Just thinking on my way home from work, how I had been shooting this weekend with my .54 flinter,and was using my adjustable brass powder measure, trying different loads, trying to find the most accurate powder charge at 25 and 50 yards, just how our forefathers would sight in there "new" rifles with out such devises. The old thought of covering a ball in the palm of there hand just doesn't hold water with me. If that was used did they quickly hollow out an antler and used that or did they really try different loads with different implements until the perfect load appeared ?? Any thoughts? Just thinking out loud.
-
This community needs YOUR help today. We rely 100% on Supporting Memberships to fund our efforts. With the ever increasing fees of everything, we need help. We need more Supporting Members, today. Please invest back into this community. I will ship a few decals too in addition to all the account perks you get.
Sign up here: https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/account/upgrades -
Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.
We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.
Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103
Powder Measurements
- Thread starter Mike Suri
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2004
- Messages
- 14,767
- Reaction score
- 313
I'd bet on something as simple as a teaspoon or other small measure. Keep adding scoops until you hit the sweet spot, then carve a measure that delivered that many scoops.
One guess is as good as another. From what I've seen, surviving measures paired with a particular rifle were awfully small by today's standards. That leads me to believe they used multiple scoops if they wanted more "power," but a single small scoop for general shooting.
But again, that's just belief. No facts that I know of.
One guess is as good as another. From what I've seen, surviving measures paired with a particular rifle were awfully small by today's standards. That leads me to believe they used multiple scoops if they wanted more "power," but a single small scoop for general shooting.
But again, that's just belief. No facts that I know of.
While we're guessing, I think the buyer of a new gun might have asked the gunmaker about recommended powder loads and received an answer like this,
"Wal. If your shooting target or small game, give her about one calibers worth of powder.
If your hunting deer give her a one and a half calibers worth of powder and if your going 'loaded for bear' up it to two calibers worth.
Hit um in the right place an' she will never let you down."
For a .50 cal. gun that would make it a 50 grain load for small game, 75 caliber for deer and 100 grains for bear. :grin:
"Wal. If your shooting target or small game, give her about one calibers worth of powder.
If your hunting deer give her a one and a half calibers worth of powder and if your going 'loaded for bear' up it to two calibers worth.
Hit um in the right place an' she will never let you down."
For a .50 cal. gun that would make it a 50 grain load for small game, 75 caliber for deer and 100 grains for bear. :grin:
Mike, unfortunately there is little to no information in the primary literature (private diaries, journals, or letters) on how the old timers determined their optimum powder loads or how they sighted their rifles in. There is thought, though, that a ball in the palm completely covered with gun powder was a good, all-round charge. Others swear that firing the gun over snow or a white sheet until unburned powder shows up is the way to determine the optimum or maximum charge. Perhaps there are other ways, too.
What has been learned is that for a 54 cal rifle with a slow twist to the rifling, a heavier powder charge is better for accuracy, while a lighter charge of powder is more accurate for a slower twist in the rifling. To determine the twist of your rifle, if unknown, run a tight fitting patch on your cleaning jag to the bottom of the bore, mark a common reference point on the muzzle of your barrel and ramrod, then slowly pull the ramrod out while letting the rod twist with the rifling. When the patch is at the muzzle, determine the rate of turns to the ramrod's/muzzle's reference points. For me, my 54 cal flintlock rifle with a 42 inch Green Mountain barrel has a 1 turn in 72 inches rifling. That is a slow twist. I have found that my rifle groups better with a hunting charge of 90 grains of 2FF Goex black powder, which I shoot all the time whether I'm shooting paper, iron, or hunting. Rifles with a 'gain twist' to the rifling will behave differently.
