I'm shooting a 50 cal hawken sidelock, PRB over 70gr pyro rs. Somewhat new to shooting. At it a few months now. I noticed that some guys here are shooting 3f in there 50 cals vs 2f I'm wondering if there are any advantages of one over the other.
-
Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.
We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.
Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103
What are the advantages of 3f vs 2f powder?
- Thread starter PeteA
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
Not really. With a flintlock it's easier to just carry one granulation for prime and main charge, and FFFg may or may not give better ignition than FFg.
And also some rifles prefer one over the other in accuracy yield.
Use about 5% less FFFg by volume than FFg for similar velocities.
And also some rifles prefer one over the other in accuracy yield.
Use about 5% less FFFg by volume than FFg for similar velocities.
For any given powder load, the 3Fg powder will produce a higher velocity than the 2Fg powder does.
My Lyman Black Powder Handbook & Loading manual shows the 3Fg powder loads in a .50 caliber rifle shooting patched roundballs to be about 100 fps faster.
Because using 3Fg powder will increase the muzzle velocity, reducing the powder load about 10 percent will get the velocity back to the 2Fg powders speed.
That means more shots per pound of powder.
Dropping the powder load from 80 grains to 72 grains (10 percent of 80 is 8) means instead of getting 87 shots per pound with 80 grains, you would get 97 shots with the 3Fg powders 72 grain load.
Many think the 3Fg powder produces a little big less fouling than the 2Fg powder does. Of course, if they are wiping their rifles bore between shots, that shouldn't make much difference.
I think the biggest reason some folks are shooting 3Fg powder is because in SOME guns, it is more accurate. (In other guns it may also be less accurate.)
My Lyman Black Powder Handbook & Loading manual shows the 3Fg powder loads in a .50 caliber rifle shooting patched roundballs to be about 100 fps faster.
Because using 3Fg powder will increase the muzzle velocity, reducing the powder load about 10 percent will get the velocity back to the 2Fg powders speed.
That means more shots per pound of powder.
Dropping the powder load from 80 grains to 72 grains (10 percent of 80 is 8) means instead of getting 87 shots per pound with 80 grains, you would get 97 shots with the 3Fg powders 72 grain load.
Many think the 3Fg powder produces a little big less fouling than the 2Fg powder does. Of course, if they are wiping their rifles bore between shots, that shouldn't make much difference.
I think the biggest reason some folks are shooting 3Fg powder is because in SOME guns, it is more accurate. (In other guns it may also be less accurate.)
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2013
- Messages
- 20,091
- Reaction score
- 1,023
3fff meters easier...
And shoots better...(More accurate) for me at least...For some it's just the opposite...
rodwha
58 Cal.
It's what I use in my pistols and would prefer to carry just one flask to load my rifle (.50 cal) as well. Same with ordering/stocking powder. It keeps it a bit more simple.
I've only used 2F Pyrodex so it's hard to compare fouling when I usually use 3F Olde Eynsford BP or Triple 7.
I've only used 2F Pyrodex so it's hard to compare fouling when I usually use 3F Olde Eynsford BP or Triple 7.
Ya know I used to think that we had to follow that general rule of 2F for 50cal and over and 3F for smaller cal's too. After seeing so many of the guy's here say they use 3F in everything I experimented too.
As already noted you use a little less 3F for a comparable load. It's kind of tough to comment on fouling because fouling changes with a few other variables too like lube, temps and humidity.
The 3F works just fine.
IMHO it's kind of unfair to ask if there's an advantage to 3F over 2F,,it's not wrong to ask it's just I don't think "advantage" is the issue as much as it's plain convenience and simplicity, it's like I have no need for 2F anymore.
I should add that in my early days of using Pyrodex and experimenting there was a huge difference between Pyrodex P and RS,, maybe it was my rudimentary skills at the time but those two did have specific use and just didn't work well if I swapped'm out.
As already noted you use a little less 3F for a comparable load. It's kind of tough to comment on fouling because fouling changes with a few other variables too like lube, temps and humidity.
The 3F works just fine.
IMHO it's kind of unfair to ask if there's an advantage to 3F over 2F,,it's not wrong to ask it's just I don't think "advantage" is the issue as much as it's plain convenience and simplicity, it's like I have no need for 2F anymore.
I should add that in my early days of using Pyrodex and experimenting there was a huge difference between Pyrodex P and RS,, maybe it was my rudimentary skills at the time but those two did have specific use and just didn't work well if I swapped'm out.
Perhaps I was just plain lucky when I changed the elk load in the .54 Hawken I built. For many years hunted elk using 130 grs 2f w/ a .535 RB and .020 patch. This was a very accurate load.
Anyways one day I thought of using 120 grs 3f w/ the same PRB combo and was pleasantly surprised that it was just as accurate as w/ the 2f and didn't even have to move the sights. One thing that did change.....the 2nd and 3rd shots loaded easier.
