You were doing really really well.
Right up to the point you assumed what is best for accuracy!
Any proof?
-
This community needs YOUR help today. We rely 100% on Supporting Memberships to fund our efforts. With the ever increasing fees of everything, we need help. We need more Supporting Members, today. Please invest back into this community. I will ship a few decals too in addition to all the account perks you get.
Sign up here: https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/account/upgrades -
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
4F Black Powder Question
- Thread starter fjrdoc
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
- Status
Right up to the point you assumed what is best for accuracy!
Any proof?
ugly old guy
40 Cal
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2019
- Messages
- 347
- Reaction score
- 188
4F burns faster. The faster a powder burns the greater the pressure.
You don't need 4F pressure data to verify that.
80 grains 3F produces higher pressures than 80 grains 2F.
80 grains 2F produces more pressure than 80 grains 1F.
There IS pressure Data that proves this.
Tbe pressure also developes FASTER the finer the powder.
'THE IOWA' and 'THE MISSOURI' was. I know it was near fist size ganulations.
I know that if someone put the same charge of 1F powder in one of those 16 inch guns, it would blow up the gun.
1F is normally used in cannon, by the way. The 24 pounder used 1F.
2F is for .45 and above rifle and musket.
It was NEVER used in Cannon during any battle.
3F is for under .45 caliber rifle, musket, pistol, revolver, and pepper box.
I don't know what the grain designation for the black powder used in the 16 inch guns of 'THE IOWA', 'THE MISSOURI' and other battleships.
I do know that if someone put the same charge of 1F in one of those 16 inch guns, you would blow up the gun.
Why the F' anyone would want to ise 4F as a main charge eludes me.
What do they think they are going to gain?
If you want to increase velocity, move UP a granulation or two and increase the charge, (example: .45 caliber side lock percussion, using 1F can go up to 140 grains safely 2F up to 110 grains. 3F 90 grains)
On every can of 4F I have ever seen, it states on the lable "FOR PRIMING ONLY"
Why do some think they know more than the manufacturer?
"Back in the day" 4F was NEVER used as the main powder charge. I just do not understand how some are so stupid.
They should turn on their brain before picking up their ML, and leave it on when shooting.
They are not only endangering themselves but those in the area, as well. (shrapnel)
Want "hard data"? Refer to the reloading manuals.
Would you use a fast furning powder in you .458WM? Of course not! You would use a slow burning powder, just like the reloading manuals say to.
Same thing with a ML and 4F as the main charge.
I don't know if Lyman, for instance, in their ML loading manual bothered with 4F main loads and the pressures involved.
They may have forgotten "There is no limit to human stupidity." (A. Einstein)
You don't need 4F pressure data to verify that.
80 grains 3F produces higher pressures than 80 grains 2F.
80 grains 2F produces more pressure than 80 grains 1F.
There IS pressure Data that proves this.
Tbe pressure also developes FASTER the finer the powder.
'THE IOWA' and 'THE MISSOURI' was. I know it was near fist size ganulations.
I know that if someone put the same charge of 1F powder in one of those 16 inch guns, it would blow up the gun.
1F is normally used in cannon, by the way. The 24 pounder used 1F.
2F is for .45 and above rifle and musket.
It was NEVER used in Cannon during any battle.
3F is for under .45 caliber rifle, musket, pistol, revolver, and pepper box.
I don't know what the grain designation for the black powder used in the 16 inch guns of 'THE IOWA', 'THE MISSOURI' and other battleships.
I do know that if someone put the same charge of 1F in one of those 16 inch guns, you would blow up the gun.
Why the F' anyone would want to ise 4F as a main charge eludes me.
What do they think they are going to gain?
If you want to increase velocity, move UP a granulation or two and increase the charge, (example: .45 caliber side lock percussion, using 1F can go up to 140 grains safely 2F up to 110 grains. 3F 90 grains)
On every can of 4F I have ever seen, it states on the lable "FOR PRIMING ONLY"
Why do some think they know more than the manufacturer?
"Back in the day" 4F was NEVER used as the main powder charge. I just do not understand how some are so stupid.
They should turn on their brain before picking up their ML, and leave it on when shooting.
They are not only endangering themselves but those in the area, as well. (shrapnel)
Want "hard data"? Refer to the reloading manuals.
Would you use a fast furning powder in you .458WM? Of course not! You would use a slow burning powder, just like the reloading manuals say to.
Same thing with a ML and 4F as the main charge.
