Weight or Volume

[wildman1]

Lefty Dood, my loads were, 7/8 oz-43g 3f, 1oz-52g 3f, 1 1/8oz-57g 3f and 1 1/4 oz-61g 3f. I used #6 shot. WM

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy Again

I used to use an old Stevens shotgun with twin 30" full choke barrels. At typical CAS distances it put most of the 1 1/8 ounces of # 8 shot into a pattern about the size of a dinner plate. I too used Circle Fly wads, not modern plastic wads, and my load of about 2 1/3 drams of FFg. But it was a bit hard to hit poppers with so tight a pattern, so I had special loads with spreader wads in them to open up the pattern a bit when called for. I must agree, the point in CAS is to put as much shot onto the target as possible. My loads out of my full choke barrels were murder on CAS knockdown targets.

Sorry for my concern about evenly distributed patterns, it's hard for an old Trap shooter to forget it don't much matter.

But it does matter, at least a little bit, for poppers. You don't want a hole in the pattern around the target.

These days I use the same loads in my old Stevens hammer gun with the barrels sawed off at 24", resulting in cylinder chokes. To tell you the truth, I have never patterned it. But it still puts enough shot on the knockdowns to plop them down reliably. And it is murder on those poppers.

[Lefty Dude]

Hey! wait a minute this is no thread High-jack. We are on the subject of Weight & Volume.

This last Winter Range there were two popper targets. I was concerned that my 16 ga. Brass shell load 7/8 oz would not be enough to do the trick. I got both a good release and hit both soda cans that were launched. Both were solid hits with  Cyl. bore barrels.

[Fox Creek Kid]

I had always heard & read that the reason the modern shotguns don't pattern the fiber wads as well was due to modern chamber contruction and the chamber leade & throat.

[Mako]

Sorry for my concern about evenly distributed patterns, it's hard for an old Trap shooter to forget it don't much matter.

You are forgiven   and I apologize for being strident.  I have the same problem with things, I have to keep things in context.  

I like the choke you're using and the results you're obviously getting.

~Mako

[Mako]

I had always heard & read that the reason the modern shotguns don't pattern the fiber wads as well was due to modern chamber contruction and the chamber leade & throat.

I agree with that.  As I said earlier my TTN '78 doesn't pattern very well with fiber wads and it has a goofy 3" chamber a long lead and a long lead into the choke.  The same loads shoot fine in my 101 year old cheap hardware store double that was my Great Grandfathers.

~Mako

[wildman1]

I've been thinking about this weight vs volume thing and for me it raises questions. I know I'm a PIA. To me it seems if we buy by weight when we buy BP if the powder is more dense we are getting less bang for the buck. Well, maybe, unless the more dense BP gives more velocity per measured g. So do ya get more velocity from more dense powder or is it more complex than that? I would think that more dense powder could be more dense because of more than one reason, more fines of powder or more graphite dust. That makes me think that socking the powder in one case would decrease the velocity while in the other case would increase it. I'm not even going to consider different BP formulas, ratios, quality of ingredients or what may be different manufacturing processes involved. By the "weigh" I do measure by volume for my BP loading whether it is for C&B or cartridge. I think I'll go back in my closet and think about this some more.  WM

[Mako]

I've been thinking about this weight vs volume thing and for me it raises questions. I know I'm a PIA. To me it seems if we buy by weight when we buy BP if the powder is more dense we are getting less bang for the buck. Well, maybe, unless the more dense BP gives more velocity per measured g. So do ya get more velocity from more dense powder or is it more complex than that? I would think that more dense powder could be more dense because of more than one reason, more fines of powder or more graphite dust. That makes me think that socking the powder in one case would decrease the velocity while in the other case would increase it. I'm not even going to consider different BP formulas, ratios, quality of ingredients or what may be different manufacturing processes involved. By the "weigh" I do measure by volume for my BP loading whether it is for C&B or cartridge. I think I'll go back in my closet and think about this some more.  WM

Wildman,
You get increased densities for three reasons:

• Denser wood that produces denser charcoal
• Better and longer milling of primarily charcoal and the sulfur together
• Better infusion of the potassium nitrate into the charcoal

The first does not create more energetic powder, denser wood is less porous and therefore has less surface area per grain size and less contact area for the oxidizer.

The second can make medium density charcoals more energetic, by creating a finer meal powder before the water addition and caking.

The third requires a low density charcoal, which means it came from an open pore wood with low resin content.  Willow and Alder fall into this category.
The lower the density of the wood, the more energetic the fuel because of the increased surface area by grain size.  The increased porosity almost always allows better infusion of the potassium nitrate while in solution into the pores which increases the burn rate.

The better powders have both the properties of the third point and the increased milling of the second.

