The burn rate factors into the barrel length of your gun. Typically you want to use slower burning powders with longer barrels because it will build velocity throughout the length of the barrel, whereas in a shorter barrel the bullet will exit the barrel before all the powder is consumed. In a longwr barrel usi g finer powder, you build pressure much faster and si ce the bullet has inertia, it cannot move down the barrel fast enough before all the powder is consumed, resulting in much higher chamber pressures but the accelleration stops before the bullet has left the barrel. Because the powder has finished burning.
The "self priming" flintlock by means of a finer powder is something Native Americans found out, then they would have the French gunsmiths drill out the vent hole wider in their short barreled canoe and blanket guns so they could load them, give them a good shake and spit or chuck the ball or shot down the barrel, and fire from horseback, quick loading the gun. I think there's been far too much of the so called experts saying that certain guns won't work with one granulation or another. In the day when these guns were all you had, powder was made by different sources, sometimes even in the forts or villages and then used, sold or traded to Native Americans. The powder in those days was much dirtier and the granulations was whatever you happened to get.
There was an Austrian military musket that was designed with a large touch hole so as to be self priming. Overly large touch holes have been shown to degrade rifle accuracy, however.
The touch-hole of flintlocks will erode over time and become enlarged through use. Running an iron pick through the touch-hole to clear it between shots will accelerate the wear. Natives rarely gave up on a gun so they all eventually became "Self priming".
Wasn’t going to watch this. Thought I already understood it. I was so wrong. Glad I watched. Solid information. G = glaze What glazing is and tumble times. 2F, 3F, 4F. Same energy. Different burn rates. Comparison of Swiss power vs Goex. Well done. Great work.
I don't subscribe to anything but you are the exception your videos are informative you deliver without going overboard nearly every time I watch I learn good job keep up the good work
I’m just getting deeper into BP shooting. Thanks for taking the time to make these vids, it’s advancing my knowledge very quickly. I just retired, have the time to shoot more and I’m having great fun doing the stuff I never had the time to do. Excellent vids. Thanks.
My two cents: the variability of the 4f results in the muzzleloader may have to do with inconsistent ramming pressure in conjunction with the fine-grained powder. The cartridge results would then be due to the consistency of those loads.
What a fine (ffff) video! I’ll share a bit since I’m too lazy to make my own. Our powder making came from England in the 18th century. As with most things from that time nothing was standardized as it is today. Our first powder mill is said to have been Laflin & Rand in 1760-ish. However the powder business was “discouraged” in the colonies. But there were many small mills running by 1800. Sometime about 1781 L&R and a few other mills began to market powder under the Ajax brand. DuPont came along and opened a mill in 1802, they say on the brandywine river. But various histories put this as early as 1797 and as late as 1803. DuPont quickly bought up some, but not all the small mills. By 1809 Ajax was DuPont. It was in this period that the government contracted for powder, on paper, with Ajax. For “gun” and “military” powder. Gun being of a course grade for cannon and military for muskets. Containers marked AJAX proliferated and some speculate that this led to the common usage of “Ajax products” by Wiley Coyote. This was the first brand name per se and lacking copy write protection numerous companies used that name for a variety of products. Thus the brand name Hercules began to be used sometime in the 1830’s by DuPont for explosives, abandoning Ajax to the dry goods merchants. And it is in this time period that our grades of powder as we know that began to emerge. Grade “A” was a corse un-sorted powder used for blasting and “guns”. Guns being cannon. Grade “M” previously for muskets became “g” which replaced both musket and “sporting” powders. And the “fine” system of “f” was adopted. Thus fffg was triple fine, gun. Not to be confused with A which was used in naval guns. And many companies still sold “fine sporting powder” for many years. Somewhere in the 1840’s Hercules developed “B” powder for blasting. This used soda of nitrate or “Chile nitrate” in place of potassium nitrate. Now you have