weighing loads in 18th century?

[George]

Reading the 18th-century literature about shooting, you can easily get the idea the old boys were very imprecise, almost sloppy in their loading... a pipe bowl of powder and a pipe bowl and a half of shot, for instance. They tell of using glass marbles of approximately the size of your bore to make molds for lead balls, or as much powder as will cover the ball in the palm of your hand. We quibble over a grain or two of powder, but I've never seen that term used by them. I have a few references to ounces and drams, but none to indicate how they measured those, or if they used smaller units. Some of them surely must have gone at it in a more precise way, but any references I have are tangential, not direct descriptions. They say use powder equal to 1/4 or 1/2 the weight of the ball. They describe comparing the weight of powder in dry conditions to that in humid, a fairly demanding procedure, and of carefully weighing both shot and powder when making comparisons of the abilities of guns. But how they did that weighing they didn't say, not that I've seen.

They certainly had the means to measure things in the 18th century. I find references to several kinds of scales offered for sale, some of which were probably fairly sensitive for small weights. I've found:

pocket steelyards, several references
money scales, several
boxes with scales and weights
gold scales
"money scales and weights, ditto without scales;"

I expect the money and gold scales were balance beam scales, which can be very accurate for small weights.

Thomas Page knew about the weights of his powder and shot, because he said, "... I use the best powder, and put in equal measures of that and shot, which in weight is nearly as one to seven..." He was right about that ratio, and it's easy to check it out. What he was talking about is what we call a square or equal volume load. The load he described, 2 ounces of shot and equal volume of powder, is 875/123 = 7.1. If you check the ratio of the weight of any equal volume load, you will find it very close to 7.

I feel pretty certain they mostly did as we do, measure our components by volume, not weight, but they had to have a way of weighing things if they needed or wanted to. Does anyone have references actually describing the weighing of powder, shot or balls in the 18th century? Please post if you do.

Spence

 

[Artificer]

We quibble over a grain or two of powder, but I've never seen that term used by them.
Spence

Spence,

I don't believe I have ever seen anything on weighing powder charges in the 18th century, for as little as that may be worth.

Cleator's, "An Essay on Shooting" is replete to references of grains of powder. One on page 68 talks about a French powder charge of "one drachm and 12 grains from a Royal manufactory" (Modern Spelling used). In another section it talks about trying charges of 30 grains to 70 grains and etc., though I think that measure is by volume rather than weight?

In an older thread on the forum, I found references to the 18th century British Military "Standard Powder charge for Muskets" from the 1750's through the AWI and even later. It went from what became the standard charge in the 1750's of 165 or 167 grains to as high as 190 to 220 grains in the AWI (no doubt due the powder quality problems experienced then) and back down to 165 grains in the Post AWI period. Of course, some of that load was used to prime the pan. Powder measures were provided by British Ordnance to the Regiments to make cartridges in the field, though again, those measures were by volume rather than by weight.

I suspect that any references to actually weighing a powder charge in the 18th century would come from the Royal Armouries of either Britain and/or France and not from civilian usage, but that is only speculation on my part.

Edited to add: There MAY be references to weighing powder charges for Target Shooting on the Continent or in Britain during the 18th century, but I don't believe I have seen any, again for what little that is worth.

Gus

 

[MacRob46]

From early times, at least as far back as anything has been found that was actually written down concerning charges, they were calculated by volume and not weight. At some point someone undoubtedly weighed them out of curiosity or for some other reason, hence some of the comments quoted above.

Even in more recent times, black powder cartridge loads were calculated by first measuring the volume which the cartridge case, with seated bullet, would hold.

 

[George]

Cleator's, "An Essay on Shooting" is replete to references of grains of powder.

Thanks, Gus, I had missed that one in Cleator. I checked all the hits for "grains", again, I got 48, and it seems to me that the one you quoted, "one drachm and 12 grains from a Royal manufactory" is the only one which is actually using the term 'grain' to refer to weight. All the others are used in a variety of ways, as for pellets of shot, the particles of powder, grain of iron, etc.

I'm very glad to get that one, it's my first.

Spence

 

[Artificer]

Wow, I am honored to assist and especially for a "first documentation" for anything in the 18th century for you.

I strongly suspect that 18th century powder was not uniform enough for them to have bothered with weighing powder charges like we do today. The quantity of eprouvettes (SP?)/powder testers, from that period and still extant, seem to suggest that?

