newbies like to learn thing from the masters, please forgive me.

[QUOTE="Black Hand, Careful - you'll be considered a heretic like me and a few others.[/QUOTE]

I've been called a lot worse!!

Cuz every-bodies grandpa said so so now they print it? I seriously do not believe half of what I read anymore. A good Zane Grey novel has more truth than the morning news (and is much more relevant to me).

dixie5032 said:

Black Hand said:

Careful - you'll be considered a heretic like me and a few others.

Click to expand...

I've been called a lot worse!!

Click to expand...

As have I, my friend....

Use of any powder in a heavy load delusion could, note "could", cause an issue. If you choose brawn over science I say refrain from 4f.

[QUOTE="Britsmoothy, post:
But the little English guy using 4f, he is a RAVIN NUTTER!
Love the can photo by the way [/QUOTE]

I don't think your are a RAVIN NUTTER , I with you on this one.

wow, or as the northern cree would say, hola. hola in cree is a triple double huge wow as you can get. it isnt spanish.SO I SAY, HOLA.lets have some facts along with the feelings, please. brit is more normal than a lot of guys.

I'm not on either side of the fence, but I'll be sticking to ffg and fg in my rifle and musket, because I'm satisfied with the results. And there's more to it than just a safety issue. There's accuracy, velocity, and other things to consider. For me there's the "dribble" factor of the main charge leaking out into the pan. Just because ffffg works wonders in one man's gun, does not mean it works best in yours/mine. And visa-versa. Modern powders have quite a wide range of burning rates and characteristics, but the fastest powder you can load is not always the "best". If one is after heavy hunting loads, I'm not sure that the fastest burning powder is best. In a cap-lock for instance, I'm thinking you'll get more velocity out of a slower (fff, ff, or fg) burning powder before the hammer starts blowing back to half-cock, than with ffffg. ?? See, now we need to get the chronographs out!

Just to be sure here, I have never used 4Fg powder. I did NOT advocate using it in ANY way.

What I DID SAY however, is ... WHERE IS THE SOLID PROVABLE FACTS? I have never seen a study investigating the poor method used when YOU say NEVER.

Come now, we ALL desire to be safe! We ALL desire not to see ANYBODY injured in our pursuit.

Can't we find ... in the thousands of folks using muzzleloader's ... SOMEBODY that has access to facility's to test this out , once and for all.

This seems important ... at least to me. I would for sure donate a few bucks with others ... to determine the real world useability of 4Fg powder.

Here is my take on possibility's of 4F powder.

... first is the fine quality to burn more efficient.
... second is being able to regulate the exact powder charge.
... third less powder per shot and still maintain desired velocity.
... and fourth for me leastwise is the hen party that we involve ourselves in concerning our TAKE on the GOSSIP of the safety of using 4Fg powder in the main charge of rifles.

I understand the " err on safety's side " concept ... however, can we dig down to the facts please?

I'd be very interested in "third less powder per shot and still maintain desired velocity". The same could be said about modern powders, but again, it's the slow burners that produce the "most" velocity, is it the same for ffffg vs. fg? Things like steep/shallow, or short/long pressure curves, barrel length, etc.?? Well, all the technology, machines, and instrumentation exists to do that, it's done with modern firearms, cartridges and powders all the time, yes someone needs to do the research. However, we black powder shooters are in the minority. Most "muzzle-loading" today involves modern powders, (with something to make them smoke) and modern primers, so those with the capabilities of doing such testing really have no interest.

Now as far as more primitive testing goes, with a small assortment of barrels, (both rifle and smoothbore musket barrels) twenty pounds of powder, (or more) and a chronograph, one could determine pretty well what the chances of blowing one's face off with ffffg would be, and where if any advantage lies as far as velocity goes. Perhaps some youtuber would do it, but most youtube videos like that are very poor as far as following good scientific method.

And, there have been tests in the past where it was found to be impossible to blow a barrel, unless some type of loading error was introduced into the testing. But I know of no such test where the different grades of powder were part of, or a major consideration of the test. ?? And if you filled a barrel to the muzzle with ffffg, and it blew it up, but the same load with fg didn't...does that relate in any way to normal powder charges? !!!