I suggest that you start at 25 yards with a charge of 55 grains of 2ff gun powder. Shoot groups of 5 balls each, and then increase your powder charge by 5 gain increments until you begin to see your groups tighten up. Continue increasing your charge by 5 grains until you see the groups start to open up. Now you'll have a range of powder charges that provide you the best accuracy for your rifle. Within that range, pick the medium charge, and shoot for groups at 50 and 100 yards to see how your rifle shoots. Remember though, that at those distances it can be difficult to get as tight a group as you got at 25 yards because the iron sights make it difficult to hold your sights on the same point each shot. Also, any movements from our breathing, heart rates, and tiredness will be amplified, as well as wind and sun glare off the sights. In my case, at those distances, I typically can only see either the rear sight, the front sight, or the target with clarity due to my age and eye conditions but not all three at the same time as I could 30 years ago. Typically, I focus on the front sight and do well.
These are just my thoughts. I'm sure other members will also have some excellent insights for you.
George
What has been learned is that for a 54 cal rifle with a slow twist to the rifling, a heavier powder charge is better for accuracy, while a lighter charge of powder is more accurate for a slower twist in the rifling. To determine the twist of your rifle, if unknown, run a tight fitting patch on your cleaning jag to the bottom of the bore, mark a common reference point on the muzzle of your barrel and ramrod, then slowly pull the ramrod out while letting the rod twist with the rifling. When the patch is at the muzzle, determine the rate of turns to the ramrod's/muzzle's reference points. For me, my 54 cal flintlock rifle with a 42 inch Green Mountain barrel has a 1 turn in 72 inches rifling. That is a slow twist. I have found that my rifle groups better with a hunting charge of 90 grains of 2FF Goex black powder, which I shoot all the time whether I'm shooting paper, iron, or hunting. Rifles with a 'gain twist' to the rifling will behave differently.
I suggest that you start at 25 yards with a charge of 55 grains of 2ff gun powder. Shoot groups of 5 balls each, and then increase your powder charge by 5 gain increments until you begin to see your groups tighten up. Continue increasing your charge by 5 grains until you see the groups start to open up. Now you'll have a range of powder charges that provide you the best accuracy for your rifle. Within that range, pick the medium charge, and shoot for groups at 50 and 100 yards to see how your rifle shoots. Remember though, that at those distances it can be difficult to get as tight a group as you got at 25 yards because the iron sights make it difficult to hold your sights on the same point each shot. Also, any movements from our breathing, heart rates, and tiredness will be amplified, as well as wind and sun glare off the sights. In my case, at those distances, I typically can only see either the rear sight, the front sight, or the target with clarity due to my age and eye conditions but not all three at the same time as I could 30 years ago. Typically, I focus on the front sight and do well.
These are just my thoughts. I'm sure other members will also have some excellent insights for you.
George
Other than John James Audubon's description of covering the ball in the palm of your hand with powder, I've never found a reference to the method used to measure the powder. The closest I've come is by Wm. Duane in his A Handbook for Riflemen, 1812. He advises the military riflemen to weigh the powder and notice what effect lighter and heavier charges have on the shot. Once the best weight is decided on, a measure "to contain the exact charge" is to be attached to the powder flask. He doesn't say how the weighing was done, or of what the measure was made. He also mentions in passing that backwoodsmen use the "cover the ball in the palm of the hand' method.
Wm. Cleator, writing in 1789, describes some different opinions at that time as to how to determine the proper amount of powder, some using weight, some volume. 1) an amount equal to 1/3 the weight of the ball, for both ball and shot loads 2) a volume of powder in the gun equal to twice the diameter of the bore in height , for ball, and for shot 1/3 less than that volume 3) 3 times the volume of the mold used to make balls for the gun. He said nothing about the gear used to measure or weigh.
George Hanger, 1814, liked 1/2 the weight of the ball in powder for balls 20 or 30 to the pound, but made no mention of the how-to.
William Duane also discussed ratios of powder and ball weight. He said some thought "a quantity of powder equal to 3 times the full of the mould in which the ball was cast" was proper, others said 4 times the full. That equates to about 1/4 the weight of the ball, some said 1/3 wasn't too much. He opined that for shooting 250 to 300 yards 1/4 or 1/5 ball weight was adequate.
