The Truth About Triple 7?

So I've been looking for accounts of max loads of Triple 7 needing to be reduced for safety, and don't find that on Hogdgon's site, nor get any real answers from those claiming it is a must.

What it does actually say about the reduction of load is to replicate a BP load, and as far as safety what it says is:

"The owner's manual for your firearm should specify a maximum allowable load. Under no circumstances should this maximum be exceeded."

And this is what they say about reducing the load"

"Triple Seven is a high energy product designed to provide the muzzleloading hunter with higher velocities when used in the same VOLUME as blackpowder. To duplicate a blackpowder load velocity using Triple Seven, you must decrease the powder charge by 15%."

But a fellow on another forum and I were talking about 4F in cap n ball revolvers, which lead to the use of T7. He pointed me to this:


Gunpowder Grades and Percussion Revolver Performance
by
Greg Nelson
The Percussion Revolver Yahoo Group

For those interested in useful information over historical details, I will get straight to the point. Gunpowder grades have enormous impact on percussion revolver performance. For example, 30 grains of GOEX FFg under an Army Revolver's 0.454" round ball will have lower velocity than 30 grains of GOEX FFFg; 30 grains of GOEX FFFg will have lower velocity than the 30 Grains of FFFg Swiss Black Powder. The difference in Swiss and GOEX is that Swiss is a Sporting Grade black powder, while GOEX is a Rifle Grade black powder. The lowest grade of black powder performance is Musket Grade, (also called Government Powder). Rifle Grade black powder has a faster combustion than Musket Grade, and Sporting grade has a faster combustion rate than Rifle Grade black powder.

There was a special grade of Sporting black powder that disappeared in the mid-1870's, and it is critical to our knowledge of the true capability of percussion revolvers. It was called "Revolver Powder" in the 1850 to 1875 era, and its formulation was for the percussion revolver's unique combustion characteristics.

Percussion revolvers are capable of excellent ballistic power, IF used with black powders and substitutes that can perform at the level of a 19th Century "Revolver Powder". My testing shows that Hodgdon 777 FFFg performs close to the level of a 19th Century "Revolver Powder". That is the "Three F-G" 777, not the "Two F-G" 777. The Hodgdon 777 brochure recommends using 777 FFg in cartridges, and does not list 777 FFFg as a powder for cartridge use, so the Hodgdon 777 FFFg formulation is clearly very potent.

In recent tests of an Uberti Remington Army percussion revolver, only 23 grains of a Swiss Black Powder roughly equivalent to "Revolver Powder" launched a 216-grain conical bullet at 940 fps. That performance approaches the power level of a 45 ACP +P load. The 23-grain charge was chosen because it was common in original combustible cartridges using bullets in the 210-grain range. The Swiss "Revolver Powder" equivalent actually outperforms Hodgdon 777 FFFg by a small margin.

The recent Remington tests, using Swiss Black Powder and 777 FFFg, demonstrated high conical velocities with relatively small powder charges. It seems very likely, that when properly loaded, the Army .44 revolvers could probably kill a grizzly with one or two properly placed shots, as reported by eyewitness Captain Randolph Marcy
in his book THE PRAIRIE TRAVELER published in 1859.

There is the useful information. What follows are the historical details.

When I first began shooting percussion revolvers back in 1972, the only black powders available were DuPont and Curtis & Harvey. Pyrodex production was still several years
in the future. The 1970's Gun Press reported that Curtis & Harvey was fairly consistent but DuPont outperformed it charge-for-charge.

My first percussion revolver was a Ruger Old Army. I quickly acquired a Lee 2-cavity mould # 456-220-1R, casting a 220-grain round-nose conical. I cast my first batch of conicals and eagerly began testing them for accuracy and power.

I soon discovered that Curtis & Harvey FFFg was lacking in performance. With a 30-grain charge the 220-grain, Lee conical would barely penetrate two 2X4's. A 45 ACP 230 grain FMJ from a Colt 1911 Government Model would easily penetrate three
2X4's. I was very disappointed in the Ruger's performance. At the time, I assumed that percussion revolvers were very underpowered compared to modern ammunition.

In 1975, I bought the LYMAN BLACK POWDER HANDBOOK. The ballistics data listed in LBPHB for the Ruger Old Army and the .44 Army revolvers revealed very anemic performance. GOEX and Curtis & Harvey 33 grain charges of FFFg gave velocities of only 780 fps and 709 fps respectively, to a lightweight 190-grain conical bullet. The .44 Army revolvers were a bit better. Using a lightweight conical of only 155 grains, a 28-grain charge of FFFg, gave 861 fps with GOEX, and 785 fps with Curtis and Harvey, as listed on page 77 of LBPHB.