So along these lines, the CW was a huge testing plot in one respect;

Several rifles were found with double and tripple loading's stacked upon each other before the solder was evidently killed. Sooo ... being a simple boy ... it would make sense to this ol tired poo boy that many more rifles were so loaded AND fired. Where is the blown up rifles from these loadings, that HAD to have elevated pressure. None I would guess and sooo ... there may very well be FACTS at work here that do not adhere to the laws of modern powder.

Bout time we get, hire or inspire some true science to these questions and put away the bunk handed down generation to generation. We seem to pull out the plug on tents, food, clothes and sundry items to apply modern science to the historic ways n means of our history.

bigted said:

Bout time we get, hire or inspire some true science to these questions and put away the bunk handed down generation to generation. We seem to pull out the plug on tents, food, clothes and sundry items to apply modern science to the historic ways n means of our history.

Click to expand...

I think we already have several hundred years of science and testing on the subject. People are just ignoring it because they think it doesn't apply to their specific situation. The rule isn't designed for one man's particular set of circumstances, it's made to govern all or most situations. Think of them as "guidelines".
Remember, U.S. guns aren't proof tested like European guns are.

Carbon 6 said:

I think we already have several hundred years of science and testing on the subject. People are just ignoring it because they think it doesn't apply to their specific situation. The rule isn't designed for one man's particular set of circumstances, it's made to govern all or most situations. Think of them as "guidelines".
Remember, U.S. guns aren't proof tested like European guns are.

Click to expand...

Pard I have read all your posts here and ... not being feces in the yard ... but please do remind me of the scientific research where modern or any scientific reports exist regarding pressure vessels revealing the argument concerning 4Fg powder being unsafe ... let alone stern warnings regarding the use of 4F in rifles?

Please do give me your proof. In Several hundred years, there should be written statements ... backed up with provable and repeatable science , to allow you the ability to argue your point. I relish a proveable point ... and know that once convinced, I would preach it ... with the repeatable science ... from the roof tops.

Again my intent is not to prove either for or against this use ... rather I would indeed like to follow the legitimate research stating the " UNSAFE or SAFE " use of the fine 4Fg powder.

I have not read any such literature nor seen such warnings on any vessel containing powder ... either days gone by, nor modern powder jugs. Neither have I seen nor seen solid proof of malfunctions in old, moderately new nor complete modern rifles.

Understand please, I do not have a " dog in this hunt " with the exception of my desire to pledge my learning or knowledge in a fair and provable fashion and not continuing the hear-say nor promote unproven statements concerning our sport.

All I have seen to be sure is the " I was told" and " everybody knows " as well as " the old knowledge says " stuff continually repeated with no backing to prove one way or another.

If you desire to convince me or anybody else that refuses to be spoon fed thoughts that have not been proven ... produce the scientific proof of your statements. This is only respectable reporting containing proof ... not repeating someones words that can't be proven either.

Please do educate me and convince me is all I ... with all due respect ... request. I am a student at heart after all. My quest as others here state, is truth concerning our addiction.

Why is it people always like to argue about the things they don't know.

BlackHillsBob said:

he won the match hands down. every one wanted, includeing me, why he did and why his gun cracked and our went boom. his secret was as you all guessed it he use 4f real black in the pan and in the barrel. is this safe and is this a good thing, it was for him. i went home and tried out my very good hand made 50 precussion with 4f. it cracked also, shot real perfect, didnt have to swab between rounds. worked up to 80 grains of 4f behind a linen patched 495 round ball.never had anyone to ask in those days if i was nuts or the young man was nuts. now i do, please let loose with any info you all have on what i asked about. soon this newbie will run out of questions. thanks before hand. black hills bob

Click to expand...

Let me explain " Ringer".

Mr.BlackhillsBob,
A ringer is an incognito expert. It's someone who asks a question, that they know the answer to. The question is asked to get this, a big debate. Usually there some kind of an agenda. You mention Newbie in the title and later in your post. Reading through this thread; the shoots you have attended and the data you have presented,you're not quite the "newbie" are you?

In my opinion this subject of 4f loads is definitely not for "Newbies"....
I think just about everyone would agree that a true newbie ought to go by published and factory "firearms manufacturer's" recommended load data.

Britsmoothy said:

Feelings and anecdotes friend.

