• 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

3F or 2F?

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Josh Smith

45 Cal.
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
907
Reaction score
0
Hello,

I was under the impression that, generally speaking, 3F is for .45 and under while 2F is for .45 and over, the .45 performing about equally with both.

However, I see a lot of folks using 3F all the way into old musket calibers.

What is the main deciding factor for a faster burn rate? Is it mainly a short barrel length, or is accuracy enhanced in some way, perhaps due to the slightly more sudden shock to the ball and patch maybe sealing the bore a bit tighter, faster?

Or is it one of those black magic things that makes a particular combo perform best from a given rifle?

What's the deal, gents?

Thanks,

Josh
 
Some guns seem to prefer 2f some 3f the way I hear it. I shoot 3f out of all of mine mainly to keep it simple and easy for me to figure and I don't have to carry around seperate priming powder for the flintlocks. I have calibers all the way from .44 cap-n-ball to .62 smoothbores and have had no problems with the 3f. I personally believe it comes down to personal preference over anything really.
 
In their original Black Powder Handbook, 1975, Lyman ran extensive tests using equal weights of the two and found that 3F gave significantly increased velocity with only moderately increased pressures and burned a lot cleaner. They decided to use 3F for all their testing up through .54. I've always found them to be a reliable resource, so I decided to do the same, have done so ever since, with good results. I extended the range to my 20 ga. and liked that, too.

Spence
 
It will depend on the rifle / pistol as which powder works. All of mine work well with 2F as main charge with 3F for priming. You will have to do some shooting with varius charges till your happy with the end result.
 
If Velocity were the only factor, you would use 3Fg powder in everything. But, rifled barrels--- and even smoothbores-- are individual entities, and each has its likes and dislikes in powders when it comes to ACCURACY.

A good friend bought a finely made .62 caliber rifle, and, following the orthodoxy, went to the range with his 2Fg powder, and a variety of thicknesses of patch material, and lubes. HE COULD NOT get that rifle to shoot accurately with 2Fg. So, someone who showed up at the range while he was testing, loaned him some 3Fg powder, and it worked Beautifully.

Who Knew? ( The Barrel knew!) :shocked2:

I have known other shooters who have found 2Fg powder works better in their medium and small bore rifles, giving them much better groups than when using 3Fg. Even the Chronograph indicates that the 2Fg is giving a lower SDV than the 3Fg, which totally runs contrary to the LYMAN tests, IN THAT GUN BARREL.

So, try them both, and forget the "rules". The Barrels have never read "the rules". :shocked2: :blah: :rotf: :idunno: :surrender: :thumbsup:
 
paulvallandigham said:
But, rifled barrels--- and even smoothbores-- are individual entities, and each has its likes and dislikes in powders when it comes to ACCURACY........ Who Knew? ( The Barrel knew!)........ The Barrels have never read "the rules".
It has been my great good fortune never to have run across a barrel which is smarter than I am. I shoot barrels from .30 caliber to 9 gauge, and they pretty much do as I tell them. If I decide 3F is what I want to shoot, they go along, never had one sass me, yet. You'd be amazed how often my problems with accuracy turn out to be operator error, not a rebellious barrel.
 
Well, everyone's experiences differ. My late friend, Don, who bought that .62 rifle, had been shooting and "fixin'" flintlocks all his life. He was a fine shot, off-hand or off a rest. He was one of the most dogmatic supporters of the "rule" about choice of powder vs. caliber, that I Knew then, or now. He almost went into shock when he fired his targets with 3Fg and got a much better group off a rest. He showed everyone-- and I Do mean Everyone - both his targets, and asked everyone if they had ever experienced anything like it.

It was months later when the first chronograph showed up at the club, and he had a chance to revisit his powder choices, trying groups off the bench with both 2Fg and 3Fg. He even had other good shooters in the club shoot his gun, with the different powders, and the group size, and the SDV all pointed to 3Fg giving better accuracy for him. His patches told him the same thing. We all looked- to be sure.

