olde eynsford

[George]

Really?

Really.

You don't have to read much of Bill Knight's stuff to recognize his style.

"When the Swiss limit there wood charing temperature to 300 to 320 degrees...."

"If Swiss powder is subjected to acetone leaching, and then dried. It will loose totally the desired "moist-burning" property."

Failure to understand the difference in the usage of "there" and "their", of "loose" and "lose", incomplete sentences, orphan phrases and incorrect punctuation are only a few of the hallmarks of Knight's writing, and the fact it is published in a company brochure doesn't excuse it.

Spence

 

[cynthialee]

Well I imagine Bill was too busy in the workshop and on the range to bother with grammer classes. Spelling and grammer were not high on his list of priorities I wager.

 

[BlackNet]

Really?

Really.

You don't have to read much of Bill Knight's stuff to recognize his style.

"When the Swiss limit there wood charing temperature to 300 to 320 degrees...."

"If Swiss powder is subjected to acetone leaching, and then dried. It will loose totally the desired "moist-burning" property."

Failure to understand the difference in the usage of "there" and "their", of "loose" and "lose", incomplete sentences, orphan phrases and incorrect punctuation are only a few of the hallmarks of Knight's writing, and the fact it is published in a company brochure doesn't excuse it.

Spence

So to clarify for us simpletons the only gripe you have is Skitt’s Law and nothing of a technical nature relating to the subject matter?

 

[George]

So to clarify for us simpletons the only gripe you have is Skitt’s Law and nothing of a technical nature relating to the subject matter?

Two things: #1, Skitt's Law doesn't apply, I've read tons of Knight's writings and those items I mentioned aren't typos, they are part and parcel of the way he presents his material. #2, I don't know any simpletons.

You are correct, I have nothing technical to add.

You were putting forward the opinions of the authors of the pages you posted as the unquestioned truth, the facts, the way things really are. I was trying to point out that not everyone accepts that as the true state of affairs. I know Knight's writing well, and I've always had a problem with it in that work presented by an "expert" which is poorly written makes me less than confident about what is being presented.

I don't know von Maltitz, as far as I know he has the true last word. But, the promotional material for his book makes the point that it is his opinion based on his personal experience, and in the preface he says he is writing it because he is unhappy with what he wrote in a previous one. Wonder what will be in the third?

It would be helpful if you cited the people whose opinions you have accepted as gospel instead of just stating their opinions as facts so those of us with the interest could check it out for ourselves. Some of us are less accepting of free-floating "facts" than others.

I apologize to the board for dragging the discussion off topic.

Deal me out.

Spence

 

[fleener]

Anyone know if bill knight is still around? Been awhile since I have talked to him. At that time he was spending a lot of riding his bike

Fleener

 

[LaBonte]

Well with all due respect Mr, Spence, but GLAZING can be and is/was done without using graphite and was so done in the 19th Century at least per the following info. FWIW - None of the following info came from the Mad Monk or anyone else with bad grammar. While poor grammar can be a pain to read and my not "seem" professional (although after years of working closely with lots of varied and well educated professionals - outside of pro writers0 ,more than a few of those pros who had poor language skills). What it has to do with actual facts is beyond me, especially when studying historical documents of any era with their poor spelling and grammar ....

Anyway this first book was written by John Braddock, Esq. Deputy Commissary Of (English)Ordnance in 1832, and while glazing is described (as well as it's advantages and disadvantages), no where is the use of graphite aka black lead mentioned for glazing(at least none I could find.)

121. By means of Wire sieves of different degrees of fineness the grain is separated and classified. It is then glazed; the cannon powder, by being shut up for one hour and a half in a long reel or cylinder, covered with strong close-wove canvass, and making 40 revolutions per minute; and the musket and rifle powder, by being enclosed in a large cask or glazing barrel, perfectly smooth inside, and working with the same velocity as the reel or cylinder. In either case the abrasion of the grains against one another, and against the inner surfaces of the reel or barrel, breaks off the sharp points and angles, imparts to them more roundness, and finishes by adding a smoothness and polish to their surface. Such are the operations of pressing, granulation, and glazing.

