The main impact that a real or perceived speed in ignition or lock time, or loading method or a host of other "things" that are claimed to be better, faster, whatever by individuals is the confidence factor, if you believe in your method you will do well, if there are any doubts your efforts may be at risk.
Pan Powder
- Thread starter FishDFly
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
Larry Pletcher
50 Cal.
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2006
- Messages
- 1,313
- Reaction score
- 67
Hi Longrifle78,longrifle78 said:
I like your tests. There is nothing in scientific process that says we should overlook practical, real world, applications. Your first test uses enough shooters and enough targets (shots)to draw meaningful conclusions. A logical extention of your experiment would be to try the same thing with a group of skeet shooters for example, or pistol shooters. At any rate I like what you did.
Regarding your second example - I agree. Human senses are terrible tools to measure the differences we're discussing.
My goal in the timing I did was a little different in that my primary goal was to see if there was a difference in the priming powder, so I began by removing every variable except the powder. That meant that variables a shooter brings to the table had to go.
Your goal was to see if there was a difference in shooters' preformance with different priming powders. Obviously you cannot leave the shooters out, as I tried to do.
Thanks for your comments. I am always interested in experiments dealing with BP topics.
Regards,
Pletch
Larry Pletcher
50 Cal.
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2006
- Messages
- 1,313
- Reaction score
- 67
Consistency is a big factor. When timing locks I like to time 20 trials. I can get a good read on consistency as well as speed. For instance, the way the flint is installed may alter consistency as well as speed. This is not to say that a lock can't have both. The fastest lock I ever timed was an original Manton. It was also the most consistent.
Regards,
Pletch
Pletch, I seem to recall that you had asked T/C if you could borrow one of their Flint lock assemblies to test, and they never answered you.
If you know when your next block of available time is coming up with the equipment to run some more Flint lock tests, I'd be willing to send you one of my T/C locks as a loaner for a series of T/C lock tests...just let me know.
If you know when your next block of available time is coming up with the equipment to run some more Flint lock tests, I'd be willing to send you one of my T/C locks as a loaner for a series of T/C lock tests...just let me know.
Larry Pletcher
50 Cal.
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2006
- Messages
- 1,313
- Reaction score
- 67
roundball said:
As you suspected, I got no reply from them. I think what we wanted to do is to time the old version against the new one. That might be trouble if most shooters sent in their old one for replacement.
It will probably be late fall or winter before I get the time. I haul grain for a friend when fall weather cooperates. I have a similar lock comparison project for winter, maybe that would be a good time. Jim Chambers and I are planning a timing project with one of his pistol kits. All trials will be with the same gun; the variable will be the locks:
siler flint
siler percussion
mule-ear on a siler plate
Should be fun.
Regards,
Pletch
Emet Huntsman
40 Cal.
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2008
- Messages
- 499
- Reaction score
- 0
My rifle prefers 3f for the main charge and 4f for the prime. I have never had a wetness problem with either.
Pletch
I'm sure it was your article I remember reading in Muzzle Blasts, and I seem to remember that on average the results of your tests showed that 4F powder lit off about .002 seconds faster than the 3Fg powder did.
Did I remember correctly or did my memory fail me (again)?
Assuming for the moment that I did remember correctly, to put .002 seconds into something folks can visualize: If two top fuel dragsters reached the finish line that far apart and both were traveling at 300 miles per hour, the winner would be ahead by 10 9/16 inches.
If the muzzle of a 42 inch barrel was waving back and forth at a speed of 1 inch per second, your shot at a range of 50 yards would miss the point of aim when the pan powder flashed by .086 due to the .002 delay caused by the slower 3Fg powder.
Even if my memory is gone and .002 isn't the correct number, IMO there are a lot of things that are more important than the differences between 3Fg and 4Fg powder in the pan to worry about. :hmm:
I'm sure it was your article I remember reading in Muzzle Blasts, and I seem to remember that on average the results of your tests showed that 4F powder lit off about .002 seconds faster than the 3Fg powder did.
Did I remember correctly or did my memory fail me (again)?
Assuming for the moment that I did remember correctly, to put .002 seconds into something folks can visualize: If two top fuel dragsters reached the finish line that far apart and both were traveling at 300 miles per hour, the winner would be ahead by 10 9/16 inches.
If the muzzle of a 42 inch barrel was waving back and forth at a speed of 1 inch per second, your shot at a range of 50 yards would miss the point of aim when the pan powder flashed by .086 due to the .002 delay caused by the slower 3Fg powder.
Even if my memory is gone and .002 isn't the correct number, IMO there are a lot of things that are more important than the differences between 3Fg and 4Fg powder in the pan to worry about. :hmm:
Thanks for a worthwhile and valuable experiment and fantastic video. Incredible!
Any possibility (or maybe it's already been done)of showing ball shape in flight. I'm interested in knowing how bullet obturation, powder charge and ball/patch size are related.
i.e. if obturation is really significant why worry over 0.005 for ball size or 0.005 in patch thickness.
If it has been done, is there a link?
Any possibility (or maybe it's already been done)of showing ball shape in flight. I'm interested in knowing how bullet obturation, powder charge and ball/patch size are related.
i.e. if obturation is really significant why worry over 0.005 for ball size or 0.005 in patch thickness.
If it has been done, is there a link?
paulvallandigham
Passed On
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2006
- Messages
- 17,537
- Reaction score
- 94
Bob: You are mixing issues, and asking 2 different questions. The shape of the ball during flight is not related much to ball size used.