Spence
Wm. Cleator, writing in 1789, describes some different opinions at that time as to how to determine the proper amount of powder, some using weight, some volume. 1) an amount equal to 1/3 the weight of the ball, for both ball and shot loads 2) a volume of powder in the gun equal to twice the diameter of the bore in height , for ball, and for shot 1/3 less than that volume 3) 3 times the volume of the mold used to make balls for the gun. He said nothing about the gear used to measure or weigh.
George Hanger, 1814, liked 1/2 the weight of the ball in powder for balls 20 or 30 to the pound, but made no mention of the how-to.
William Duane also discussed ratios of powder and ball weight. He said some thought "a quantity of powder equal to 3 times the full of the mould in which the ball was cast" was proper, others said 4 times the full. That equates to about 1/4 the weight of the ball, some said 1/3 wasn't too much. He opined that for shooting 250 to 300 yards 1/4 or 1/5 ball weight was adequate.
Spence
In the book from Dickson's The Art of Building the Pennsylvania Longrifle the story goes that one of the grandfathers (iirc) of the Dixon who founded the shop, taught that a load was worked up, until a person standing about 60 feet off to the side when the rifle fired heard a distinct "crack"... which we now know today is the ball going supersonic. Whatever they were using to "work up" the load to that point, a fixed measure was made then to "throw" that weight of powder.
Funny that I worked up my load for my .54 with a .530 round ball of 224 grains and settled on 70 grains of 3Fg... which is just about 1/3 the weight of the ball, as mentioned in a previous post.
That means my .40 shooting a .389 ball of 89 grains should be shooting 30 grains of powder....
LD
Funny that I worked up my load for my .54 with a .530 round ball of 224 grains and settled on 70 grains of 3Fg... which is just about 1/3 the weight of the ball, as mentioned in a previous post.
That means my .40 shooting a .389 ball of 89 grains should be shooting 30 grains of powder....
LD
Dave Rosenthal
70 Cal.
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2006
- Messages
- 4,470
- Reaction score
- 22
I completely agree with this. The use of a "Standard Unit of Measure" was quite common way back when. I still use one today to pre-load my birdshot into prescription bottles to have "speed-loaders" of pre-measured shot in my possibles bag while pheasant hunting. A 12 ga. hull, trimmed with a pocket knife, serves me well as a ounce & 3/4 scoop for my 10 ga. SxS.......
Dave
Dave
Whatever was used to measure powder would have been "handy".....and in those days, I don't think the buyer of a LR would get too technical. That's a modern thing.
The MLer was a much more influential part of a man's life than nowadays and a handy, somewhat accurate device for measuring powder no doubt existed and probably varied from one man to the next. BP due to it's low energy content compared to smokeless powder, isn't as critical as to the amount w/in reason to achieve good accuracy.
Common sense would dictate that uncomplicated powder measuring devices were used....afterall...man was ingenious even back then, a fact that many ignore in this modern age.....Fred
The MLer was a much more influential part of a man's life than nowadays and a handy, somewhat accurate device for measuring powder no doubt existed and probably varied from one man to the next. BP due to it's low energy content compared to smokeless powder, isn't as critical as to the amount w/in reason to achieve good accuracy.
Common sense would dictate that uncomplicated powder measuring devices were used....afterall...man was ingenious even back then, a fact that many ignore in this modern age.....Fred
You said a mouthful there, Fred. I think this is one of the most common misunderstanding about the way the old boys went about most every aspect of their shooting. We insist on applying our modern thinking to their situation and assume they must surely have had the same attitude we do, and it just ain't so, certainly not in the 18th century. It worked for them, and it will work for us if we can just relax and let go of the modern attitude.flehto said:
Spence
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2004
- Messages
- 14,767
- Reaction score
- 313
George said:
Agreed. This fixation with precision is more recent than that even.
