Blanket on the ground, or I mean sheet.

[Zonie]

I thought you said in a previous post about the Davenport Formula that we should not discuss it further and I quote:

"Total agreement here. Let it go. :td: "

Sounded like a good idea to me. :grin:

 

[hanshi]

Good luck but don't ask me to get near it. :shake:

 

[paulvallandigham]

I loaded 100 grains of FFFg Goex BP in my 39" .50 cal. percussion rifle for the test. The " D" formula says the barrel will burn approx. 84+/- grains in that length of barrel, leaving about 15 grains of unburned powder to burn outside the barrel, or fall to the sheet unburned.

We did not take a scale with us to weight the residue on the sheet, because frankly, we didn't expect any of the residue to be "Unburned powder!"

The small amount of powder residue on the sheet did not amount to as much as 10 grains, IMHO, based on many years measuring by volume different loads of BP to use in both rifles and handguns. But, both the black grains( we thought they were carbon residue and the brown grains( we thought they were just residue containing sulfur, such as the more red material sometimes seen at the muzzle when you get incomplete burning due to moisture) burned as rapidly as any BP fresh from the can.

THAT is why we were so shocked!

I have NO doubt in my mind that HEAT from the other burning powder in my barrel discolored those grains( granules) that we observed as being
"Brown" in color.

I had actually seen unburned powder leaving the muzzle of a gun before( and since) but did not realize what I was seeing, NOR WHY IT WAS HAPPENING.

My father had bought a cheap replica Flintlock pistol, 20 gauge, smoothbore, with NO sights! We had no idea what kind of powder charge to use. We tried some heavy loads--60 to 100 grains of Goex FFFg BP in that 9 Inch barrel--- and we could HEAR the granules of powder hitting the Poplar leaves on the lawn, when shooting blanks using grass as wadding. I have since been at my club range when other shooters were shooting massive " Hunting " Loads out of their rifles, and heard the granules hitting dry leaves on the ground in front of their muzzles.

 

[Robby]

Paul, I don't doubt what you saw and heard, but I do question your interpretation of your sensory input. I don't know what your heard and saw, but I just don't buy into the unburnt powder theory. I think long before there would be any unburnt powder, if that is possible even with a very stout shootable load, the patch would be destroyed, or at least so badly frayed that the diminishing return theory would have already come into play. The very best of patching can stand only so much. Even in those circumstances, I cannot believe any unburnt powder would not have been ignited in the fireball at the end of the barrel. Touch one off in the twilight.
Robby

 

[ebiggs1]

I can see I may have to come up with another way to test this. It appears that now the only way for unburnt powder to escape from the barrel is gross overloads. Something different than was originally thought.
Maybe a very short barrel loaded with a heavy 2F charge and just a wad and no projectile.
Shoot into some contraption that will capture all the ejecta. Somehow there might be a way to make it happen.
Let me think on this for awhile. :hmm:
But it would not be a real world condition so would it really mean much? :idunno:

 

I can see I may have to come up with another way to test this. It appears that now the only way for unburnt powder to escape from the barrel is gross overloads.
,,,
But it would not be a real world condition so would it really mean much? :idunno:

Now you're getting somewhere. :grin:

Who cares about "gross overloads" or a non-real world condition?

Maybe a very short barrel loaded with a heavy 2F charge and just a wad and no projectile.

Getting even farther from the real world?

Again, the focus for most "real world" shooters is accuracy. Doing personal experiments to see how much powder you can not burn is great if that's your thing, but it's not relevant to real world accuracy. Besides, unless you catch everything that comes out of the barrel, which you said you didn't, your experiment is flawed.

 

[zimmerstutzen]

We frequently see posts about shooters loading over a 100 grains in their hawkens hunting guns.

For instance a Traditions deer hunter has a scrawny little 21 or 22 inch barrel in 50 caliber. The BobCat I just purchased has a 50 cal 26 inch barrel.

It is amazing after all the posts about "I shoot what ever load gives me best hunting accuracy" (regardless of how reasonable or unreasonable) and NOW loads over the dreaded D formula are suddenly "gross overloads."

(BTW, I never brought that up in this thread. I referred to the point of diminishing returns that could be found in the First Edition Lyman black Powder Handbook.) In calibers 54 and over the point of diminishing returns from the Lyman tables is actually a bit higher than the D formula. As I indicated, for a 54 caliber 32 inch barrel the Lyman tables indicate the PODR is about 110 grains.)

