Weighing charges

[Zonie]

No, I don't have the 'documentation', but it wouldn't surprise me in the least to find that the British long range shooters in the 1800s measured the weight of each charge of powder.

Some of these competitions were serious matters and not a few of them had large sums of money waged on their outcome (not to mention the prestige that came from beating the competitors).

Did the Americans in the Flintlock era go to these lengths? Probably not although when it came to competition at a shooting match any little 'edge' the shooter could gain over the competition could have been seriously looked at. After all, those folks weren't any different than us 'modern folks'. :grin:

 

[ResearchPress]

...and just as an additional thought, vials containing premeasured charges have been around a while but most importantly it doesn't mean they were "weighed" charges...just premeasured for the sake of convenience.

Contemporary documentation and loading instructions such as those written by W.E.Metford for the Gibbs-Metford match rifle in the 1860s and 70s refer to weighed charges. In fact Metford c1866 was recommending weighing charges to a quarter of a grain.

David

 

[ResearchPress]

Some of these competitions were serious matters and not a few of them had large sums of money waged on their outcome...

I've not come across any contemporary information about wagers in the British long range shooting events. This was a feature though at the Creedmoor international matches of the 1870s.

Did the Americans in the Flintlock era go to these lengths?

I don't know much of the history of the American bench rest rifle shooting, but this seemed to be where all the fine tuning was done in M/L match rifle shooting. Perhaps pre-measured charges were used here? By the time the US got into the serious game of long range shooting in the 1870s rifles were entering the breech loading era.

David

 

[roundball]

Gibbs-Metford match rifle in the 1860s and 70s refer to weighed charges.

Really, I'm glad you appreciate that niche...and I'll say it for the third time..."their will probably always be a couple schools of thought on this".

You keep referring to such a tiny fraction of muzzleloaders worldwide as your reference that they are irrelevant compared to the total numbers of muzzleloading shooters, which is my reference.

Those kinds and quantities of specialty "match shooters" are simply an annomaly like a grain of sand on a beach in the big picture of things...and as I've said before, anybody can weigh their powder charges to their hearts content if that makes them happy.

And I'll continue to throw mine using a volumetric measure like the typical Flintlock shooter did from the early American traditional muzzleloading era.
:thumbsup:

 

[longcruise]

Did the Americans in the Flintlock era go to these lengths?

I wonder how many would have had access to the instruments to weigh them?

 

[roundball]

Did the Americans in the Flintlock era go to these lengths?

I wonder how many would have had access to the instruments to weigh them?

And in particular, how commonplace were sets of scales that would weigh to 1/4 of a grain?
I tend to rank those things right along with the claim that aligning the patch weave with the front sight the same way every time will make a measureable difference at the target.

 

Did the Americans in the Flintlock era go to these lengths?

I wonder how many would have had access to the instruments to weigh them?

And in particular, how commonplace were sets of scales that would weigh to 1/4 of a grain?
I tend to rank those things right along with the claim that aligning the patch weave with the front sight the same way every time will make a measureable difference at the target.

I completely agree. It all depends on what your motivation is.

If you're emulating (reenacting?) a "target shooter", then by all means, weigh your powder. Heck, weigh your balls, weigh your patches and weigh the amount of lube used on each patch. It's your party and you should enjoy it to the fullest. :haha:

But, if you just want to shoot well (not win any contests), just measure the powder and be consistent. Chances are your gun can shoot better than you anyhow. :wink:

 

[ResearchPress]

You keep referring to such a tiny fraction of muzzleloaders worldwide as your reference that they are irrelevant....

Oh I have been quite clear that I am talking about long range rifle shooters and am well aware of the scope of this field of shooting. However they are not irrelevant to me, but very much part of a fascinating period of 19th century firearms development.

Your generalisations that "...some get into muzzleloading because they're interested in learning and utilizing some of the ways of the past..." suggested that weighed charges was not part of this. I disagree on that point as weighed charges were part of the "ways of the past" of my primary area of interest in muzzle loading.

With the possible exception of the bench rest shooters in the US I doubt that weighed charges were used there. At the limited effective ranges of patched round ball typically used, and when putting meat on the table, it's not going to make much difference.

David

 

At the limited effective ranges of patched round ball typically used, and when putting meat on the table, it's not going to make much difference.

I think that's the point. Unless you are a long-range, competition shooter, weighing your powder isn't necessary at all. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[mike alexandre]

At the limited effective ranges of patched round ball typically used, and when putting meat on the table, it's not going to make much difference.

I think that's the point. Unless you are a long-range, competition shooter, weighing your powder isn't necessary at all. Thanks for clearing that up.

