Peter Alexander on Powder Ignition

[Stumpkiller]

Me too. You want to walk to location and shoot without a table or bench to alter your perception of what is important to your loading ritual. ;-)

 

[ApprenticeBuilder]

This is directed at no one person

There are perceptions and then there are realities
http://www.blackpowdermag.com/featured-articles/priming-powder-timing.php

 

[Rifleman1776]

ask what's best and you'll get 100 answers from 150 guys.

Disagree. More likely you will get 150 answers from 100 guys. :surrender:

 

[necchi]

:haha: :wink:

 

[Jim Martin]

Thanks for the link to the article.

Based upon that article, I'll use my barrel powder for my priming powder.

I knew I came to the right place for info!!

Thanks, Cumberland

 

[Larry Pletcher]

I'm familiar with the passage quoted and disagree. I've timed ignition of various priming powders and wrote the article in 2005, I believe. There is a measurable difference in ignition times. Since then we did slow motion video of various priming powders in the same locks. At 5000 frames per second, there is no doubt that pans filled with small granules ignite faster. I have listed time lines here that show all they powder types and their relative speeds.

I also agree with those who say the difference is unnoticeable.
Human senses are not good tools to tell the differences. So use what you like- they all work. I'm only reporting my findings.

the first work I did on timing priming powders probably came out after Mr. Alexander wrote his book. I choose not to pick a fight with him either. I do stand behind my results though.
regards,
Pletch

 

[tg]

"There are some who have staked themselves out in the position that "there is no difference" and then continue to defend that position in spite of proof to the contrary...raising all sorts of problems about using 4F for hunting,"

as your senses are accute enough to tell the difference twixt 3f and 4f others are sensitive enough to notice an advantge in using 3f in damp weather for hunting, the difference in speed is not an arguable issue, which powder "works" best for the indifidual is what is at the heart of it all.

 

[Stumpkiller]

Thank you Pletch. For the original work and the clarification. :hatsoff:

1/100th to 1/500th of a second is significant in camera shutters and computer circuits but less so for most human initiated ignition systems.

Still, if you are the type who sweats the details you have your actionable data to proceed with. That Swiss Null must be dandy stuff.

 

[tg]

It would be interesting to see the results of this test if the prime was left in the pan 2-3 hrs in a 90% humidity before firing

 

[roundball]

"There are some who have staked themselves out in the position that "there is no difference" and then continue to defend that position in spite of proof to the contrary...raising all sorts of problems about using 4F for hunting,"

"...the difference in speed is not an arguable issue...which powder "works" best for the indifidual is what is at the heart of it all..."

Sure seemd like it was...LOL...and I couldn't agree more that "its what works best for someone"...which underscores my point that it should never be said or implied that 4F is somehow no good for hunting, as that's clearly not the case...fact and experience, not theory.

 

[tg]

Agreed and 3f can work better in very damp conditions for some rather than changing prime as needed, again based on considerable personal experience in very damp, wet, foggy, drizzly,rain going sideways weather, each will have to weight the merits of both and flip a coin...

 

[tom deinek]

. . . ask what's best and you'll get 100 answers from 150 guys.

Sometimes controversial Q' here get 153 answers from 150 guys.

 

[necchi]

"That Swiss Null must be dandy stuff."

It IS,
Doing RO work at the local Territorial NMLRA event and watching the guy's using Null-B was a real eye opener, that stuff is "ClatchBOOM" right NOW! A huge issue for target work.

 

It's always interesting to hear people say - "I think people should use whatever works for them" - then, they proceed to tell that person how wrong they are and how the "facts" can prove it. :rotf:

I prime with 3f and load with 3f. I have no interest in slow motion movies, velocity, muzzle energy or if someone else's lock is faster than mine, in the lab or in the field. I worry about small groups, which I achieve by working up a good load and practicing.

Keep your powder dry, whatever size it is. :hatsoff:

 

[zimmerstutzen]

For the uses and purposes of many folks, the difference, in nano seconds, of 4fg or 2fg in the pan, is nothing. For those who strictly target shoot for fine accuracy the difference may be ever so slight. If it helps control a shot from even straying 5 seconds of angle it is worth it. If you have rock solid follow through, it may not make that difference. But then again, everything that target shooters do, is designed to reduce variables for consistency down range.

In a gun like the Traditions Deer hunter, it probably makes no difference whatever. The gun can only shoot to a certain accuracy, even from a machine rest. But for a target shooter, a 1/8 inch difference at 100 yds is huge.

I agree that there are other substantial factors, such as light and wind that easily cause even greater differences. But as a shooter tries to control all the variables he can, ignition speed becomes one of them.

 

[CoyoteJoe]

Agreed. Thanks again to Pletch for doing the work of eliminating the guessing. Certainly reliability is a greater concern to the hunter and speed is a greater concern to the target shooter but I see no reason to think we can't have both.
When hunting big game I start with a clean rifle, fire one shot and return home or to camp and clean my rifle, after cleaning the animal of course. Thus I have no issue with powder fouling drawing dampness during the hunt. Hunting small game with a flintlock can involve quite a bit of shooting and I can see where dampness could be an issue but since I live and hunt where humidity is very low I have not experienced that problem. Nor do I find it a great burden to carry a small pan primer of 4f while hunting, I'm sure I carry lots of things which are heavier, bulkier and less useful.
So why do target shooters prime with fine powder? Because every target shows them a score and they KNOW from experience that fine prime, fast ignition gives them a higher score, especially in offhand shooting. Whether or not you can detect the difference in lock time, faster is better and scores show that. People will say "I can't detect any difference" but yes you can, you can detect the difference in your score. People who don't shoot paper at all may think the prime makes no difference but they may also be handicapping themselves, they just have no test to show it.

 

[MSW]

While i was unaware that the different graduations of powder were available as early as 1736, I have always believed that FFF would burn faster than, say, cannon powder.

So, with due respect to Mr. Alexander, who has forgotten more blackpowder lore than i can ever know, and whom i hold in high regard, i must concede that he is in error.

Having made that admission, I would caution anyone against blindly following any specific methodology, urging them to try and find a method which best works for them with that particular gun.

OK- let me climb down off my soap box before i fall and get hurt.

 

[roundball]

Agree...there are no gods in this hobby...a few think they are...but there are no gods what-so-ever.
If I've learned anything on Forums like these, its that people can have satisfactory results in how 'they' do something, then they start selling that as if its the 'only' way to do something.

I no longer take anyone's word for anything in this hobby...if it sounds plausible on the surface and its of interest to me I'll go attempt it myself...but otherwise, its all just somebody else's opinion and happenstance.

Reminds me of a 'signature' on somebody's posts on another forum and its amazing how often it applies...it went something like this:
"...Just because you've always done it that way for years doesn't mean it isn't incredibly stupid..."

:grin: