4F powder

Based upon another post elsewhere , I have a question that I have never contemplated concerning 4F powder. Question is this ;

When did 4F powder come upon the scene year wise?

Again this question came to me based upon conversation/misunderstanding on another thread. So in a new thread, began by myself, and in genuine pursuit of knowledge, I ask here n now.

Occurs to me that back in the day, folks stompin around in the wilderness where the resupply was mounth's away, they more n likely primed and loaded the same powder ... if only because of simple logistics. Needing to pack and keep separate powder sizes ... seems like a waste of valuable space in the pack ... especially if it was not needed.

Morning Ted,

Fine priming powder was needed for priming matchlocks, so a separate supply was carried.
This started in the late 1400's to early 1500's.
In the flint period, back in England, you will not find reference to priming powder, as it wasn't used.
Later still, in the late flint period when target shooting was common, (this side of the pond) we see priming powder used again.
As priming powder isn't needed with a good lock, many never used it an still don't.

I only use it in a matchlock. (For what that's worth!)

All the best,
Richard.

Rifle powder and priming powder were both brought to the fur trade rendezvous as evidenced in the manifests of the Sublette and Campbell trade goods log by Charles Larpenter. As you mentioned, it seemed that the fur men would not want to carry two different grades of powder, but it seems there was some demand for the finer "priming powder".

Rite on. I had never contemplated this question nor had it occurred to me to question the year of manufacture of such. Thanks.

Apropos of another thread, maybe some preferred the finer "priming powder" as the main charge in their firearm - more shots per powder carried.

Richard/Grumpa

I'm saying nothing.....

There is no difference except differences of degree between degrees of difference and no difference! A. Huxley.

bigted said:

Based upon another post elsewhere , I have a question that I have never contemplated concerning 4F powder. Question is this ;

When did 4F powder come upon the scene year wise?

Again this question came to me based upon conversation/misunderstanding on another thread. So in a new thread, began by myself, and in genuine pursuit of knowledge, I ask here n now.

Occurs to me that back in the day, folks stompin around in the wilderness where the resupply was mounth's away, they more n likely primed and loaded the same powder ... if only because of simple logistics. Needing to pack and keep separate powder sizes ... seems like a waste of valuable space in the pack ... especially if it was not needed.

Click to expand...

I do not use 4FG for priming, I use 2FG which is the same grade that I use as a main charge. It is my understanding that there were no priming horns & no separate grades of gunpowder used for priming in the 18th century.
More Information Here: https://woodsrunnersdiary.blogspot.com/2016/03/about-gunpowder-gutenberg-file.html
Keith.

Britsmoothy said:

I'm saying nothing.....

Click to expand...

I thought we just fought this war.

was not dragging another post over here. just had a question that got taken the wrong way.

funny but in the quest for knowledge, a feller can get into trouble there as well. shoulda just begun my own post then asking questions as it seems the water over there got muddy pretty fast.

i could not imagine a woodsman of any era who treks on foot or using a mule/horse to pack his possibles, would carry another grade of powder needlessly when space and weight came at such a premium.

this is the why of my 4Fg powder question. trying to grip the facts of how our forefathers did things AND DIDN'T. were i a younger man a couple hundred years ago, I think I would give several thoughts as to what powder and how much I would pack for a near year sojourn into the wild country ... whichever wild country that may have been.

no doubt in my mind as to whether I would tramped off alone or not. still have the desire and have had it all my life. tis the why of not subscribing to somebody's hearsay or the repeat of balderdash handed down for longer then I can think about.

sooo ... the thought occurred to me .. WHAT IF ... the powder we call today being 4F powder was nothing more then the FINE POWDER talked about in the early writings as THE powder to have along and not the coarser sifting's. just a thought that occur's after trying to get to the bottom of a thought brung up by another shooter here on this most excellent forum.

so the thought persists that just maybe we have had a past of shooting this GOOD GRADE of FINE POWDER all along and with the grading of rather modern powder, we lost the sentiment of what was and adopted a NEW correct along the way. wouldn't be the first time that facts got muddied and a different "correct" came about as the result.

just throwin a stone in our pond of serenity to see what might rise. wonderin is all.

oh and whomever got tied up on the other post can feel free to post thoughts and facts here and be welcome for the thought inspiring thoughts or facts you can offer ... in fact I am personally inviting you here and to follow your thought pattern.

thanks for the posts to come and for those already here. tis gonna be a friendly camp.