A, B and g powders. The g being graded to five possible granulations by screen mesh. Fast forward to 1896. War with Spain and the recent advent of gun cotton aka “smokeless powders”. Dynamite came along in the 1860’s to further confuse explosives. DuPont adopted “Red cross” with a Red Cross symbol to differentiate dynamite from blasting powder ( Hercules ). The war department found this confusing. They adopted “high” and “low” explosives as nomenclature. This was in use until 1966. In 1912 Teddy Roosevelt broke up the “trusts”. And thus DuPont divested itself of Hercules. It was at this point that the f-fine system for g- gun powders became common. The A and B designations fell from use as nitrocellulose prevailed. You are correct that many powders are “glazed” today. Some with graphite, molybdenum disulphide or dextrose added. Some simply mechanically as you indicate. In 1966 the Department of Transportation was formed. It’s first effort was to replace the scary “Explosives” signs on rail cars with something a bit less concerning to mothers. A class system was developed. Black powder and several other items became Class A explosives. These items burned at the same rate weather confined or un-confined. Or so they thought! Our smokeless propellents were designated as class C explosives and then later changed to “combustible solids” of four classes 1-4. Thus class C-class 4 combustible solid. That’s much less scary when a soccer mom is asked “what’s that sign mean” as Jonny points to a truck next to the soccer mom van. The key point as far as the DOT was concerned was that black powder burned at the same rate regardless of confinement. While smokeless powder burned at different rates based upon the degree of confinement. This is true on macro-inspection. As you have discovered, clever fellow that you are, black powder does not burn at the same rate at the micro level. Black powder is tater insensitive to confinement, but grain size does effect the burn rate and thus “chamber pressure ” in the case of a gun. In this sense, a purely chemical sense gun powder is also a combustible solid. Just very much faster than nitrocellulose. Now things are getting more confusing. OSHA is elaborating on the original DOT classifications. Even the CDC and FDA are trying to get into the act of “regulating” gun powders for various purposes. This has led DOT to further refine its regulations resulting in that damned $35 “Hazmat” fee we all pay to ship up to 200 pounds of “gun powder, primers, etc”. So. Your observation is “chemically” correct. In a gun FFFFg burns “faster” than lower grades. Producing higher initial pressures resulting in greater acceleration of the projectile. Up to some finite point depending upon containment. Thus as you say “it works in a short barrel”. Your variations of grade stem from the slightly different burn rates of big chunk vs small chunk, integrated over some barrel length. Obturation of the “ball” is a function of the increase in pressure due to burn rate, and this feeds back into confinement of the burning powder and “instantaneous ” as opposed to overall chamber pressure. Welcome to the wonderful world of interior ballistics! I think this is the first RU-vid video that has actually gone into these subtleties. At least that I’ve seen. Not have you seen a rabbit with a top hat and a watch? I think I’m late, too. Fox out
@vulpesvulpes5177 Thank you for the rundown on the black powder history. The Wile E. Coyote that I remember was using Acme products to chase the roadrunner most of the times that I remember seeing. I'll have to pay closer attention the next time I see him loading a cannon. I'm betting you are correct about the Ajax powder. I seem to recall Ajax in an old cartoon when he loaded himself into a cannon.
@@kenycharles8600 No your right it was Acme. I was simply trying to interject some humor into an otherwise dry subject. Ajax-acme….close enough. Your the first to notice. Fox
I think all of us who make propellants have unintentionally made 5f, 6f, and 7f, but we either burn it off for amusement or re-puck it and grind back into more useful 3f and 2f. Technically correct, it is the best kind of correct.
The non-consistency with the 4F was probably due to the fine powder coming through the touch hole. I didn't want to buy 2 different powders so I use 3F powder in both my pistol & rifle. Even though, I was always told that 1F was for cannons, big bore rifles & long rifles, 2F was for most rifles, 3F for pistols & 4F is Priming Powder for Flintlocks.
"But what about 5F?!?" But seriously, awesome work mate. This is a good question well answered and very straightforward at that. Keep up the good stuff!