I don't know if Lyman, for instance, in their ML loading manual bothered with 4F main loads and the pressures involved.
They may have forgotten "There is no limit to human stupidity." (A. Einstein)
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2019
- Messages
- 432
- Reaction score
- 424
Hmm..... That would probably explain why those Jim Shockey solid Gold Sticks of bp substitute don't work worth poop. I bought 10 jars of it for $8 Cdn each from a store that wanted them gone real bad.
And what were YOUR measurements?
Yes, it makes a ball go faster, but WHAT BLOWs UP BARRLES, 4 F increases the pressure lots more than 3f
And yet blasting powder is the size of gravel.
I think we are missing something.
1f, 2ff and 3fff are all I've ever used in my howitzer. Granted, it's not a 16" bore though.
In the old days granulation size was probably a critical factor when using cast, wrought iron, or Damascus barrels. Not to mention powders that were formulated differently than today.
rodwha
58 Cal.
What I’ve read of your posts so far is that it could be used, but that information about safety isn’t necessarily as there are some YouTube videos of people doing dumb stuff.
I’ve long argued about 4F being used in revolvers during the Civil War and afterwards when they morphed into metallic cartridges. But I’ve also stated I’d never suggest to go against the manufacturer’s warnings, which tend to stay away from 4F, only because I can’t say for sure if something is safe or not. I don’t feel comfortable giving advice on something I don’t fully understand. But I’ve pointed out it’s usage from at least the Civil War and on into the metallic cartridge era.
I sent out some cast custom bullets I designed to a fellow who was following the threads when I was designing them. One I designed specifically for my ROA as it’s built to handle much more than anything BP I could throw at it. I thought we were moving to Virginia, which would put black bears as something to potentially try so I created a short for weight 285 grn WFN that had long bearing surfaces to increase the pressures and therefor the velocity as 25 grns of 3F T7 was a max charge. He put it in his Walker under a double charge of 26 grns or 52 grns of Pyrodex P and blew his cylinder. Needless to say nobody gets those anymore. This was the instance that Richard loved to rib me on despite not knowing what happened.
RAEDWALD
40 Cal.
Blasting powder is formulated for 'heave' rather than 'shock'. It produces it's gasses more slowly, giving the rock time to split and move instead of shattering locally. In the old days they would add sawdust to the powder for this reason.
The really big old late 19th century cannon used fist sized lumps not grains. Hence the term 'pebble' powder. Or a similar size in hexagonal prisms with perforations through them. It was this work and the trials of compressed single solid pellets of black powder for the last of the black powder military unmentionable arms, that provided the information on what shapes and sizes of holes through the solid pellets would provide the desired control of the speed and timing of pressures in solid cartridges and rockets that are the still used technologies for modern solid fuel rockets. However we digress well away from the poor OP poster and his interests.
Just to show that black powder is far more complex than one might think. A good part of the pressure that drives the bullet comes not from the production of gas but from the expansion of said gas by the heat of the combustion. Hence the decision of the Swiss factory to use slightly more saltpetre than the chemical formula would suggest in order to further heat the gases for a better performance. The famed firm of Curtis & Harvey added charred peas to one of their target powders to change it's fouling characteristics. The more I learn of black powder the more I find I do not know and the more even the academic/research experts state that they do not know. Black powder formulation and use is a whole field of it's own for research without even having to shoot the stuff and make a mess.
The really big old late 19th century cannon used fist sized lumps not grains. Hence the term 'pebble' powder. Or a similar size in hexagonal prisms with perforations through them. It was this work and the trials of compressed single solid pellets of black powder for the last of the black powder military unmentionable arms, that provided the information on what shapes and sizes of holes through the solid pellets would provide the desired control of the speed and timing of pressures in solid cartridges and rockets that are the still used technologies for modern solid fuel rockets. However we digress well away from the poor OP poster and his interests.
Just to show that black powder is far more complex than one might think. A good part of the pressure that drives the bullet comes not from the production of gas but from the expansion of said gas by the heat of the combustion. Hence the decision of the Swiss factory to use slightly more saltpetre than the chemical formula would suggest in order to further heat the gases for a better performance. The famed firm of Curtis & Harvey added charred peas to one of their target powders to change it's fouling characteristics. The more I learn of black powder the more I find I do not know and the more even the academic/research experts state that they do not know. Black powder formulation and use is a whole field of it's own for research without even having to shoot the stuff and make a mess.
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2014
- Messages
- 3,936
- Reaction score
- 4,710
So if we use scale and compare the 1f as used in a cannon and 2F in a ,50 rifle......????
