My gun loves 2F? Bah! Humbug!

George said:

... I think the only crucial thing is the velocity at the muzzle. I don't think anything which happens inside the barrel has any bearing, only the muzzle velocity. Some obviously think it matters how that velocity was arrived at, I don't. Anyone who has ever figured out even the most simple ballistics trajectory will know that it starts with muzzle velocity, and you don't have to know how that velocity was arrived at. It's just pretty basic physics.

Click to expand...

With respect, that appears to be purely about exterior ballistics - what happens once the projectile is launched and free from the influences of the barel and propellant gasses. Up to that point, the condition of the projectile, its velocity, and exact launch direction are all in the realm of interior ballistics, and the experiences reported by various shooters have been that for some firearms, with the various combinations of components (other than powder) and loading (and shooting?) techniques used by that shooter, have produced more consistent results with one powder granulation than another, while other shooters and/or other firearms have been comparitively insensitive to the powder granulation in producing consistent launch velocity-&-direction results at various charges. These differences may have to do with subtleties in the actual burning of the powder (probably less significant with B.P. than with smokeless), with inconsistencies in obturation, and/or with barrel harmonics (induced vibration plus exact time to reach the muzzle) as the projectile exits, but all of this happens before the projectile goes into free flight. Either the shooters reporting these different results are incorrect in their observations, or there is sometimes a difference.

Regards,
Joel

Joel/Calgary said:

Either the shooters reporting these different results are incorrect in their observations, or there is sometimes a difference.

Click to expand...

"... that is the question." How do we decide between those two possibilities? It seems that if we could find evidence of a difference due solely to the granulation, that would be a good thing to know. How could we test that?

Spence

Maybe it's the firearm, maybe it's the load, and maybe it's the shooter.

If a gentleman tells me that his gun likes a particular load I see no reason to dispute his word. He knows his own rifle better then I do.

garandman said:

hanshi said:

Honestly, I've used 3F and 2F interchangeably in those times I had to take what was available to me. Given a choice I've always chosen 3F for a number of reasons. Among these reasons are more shots to the pound,

Click to expand...

I don't belive that is true. Measured by volume, I beleive the coarser 2F will give you more shots per pound, as the larger sized granules pack looser / with more voids, and therefore you are using less powder (measured by weight) for the same measure of powder by volume.


Stated another way, at least theoretically, the same volume of 2F and 3F, the 2F charge will weight less, because it has more / bigger voids. That is, provided the density of the powder is equivalent.

Practically, they prolly give pretty close to teh same # of shots.

Click to expand...

If loading for velocity or accuracy it it may be found that FF requires a heavier charge WEIGHT.
This is true for velocity since the slower pressure rise will reduce velocity, accuracy would be determined by shooting.
So if you shoot 100 gr of FFF you should get 70 shots per pound. 110 of FF will give 63 shots. It will take about 10% more of FF to give the velocity with most powders.
Velocity may not be important to some but if you have a 110-130 yard zero for a hunting rifle changing from FFF to FF will have an effect on the impact point.

Dan

hanshi said:

Indeed, something to think about. However, I still stick by my claim of being a lousy shot.

Click to expand...

At the Mt Historical Gunmakers Guild Fair last month friend and myself were asked to do a talk on rifle accuracy. We did about 2 hour of comment and Q&A. This is a greatly condensed version.
I just shot a match Saturday. 2 guys were having a heck of a time with accuracy. Both were shooting 50 calibers but they reports sounded flat. They were using light charges. I finally asked the one what caliber and how much powder. It was 70 gr IIRC maybe less. We were only shooting 60 yards afterall.
I told him to step it up to about 90. He did and his last three shots were about 1/3 the size of the previous 7. The other guy did the same thing and his last two shot cut each other.
People MUST do load development and they MUST experiment.
Back when I was a kid the rule was "load it till it cracks". At least that was written in MB magazine.
I won the match BTW shooting 120 gr of FFF Swiss in a 50. 7.5" string for 10 shots. Average distance from center was .75". This is not exceptional but it was 2" shorter than the nearest competitor that day.
If you are shooting a 45-50 and its a SOUNDLY MADE RIFLE accuracy load development should START at 1/2 ball weight of GOOD powder. Ball .005 under bore and a .015-.018 patch if cotton (fairly heavily compressed with a mic, .018-.021 if measured with a caliper with normal pressure). Heavy blue stripe ticking works well in most cases being .015 with heavy pressure. Linen might work at .012.
Some shooters with 40 calibers shoot 60 gr or more for an accuracy load.
Find out where the rifle likes to be rested. I rest my heavy rifle on the second key barrel key from the breech. My swivel prefers rested near the muzzle.
Now run up or down 5 gr intervals and shoot at least 5 shots with any load that looks good.
WIPE BETWEEN SHOTS unless using water for lube.
Damp patch both sides, dry patch both sides then load again and fire.
As some chunk gun shooter stated "you don't HAVE to wipe between shots, but if you want to WIN you do".
We are not trying to simply hit a dinner plate sized target we are trying to do something like this 12 shots.