It seems odd but a more open pore charcoal starts out lighter by volume, but after infusion of the oxidizer may actually be heavier than the denser charcoal powders after the infusion.  This is why both KIK and Swiss almost always run above 1.0 g/cc.  Both of those powders use European or Scottish Alder which has similar porosity to Willow with the added benefit of a higher creosote content.  The creosote makes the powder burn "moister" which basically means the fouling stays softer.  Too little creosote has no benefit, too much begins to tar up as do high resin content wood charcoals.

You will get more energy from a denser powder that used a low density charcoal as in the case of KIK or Swiss they will have densities running from 1.0 to 1.05 grams/cc.  Goex actually runs denser because it uses maple as the wood, but it has less energy per gram.

The density is calculated with the fines removed.  I'm not sure what you are trying to determine.  These aren't nitrocellulose powders that you can load into partially full cases.  With cartridges you still have to fill the case volume.

What is it you are trying to accomplish?

~Mako

[Mako]

Wildman,
You should spend some time reading some of the work John Boy has done.  His conclusions has been affirmed in many cases by Bill Knight who has forgotten more about the production of BP and its' properties than most of us will ever even know.

The most accurate powders appear to be the ones that are the most uniform in the grain sizes (that doesn't mean they have exactly the same size, read on) .  John does a lot of meshing analysis to determine what is in a can of a particular stated grain size by different manufacturers.  When you get a lot of fines, you don't get consistent powders.  That's why precision shooters "sock" powder.

Bill will tell you that the manufacturers that do three things have superior powders.

• Use quality materials, including the water source
• Mill the charcoal and sulfur thoroughly
• spend additional time polishing the grains

After the polishing, the grains are much easier to separate into their respective sizes then they are blended in the correct ratio for that particular nominal Grain designation for the lot.

Fines, whether it be flaked graphite or BP dust is detrimental to consistent pressures.  The added "acceleration" as you call it is not necessary or desirable.

Most of what I use has a lot of fines and is very irregular.  That's because I don't care, 95% of my loads are for CAS shooting and I will use floor sweepings (figuratively speaking).  I use those powders because they are CHEAP and for CAS applications it would be like putting premium gasoline in a lawn mower if I used the premium powders.

~Mako

[Sir Charles deMouton-Black]

Congratulations, Pards!  The recent turn that this thread has taken has finally yielded some useful information.

[wildman1]

Wildman,
You should spend some time reading some of the work John Boy has done.  His conclusions has been affirmed in many cases by Bill Knight who has forgotten more about the production of BP and its' properties than most of us will ever even know.

The most accurate powders appear to be the ones that are the most uniform in the grain sizes (that doesn't mean they have exactly the same size, read on) .  John does a lot of meshing analysis to determine what is in a can of a particular stated grain size by different manufacturers.  When you get a lot of fines, you don't get consistent powders.  That's why precision shooters "sock" powder.

Bill will tell you that the manufacturers that do three things have superior powders.

• Use quality materials, including the water source
• Mill the charcoal and sulfur thoroughly
• spend additional time polishing the grains

After the polishing, the grains are much easier to separate into their respective sizes then they are blended in the correct ratio for that particular nominal Grain designation for the lot.

Fines, whether it be flaked graphite or BP dust is detrimental to consistent pressures.  The added "acceleration" as you call it is not necessary or desirable.

Most of what I use has a lot of fines and is very irregular.  That's because I don't care, 95% of my loads are for CAS shooting and I will use floor sweepings (figuratively speaking).  I use those powders because they are CHEAP and for CAS applications it would be like putting premium gasoline in a lawn mower if I used the premium powders.

~Mako

So far socking the powder seems to have cut the SD by more than 50%. I don't have the numbers right now as I am not home but it does make a huge difference. WM

[ashlyngr]

  Well, since I v'e responed to this thread, I have reread and scrounged the internet, and spoke to shooters about this topic in an effort  to learn the best techniques and tools of cap and ball shooting.
   The best I can possibly come up with is that "Volume" vs.  "Weight" techniques are both valid methods. I now look at them as being two "Schools of Thought". Both have valid attributes, pitfalls, proponets and detractors.

[wildman1]

Volume BP. Weight smokiless. WM

[Lefty Dude]

Volume BP. Weight smokiless. WM

++++

[john boy]

Volume BP. Weight smokeless. WM

Wildman, would you bet money on Volume BP?  Who knows best, modern day short time re-loaders or DuPont Powder Company?
DuPont
Black Sporting Powders
Instructions as to Their Use When Re-Loading Ammunition
Phamplete Circa, sometime between 1920 to 1930

As a guide to the sportsmen who wish to reload their metallic ammunition, a partial list of the popular caliber cartridges with sizes of powder grains to be used and the weight in grains is given below ...  (note word weight)

There are 42 metallic calibers listed

[Mako]

Wildman, would you bet money on Volume BP?  Who knows best, modern day short time re-loaders or DuPont Powder Company?
DuPont
Black Sporting Powders
Instructions as to Their Use When Re-Loading Ammunition
Phamplete Circa, sometime between 1920 to 1930 There are 42 metallic calibers listed

John Boy,

Two comments:

• Measurement by weight was the norm by 1920 because smokeless powder was then the more common propellent.  All smokeless EXCEPT "bulk" powders which were intended to be loaded exactly as BP was loaded (read that as volume) were intended to be loaded by weight since they did not fill the case.
  
