• 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

Shop deals on ebay
the hawken shop
muzzle loading side side shotguns
Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
TNGhost said:
No, he makes a valid point.

Some in this thread seem to attribute magical powers to 4f that make it akin to smokeless powder and nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact some have posted stories and links to items discussing the use of smokeless in BP guns simply to obfuscate the issue here.

4f is not smokeless and does not behave like smokeless.
Click to expand...
Didn't say it did. I said that it is not recommended by any knowledgeable person in the black powder business. Why?
 
Britsmoothy said:
To the contrary. I have asked repeatedly for facts, hard data. There is none coming. Only anecdotes and ghost like expert comments.
If you see that as a weakness then so be it and I guess no logical discourse can be gained any further with you.
Thank you but no thanks.
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • rb-rifle-musket.pdf
    186.9 KB · Views: 170
Crow-Feather said:
I say it is unsafe as it is nowhere recommended for a main charge in a rifle. Also, almost all informed shooters that care about the people standing next to them on the shooting line avoid non recommended powders. Especially flinters with a vent hole . Then there are those that don't give a darn. I would believe that there is proof. It's just that the person who had the problem wasn't about to admit his ignorance.
Click to expand...

You say? And which powder or firearms manufacturer do you represent?

Where is there any official manufacturer's(gun or powder) statement that it is "unsafe"? And keep in mind recommended or not recommended is not a safety warning. That is like saying 6 lb. test fishing line is not recommended for Marlin, or 80 lb. test line is not recommended for perch.

1f is "not recommended" in cap and ball revolvers. Is that "unsafe"?

Where is there any proof of any dangerous incident involving 4f in a rifle or shotgun main charge?

Please direct us to such and you can end this argument. ;)
 
TNGhost said:
You say? And which powder or firearms manufacturer do you represent?

Where is there any official manufacturer's(gun or powder) statement that it is "unsafe"? And keep in mind recommended or not recommended is not a safety warning. That is like saying 6 lb. test fishing line is not recommended for Marlin, or 80 lb. test line is not recommended for perch.

1f is "not recommended" in cap and ball revolvers. Is that "unsafe"?

Where is there any proof of any dangerous incident involving 4f in a rifle or shotgun main charge?

Please direct us to such and you can end this argument. ;)
Click to expand...
Some people have sense enough to figure out that there is a reason why something is not recommended. Snow skiing on dirt is not recommended. Common sense. But there are some that have to drink six beers and show how and why skiing on dirt is just fine. They won't die. they will probably make it down the mountain. But they just have to prove everyone else wrong. I promise my last post on this topic. No more replies. Just one thing please watch this:
 
Crow-Feather said:
Show me the data for loading in rifles please.
Click to expand...
I find it amazing how marketing, campaigning, or whatever you call it (maybe from an internet influencer), becomes fact over history. Today, in some people’s minds, 4F is an evil and dangerous powder to use for a main charge, no matter that it was traditionally used. I posted a quote and link (from the NRA) in post 120 of this thread about the service charge for the Baker rifle back in 1800 being 100 grains of powder finer than what we call 3F today. I posted photographs of a DuPont 4F powder can from the 1960s with the words ‘Suitable for Muskets, Pistols & Shotguns’ printed on it.

I see a lot of articles and ballistic data from many experts that roundballs are inefficient, ineffective and unethical for hunting, plus the dangers of using lead. Using your logic, I bet you believe that they should be banned, correct? It is what some experts and lawyers say, published, and with data. We are on that slippery slope. If you don’t agree, can you justify the use of lead roundballs for hunting without using history or empirical data in your argument? The experts in the State of California are not with you.

The guns and accouterments we chose to use and discuss on this forum don’t come with factsheets and instructions. I don’t have the owners manual for the original Smith Carbine or Remington 1858 I own that came with cartridges and a powder flask, cartridges and a powder flask filled with finer than what we call 4F powder today. Call it traditional gunpowder from the 1860s (they didn’t know enough to call it blackpowder back then). Call it empirical ‘data’. No math. No physics. No experts. No loading manual. But after nearly 160 years, now not only incorrect to use, but dangerous to use, correct? It what the ‘experts’ say.
 
OK, I watched it. I am at a loss as to why you posted this in anyway as "proof" that 4f is not for and should not be used in anything but a flintlock pan. The ol guy never ever mentioned any safety issues for the sizes at all? And I missed who he is and what his professional credentials are?? Had I time I could post my own video showing 4f loaded and fired in my 1849 on up to my 12GA. I am better looking?

Not for you or against you but I believe you have made the right decision in not posting further on this subject.

By all means tho, if you find some real stuff please post.
 
Crow-Feather said:
Some people have sense enough to figure out that there is a reason why something is not recommended. Snow skiing on dirt is not recommended. Common sense. But there are some that have to drink six beers and show how and why skiing on dirt is just fine. They won't die. they will probably make it down the mountain. But they just have to prove everyone else wrong. I promise my last post on this topic. No more replies. Just one thing please watch this:
Click to expand...


Nice try, but:

The gentleman that made that video is actually participating in this thread and below is a question I posed to him in response to a post he made concerning his thoughts on this subject and his response:

TNGhost said:
In other words you would work up a load with 4f, the same as you would with any other powder, starting low and working up to the optimal load?
Click to expand...

Bob McBride said:
As above. With an eye towards velocity and pressure. As I would developing a load for my .58 with NullB, or 0B that I ground even finer. ‘Optimal’ to me is the product of burn speed and barrel length so a charge of finer powder that produces the same velocities/pressures as a coarser powder wouldnt need that extra foot or two of barrel, just as too much course powder with too little barrel is blown out the muzzle still burning. I highly doubt it’s unsafe in modern barrels, but outside of economics I don’t necessarily think it’s a better way to go in a longbarreled rifle. I could be wrong and as I said, I’ve never considered it, so the thread is of interest to me as an intellectual exercise. I’m always open to learn something new.
Click to expand...

He makes some good videos that are worth checking out, and for beginners this is a good rudimentary explanation.

I watched the video and, nowhere does he say that 4f is unsafe and he is only making general recommendations and observations on the range of black powders available. Nowhere does he claim to be a representative of a powder or firearms manufacturer or any type of regulatory entity.

Using 4f is not the equivalent of your strawman "6 beers skiing on dirt" remark.

It is a legitimate use of a safe product in a safe manner to seek better performance, cleaner burning, greater accuracy and greater economy and efficiency in a muzzleloading long gun.

Many of us have used it in that manner, with no ill effects and there is no evidence anywhere that it is unsafe, and the only published pressure tested data shows definitively that 3f can actually cause greater pressures in a firearm than 4f.

You seriously need to stop insinuating members here have no sense and are endangering themselves and others when you have no clue as to what you are talking about.
 
Last edited:
1592415587268.jpeg

1592415651965.jpeg


above are images of an old can of 4f I purchased about 45 years ago. It has no mention of caliber limitations. It is about half full FYI.

I think the idea of limitations comes from the same recommendation to use FFG in calibers 50 and larger and FFFG in smaller calibers.
 
Crow-Feather said:
They didn't want to get sued.
Click to expand...

Clearly you haven’t seen the data it provided. 4F as a max charge, even with a conical, was well within the safety limits for the 1860 Army, and I know they had pressure data for other handgun calibers. Why would they get sued for that???



How about talking to people who shoot handguns in Europe and what’s common? Might explain why Swiss, a highly vaunted powder, markets their 4F as for handguns and 3F and up for rifles and whatnot?



And then there’s the Hazard’s paper cartridges from the Civil War and metallic cartridges disassembled for display at a museum by the curator that were found to commonly have 4F and even finer even in large calibers?

4F isn’t uncommon in small caliber rifles.
 
Last edited:
4 f powder posts go nuts on any muzzleloader web site. their a a current shooter in england that uses 4f in all his muzzleloader with out ill effect. even the 70 or so cal. i tried it in a 50 cal 1/16 twist round ball gun and i liked it. a lot cleaner in the bore and was very accurate. didnt blow my nipple off or knock back the hammer to half cock. i beleive it is faster in burning but some same their no more pressure. im not the expert here but it worked for me. the reason i tried it as the step son on a friend went to a match here a while back with a cva flinter. won the match with using only 4f. in the barrel and in the pan. the guys said this, now that gun really cracks like they say it should. so i tried it, mine cracked also and again, was very accurate and clean. my barrel is modern steel and 1 inch in daim. again is the pressure curve that much higher than courser powders or is it just reached faster then them?
 
Cattman said:
4 f powder posts go nuts on any muzzleloader web site. their a a current shooter in england that uses 4f in all his muzzleloader with out ill effect. even the 70 or so cal. i tried it in a 50 cal 1/16 twist round ball gun and i liked it. a lot cleaner in the bore and was very accurate. didnt blow my nipple off or knock back the hammer to half cock. i beleive it is faster in burning but some same their no more pressure. im not the expert here but it worked for me. the reason i tried it as the step son on a friend went to a match here a while back with a cva flinter. won the match with using only 4f. in the barrel and in the pan. the guys said this, now that gun really cracks like they say it should. so i tried it, mine cracked also and again, was very accurate and clean. my barrel is modern steel and 1 inch in daim. again is the pressure curve that much higher than courser powders or is it just reached faster then them?
Click to expand...
Would expect higher peek pressure and lower muzzle pressure with finer granulation (and conversely, lower peek pressure and higher muzzle pressure with the courser granulations), typical of pressure traces I have seen. You will blow less unused powder or energy out the end of your bore with the finer grain and get a cleaner burn, at least in my experience. Sense this lower muzzle pressure is a factor in why my shotgun patterns are better with finer granulation.

As far as load development, I reference Sam Fadal's Black Powder Loading Manual and his load testing with 2F and 3F (he has no data on 4F). Just my general observation, but remember many of his test loads showing about 30% less 3F than 2F required to get the same velocity. Again, just my 'interpretation' of his data and what we did, but as an example, specifically remember the following and used as a rule of thumb for a starting load as we changed powder granulations (we shot whatever we could get). In one 50 caliber gun he showed 1500 FPS with 70 grains of 2F and 50 grains of 3F. That's just over 28.5% less 3F than 2F with identical velocity. We took that data point and reduced the 3F by another 30% for a guesstimate of a 4F starting load charge of 35 grains, or 50% of the 2F charge. 35 grains were actually lower than some of the charges shown in 45 caliber revolvers (ROA) in Lyman's first edition, and we felt safe to proceed, the math was easy, flawed logic or not. This was in the mid 1980s. Don't have the chronograph data handy, but remember we went up in 4F charge from there to get the velocity and accuracy we wanted. Before we had chronographs we used accuracy and/or point of impact at 100 yards to test loads. In our way of thinking, if the ball hit at the same elevation, in must have had similar velocity as other known load. Prior to published load data, we used 50% of the caliber as our starting point for any granulation load (we were happy to have powder), then figured load with best accuracy from there. The 50% of caliber load makes sense today for safety, but back then I believe a lot of it was our parents getting us to conserve powder. And even as young teenagers we understood the importance of accuracy and how to achieve it, as most of us had earned our marksmanship merit badges from the Boy Scouts with our 22s.
 
Kansas Jake said:
View attachment 34382
View attachment 34383

above are images of an old can of 4f I purchased about 45 years ago. It has no mention of caliber limitations. It is about half full FYI.

I think the idea of limitations comes from the same recommendation to use FFG in calibers 50 and larger and FFFG in smaller calibers.
Click to expand...
I've got some of the same cans, could be older than 45 years old.
 
Crow-Feather said:
Below is the Goex powder recommendation chart. I guessed they changed their minds since 1923.
Click to expand...
1923 Preferred Granulations seem the same as preferred today. Does not preclude other granulations. If it did many loads and granulations discussed on this forum would considered dangerous by the same logic. Not sure how one would be able to substitute 3F for 2F. Apologies if I used the following quote out of context, just seemed odd.
Crow-Feather said:
In my accuracy tests, I found that 3F is more accurate. My thought is that the higher initial pressure makes the patch tight to the ball. Just sayin.
Click to expand...
 
