accurate powder?

Many times in posts by a lot of people over the years I’ve seen the statement that one powder is more accurate than others. Not one particular charge, or in one particular gun, but that the powder itself is more or less accurate. I have serious doubts about that, don’t understand how that can be. I’d like to hear from anyone who has that opinion as to what they think might cause such to be true.

I'm thinking of real black, not substitutes, and powders made under good quality control by reputable manufacturers.

Spence

Black is all I shoot and quite a bit past 200yds with conicals - think Whitworth etc.. I keep coming back to Swiss.
This past year was spent working up a load for a 12 bore rifle I built. Made a 850gr conical and during testing I tried O.E. 2F and 1.5F, best I could get at 50 yards was 3" on powder weights from 70-120gr. Probably 8 different 3-shot groups. Next time out, took Swiss 2F - 1st test with 75gr put 2 in nearly same hole and the 3rd was 1/2" to left. Tried other increased charges and not much different, except recoil..
I don't know what it is, but there something...

I dont know how true or false the claim is that one powder is generally more accurate than another.

That said, if consistency can be proven to be better in one brand or type of powder over another that will in itself cause the more consistent powder to be more accurate.

Through the years I tried all kinds of powder. I keep returning to Swiss BP for I keep getting better consistency and less fouling. Other brands always gave problems with ignition, grouping or excessive fouling, etc., although I experimented a lot with all kinds of patches and lubes and loads.

if consistency can be proven to be better in one brand or type of powder over another that will in itself cause the more consistent powder to be more accurate.

Click to expand...

I think that's the actual key..., how consistent is the burn from load to load. Accuracy in black powder is going to include how similar is the muzzle velocity, shot after shot. The same is true when hand-loading match ammunition in modern cartridges.

Part of that is going to be determined by how accurate is the measure used to generate the powder load. For example, a person who takes a volume measure, then determines the weight produced when using the volume measure, and then weighs each pre-measured load, will probably get the most out of their powder, and ensures that all of the loads are super-similar in quantity, be it GOEX or Swiss.

Now a guy like me..., who uses a turkey wing bone converted into a charger, and I tap the side of the charger while using 3Fg, is probably getting closer to good consistency, but perhaps not as good as the person using a graduated, adjustable measure, and if I was using 2Fg, and not paying close attention so didn't even tap the side to help level the powder, I'd probably get even less consistency from shot to shot.

But for my purposes a grouping of around 4" at 100 yards, works fine. Now IF I was in competition, with myself or formal, then I'd be concerned.

I do buy GOEX, and would continue to do so even IF I found that I needed Swiss to win matches..., because GOEX is American made, and less likely to dry up than a foreign made powder (so long as people keep buying the product), which could be stopped with a mere import ban.

OF course all of the above when talking about target shooting assumes that I've checked the round ball and they are very similar in weight, etc.

LD

Accuracy is a function of repeatability, some powders are more "repeatable" than others...
Meaning; They are less susceptible to variations.
Meaning the rate by which powders deflagrate or "burn" consistently and uniformly over a broad range of conditions.
The consistent amount of pressure developed provides accuracy in a particular gun.

Is it scientifically statistical or is it merely subjective?
I say it can be both,

I have serious doubts about that

Click to expand...

You are thinking clearly.
There are too many variables to make it possible to single out just one powder as being the most accurate. One might be able to eliminate a few very poor quality powders that have shown themselves occasionally over the years. But, other than that your choice of brand and granulation will depend solely on your experience in your rifle.

George said:

I'm thinking of real black, not substitutes, and powders made under good quality control by reputable manufacturers.

Click to expand...

Narrow your focus.

What I'm interested in is the powder completely isolated from all other variables. This is a magical discussion, the powder is always measured perfectly, the balls are absolutely identical in every way, as are the patches and lube. Same gun for all shots, and it stays totally, magically clean, no fouling. Humidity is always the same, the gun is shot in a machine, no shooters, no wind....well, I hope you get the idea.

Considering the powder and only the powder, what factors could make one brand shoot straighter than any other?

Spence

The barrel it is fired from? I used to screw with testing pyro vs 777 when I didnt have black. Some guns did do better with one or the other. Assume :redface: real black the same. The barrel itself may do better with swiss, then the next barrel like goex, then the next elephant (sell this one) :idunno:

It's been my experience, so far, that at certain charge levels, determined by the rifle, the sd will be low and the powder consistent. This has been noted with trials of more than one powder brand. In my .40, it all tightened up at 40 grains and again at 60 grains.

then the next elephant

Click to expand...

Got that right.
I have several pounds of Elephant at the back of the shelf. Staying right there until there is no more real bp available in the world. Last resort. Awful stuff.

Colorado Clyde said:

Accuracy is a function of repeatability, some powders are more "repeatable" than others...

Click to expand...

Repeatability is about the only thing I can think of which might make one powder more accurate than others, but I'd really be surprised if any of the major brand name powders were inconsistent. From lot to lot, maybe a little, but not within any can of the same lot. I think that's a theoretical problem, not one we are likely to come across in practical shooting,

The consistent amount of pressure developed provides accuracy in a particular gun.

Click to expand...

There can't be any doubt about that, but what happens if there is a variation in pressure? There's no way that can explain the problems I've seen described by people who think some powders are inherently more accurate than others. Variation in pressure causes changes in elevation, makes the ball fly high or low, period. It can't make changes in windage, make the balls fly right or left.

There can certainly be differences in the burn rate and pressure developed by different brands of powder, but being 'hotter' or 'cooler' has nothing to do with accuracy, as long as it is consistently hotter or cooler.

I can understand people choosing a particular powder because it creates less fouling, gives higher muzzle velocity or is cheaper to shoot, but I firmly believe that if a shooter blames poor accuracy on something built into the powder he is fooling himself big time.

It's too bad George Hanger wasn't successful in his search, then we wouldn't have to be concerned with such problems. “General George Hanger to all Sportsmen, Farmers, and Gamekeepers”, 1814:

"I should be extremely happy if it were in my power to instruct the Bunhill-Row and Spital-Fields Cockney-sportsmen, and other bad shots, how to improve in their shooting; but, after much reflection and study, I find it totally out of my power. However, I am labouring for their advantage, and with no small doubt of making my fortune also, should I succeed: it is by the invention of STRAIGHT POWDER. But, hitherto, I have failed of finding an effectual composition to mix with gunpowder, to make it shoot straight; and have been equally as unsuccessful as the chemists have been in their endeavours, to find out the philosopher’s stone, who have wanted nothing to complete their long-wished-for object but a perfect powder of projection. However, like them, I do not despair; but shall labour on with assiduity, to find out some composition, for the benefit of all bad shots, which will make powder shoot straight."

Spence

If I didn't know better, I'd say ole George Hanger was writing, "tongue in cheek".

He undoubtedly knew, as we know, the powder can't make a defective gun or a poor shooter "shoot straight" with every shot.

Zonie said:

If I didn't know better, I'd say ole George Hanger was writing, "tongue in cheek".

Click to expand...

Firmly planted in his cheek, I would say.

Spence