Jake, I love this video. I’ve always wondered if the different f’s are the same powder or are the different. Funny when you explained it, I yelled to my girlfriend, fuckin “A” finally someone explained it to me. Love your channel. Keep it up brother love it
Excellent video. The term you were looking for is the "regression rate." Smaller granules burn *sooner* (not hotter or faster, just as you said) because as you pointed out they burn from the outside in, and smaller granules have less distance to go to fully combust. Thus, with finer granulation you get the full combustion sooner, and with larger granules the full combustion is later. That's why finer granulations are better in shorter barrels such as pistols, the entire charge has time to be fully consumed before the bullet leaves the barrel. Conversely, with larger granulations in a pistol, the entire charge may not fully combust while the bullet is in the barrel, thus wasting that powder that didn't combust until after the bullet left the barrel. Larger granulations work better in longer barrels because the powder has time to build up over the course of the bullet riding the bore rather than all the impetus coming early in the bullets motion. If all the force happens right at the beginning of the bullet's motion (rather than building more gradually) this can lead to "slipping" in which the bullet is compressed too much too soon, which causes "stripping," where the bullet never grips the rifling and just slides through the barrel.
@@Everythingblackpowder fantastic books! You might also be interested in his "The English Cartridge: Pattern 1853 Rifle-Musket Ammunition." Privately Published, Kindle edition, 2020.
Jake, I'm glad you mentioned polishing. I don't think we are actually polishing our powder properly in the dinky mills we use to make meal. It takes velocity and pressure to really burnish the grains. reading up on it those commercial drums are something like six feet in diameter and turning 9-12 RPM with hundreds of pounds of powder in them slamming around. Heat is a big part of it too, the friction and pressure sort of "melting" the grains and the heat/pressure packing the surface pores of the grains up with the fine dust. Even when I polish in a 4" rubber tumbler for 12 hours I get shiny grains with virtually no dust...but they grains are not truly polished down to look like river rocks under magnification like the commercial stuff does. I hope you're considering making a large diameter, very thin drum for polishing along with your treadmill ball mill, I do think that a good polish makes quite a difference in our home-made powder performance: I get less dust, more consistent and more dense charge volumes, and less sensitivity to ramrod pressure when just polishing in the little rock tumbler. The trick is to figure out how to make a drum that will polish very small batches like a half pound (lower collateral damage if she blows up )at a time effectively. If we did it right, I think it would truly be a worthwhile addition to our process.
I'm away from home and my home Library, so bear with me. Several years ago I acquired a book on Civil War era combustible envelope revolver cartridges. I don't remember the author's full name but his first name was Dean. His research on these cartridges was extensive including correspondence between U.S. Arsenal commanders. One of the Arsenal officers was tasked in 1860, with analyzing Colt's combustibles to determine how U.S. Arsenals could manufacture them. After dissecting some of Colt's combustibles, in a letter to the chief of U.S. Ordnance, he described the black powder as "extremely fine grained, manufactured by Hazard especially for use in these arms". Also in his opinion the "rapid combustion of such fine grained powder caused too much shock (kick or recoil)". Since in the 19th Century 4Fg was considered "pistol powder", the Hazard Powder he described had to be "Hazard Cartridge Powder" and at least 5Fg granulation to be finer grained than normal pistol powder. Since reading that book, I acquired some Swiss Null B, which is very fine 5Fg granulation and have experimented with using it in revolver combustibles. I use tissue gift wrapping paper for envelopes, and use about 22 grains (1.4cc scoop) under a 217 gr "Johnston & Dow" conical (cast in Eras Gone "Johnston & Dow" mold), as it appears that 10% conical bullet weight was the typical charge for Hazard Cartridge Powder in 19th Century revolver combustibles. This makes 940+ fps from my Uberti Remington Army .44 8-inch barrel, shoots tight groups even at 100 yards, and the Extreme Spread is under 30 fps, as long as I do my job of being consistent while shooting and loading! I hot-dip-lube the bullets of the completed cartridges in a lube of 2 parts beeswax / 1 part coconut oil, and the bore remains extremely clean even after 4 or 5 cylinders. I feel that because we have been using the wrong black powders in our replica C&B revolvers, we have the mistaken impression that these revolvers are relatively anemic. For example, most shooters express the opinion that the little Colt .31 revolvers were barely even as powerful as a .22. To show how incorrect that impression is, in the video clip below, Mark Hubbs, maker of the “Eras Gone” bullet mold line tests his 80 grain .31 caliber conical in a Uberti replica of the Colt Pocket revolver, using 4Fg Goex. At 900 fps from the short 4” revolver barrel, the little .31 is shown to be quite potent, when properly loaded! Video: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-VknxDTbw4QE.html .
