Where to use 2f vs. 3f?

[dcriner]

I had always thought that 2f is appropriate for long-guns, and 3f for pistols. At the range today, I was told it isn't the barrel length, but the caliber: 2f for .45 and larger caliber, and 3f for smaller caliber.

Comments?

 

[ApprenticeBuilder]

but the caliber: 2f for .45 and larger caliber, and 3f for smaller caliber.

Comments?

That was definitely the rule of the day at one time, rules have changed a bit since then.

There are individuals that are using 3f on .62 cal, its more about pressure curve and intended application.

 

[rabjr]

Try both in any gun and see what that gun likes, it will tell you.

 

[RC]

Try both in any gun and see what that gun likes, it will tell you.

:thumbsup:

 

[Trench]

Yeah, it's really about choosing which one gets you the results you want.

I'll go with 2F in my rifle above .45 if I can. I don't like the snappier recoil you get from 3F in the larger calibers. Luckily, 2F gives me better groups in my .50 and .58....or maybe that's just because I'm not flinching as much as with the 3F. :wink:

 

[Marc Adamchek]

I came to this sport with the same quandry. Glad I listened to everyone, I've found 3f to be a nice, snappy, clean burning powder in guns that "weren't supposed" to use it.

Now that I'm a seasoned old coot.....well, an old coot anyway, I'm curious about 1F.

I've got a sneaking feeling that it just might be the holy grail of blackpowder.

 

[William O.]

Try both in any gun and see what that gun likes, it will tell you.

:thumbsup:
I found that my .54 shoots best using 2f but by reducing the charge by 5 grains I can get almost the same results when using 3f. I'm still sighting in my new 50 caliber so it remains to be seen which granulation works best in it.

 

[paulvallandigham]

Its even screwier than you can imagine, which powder your barrel likes.

My .50 cal. rifle with 39" barrel began life as a percussion action gun. After exhaustive testing of both 2Fg and 3Fg, The gun chose 3Fg powder. A Year or so later, when I converted the rifle to Flintlock, I no longer was getting the same fine groups with 3Fg powder.

I first worked with 3Fg powder, increasing and decreasing the powder charges to try to find the right load. Out of frustration, and at the urging of experienced flint shooters, I then tried 2Fg powder. Bingo! I found a load that gave me the same 50 yd. groups I was getting from 3Fg when the gun was a percussion ignition.

That was some 30 years ago. Since then I have helped others find loads for their rifles, and I am now convinced that both barrel length, Caliber, and barrel thickness play a part in barrel harmonics- ie., how a given barrel vibrates when fired. A straight barrel will vibrate differently than a swamped barrel, other things being equal. The real experts in barrels and powders are the Slug gun shooters- less than 200 nation-wide---who do much of the Research and Development for this sport. However, even they don't spend much time working with thin barrels or swamped barrels.

My .50 cal. GM barrel happens to be a thin straight barrel with a diameter across the flats that neither GM or other barrel makers will chamber in .50 cal. any more. It should not take any genius to figure out that thin barreled guns will vibrate more differently with changes in loads, and how and when the powder is ignited, or when the peak pressure occurs. I chose my barrel because I wanted a ROUND BALL ONLY rifle. I got that, but it came with other characteristics I did not anticipate.

Let your gun tell you which powder it likes best. And, use a chronograph to sort out variants based on your own inconsistent loading technique, from those relating to issues involving the barrel and gun.

 

[ohio ramrod]

Some people prefer using FFF over FF in larger calibers. When doing so they usually reduce the powder charge by 10%. I find my longer barreled rifles do equally well either, the shorter barreled rifles prefer FFF. The smoothbores all do well with FF. :idunno:

 

[roundball]

I had always thought that 2f is appropriate for long-guns, and 3f for pistols. At the range today, I was told it isn't the barrel length, but the caliber: 2f for .45 and larger caliber, and 3f for smaller caliber.
Comments?

IMO, its none of those...its really pretty straight forward:
It's whatever you have...therefore that will work fine;
It's whatever you want:
If I want things like the least fouling, fastest ignition, fastest barrel time, I use 3F
If I want best accuracy then I'll try both and choose;
If I want the least recoil, I'll use 2F if its accurate enough and fouling isn't an issue.