Hawkens have "beefy" bbls and that might be the reason that both loads shot the same.
Why such "big" loads? The terrain in Colorado where we hunt is sometimes open country and 100 yd shots are likely and in fact the last elk I shot was at a walked off 107 paces...and my paces are somewhat over 36". Another advantage is that the mid-range height is less than 2" which enables the same sight picture as when shooting at 100 yds.....Fred
Anyways one day I thought of using 120 grs 3f w/ the same PRB combo and was pleasantly surprised that it was just as accurate as w/ the 2f and didn't even have to move the sights. One thing that did change.....the 2nd and 3rd shots loaded easier.
Hawkens have "beefy" bbls and that might be the reason that both loads shot the same.
Why such "big" loads? The terrain in Colorado where we hunt is sometimes open country and 100 yd shots are likely and in fact the last elk I shot was at a walked off 107 paces...and my paces are somewhat over 36". Another advantage is that the mid-range height is less than 2" which enables the same sight picture as when shooting at 100 yds.....Fred
Snakebite
45 Cal.
I ran out of 2F one time and shot my .54 Hawken with 3F and didn't really see any difference. I'm kind of like you, flehto, my hunting load is 120grs of 2F which gives me a relatively flat trajectory out to 100m. It will put down a deer with a 6 o'clock hold every time out to that range.
Brokennock
Cannon
A lot of things involving b.p. are "what works for one, may or may not work for someone else," type things. Like I say to my modern pistol customers, "we don't all wear the same shoes or drive the same car, we wear/drive what is right for us."
That said, I use 3f in my .45 rifle and in both of my .62 smooth bores. I get more downrange penetration with shot loads and less fouling with all three guns regardless of shot or round ball.
Another fun reason to do so is that it makes some people's head spin when you report on it here. Sometimes it's fun to stoke the fire then sit back and watch. :stir: :haha:
That said, I use 3f in my .45 rifle and in both of my .62 smooth bores. I get more downrange penetration with shot loads and less fouling with all three guns regardless of shot or round ball.
Another fun reason to do so is that it makes some people's head spin when you report on it here. Sometimes it's fun to stoke the fire then sit back and watch. :stir: :haha:
akapennypincher
50 Cal.
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2005
- Messages
- 1,146
- Reaction score
- 2
The "F" designation is granule size. The more "F"'s the small granule size.
FFFFG is the smallest granule size you could buy when DuPont was the king of powder back in the 1950-1960 when I first started shooting muzzle loaders.
Now we have many brand of powder that have come and gone so to say much about how much bank or power each brand produces is some place I do not want to tread.
So I will pretend it is the 1950s-1960s and say:
FFFFG is priming powder, for flintlocks pans
FFFG is pistol or small bore powder for .40 Cal or less rifles, and all pistols
FFG is for Rifles over 40 Cal., and Smootherbore Muskets.
FG is for small canons.
**But some people have been know to shoot FFFG in Rifle up to 45, or 50 CAl, and Smoothbore muskets.
***************************************************************
** Now talking about modern powders available today Swiss appears to be 15-20% more powerful, than saw the other brands. So you should if tring Swiss cut you powder weight by 20% as a starting point. So 50 Grains of "X", now becomes 40 Grains of Swiss.
Working up a load with a new BATCH of Powder is part of the fun of shooting a ML. Or can be a pain in the butt.
The one factor that is a constant today, or in the 1950's is FFFFG burns faster than FFFG. FFFG burns faster that FFG. And FFG burns faster the FG.
That I will swear too.
FFFFG is the smallest granule size you could buy when DuPont was the king of powder back in the 1950-1960 when I first started shooting muzzle loaders.
Now we have many brand of powder that have come and gone so to say much about how much bank or power each brand produces is some place I do not want to tread.
So I will pretend it is the 1950s-1960s and say:
FFFFG is priming powder, for flintlocks pans
FFFG is pistol or small bore powder for .40 Cal or less rifles, and all pistols
FFG is for Rifles over 40 Cal., and Smootherbore Muskets.
FG is for small canons.
**But some people have been know to shoot FFFG in Rifle up to 45, or 50 CAl, and Smoothbore muskets.
***************************************************************
** Now talking about modern powders available today Swiss appears to be 15-20% more powerful, than saw the other brands. So you should if tring Swiss cut you powder weight by 20% as a starting point. So 50 Grains of "X", now becomes 40 Grains of Swiss.
Working up a load with a new BATCH of Powder is part of the fun of shooting a ML. Or can be a pain in the butt.
The one factor that is a constant today, or in the 1950's is FFFFG burns faster than FFFG. FFFG burns faster that FFG. And FFG burns faster the FG.
That I will swear too.
galamb
58 Cal.
My 50 cal is my "largest" caliber with a 45, 40 and 38 in cabinet as well.
