Powder Preference Question

[Eterry]

FFF is all I use as a main charge, and have for several years, because a skirmisher friend got me a huge sack of it at the nationals. He told me most there use FFF but cut back the main charge, which I do as well.

Long before the interweb days, when I was a downtrodden youth, (that's PC for poor), I had a flintlock for a short time and it came with a # of FFFF. I sold the flinter but kept the powder, and with no one to tell me different started using it as a main charge in my cap 45 rifle. Both the rifle and I survived using 60gr FFFF. Am I saying to use it as a main charge...NO...but relating what I did in my misspent youth.

One of these days when I finish my early Lancaster I plan to use FFF as a prime and main, but that's me. I also like Redheaded wimmen and ford trucks, so I guess I'm weird.

 

[jackley]

4f for me. I read that the top target shooters are using Null-B so there must be a reason.

Jerry

 

[Donny]

4f for me. I read that the top target shooters are using Null-B so there must be a reason.

Jerry

Probably because the "serious" competitors use the very best equipment available. They would beat me and mos everyone with a Lyman Hawken and would not be seen with a Traditions rifle so they buy the best. Like a pro bass fishermen with a cane pole could out fish me using the most expensive rod & reel. Same with golf, etc. I shoot a lot but I am not a top target shooter so 2F works fine for me. I learned a long time ago you can't buy high scores. However if I was, I would go Top Flight all the way. (joke).

 

[faste350]

to each his own. you do as you like and so shall the rest of us. some of us have noticed the difference and some have not and thats fine, opinions differ. the gentleman asked for preference and that is what and why was stated. i'll continue to spend and carry more, thats what works for me.

 

[zimmerstutzen]

With a well tuned custom lock, an experienced match shooter can tell the difference, both in speed and on the target. If you are shooting an ultra hi flintlock, you will be glad it fires, even if it does go click-sssshhhhhhhh-boom. Many don't shoot enough, or with sufficiently accurate equipment to realize a difference. For them, there truly is no difference. For those who have punched enough paper, well the truth is quite different.

 

[chukyzlogin]

Ditto for me also, you have to remember the old timers carried one horn for both.

 

[chukyzlogin]

Most shooters use too much priming powder and accuracy suffers. A good flinter will have the same lock time as a cap gun if primed properly.

 

[EC121]

I just ordered some Null-B last week. $30 a pound. I just wanted to try it. I've always used 4F because that is how I started. I don't use a priming horn just a primer in my bag.1

 

[chukyzlogin]

I hope it works out for you, let us know please.

 

[Artificer]

Has all to do with what's already in your horn. I don't recall reading much aaaaytalllll about separate horns or separate powders back in the day most of these guns try to emulate.

You are correct, IF there is any documentation for a second horn for priming only, such documentation is truly rare for the 18th century, though there may be some in the 19th century? I really don't know about the latter as I have not studied that period as much.

The "Two Horn" or separate horns for main charge powder and another for priming powder probably began in the late 1960's or early 1970's. The first time I showed up at the Primitive Range at the Spring National at Friendship in 1974, it was well under way. Some folks had beautiful matched sets of horns hanging from their Shot Pouches.

The problem is that to my knowledge, no period drawings, sketches, engravings or paintings of 18th century Rifleman shows them having a second horn. I don't know of any early 19th century documentation, either, but there may be something out there of which I am unaware.

I tried ffffg in my flint rifle and Brown Bess Carbine in competition/target use and frankly, never saw any difference in faster lock time or scores.

After Pletch came along and his testing showed the difference in lock time was so miniscule no human could realize the difference, a lot of folks stopped using two horns. (Folks may believe there is a difference, psychologically, but that doesn't make it true.)

Gee, the "Old Fellers" with their single horns really knew what they were doing after all, eh?

Of course anyone can use any granulation of powder in their priming pan they like.

Gus

 

[Billnpatti]

It is not at all uncommon for flintlock shooters to use 3f in their pans. Many flintlock shooters will simply use in their pan whatever powder they are using for their main charge. The difference in ignition times are miniscule and, for the average shooter, they will not notice any difference in their accuracy do to any insignificance difference in ignition times. The only reason I use either 4f or Null B in my pan is because I have a pound of each. My normal pan charge is about 5 grains. So, at 7,000 grains to the pound, you can see that it will be a while before I go back to using 2f or 3f in my pan.....about 2,800 shots. Maybe a bit less since I have opened and used some from each can.

 

[PA16th]

Mike,
One summer forgot mt my 4ffff when I went to shoot. Used 2ff and did not have any miss-fires.
Then kept reducing the amount in the pan till there was barely any in the pan. Still did not fail to fire.
3fff would be fine.
Like others I still have a 1/2 a can of 4ffff to use, then I plan on using 3fff.
Don

 

[Twisted_1in66]

to each his own. you do as you like and so shall the rest of us. some of us have noticed the difference and some have not and thats fine, opinions differ. the gentleman asked for preference and that is what and why was stated. i'll continue to spend and carry more, thats what works for me.

And more power to you blackpowder62 it that's what works for you. You do it your way and I'll do it mine and we'll both be happy about it because it's what we like to do.