IMO, there's really a tremendous amount of choices and flexibility in this hobby...very few absolutes.
Many of the old sayings like the ones you were told are just that, old sayings.
Generally speaking its not that the old sayings don't at least produce acceptable results, its that they establish artificial rigid "do this / not that" rules when there's really no basis for them.
ie: I use Goex 3F for shot loads in my .62cal smoothbore because I want the fastest ignition and want the shot charge out of the barrel ASAP.
By contrast, my PRB deer load in the same smoothbore is Goex 2F...its an eyelash more accurate, recoil is a powder puff even with that big ball, and fouling is not an issue as there's normally not repeated shots after shooting a deer, etc.

Just think about what it is your getting ready to use your ML for...what you really need to get out of it for that particular purpose...select the granulation that's the closest fit and enjoy.

Be interested in the results with 1F...

 

[Robert Egler]

I use 2F for everything, rifle or pistol, except as prime for a flintlock. I use 4F for prime, although 3F will also work.

Just don't ever use 4F as the main charge!

 

[catman]

My .54 GM barrel likes 2F with very soft fouling, easy slide to remove with spit.
Tried 3F no go for me, got the hard crud ring.

 

[dcriner]

There's some very good suggestions here. Thanks.

As far as "finding what my gun likes," I should have divulged that I'm essentially a plinker. (I enjoy shooting at tin cans and steel pop-up targets.) The idea of shooting many rounds with various combinations of balls, patches, and powder, and recording the data, seems like drudgery to me. I guess I'm not all that concerned with absolute optimal performance.

I don't have too much interest in dressing up in frontier duds, either - but I do like to shoot. Am I on the wrong forum?

 

[roundball]

Am I on the wrong forum?

Not at all and you're definitely not alone.
The degrees of interest in this hobby are as varied as there are people, time, money, interest, likes, dislikes, to participate in it...enjoy your hobby as you want to enjoy it.
:thumbsup:

 

[BrownBear]

I don't have too much interest in dressing up in frontier duds, either - but I do like to shoot. Am I on the wrong forum?

Not in the least. In fact, you're likely to discover that the folks who don't dress up outnumber those that do by a large margin.

As for testing and trying different components, I don't keep a log or notes and such any more. If a target tells me something I want to remember, I just write the details on the target and save it. If not, I trash it and move on. After a little fiddling with a new gun you figure out what it likes, and until some new component comes along and your curiosity surmounts reason, you just go on shooting.

I admit to raging curiosity and try lots of stuff that runs up the back of what's "supposed to" work, just so I can see for myself and not take some internet keyboard expert's word for it. Often it proves the expert indeed knows more about keyboards than guns! :rotf:

My most rewarding example goes one step further than your original question. I decided to try 1f powder in addition to 2f and 3f. Dang, I sure like it in 58 cal and above, but only because I haven't got around to trying it yet in 54 and even 50. I will say that using it with shot loads has done more to improve my patterns in all gauges than any other component change. Yet those keyboard experts will spout that it "fouls too much" without ever trying it. Doh!

 

[Bob E]

Most of my shooting over the years is N-SSA using 58 cal military arms. Good results can be had using either granulation of powder. I use 50g of 3f and also at times use 50 of 2 f and get the same results in the same rifle. I cant see any change in the POI with either powder at 50 or 100 yds. Many of my fellow competitors use 3f in their 69cal. smoothbores and it seems to work well for them. A previous poster in this thread said to experiment with your gun and it will tell you what it likes. I concur. In this hobby (obsession), I have found that it is easy to listen to all the "experts" and then get bogged down worring about problems that dont exist. Try both granulations of powder if you wish. Cheers BobE

 

[Number19]

I'm looking at a Treso 3 grain priming valve. It says it is designed for "Ffffg powder only". Is this 4f?

 

[William O.]

I'm looking at a Treso 3 grain priming valve. It says it is designed for "Ffffg powder only". Is this 4f?

Yes, this is 4f; 4 "F"'s before the g.

 

[Number19]

I'm looking at a Treso 3 grain priming valve. It says it is designed for "Ffffg powder only". Is this 4f?

Yes, this is 4f; 4 "F"'s before the g.

Thanks, I was a little confused with the capital F mixed in with the small f's.