• 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

How much does a grain of powder weigh?

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

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

Griz44Mag

70 Cal.
Joined
Nov 12, 2017
Messages
4,326
Reaction score
4,379
Location
Republic of Texas, District of Krum
I was always under the impression that a grain was a measurement of weight. As we black powder folks use it, it is a measurement of volume. In a recent conversation with BrownBear, I got curious, so I got out the powder, the volumetric measure, and a good scale. What I discovered was a lot of discrepancies. I set the volume to 100 grains, and measured 2f,3f in Goex, Swiss and Old Ensford. That 100 grains ran as light as 88 grains and as heavy as 104. None of them actually measured 100 grains of weight. Two different bottles of Goex (2F) did not even match each other, The top of the bottle did not match the bottom of the bottle. Is this a matter of granule sizing? Instead of using a volumetric measure, should we really be measuring with a scale like we do with smokeless? It seems to me that weight should be more accurate for more consistent shooting?
Dutch, HELP. We need your wisdom here. Are consistent charges accomplished by weight or volume?

TX GRIZ
 
A grain is a measure of weight. The practice of using it as reference to volume is a distortion.
It is also a convenience.
There was an article some years ago in the Double Gun Journal by one Sherman Bell in a series entitled “Finding out for Myself” wherein Bell experimented with volumes of different brands of BP. He found, as you did, that there was a lot of discrepancy between one manufacturer and another.
Some BP has the reputation of being “hotter” than another.
I suspect that it is because the Hotter powder was denser than the others and so there was more of it in a measure.
Swiss was the heaviest. Elephant was the fluffiest
 
A grain is traditionally the weight of a grain of barley. About 1/7000 of a pound. Our measures throw a weight based on volume that should in theory represent that much weight.
A pound of powder is about a pint of space, sort of.
The place it gets confusing is non black powder substitutes like pryrodex. It’s fluffier then black powder and a pint only weighs about 12 oz. however if you have a charger that throws X amount of grains of black you load that same volume of pyrodex. A 70 grain volume of black powder will weigh about 55 grains of pyrodex.
Now you decide to shoot a load of shot, your 70 grain charger will throw about an oz of shot. Not exact as the smaller the shot the more can fit in the measure.
3 f 70 grain charger will throw a little more then 2 f.
The ”˜blood shooters’ whose goal is a five shot one hole at a hundred yards will measure charges on a scale and toss it in a plastic or glass tube. Not a bad idea,but not historical, where the shot could be charged by the powder in ones palm that it took to cover the ball.
It’s much like a shot glass. A shot glass should hold an oz, and an oz of water should weigh an oz. but temp, air pressure hard vs soft may change its actual weight.
I use antler brass and bone and wood that I’ve hollowed out that holds the volume marked x grains on my brass adjustable measure. I have no idea what the actual weight is.
 
Grizz,, this is subject that does cause confusion,, and has been beat, hard, many-many times. I'll try to help, but your topic is about do for another round,, so I'll add then bow out. :wink:
Griz44Mag said:
The top of the bottle did not match the bottom of the bottle. Is this a matter of granule sizing?
Yeah, it's called "shake". Left-overs aren't as good as the main dish.

It seems to me that weight should be more accurate for more consistent shooting?
Yes, with my CF loading I toss then trickle up every round (every round) a tenth of a grain matters with CF (big time). With BP and sub's +/- 2grns is all that matters until you get into long range or bench rest.

Are consistent charges accomplished by weight or volume?
Both,, it's your choice. A "consistent" weight measure is as accurate as a "consistent" volume measure.
They are just not the same,, nor should they be.
What is key to you (and me) is that the measure of choice be "consistent".

Here's a quiz for ya(?) Can or will your volume measurements weigh the same each time?

I have a few trusted volume measures that I loaded,, then weighed,, I found my ability to use those measures to be consistent.
The weight didn't matter too me,, I can change that by changing the volume of those measures,, what mattered was they are the same each time.
:wink:
 
A grain is a grain is a grain. It's a weight, but in bp it's measured in volume. Which is imprecise, but in gross terms, suitable enough. If you weigh bp on a scale and then transfer it to a powder measure, you won't notice much gross difference.

Basically, a grain is a weight. Seventy grains (like in a 45/70) means 70 grains of powder by weight in the case. Not volume. Because bp isn't as precise as smokeless powder, you can fudge on it, unlike smokeless which Lee dippers aside you have to have a scale. We bp shooters use volume because a few grains more or less doesn't matter.

A bp measure is a convenient volume measure for a low-pressure explosive. It doesn't work for smokeless powder. Grains only work in gross measurements, like bushels or pecks, where exact measurements aren't cruical. I use volume measurements for bp, but at home, when making up loads which I pre-load in glass vials, I use a scale. About the same with a volume measure. When loading smokeless powder, I use a powder dropper, which is volume based, but I check every 8 rounds or so to see if the volume is consistent.
 