Good smoke!
Twisted_1in66 "thumbsup"
Dan

 

[George]

Has all to do with what's already in your horn. I don't recall reading much aaaaytalllll about separate horns or separate powders back in the day most of these guns try to emulate.

You are correct, IF there is any documentation for a second horn for priming only, such documentation is truly rare for the 18th century, though there may be some in the 19th century?

The problem is that to my knowledge, no period drawings, sketches, engravings or paintings of 18th century Rifleman shows them having a second horn.

How about 16th century? Here's a drawing of a French Musketeer, 1564, with a main and priming horn. :grin:



And an indirect reference, British military, recommending finer grain powder for priming because it is quicker and less subject to flash in the pan or klatch:

Extract from a letter from Major George Scott, 40th Foot, CO of the Light Infantry Battalion on the February, 1758, Louisbourg expedition, to Lord Loudoun, CIC in America. This letter refers to kit he is recommending for rangers and light troops:

“The powder horn recommended carrying pistol powder with its more combustible grain. Easily ready to hand and slung off the left shoulder under the right arm pit, the horn is a quicker and more convenient way of priming one’s musket, and is not subject to burn powder or miss fire."

Spence

 

[AZbpBurner]

Back in the late 60's, the old gent who introduced me to flintlocks always primed the pan from the horn he used for powder in the main charge. Many of his old rifles came with horns, some even engraved with the original owner's name. All contained "rifle powder", although from horn to horn it seemed some looked to be 2F and others 3F. Most horns had powder measures & when I asked about the volume of the measures, he said that it didn't matter, since it was the right amount for that particular rifle & someone had already figured that out before the rifle came into his family's collection.

I have a little Treso pan primer that throws a 3 gr. 4F charge and I use it every trip to the range. It's small & doesn't hold enough for a full days' shooting, so near the end of the day I'll either prime from my 2F horn or 3F horn or flask, depending on the gun. I can't tell the difference between priming with 4F, 3F or 2F - I don't miss bigger with one than the other.

 

[Twisted_1in66]

Although this is definitely documentation of a recommendation by a British officer, that's not how the British ended up doing it.

The Drill Manual of 1764, which is what the Brits used from 1764 throughout the Revolution specified priming from the cartridge - bite the top off the cartridge; prime the pan; pour the remaining charge down the barrel; and ram the paper and ball home.

Bearing in mind that the British soldier was expected to charge and fire at a rate of 3 shots per minute, using a second horn may have slowed that down. It also would have added some logistical problems such as supplying a finer granulation in addition to the standard granulation, as well as providing all the soldiers with a horn to use in addition to their paper cartridges. On a large scale this would have been problematic. So although Major George Scott recognized that it may have produced better results and recommended its use, that was not the method proscribed by His Majesty and used by his army, at least not from 1764 on.

I think we would be more likely to find evidence of use of a priming horn in the private sector and perhaps in the use of rifles as opposed to muskets and fowlers. So far that documentation has not been forthcoming and at best, use of a priming horn would have been the exception and certainly not the rule.

Twisted_1in66 :thumbsup:
Dan

 

[BrownBear]

...bite the top off the cartridge; prime the pan; pour the remaining charge down the barrel; and ram the paper and ball home....

I tested that with my own Bess. But since it's at it's best with 1f powder I was expecting ignition issues. But I was pleasantly surprised by the results with such coarse pan primer. Works like a charm and doesn't seem to be the least bit slower than a finer granulation.

I figure ole whazzisname who came up with the Bess knew what he was doing with that great big pan. I fill it about half full and never look back. As an added bonus, the coarser powder in the pan seems much less bothered by humidity.

 

[excess650]

While the Brits may have chosen to not complicate things, recall that they were shooting smoothbores and firing from the shoulder by leveling rather than sighting. Volley fire was more important to them than accuracy. Too, they were lighting off the charge with a rock and steel large enough to start a forest fire. :haha:

My own locks use from 5/8" to 7/8" flints. The larger the flint, the larger the pan in which to catch the spark, and the more apt to be reliable with dull flint. The smaller locks generally have quicker lock time and cause less disturbance to aim. Both of these latter points are important for offhand shooting. :thumbsup: Yes, I prefer ffffg in the pan.

 

[Cruzatte]

Hey Guys,

Anyone out there use fff in the pan and as charge?
Thanks
Mike

I had used up my supply of 2f previous to last week end's shoot. I found a can of 3f, and so filled my horn with that. To top it off, I deliberately did not fill my priming horn, which normally has 4f powder in it. I primed my rifle several times with 3f from the main horn. I couldn't tell any difference. So....I'm a convert. Except I have about a pound and a half of 4f to use up. But when it's gone that'll be the end of it for me.

 

[M. De Land]

It's not just the ease of lighting that makes finer powder better for the pan it also produces more flash for the same volume because of the more rapid burn from the finer grains.
Try some Null-B or Meal-D in your pan and I think you will notice the difference in speed of ignition. These are both black powder dust, one from Swiss the other from Goex.
Greater speed and consistency of ignition are aids to better accuracy, especially when shooting offhand.