For a 45 caliber 28 inch barrel, the drop off begins with charges of 70 grains and higher, for ffg Goex. With fffg Goex the drop off of velocity increases is quite substantial with charges above 60 grains.

It would seem that the test could be easier and more safely performed with a 45 cal. gun.

In a 50 caliber 28 inch barrel, the PODR is with charges over 90 grains of FFFG Goex.

 

[Bill Hall]

Who cares about "gross overloads" or a non-real world condition?

I pretty much agree, except for the curiosity factor. Way back when I first started black powder, there was a myth floating around that claimed you couldn't overload a muzzleloader, because the extra, unburned powder would just blow out of the barrel. It was thought of as kind of a self-regulating set-up. Well, we now know it is possible to overload a muzzleloader, but I do believe there is a point where some unburned powder will hit the ground, perhaps with ridiculously high loads. Just curious as to what amount of powder would actually cause that.

As far as unburned powder affecting accuracy, killing power, climate change, I don't think it's worth worrying about. Bill

 

[hanshi]

Although it doesn't amount to a hoot, I see there is still much curiosity over "unburned" powder. As for hearing it hit leaves, don't forget that at least 50% of well burned powder is in the form of solid ash. This is what causes the "tattooing" on careless shooters and NOT fresh powder. Imagine a granule of powder under your skin and burning! Yikes! :v:

 

[zimmerstutzen]

Each caliber and bore length has its own factors. Choosing a large bore does mean the charges beyond the PODR are high. That was the choice of the poster, who incidentally chose not to go higher even though the manufacturers maximum was higher.

The PODR for a 45 caliber 28 inch gun with 3fg is a mere 60 grains. Who among us would claim that a 70 grain charge in a 28 inch 45 caliber barrel is a GROSS OVERLOAD? Yet it is above the PODR. Hardly a non-real world situation. (Or one of the other nonsense excuses for not trying to find out why)

If you choose to shoot ONLY those charges that are already known to be consumed within the barrel, there will obviously be none burned or expelled out the muzzle. it is a non-test.

 

[ebiggs1]

You know more facts of why the test stopped where it did, if you read the PT I sent.
I totally disagree with you, that should be apparent. It seems you will only agree that no unburnt powder can escape the barrel but now only under some extraordinary conditions.

All test proves something it just may not be what you want to prove or set out to prove.

Just what exactly will it take to get unburnt powder? An 11 inch, 45 caliber with 1F powder? Talk about nonsense, that is it. Tell me just what I have to do to get unburnt powder and I will try it. If I can that is. I have no 1F powder or a 45 cal gun that will accept ridiculously heavy loads. I know most forum members do but I don't!

 

[zimmerstutzen]

Nonsense is only shooting charges that are already known to be consumed within the barrel and calling it a test. Obviously there was NO CHANCE under your parameters for any unburned powder to be expelled.

And from that, you and others make the illogical conclusion that absolutely no unburned powder could ever be ejected out the muzzle regardless of how extreme or normal the circumstances.

Then suddenly any higher loads are labeled GROSS overloads, when higher loads are still within the load recommendations of the manufacturer. Not just overloads, but GROSS overloads.

You call things whatever you want, but such loads in your gun were NOT overloads under the manufacturers instruction much less "gross" overloads. Terming higher loads "gross overloads" was less than honest under the circumstances.

You consider your test as proof that no unburned powder could ever be ejected under any possible circumstances, and then, when I suggest a test using parameters more favorable to see if it is possible for it to occur, you don't even back peddle or concede the flaws of your test. Instead, you start pooh poohing over whether it is a real world situation.

YOU say totally impossible under any and all circumstances. But you didn't shoot any charges that would have allowed the possibility.
I say it might be possible under other circumstances.

Lets approach it another way.

why did you:
a use 3fg powder knowing it was faster burning and more likely to be consumed within the bore?
b. use a 54 caliber knowing a large bore is more likely to consume higher amounts of powder within the bore?
c. stop at a charge that is already known to be consumed within the bore?

Of the three important factors determining whether charges of a certain amount are consumed within a bore, you intentionally chose the three most likely to consume the charge completely within the bore. Taken together, you were making sure that everything was burned within the bore. And wonder of wonder, you confirmed your preconceived notion.

