• 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

Too much detail

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Sometimes I weigh all my charges and store them in these little vials. For some target matches. It's more accurate than the volume measuring devices I have. And come to think of it would be real handy to have a few in your pocket when hunting. Lot easier than wrastling a powder horn and measure when wind and cold are nipping at your nose.

View attachment 112225
I made a version of something like that for my P53 Parker-Hale target rifle.
 
Two different size spheres, but the count is different as is the exposed surface area and that is the concept to take away here. All black powder of a given composition has only one burn rate but there is a degree of control of pressure by changing the amount of surface area exposed to ignition meaning more powder of a given charge is burning in a 4f charge v a 2f even though the total mass is the same and overall energy delivered by the charge remains constant. The change is how quickly it is delivered.
You are correct as experience shows. It’s interesting that decreasing the size of the spheres (in the same overall space) increases the quantity of spheres without changing the total volume of them while the total surface area increases. If the burn rate is proportional to surface area then finer granulation will burn faster, which we all know is the case already. Thanks for your explanation.
 
You are correct as experience shows. It’s interesting that decreasing the size of the spheres (in the same overall space) increases the quantity of spheres without changing the total volume of them while the total surface area increases. If the burn rate is proportional to surface area then finer granulation will burn faster, which we all know is the case already. Thanks for your explanation.
I'm glad somebody gets it but the "burn rate" doesn't increase. The term "burn rate" refers to the speed at which a given compound oxidizes. Both smokeless and black can vary but that's dependent on the chemical composition of the powder itself. What does increase is the amount being burned so the speed of the burn didn't change, only how much is being burned at once.

Yeah, I get down into the weeds on this stuff but accuracy is all about consistency and variable control.
 
I'm glad somebody gets it but the "burn rate" doesn't increase. The term "burn rate" refers to the speed at which a given compound oxidizes. Both smokeless and black can vary but that's dependent on the chemical composition of the powder itself. What does increase is the amount being burned so the speed of the burn didn't change, only how much is being burned at once.

Yeah, I get down into the weeds on this stuff but accuracy is all about consistency and variable control.
I was taught to eliminate all the variables you can, and live with the rest of them.
 
HOLY manure.....IT ONLY TOOK 6 PAGES TO TURN MUZZLELOADING IN TO ROCKET SCIENCE!! I'LL BET THOSE OLE' BOYS BACK IN THE DAY USED TO DO THE SAME CALCULATIONS!!
facebook-laughing-smiley-emoticon.gif
 
HOLY manure.....IT ONLY TOOK 6 PAGES TO TURN MUZZLELOADING IN TO ROCKET SCIENCE!! I'LL BET THOSE OLE' BOYS BACK IN THE DAY USED TO DO THE SAME CALCULATIONS!!
View attachment 176568
yes, the pulled out the ole abacus, started moving beads around, calculated all of it, while using their powder horn, measure, ball & patch to load their rifle as they were moving into position to shoot! LOL : ) :ghostly:
 
Yup, from abacus to slide rule to computer to educate some of us who really don't care about much more than how much weight by volume one of our home made measures throws most of the time. I get a head ache from some of this stuff.
Take 2 aspirin and look at the post in the morning...I hear ya mushka:thumb:
 
I agree that”day to day” shooting by Joe Average doesn’t go to the extents competition shooters did and still will, but then again, they’re not competing.

Those who are into the buckskin rondy thing to just hunting probably won’t weigh charges and that’s ok for them but there is a part of the muzzleloading community very interested in wringing out every possible bit of performance, some for accuracy, others for power. Each pursuit has a different path and tolerance to variable control, read consistency.
What I have noticed in my neck of the woods is people working on a load, filing sights, lapping barrels and a host of other things to gain optimum accuracy forget that the problem may be them?
 
What I have noticed in my neck of the woods is people working on a load, filing sights, lapping barrels and a host of other things to gain optimum accuracy forget that the problem may be them?
yup! Hope springs eternal! There are always 37 differnt reasons why you are not hitting the target well, none of which have anything to do with your own skill set! LOL. :dunno:
 
What I have noticed in my neck of the woods is people working on a load, filing sights, lapping barrels and a host of other things to gain optimum accuracy forget that the problem may be them?
But aren’t those things just eliminating variables? The shooter will always be the biggest variable, but that’s one we all work on. Thanks for the responses.
 
But aren’t those things just eliminating variables? The shooter will always be the biggest variable, but that’s one we all work on. Thanks for the responses.
Yes, but using the "unmentionables" as an example, some people spend big $$$ upwards of $5-7K for a rifle/scope etc thinking they will compete better, when their personal skill set/ability to shoot is what is really the problem. Good equipment will help, but not make up for poor shooting skills & ability. Sometimes it pays as "Harry" once said "a man's got to know his limitations" . IMHO
 
Part of what I do in the summer is instruct Scouts in muzzleloading marksmanship. Even in our formal N-SSA matches I see guys with poor fundamentals blame the gun.
 
For new shooters "Just use volume measures". Ignore all the comments on scales and weight. Engineers and smokeless reloaders just have to involve weight comparisons and complicate a very simple process. VOLUME PERIOD! Even the manuals use the weight comparisons and complicate the very simple term of volume. The Forums are even worse. There should be a separate forum category for new shooters that only speaks of VOLUME MEASUREMENTS. It's hard to determine if even the volume measures are the same between Triple7 and Pyrodex because someone always has to throw in weight comparisons in every single discusion!
You're right. I must be more precise in use of language! Thanks.
 
Another thing to consider when making your powder measure is that the smaller in diameter and the taller your cylinder of your measure, the more accurate the measurement will be. An inch diameter by 1/4" high will not give as accurate (repeatable) measurement as the same volume of a 1/4" cylinder.
 
Yes, but using the "unmentionables" as an example, some people spend big $$$ upwards of $5-7K for a rifle/scope etc thinking they will compete better, when their personal skill set/ability to shoot is what is really the problem. Good equipment will help, but not make up for poor shooting skills & ability. Sometimes it pays as "Harry" once said "a man's got to know his limitations" . IMHO
Well put! I liken it to a great artist that can paint a picture of a person that looks so real that the person could walk off the canvass if it chose to? I can't paint a picture of anything identifiable but I have the equiptment to do so? Some of us can and some of us can't shoot well. This doesn"t mean to stop trying. Enjoy the hobby but be realistic .
 
These are a couple of measures I use, mostly the brass one. It holds about 50 grains depending on how I fill it and how much I spill. The antler one holds about 45 grains. This is the extent of my precision with black powder in muzzleloaders.
 

Attachments

  • 1668898405613.jpeg
    1668898405613.jpeg
    1.6 MB · Views: 0
Back
Top