpredictable.

Opinion without evidence to support it is still opinion. It matters not who said it, whether considered an expert or not. That an expert might say 9 things that are true and can be supported by evidence tells us nothing about whether the 10th thing they say is true (absent evidence).

I hope that I have made my opinion clear. One, that 4f load data is nonexistent and not recommended. That's a fact. Whether that fact is based on dogma or not, that fact remains. Secondly, that exploration of loads,any loads whether off the rails or not, need to be explored with caution.

Non-existent NOW, but still irrelevant.
Not recommended is unsupported by evidence, and as such, can be dismissed.

 

[Black Hand]

Long-story-short:
Opinion is unsupported by evidence/facts and can be ignored (regardless of who holds the opinion - expert, non-expert, the president of a well-known barrel-maker company or ANYONE else including ME or YOU)...

o·pin·ion
[əˈpinyən]
NOUN

1. a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

 

[Zonie]

Just in case the pot needs further stirring, here is what Ned H. Roberts says on page 82 in his book, "THE MUZZLE-LOADING CAP LOCK RIFLE", Copyrght © MCMXL, MCMXLIV, MCMXLVII and MCMLII.

Generally speaking, a very fine grain black powder should not be used in muzzle-loading rifles unless they are of small calibre. Rifles of 38 caliber and larger usually give the best accuracy with F. g. powder, while those of smaller bore do best with F. F. g. However, there are, of course, exceptions to this rule and we occasionally find muzzle-loaders of 40 and 45 caliber that require the F. F. g., powder to make their smallest groups...

 

[BlackHillsBob]

read his book and loved every page. thanks.

 

[Black Hand]

Just in case the pot needs further stirring, here is what Ned H. Roberts says on page 82 in his book, "THE MUZZLE-LOADING CAP LOCK RIFLE", Copyrght © MCMXL, MCMXLIV, MCMXLVII and MCMLII.

I'd make the same statement to Ned - show me the evidence...

 

[George]

The only data/info I've collected concerning testing of a long-gun barrel with 4F is from the series of tests done by Sam Fadala in 1979 trying to blow up muzzleloader barrels. He did extensive tests with three guns, the third of which was a Navy Arms Morse rifle, .50 caliber, brass receiver and nipple and drum. He put the first two through a series of real torture tests, up to 500 gr. 3F with 3 conicals of 600 grains each, seated on the powder, could not rupture or bulge them. Only when he separated the powder and conicals could he blow either one. The same was true of the Morse, but he could not blow that one with black powder, period, even with 300 grains 4F and three conicals separated. It took smokeless to blow it.

Spence

 

[BlackHillsBob]

wow

 

[bang]

Wow, what a mess. Perhaps at this point all should just agree that which ever is used it must be used in proper measure equivalent to the recommended. Also give metallurgy of then and now is different enough that there is more trust in the now.
When it comes to the charge load of front packers I've never considered velocity but rather delivery down range with best accuracy. What it takes to achive that is obviously less than many consider.

 

[bigted]

The only data/info I've collected concerning testing of a long-gun barrel with 4F is from the series of tests done by Sam Fadala in 1979 trying to blow up muzzleloader barrels. He did extensive tests with three guns, the third of which was a Navy Arms Morse rifle, .50 caliber, brass receiver and nipple and drum. He put the first two through a series of real torture tests, up to 500 gr. 3F with 3 conicals of 600 grains each, seated on the powder, could not rupture or bulge them. Only when he separated the powder and conicals could he blow either one. The same was true of the Morse, but he could not blow that one with black powder, period, even with 300 grains 4F and three conicals separated. It took smokeless to blow it.

Spence

300 grains 4F with THREE conicals in a 50 cal bore rifle ... WOWW! This should really be included in this conversation/ debate.

So seems to me that IF this test could be scientificly reproduced and pressure tests could be given, that this would be some sorta proof of the MAYBE misunderstanding concerning this 4F powder debate.

