Weight of powder

[mmahlock]

Mark, 50 grains are equal to .1143 ounces.

I think something is missing here. It really doesn't matter how much powder one uses or whether one measures it by volume or weighs it on a scale. The key is constancy. Once a load is worked up by what ever method used, using that same method consistently will produce the maximum accuracy.

 

[crockett]

You can't do it that way, as I understand it every batch of substitute powder is a bit different as to specific weight so the manufacturers add filler or not to make it VOLUME equivalent to the black powder but the weight of the volume from batch to batch may change. Some of the best black powder shooters use volume measures and there is even debate with modern cartridge, benchrest shooters about whether weight or volume is the best way to measure.
In any event, use a volume measure- get a good model with a cut off top if accuracy is all important.

 

[Runner]

This argument has come up many times. One group actually experimented trying to find the correct "best" way to use a measure. They tapped to settle the powder, compacted it in the measure to ensure the same density from load to load, and in general entertained the rest of us for about three months. In the end, it doesn't matter at 100 yards as long as you are consistant with the measure. Beyond that and the small differences in speed show a lot more. Someone like David that shoots big bullets at long range I am sure is weighing every charge. I would be.

 

[Twisted_1in66]

"I have a reloading scale,can anyone tell me what 50 grains of goex 2f weighs?"

The answer is 50 grains.

LOL :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: I wondered when someone would actually say that. Grain is of course, a weight measurement. The "by volume" piece came about because for normally uses (within 100yds.) the variations mentioned above don't make a big difference...the deer will still be dead.

Along come the substitute powders that weigh a lot less than black powder and they specifically tell you to use the same "volume" of their powder that you do with real black powder. Their "volume" measurement is based on black powder's "weight" measurement.

So, with a volumetric measure based on an original weight of black powder, for most uses a volume measurement is close enough. Long range match use is something else entirely, which has been pointed in other responses.

Twisted_1in66 :hatsoff:

 

[Rich]

Dont see where this matters all that much. Just figure the charge your particular gun likes and use it. Dont care if doesn't jive with something else. One gun I have I use a drilled deer horn for a measure. Its pours "about" 68 grains. Do I care if it is exactly 68 grains? No, I just know the gun likes what it pours. If I loose that one, I will make another.

 

[dave951]

"The short answer is that scales can be left with the modern centerfire rifles and pistols...the whole muzzleloading world is based upon using "volume" measures...regardless of what each of the different powders might actually weigh."

This is correct.

Not exactly.

IF you're into competition and target shooting, you most certainly do use a scale. It was alluded to in a previous post. However, for most non competition purposes, strictly volumetric is fine.

 

[Grenadier1758]

But when you do get out your scales, be well aware of what powder density can do to the weight. Real black powder measurements in volume are very close to the grain weight on the scales. Pyrodex will have a scale weight about 20% less than the volume measurement.

 

[TNGhost]

13 year old thread?

 

[Gun Tramp]

Almost everybody's favorite debate topic is also covered here in the pinned thread from 2008, "Powder Volume vs. Weight." Gentlemen, grind your teeth!

 

[Grenadier1758]

Really covered in Claude's sticky at the top of this topic.

https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/threads/powder-volume-vs-weight.39315/

 

[TFoley]

Just a bit of history, and then I'll go back to dumping the half ton of Scottish #3 grade pebbles around the side of our house -

For a start, the word 'grain' has no connection whatsoever with the weight of a kernel of gunpowder, since it is based on a system of weights in use in the 9th C.

Read and instantly forget -

At least since antiquity, grains of wheat or barley were used by Mediterranean traders to define units of mass; along with other seeds, especially those of the carob tree. According to a longstanding tradition, 1 carat (the mass of a carob seed) was equivalent to the weight of 4 wheat grains or 3 barleycorns. Since the weights of these seeds are highly variable, especially that of the cereals as a function of moisture, this is a convention more than an absolute law.

The history of the modern British grain can be traced back to a royal decree in thirteenth century England, re-iterating decrees that go back as far as King Offa (eighth century). The tower pound was one of many monetary pounds of 240 silver pennies.

By consent of the whole Realm the King's Measure was made, so that an English Penny, which is called the Sterling, round without clipping, shall weigh Thirty-two Grains of Wheat dry in the midst of the Ear; Twenty pennies make an Ounce; and Twelve Ounces make a Pound.