This is my sighter/backer target for a match. I staple all my score targets over it so give a record of the match on one sheet. There are 9 shots in the ragged hole. The hole to the left is two sighters the one score shot. This is 60 yards rest 109 gr fff swiss, .495 ball ticking patch, high friction lube of water soluble oil 5-1 with water then allowed to air dry. Consistantly wiped between shots.
This is a composite of the 10 score shots.

With work ANY decent rifle should come close to this in good conditions. The flier was a score shot caused by a 10mph increase in wind that I did not notice or it gusted as I broke the shot. This target with the 2.2" "flier" measured 4.087 for 10 score shots. Less than 1/2 from center average.

Back the last match. The guys shooting these light charges and scattering shots all over the target have been shooting this match for over a year. But had to be TOLD to increase their powder charges. Even though they had been shooting with me and some others who out shot them for the most part consistently. They would maybe win 1 match (each shot is a match in our turkey rules) now and then.
I am sure they just thought they were out classed in shooting skill when in reality they were beating themselves by failing to wring out the best accuracy from their rifle. Hopefully they will so some more shooting before the next match and they will be competitive.
I changed to a 1/8" wide front sight in May as well and this helped a lot. My vision in my right eye is 20-25 corrected.... And this seems to vary minute to minute... PITA.

A ML rifle will shoot surprisingly well even with cheap powder. But in general they work better with the more expensive stuff, its more consistent and a can bought 5 years ago will produce the same result as one bought today. Cheap powders invariably show significant variation because they are cheap and the maker is just cranking out something that will go "boom" or selling floor sweepings as "re-enactor" power.
I am sure some people think I am some sort of elitist for shooting Swiss. No.. I have very valid reasons for shooting it. For one thing I shoot AGAINST people who use it and I like to be competitive. I would like to at least get my entry fee back.
So do the load development. Put a scope on the thing. I know of a very nice Bedford county style rifle made by a freind in 1963. On the barrel are little sterling silver dots engraved like stars to cover up the scope block holes. He did load development with a scope early on. He and the rifle were not terribly popular at matches because it shot so darned well.
It shot well because he did his HOMEWORK.
So put on a peep sight or a scope for load development. Use shaders on the open sights.

Take them off for matches if necessary.

Shoot your rifle form a decent rest at 50 yards. Play with powder charges. If a percussion get a good SS nipple that is NOT VENTED. Use REAL BP it will invariably outshoot the subs and in most cases will last a lot longer.
Learn how to get consistent powder charges poured from a horn (we have a load from the pouch rule in the RB rifle matches).
It will be worth the trouble in the long run.
I detest doing load development. Back when shooting BPCR Silhouette with the only powder then available every new case of powder required load development and some of it had to be sold or given away as useless and another lot number bought. I really got tired of it.
But it has to be done at some level. The barrel I shot the above target with was tested by the maker before it was shipped so I had a good starting point and load development was basically making a powder measure.
I raised the powder charge of my match rifle to 120 at the last match and looking at recovered patches I think I will drop back to 109....

Hunting loads?
I shoot Neatsfoot oil or Tallow for bullet lube since it will allow loading without wiping.
Hunting is not target shooting.
Dan

I remember back when dragsters were just breaking 200 MPH. They had to start real slow to get to that speed. If they cut a much faster et the top speed would be slower. As it relate to rifles I dont think it does at all as the bullet starts slowing as soon as it leaves the barrel.There is way more to accuracy than MV and to try and name all the posiblities would take more space than is available here. I shoot 2 f in my 54. It shoots accurately and thats good enough for me.FRJ

I agree with your analysis, tho it is a different point than I was making.

garandman said:

I agree with your analysis, tho it is a different point than I was making.

Click to expand...

I understand your point. However, it is impossible to get the same result using the same volume measure for FF as for FFF at the very least there will be a change in trajectory. Its like using the same volume measure for Win 748 and IMR 4831 in a 30-06 and expecting the rifle to perform the same regardless of the powder used.

Dan

FRJ said:

There is way more to accuracy than MV

Click to expand...

I completely agree.

necchi said:

FRJ said:

There is way more to accuracy than MV

Click to expand...

I completely agree.

Click to expand...

Me too. Velocity is just one of many factors that can affect accuracy, and with muzzleloaders, there are a whole bunch more factors than with cartridge guns. The problem is, there's no possible way to observe what's going on inside the bore, so we hypothesize, speculate, and throw in some conjecture. The only way to really know what's more accurate is too fiddle with the variables, one at a time, and use the target as proof. When a change in any one variable causes a gun to become more accurate, we can only guess as to the why. In my earlier post, I can only make an educated guess why my daughter's rifle shoots so much better using fffg, compared to using ffg, but the possible reason makes sense and it works. :idunno:

I suppose loading a really tight ball and patch combo would also help accurize her gun, but my daughter can barely get the .530 ball down as it is with thin patches, so we work around what she can do. So, with the limits we have on some of the variables, ie ball size, patch thickness, fffg (or similar powder) gives the best accuracy, regardless of velocity. The target don't lie. Bill

Amen, Bro. :applause: