Priming powder

[Jim Chambers]

There has been several discussions recently about priming powder. Several years ago when we did the lock timing study on various locks we were trying to eliminate as many variables as possible. We were using a computer to time the various locks down to the milisecond from the time the hammer started to drop until the powder flashed in the pan. One question came up....what powder do we use in the pan? Using a lock that was very consistent from shot to shot we tried various granulations of powder from ffg to fffg. Guess what....there was no difference in ignition time from one granulation to another. The ffg went off just as fast as the fffg. The old guys knew this and primed with whatever powder was in their horn. I have never seen an old priming horn.

 

[Stumpkiller]

Welcome!

First, let me say " :master:". John Donelson is mating one of your Early Germanics to an L.C. Rice swamped barrel and a cherry stock for me at, I hope, this time.

I've found that there was no need to carry a seperate priming horn on anything over 3/4" in flint size. Now I'll go a step farther and say use the same as the main charge. With paper cartridges, it all comes out of the same wrapper.

Good to have you here. Hope we can be of help as well as bleed you dry of information. ::

 

[roundball]

The ffg went off just as fast as the fffg.

Just curious...why wasn't FFFFg tried?

 

[bob1961]

are you thee jim chambers.......................bob

 

Are you Jim Chambers of Chambers locks???????
If so you have gotten a modicum of my $$$$ and I've gotten a couple DANDY locks!
Curious. Why then do we have ffffg powder???
I tend very much to agree that once the pan powder flashes ignition would be just as fast with 2fg, 3fg, 4 fg. Not the same as burn rate of a load in a barrel.
I would think it would take some mighty sophisticated equipment to measure the burn rate difference of the different granulations in open air.
So the question remains why does 4fg exist?
I just bought 2 pounds of Swiss Null-B pan powder. It is reported to be the cats patoot of all pan powders in that it is supposed to be formulated to:
1) burn HOTTER
2) ignite faster
3) leave almost no residue
4) produce more flame
If so then it is an improvement over ANY powder used to prime with.
I don't know as I haven't tried it yet.
I'd be interserested in your opinion, thoughts, comments.

 

[Stumpkiller]

I would think it would take some mighty sophisticated equipment to measure the burn rate difference of the different granulations in open air.

Not really. We did ballistic measurements in college with a high speed camera. It runs like 30,000 frames per minute instead of the normal 3,600 of a cine camera. By filming a fast counter and counting frames as the bullet passes over a measured path you can measure the speed of a bullet. (Even back in the 70's we had to use "Politically Correct" compressed air cannons.

By observing the flint strike and subsequent flash, or even the bullet exiting the muzzle, you can measure event durations in increments of something like 1/500th of a second. I'm sure there are much more spohisticated set-ups in "real" labs and with modern digital equipment.

You could even just time how long it takes 24" of powder laid out in a line or along a grooved channel to burn from one end to the other.

 

[musketman]

Using a lock that was very consistent from shot to shot we tried various granulations of powder from ffg to fffg.

Welcome Mr. Chambers...

Which lock did you use for these test?

Colonial Virgnia, Golden Age, Delux Siler, ect?

I'm sure everyone would be very interested in knowing which lock was used for your ingition test...

 

Yeh, O.K. Stumpy, I'm a little short of high speed camera's right at the moment. :youcrazy:

 

Interesting findings, indeed, but did you measure ignition of the pan powder itself only, or igniton of the main-charge itself?
When I tried 2F for priming in my Pistol, I had one heck of a time getting igniton of the main charge through the factory-fresh WL liner. The pan would go, but not the main charge. With 4F I had no flashes in the pan & ignition sure seemed faster as well.
; Perhaps there is no difference between 2F and 3F, but that 4F does make a diffeence?

 

[Stumpkiller]

Well, if you're a good boy this year and you write a nice letter to Santa, maybe he'll bring you one.

 

[Claude Mathis]

When I tried 2F for priming in my Pistol, I had one heck of a time getting igniton of the main charge through the factory-fresh WL liner.

I'm guessing that in the days before stainless steel liners, the touch holes were larger and nobody carried a separate container of "priming powder".

The military paper cartridges had only one powder in them for both priming and the main charge. It's an impractical extra step if you're trying to load rapidly.

 

[Jim Chambers]

Yes, I am the Jim Chambers of the lock company and dad of Black Powdere Barbie (my best accomplishment so far). Ha!
We did test ffffg as well as some ground up ffffg and found no significant difference. The timing was only from the time the sear was tripped until the priming powder ignited. A stroke of a computer key activated a selinoid and started the timer. A photocell aimed at the pan stopped the timer when the powder ingited. So, we were testing only how quickly the lock ignited the priming, not the main charge. The lock we used for testing the priming powder was (if I remember correctly) a highly tuned large Siler.
Again, if my memory serves correctly, cans of ffffg were once labeled "Pistol Powder". Daryl's experience would indicate that that is the intended purpose. As a main charge the ffffg would ignite and burn much quicker that would ffg in the shorter pistol barrel.

 

[robinghewitt]

The lump of burning iron scraped from the frizzen must be big enough to light a powder grain. Common sense suggests that bigger grains would require more heat to get them going and need bigger pieces of burning iron.

If it was a surface effect you should be able to light BP with an electric spark, but you can't. If it's not a surface effect you have to heat at least one side of the powder grain up to a flash point. Smaller grains should be easier to heat up with less than perfect sparks.

The powder's sulfur content drops the flash point, you don't need sulfur in caplock powder, so that has to be a factor, whether the sulfur shows on the surface and how well incorporated/pressed the powder is.

Colonel Peter Hawker had special powder made without the black lead glaze, it seems reasonable that might help it take a spark. He also dried his powder on hot stones when it arrived, perhaps that glaze had a purpose.

If you grind large grains down to make fine priming you will get unglazed surfaces, exposed sulfur and a whole mess of different grain sizes to suit any and every spark you can throw at it. What you don't get is damp proofing but it doesn't rain everyday.

 

[Claude Mathis]

The lump of burning iron scraped from the frizzen must be big enough to light a powder grain. Common sense suggests that bigger grains would require more heat to get them going and need bigger pieces of burning iron.

Interesting theory, but according to Jim's real world tests, this appears not to be the case...

"We did test ffffg as well as some ground up ffffg and found no significant difference."

 

Well, if you're a good boy this year and you write a nice letter to Santa, maybe he'll bring you one.

O.K. that's it!!!!!!!! Musketman! You promised you wouldn't tell about those letters to Santa! :cry: :cry: :cry:

 

[robinghewitt]

Interesting theory, but according to Jim's real world tests, this appears not to be the case...

But are Jim's tests real world? Perhaps "a highly tuned large Siler" throws big fat red embers that would light the smith's forge on a cold morning

When the real world turns to damp, tired flints and soot, maybe the priming needs to try just a little bit harder?

 

[Jim Chambers]

Robin, you are right about the Siler throwing a good shower of sparks. Slow motion photography of a Siler igniting the priming shows the sparks penetrating powder. In slow motion it takes a couple of frames for the spark to bring the powder up the the flash point then the whole priming ignites. In theory the finer grains should ignite quicker, but the time difference is probably on the order of a milisecond or two, certaily far less time than we can see. I believe a human can preceive time only above about ten miliseconds. In our tests most of the locks were igniting the priming in under five miliseconds.
On a related note about grinding powder, some of the locals in my area seem to believe they are smarter than the average bear. One fellow ground his priming until it was like the powder the wife uses on her face. While hunting on a rather humid day he could not get the gun to fire. After each pull of the trigger he would check the pan for priming. Each time the priming was still there but the stuff would not ignite. Finally, he turned the gun sideways and the priming fell out of the pan. It was a solid cake of powder. The moisture has hardened that powder into a solid cake so hard the sparks would simply bounce off it.
My theory has always been to go with what the guys in the 18th and 19th century were doing. Those guys had been using flintlocks for two or three hundred years and knew what worked and what didn't.

 

[Huntinfool]

Hi Jim,

I've got one of your cammed up locks it sure does a great job for me. I wouldn't part with it for nothing thanks for a great product!

Chuck :RO:

 

[Stumpkiller]

Robin,

Do you wash your powder before you use it? If not, even the large grains have dust from rubbing against each other. Pour some FFg in your palm and dump it out. You'll notice a residue of dust.

It may well be that a finer powder increases your chances with a less-than-optimum spark. Certainly no one's going to fault you for carrying a priming horn. But if you don't need it, it's just one more thing to dangle, tangle and jangle.


We had this guy over here before our Civil War, Henry David Thoreau -

Simplify, simplify. Instead of three meals a day, if it be necessary eat but one; instead of a hundred dishes, five; and reduce other things in proportion.

Go confidently in the direction of your dreams! Live the life you've imagined. As you simplify your life, the laws of the universe will be simpler

Simplify, simplify. :thumbsup:

 

"My theory has always been to go with what the guys in the 18th and 19th century were doing. Those guys had been using flintlocks for two or three hundred years and knew what worked and what didn't."

Makes perfect sense to me! :thumbsup: