Powder selection.

[PowderMonkey]

I have a Lyman GPR in 50cal. I have been using 3f for the main charge and 4f for the pan. What are the advantages/disadvantages of using 3f for a 50cal instead of 2f?

The reason i'm using 3f is because soon i will have a 40cal and thought i could use 3f for both but if there are some advantages to using 2f for the 50cal i will just get some.

 

[Rifleman1776]

Use what works. Usually less of 3Fg compared to 2 Fg.

 

[Grenadier1758]

You need less 3fg powder for similar performance to 2fg. So you get more shots per pound. You can also try using the 3fg as the pan powder. Sometimes the slower burn time for the 2fg can give better accuracy. Most of us can't tell the difference.

 

[matt denison]

If you are interested in ringing out absolute best accuracy then you should try FFg too. You can't know what will print the smallest group until you give them both a chance.

 

[nwtradegun]

3f is most versatile use it for main charge and priming. as said you use less 3f than 2f. about 15 percent less than 2f. and with costs and hard to locate black powder that conserves it.

 

[MacRob46]

3F burns cleaner, producing less troublesome fouling. I don't know if there is actually less fouling but it does not seem to make loading harder (without wiping) as quickly as 2F. I do agree that you should try 2F before you settle on a load.

 

[Alden]

Bigger bores get bigger grains because of burn time and pressure curves. .50 is the line in the sand and is generally expected to be FFg. Prime with FFFFg.

Oh, and a lb. of powder is a lb. of powder. Same amount of chemicals, same amount of energy. There is no exact direct correlation to weight and volume of DIFFERENT sized grains of all powders. But most blackpowder shooters don't really understand what they're talking about when it comes to specifics and especially parrot what they hear/read on the internet these days; whatever makes it easy for them or makes them feel good about their investment. It's "I'll do what I want" always followed by some claim of better power and/or accuracy. It's nonsense usually of course...

Faster-burning powder may not be as efficient in you're bigger-bore gun. Maybe not safe. That's why...

7,000 grains per lb. in volume, let's say ('casue it's a made-up number -- different powders and grains have different weight pere volume -- DUH!), and you'll use five to prime... You can swing that, right, as hard as it is to find and as expensive as it may be!?

 

[dikman]

Personally, I reckon unless you're an anal, precision target shooter trying for that last fraction of an inch in the centre, I doubt if it's going to make much difference whether you use 2f or 3f as the main charge. If you're planning on using a .40 too, then it makes sense to use 3f in both.

I've been using 3f for priming and it works fine. I put some of it through a (kitchen) sieve first, to remove a few of the coarser grains, but I don't know if it really made much difference.

 

[William O.]

There aren't really any advantages or disadvantages unless you get better accuracy using one or the other. I have a .54 Lyman barrel, 1-48 twist that I can only get decent accuracy using 2f powder. I tried and tried working up a load using 3f but it just wouldn't settle down and give me consistent results so it only gets 2f. However, both my other 50 caliber rifles seem to prefer 3f. I've only used 4f for prime in my .50 flintlock and 3f for the main charge so I don't yet know if that rifle will fire consistently using 3f prime but so far I see no reason to try 2f as accuracy is very good. Now, realize that my two .50's both have slower twist rates than my .54 and are longer as well. That may or may not make a difference and I don't really care to find out if it does. I would encourage you to try 2f and see if you get better accuracy but I wouldn't go out and buy an entire pound of it just to compare. If you can't borrow some 2f for some testing and you're satisfied with the accuracy you're getting with 3f then stick to that.

 

[George]

The reason i'm using 3f is because soon i will have a 40cal and thought i could use 3f for both but if there are some advantages to using 2f for the 50cal i will just get some.

Use the 3F, it's perfect for your .50, and will be for the .40. I use 3F in .54 rifles, .62 smoothbores shooting ball, and have never had a problem. It burns cleaner than 2F and will serve you well.

Spence

 

[Johnny Tremain]

In our weather during BP season, 2f tends to delay taking off. 3f is all I stock now.
Tried it for priming, didnt like it, went back to 4f years ago.
Id say in a pinch, but not as a habit. Oh yeah my 1770's pan charger will not let 3f thru it.