At home now. The book referred to earlier is ROUND BALL TO RIMFIRE: Part3 FEDERAL PISTOLS, REVOLVERS & MISCELLANEOUS ESSAYS (2003) Dean S. Thomas. Pages 4 thru 10 detail an interesting correspondence between Chief of Ordnance Col. Henry K. Craig to various U.S. Arsenal officers, concerning the purchase and manufacture of revolver combustible cartridges, the correspondence beginning in November 1859, and continuing into October, 1860. Col. Craig objects to the "exorbitant" prices charged by Colt's Cartridge Works, and wants U.S. Arsenals to manufacture revolver combustibles instead of buying them from Colt. To aid future U.S. Arsenal manufacture of revolver combustibles, Major John Symington of the Allegheny Arsenal begins evaluating Colt's .36 and .44 combustibles. Maj. Symington dissects Colt's combustibles and by June 1860, reports that the powder in Colt's combustibles "...was of very fine grain called sporting powder, manufactured specially for these arms, and contained in a thin paper case....." During firing tests of Colt's revolver combustible cartridges, Maj Symington objects to the "severity of the shock" (kick or recoil) due to the rapidity of combustion of such fine grained powder....". The very fine grained black powder Maj Symington is referring to is Hazard Powder Company's "Cartridge Powder' made beginning in 1855 at Colt's request for use in revolver combustibles.
The reason for the inconsistency with 4F is due to the inhibited flame spread cased by the tiny grains fitting very closely together. There is hardly any space (technically called “interstices”) between the grains to allow the flame to spread. So the back of the powder charge might burn and take longer to communicate the flame to the rest of the charge, than if it was with a larger grain like FFg. This is also why FFFg is sometimes considered the “perfect” one size fits all for most calibers, because it has plenty of surface area for that quick generation of lots of energy, but has enough of a physical grain structure that flame can get in between the grains and spread it through the entire charge almost instantly upon ignition.
Your reasoning is incorrect. Smaller granulations of powder are indeed closer together. But recall that the saltpeter in the BP is an oxidizer. Therefore less apparent oxygen between grains is irrevalent. However the smaller grains will release all their energy faster than larger grains. The theory that the SMR barrel was too long for the powder was/is probably the correct one. This was demonstrated some years ago in one of the shooting sports magazines by taking a 22rf rifle and measuring the actual velocity, then taking off an inch off the barrel. Then repeating the test. Velocity consistantly increased until the barrel length was shortened to about 18 inches. Then started dropping off again. Indicating that the powder had expended all its energy, or lost its 'push' at about 18 inches (for 22rf and powder formulations of the day).
@@Everythingblackpowder I haven't read all the comments, so might be repeating this idea. I think the cartridge is more standard with 4f because the bullet seating pressure is consistent, giving the same packing of the powder. With the flintlock, the packing pressure would be more variable depending on how hard you rammed it, but if you reloaded the cartridges with a press, the ramming pressure would be more standardized. Just a thought.....
@@Everythingblackpowder because it has a primer, instead of communicating through the vent hole. I have the US military studies on flame spread that proves this in the lab.
The confederate field manual of 1863, gives a grain size measurement. When I found a grain size chart for modern commercial powder, the modern powder is larger. Just thought I'd toss that in there for some reason
No. I edited that shot out and all the subsequent shots I blocked the touch hole to make sure it didn’t blow any into the pan I mentioned this at 8.40 in the video.
Lost your flint! Not a problem. There's always rocks on the ground.... Aka the stupidest argument against cap guns. Not sagging off flintlocks love them. Just seeing you lose the flint popped that into my head. Great vid as always fellas. Keep making smoke!!