Carbon 6, I am done with any further discussion with you. I find you to be dismisive of any whom asks for substantiation for your opinion. Sorry for our missunderstang. No "games" played ... searching for knowledge only. You sir are not.

 

[Britsmoothy]

The only data/info I've collected concerning testing of a long-gun barrel with 4F is from the series of tests done by Sam Fadala in 1979 trying to blow up muzzleloader barrels. He did extensive tests with three guns, the third of which was a Navy Arms Morse rifle, .50 caliber, brass receiver and nipple and drum. He put the first two through a series of real torture tests, up to 500 gr. 3F with 3 conicals of 600 grains each, seated on the powder, could not rupture or bulge them. Only when he separated the powder and conicals could he blow either one. The same was true of the Morse, but he could not blow that one with black powder, period, even with 300 grains 4F and three conicals separated. It took smokeless to blow it.

Spence

I had that same book. I remember his tests.
If anything they are the only scientific tests that do tip conventional wisdom on its head.

 

[54ball]

According to the Lyman Black Powder Handbook, a .44 caliber revolver using a .451 round ball and 8" barrel.

19.0 grains of FFFFg powder gave them 772 fps and 182 ft./lbs. energy with 5,240 LUP of pressure.
37.0 grains of FFFFg powder gave them 960 fps and 282 ft./lbs. of energy with 7,420 LUP of pressure.
19.0 grains of FFFg powder gave them 706 fps and 153 ft./lbs. of energy with 5540 LUP of pressure.
37.0 grains of FFFg powder gave them 1032 fps and 326 ft./lbs. of energy with 7,940 of pressure.
These charges were their minimum and maximum charges.

From the Lyman Black Powder Handbook:
.36 1851 -- 7.5"
Gearhart Owen FFFg black powder
.375 Roundball

14 grains -- 6900 LUP -- 752 FPS
17 grains -- 7200 LUP -- 879 FPS
20 grains -- 8300 LUP -- 967 FPS
23 grains -- 8560 LUP -- 1017 FPS
26 grains -- 8600 LUP -- 1079 FPS
29 grains -- 9440 LUP -- 1097 FPS
************************
.36 1851
Gearhart Owen FFFFg black powder
.375 Roundball

14 grains -- 6900 LUP -- 884 FPS
17 grains -- 7240 LUP -- 924 FPS
20 grains -- 8460 LUP -- 1006 FPS
23 grains -- 8640 LUP -- 1027 FPS
26 grains -- 8820 LUP -- 1033 FPS
29 grains -- 9660 LUP -- 1090 FPS
******************
.44 1860 -- 8" barrel
Gearhart Owen FFFg black powder
.451 Roundball

19 grains -- 5540 LUP -- 706 FPS
22 grains -- 5540 LUP -- 752 FPS
25 grains -- 5780 LUP -- 805 FPS
28 grains -- 6380 LUP -- 885 FPS
31 grains -- 7060 LUP - 933 FPS
33 grains -- 7340 LUP -- 979 FPS
37 grains -- 7940 LUP -- 1032 FPS
********************
.44 1860 -- 8" barrel
Gearhart Owen FFFFg black powder
.451 Roundball

19 grains -- 5240 LUP -- 772 FPS
22 grains -- 5420 LUP -- 797 FPS
25 grains -- 6080 LUP -- 868 FPS
28 grains -- 6320 LUP -- 881 FPS
31 grains -- 6500 LUP -- 859 FPS
34 grains -- 7240 LUP -- 953 FPS
37 grains -- 7420 LUP -- 960 FPS
********************

I'll be honest. This was not the data I was expecting.

I was expecting higher pressures from 4F across the board. By this small sample of data it seems 4f is indeed hotter in a smaller caliber revolver.36. It gives higher pressure and velocity than 3f in the.36.
Now the move to.44 is most interesting. In.44 3f powder is consistently the "hotter" load in both pressure and velocity.

Just how does this translate to big bore rifles?