Carl. Afraid I have to disagree with your statement. Even short range shooters who are searching for that elusive extra point in competition will on the day reap the reward of removing all the variables including weighing charges, weighing ball or bullet and ensuring the conditions down the barrel stay consistant.

 

[ResearchPress]

If you're emulating (reenacting?) a "target shooter"....

An interesting expression, although not something I strive to do. I am a target shooter - there's no emulation/reenactment. I enjoy competitive target shooting with muzzle loading and breech loading black powder firearms.

.. just measure the powder and be consistent.

That is the point. Volumetric measurement is not as consistent as weighed charges. However, the variations (assuming careful measurement) are not likely to be noticeable/significant for short range casual target shooting or for hunting.

For the competitive target shooter other factors come into play, including simply peace of mind that all equipment is prepared as well as it can be. As ranges increase, and I shoot in muzzle loading competition (as was done in the 19th century) at ranges out to 1200 yards, variations in powder charge will have a greater impact on elevations and hence scores.

David

 

[longcruise]

And in particular, how commonplace were sets of scales that would weigh to 1/4 of a grain?
I tend to rank those things right along with the claim that aligning the patch weave with the front sight the same way every time will make a measureable difference at the target.

I don't doubt Dave at all on the 1/4 grain weighing procedure. The shooters he has researched and his cites are of a small group of highly specialized and probably well heeled shooters back in "the day".

I had never heard of the patch weave alignment idea, but I take a "show me" attitude toward it.

 

[roundball]

I had never heard of the patch weave alignment idea, but I take a "show me" attitude toward it.

I have the same attitude towards most of this...I know that people go through various preparation regimens...like a golfer stepping up to a tee...often there's a lot of moves and cycles etc trying to get set up for the shot...(most of which by the way are not representative of the golfers actualy shot at all) but its part of the mental game...and IMO I suspect that's the same thing with the patch weave / front sight alignment claim and the 1/4grn of blackpowder.

IMO, there's not a shooter alive that I could hand a couple dozen precisely premeasured charges to, one of which was 1/4grn off from the rest, who could tell me at the target which one it was.

Others mileage may vary...

 

.. just measure the powder and be consistent.

That is the point. Volumetric measurement is not as consistent as weighed charges. However, the variations (assuming careful measurement) are not likely to be noticeable/significant for short range casual target shooting or for hunting.

I think that's all some of us are saying. For the "average traditional shooter", a few grains (volume) one way or the other, poured into your measure, won't make all that much difference.

 

[roundball]

And to repeat:

"...IMO, there's not a shooter alive that I could hand a couple dozen precisely premeasured charges to, one of which was 1/4grn off from the rest, who could tell me at the target which one it was..."

 

[RC]

And to repeat:

"...IMO, there's not a shooter alive that I could hand a couple dozen precisely premeasured charges to, one of which was 1/4grn off from the rest, who could tell me at the target which one it was..."

damn! there goes excuse #568... drat!

 

[Halftail]

And to repeat:

"...IMO, there's not a shooter alive that I could hand a couple dozen precisely premeasured charges to, one of which was 1/4grn off from the rest, who could tell me at the target which one it was..."

If they were precisely premeasured why would one be 1/4Grn off from the rest? :hmm:

 

[roundball]

And to repeat:

"...IMO, there's not a shooter alive that I could hand a couple dozen precisely premeasured charges to, one of which was 1/4grn off from the rest, who could tell me at the target which one it was..."

If they were precisely premeasured why would one be 1/4Grn off from the rest? :hmm:

Precisely premeasured doesn't mean they were all the same weight...the words simply mean they were premeasured charges, each one done precisely.

They could all be different amounts, they could all be the same amount, or they could all be the same amounts except for one that could be a different amount, etc.

But never-the-less, each/all precisely premeasured.

 

[paulvallandigham]

I am still waiting to hear where you find a scale that can measure smaller than 1/10 grain. I suppose if you convert grains to grams, you can find a finner scale, but to what end? When I measure powder charges, I try to measure to a plus or minus 1/10th grain, meaning a possible variation of 2/10th of a grain. That is the best my scale can do.

So where are the scales that measure finer? I can measure 2/10th, or 3/10th, but not .25"(1/4) of a grain.

 

[ResearchPress]

"...IMO, there's not a shooter alive that I could hand a couple dozen precisely premeasured charges to, one of which was 1/4grn off from the rest, who could tell me at the target which one it was..."

The bull's-eye used on British and international match long range targets at 1000 yards is 24" diameter. W.E. Metford established in the 1860s that a 1 grain variation in powder made 9 inches difference to elevation at 1000 yards. So why introduce a variable where the higher score is determined by the width of the scoring line?

Weighing the powder charge for long range shooting offers the opportunity to eliminate a variable that the shooter has control over.

David