I use 1F in my muzzle loading shotguns....2F in my 36 and 44 caliber revolvers...and 4F in my 31 caliber revolver and derringer and my NAA mini 22 caliber mini cap and ball revolver. Every gun is different but these powders do what I want them to do in my stuff. Another fun video and you continue to be the man...just keep it up!
Jake, this was an excellent video, really found it interesting, I've heard this 1F,2F,3F,4F discussion 100's of times working in a gunshop off and on over 40 years, from all the black powder guys, never really got a good explanation like this. Most of those guys are all dead now but they were my friends, so now you're it! haha, LOL, Excellent Stuff!! Mike.
Thanks Jake! Great video! Saw it a year after you released it🤓 Yes! I gess you can lose some of the smalll 4Fpowder grains through the touch/went hole in the flintlock rifle during loading. When pressing down the the patch and bullet, you can blow out the powder through the touch hole. Thats why the irrregularity of f.p.s.... My theory..🧐Greetings from Norway!🤠🖖
Jake: And anyone who cares. I always thought that the 'G' after the f was for Grainual. Since the f, ff, or fff was the size of the granules. That was an assumption that I made when I was 17 years old. I am now 62. You learn something every day. Never stop learning. This is my take on antique muzzle-loading propellants. 1 f is for cannons and large calabar firearms. (75 cal. to 8 inch cannon) 2f is for (IDK) 3f is for all other calabers. 4f is for flash pans. FPS was not considered in those days as much as now. It's just the way the old-timers see it. Let the smoke out... I agree with your point about 3f. 3f is the most versatile grain size there is.
This powder mix was not available way back when. We ground 1f or 2f in piston and bowl stone. Very good quality video. I well nevertheless get a case of powder I well not use.4or 5or 3 is sitting in a can of 2 or 1.
Your doing great at explaining everything to do with blackpowder ! I don't shoot much anymore but would like too. I've done the 4fg in my flinter. Your velocity was lower 2 reasons I believe. 1) part of the powder blew out the touch hole. 2) if it can fall through the touch hole while loading, I believe you are losing slightly more pressure thru the touch hole because of the finer faster burn. We can't really see much of any difference of how fast 1f burns compared to 4f, but you could see with a high speed camera. I use 3f in all my flintlocks .62 cal down to .30 cal. Also you wanted to know about blackpowder guns blowing up. I friend of mine was a teenager when him and his buddy were cutting shotgun shells and using smokeless powder. The barrel came off the stock and buried in his skull. He lived to tell about it ! He's on meds ever since, Since a large portion of his brain was removed. .
Very good test. I am positive there's going to be some wild comments on here and I'm betting you're going to get a good laugh. I already seen the one right below me talkin about weighing as opposed to measuring. Have fun on this one man I know you got confused at one point but have fun
i apricate your test, i have been shooting BP a good long while. and i have been a handloader since i was a kid, i started in 1967, i have learned over the decades i do not care much about velocity. i care about accuracy. i shoot mostly goex, BP is dirty period, i don't care who made it. i use a mixture of about 60% water and 40% dish soap for patch lube. i can shoot all day and i never "swab" i have a friend that shoots matches 3 days in a row and never "swabs" the last ball slides down the bore like the first, "swabbing" is for people who are to pig headed to try this lube, oh well, have fun "swabbing" LOL, and thanks for the video,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
It determines speed of burn. 4f is finer ground and faster than 1f. It also affects pressure. I learned this when I got a 54 cal. I used 3f in my .50 cal. for decades. 2f worked a lot better in the .54.
It’s not that it really burns faster. It actually burns at the same rate as the 1F. It’s that the smaller grains are consumed faster than the bigger ones. If you have 50gr of 1F and 50gr of 3F in the same gun both charges expel the same amount of energy but the 3F will do it faster. Hope that makes sense. Every gun is different my 54 caliber,m Flintlock shoots best with 80 grains of 3F Swiss.