The Witch troll thingy or Mr Ringer.
You can all burn me at the stake it don't matter. Oh and the earth ain't flat and we definitely go around the sun.

Click to expand...

Why I get this, I do not know. This is typical of 21st Century cyber debate. Since you disagree, I must be one of the mud people. You do not agree, I get that. Because of this you have to make my opinion "not worthy" to do so I must be demeaned into an ignorant, uneducated and unenlightened jack wagon.
Feelings and anecdotes? Maybe so, but those feelings and anecdotes were from a barrel maker and someone I do consider an expert.

Black Hand said:

Another fine example of people being unable to discern fact from opinion...
I'll take fact any day, as it is based in reality rather than fear of an unknown boogeyman jumping out of the dark (and causing their gun to explode).

Click to expand...

Maybe there is an unknown boogeyman here. 4f as I originally pointed out in this thread will measure differently. Going back to Blackhill's original posting of 80grns of 4f, is that thrown from a 2f measure? If so what would be the equivalent loading in 2f?
From the Lyman Great Plains Rifle booklet...
2. Guard against overcharges. Follow the instructions and do not exceed suggested charges in this booklet.
Maximum Loads Lyman Black Powder Guns The following loads are maximum combinations of propellant and projectile for Lyman Black Powder guns except for the Mustang Breakaway Rifle which can be found on page 44. Do Not Exceed! Plains Pistol .50 - .495" RB 40 grs. 3Fg .54 - .535" RB 50 grs. 3 Fg Rifles .50 .495" RB 110 grs. 2Fg or 90 grs. 3Fg 240 gr. Sabot 100 grs. 2Fg or 90 grs. 3Fg 335 gr. Sabot 100 grs. 2Fg or 80 grs. 3Fg 420 gr. Maxi 100 grs. 2Fg or 80 grs. 3Fg .54 .535" RB 120 grs. 2Fg or 100 grs. 3Fg 335 gr. Sabot 110 grs. 2Fg or 90 grs. 3Fg 450 gr. Maxi 110 grs. 2Fg or 90 grs. 3F

Where's the 4F load data?

FFFFG Commonly called “Four F”, this is the finest granulation and is used for priming flintlocks. Due to its rather limited use, it is usually somewhat difficult to obtain. When necessary, FFFG may be substituted. There is no Pyrodex equivalent.

Note it says FFFG can be used in place of FFFFG,(for priming) not the other way around.

BlackHillsBob said:

i do have to tell some thing neg about 4f i read years ago. a cot ssa shooter compress 4f into 1 45 long colt case behind a 250 grain bullets and ruined his gun. i dont know if it was a old colt or a modern steel colt but it did the gun no good. that isnt a muzzleloader but one has to think about what happened to that gun.

Click to expand...

Wow this is interesting. Considering that the SAA was one of the most proven and powerful handguns until 1935,(3fg according to Goex's .45 Colt recommended load) Why did this 4fg loading damage it?
Off topic for the forum but on topic for this discussion.....a strong and proven design damaged by 4f???

But wait? There's no proof that that's what happened. This is just the thing with muzzleloaders...there's hardly ever any "proof" with any failure. The default key board explanation is usually....smokeless....barrel obstruction....short start....it gets really tricky explain when these failures are blank loads.

Black Hand said:

I'd rather challenge the accepted & often unproven/unsupported dogma and get to the facts.
And facts are very inconvenient things indeed, as they shed light on the darkness encouraged by ignorance and the acceptance of dogma.

Click to expand...

This Dogma of which you speak, is it from these factory manuals? Manuals warning not to exceed recommended charges and powder?

Black Hand said:

I am not interested in using or ever have used FFFFg as a main charge, but that isn't the point. Someone here has, and provided his personal experience in doing so - all people have done is tell him "You can't" or "You shouldn't" or "Ole Thunderlips says to use FFFFg as prime ONLY". It's just poor form...

Click to expand...

I get it,I really do. I know where you are coming from. Here again like Britsmoothy demeaning or derogatory terms are used to describe those with an opposing viewpoint. This whole thing started under the guise of a "newbie". A newbie in any activity needs to be informed. I thought it best to inform the newbie that there may be risks with using 4f as a main charge in a big bore rifle.

