Pan Powder

[FishDFly]

Sometime ago I asked about the differences between 3, 4 and 7F for priming powder.

Learned a bit this week

3F is coated so it does not absorb mositure. Good point and not so good point for the powder, slower burning rate.

4F is faster in the pan, could be be a challenge in damp hunting, much better in paper target matches, it's not coated for dampness.

7F is like a rocket powder when used in dry conditions and for match use.

I shot my highest flintlock 50 yard pistol target ever using 7F. The loaner of the 7F asked what do you think, "response, you are not getting it back".

RDE

 

[arquebus]

It's my understanding that the 'g' after the F's means that the powder is coated with graphite to guard against moisture. All the 4F I've ever seen has the 'g' after it, so am pretty sure it's coated. Have never seen or used 7F but have used Swiss Null-B priming powder & that was excellent stuff. I think the difference in performance between 3Fg & 4Fg is due to the difference in granule size rather than any (lack of) coating.

 

[roundball]

4F is faster in the pan, could be be a challenge in damp hunting

Amen!

For hunting, I open the frizzen and check it occasionally...I gently tilt the rifle left or right and as long as the prime slides easily back and forth in the pan I'm good.
As soon as I realize I have to tilt the rifle steeper to get the prime to start sliding I know its starting to set up, so I flip it out and reprime with fresh 4F...and regardless of its behavior I refresh it at least hourly...only take a few seconds and hardly costs a penny per hunt...works for me!

 

[Ridge]

There are a lot of guys who say that 3f is just as fast for priming in their guns as 4f.

I've never found it to be true in my rifles. I lose both speed and reliability with 3F.

YMMV

 

[roundball]

It probably wouldn't matter just doing weekend plinking, shooting steel plates, etc, where great precision is not necessarily needed.

Plus...if you happen to run out of 4F and are faced with having to order a single can, it would cost about $40 to get that can to your front door so that may be a big factor too, dunno...to try and avoid that trap I always get one can of 4F in each case I order

 

[longrifle78]

Its been proven that in a good lock with a sharp flint that 4f offers no advantage over 3f , even in matches i prime with 3 and even manage to win one now and then. but if you feel more confident with 4 or 7 or whatever then go for it. :thumbsup:

 

[rabjr]

I've never seen 4F and only ever used 3F for prime. Works fine for me.

 

[tg]

To most shooters the difference in speed is not noticable, most everyone will see the difference in moisture draw with the finer powder.

 

[roundball]

Its been proven that in a good lock with a sharp flint that 4f offers no advantage over 3f

Interesting...one of the MLF members here has access to high speed photography equipment and sophisticated measuring equipment...has produced some astounding videos of a variety of Flintlock operations, one in particular being that 4F ignition was indeed faster than 3F, just as the black powder manufacturers advertise.

If we could get a link to the tests you reference or a location to the test results it would be appreciated...would like to study the test, see how it was conducted, see what timing references were used, etc...thanks

 

[Larry Pletcher]

Its been proven that in a good lock with a sharp flint that 4f offers no advantage over 3f

Interesting...one of the MLF members here has access to high speed photography equipment and sophisticated measuring equipment...has produced some astounding videos of a variety of Flintlock operations, one in particular being that 4F ignition was indeed faster than 3F, just as the black powder manufacturers advertise.

If we could get a link to the tests you reference or a location to the test results it would be appreciated...would like to study the test, see how it was conducted, see what timing references were used, etc...thanks

I would also like to see the results. It runs counter to the timing I have done. I'm always interested in the experiments of others.

Regards,
Pletch

 

[longrifle78]

I'm not arguing the fact that 4f will burn faster than 3f , that it will, what i'm saying is there is so many more varyables in a flintlock that there can be more diffrence from shot to shot than from powder to powder, like when a flint starts to get dull and sparks get weaker you may get longer lock time.Pletch, first i'd like to say thanks for sharing your tests with everyone very good stuff :hatsoff: .To me your test proved that you haf to hav a $50'000 camera to notice the diff between 3 and 4 f powder,maybee i need to look at the info again.

 

[Walks with fire]

I have used 3f, 4f and Swiss Null-B (which is probably 7f) and really like the Null-B over everything else. One thing in particular I find is that in the climate of Northwestern PA. the Swiss powders do not draw moisture to the fouling like Goex does. I really like the Swiss Null-B and don't have to keep changing it out like Goex 4f. Many say it's no better than Goex but I am sold on the Null-B.

Overall I like the Swiss powder fouling much better than the Goex because it's much drier; but it is a little harder if that's the proper term.
I use the Swiss for hunting and the Goex for range and casual shooting.

 

[mykeal]

I'm not arguing the fact that 4f will burn faster than 3f , that it will, what i'm saying is there is so many more varyables in a flintlock that there can be more diffrence from shot to shot than from powder to powder...

No, what you said was:

Its been proven that in a good lock with a sharp flint that 4f offers no advantage over 3f

Like roundball, I'm skeptical. Not saying you're wrong, I'd just like to see the proof.

 

[Larry Pletcher]

I'm not arguing the fact that 4f will burn faster than 3f , that it will, what i'm saying is there is so many more varyables in a flintlock that there can be more diffrence from shot to shot than from powder to powder, like when a flint starts to get dull and sparks get weaker you may get longer lock time.Pletch, first i'd like to say thanks for sharing your tests with everyone very good stuff :hatsoff: .To me your test proved that you haf to hav a $50'000 camera to notice the diff between 3 and 4 f powder,maybee i need to look at the info again.

Hi Longrifle78,
First I'd better say that I had access to the $50,000 camera. I do not own one - too bad - I can think of many BP things I'd like to try. I would like to see about scheduling more time with it but it's too early to tell.