Actually,
The measurement of black powder is based off a very old blending of weights and measurements systems. The “inaccuracy” stems from the use of a medieval measurement system which couldn't be what we would call very precise (and started out being used for cloth), and is being applied to a dry commodity, black powder.

In the 1200’s, international trade used a system created by the Hanseatic League of merchants, where they used the term “pound” which was divided into 16 ounces, and 7200 “grains””¦, and this was mostly used to weigh wool fabric. So the ounce in this system was 450 grains.

At the same time, weighing of precious metals was done in Britain using the Tower Pound of 5900 grains, divided into 12 units, also labeled ounces. So the “ounce” in this system was 491 grains.

This is assuming, of course, that everybody used a standardized “grain” as the lowest unit”¦, but it wasn’t standardized by our thinking.

THEN in 1303 the avoirdupois weight system appears in a book in England (probably having begun to catch on decades prior), and it shows a pound of 6992 grains, a stone of 14 pounds, a woolsack of 26 stone, an ounce of 1⁄16 pound, and finally, the ounce was further broken into 16 parts. So in this case, the pound when divided into 16 ounces gives us an ounce of 437 grains. (sound familiar?)

In 1588 (so almost 300 years later) Queen Elizabeth rounded up the weight of the [avoirdupois] pound to 7000 grains using the troy grain as the standard for the 1⁄16th of an ounce, thus adding the “grain” to the avoirdupois weight system, and giving us an ounce = 437.5 grains”¦, which we have today. In the 18th century, then 1⁄16th of the new “ounce” was named the "drachm". Which later was bastardized into the “dram”, and if you take the ounce of Queen Elizabeth’s 7000 grain pound, and divide it by 16, you get a dram of 27.34 grains.

Even though Britain and the United States begin to differ over weights and measures by 1824, this old system, designed to weigh dry goods when first implemented centuries before, continued to be used for gunpowder (a 500 year old system, last updated two centuries in the past).

This system continued well into the 20th century. When one looks at a box of shotgun shells from the 1970’s or earlier, you will find “dram equivalent” listed on the box.

So”¦, it’s inaccurate from the beginning since they simply couldn’t be as precise as we are today. I would venture to guess that they didn’t notice the new “ounce” of Queen Elizabeth was .5 grains heavier than the previous ounce. The dram was probably thought to be 27 grains, not 27.34. Luckily, it didn't matter much when shooting.

So for measuring gun powder, now called black powder, the system is lacking precision. It’s quite possible that if we were using English powder of the 18th century, we might find that it is indeed very near to a correct “weight” when using their volume measures. BUT”¦, since refinement of ingredients, and better formula for making powder have been implemented, the 18th century powder appears “weaker”, and our comparisons for volume vs. weight show lots of inaccuracy and inconsistency.

So”¦, IF you use the powder as specified in the text of old manuals for musket cartridges, you get a very “stout” load today. Powder components also differ today than back then, not to mention uniformity of granulation sizes, moisture control, and graphite glazing, so powders made in different parts of the world have different densities and you get different weights when using a volume container to generate an amount. Thus Swiss is hotter than standard Goex, which is hotter than Diamondback, and that’s still “hotter” than the British powder of the AWI if reports are correct.

LD
 
I pre-measure all my charges and put them in plastic tubes. It saves a lot of time. The bigger charges don't really vary much when you do it by volume, but the smaller charges, like 15 gr. for a .36 revolver, vary by a large percentage of total powder. Accuracy is not just having patch/ball combinations correct, but the powder charge, which does the work, needs to be consistent, too.
 
To confuse it further the dram and the drachm are of different mass and people have been hurt by the confusion and lax writers.

Extending the confusion further black powder in days long gone by was in apothecary weights as well as avoirdupois and had had 14 ounces to the (apothecary) pound.

Taking the available energy in black powder as being proportional to it's mass then weighing the charge is more accurate than measuring by volume (if less readily done in the field).

However, the same mass (and indeed volume) can differ in available energy depending upon the proportions, density and grain size (to take some major variables) so different brands, batches and settlement in storage explains why target match shooters were advised to settle on one powder make and granulation and buy a seasons worth at the beginning of the year, mix them together and store them together with as little movement as possible so that they would get the same available energy per unit mass. If one does that then one can note the volume measure for a given mass of charge and use that volume measure instead for that powder in that condition.

Just as in everything to do with black powder one is looking to score between moving goalposts. The hunter will use a carefully chosen measure and accept the minor variations when he uses the same powder make and granulation. The match shooter will take all possible steps to reduce the variables and weigh his charge from the best powder. The old boys hunting would use a measure but vary the charge to the distance to keep the same sight picture for differing elevations.