Years ago, I was at a shooting match and ran out of two F powder. The sponsor of the match was mountain state and they had set up a booth selling items. I picked up a pound of three F Dupont powder and finished the competition. The results were very good, and I placed second overall. The following year I won the state shoot off in the Jr's Competition. I still use three F powder in my Flintlock. it seems to be more consistent for me. I wish I could find a few more pounds of that Dupont powder it was some good stuff.
When "ramming" a BP rocket you use mill dust, a very fine ungranulated powder right out of the mill. If you don't pound the rammer hard and repeatedly with a dead-blow hammer, voids will be left in the grain and the rocket is likely to explode when the flames reach it. 4f is granulated but pretty small, and your ramrod can only apply so much force. Perhaps you had voids in the rammed powder that produced higher pressure on some shots. Just a thought. I enjoy your videos. Thanks!
I think the 4f is to fine. I agree with you Jake. Plus compression of the load with change with each granulation will affect the burn time and energy delivered.
I have been using FFFg Schuetzen in my cartridges for my 44Cal 1858 Remington and when I found some 1½Fg Swiss, I bought 5 pounds for $200 including the shipping & hazmat fee. And I make cartridges with the 1½Fg Swiss for the 1858 Remington. No issues at all.
Lieutenant Rodman, at the end of the civil war, as he developed the method of making larger canons, also developed "Honeycomb" shaped powder so that the surface area would not decrease so much. This new shaped powder solved a problem in large cannons of the powder decreasing the burn rate retarding the cannonball.
Thank you for a wonderful video! i really appreciate your time and dedication. I would like to suggest a alternative explanation for the inconsistent velocity of the 4ffff. some of the powder was coming into the pan some was sticking to the sides of the bore and was contaminated by fouling and the patch lube when you seat the ball and possibly each charges compression was different from the other. due to the fine consistency of 4ffff. i believe if you used this same load in a modern cartridge the loads would be very consistent.
More surface areas per volume to start burning at the same time, which means the pressure is higher, because you get the gas in a shorter time. I wouldn't put FFFF down the barrel. I use it for priming and pistols. Good for pistols because they have a shirt barrel, and you can get higher pressure in a shorter time i.e. before the bullet leaves the barrel. Note: wrote Thai before the end, and then you said most of this. I use FFF for my rifle, and FFFF to prime. Tldr; The difference is the more F's, the higher the pressure.
Dang. That sawked. Never getting that time wasted back!!! Jk. Always enjoy your content. Only problem is i picked a cruddy time to get into Black powder. Still searching to stock up on stuff. Thanks
I don't know if someone mentioned it already, but volumetric measurements of The Holy Black will be inconsistent due to the varying granulation sizes. Comparing the same volume of 1F to 4F will have less actual weight of powder with the larger granules because they don't pack as tightly ...and this is some of what is happening when you see higher velocity using the finer grades because you're actually using more powder. In the field I use the volumetric measuring which works just fine...but have dedicated measures for each granulation and have carefully weighed them on a scale to know what they're actually throwing. So yes...the finer granules do burn quicker due to the increased surface area exposed to the fire...but you're also burning more weight of powder as you go smaller which is helping increase the velocities. Whether it's the quicker burning or the increased powder mass responsible for the velocity increase would be an interesting video...and my bet is more on the weight increase than the quicker burning doing the bulk of the increase.
Try 2 dramatically different rifles, say a patched rb in a .36 and in a .58. I think you will see the fff or ffff shine in the .36 and the f or ff shine in the. 58. Thank you for the sacrifice you made for this video. I am thrilled to know the glazed/graphited explanation.
Good video. I think the Walker had more consistent velocities because the loads were being compressed into a given space so that the ball or bullet would be below the cylinder mouth. In a rifle, you don't have those constraints. Also, I wouldn't demonstrate or recommend using 4F as anything but a priming powder. I also don't subscribe to the certain powders for certain calibers. I use Swiss 1F in my 40 cal long range cartridge rifle and it works fine. Most people believe that you need to use Swiss 1 1/2 or 2 in a 40 cal.
