Practical corosivity of BP

[Rat]

One cannot say with absolute certainty ,but I would not bet on it. You provided many variables, "a single spark" ? What are the odds of that alone?
A bowl above a dish of powder would not provide sufficient protection from splashing in a "downpour." It is likely that both bowls would be full of water. You also didn't provide a temperature ( a crucial factor). Getting powder wet from rain and Hygroscopicity are not comparable IMO. I think every flintlock shooter has had a misfire in the rain at least once.

The reason I riddled thus, was because I conducted that experiment. The little pile of powder was sitting on a board, hubcap making a "roof" above it. It was spring, so temps were in the 30-40f range. It rained HARD off and on, mostly on, for three days. Perhaps I should have not said "single spark", I embellished a bit. I struck my fire starting steel against flint, which doe not make a "good" shower of sparks, and she flashed just fine. Maybe five or six sparks hit the powder.

The reason I did that experiment, was because at that time, I had just got my first flintlock, and I'm not sure if it was on this forum or another, but the talk was that the powder in the pan "absorbed" moisture from the air, and that one needed to dump one's priming about every 20 minutes, and put in a fresh prime.

I didn't really believe that, but the first time I took Bessie hunting, 20 minutes later, I checked, and sure enough, prime was clumped up and wet. !!! Same thing 20 more minutes later. Wow them guys was right.

Then I noticed this "wetness" was forming right at the junction between the lock and barrel. Then I noticed that the "dump your prime every 20 minutes crowd" was also the "put your lock in the dishwasher, then take it out, hose it down with WD-40, wipe it off and put it back in the gun" crowd.

So, before the next hunt, I completely cleaned and dried my lock, and only sparingly greased the moving parts. No oil. Can you guess? Hunted all day with the same prime I put in at day-break. No more "absorbing moisture from the air". !!!

So, I'm not sure if you are saying that BP is technically hygroscopic (hope I spelled that right) (hydro or hygro?) or not, but in a practical sense, I don't think it is. ??? I suppose that everything has a "moisture content" which can change. But I do know, and believe, that BP does not absorb moisture from the air, which I would think hygro, or hydroscopic (?) would be, or mean. ??

 

[DUANE BUTT]

I run a gun shop every year I have to pull several bullets from muzzle loaders that have been in the barrel for over a year or more. Many a barrel has pits and rust that must be polished out. Accurcy suffers not mention the the looks outside as well. It seems to me that there are alot of hunters that are afraid of spooking game in the field as they come in from the hunt or are just plain lazy about cleaning them. Knowing your rifle or muzzleloading shotgun is half the fun.

 

[Carbon 6]

Black powder and substitutes are all hygroscopic. However, Additives are added to reduce the hygroscopicity. When the powder is burned, extremely hygroscopic byproducts are created.
In the case of BP graphite, carbon black, or some other form of carbon is added as an anti-clumping agent. Carbon in the form of charcoal has been used to control moisture for centuries. The process of corning also gives it some resistance. If you use a substitute you may have noticed a silica gel pack in the can. These are there to absorb excess humidity so the powder doesn't.

What I forgot to mention was that time and temp are factors.

Additionally, Trying to ignite gunpowder is not a proper way to determine if it is hygroscopic. What you should have done was weighed the powder before and after the test.

 

[Carbon 6]

. It seems to me that there are a lot of hunters that are afraid of spooking game in the field as they come in from the hunt .

In my experience, The sound of gunfire does not spook deer, and when it does it is beneficial. Sight and smell spook deer far more than sound.

 

[Rat]

What I forgot to mention was that time and temp are factors.

Additionally, Trying to ignite gunpowder is not a proper way to determine if it is hygroscopic. What you should have done was weighed the powder before and after the test.

Okay methinks we are debating two different things. My point being, perhaps, that unfired BP is not hygroscopic enough, to ever cause a miss fire, or rust, under normal conditions. ? (short of putting the gun in a bath tub, or swimming pool, or the bottom of a lake) And that certainly the priming in the pan will not absorb enough moisture from the air, to fail to ignite. (but, if the powder will ignite, does that not determine that it is not wet?)(or wet enough....wait for it....not to ignite?)

 

[Carbon 6]

Okay methinks we are debating two different things. My point being, perhaps, that unfired BP is not hygroscopic enough, to ever cause a miss fire, or rust, under normal conditions. ? (short of putting the gun in a bath tub, or swimming pool, or the bottom of a lake) And that certainly the priming in the pan will not absorb enough moisture from the air, to fail to ignite. (but, if the powder will ignite, does that not determine that it is not wet?)(or wet enough....wait for it....not to ignite?)

Remember, I said BP is "corned" and additives like graphite are added to prevent moisture absorption.
Also, again, Time and temperature are a factor.

Moisture doesn't have to prevent the powder from igniting to be an issue, all it has to do is cause a misfire or hang fire.