3F in the Pan?

[Gene L]

I tell myself I can tell the difference between 3F and 4F. It's slight, but to me, it's there and it's real.

Will 3F work? Absolutely, and work fine. But I think 4F works better. I see no advantage in using 3F as a priming powder; 4F costs the same and a pound will last you a very long time.

 

[Black Hand]

I see no advantage in using 3F as a priming powder; 4F costs the same and a pound will last you a very long time.

Except for the fact that FFFFg is really only useful for priming while FFFg can be used for both the main charge AND priming. I'll take the multipurpose FFFg any time...

 

[Gene L]

Myself, I'll go for the single purpose powder and take the quicker ignition of the 4F since I have a lifetime supply...2 pounds. I think elsewhere quicker ignition has been proven; I seem to remember reading it somewhere. Not sure why I'd make-do with 3F, since there is a difference.

 

[bob308]

the drill from the old days was bite the cartage. prime the pan then pour the rest down the barrel then the ball. so they were using the main charge powder to prime with.

I have used 3f in my harpers ferry with no problems.

 

[Gene L]

It's not an insurmountable problem to prime with charge powder. I would think back in the day when they were shooting muskets, the powder would have been likely 2F, but I don't think it's optimal.

It works, I suppose, but that isn't why I got into shooting a FL in the short time I've been shooting a FL. If I were in a war at that time, I would have primed with what I had. Almost certainly, I would have primed before I charged the weapon, but I wouldn't do that now. Now I don't have to do these things and think I see a discernible advantage to using 4F for priming. If it's not real and I AM fooling myself, I'm not out a great deal.

 

[gferlitsch]

My priming flask containing 4F failed yesterday at the range so I switched to priming with 3F out of my powder horn. I did not notice a bit of difference in the gun's performance.

 

[Twisted_1in66]

Will the flint ignite Goex 3F?

Very easily and very quickly. 4f is slightly quicker when measured with scientific instruments but indiscernible to the human eye. The difference between 3f and 4f is measured in less than two hundredths of a second. Some folks are convinced they can tell the difference and more power to them.

Below is a link to possibly more info that you really wanted to know about tests on ignition speed that was conducted by Pletch (Larry Pletcher) back in 2005 and published in Black Powder Magazine:
http://www.blackpowdermag.com/priming-powder-timing/

If you are concerned about historical accuracy, 18th century priming horns are virtually non-existent. By the mid-1800's they do make an appearance and are found in inventory lists, estate sales, etc., which they did not appear in during the 1700's. So you'd be perfectly fine with or without a priming horn in the late fur trade era. Although it's possible there may have been a few, they were scarcer than beards on men. Here's a nice bit of info on priming horns from Gary Brumfield of Williamsburg Colonial Gunsmith shop: http://www.flintriflesmith.com/WritingandResearch/Published/priminghorns_mb.htm

So basically, I'm saying,"do what makes you feel happy". But no you don't need to carry a priming horn and no you don't need to use 4f in the pan. You can use 3f or even 2f if 2f is what you are using for your main charge.

I've personally participated in a lot of reenactments over the last 15 years or so and the powder we were using for those was often 2f or of mixed granulations (reenactor grade powder). And they all work.

If I were doing competitions, perhaps I would use 4f just to give me every advantage possible. If I'm target shooting or hunting...I use 3f as both my main load and prime and don't even think about it.

Twisted_1in66 :thumbsup:
Dan

 

[hanshi]

Since I have a couple pounds of 4F - one pound is Dupont - I use it. I tend to fumble and using the main horn to prime with insures plenty of spillage. And I know I won't be attacked by a war party of Delaware or even a squad of Redcoats; I'm confident a few extra seconds won't see me unarmed against a tomahawk or bayonet. The range sees me using a "springy thingy"; but the bush sees me using this:

 

[mr.flintlock]

That is an interesting concept and makes complete sense. I will try it.

 

[mr.flintlock]

That is a nice prime horn. What did you use for stopper?

 

[hanshi]

It was built for me by a forum friend quite some time ago. Appears to be walnut but I'm not sure.

 

[pa woods roamer]

2F and 3F Powder is coated , I believe, with Graphite and will not absorb moisture as readily as uncoated 4F. Might not matter on the Target Range but helps in our Primitive Flintlock Season here in Pa. !