123. The operations of pressing and glazing preserve the powder; they make it competent to withstand the shaking and friction of carriage, and render it less liable to deteriorate if kept long in store, or if subjected to the influence of humid atmospheres.

126."Moderately glazed powder is more durable than unglazed powder, because the grains are rendered firmer, and less liable to attract moisture."

Memoir On Gunpowder; In Which Are Discussed, The Principles Both Of Its Manufacture And Proof.
By John Braddock, Esq. Deputy Commissary Of Ordnance.
Printed at Madrass, at the expense of the Indian government, for use of the artillery.
1832 http://books.google.com/books/down...unpowder.pdf?id=ua06AAAAcAAJ&output=pdf&hl=en
These quotes are from from page 70-72 in the PDF Version page 54-56 of the actual book.


The second book is by Captain Francis M. Smith in 1871. While graphite is mentioned, he states it was only used on very coarse powders and not for sporting powders.

R.L.G. (NOTE: coarse powder similar to Fg in grain size of 1/8-1/4") remains in the barrels for 40 minutes. With this powder, and generally speaking with all larger grained powders, a little graphite is used to obtain a better surface; 1/2 oz. to the 100 lbs. of powder is the quantity employed. This gives a fine silvery surface to the grain, but care must be taken to use the proper description or black lead (AKA: graphite), as there are some descriptions sold which do not answer the purpose at all. It must be remembered that black lead is really an impurity, and that therefore it should be sparingly applied to powder.
It is never used with any of the fine small-arm powders, but only with powders intended to be used in large charges, and with the express intention of giving them a surface which will if anything retard rather than quicken ignition. A great deal of the inferior blasting powder which is sold nowadays is polished with black lead to a high degree of brilliancy, but it is needless to remark that the lustre it possesses is no test of quality.

Captain Francis M. Smith
Handbook and Proof of Gunpowder, as Carried on at the Royal Gunpowder Factory, Waltham Abbey.
HMSO, London 1871 http://books.google.com/books/about/A_handbook_of_the_manufacture_and_proof.html?id=6ggHAAAAQAAJ
the above quote is from page 98 in the PDF Version page 57 of the actual book

 

[Rat Trapper]

Anyone know if bill knight is still around? Been awhile since I have talked to him. At that time he was spending a lot of riding his bike

Fleener

Mr Knight is deceased, last month if I remember correctly.

 

[necchi]

Anyone know if bill knight is still around? Been awhile since I have talked to him. At that time he was spending a lot of riding his bike

Fleener

Mr Knight is deceased, last month if I remember correctly.

Wrong Bill Knight.
The Mad Monk is not the same feller as the one of in-line rifle fame.

 

[Dphar]

So to clarify for us simpletons the only gripe you have is Skitt’s Law and nothing of a technical nature relating to the subject matter?

Two things: #1, Skitt's Law doesn't apply, I've read tons of Knight's writings and those items I mentioned aren't typos, they are part and parcel of the way he presents his material. #2, I don't know any simpletons.

You are correct, I have nothing technical to add.

You were putting forward the opinions of the authors of the pages you posted as the unquestioned truth, the facts, the way things really are. I was trying to point out that not everyone accepts that as the true state of affairs. I know Knight's writing well, and I've always had a problem with it in that work presented by an "expert" which is poorly written makes me less than confident about what is being presented.

I don't know von Maltitz, as far as I know he has the true last word. But, the promotional material for his book makes the point that it is his opinion based on his personal experience, and in the preface he says he is writing it because he is unhappy with what he wrote in a previous one. Wonder what will be in the third?

It would be helpful if you cited the people whose opinions you have accepted as gospel instead of just stating their opinions as facts so those of us with the interest could check it out for ourselves. Some of us are less accepting of free-floating "facts" than others.

I apologize to the board for dragging the discussion off topic.

Deal me out.

Spence

Perhaps Bill cannot afford an editor?

Maybe you could do the research and the testing over 40 years or so and then write it up properly. Of course I will likely be gone by then so I will have to stay with what Bill has done.