Eyewitness reports from the Western Frontier and the American Civil War clearly indicated that the percussion revolvers were accurate, deadly and powerful handguns, capable of easily killing large animals such as horses and grizzlies. In his classic book SIXGUNS, Elmer Keith wrote of percussion sixguns killing grizzly bears and buffalo, and talked impressively of the accuracy and good stopping power of the Colt Navy revolvers at close range with the pure lead round ball over a full powder charge.

Based on my mid-1970's percussion revolver tests, and the tests of Lyman and the articles of numerous gun writers of the 1970's, it was hard to believe the actual historical reports of percussion revolver performance. The amazing stories I had read from history, the stories of buffalo killed, and of cavalry horses dropped with the percussion sixgun, were all apparently simply tall tales, and did not seem possible. Either the eyewitness reports from the past were lies, or we were doing something wrong in our loading of these 19th Century weapons in the late 20th Century.

It turns out that we were doing something wrong. First, we were loading black powder inferior in grade-for-grade performance to the excellent black powders available in the middle of the 19th Century. In addition, we were also missing a special high-performance grade of black powder available in the 19th century called "Revolver Powder", and also known by the names of "Cartridge Powder" or "Number One Pistol Powder". "Revolver Powder" formulation was for the unique combustion requirements of the percussion revolver, particularly in combustible cartridge use.


American Powder, Hazard Powder, Laflin & Rand, and other American gunpowder producers of that era produced "Revolver Powder". Such "Revolver Powders" were originally available from roughly 1850 to 1875. From the mid-1870's onward, black powder formulations were for metallic cartridge use, so the production of "Revolver Powder" apparently tailed off or ended at around that time.

The information concerning "Revolver Powder" revealed itself as I was researching the ammunition actually used in the active percussion revolver era of roughly 1847 to 1875.
I will detail this research in later articles for those of you interested in the actual details concerning "Revolver Powder" and the manufacture of that black powder grade. Listed at this article's end are several references, for those interested in further details.

In the article immediately to follow, I will be testing Uberti's new 2007 production of the Remington New Model Army, and the tests will include a Swiss black powder that is very close to 19th Century "Revolver Powder, and actually outperforms the Hodgdon 777 FFFg recommended earlier, using identical powder charges measured volumetrically.

In the article to follow the Uberti Remington test, I will compare modern black powders and substitutes to 19th Century gunpowder. That article will clearly demonstrate what revolver-grade black powder is, and explain why. That article will also go somewhat against modern thinking and "Expert Advice" concerning the loading of percussion revolvers. However, the written and pictorial evidence from the 19th century concerning revolver-grade black powder clearly demonstrates what it is, regardless of the thinking of the "Experts" of today.



REFERENCES
(ABHBP)A BRIEF HISTORY OF BLACK POWDER PRODUCTION
William Knight (2003) Short paper on technical description of gunpowder grades, available at "thunder-ridge-muzzleloading.com"; at home page bottom, click on "All you'd probably want to know about black powder"

(AMCA) AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS of COMBUSTIBLE AMMUNITION
Terry A. White (2002) [Pgs 75-108]

(CCF)COLT Company Flyer, dated "January 1, 1858"; [Ray Riling research reprint]

HODGDON 777 (2002); Hodgdon company brochure
[Loading Notes: Cartridges]

(LBPHB) LYMAN BLACK POWDER HANDBOOK
C. Kenneth Ramage, editor (1975)[Pgs 70-81]

(PAP) PERCUSSION AMMUNITION PACKETS 1845-1888
John J Malloy; Dean S. Thomas; Terry A. White (2003)[Chap 1,3,4; Apdx C]



(RBRF) ROUND BALL to RIMFIRE, Part 3 (Federal Pistols & Revolvers)
Dean S. Thomas (2003) [Chapters 1 through 4]

(SXGNS) SIXGUNS
Elmer Keith (1961) [Chaps 1 & 10]

(TG) THE GUN
W. W. Greener (1974 Bonanza reprint of original 1910 edition)
[Chap 22; black powder granulation picture on pg 552 very enlightening]

(TPT) THE PRAIRIE TRAVELER
Captain Randolph B. Marcy (Reprint of the 1859 Edition)

I found this here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theper...r Gunpowder/

I see manufacturers such as Uberti claiming not to use any other sub but Pyrodex. And I have to wonder about it. On one hand they claim their guns are better built than the originals, yet claim they shouldn't be used at all with a 15% more powerful powder.

I figure it has a lot to do with being liable, yet I feel it a bit foolish to just disregard their warnings.

So what do you think about this?