The reason we are concerned about ball diameter/bore diameter, and patch thickness is because of those hot gases pushing behind the PRB as it comes out the barrel. Something has to seal the grooves, as the ball rides on the lands, and is usually smaller than the land( bore) diameter for ease of loading. If the Ball/patch combination does not provide a good seal, the gas cuts and tears the patching, and then melts or " cuts" a part of the ball, distorting its shape and introducing additional drag in the air, which sends the ball off POA.
To some extent, using a filler, or an OP wad of the correct diameter blocks these gases, and allows you to use thinner patching around the ball. This may help in loading a PRB in the barrel quickly, but no real time is saved in total loading time because of the extra step in loading the OP wad or filler. When you can't find the exact patch thickness needed to seal the bore of your gun with the ball diameter you have on hand-- How many of us have searched for this " Holy Grail" for years, driving the ladies at JoAnn Fabrics crazy with our micrometers???-----using an OP wad can at least put you on the range shooting respectable groups. :rotf:
So, the reason we are concerned about ball diameter, and patch thickness has to do with getting the gun to shoot the ball from the barrel, with the gas BEHIND the ball, not around and in front of it. This keeps velocity within a narrower range, for smaller groups, and more accuracy between the POA and POI. Indirectly, if gas does cut a patch because its too thin, the shape of the ball in the air is affected, too. :redface: :shocked2:
:cursing:
I hope that helps to answer your question. I am sure that time lapse photography of RB in the air have been done. I just don't recall where I last saw such pictures in articles.
I have recovered balls fired into water at low speeds( so they don't flatten on impact) and they all show a flattened side for each of the lands in your barrel. If you look very closely at these "flats" you can also see the faint impression of the weave of the cloth patching.
The balls are not " round " as they leave the muzzle of any rifled barrel, if that is what you are wanting to know. The closer the diameter of the ball is to the bore diameter of the gun, the wider the flats seem to be on the fired balls. Even PRBs fired out of smoothbores will obturate, and have a bit of a flat "ring " around the ball where it is pushing against the side of the bore. The obturation comes the push from behind, so if there is a difference in circumference of the ball, its the back half of the PRB that will be " flatter" than the front half of these lead balls fired from Smoothbores.
The reason we are concerned about ball diameter/bore diameter, and patch thickness is because of those hot gases pushing behind the PRB as it comes out the barrel. Something has to seal the grooves, as the ball rides on the lands, and is usually smaller than the land( bore) diameter for ease of loading. If the Ball/patch combination does not provide a good seal, the gas cuts and tears the patching, and then melts or " cuts" a part of the ball, distorting its shape and introducing additional drag in the air, which sends the ball off POA.
To some extent, using a filler, or an OP wad of the correct diameter blocks these gases, and allows you to use thinner patching around the ball. This may help in loading a PRB in the barrel quickly, but no real time is saved in total loading time because of the extra step in loading the OP wad or filler. When you can't find the exact patch thickness needed to seal the bore of your gun with the ball diameter you have on hand-- How many of us have searched for this " Holy Grail" for years, driving the ladies at JoAnn Fabrics crazy with our micrometers???-----using an OP wad can at least put you on the range shooting respectable groups. :rotf:
So, the reason we are concerned about ball diameter, and patch thickness has to do with getting the gun to shoot the ball from the barrel, with the gas BEHIND the ball, not around and in front of it. This keeps velocity within a narrower range, for smaller groups, and more accuracy between the POA and POI. Indirectly, if gas does cut a patch because its too thin, the shape of the ball in the air is affected, too. :redface: :shocked2:
:cursing: I hope that helps to answer your question. I am sure that time lapse photography of RB in the air have been done. I just don't recall where I last saw such pictures in articles.
I have recovered balls fired into water at low speeds( so they don't flatten on impact) and they all show a flattened side for each of the lands in your barrel. If you look very closely at these "flats" you can also see the faint impression of the weave of the cloth patching.
The balls are not " round " as they leave the muzzle of any rifled barrel, if that is what you are wanting to know. The closer the diameter of the ball is to the bore diameter of the gun, the wider the flats seem to be on the fired balls. Even PRBs fired out of smoothbores will obturate, and have a bit of a flat "ring " around the ball where it is pushing against the side of the bore. The obturation comes the push from behind, so if there is a difference in circumference of the ball, its the back half of the PRB that will be " flatter" than the front half of these lead balls fired from Smoothbores.
I found Pletch's tests to be very informative and the videos were absolutely fascinating. They proved which powders were fastest in the pan. What's important though is which ignites the charge the fastest. I think we can predict that the fastest to ignite in the pan will probably be the fastest to ignite the main charge also, but how much faster? Enough to make a difference? Short of more intense testing, which I think would be impractical, the only thing I can think of is shooting groups. An accurate shooter with an accurate gun, testing the different powders to see if they make a difference in group size. If they don't, then the differences in ignition speed are academic only.
Thanks to all for your insight.
In talking with the top flintlock paper shooters in Texas and who shoot spend time in Phoneix and Friendship, their preference for pan powder is 7F or NullB.
Seems to be the preference.
May each person some day reach the exclusinve 100 club.
RDE
In talking with the top flintlock paper shooters in Texas and who shoot spend time in Phoneix and Friendship, their preference for pan powder is 7F or NullB.
Seems to be the preference.
May each person some day reach the exclusinve 100 club.
RDE