The problem with using the high speed camera I had to do definitive timing is that it did not have a way of timing off the frames. The best I could do is compare ignition to other objects like the frizzen movement.

However timing with a computer and a physics interface is another story. Here I can time to the nearest ten thousandths of a second. In timing priming powder I ran 20 trials with each powder tested and listed averages. April 05 MB has the article.

Listed from fastest to slowest:
Swiss Null B
Swiss ffffg
Goex ffffg (after plant moved)
Goex ffffg (before plant moved)
Goex fffg
Goez ffg

Differences are measurable and repeatable. But human senses are a terrible tool to determine these tiny differences. I remember one ffg trial that sounded slow - and it was. But the remaining trials sound alike. If you can tell with eye or ear that ignition is slow, I speculate that it may be one of the variables that you suggest: less sparks, dulling flint, cooler sparks, pan moisture, poor lock care, add your own here. . . .

I'd add here too that in the work I did, I tried very hard to eliminate all variables so that the numbers I got were the result of the powder and not stray events creeping in. I even tried to regulate the humidity in my lab (er, garage :grin: ) from beginning to end. Obviously a flint shooter cannot do this in the real world shooting activities.

Regards,
Pletch

 

Addresed to no one...

It's true, there are measurements that can be taken in the laboratory, but they may have little to do with real life. The fact that a machine can measure something, may not have any practical application in everyday usage.

If a person cannot perceive the difference in to powders in the field and it makes absolutely no difference in his shooting accuracy, then all the lab results are moot and os no use to him. The tests satisfy some human desire, but they are useless to many.

Use what works for you.

 

[Larry Pletcher]

Addresed to no one...

It's true, there are measurements that can be taken in the laboratory, but they may have little to do with real life. The fact that a machine can measure something, may not have any practical application in everyday usage.

If a person cannot perceive the difference in to powders in the field and it makes absolutely no difference in his shooting accuracy, then all the lab results are moot and is no use to him. The tests satisfy some human desire, but they are useless to many.

Use what works for you.

Hi Carl,
I agree with you that real world shooting doesn't need the fastest priming powder, vent hole, or lock to put venison in the freezer. For most of us, the biggest variable in shooting is the nut pulling the trigger. But as long as folks make locks and shooters shoot them, we will always compare them - the old "my lock is faster than yours" idea. We all do this. We all want to think ours (what ever we have)is best.

The flaw I see in this is that we make broad statements about how good, reliable, fast our lock is. For most this is based on human senses. I heard two such statements at Friendship this fall. On two separate occasions different shooters told me that their guns fired before the flint got to the bottom of the frizzen. I let the comments pass, but should have challenged them. In order for a person to determine that, you would have to see fire coming out the vent and be able to tell where the flint edge was at that precise moment. Throw into that situation the idea that the best lock available to me and the fastest lock (original Manton) I have ever timed ignites its prime about the same time its frizzen completes its rebound, not when the flint is still moving.

The ability of a flint gun to ignite the barrel before the flint stops seems far-fetched to say the least. But to tell with human senses that this happens is IMHO far more unbelieveable. It is statements like this that motivate me to find out for myself. And I want to do it with better instruments that human eyes and ears.

I will keep experimenting even though I know that a deer in the freezer doesn't require what I want to find out. Besides, I enjoy the challenge and I like to try doing things that have never been done before.

I'm sorry I got carried away. I mean no disrespect. I just thought I needed to tell why testing and timing is such a kick to me.

Regards,
Pletch

 

[bingo1952]

Please keep on doing that testing you are doing. It is very interesting and really provides a lot of information for a lot of us as well as dispelling many preconceived notions. :thumbsup: :bow:

 

[roundball]

Pletch, your efforts and the integrity of your testing are not in questions what-so-ever...you continue to be an extremely far above average resource to the muzzleloading community, with whom you unselfishly share your results at no charge.

That 7F is faster than 5F is faster than 4F is faster than 3F is faster than 2F is faster than 1F, has long been established by the black powder industry and their whole 'granulation scheme' is based upon that. And you've not only verified that but have done so with a series of slow-motion "videos-of-a-lifetime" that are simply outstanding!

Declaring what may or may not be practical for various users and various circumstances strikes me as a slippry slope...to declare that 4f is not needed because 3F is good enough might be one person's view...then another's might be the claim that 3F is not needed as 2F is good enough, so those who use 3F for prime should switch and start using 2F instead, and so on.
For me, Goex makes 4F granulation as a priming powder and it's outstanding, so I'll continue using it to prime my Flintlocks

 

Addresed to no one...

It's true, there are measurements that can be taken in the laboratory, but they may have little to do with real life. The fact that a machine can measure something, may not have any practical application in everyday usage.

If a person cannot perceive the difference in to powders in the field and it makes absolutely no difference in his shooting accuracy, then all the lab results are moot and is no use to him. The tests satisfy some human desire, but they are useless to many.

Use what works for you.

I will keep experimenting even though I know that a deer in the freezer doesn't require what I want to find out.

Or a target or anything ease a person may want to shoot.

Besides, I enjoy the challenge and I like to try doing things that have never been done before.

Nobody can argue with that. It's your party - test away! :thumbsup:

 

[longrifle78]

Pletch like i said before, thanks for putting the time and effort into your tests i really enjoy seeing them , the tests i' v done are a lot less scientific than yours.Test one was take 10 pretty good shooters,hav them fire 5,5 shot groups at 50 yards with 3f prime and then repeat with 4f, there was no real difference in the average group size. another test we done was to load your gun hav someone else prime it fer ya and try to tell if they primed with 4 or 3 f , again no difference.I'm not saying dont use 4f if you feel more confident with it i'm just saying every thing i'v seen proves TO ME thers no advantage in doing so.