 

[Zonie]

2F and 3F Powder is coated , I believe, with Graphite and will not absorb moisture as readily as uncoated 4F. Might not matter on the Target Range but helps in our Primitive Flintlock Season here in Pa. !

You are correct about the graphite.

The powder is "glazed" or tumbled in a large vessel with a small amount of graphite added.

This breaks off the small sharp points on the granules, smoothing them and coats the surface with a small amount of graphite.
This helps the powder flow easily.

The powders with a small "g" at the end of their sizes indicates this process has been done.

Fg, FFg, FFFg are typical of the glazed powders.
If a person notices, they will rarely if ever see FFFFg anywhere. Usually it is FFFF indicating it is not glazed.

 

[Gene L]

Goex I use is FFFFg. I assume it means graphite is added.

Swiss advertises FFFFg.

 

[hanshi]

I'm currently shooting Jack's Battle Powder (a Goex product) which only comes in 3F. It's not graphited and occasionally clumps very slightly. It's good stuff and I like it. But I do still prime with Goex 4F.

 

[Twisted_1in66]

2F and 3F Powder is coated , I believe, with Graphite and will not absorb moisture as readily as uncoated 4F. Might not matter on the Target Range but helps in our Primitive Flintlock Season here in Pa. !

The "g" in the ratings Fg, FFg, FFFg, and FFFFg, stands for graphite coating. If it doesn't have the "g" then that powder doesn't have the graphite coating. One reenactment group I belonged to in Vermont years ago would by a 3F powder without the graphite coating for use at reenactments. I believe it was actually a canon powder. Worked great for reenactments.

Twisted_1in66 :thumbsup:
Dan

 

[jbwilliams3]

Myself, I'll go for the single purpose powder and take the quicker ignition of the 4F since I have a lifetime supply...2 pounds. I think elsewhere quicker ignition has been proven; I seem to remember reading it somewhere. Not sure why I'd make-do with 3F, since there is a difference.

There might be an speed advantage (though many would argue an imperceptible one between 3f and 4f), but there is always some disadvantage to using finer grain priming: more prone to absorbing humidity and one more thing to carry...

Also, if you're trying to replicate what was done historically, at least for the 18th century, priming from a separate vessel is an anachronism. To each his own, but I prefer to minimize those sorts of things. Otherwise, I would shoot my center fire arms exclusively.

 

[Billnpatti]

My priming flask containing 4F failed yesterday at the range so I switched to priming with 3F out of my powder horn. I did not notice a bit of difference in the gun's performance.

You won't notice any difference between 3f and 4f in your pan. The both work just fine. Pletch, on this forum, did some studies using his high speed camera and determined that there was no discernible difference between the two grades of powder. Check out his website.

 

[Gene L]

If there is no difference, it raises questions: why does 4F exist? And when in history was it invented and for what reason?

As I said before, I am certain I can tell a difference. Maybe it's a false conclusion, but one I'm happy to live with.

I'm not interested in replicating 18th century practices or in being era-specific. I pre-measure my charges and store them in individual glass vials. Works for me. And saves time at the range, where I do almost all my shooting.

 

[Larry Pletcher]

Human senses are terrible tools to judge flint ignition. The differences are measurable, but not with human eyes or ears. Just to give you an idea, the fastest trial (of 20) of Goex fffg was slower than the slowest Swiss Null B time.

There is another consideration as well. The smaller grain sizes were more consistent in my testing.

I normally use Swiss Null B, but I can't tell the difference with eyes or ears either. I will continue to use it for one other reason. A number of times on a woods walk one of my friends who primes with ffg or fffg will ask for some Null B to trickle into the vent of a dry-balled rifle. That is much easier with fine grained powder.

As far as simply using the horn, that means I must handle the powder horn and stopper twice. With a bad hand, I find it easier to pull a flat priming horn from my pocket.

The first part above I have numbers for, but the bottom is personal opinion and should be regarded as such.

Regards,
Pletch
PS ---- I forgot to say that the grain size is not the biggest variable in flint ignition. Proper handling of your flint edge would rank pretty high on the list. So would a squeaky clean vent.