Honestly, going by this data....
4f may be very inefficient in a big bore rifle. It may have lower energy and pressure.

So...Changing gears here....

The "Dogma" may not be based on danger of gun failure but rather inefficiently.

This could explain Ned Roberts statements about 4f. This also agrees with some long range Chunk Gun shooting across the Tennessee at Moccasin Bend (Chattanooga). The best long range results were from a big bore chunk gun loaded with a duplex load (correction triplex load) of 1f,2f and 3f. Of course this was a very long barreled rifle. The larger grains of powder allowed more efficient use of the long barrel. (longer burn time thus more push) I do believe this account may be from Walter Cline. If not, it was about the same era.

Shot guns are strange critters. There's a lot more to them in how they react to pressure and velocity. If this load data (based on revolvers) holds true..IE diminishing results as bore size increases with 4f ??? 4f may indeed may give great results in a shot gun shooting shot loads as Britsmoothy testifies.

I still hesitate to recommend 4f as a rifle load. Whatever is chosen needs to be done with great care. I still think a newbie needs to stick with the published data. Also the weight and measure deal with 4f needs to be taken into consideration.

Britsmoothy
Apology is accepted and appreciated. We're all friends here. This whole thing would be much different around the campfire.

 

[Carbon 6]

Just how does this translate to big bore rifles?

.

Big bore rifles don't have a cylinder gap.
Or inline ignition.

 

[Britsmoothy]

Big bore rifles don't have a cylinder gap.
Or inline ignition.

No but flintlocks have vents!

 

[Britsmoothy]

According to the Lyman Black Powder Handbook, a .44 caliber revolver using a .451 round ball and 8" barrel.

19.0 grains of FFFFg powder gave them 772 fps and 182 ft./lbs. energy with 5,240 LUP of pressure.
37.0 grains of FFFFg powder gave them 960 fps and 282 ft./lbs. of energy with 7,420 LUP of pressure.
19.0 grains of FFFg powder gave them 706 fps and 153 ft./lbs. of energy with 5540 LUP of pressure.
37.0 grains of FFFg powder gave them 1032 fps and 326 ft./lbs. of energy with 7,940 of pressure.
These charges were their minimum and maximum charges.

From the Lyman Black Powder Handbook:
.36 1851 -- 7.5"
Gearhart Owen FFFg black powder
.375 Roundball

14 grains -- 6900 LUP -- 752 FPS
17 grains -- 7200 LUP -- 879 FPS
20 grains -- 8300 LUP -- 967 FPS
23 grains -- 8560 LUP -- 1017 FPS
26 grains -- 8600 LUP -- 1079 FPS
29 grains -- 9440 LUP -- 1097 FPS
************************
.36 1851
Gearhart Owen FFFFg black powder
.375 Roundball

14 grains -- 6900 LUP -- 884 FPS
17 grains -- 7240 LUP -- 924 FPS
20 grains -- 8460 LUP -- 1006 FPS
23 grains -- 8640 LUP -- 1027 FPS
26 grains -- 8820 LUP -- 1033 FPS
29 grains -- 9660 LUP -- 1090 FPS
******************
.44 1860 -- 8" barrel
Gearhart Owen FFFg black powder
.451 Roundball

19 grains -- 5540 LUP -- 706 FPS
22 grains -- 5540 LUP -- 752 FPS
25 grains -- 5780 LUP -- 805 FPS
28 grains -- 6380 LUP -- 885 FPS
31 grains -- 7060 LUP - 933 FPS
33 grains -- 7340 LUP -- 979 FPS
37 grains -- 7940 LUP -- 1032 FPS
********************
.44 1860 -- 8" barrel
Gearhart Owen FFFFg black powder
.451 Roundball

19 grains -- 5240 LUP -- 772 FPS
22 grains -- 5420 LUP -- 797 FPS
25 grains -- 6080 LUP -- 868 FPS
28 grains -- 6320 LUP -- 881 FPS
31 grains -- 6500 LUP -- 859 FPS
34 grains -- 7240 LUP -- 953 FPS
37 grains -- 7420 LUP -- 960 FPS
********************

I'll be honest. This was not the data I was expecting.