 

[Brokennock]

I use 3f in my .45 rifle and in my .62 smooth bore. Less powder for equal velocity, though maybe still a little more crack to it. I too notice less fouling and easier reloading, especially in the smoothie. Not sure if it's because I'm using less powder or because the finer powder burns hotter or more completely. I don't like needing a short starter and I've tried going from the patterning board to the rifle range with no swabbing. A few shot loads tested then p.r.b. with 3f? No problem. Tried it with 2f under those shot loads and the p.r.b. wasn't happening.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

The only guns that I use 2Fg in these days are the 20 gauge smoothbores, and the .75 Bess.

I use 3Fg in my .40, .45, and .54, and I use 3Fg to prime as well. Tried two horns and 4Fg for priming (and also 5Fg), and found with my lock the 4Fg and smaller seemed to absorb moisture faster from the air when I was hunting, AND it was more complicated in the field or at the range than I liked, so I tried 3Fg for prime and main.

Since 70 grains of 3Fg has no problems taking down a deer, I have no worries about pressure. I wouldn't hesitate to use a 90 grain load if I thought I needed it...for example, if I was going for moose.

LD

 

[wayne terry]

I like the Lyman GPR been shooting them for years but the ones I shoot just don't like FFFg I shoot nothing but FFg but both of mine are percushion.

 

[Billnpatti]

3f is a good powder for most calibers up to about .62 caliber. It will work just fine and has the advantage of burning a little bit cleaner. I used to use 3f in my .50s and smaller and 2f in my .54s and shotguns. It just isn't necessary. Just use 3f, find out how much each rifle needs to shoot accurately and stick with that. You can even use 3f in your pan and you won't notice any difference between it and 4f. By using just 3f in all of your guns and in your pans, you will find that your guns will have less fouling and you will not have to fool with buying three different powders. :hatsoff:

 

[PowderMonkey]

Thanks everyone, i think i will just keep using 3f since that is what i have and work up a load with it and see how it does.

 

[George]

When I first got into BP shooting I was taught by the old boys that you always used 3F in .50 caliber or smaller and 2F in everything bigger. Unlike a lot of things in the hobby, most people seemed to accept that as being the way it had to be done, and you didn’t question that wisdom. Forty years later that is still being taught to newbies, and we’ve all seen it stated a thousand times. In a current thread, Alden said, “.50 is the line in the sand...” Like any good beginner I assumed the old boys knew what they were talking about and that there were good reasons behind that rule. As I got more experience, began to figure out how out guns work a little more, doubt reared its ugly head. I could find no reasonable explanation for it, so I followed my hunch and tried using 3F in larger calibers, and wasn’t much surprised to find that it worked just fine, sometimes better than the required 2F.

So, in my personal experience, in my guns, the rule has turned out to be a lot of nonsense without any basis in reality. I ignore it, because I’ve decided it is another one of those “facts” which has been perpetuated down through the years for no good reason, handed along by a lot of people who just accept it without question and pass it along.

But, maybe I’m talking through my hat, maybe there is good reason behind it which I don’t understand. If so, I’d sure like to be straightened out. So, my question”¦ does anyone know where that rule came from? When it got started? Why it got started? Who started it? What the reason behind it is?

Spence

 

[wayne terry]

Not sure about the history im sure someone here does; smaller grains burn faster building up higher preasure and in larger bores where you use larger amounts of powder it poss. could be hazardous.

 

[George]

But, pressure builds much quicker in small tubes than in large, so why shouldn't the rule be that larger grain, slower burning powders are better/safer in small bores?

Whichever, it's easy to reduce the charge to control pressure.

Spence

 

[Walks with fire]

I tried 3f Goex in my rifles and went back to the 2f for both .50 and .54. It seems a bit softer shooting and even a bit more accurate in the hunting loads I use.

There was a time when I thought I wanted the extra power that 3f would give but have since realized that I don't need the extra velocity. I also like the way the 2f stacks up to the vent hole better than the 3f. I never have ignition problems with either though.