I love my Goex Cartridge (1.5F). With 50 Grains in my Saint Hawkins Flintlock i get 1000FPS off a Round ball and i can drill anything out to 100 yards. Very consistent velocities and pattern.
One possible source for inconsistency might be in the amount of 4F powder that is lost due to that “self,priming” effect. Any powder lost out the hole won’t be available to propel the ball.
It's always fun watching your experiments. I think you did a pretty god job explaining this one through as well. The only thing you could have done to increase the science part of it all would be to wear a white lab coat and have Bill Nye as a guest........ oh wait..... never mind. That's probably not the best idea.... Thanks again for the greta video.
Awesome I appreciate your video and hard work. I'm very familiar with rifles, pistols, and shot guns. But! I will be a new Comer to black powder. I haven't gotten my first black powder firearm yet. But in the near future I will. I figured I would learn a sutch possible before I get my first BP firearm. Your videos are instrumental. Awesome knowledge. Thank you so much. It's your knowledge and sharing to others that will have me well prepared. For introduction into black powder arms. Again, thank you so so much. I have now learned a considerable amount from your videos. It's so awesome. I'm very appreciative.
Volume vs. Weight (mass) vs. total surface area of the propellant (burn rate) vs. barrel length (dwell time). That is to say, 40grns of Fg by volume has less mass & surface area then 40grns BV then FFFg. A 30" barrel has more dwell time then an 8" barrel. Or, longer barrel, slower burn rate, more time...higher velocity, pushing all the way. Or, short barrel, fast burn rate, less dwell time in a handgun, energy lost before it can be used. Compare volume to mass and go again.
I think an easy way to see it is, think of logs for a fireplace. Three logs (1F) of good size will burn slower and longer, but if they each is slit in half (say F2) and so if those same three logs were each split into 4 each, (F4) they would burn up real quick. So in a larger and/or longer barrel, a grain like 1F can get the bullet going and increase it's speed longer, were with say a pistol, it has to burn faster or the bullet may be out of the barrel and the powder is still burning, then it was just wasted. In the 70's I was an Ammo Tech for a 105mm (4-5"dia.?) howitzer platoon and if I remember right, the "powder" were pellets about a quarter inch diameter and something like three quarts inch long for each grain. Another thing is if a bigger bullet doesn't get moving fast enough because the powder burnt to fast, not making room for the expanding gas, the chamber becomes a bomb. Not as likely with better metals today though. Sorry so long...
With my home made muzzle loading propellant, I'm having trouble producing 3F. It is my grinding and screening process. I'm getting far more 2F sized granules. The 3f and "dust" are harder to separate with the grinding and screens I am using. Thanks for the polishing clues.
Try the grinder Jake uses. I got one and found it is actually a little better at making 3F than 2F. I get 15-20% below 50 mesh and 5% above 20 mesh after grinding the busted pucks and then regrinding everything that sits on top of the 20 until it won't get any smaller. When trying to maximize 2F on a slightly larger setting, I end up with about 30-40% 3F and fines in the process after the first go.
It is my understanding the best size of powder is based on the charge weight. This could be stirring of the powder charge during the violence of the burn. This is similar to the guide about using a magnum primer on a non magnum smokeless load. The guide on that I heard is the turbulence in the case caused by the primer effects consistency of the burn (also the primer adds some pressure but that mostly just adds more inconsistency). The guide i was given is use the least violent primer you can that gives reliable ignition of the charge. Similarly the dual warnings of "loading a pistol cartridge with too little powder is dangerous because it might squib sometimes" AND simultaneously "loading a pistol cartridge with too little powder can cause dangerous pressures (more likely because the flame skips across the top of the charge igniting a larger surface of powder since it us laying in a thin layer in the cartridge. As opposed to lighting powder from one end at the flash hole area only). The 4F getting inconsistent shows similar results to those "rules". It just so happens that choosing powder by "calibre" or "pistol" or "rifle" happens to follow thes guides since all of those words line up generally with charge weight. It all sounds like inconsistencies which ultimately lead to inaccuracies.