I do believe that the 19th century powders were better. Swiss seems to be the best modern holy black. I get good performance from Pyrodex P but 777 outperforms it most of the time. I stay within recommended loads for Pyrodex and ease off a bit on the 777. I still get good velocities doing that and never have been too eager to exceed them if for no other reason than to baby my revolvers. I think modern gun snobbery looks askance at BP revolvers as weak and less effective but all the ballistic data I've seen puts them ballistically any where between .38 special to 44 special or .45 acp performance. Were they magnums? No, but a big round ball or heavy conical doesn't need to be going the speed of light to take down a human or a big critter. I have often found that when I run modern ammo over my chronograph that it doesn't perform up to its advertising. I have chronograph tested a lot of my revolver loads and single shot pistol loads and I can say confidently that they would be very deadly against any living thing. If the gooberment were to go anti 2nd amendment on us and I could squirrel away a few of my BP guns I would feel quite well armed.

Don

I've loaded my roa and '58 rem pietta with 4f many times. more felt recoil - don't own a chrono so no fps figures

Don said:

I do believe that the 19th century powders were better. Swiss seems to be the best modern holy black. I get good performance from Pyrodex P but 777 outperforms it most of the time. I stay within recommended loads for Pyrodex and ease off a bit on the 777. I still get good velocities doing that and never have been too eager to exceed them if for no other reason than to baby my revolvers. I think modern gun snobbery looks askance at BP revolvers as weak and less effective but all the ballistic data I've seen puts them ballistically any where between .38 special to 44 special or .45 acp performance. Were they magnums? No, but a big round ball or heavy conical doesn't need to be going the speed of light to take down a human or a big critter. I have often found that when I run modern ammo over my chronograph that it doesn't perform up to its advertising. I have chronograph tested a lot of my revolver loads and single shot pistol loads and I can say confidently that they would be very deadly against any living thing. If the gooberment were to go anti 2nd amendment on us and I could squirrel away a few of my BP guns I would feel quite well armed.

Don

Click to expand...

Swiss will produce velocities similar to those claimed by the ammo makers of the late 19th c.
It is very similar in formula, grind time, specific gravity and components to the best powders of the late 19th C.

However, it is unlikely that the ammo makers used the best powder they could buy. Since many old cartridges have degraded powder in them for what ever reason, it is hard to judge. However, I did pull apart a UMC 38 S&W some years back that had some VERY nice looking very clean, shiny powder looking very much like FFFF Swiss. Since the powder had not been compressed it was still just like it had been when installed in the case.

Swiss is the only modern powder I know of that does not take shortcuts in the manufacture and uses the best ingredients. For example it has no graphite added. Graphite was a way to make a cheap powder look like a better grade powder. The British military would not accept powder coated with "black lead". But the current use of BP by the Military is for fuses and boosters, so its its fouling characteristics are not important.

Swiss is a a true sporting powder as opposed to the musket and rifle grade powders.
BTW by the 1870s they had electric Chronographs.
Dan

Wow great info rodwha,I thought you said that you were not and expert on hand guns ,my little knowledge was gained just by experience. Maybe you have just been having fun with me,huh. :hatsoff:

lawyer warnings for gun shooters....

:cursing:

jerks had me running less than optimum loads in my revolvers for years just because some lawyer was looking to be relavent

I beleive that "revolver" was just a granulation. Possibly a specific spec used by cartridge loaders. Probably similar to the stuff I found in the 38 S&W mentioned in a previous post. We have to remember that the illustration in Greener is a drawing/woodcut not a photograph. Using it as evidence, other than that revolver was a finer granulation than #2 which is similar to FFF today. I think Swiss FFF is their #2 for example. Europe used a different numbering system where #6 English is like FG.

There are several ways to change the performance of BP. Granualtion size in the one everyone knows about. Then there is formulation. The fastest powders by FORMULA have slightly more saltpeter.
Then we have fuel differences. All charcoals are not created equal. Then there is grind time, how long the powder is milled, finer particle size and better mixing of the components make the pwoder faster. How hard the powder is pressed. The amount of pressure put on the press cake can effect the powders burn rate.
So thinking that the "Revovler"is something super special is probably in error. More likely its just a granulation much like FFFF.
We also have to remember that when used in foil or paper cartriges with a bullet the powder charges were not heavy. I thin the service load for the 36 calibers was about 15-17 grains.
For example the 38 S&W cartridge was loaded to about 75% of loading density. I figured there were two reasons for this. It was used in small pocket revolvers and if a light charge of powder was used but fine enough to produce the ballistics then the ammo company saved money on the powder.
Jump forward to modern day and find that, at least as of a few years ago, Winchester 45 Colt ammo was loaded with 7.1 gr of Smokeless likely WW 231 since this is the listed factory duplication load for this powder and the stuff pulled from cartridges looked just like 231.
Anyone who owns a percussion revolver needs to do their research and see what shoots best in it.
Cartridge Revolvers like the 45 Colt often shoot best with FF.