The smaller calibers shoot way better with 3F so "for me" it's just easier to only keep 3F on hand.
The smaller calibers shoot way better with 3F so "for me" it's just easier to only keep 3F on hand.
colorado clyde said:
+1 :thumbsup:
Col. Batguano
75 Cal.
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2011
- Messages
- 5,039
- Reaction score
- 1,424
Since the larger the grain size, the slower it burns also too will be your pressures. Loading for a given velocity the larger grain size will give you lower pressures. Probably not enough to really worry about though. If you took it to the extreme, and loaded a 1 pound charge of 4Fg in a 6 pounder cannon you might have to, but not in the calibers we;re talking about here.
Your Davenport formula maximum powder charge will be a little lower too.
Your Davenport formula maximum powder charge will be a little lower too.
Maybe its just me but didn't I hear that using 3f in larger calibers was a potential disaster? :stir: 
op:
I use 3f in everything from .31 pocket to 12GA. I will be trying 2f in my .54 and .58 soon just to see if they pattern better. I may use some of them there talked about HUGE 110-120 gr charges and see i groups tighten up. I been stuck near 75-80 for a long time. Will let ya know.
op: I use 3f in everything from .31 pocket to 12GA. I will be trying 2f in my .54 and .58 soon just to see if they pattern better. I may use some of them there talked about HUGE 110-120 gr charges and see i groups tighten up. I been stuck near 75-80 for a long time. Will let ya know.
Col. Batguano
75 Cal.
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2011
- Messages
- 5,039
- Reaction score
- 1,424
Smaller grain size will just give you a shorter pressure curve. 15,000 psi is 15,000 regardless of powder type. But, with the larger grain size, that pressure spike will be longer in duration, and give you greater velocities because there is a greater total gas yield. It's the pressure we're more concerned about when it comes to determining catastrophic failure points.
Billnpatti
Cannon
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2008
- Messages
- 7,340
- Reaction score
- 44
I have done no research and have no figures to prove any of my assertions. They are just my own personal impressions and should be taken as such. I have found that 3f gives a bit higher muzzle velocity than 2f in a .50 cal rifle. That is obvious since 3f burns a bit faster and will give higher pressures within the bore. Higher pressure results in higher muzzle velocities. Whether that is good or bad will depend on your particular rifle. it may shoot better or it may shoot worse. Rifles are individuals that way. I believe that the 3f burns a bit cleaner than 2f and results in slightly less fouling. Before leaving Indiana, I bought several pounds of 2f for my shotgun and a lot more 3f for my rifles and pistols. I shoot 3f in all of my rifles from .36 cal. through .54 cal.
Based solely on my experience, no empirical numbers, just subjective experience, I prefer 3f over 2f in all of my rifles and pistols. I don't know how it shoots in calibers larger than .54 but it seems to work pretty well in .54 and smaller.
If you have magnumitis and have been shooting heavy loads (greater than 100 grains) with 2f and want to try 3f in your rifle, you would be well advised to drop your charge by about 10%. Actually, I don't think that a .50 cal rifle ever needs more than about 80 grains anyway. A look at ballistics tables will show you that you don't really gain anything with charges greater than 80 grains.
Based solely on my experience, no empirical numbers, just subjective experience, I prefer 3f over 2f in all of my rifles and pistols. I don't know how it shoots in calibers larger than .54 but it seems to work pretty well in .54 and smaller.
If you have magnumitis and have been shooting heavy loads (greater than 100 grains) with 2f and want to try 3f in your rifle, you would be well advised to drop your charge by about 10%. Actually, I don't think that a .50 cal rifle ever needs more than about 80 grains anyway. A look at ballistics tables will show you that you don't really gain anything with charges greater than 80 grains.
Brokennock
Cannon
azmntman said:Maybe its just me but didn't I hear that using 3f in larger calibers was a potential disaster? :stir:
Yes, you have heard/read that. But no evidence to back it up has been posted as of yet. :hmm:
op:- Joined
- May 6, 2014
- Messages
- 17,433
- Reaction score
- 16,436
Excellent post, Jim.
I had a devil of a time getting my Flint .45 Douglas barrel with a 1in48 twist to shoot as accurately as I felt it should back in the 70's using Dupont and then Goex powder. It did NOT like 2ffg at all. After much trial and error I found that barrel likes 42 1/2 grains of 3fffg for an accuracy load. No rifle has given me as much trouble finding an accuracy load since.
Gus
I had a devil of a time getting my Flint .45 Douglas barrel with a 1in48 twist to shoot as accurately as I felt it should back in the 70's using Dupont and then Goex powder. It did NOT like 2ffg at all. After much trial and error I found that barrel likes 42 1/2 grains of 3fffg for an accuracy load. No rifle has given me as much trouble finding an accuracy load since.
Gus
