Black powder?

SDSmlf said:

I put no faith in anything Toby Bridges has to say on his North American Muzzleloader Hunting blog

Click to expand...

I learned those two "rules of thumb" long before Al Gore invented the Internet.
(remember; Al claimed he "invented" the Internet in a speech years ago.)
Long before there was such a thing as a P.C., laptop, "Smart Phone" or a "Tablet".
Computers ran on tubes, and were the size of houses.
I trust nothing I read on Wikipedia, or the Internet.
Unless I "know" the author and what his (or her) credentials are, and if they have credibility.
The gods know there are a lot of self-proclaimed "experts" on the Internet (and in "real life" on the lecture circuit) who know less than nothing about that which they speak.

I've never heard of that "Tony" "person" before this.

Zonie said:

From what I can find, King's Semi-Smokless powder was basically black powder with about 20% nitrocellulose made from nitrated wood pulp in it. It was supposed to be safe to load into muzzleloaders and other black powder guns on a 1 to 1 ratio with a black powder load.
It was supposed to make less fouling than pure black powder. I didn't see any claims that it was more powerful than black powder but with the addition of nitrocellulose it should have been

Click to expand...

Ah well it could have been more powerful by weight, but depending on how the granules were formed and their size...they could've account for less weight by volume than the black powder that it replaced and thus had a balance of sorts.

This is interesting, for Roberts in his book The Muzzle-Loading Cap Lock Rifle, he mentions "duplex" loads for black powder rifles where the shooter would start by loading 5-7 grains or so of a specific smokeless shotshell powder, then load ed the black powder which had been reduced by 10%. Now Roberts was shooting 1Fg or 2Fg, and he reported much better burn (based on reduced ash in the barrels) and very good accuracy.

I noted he does not mention the average thickness of the barrels used for this purpose, nor does he mention the steel(s) used for such barrels where this particular practice was done. PLUS that particular formulation of smokeless powder that he mentions for this type of load is long long gone from the market, and I doubt that one could even find the recipe for it, to evaluate what the pressures might have been.

So it's possible that the King powder company (or whatever company was making the powder sold under the "King's" brand) went one step further and incorporated a bit of smokeless into the black powder for the same purpose. It obviously wasn't an advantage on accuracy, or the stuff would still be made.

Another in a long list of products, perhaps, which sold mostly as they made black powder "less dirty"....,
..., here's an idea..., IF the "dirtiness" of black powder is such a burden to the shooter, that they are on a quest to reduce the dirtiness, maybe they should try a different shooting discipline ??


LD

I have had BP rifles since the mid 80's but only started shooting them seriously for about the last year and a half. I shoot 3F in everything from .32 to.54, and a 20 ga. BP shotgun. I know I used 3F back in the 80's because I still had a can of it when I started shooting BP stuff again. I have never had any issues with 3F in any of my guns. I even prime with 3F with the flint lock.
I would say use what you want as long as it works for you.

Loyalist Dave said:

Ah well it could have been more powerful by weight, but depending on how the granules were formed and their size...they could've account for less weight by volume than the black powder that it replaced and thus had a balance of sorts.

This is interesting, for Roberts in his book The Muzzle-Loading Cap Lock Rifle, he mentions "duplex" loads for black powder rifles where the shooter would start by loading 5-7 grains or so of a specific smokeless shotshell powder, then load ed the black powder which had been reduced by 10%. Now Roberts was shooting 1Fg or 2Fg, and he reported much better burn (based on reduced ash in the barrels) and very good accuracy.

I noted he does not mention the average thickness of the barrels used for this purpose, nor does he mention the steel(s) used for such barrels where this particular practice was done. PLUS that particular formulation of smokeless powder that he mentions for this type of load is long long gone from the market, and I doubt that one could even find the recipe for it, to evaluate what the pressures might have been.

So it's possible that the King powder company (or whatever company was making the powder sold under the "King's" brand) went one step further and incorporated a bit of smokeless into the black powder for the same purpose. It obviously wasn't an advantage on accuracy, or the stuff would still be made.

Another in a long list of products, perhaps, which sold mostly as they made black powder "less dirty"....,
..., here's an idea..., IF the "dirtiness" of black powder is such a burden to the shooter, that they are on a quest to reduce the dirtiness, maybe they should try a different shooting discipline ??


LD

Click to expand...

Interesting but you need to consider the time period when Kings Semi smokeless was developed and produced. In the late 1800's and early 1900's the new "Smokeless" powders were quickly taking over the market for loading the modern cartridge guns. Kings Semi Smokeless (as well as Duponts Lesmoke and some others) were developed as an alternative to the touchy to load smokeless powders and were offered in loaded ammunition as well as for reloading fired cases.

The fact that Kings could be used in muzzleloaders safely and was reportedly cleaner shooting was a bonus as it increased sales (though Kings continued to produce regular black powder as well for years) but it was not originally designed as such. Kings was a major powder maker in Ohio supplying both shooters and industry (blasting powder for mining and construction, gunpowder for shooters as well as the affiliated Peters Cartridge Co.) for many years, finally going out of business in 1958.

Anyone having cans of Kings Semi Smokeless (or for that matter any of Kings black powder) has an interesting and quite collectible piece of history. Empty cans bring good money on the collector circuit and full cans seem to be very rare and while harder to sell and transport can bring quite a bit. I can understand the desire to try it and see how it performs but once gone you aren't likely to find any more (though if you just wanted to sell the empty cans to a collector I guess you might as well enjoy shooting it )

As to being "less dirty" don't forget that the late 1800's and early 1900's were a time of great industrial advances. Traditional black powder was seen as being on the way out (no one would have predicted the resurgence of interest in muzzle loading that came along later) and something that was as easy to load and use but cleaner was seen as a great advancement. Lots of people like things to be "easy" and that (along with things like hazmat and storage requirements) contributes to the popularity of the modern substitutes of today.