Gus

 

[tenngun]

Many things that were dry were measured by volume only, things that we weigh now. ' a quart of wheat for a penny or three quarts of badly'. Evan powder was often sold by the pint.
Consistency maters to the smallest group, but they didn't think that way back then.a dead deer or a barked squirrel was plenty good accuracy, one hole shooting wasn't something they tried. When England started shooting a rifle during the napolianic wars they published targets with pride that would easily make for dead enemies, but wouldn't impress anyone today. Even during the AWI people in Massachusetts were impressed by rifleman shooting a 9x6 inch board at 60 yards. Not something we would write home about today.

 

[George]

And yet, when they tested whether unburnt powder was blown out the muzzle by catching the debris on a white cloth, they were able to say it amounted to 1/12 of the original charge. Sounds like some pretty fine weighing, to me.

Spence

 

[tenngun]

Would 1/12 of 3 drams be a less precise measure then 1/12 of an 82 grain charge? Is a inch more precise then 254 mm? There was a doctor, I don't recall his name in the early 18th century who measured his weight, the amount of everything ha ate drank voided and passed, and thus discovered insensible loss. How ever most people didn't do that. Folks tended to use measures they were familiar. I use an antler powder measure for 70 or 80 grains but I doubt it's more precise then a dram marked or adjustable measure. I bet no two of ten hand thrown charges would match or match the weight on a scale.

 

[George]

Would 1/12 of 3 drams be a less precise measure then 1/12 of an 82 grain charge?

A rose by any other name. But, it seems you would have to know a precise weight for the original charge, regardless of what you call it, in order to measure 1/12 of it. Doing that by volume would be pretty sloppy. That experiment was being done by the Royal Society, and they don't do sloppy.

Spence

 

[tenngun]

Very true but not general. You will take more care fitting a lock for close fit then framing a 2x4 shead wall. Loading a pipe bowl of powder and 1&1/2 of shot is a far cry from the royal society.

 

[George]

I don't care who's doing it, evidence of anyone weighing charges will do. Doesn't have to be the common practice, one oddball will suit me.

There is circumstantial evidence, like that of the Royal Society with their one-twelfth charge. Benjamin Robins invented the ballistic pendulum, and it requires knowing the exact weight of the ball in order to calculate an accurate velocity. How did he weigh them? What units did he use?

Spence

 

[Artificer]

Spence,

The example of the Royal Society with their one-twelfth charge is interesting because they certainly had the ability and the curiosity to weigh the powder charge, but does that mean the 1/12th was from weighing or a volume measure? I admit I don't know.

Of course the thing about that experiment that was of real significance was the fact they proved that most of the powder burned in a barrel far, FAR sooner than what most people then (and some today still) believe. Yet the MYTH that black powder burns throughout the length of the barrel too often persists.

Gus

 

[tenngun]

Well for sure any one person could do something that was not done or only done rarely by others. In our quest to recreate what was common it is all to easy to forget that people do the uncommon all the time. Some one wore the first riflemans frock,grumpy old guys were still wearing breaches long after they went out of style.The pendulem is often set at some sort of anything goes, or only documented common use is right, when the truth is in somewhere in the middle of the swing.

 

[Dean2]

The proof that weighing things was common for many centuries does may not come from or be apparent in gun texts but if you read finance, banking and money texts as well as texts on trade it shows up readily. Gold and silver were used to purchase goods and the weights were precisely measured for hundreds of years. The units of measurement varied greatly from one country or location to another but they all had accurate measuring tools, predominately balance beams and used them regularly in commerce. The hand held ones were easy to carry around and were used regularly by merchants.

Since we know for sure that wool, grain, pepper, salt and many other things were transacted on weight it would be no stretch whatever to see these weighing tools applied to other uses.

Here is a compiled history of weighing things. It references the sources it drew on to gather this compiled information.
History of weights

Man weighing Gold

 

[tenngun]

Yes, scales are seen in Egypt and referred to in the bible and Iliad. The republican roman office of quesator oversaw weights. Much of the things we weigh today were sold by bulk or volume. A Ton started out as a large wine barrel. A ships size was measured in how many tons it could carry. It worked out good since wine and water are close to the same weight per ton a ship that could carry 100 tons displaced about a 100 tons of water, and would weigh about 100 tons.
An oz of water weighs an oz.today even we still buy a bushel of produce or a bolt of cloth and a dozen eggs, although they changed that in Europe. By the 16th century drugs were measured down to an 8th of a grain and fractions of a carrot.

 

[Artificer]

The Royal Society, Doctors, Scientists and Apothecarists (to name some trades) had Apothecary Scales; which would have been accurate enough to measure gun powder very accurately in the 18th century.