Since that happened, I have run into several people with guns that don't fit the rule, one way or another. I was personally surprised that 2Fg would give better groups in a .40 caliber rifle, when it happened to another friend. I had been WILLING to accept the idea that 3Fg might just work well in calibers larger than .45-.50. I just didn't want to believe that the reverse was true- that 2Fg would work better in some smaller caliber guns. Before I met Don, I had a friend who used 3Fg in his .54 caliber rifle, with great accuracy. He was the man to beat at the club matches, before Don joined the club.

I also knew older friends who were shooting 3Fg powder in their .58 cal. rifles, but that was before I got into the sport, and even heard about "The Rule". I didn't know that what they were using was "wrong".

This was all before chronographs became portable, and less expensive, so that ordinary shooters could afford to own them. We read spent patches, and compared group sizes to decide questions about components, not much different that what Dutch Schoultz teaches. Because of my experiences, I used to caution Don about his Dogma, and that would cause strong arguments in favor of the " rule". Since I didn't own any such gun- I was shooting a .45 at the time--- There was no way I could demonstrate that the Rule might not work all the time. Don had to prove it to himself, He did feel a bit sheepish about his having questioned my ancestry in some of his arguments with me about keeping an open mind. I am only glad I am NOT the man who suggested he try 3Fg powder in the gun. He might never have gotten that gun to shoot right!

[ Oh, and you can be sure he confronted me, and asked me if I was going to say, " I told you so!" I told him absolutely No way would I say that. I didn't know anything about the rifle he was shooting, nor anything about other .62 cal. rifles shooting PRB. I had never seen such a gun in that caliber shot, anywhere. ]

So, Spence, let me keep my open mind about barrels. I may be wrong, too, but I am comfortable that I won't be caught by surprise when I suggest someone try both powders and see which the barrel likes. :hatsoff:
 
I'm not a believer in such characteristics of barrels. My experience has always been the opposite. I'm familiar with the party line about each barrel working well only when a special set of conditions are met, but that has always seemed like magical thinking, to me.

We have different views of how the world works, Paul. That's OK, otherwise what would we find to talk about?

Spence
 
I agree. I happen to agree with you most of the time, and have referred people to your website many times, to get your wisdom about loads. Its the little differences that give us something to think about.

My late friend Don, and I argued a lot, but never were rude, or mean, or insulting to each other. We had way too much in common, as trackers, to waste any anger on the few difference we had over MLers. He was so relieved to finally meet another Tracker, and I was just as happy to have a new friend who was a tracker. We both were particularly good at some skills, and we found that we complimented each other, and were good students of each other to get up to speed on doing what each other did best.

When Don found out I completely tuned a Spanish made percussion lock that would not fire when it was brand new, he offered to show me how to tune flintlocks, if I showed him how to tune percussion locks.

Talk about a lot of laughing by both of us, when we Learned how little difference there was in the work. We both got a kick out of repeating, "OH, that's How you do that!" as we took turns instructing each other. Those kinds of friends are hard to fine, and too soon lost, I am afraid.
 
I regularly use both. I use a wee bit less powder when I'm shooting with 3F. It seems to be a bit hotter. I find that is the only difference for me.
My choosing factor is what is for sale at the shoots that I go to when I stock up. If I had to be forced to pick, I think I'd go with 3.
 
I have 45's that like FFg and 50's that like FFFg. :idunno: Use what gives the tightest groups.
 
I'm starting to think I missed something in all this 2f 3f stuff. I just tried 1f with my Bess and a 62 smoothie. Can't tell the difference accuracy-wise from 3f, but neither gun really cares for 2f with ball.

Things change when I move on to shot though. Holy cow! I'm anxious to try 1f in my 12 gauge now, because with shot it's definitely better than 3f or 2f in both guns.

Interesting enough, I can't tell it from 2f, 3f or 4f in the pan. Dandy.

Anyone else moved "up" to 1f?
 
My .50 GRP shoots well with 55 grains of either 2F or 3F. With 2f I have to clean sooner.
My 28 ga. light fowler does not do 3f well, most of the fire goes out the touch hole. With 2f she shoots proper.
Jon D
 
Well, I have a Reinhard .38 cal that prefers Swiss 1.5 to Goex 3F..go figure...
 
Back
Top