Not being an English Major I never really found anything objectionable in his writings.
If he writes me and tells me the powder is dusty because sulfur oxidizing bacteria at work on it in the cans I have to believe him.
He would even give a "bug count" on some lots.
Dan

 

[mike3132]

i'm expecting the arrival of 5 lbs of 2F olde eynsford today. i'll be doing some comparisons to swiss 2F in both my long range target rifle and both my muzzleloading shotgun and flint fowler. this should be interesting..

I got 10 lbs schedule to arrive tomorrow. Has anyone shoot and compared it to Goex? Mike

 

[Jason Lewis]

i haven't yet, it just seems to keep raining here.

 

[Dphar]

So to clarify for us simpletons the only gripe you have is Skitt’s Law and nothing of a technical nature relating to the subject matter?

Two things: #1, Skitt's Law doesn't apply, I've read tons of Knight's writings and those items I mentioned aren't typos, they are part and parcel of the way he presents his material. #2, I don't know any simpletons.

You are correct, I have nothing technical to add.

You were putting forward the opinions of the authors of the pages you posted as the unquestioned truth, the facts, the way things really are. I was trying to point out that not everyone accepts that as the true state of affairs. I know Knight's writing well, and I've always had a problem with it in that work presented by an "expert" which is poorly written makes me less than confident about what is being presented.

I don't know von Maltitz, as far as I know he has the true last word. But, the promotional material for his book makes the point that it is his opinion based on his personal experience, and in the preface he says he is writing it because he is unhappy with what he wrote in a previous one. Wonder what will be in the third?

It would be helpful if you cited the people whose opinions you have accepted as gospel instead of just stating their opinions as facts so those of us with the interest could check it out for ourselves. Some of us are less accepting of free-floating "facts" than others.

I apologize to the board for dragging the discussion off topic.

Deal me out.

Spence

The problem was that the post reeked of high brow snobbery. It was also a personal attack that in no way addressed the material being discussed.

Read an 18th c journal or the Journals of L&C as written. These two guys were both pretty well educated. One was the PRESIDENTS SECRETARY and you will find the same word spelled different ways on the same page. Nobody cared. They were getting to written down and dealing with day to day problems and were likely pretty damned tired to boot. Nobody really cares now unless its a graded paper or its written for pay. I know a guy who edits a magazine. He used to get a lot of stuff from a retired teacher than he had to spend a lot of time re-writing. The KNOWLEDGE was good, the writing abysmal.
I typo stuff all the time. But then I don't have a college degree either. I have a "check as you type" that changes typos to things I don't mean as well so if I don't bother to carefully re-read every post it will have a greater or lesser number of typos that I miss and grammatical errors too. I try to improve the latter its being less obvious than typos, still I tend to type in colloquial English. Not being an English major this is about the best I can do.
I do carefully re-read anything I send for publication and work to make it read right. Why would I bother here? Its usually a type and run situation like today when I should be gone already.
I have known Bill though correspondence and phone calls for near 40 years. I have reams of his material.
I have never found him to be wrong in technical stuff he as actually tested or much or anything for that matter. I have a college type that tells me that some of his untested linseed oil stuff is in error and when questioned Bill said he had not actually tested that facet but went on historical research which modern science has proved wrong. Perfect? Nope. Who is?
We have found over time that shop cooked boiled linseed oil may not dry as well a year or two after its made as it did at the time and it may need to be reheated to fully restore its properties. This was not a problem for the old time gunsmith who only did enough for 2-3 guns but if you make 3 quarts...

I still take him at face value. His knowledge has over the years saved me a great deal of labor and in one case the company a did gunsmithing for a lot of money. He told me why that sometimes 1/4 or more of a can of BP was useless dust. He told me WHY the powder I was using would never equal the original factory ballistics of the BP cartridges I shot. When Swiss arrived on the scene that did not have the disabilities the current powder had I COULD make factory ballistics. So I have to assume that Bill's research was right.
To demean some one because they failed to spell supercalifragilisticexpialidocious properly sounds more like jealousy or someone being told something they don't agree with but lack the knowledge to refute other than by attacking the author personally.

Dan

 

[Ranch 13]

i'm expecting the arrival of 5 lbs of 2F olde eynsford today. i'll be doing some comparisons to swiss 2F in both my long range target rifle and both my muzzleloading shotgun and flint fowler. this should be interesting..