If it was easy we would buy those brass ready filled tubes with their own ignition across the counter from a large factory.

To address the OP directly. A 'grain' of powder (or any other thing) has a mass of 1/7000 of an avoirdupois pound. A grain (granule) of powder will vary wildly depending upon size and density.
 
Griz,
Damn good question
Years ago I was told that there were 7000rains i a pound of powder

I did the routine of of seeing which amount of powder gave me the happiest results using different sized spouts which would be judging by volume. I ended up with a decision of somewhere between 70 and 75 grains of 3fff as well as off.

I filed a 75 grains spout down to somewhere between this two measures and have never looked back.

I do remember weighing out a spout full on my grain scale and it came to 73 grains. Now, after reading Griz post I think that may have just been a coincidence.

I mentioned the other day that I always held the sour straight down and gave my fish flsk a few shake so that the smaller particles would tend to come out first.
Being a nit picker I felt I was getting similar volumes of powder in the spout for each load..

Considering all the above it would seem that unknowingly I was following Griz" volumetric rather than a weight system.

Thank you Griz, I hadn't thought aout this since I decided 73 grains was right for my two .45 Hawkens

So is powder sold by weight or volume?
Would an unopened "pound" of off weigh the same as an unopened can of 3fff?

Enquirung minds can be a pain”¦

Dutch Schoultz
 
Volume measures can vary considerably. Some years back I gathered up all my powder measures (5) and carefully measured the volume of each when set at 100 grains. Based on the volume and a 2fg powder density of 248 grains/cubic inch, the measures varied from 92.9 grains to 104.7 form my GOEX 2fg powder. I had one measure that calculated out as 100.05 grains and another that calculated out as 99.76. The actual measurement averaged over 10 measurements was 100.28 grains and 98.34 grains. My Hawken shop measure was quite accurate at an average of 100.05 grains although my calculation was 99.37. I think I missed the small portion that was a threaded chamber.

Black powder densities range from 230 grains per cubic inch to 248 grains per cubic inch. The width of the scribed lines on the measure can make a difference in volume. The weights varied about 2 grains from maximum to minimum. They were really quite close and based on that I decided to pick one measure to use for shooting for a reasonably consistent powder load. Tapping the side of the measure three times before leveling off gave about a grain or two more powder and less difference between minimum and maximum.

Volume measures are intended to represent the equivalent of a measure of black powder. The actual weight will vary due to the density of the powder. Pyrodex is less dense and therefore a 100 grain volume measure will be considerably less weight.

Measure all substitute powders by volume!

Gostomsky - Tap Average 108.35
Gostomsky Average 107.02
Nikky Average 99.07
Finial (No Funnel) Average 98.34
Hawken Shop - Tap Average 102.04
Hawken Shop Average 100.15
Can Valve Average 102.28

GOEX ffg Feb-66 99N019C
 
Thank you, Dave for your erudition on a subject which eludes so many of us who shoot black powder. I very much enjoyed reading what you had to say on the subject. Excellent elucidation. :hatsoff:
 
Wow! That is a very complete answer to Griz44\squestion.
Another variable I have been told can be involved is the amount of humidity that can be absorbed by black powder if allowed to be exposed to humid air.
I always kept my powder sealed in its original container or my air restricting leather powder flask. so never considered otto be a factor.
Grizz livng inArizona will have to have humidity explained to him,

One of the good things about BP and ML is that no matter what is retailing your cage in the "real" world, our sport is so different from nothing else you might be having trouble with that away at the range or in the woods completely flushes your mind of all your other troubles nd it is like giving your mind a short vacation, allowing it to refresh itself
Problems I had before a day out at the range were usually easily solved the next day.

Dutch Schoultz
 
So let's make up a little story.

In the early-1800's Charlie Wingshooter went to the local gun maker to pick up his new gun, and bought two pounds of "FF Grade" black powder. He paid $1.60 per pound for that powder because black powder was sold and measured by weight.

So Charlie worked up a load for his new .40 caliber rifle and found a certain amount of powder that shot best in his gun. He took a piece of river cane and cut it off so that it held exactly that amount and tied the measure to his powder horn. Now old Charlie was wondering how many shots he was going to get out of his powder purchase. So the next time he was in town he stopped in at the local apothecary with his powder horn and asked his buddy Abe, the pharmacist, to weigh his charge.

Abe filled Charlie's measure with Charlie's powder, dumped it on the scale and said "it weighs 50.3 grains, but let's try again". The second charge Abe weighed was 49.8 grains, and the third charge was 50.1 grains. So Abe says "Charlie, you've got yourself a 50 grain measure. Now there are 7,000 grains in a pound, so you're going to get about 140 shots per pound of powder". Charlie is happy as a coon in a corncrib, and uses his knife to scratch "50 Gr" on the side of his river cane measure. Is it an accurate and true 50 grain measure? It sure is - for Charlie's powder (because it's based on the actual weight of Charlie's powder, and 50 grains volume = 50 grains weight).