Spent a lot of time with my Arky granddad when I was a kid. He was born in hill country the late 1800's and mostly raised by his granddad. Lots of old ways survived in him, especially attitudes. He was guided by one principal, easily expressed in one word: Goodenuff.
Not to mention they didn't have internet to acquire all this combined knowledge. They just had word of mouth so allot of what they did most likely had more to do with what they learned from their own success and failures.
I don't think weighing things was much of a problem back in the day.
Balance scales ranging from elaborate metal ones in glass cases to primitive ones that could be carried in a pouch were common.
As for the measuring the amount of powder needed to cover the ball when it was held in the palm of a hand, that would explain the small capacities of some of the powder measures that have been passed down to us.
A number of years ago a guy wrote about his experiments with this method in Muzzle Blasts.
As I recall, he used his own hand, his wife's hand and his daughters hand to hold the ball.
Pouring out enough powder to cover the ball 5 different times in each hand and collecting it, he averaged the amount thrown.
Again, going by memory the average between the different hands wasn't that great and in all cases the load was lighter than we would consider "light" today. I'm thinking it was something like 45 grains for a .50 caliber ball.
Balance scales ranging from elaborate metal ones in glass cases to primitive ones that could be carried in a pouch were common.
As for the measuring the amount of powder needed to cover the ball when it was held in the palm of a hand, that would explain the small capacities of some of the powder measures that have been passed down to us.
A number of years ago a guy wrote about his experiments with this method in Muzzle Blasts.
As I recall, he used his own hand, his wife's hand and his daughters hand to hold the ball.
Pouring out enough powder to cover the ball 5 different times in each hand and collecting it, he averaged the amount thrown.
Again, going by memory the average between the different hands wasn't that great and in all cases the load was lighter than we would consider "light" today. I'm thinking it was something like 45 grains for a .50 caliber ball.
I've been curious about just how much powder the old boys were talking about when they recommended a volume equal to a cylinder of bore diameter and twice that in height. I have a BGI adjustable shot-powder measure used for loading shot shells in late 19th century. Just by luck, it has an internal diameter of .69" and when totally collapsed almost exactly the same in depth. I filled it with 2F and it weighed 70 grains. Twice that would be a charge of 140 grains for a .69 caliber, not at all out of line. I still wonder how they figured that volume for their individual guns, and what sort of measure they then used for loading it.
Spence
Spence
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2006
- Messages
- 3,884
- Reaction score
- 947
Not saying that it was done this way, but it is easy enough to wrap a piece of paper around two balls, mark the height of the top ball & cut off the tube at that height/length. If you liked the performance of the load, then hollow/add wax to a piece of antler, cane, tin tube, to duplicate the volume. :idunno:
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2004
- Messages
- 14,767
- Reaction score
- 313
Zonie said:
That's what got me to thinking along the line of small measures. I should try the "hand pour" with a .530 ball, just to see what I get. I'm betting it's more on the order of 60 grains.
That would be quite a coincidence, because 60 grains of 3f is my wife's favorite deer hunting load. She's never shot a deer past 50 yards, but we've never recovered a ball, either. Through and through every time. I'm betting it would kill reliably a whole lot further, but I can't convince her to try it.
I have tried the "hand pour" method and then weighed the loads. The outcome depended on how I would hold my hand. If I held my hand flat, I got more powder than when I made a cup shape. Too bad I can't remember the weights.
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2013
- Messages
- 20,091
- Reaction score
- 1,018
I would like to submit this as possible evidence that they measured powder exactly as we do today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avoirdupois#History
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avoirdupois#History
Last edited by a moderator:
hanshi
Cannon
The "powder in the palm" thing is a bit absurd when you shine a light on it. Kernels of powder will stick to the palm and be lost. Trying to hit a 4/10" or even a 5/10" hole by pouring from your palm will really put color in your vocabulary. It's inaccurate and spill prone. Personally I don't think it was practiced way back then since they had measures,too. Audubon was probably snookered, IMHO.