I was expecting higher pressures from 4F across the board. By this small sample of data it seems 4f is indeed hotter in a smaller caliber revolver.36. It gives higher pressure and velocity than 3f in the.36.
Now the move to.44 is most interesting. In.44 3f powder is consistently the "hotter" load in both pressure and velocity.

Just how does this translate to big bore rifles?

Honestly, going by this data....
4f may be very inefficient in a big bore rifle. It may have lower energy and pressure.

So...Changing gears here....

The "Dogma" may not be based on danger of gun failure but rather inefficiently.

This could explain Ned Roberts statements about 4f. This also agrees with some long range Chunk Gun shooting across the Tennessee at Moccasin Bend (Chattanooga). The best long range results were from a big bore chunk gun loaded with a duplex load (correction triplex load) of 1f,2f and 3f. Of course this was a very long barreled rifle. The larger grains of powder allowed more efficient use of the long barrel. (longer burn time thus more push) I do believe this account may be from Walter Cline. If not, it was about the same era.

Shot guns are strange critters. There's a lot more to them in how they react to pressure and velocity. If this load data (based on revolvers) holds true..IE diminishing results as bore size increases with 4f ??? 4f may indeed may give great results in a shot gun shooting shot loads as Britsmoothy testifies.

I still hesitate to recommend 4f as a rifle load. Whatever is chosen needs to be done with great care. I still think a newbie needs to stick with the published data. Also the weight and measure deal with 4f needs to be taken into consideration.

Britsmoothy
Apology is accepted and appreciated. We're all friends here. This whole thing would be much different around the campfire.

I appreciate your research
I find it very efficient in my shotguns but also with ball and one of my smoothbores is a .45".

B.

 

[Carbon 6]

You are correct Brit, and that is an important factor.

If we look at the research and development that has been done over the last 200 years as a whole instead of cherry picking the data that supports our idea of using 4f.
We gain a broader understanding of why the grading system exists and why the recommendations are what they are.
Black powder is a highly variable product and always has been.

 

[George]

Big bore rifles don't have a cylinder gap.

The revolvers used in the Lyman tests had a hole drilled into a cylinder chamber in order to attach the pressure sensor. The cylinder gap would not be a factor in pressure measurements. Velocity, yes, pressure, no, as I understand it.

Spence

 

[Carbon 6]

The revolvers used in the Lyman tests had a hole drilled into a cylinder chamber in order to attach the pressure sensor. The cylinder gap would not be a factor in pressure measurements. Velocity, yes, pressure, no, as I understand it.

Spence

Right and that's exactly what I would expect. The results are exactly as predicted.

 

[Comfortably_Numb]

I have never used 4f as the main charge. BUT I wouldn't have a problem with it IF used in a reduced volume compared to my regular 2f or 3f charge, I'd probably work with a chronograph as was mentioned several pages ago. Maybe start at 2/3rds of my standard load and work up until I reach comparable velocity.
In my own experience, 3f works well with round ball but in many cases blows patterns when shooting shot. I suspect it lights too fast and deforms the shot on ignition shock, or in other words it shoots harder and faster. I would expect 4f to have the same result, but have never tried it. Also, I have found 4f to turn to soup in the pan in my humid summertime environment. I would be suspicious it may do the same thing inside the barrel, although that is just my unproven skepticism.
Honestly, this has been 6 pages of an old hen squabble. I'll not ever use 4f for a main charge as I have cases of 2 & 3f to use, but if somebody else wants to use it with the proper caution go for it.

 

[BlackHillsBob]

i just want to say here that ive known big ted for years from another site. he is always interesting and never ever considered him one of the guys that causes crap. dont go away big ted, you have a good rep.