As I said, the test is only proof that a test designed to reach a predetermined result was achieved.

 

[zimmerstutzen]

Ebiggs says:"I have no 1F powder or a 45 cal gun that will accept ridiculously heavy loads. I know most forum members do but I don't! "

As I posted above, in a 28 inch 45 caliber bore, charges of 3fg above 60 grains are above the PODR. 70 and 80 grain charges in a 45 caliber hawken are now ridiculously heavy loads? That is even less honest than the "Gross Overload" statement you made about loads over 90 in a 54 cal. GPR.

It was bad enough that you engineered flaws into a test to show a predetermined result.

Why do you stretch your credibility with statements like 70 grains in a 45 caliber are "ridiculously heavy"?

 

[cynthialee]

Is it really worth all this negative energy and borderline hostility.

Come on now gentlemen, ya'll can disagree and walk away. Not a thing posted in this thread by anyone will change the way folks do things.

Instead of becoming educated by this thread I am watching men argue.

 

[zimmerstutzen]

CythiaLee, If no one points out the flaws in the test, folks might actually believe the alleged conclusion without critical thinking.

To you that may be just "arguing." If the purpose is to arrive at what may, by following the rules of logic, be considered a scientific result, then whether a test actually proves what it is purported to prove should be examined, instead of just taken at the word of the person performing the test.

The test does indeed prove that no unburned powder is ejected when charges that are fully consumed in the bore are shot. Because the test did not include charges above those that are fully consumed within the bore, it is proof of absolutely nothing else.

The author and others illogically attempt to draw a conclusion that no unburned powder could ever be ejected from higher charges that are not fully consumed within the bore, even though no attempt was made to test those higher charges that are not fully consumed within the bore.

That particular conclusion is not logically supported by the test results.
And couldn't be. The test only included charges that are as fully consumed within the bore as possible.

 

[jdkerstetter]

Yes, but she has a point...you guys are really... :dead:

J.D.

 

[Larry Pletcher]

At the risk of whipping a dead horse even longer, I'll make a few comments. First, in so far as Ebiggs tests went, his methodology was fine. I'm not aware of how he stated his conclusion. If that job were mine to do, I would conclude that within the powder choices, load sizes, and barrel limitations, no unburned powder was found. I think that would be a fair conclusion.

If, as Zimmerstutzen suggests, the test did not go far enough, that is his right. If he decided to expand on the testing, he might try a number of additional variables. Given a bench weight gun, I would add these variables:

Increased charge weights
Additional grain sizes
Different powders - Swiss for instance
Felt over powder wad
Different calibers
(Others may come to mind)

I'd encourage Zimmerstutzen to continue this test. In fact the beauty of a forum like this is that a number of experimenters could contribute. Considering the numbers of variations to do a complete study, there is room for the input of many.

This is not a test I'm interested in doing. I have a couple of other tests I want to do. The first is to time a flint vent using Tom Snyder's internal vent cutters. But, I encourage all to step up and continue.
Regards,
Pletch

 

[jdkerstetter]

Well said Pletch and quite contributory....as opposed to..... :dead:

Enjoy, J.D.

 

[jethro224]

In my possession is a .50 caliber percussion rifle with a 22 inch barrel. I had been meaning to do a similar test but never got a round tuit. Maybe I oughta...

At what measure of 2F or 3F Goex, using a PRB, would one expect to find unburned powder ejected from such a rifle barrel? I don't have the Davenport formula handy.

 

[Adui]

You know, this was an interesting thread about a curiosity many have. I for one was interested. I will concede that the test was somewhat narrow in scope, but the OP tested to what he was comfortable with. Accusing him of non scientific methods, or deliberately skewing the results is simply childish.

I am curious about this, but I also could care less if my rifle ejects unburnt powder or not. What interests me most is what powder charge, patch and ball combo will give me the best accuracy with acceptable knockdown power for my uses with my rifle.

The test was interesting, please anyone who wishes continue I am interested in reading about it. However Im not so interested as to try a test, and frankly even if I were I probably wouldnt post the results here because someone would most likely flame it and claim I was trying to prove one side or the other by skewing the test factors in favor of it.

Ebiggs, thanks for the effort. Those who would flame his efforts, get over it and run your own tests to prove him wrong instead of calling him a liar.