It's my slightly educated guess that the grain size and flame propagation within the "chamber" of a barrel, which will result in max pressure and the resultant velocity of a given projectile. Since the constraint here is black powder and we aren't using fancy chemicals and additives in smokeless powder, the constraint is the max pressure and how to stay away from going too high with pressure, but also produce the longest interval of burn for a given charge.
Great video, the only thing I disagree with is the assertion that grain for grain F and FFFF hold the same energy, this isn’t true. Larger grains will have more air between them than the smaller ones, this have less actual compound In a given area, thus less power, but only slightly.
@@Everythingblackpowder I should have been more clear, I didn't mean grain as in the direct weight, I mean the "grains" on the order measurer. For example, If I have a powder measurer calibrated so that 1 grain is one grain of FFFF, the same weight of FF will take up more space, although a negligible amount. But you are right, they'd still be the same weight, I was just thinking in terms of volume when I said grain. Also, I love your videos, especially this one.
You should get a Garmin Xero C1 Pro, Compact Chronograph. I had some Cabela points to burn, so just acquired one. It is so simple to use and never misses a shot!. (The only thing I use my old chrono for is to get shotshell velocities. Doppler chrono's don't work well with lead shot.) I think you would really like the Garmin.
I've been using Pyrodex P in everything I've got for awhile now. Mainly because someone gave me 3 pounds of it . I don't have any way to measure the velocity, but as far as accuracy goes, it seems to work pretty good . I used to use 3f (whatever brand I could get cheapest) and the results seemed more or less the same. I have a CVA 50 Hawken , a CVA 50 Mountain pistol, and a CVA Philadelphia Deringer in 45.
You may not go back and read these post on the older videos but if you do you are thinking in the right terms on the 4 f powder. Go back and watch your video on the rifle and see how much more pressure is lost from the touch hole on each powder you shoot. You can tell the smaller the powder the more loss from the touch hole. The 4 f is loosing power getting the ball moving because it burns so fast. The pistol however has a cap over the nipple and the hammer on top of that holding that power in the barrel.
As said below(Above) 4F grains are so small they pack densely and slow down the burn. The inconsistent times is due to variance in packing the charges. **I use FFFg for everything, rifle and shotgun. I DO have some FFFFg to prime my flinty.
Yes but I’m not entirely sold on that theory simple because I’m not vastly changing the amount of pressure I’m applying when seating the ball in the rifle. I suppose it will simply require more testing
@@Everythingblackpowder The early fireworks rocket motors were black powder. They achieved a slow progressive burn through dense packing. Otherwise they just exploded. WW2 pineapple grenades fuze delay was tightly packed black powder. You can get a denser pack with a smaller grain (and less oxygen in between) Just my theory, but consider why your Walker got good and consistent performance with FFFFg. Might it be the way the loading lever repeats the same function each time? Just some thoughts. Thanks for doing this!
It’s like fuel atomization in an engine. The more atomized the better has been the general thinking. Older engines with older fuel systems (carburetors) had lower redlines and they were happier at lower rpms than today’s engines. Atomization needs is why old high rpm high strung races engines had temperamental Italian carburetors. Higher rpm means less time to burn the fuel. Those carbs were a pain, but those carbs are exceptional at fuel atomization. Eventually fuel injection took over the race engines and then the regular passenger car engines and you’ll note redlines are higher and engines seem happier at slightly higher rpm’s. Modern fuel injection systems are like having 4F powder in every car. Heck with direct injection it’s like 5F. At least with gasoline engines.
i'm seeing an inconsistency in flash hole blowback during the 4f shots shown. 3 had a little bit but the others were spot on. too many unknown variables on our end just watching through a camera so yeah. just something i noticed. 1 hypothesis i have is a void could be forming right at the flash hole in the breach during the last few seat taps with the ram rod. with it being unsupported at the flash hole and the powder being small enough to pass through the flash hole it just moves and that small indent in the charge could be boosting the flame further into the charge causing the flame front to push through the powder faster. (the terminology in blackpowder isn't my strong suit so sorry if i'm confusing everyone who reads this)