— Tractatus de Ponderibus et Mensuris,

The pound in question is the Tower pound. The Tower pound, abolished in 1527, consisted of 12 ounces like the troy pound, but was 1⁄16 (≈6%) lighter. The weight of the original sterling pennies was 22½ troy grains, or 32 "Tower grains".

Physical grain weights were made and sold commercially at least as late as the early 1900s, and took various forms, from squares of sheet metal to manufactured wire shapes and coin-like weights.

The troy pound was only "the pound of Pence, Spices, Confections, as of Electuaries", as such goods might be measured by a troi or small balance. The old troy standard was set by King Offa's currency reform, was in full use in 1284 (Assize of Weights and Measures, King Edward I), but was restricted to currency (the pound of pennies) until it was abolished in 1527. This pound was progressively replaced by a new pound, based on the weight of 120 gold dirhems of 48 grains. The new pound used a barley-corn grain, rather than the wheat grain.

Avoirdupois (goods of weight) refers to those things measured by the lesser but quicker balances: the bismar or uncel, the Roman balance, and the steelyard. The original mercantile pound of 25 shillings or 15 (tower) ounces was displaced by variously the pound of the Hanseatic League (16 tower ounces) and by the pound of the then-important wool trade (16 ounces of 437 grains). A new pound of 7680 grains was inadvertently created as 16 troy ounces, referring to the new troy rather than the old troy. Eventually, the wool pound won out.

The avoirdupois pound was defined in prototype, rated as 6992 to 7004 grains. In the Imperial Weights and Measures Act of 1824, the avoirdupois pound was defined as 7000 grains exactly. The act of 1855 authorised Miller's new standards to replace those lost in the fire that destroyed the Houses of Parliament. The standard was an avoirdupois pound, the grain being defined as 1/7000 of it.

if anybody wants me, I'm around the side of the house.....

 

[Billy Boy]

Your RCBS or Lyman bench mounted powder measure is also a volumetric system. You can tweek the settings, but level of powder in the hopper, rhythm of operation, etc, etc all add variability. A powder scale can vary close to a grain depending on how close the damper is, if the level has changed, if there is a slight breeze moving around, a piece of grit on the agate fulcrum....I ran out of words.

I hunt, use a measure. If I competed, i might weigh, but then i would need a calibrated ramrod, known spring value in my boot toe,..

.

 

[Eterry]

OMG, why oh why are we resurrecting a Dead Post from 2007???? The OP hasn't been on this site in almost 2 YEARS !!!!

 

[Gun Tramp]

In the Imperial Weights and Measures Act of 1824, the avoirdupois pound was defined as 7000 grains exactly.

I think we should have an Avoirdupois Day holiday.

 

[oldwood]

I like "keep it simple". A few years ago after checking the relative accuracy of my collection of 5 or 6 adjustable black powder measures, I was amazed to see how inaccurate they were. I had to laugh how I was suckered into believing the printed numbers.
All that said , I just find a load of black powder for my gun that suites me for a given purpose , perhaps strong hunting load , and another target/plinking load . I make two separate powder measures , that way this old guy can't at least screw up the powder load. oldwood

 

[longcruise]

13 year old thread?

Yeah, at least I was able to confirm that I still think the same thing as in 2007.

 

[nkbj]

Weighed charges going into the bottles. Everything else is by volume.

 

[ResearchPress]

Weighed charges going into the bottles. Everything else is by volume.

...and here‘s a link to an original 19th Century Muzzle Loaders Range Case in my collection, complete with glass phials for weighed powder charges, and Whitworth and Metford bullets for long range target shooting.

David

 

[TFoley]

...and here‘s a link to an original 19th Century Muzzle Loaders Range Case in my collection, complete with glass phials for weighed powder charges, and Whitworth and Metford bullets for long range target shooting. David

Talking about ye whyche - last time I was down at Bisley Trafalgar Meet, a gentleman on one stand had a fine collection of old rifle cartridges [some boxed, some singles] for sale at a somewhat 'enthusiastic' scale of prices. He had an unopened packet of ten .451 Whitworth swaged bullets - the thin string to tear open the packaging was intact, and he was looking to get £500 for it. Next time we passed by, it had been sold - did YOU buy it?

 

[ResearchPress]

.451 Whitworth swaged bullets ..... it had been sold - did YOU buy it?

Nope, not me.

David