Besides everything said here that makes good sense, I have to agree with the comments about Toby Bridges and add Sam Fatala to the list of "hokey" experts.

I disagree, sorry. I do believe that Toby does indeed know his “stuff”, or is an “expert”. I will not speak low as to his experience and qualifications. My fault with him is that he has sold out to the corporations and his messages are not based on his knowledge nor experience, but rather on sales.
Walk

Old Timer 48 said:

I read in other threads that the majority of shooters use 3F in .32 cal.. My question is, why 3f opposed to 2f?

Click to expand...

The only ML I shoot FF in is my 16 bore rifle. I don't have a ml shotgun.

Why FFFg (3 F) in a .32 caliber?

Tradition.

Also a 200 plus year old "rule of thumb" says:

"FFFFg (4F) to prime the pan on a matchlock, wheel lock, flintlock, etc. Not to be used as the main charge.
FFFg (3F) in calibers .45 and under.
FFg (2F) in calibers .50 and above. (also for heavy loads in .45 caliber.)
Fg (1F) in calibers .69 and over. (can also be use used in .50 to .60 caliber for heavier loads.)"

You can use the next coarser granulation when searching for that elusive "best load" for your particular arm.

Another 200 plus year old "Rule of Thumb" is "One grain of powder per caliber minimum and up to 2.5 grains powder per caliber maximum. (rounding to the nearest caliber that ends in either a "5" or "0", using the above "Rule of Thumb" for powder granulations.) since most, if not all, powder measures are marked in 5 grain increments.

I've found that in my various rifles when using the next coarser granulation, I could go up to 3 grains per caliber without any indications of excessive pressures, such as shattered caps, (using caps that are not designed to shatter) and/or the hammer blown back to half cock, or worse, full cock.

Sounds about right. My .58 won't give a decent group until you get to 110 gr. but my 32 works with as low as 10 gr, up to 35gr. All fff.

A black powder described as "not-as-dirty" is an oxymoron. They are all very dirty. Any particular load in any particular gun might leave a trace more fouling but less so in another identical gun. I've never encountered any formula for loading black powder that made the least bit of sense. There is simply a range of powder charges for most calibers that include a starting load and a "max" load. Accuracy will be found at one point (actually several) or another. I've hunted extensively in states that had a "minimum" required powder charge for muzzleloaders to be used for big game. As long as one equals or exceeds this required charge the next step is to find the specific accuracy load. Doesn't include guns for small game.

The old Dixie Gun Works catalog used to suggest 1 grain of powder per caliber to start & then to try going both up and down in 5 grain increments when searching for the most accurate load. When shooting at a known & constant distance, the most accurate load may be less than one grain per caliber. When working up a hunting load where the distance to the game is often a guesstimate, a heavier, flatter shooting load is the preference of many.

Old Timer 48 said:

I read in other threads that the majority of shooters use 3F in .32 cal.. My question is, why 3f opposed to 2f?

Click to expand...

3f for everything, it works for my guns

A good friend shoots a .32, pleasant shooting gun as far as recoil, but very problematic.
Fowling, blocked vent ( flintlock gun ) difficult to load with the small ram rod.
And that is shooting with 3f powder. Bringing in 2f would only make things worse.
Some people may get by with using 2f, most will not. Why complicate things.
Fred

I have shot 3FFG. in my CHARLEVILE and BROWN BESS FOR 50+ years and as of yet nary a HICK UP.

My experience over a long period of time dating back to 1960 messing around with BP is from 50 caliber and above.....drop in 100 grains of decent BP in conjunction with a good patch material and lube and if that doesn't give accuracy....either your marksmanship ability or your rifle....SUCKS! And if you're not gonna keep your rifle clean....you need to not be messing around with BP!

F.G. Ford said:

A good friend shoots a .32, pleasant shooting gun as far as recoil, but very problematic.
Fowling, blocked vent ( flintlock gun ) difficult to load with the small ram rod.
And that is shooting with 3f powder. Bringing in 2f would only make things worse.
Some people may get by with using 2f, most will not. Why complicate things.
Fred

Click to expand...

I have a .32 with identical problems. I have a friend, who has more experience with flintlocks, make some suggestions that really helped: 1) Swab after each shot to remove fouling, and make reloading easier. 2) Keep a pick in the touch hole while loading. If the pick moves when seating the ball, the powder charge may be too light, and the ball is starting to block the touch hole. 3) Use a metal ramrod. Small caliber wood ramrods are too prone to breakage.

Dibbuk You got that right , I've a 290 cal I made in Baltic ' bird rifle' flint . Used an old Parker Hale cleaning rod . A Mr G Tyler made the barrel donkeys years ago no doubt for Squirrels but we don't have them so the Baltic one seems a good use . I never previously shot so small a bore but its very accurate & pleasing ..The pick in the vent idea I use as grains are often lost while loading . Just a wire pick held in place by the small dangleing primeing horn not sealing the vent. Regards Rudyard

One more thing. I have never understood the reports that small bores, say .32 caliber, fouls worse, more stubbornly and needs wiping between shots. Wiping between shots is asking for misfires. My .32, .36 and .40 DO NOT foul any worse than my .50. I shoot these little guns all afternoon and never wipe them until I'm through shooting for the day. There's no reason the little guns should need wiping as long as the crown has been smoothed and the proper components are used for loading.