Yes seemingly 4F would produce more pressure, but how much more? Also the Lyman actual test results published indicate that 4f does not always produce more pressure than 3f. Which makes sense, since there are many, many other factors that contribute to the amount of pressure produced in a gun barrel in addition to powder charge.
All indications are 4F is safe to use in rifles and shotguns. There has been not a single shred of evidence produced by those who say otherwise. Whereas there has been a sizable body of evidence provided here to the contrary.
Why use it? In order to get better performance, including less fouling, which is verifiable, and because it is as perfectly safe as using 3f or 2f.
What the manufacturer knows is that they furnished data using 4f until lawyers got involved, so they added the legalese. Fact is 3f or 2f even will work in the pan and using part of the main charge from a paper cartridge as priming powder is historically correct and what many soldiers actually did. So we don't even really need 4f, in which case if it was truly "dangerous" they would quit selling it, or put it in a much different looking can and a smaller one at that.
Lawyers and Nancies.
Well actually, at the risk of getting off topic, yes there are fast powder, light projectile loads for the ,458 as gallery, plinking, target or small game loads, and there are data sources that list them.
Is that why all of the older loading manuals are edited as well? Because "There is no limit to human stupidity."? Nope. Lawyers and Nancies are the problem.
The stupidity here is not in using 4f in a main charge, but in not using it because one is afraid of something that doesn't exist, as with so many other things these days.
Look on the internet and in printed books. There are no cases whatsoever that I can find that show 4f causing any damage whatsoever to a muzzleloading firearm when used as a main charge. Plenty on smokeless sure, but NONE with 4f.
Sure you might be able to blow up a barrel with it, but you could also blow up a barrel with 3f or 2f.
Pressure is not bad. We need pressure to make the ball fly. It is all in how much pressure and correct charges of 4f will work as well, or better in some ways than 3f or 2f. Also as I said there are many other factors in how much pressure is generated in a given load.
rodwha
58 Cal.
Actually there is a museum curator who disassembled metallic cartridges from the end of the 19th century and guess what he all too often found even in the larger calibers. 4F and sometimes finer. Also a fellow had some Civil War Hazard’s paper cartridges for the .44 issued to the military. Guess what it contained and how energetic it was. 4F and similar to Swiss. That cartridge contained 36 of powder under a 211 grn conical.
As for the powder can explaining what it’s designed for how about Swiss powder’s previous bottles:
I have a 52 caliber rifle with no load data. Can’t find any published data. Do I conclude using the logic of your post that it is unsafe to shoot with any load combination? There is no load data to follow so it must not be safe. Do you agree?
And just to rant a bit, I have torn down War of Northern Aggression era Smith Carbine cartridges and found powder finer than what we call 4F today. I have shot original period guns since the late 1960s with fine grain powder, call it 4F. I have 4F powder cans that explicitly state that it is suitable for muskets, pistols and shotguns. But because you ‘don't recall any testing of loads using 4fg for anything but priming powder for a flintlock’ you imply it is unsafe. This of course is based on data and tests that you have chosen not to reveal. Have you ever used 4F as a main charge? You must have data that 4F is not safe, correct? Back to my 52 caliber gun, no data, so not safe, correct?
Nobody is telling you to put 4f in your barrel, they are saying you can if you want to, with no fear of hurting yourself or your barrel.
The only printed material that has measured loads for pressure exist in the 1975 Lyman "Black Powder Loading Manual". In that book, the loads are only published and measured in pistols and the largest 4fg load was 41 grains in a Ruger Old Army. The largest pressure measurement (in Lead Units of Pressure) was 37 grains in a 44 caliber Colt replica revolver modified for pressure measurements.
No 4fg loads were published for the rifle measurements.
While 4fg loads may have been used in the distant past, there is no modern published data for a 4fg load other than what has been offered up on boards such as this one. None of the Gun Digest Loading manuals have a 4fg load. They do load rifles up to 54 caliber with up to 60 grains volume of 3fg and document performance roughly similar to performance with 75 to 80 grains volume of 2fg.
For my practice and use, it will be 3fg and 2fg loads for the main charge and in some cases 1fg in the Land Pattern Musket, and 4fg for the priming pan.
No 4fg loads were published for the rifle measurements.
While 4fg loads may have been used in the distant past, there is no modern published data for a 4fg load other than what has been offered up on boards such as this one. None of the Gun Digest Loading manuals have a 4fg load. They do load rifles up to 54 caliber with up to 60 grains volume of 3fg and document performance roughly similar to performance with 75 to 80 grains volume of 2fg.