My video is a beginners guide to the basics of BP granulation choice and not to be taken as hard and fast rules. As the beginner has to start somewhere, I figured the old standby guide was as good a place as any to introduce the neophyte to his or her choices. Keep your powder dry, and make good choices.


TNGhost said:
Nice try, but:

The gentleman that made that video is actually participating in this thread and below is a question I posed to him in response to a post he made concerning his thoughts on this subject and his response:





He makes some good videos that are worth checking out, and for beginners this is a good rudimentary explanation.

I watched the video and, nowhere does he say that 4f is unsafe and he is only making general recommendations and observations on the range of black powders available. Nowhere does he claim to be a representative of a powder or firearms manufacturer or any type of regulatory entity.

Using 4f is not the equivalent of your strawman "6 beers skiing on dirt" remark.

It is a legitimate use of a safe product in a safe manner to seek better performance, cleaner burning, greater accuracy and greater economy and efficiency in a muzzleloading long gun.

Many of us have used it in that manner, with no ill effects and there is no evidence anywhere that it is unsafe, and the only published pressure tested data shows definitively that 3f can actually cause greater pressures in a firearm than 4f.

You seriously need to stop insinuating members here have no sense and are endangering themselves and others when you have no clue as to what you are talking about.
Click to expand...
 
Out of curiosity, I looked thru two very old booklets about muzzleloading and shooting muzzleloaders to see what they said about 4F powder.
One of them is, "A Shooter's Bible Publication BLACK POWDER GUIDE" by Major George Nonte. The other one is "BLACK POWDER GUN DIGEST", ©Digest Books.

In the former on page 45 it says,
"Blackpowder is now available in fg, ffg, fffg, and ffffg granulations. Fg is the coarsest and ffffg the finest. Choice of granulation depends in general on caliber and type of gun. The finest granulation ffffg is for very small-caliber pistols and priming powder in flintlocks."

It then shows a table of recommended loads showing 3Fg powder for a .28 caliber Kentucky rifle and a .31, .36 and .44 revolver. 2Fg powder is shown for .44 and larger long guns and a .54 caliber smooth-bore pistol.

The latter book says on page 102,
"Extremely fine in granule size, FFFFg powder seldom is used, except for priming the flash pans of flintlocks. On occasion it is used for loading small pocket pistols and smallbored derringers of a .31 caliber or less. This is the fastest burning grade of black powder and, although many shooters claim that FFFFg burns much to fast and creates pressures that are too excessive for most black powder guns, there are those who argue the point that it is safe and that it gives a hunting rifle a little more punch. This is something of a personal debate, but certainly FFFFg should not be used in guns that are in poor condition. Usually these guns shouldn't be shot with any grade of powder!"

I figured labeling 4Fg powder in any gun as being "dangerous" would have started back in the late 60's and early '70's but I notice that Nonte did not say that.
Also although the author in the second book recognized that some people think it is dangerous, he never actually joined them in this. In fact, both of them recognized that 4F powder could be used in small pistols.
 
If you look up the European blogger "CapandBall" on YouTube and elsewhere you will find videos of him using FFFFG in a .44 1858 with good result. Apparently it is used in international competition (he is one of Europe's best).

On another note, this whole thread has gone from somewhat interesting to very annoying (IMHO). Go out and use whatever powder you care to, just be sure to work up loads AS YOU SHOULD WITH ANY POWDER IN ANY MUZZLELOADER.

ADK Bigfoot
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

TDM
Priming Powder, 4F or ?
2 3 4
Replies
73
Views
3K
bpd303
bpd303
TonyC
Powder for Flintlock
2 3
Replies
51
Views
2K
TKhuntsman
TKhuntsman
XVIIc Wheelock
Which Prime Powder 2F,3F,4F...Wheelock
Replies
7
Views
367
PathfinderNC
PathfinderNC
Crypt0manic
  • Locked
Homemade black powder
Replies
2
Views
712
TDM
TDM
Flint62Smoothie
New Goex powder vs. the Old Goex powder
Replies
11
Views
831
Omahkapi'si
Omahkapi'si

Latest posts

Back
Top