Now let's suppose that last week you bought an old wood chest at an auction and when you got the rusty latch opened at home found it contained a nicely made powder horn with a river cane measure attached to the stiff leather strap. The side of the measure is crudely marked "50 Gr". Out of curiosity you fill it with GOEX FFg and weigh the charge. It weighs 58 grains. Why? Because it's not the same powder the measure was made for. However, the GOEX charge is the "volume equivalent" of Charlie's 50 grain load. You fill the measure with Triple Seven FFG and that load weighs 45 grains, and it too is the volume equivalent of Charlie's 50 grain load. As the manufacturer of that measure, Charlie established the base level for what volume produces a load that weighs 50 grains of the black powder he used as a base level.

Today, as in Charlie's day, there are no standards for "volume equivalent". We are all using approximations based on whatever the manufacturer of the measure thinks is appropriate.
 
Griz: lots of info here. In an old NRA reloading book they explained early black powder manufacture. Even then a filler would be used to make all batches of powder "volume equivalent". Now a days the same is used with the substitute black powders. So always use a volume measure.
There is another aspect about this topic. There is a general feeling that weighed charges are more accurate than volume charges. When you reload modern ammunition how deeply (OAL) you seat a bullet in the case is a major factor. The deeper the bullet is seated -the less space in the case and the higher the pressure and hence velocity, etc. In any event there are two schools of thought on which is most accurate. A lot of folks are surprised to learn that some modern bench rest shooters measure by volume, not weight. These guys are the cream of the crop on accuracy.
A couple of years back the NMLRA's magazine MuzzleBlasts ran a series of interviews with the top competitors at Friendship. They all used regular powder measures, so don't fret on the accuracy of a volume measure. Get a good measure with a cut off top.
 
:pop:

I don't have much to add here except I noticed someone mentioned Lee dippers. I tested the consistency of my scooping abilities when I first started reloading with smokeless powder and quickly went to purchase an accurate scale upon seeing the results.
 
I discovered was a lot of discrepancies. I set the volume to 100 grains, and measured 2f,3f in Goex, Swiss and Old Ensford. That 100 grains ran as light as 88 grains and as heavy as 104. None of them actually measured 100 grains of weight. Two different bottles of Goex (2F) did not even match each other,

Lot of words posted on this. All accurate. But mostly not needed. Point is, don't sweat the numbers. Yes, your results will vary. Only some really serious, fanatically obsessed 'X' hunters will stock up on a much of a certain powder they can get from the same lot number to maintain consistency to the nth degree. For your, and our, purposes whatever your measure reads is unimportant as long as you have found the setting that works best (safely) in your rifle. Doesn't matter if it is 48.0 or 55.1 gr., wat works works. Set and forget.
 
I've not been back into shooting BP very long now after a long hiatus. I was curious about how my measure was measuring. I have two of them. One specifically for the 45 cal up to 54 cal is reading 60 on the line where it is set. After several times filling it with 3F it averages 56.5 grns. give or take a tenth. With 2F the measure holds 55.1 grns. give or take a tenth.

The other measure is used for .36 and 32 cal rifles. It's somewhat smaller. I've got it set between ten and twenty as close as I can get it, Shooting for fifteen grns. It measures average 14.6 grns of 3F, also give or take a tenth grn.

These are fairly low power loads in all the rifles but they seem to shoot well. At this time I'm only shooting paper, metal plates, at no farther than about 60 yards, with a 103 yard metal plate with the larger calibers.

I can see no difference in accuracy with using these loads though they might not all measure exactly the same. As was said, the pleasure of just shooting and loading these guns is great. I'm just having fun with them.
 
wheee! that's why I read in this forum ”¦ I can fill my head with esoterica, and claim that that's what crowds out the useful facts (like my anniversary).


If you stalk the elusive X ring, you should probably get as much as you can of one single batch of your favorite powder, thus eliminating a variable. whether weighing or using a volumetric measurement will be more consistent is probably a good experiment (and a great reason to get to the range)

remember, the hole in the x- ring is empirical/digital: it's either in the x- ring or it's not, and its buddy the other hole is either in the x- ring or it's not. therefore, be empirical: try it and go with what works.

accuracy: consistency is the result of the elimination of all possible variables, and the control of those you can't eliminate.

I shoot soda cans, mostly. with my lousy eyesight, i'm pretty sure that there's an X- ring behind me in the woodline, and that it's snickering from a relative position of safety... with my luck, it's probably a huge, trophy, Boone&Crockett X-ring ”¦ :cursing:

at any rate, good luck with your project, and make god smoke!
 
Back
Top