Dan

Don't forget that the type of wood from which the charcoal is made makes a difference. Soft woods are better than hard woods and certain species of Willow seem to be the best.

I had no idea that the wood that the charcoal was made from made a diffrence, thank you for this information. I learn something every time I visit the Forum !
nilo52

the particular wood used in the makeing of high grade powder charcol was a state secret way back in the way back when
that tid bit about willow was not common knowledge

Billnpatti said:

Don't forget that the type of wood from which the charcoal is made makes a difference. Soft woods are better than hard woods and certain species of Willow seem to be the best.

Click to expand...

Here in UK, the premium black powder company, Curtiss & Harvey, used English willow charcoal that was made by the old-fashioned hand-served charcoal-burners in the very clearings from which the willow was coppiced.

The redoubtable Mr Bill Curtiss - THE man on things shootish et al - is a descendant of the founder.

tac

And, FWIW, the Confederate Powder Works, Augusta GA, which, under the supervision of COL George Washington Rains produced a grade of powder that even the Damyankees admitted was superior, used cottonwood charcoal.
I have often admired the stately groves of very large cottonwoods growing along the banks of the San Pedro.....
mhb - Mike

Absolutely! Also the source of the nitrates makes a big difference and is the current accepted reason for the superiority of English military powder vs. the French during the fracas with the Emperor Napoleon and his band of Merry men! :rotf:

An expert I am not. But as a teen my father got me interested in firearms and hunting, and so I began to read and ask questions. But that was with modern stuff.

Even what is "known" today can be quite debatable.

But when I came across this BP stuff I tried using smokeless modern understanding and have been somewhat schooled on there being a difference, and that I cannot use the understandings interchangeably.

I still have a long way to go. And one thing I learned is that what I "know" may not be the whole picture, or can be viewed from a wrong angle. And so I ask questions and the reasons for them so that maybe I can wrap my little noggin around it and grasp a sense of what is.

But because there doesn't seem to be much of a definitive answer to the whole I won't claim knowledge of it, and especially not an expert of it.

Wow, rodwha, the above is a statement seldom read, a total and complete hat's off too ya! :hatsoff:

While the quest and your linked data does have total merit, an undeniable search for comparable results with a definable answer,,, it uuuhhhmmm, :hmm:
all kinda boils down to what works best for the individual,

That's the whole thing about this BP stuff, all the things each person does, like seating pressure, bore condition, lube properties (if used) wadd thickness (if used), filler (if used),,blah,blah,,,,,
Creates conditions that even if attempted to be replicated,(unless demonstrated mono e mono) can't be done with just simple discussion.

Bottom line is, it's prudent to research, but first hand experimentation with personal goals in mind is the only way to determine what's best for the application.

Trouble is, one must view others research keeping in mind what that persons goal is. What is this person trying too prove or disprove? Are they bias? Or is the research being done in a manner that's really looking to show a particular result?

Example;
Lab Rat's in California have proven susceptible to carcinogenic mutation with,
,everything on the planet!

I almost feel that seating pressure may be one of the biggest factors into many differing results. Chronograph's aren't always accurate either.

Seating pressure is also another one of those things I'm wondering about with T7.

Many claim T7 needs very mild compression with cap n ball. But that isn't actually what it says. They say that with loading cartridges, but for percussion/flintlock they state a firm seating pressure. I've asked them 3 times now what "firm" means with no reply. But, to me, that implies a moderate to somewhat stout pressure. Not a mild compression as with cartridges.

I wish I understood what the seating pressure did.

rodwha.Thanks for posting the information we discussed in the pm.I would have but I did not want to type it out and don't know any other way to post it.I am not very good with the ins and outs of these things called compooter lol

In my .31 Remington Pocket revolver, I have used 12grs. T7 compressed as hard as I can and had no problems but without a chrony it is hard to say if it was at all consistent.I just know it is snappy compared to Goex 3F.

seating pressue is a big part of accuracy for target work, but without one of those little scales you hold in your hand while loading it will not be very consistent.

A friend and I have used an adjustable collar on a bench rod to get consistent compression. We seated a ball delicately on the powder and then adjusted the collar a measured distance from the muzzle. An example would be to add 1/16" of compression. We did this to test compression as a variable in chronographed loads. Neither of us do this when shooting - just an experiment.
Regards,
Pletch