Is this poor form and or dogma the...
loading manuals,
opinion of a barrel maker,
the measurement of 4f in a 2f measure (One common thing that Blackhand,Britsmoothy and I agree on is the measurement factor with 4f),
the load data from powder manufactures namely Goex,
and lastly my opinion that the 4f grade may be 4f grains and smaller, thus unpredictable.

Had this this thread started with....Exploring 4f.... or Real World results with 4f instead of...."newbies like to learn things from the masters"??? The comments may be the same, but the vein of this thread may be much different.

Britsmoothy is an accomplished shooter and hunter with a great deal of experience. I can't speak for him but I think he would agree that a true "Newbie" to this sport ought to gain experience and take heed the load recommendations that come with their new gun. Once a shooter gains some experience, well...thats on them. Whatever they do they do need to proceed with caution.

I hope that I have made my opinion clear. One, that 4f load data is nonexistent and not recommended. That's a fact. Whether that fact is based on dogma or not, that fact remains. Secondly, that exploration of loads,any loads whether off the rails or not, need to be explored with caution.

Ever watch Myth Busters? They did several tests to try and blow up a black powder barrel. Two ways, use modern spherical powder or fill the barrel and weld the end shut.

If ever a point could be proven when it comes to blowing up something it would be by those two guys on Mythbusters. That was their expertise it seemed.

their was a point here made by what i consider a educated man and has lots of knowlege with front stuffers. the work newbie is correct in one way i should have claified, rock locks, i know not one thing about them. only have seen them fired a few times, never shot one, never even held one, have seen hundreds of them in the fur trader museum. i am a newbie to rock locks. im at ease with precussion and they are like another arm to me. how can i claim to know anything about flint locks when i dont. im listening to every one here but i am a nevie to flintlocks. precussion is another story. thanks for pointing that out, i dont pretend that precussion knowledge crosses over to flintlocks. that just like a mouse who tries roar like a lion. he is still just a mouse. i only know what i know and nothing more, will never try to pretend to know what i dont. thanks again for pointing that out about the newbie thing. in some areas no, but in this ares yes.

Feelings and anecdotes friend.

The Witch troll thingy or Mr Ringer.
You can all burn me at the stake it don't matter. Oh and the earth ain't flat and we definitely go around the sun.
Why I get this, I do not know. This is typical of 21st Century cyber debate. Since you disagree, I must be one of the mud people. You do not agree, I get that. Because of this you have to make my opinion "not worthy" to do so I must be demeaned into an ignorant, uneducated and unenlightened jack wagon.
Feelings and anecdotes? Maybe so, but those feelings and anecdotes were from a barrel maker and someone I do consider an expert.

Copied from 54ball.

I owe you an apology . I sincerely thought you were calling me a ringer.
If you were not I apologise.

B.

Carbon 6 said:

Why is it people always like to argue about the things they don't know.

Click to expand...

If you will re-read my posts, you can maybe see that my "ARGUMENT" is a simple request for a non-asuming defense of your statements. Instead I get nonsence and louder and more insistent statements that still contain no SCIENTIFIC proof of your statements.

I am a little stymied at these outbursts and the remaining stubborn clinging to what I would consider hearsay.

If no solid data exists to prove this one way or the other, then I see no reason to continue as there seems little to be genuinly learned here.

Funny that in my 62 years and shooting muzzleloaders since 1972 ... that finding what I consider a " GREAT FACTUAL AND TEACHING FORUM " can be a continuation of unproven statements.

I have " heard " all these statements about 4Fg myself. I have never used it with exception of prime in my flinters. HOWEVER ... I have NEVER read of actual testing of these statements under lab testing conditions.

Knowledge my friend's ... knowledge is what I am searching for ... NOT the unsubstantiated passing along of rumer ... hoping to convince others of further unsubstantiated truths.

If no proof exists ... then what are we sparing about?

Nother question that occur's to me is thus;

Year wise, when did we have this 4Fg powder available?

If what we have available to us, known as 4Fg powder , is a rather "modern" powder ... then this is all a null point. Indeed if this is a 20 century powder, then we for sure need a 20 century testing of it

Again ... I only seek knowledge ... not sparing over what may be a nonexistent problem ... here on a forum that exists for " HISTORIC " times and items during those times.