I got 10 lbs schedule to arrive tomorrow. Has anyone shoot and compared it to Goex? Mike

I haven't shot it in a muzzleloader yet, but it is a bunch faster than regular Goex and a bit faster than Swiss in cartridges. Friend of mine shot some 2f in his 54 flinter yesterday and reports nearly 100 fps over the same charge of regular Goex 2f. The fouling (or lack of it) is almost unbelievable.

 

[mike3132]

My 10 lbs order came yesterday. Maybe this weekend I will get to shoot and compare it to Goex. Mike

 

[bigbore442001]

My 10 lbs order came yesterday. Maybe this weekend I will get to shoot and compare it to Goex. Mike

So. Have you had a chance to test this new powder out? I am really anxious to see how well it works and that would be a great impetus to buy some for myself.

 

[Dickydalton]

I shot a couple cylinders of 3F Olde Eynsford & round Ball out of my 1858 rem and it was way cleaner than Goex and maybe even Swiss 3F. I didn't use the crono or shoot for accuracy on paper. (I did hit fine the target)

 

[bigbore442001]

I shot a couple cylinders of 3F Olde Eynsford & round Ball out of my 1858 rem and it was way cleaner than Goex and maybe even Swiss 3F. I didn't use the crono or shoot for accuracy on paper. (I did hit fine the target)

Did you notice any change in recoil? If so, that would be an indicator of increased velocity. From what I hear it is a great powder. I'd love to see some numbers across the screens to make a comparison.

Maybe I should take a chance and get a few pounds and try it out.

 

[Jason Lewis]

olde E initial results...

We have finally had a couple of nice dry days here in IA which not only allowed me to plant my asparagus and potatoes, finally. it more importantly gave me a chance to get to the range for some comparison shooting.

I completed the first of my comparison tests which is from my long range target rifle. for those that don't know, long range means 800yrds +, most commonly out to 1,000yrds, with one 1200 yrd match that i know of. by and large, this field is dominated by swiss powders, with the occasional newbie shooting good ole GOEX.

since this is what i shoot during the warm months of the year, it seemed like the logical place to start. GOEX is advertising Olde E as being able to compete with the finest of the european import powders, by this we can only assume them to imply Swiss and Scheuzten. A high benchmark to be sure.

so let's begin, first off, Swiss has a very polished appearance, shiny in fact which results from the factory polishing the powder as one fo the final steps in production. the Olde E did not have a polished shiny appearance and was quite dull, much the same color as normal GOEX. however, the Olde E does not have the fines that seem to be present in normal GOEX. Swiss doesn't have noticable fines either.

at the range today is shot both powders, 5 shots of 90grns Swiss 2F, and 5 shots of Olde E 2F. all powder charges were thrown with a lyman 55 powder measure.

load is as follows
530grn pp bullet
a wad cookie, of 1- .030 veggie wad, 1-wonder wad and 1- .030 veggie wad.
90grns of either swiss or olde E.

with a chronoy F-1 at 10ft from the muzzle.

Swiss
1290fps
1291
1289
1307
1299

Olde E
1176fps
1194
1209
1182
1175

so basically, the Olde E is about 100fps slower than the same charge of Swiss.

the amount of fouling did appear to be slightly less than Swiss, but, given that the velocity was lower you'd have to add more powder to get Swiss velocities. so the fouling advantage might be moot.

both powders cleaned up easily.

let's compare Olde E to normal GOEX 2F.

this data is about 6 years old, shot from my long range rifle again using the same 530 grn bullet and wadding. 90grns of 2F GOEX

chronograph @ 8ft from the muzzle

856fps
888
901
894
902
879
891
899
883
876

so Olde E is remarkable better than normal ole GOEX in terms of velocity and fouling. shot to shot consistancy seems to be about the same between Olde E and Swiss.

please ask any questions guys/gals i will do my best to answer them.

as always, your mileage may vary.

next test, shotguns..

 

[fleener]

Which was most accurate?

Fleener

 

[Ranch 13]

Did you weigh those charges, or just drop them from the volume setting for the Swiss?