Though I have no documentation to back this up, I imagine that gun powder makers and Royal Armouries would have done some testing with weighing charges. I just don't know how common it would have been beyond that. Unlike today when we can purchase very accurate reloading scales fairly reasonably, I think the purchase of scales accurate enough to weigh charges would have been severely limited in the 18th century, as most people would not have found them important enough to go to the expense of buying them.

Gus

 

[tenngun]

Well if your shooting a target in competition a 1/2 inch can make a lot of difference. Shooting is done from a covered range because exposed to the sunshine a gun will shoot away from the sun. Brass tubes might be dropped down the bore so grains of powder don't adhere to the side of a bore ect ect. In real use10 grains of difference won't effect your shooting. A four inch group at 50 yards is as effective as a 3/4 inch group at 50 yards. A pipe bowl full of powder or a hand thrown charge won't make any difference over a weighed charge to a hunter or a man on a battlefield or a couple of kids shooting white marks on a tree or a clod of earth in the back 40.

 

[George]

Here's another tidbit related to the means some of them used to measure their loads.

"Some determine the charge of a fowling piece, by the weight of a ball of the exact size of the caliber; estimating the weight of the powder at one third of that of the ball, whether it is proposed to shoot with ball or with shot; and the weight of the shot they estimate at a moiety more, or, at the most, at double the weight of the ball."

Without weighing in some manner, I wouldn't know how to do that very accurately.

And I wonder if this one might be an adjustable volume measure for ounces of shot?

"But when shot of a larger size is used, such as number five, the charge of shot may be increased one fourth, for the purpose of counterbalancing, in some degree, what the size of the shot loses in the number of pellets, and also to enable it to garnish the more. For this purpose, the sportsman will find a measure marked with the proper gages, very convenient to him. An instrument of this nature has been made by an ingenious artist of this town, Egg, of the Haymarket."

Spence

 

[tenngun]

Old measures I've seen photos of were often measured in drams instead of grains. Drams are a measure of volume. My adjustable measured is a copy of an old one however marked in grains, the original was marked in drams. I never put it on a scale but would doubt I could throw a charge closer then 5% of it true weight. The old way of covering the ball with a pile of powder will in fact give you close to 1/3 ball weight. It's just a change in the way we use weights and measures. Any one from a metric country tends to think in 1/10ths. Dozens and 20ths used to be common. A .75 throws about a dozen balls to the pound.the French . 69 throws 20 balls to a French pound and a . 62 about 24 balls to a French pound. The .58 throws 24 to an English pound. Double for a .44/45, double again for a . 36. Stone masons and carpenters used a rod as a base for building. Each country used a rod if it's own, but settled on buildings and walls close to the same size. Dictated by the strength of the materials. Likewise from India and China to Scotland and Sweden guns shot about the same size with about the same charges, dictated by the same forces.
Volume has its advantage. In temps one would likly be out in a volume measure will throw about the same charge. By the 17tg century scales were made fine enough the would read different weights in equtiorial vs northern latitudes.

 

[Zonie]

More 'tangential' information about weighing (or measuring) a powder load can be gained by reading THE POWDER FLASK BOOK, by Ray Riling.

In it, he says,

"Rapid strides were made in the development of flasks as the sixteenth century progressed. By 1550 shapes and mechanisms had evolved that were to last for nearly 200 years. The mechanistic changes primarily involved the means of closing the nozzle for although the simple stopper never entirely disappeared from the plainer and cruder flasks, it was superseded in most flasks by spring mechanisms.

Three verieties of these spring mechanisms are susually found on early flasks. In one, the nozzle is closed by a cap at its distal end. In another, the nozzle is closed at the base by a pivoted gate: and in a third variety both closures are employed...

The second type of closure, the pivoted gage at the base of the nozzle, was a vast improvement. It possessed all the virtues of a cap and it also allowed the operator to measure the charge of powder he was putting into his gun.
To use this measure the operator tilted his flask, placed a finger over the end of the nozzle, and opened the gate.
when the nozzle had filled with powder he released the spring and allowed the gate to close. tThen he righted the flask and removed his finger. In this manner he obtained a quantity of powder exactly determined by the capacity of the nozzle, which was generally contrived to be the amount necessary for a charge..." (pg 3-4)

Obviously to determine the capacity of the nozzle, recognizing the quantity of powder needed for a guns charge and being able to weigh out that amount would be needed. Then the nozzle could be sized and made in mass to allow producing many flasks.

Although powder flasks were primarily used by the Military they were popular in Europe with sportsmen.