For my practice and use, it will be 3fg and 2fg loads for the main charge and in some cases 1fg in the Land Pattern Musket, and 4fg for the priming pan.
In the Gun Digest "Black Powder Loading Manual", copyright 1982 on page 111 loading data for the Allen Santa Fe Hawken in 53 caliber is published. If your rifle has a 1" across the flats at the breech, muzzle velocity for loads for up to 60 grains of 3fg and up to 110 grains of 2fg are listed. The 110 grain load is listed as a maximum recommended load. The Allen rifle went through several iterations and is now for all practical purposed the Pedersoli Santa Fe Hawken. You should be safe. There are other rifles similar to that rifle. If your rifle is similar in barrel wall thickness, then it should be up to you to assess if your rifle is safe to shoot.
I am glad to show you something you have never seen before. Below are photographs of both sides of the same can of ‘Superfine Black Rifle Powder’. Note the ‘fine print’ underlined in yellow in the second photo. SUITABLE MUSKETS PISTOLS & SHOTGUNS.
Thank you. I used the old ‘rule of thumb’ of a starting load equal to the caliber, say 50 to 55 grains and worked the load up from there. The barrel I am talking about is 15/16” across the flats.
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2014
- Messages
- 3,936
- Reaction score
- 4,710
If we were to determine that any firearm without published data, specific to its caliber and component availability, was unsafe, there would be a pile of new wall hangers out there, both black powder and otherwise that could not be shot that are regularly used today.
There is, right now, a whole line of home reloader experimentation going on concerning loads for a certain semi popular cartridge in which brass has just recently become available and data is very scarce for.
The major reason manufacturers began publishing data, was to sell their wares, not to provide a "safety net". My how times change.
Use common sense, and as I once heard said: "A good man knows his limitations".
There is, right now, a whole line of home reloader experimentation going on concerning loads for a certain semi popular cartridge in which brass has just recently become available and data is very scarce for.
The major reason manufacturers began publishing data, was to sell their wares, not to provide a "safety net". My how times change.
Use common sense, and as I once heard said: "A good man knows his limitations".
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2014
- Messages
- 3,936
- Reaction score
- 4,710
Actually there is a museum curator who disassembled metallic cartridges from the end of the 19th century and guess what he all too often found even in the larger calibers. 4F and sometimes finer. Also a fellow had some Civil War Hazard’s paper cartridges for the .44 issued to the military. Guess what it contained and how energetic it was. 4F and similar to Swiss. That cartridge contained 36 of powder under a 211 grn conical.
As for the powder can explaining what it’s designed for how about Swiss powder’s previous bottles:
Ah, those crazy Swiss. What are they going to come up with next?
Just for curiosity's sake, can anyone point me to a documented example of a normal barrel loaded in a normal way which blew up? No matter how much powder of any granulation or how many projectiles.
I'm not at all sure it can be done. Prove me wrong, I double-dog dare you.
Spence
I'm not at all sure it can be done. Prove me wrong, I double-dog dare you.
Spence
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2014
- Messages
- 3,936
- Reaction score
- 4,710
I recall some discussion and perhaps experiments into the theory of actually filling a muzzleloading rifle barrel with BP and that it resulted in no explosion or damage providing th eball was firm;y seated on the powder and allowed to move with the powder ignition. I think Sam Fadala was a promoter of that idea.
I also dimly recall a game and fish agency, I want to say perhaps it was New Mexico, trying to blow up a muzzleloader barrel by adding greater and greater powder charges. IIRC they had to seriously plug the barrel at the end, creating in effect a pipe bomb out of it, to get it to destruct.
I also dimly recall a game and fish agency, I want to say perhaps it was New Mexico, trying to blow up a muzzleloader barrel by adding greater and greater powder charges. IIRC they had to seriously plug the barrel at the end, creating in effect a pipe bomb out of it, to get it to destruct.
If you have a chronograph, could you shoot your standard load of 3f, then work up a load with 4f that give you the same fps? I have no idea, but it seems if you work it up that way, you would be in a safe zone. Experts, pls comment cause I aint no expert.
There were a couple of guys on youtube that did this with a CVA Kentucky rifle. They kept loading more and more until they filled the barrel leaving only enough room for the ball. The stock was damaged but that was more from the contraption holding the rifle than the load. The rest showed no apparent damage.
- Status
