Black powders of Yesteryear vs. today

Thumb Buster · February 01, 2015, 11:19:57 AM

This subject has been discussed before I am sure so forgive my bringin' it up again. Numerous times it has been pointed out on this forum that the black powder we're shooting nowadays is inferior to that of the powder of yesteryear though some brands are closer in quality. May I ask what is the cause of this? Is it the type of wood used to create the charcoal? Is it the saltpeter? Sulphur? Is it a combination? Or something else? Are there 'markers' incorporated in it by Big Brother (it is an explosive after all)? I 'm just curious is all because of all the discussion of which maker of BP is better. I understand the grades and granular aspect...I think... Just wondering what it is that contribute the most to the decline of quality. Thanks ahead of time. $:-\$

jimbobborg · February 01, 2015, 03:49:27 PM

I think it's the lack of human urine in the making of new BP that's the problem.

Blair · February 01, 2015, 04:25:16 PM

Why would it be due to a lack of human urine?
Just a question?
My best,
Blair

hellgate · February 01, 2015, 05:01:32 PM

I put the story of ladies of the Old South saving their urine for the nitrate to make gunpowder for the Civil War effort under "old wives tale" or lore. I'd like to see documentation of whether that actually happened and how you get NaNO3 from urea.

Roosterman · February 01, 2015, 05:21:45 PM

I believe there are alot of variables that effect the quality. The variety of wood for charcoal seems to make a big difference. John Boy knows quite a bit about this if he jumps in.

Dick Dastardly · February 01, 2015, 05:50:34 PM

When I buy powder I buy good powder of current manufacture. The old powder may have been stronger than lightning and quicker to ignite, but it ain't available in job lots. So, swim in nostalgia and bathe in history but dry off with modern manufactured black powder, cuz that's what's available.

DD-MDA

Ranch 13 · February 01, 2015, 10:24:29 PM

Having shot some of the old powder, I'm not at all convinced the blackpowder we have now is any worse than what they had back in the day.
There is a size difference in todays powder, mostly from what I can tell what we call 2f now would of been 1f then. There is also less selection today than back then. Hazard offered a bunch of different types of rifle, shotgun and sporting powders, all separate grades of powder.
The size difference today between Swiss, and Schuetzen explains a lot of the difference between them and regular Goex. Olde Eynsford changes that game a little bit.
I do have to agree with there's no point in whing about what we can't get, with the miniscule amounts of sporting grade black powder sold today, we should probably be thankful for what we have and learn to use it to the best of our ability.

Thumb Buster · February 01, 2015, 11:06:25 PM

Thanks for all the feedback. You're right Ranch 13 about having to be grateful for what we have and learning to utilize it.

Bunk Stagnerg · February 02, 2015, 08:28:45 AM

In the back of my shop i found a case of Du Pont FFFg in one pound cans. It was shipped to me Railway Express and i have no idea how old it is.
I am using it up and I cannot tell any difference in ballistics or fouling than with GOEX (which reminds me of something you wouls scrape off your shoe) freshly bought from Powder inc.

Since HOLY BLACK is a mixture of chemicals as long as it stays dry I would opine it would be a good as the day it was canned.
Any chemists out there care to chip in here.
Respectfully submitted
Bunk

w44wcf · February 02, 2015, 09:13:33 AM

Thumb Buster,
As the others have mentioned, I am, as well, thankful for the black powders we have today.
In answer to your question, "Just wondering what it is that contribute the most to the decline of quality."
Lack of competition would be the most likely answer, although with the recent introduction of Olde Enysford, that is not quite so true.

Back in the 1800's there were a number of b.p. manufacturers in the U.S., (DuPont, Kings, Austin, Hazard, American Powder Mills, Laflin & Rand, etc. ) Each were likely working to make a better product than the other.

I have had the opportunity to test some early Winchester .44 W.C.F. (.44-40) b.p. cartridges. I dissected them and saved the powder and bullets and discarded the primers. I noticed that the powder had a high polished appearance....even more than Swiss does.
I cleaned and annealed the cases, then reprimed with current primers and loaded the powder and bullets (after replacing the dried out lube with SPG) back into the cases.

The bullets had 2 very shallow lube grooves which held a small amount of lube - about 1/2 grain. I fired 20 cartridges in a row and did not experience any "foul out" whatsoever. Based on my experience with Goex, Schuetzen, Kik using bullets with 2x that amount of lube the barrel would have fouled out.

So the powder used in loading those vintage cartridges was definitely superior to what we have today with the possible exception of Swiss and Olde E.

Here is an exchange of emails I had from several years ago with a fellow that had some experience with an early Black powder....

Daryl S,
I was reading your post regarding your use of American Deadshot powder. Interesting. I was wondering if you have ever used Swiss b.p., and if so, how you feel it compares to Deadshot regarding the performance and fouling.

Regarding Curtis & Harvey, as I have read, C&H made after 1970 was an inferior product as compared to C&H produced in the period before that date.
John

John
All newer BP's are inferior to what was made up to at least 1914. Swiss BP is supposed to be pretty good, but doesn't burn as moist as the old powders. It is a pretty strong powder per grain, being better than GOEX but is still inferior to the English powders of the late 1800's.

The Deadshot powder I had was very clean burning and very accurate as well. My smoke pole shot many 5 shot 1" groups at 100 yards off the bench, with the 'norm' being in the 1-1/4" to 1-1/2" range. This was with open iron sights, not peep sights.
Daryl S.

w44wcf

Cliff Fendley · February 02, 2015, 09:58:00 AM

What would have made the older powders burn more 'moist' than modern ones.

Ranch 13 · February 02, 2015, 11:45:39 AM

Different recipes made the difference, and not all powders were "moist". Matter of fact there are numerous places where the recommendation is to not use the moist powders if using a load that requires compressing the powder, and to only compress the powder when using a dry powder such as the US Government powder.
And what ever you do don't use Shotgun powders in a cartridge gun, and don't use to quick of a powder as it will cause fouling problems and "wild" shooting...

Little Dalton · February 02, 2015, 06:49:42 PM

Thumb Buster, as I understand it, one of the deciding factors in powder quality (at least as far as fouling is concerned), and what determines a powder's "moist-burning" characteristics, is the amount of unburned creosote contained in the charcoal. Read the articles at this link for some extensive testing and writing on this subject. http://www.laflinandrand.com/page3.htm

Thumb Buster · February 03, 2015, 09:35:33 AM

Whew! Thanks for the link Capnball. The issue of water purity, creosote, glazing and all the other aspects of making BP is interesting. Very interesting reading indeed.

Dick Dastardly · February 03, 2015, 04:07:17 PM

When we belly up to the shooting line at a Cowboy Action match our minds are not on the finer points of what some old powder might do compared to what we have loaded. Enjoy the old powder as you can find it. When it's gone, it's gone, but the shootn' goes on and on.

DD-MDA

Thumb Buster · February 03, 2015, 04:18:28 PM

Quote from: Dick Dastardly on February 03, 2015, 04:07:17 PM
When we belly up to the shooting line at a Cowboy Action match our minds are not on the finer points of what some old powder might do compared to what we have loaded. Enjoy the old powder as you can find it. When it's gone, it's gone, but the shootn' goes on and on.

DD-MDA

I agree totally. It, the question that started this, was just more curiosity than anything that made me ask. To me it's all about embracing history as well as the smoke, the flame, the 'BOOM' and the marvelous feats of technology that shoot the smoky stuff.