The earliest testing of the power of gunpowder by separating grain size that I can find was done about 1754 by a Scottish born Frenchman named Patrick d'Arcy.
adoption of the F screen size standard seems to have been adopted around 1825, but I do not have a name to associate with it yet.
Like I said before People have been testing blackpowder for over 200 years. Much of the testing was done in Europe, many are archived and written in foreign languages making their discovery reading difficult.
I can tell you this though, The number of people who have written on the subject since since the beginning 20th century pale in comparison to the 18th and 19th centuries.

All the old pictures I have seem most show only one horn. Maybe some gentlemen farmer would have a priming horn but that is only my guest. But you read about shipments of very fine powder, and fine powder, and course powder all the time. And I think what they call fine powder we call it 4 or 3F and their course powder was 2 or 1F. If they had fine powder they use that for the main charge as well as prime and if they had course powder same thing.

I think they used what they could get. There are accounts of powder being wet and spread out to dry. What they ended up with may not be what left the factory or mill. Gee! I still wish we had the smiley that rubbed his chin.

54ball said:

Gee! I still wish we had the smiley that rubbed his chin.

Click to expand...

bigted said:

so the thought persists that just maybe we have had a past of shooting this GOOD GRADE of FINE POWDER all along and with the grading of rather modern powder, we lost the sentiment of what was and adopted a NEW correct along the way. wouldn't be the first time that facts got muddied and a different "correct" came about as the result

Click to expand...

That is a well said question
I mean who among us hasn't taken 2 or 3F,, ground it down to finer powder and tried it?, Who hasn't mixed grades as we experimented while searching for the best to use?

54ball said:

I think they used what they could get. There are accounts of powder being wet and spread out to dry. What they ended up with may not be what left the factory or mill.

Click to expand...

And I think that pretty well sums it up for the common/competent man in the field day to day.

But history many times doesn't record that for us to see, it's only the writings or logs of those with the skills/knowledge to write,, or anecdotal observations of the same that we have as "historical" record.

bigted said:

so the thought persists

Click to expand...

So your right bigted, our recommendations today exists here only because of our personal decades of using current powders,, none of us can fully be involved with the powders of 200+ yrs ago. Right?

It's just one of those things that will never be definitively answered.

Re Post #5...I just couldn't resist.

For the record, I use FFg in my .54 Harpers Ferry, and I prime the pan with...FFg. I have a can of FFFg, which I am going to try when I get out to the range, and I will use it for both.

I also have a can of FFFFg That I have used for priming, can't say there is any advantage to it and, for hunting, it dampens much quicker than larger grains.

Richard/Grumpa

Grumpa said:

Re Post #5...I just couldn't resist.

For the record, I use FFg in my .54 Harpers Ferry, and I prime the pan with...FFg. I have a can of FFFg, which I am going to try when I get out to the range, and I will use it for both.

I also have a can of FFFFg That I have used for priming, can't say there is any advantage to it and, for hunting, it dampens much quicker than larger grains.

Richard/Grumpa

Click to expand...

That damping is damping and frustrating on a humid or wet weather day and is the reason I won’t ever use 4F as priming ever again. It 3F or 2F or no shooting for me!!!

I prime with 4F because I've always had some around and I like it. I've also primed with 3F and it worked with no problems. If I couldn't acquire any 4F, I'd happily use 3F. Actually I'm in that situation now. I don't currently have any 4F.

All interesting answers.