  I would be much more impressed if you showed me the same pamphlet dated 60 years earlier.  (Let me know when you find that pamphlet, okay?)
  
  


• Weight measurement of Black Powder is not universal, volume is.  You can got to the far reaches of the universe and a volume measure of one grain will always be just that exactly.  It will be the same on the burning surface of Mercury to the moons of Jupiter,or to the furthest galaxy.  And, it is independent of grain size, manufacturer or year.  One grain of BP from 1836 is exactly the same as one grain volume from 2011.  Can you say the same about one grain weight of any grain size from manufacturer to manufacturer today, or any other date?  Will it fill the same case today as it did 138 years ago, I believe you know the answer is no.

When you can show me that they measured BP by weight for reloading or even production of  factory cartridges using pre-nitrocellulose powders is when I will concede that the standard should be weight.

Let's rephrase your question a little bit to make it less biased:
You asked, "Who knows best, modern day short time re-loaders or DuPont Powder Company?"  You should have said, "who knew best DuPont, in the 1920s or the original shooters and companies reloading in the 19th century?"

Mako

P.S. I have a question for you:  If you were supposed to reload BP by weight, then why did the "bulk" replacement powders even exist?  They didn't weigh the same as BP, in fact there were warnings to the contrary for their usage.  They were intended to be loaded the same as BP was loaded.  So if it wasn't by weight, how were they measured?  This is the fly in your ointment.  There were Bulk and Semi-Smokeless powders commonly available just prior to the time period of your pamphlet.  Those powders went out of vogue in the '20s.  Those powders were intended to be used just as the name "bulk" powders applies, they had the same volume as BP in the measurement for loading.  Why would they go to that trouble if loading was by weight?

[w44wcf]

In the weight vs volume measurement of black powder.....neither is wrong.
Just use whatever method works best for you.

Personally, my goal is to replicate the ballistic performance of the original cartridges and the volume to do  that varies considerably depending on the powder I am using so I use the weight which also can vary depending on the ballistic strength of the powder.

Have fun......
w44wcf

[Ranch 13]

Looks to me like there's a handful of folks that have confused the replacement crap with the real black.
Even in the 1870's sharps, remington and winchester catalogs, they cautioned what a 1 gr difference in powder charge could make. Sharps recommended apothacary scales, and a table to convert apothacaries to grains.
Then you can get into the Ideal reloading instructions and how the powder measures were graduated to throw "x" amount of grains of black powder.

Black powder charges have always been expressed in grains weight. The substitute crap has always been designated to be thrown in the same volume as a blackpowder measure set for "x" amount of grains weight.
44wcf is correct that bp can be measured either way, but 9 times out of ten if you have a quality bp measure the grains weight setting will be very close for the intended size of bp.
Now before everybody starts spouting off about how swiss is heavier,,,, might want to compare powder sizes, 2f Swiss is more the kernel size of Goex 3f, and there in lies the dirty little secret some are oblivious too....

[wildman1]

Don't use "crap" in my BP guns and have no intention of doing so.  WM

[Fairshake]

The difference in grain size is one of the points I have been trying to make some of the pards understand Don. It does not matter as long as you  remember that you can bring a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
Mako, They have more than one box of Black powder loaded ammo that states This ammo is loaded with 27 grains of powder. They did not say black because it was known as powder. Where did all the 45-70 ammo come from? What about 44-40? The 45 Schofield had loaded with 27 grains of powder or in that area on the box. The 45 Colt was said to be loaded with 40 grains of powder on more than one occasion. As John Kort posted, DuPont advised that the powder be weighed on an Apothecary scale. I can for sure tell everyone this. I am 64 years of age and was working in a gun store after arriving home from my tour of duty in 1968. I had been interested in guns since about the age of 7. We sold all types of powder and supplies as the owner was a jobber for many companies. The BP that we had was Dupont and I shot a T/C Hawken 50 cal. (Still Have One) and two C&B revolvers, one 36 and the other a 44. We had plenty of BP measures that were marked off in grains. The powder flask that we sold came with a extra long brass spout. The directions to the guns gave you an amount of powder to use for different calibers and ball sizes. They advised to play with the measure until you found the most accurate load for that gun. Mark the amount of grains on the side of the spout and cut it off. The rifle flask had the grains already marked. In no manual that I had at the time was anything printed about loading by volume. I even had a good friend who owned a MZ shop in town and I attended some of the shoots. Not once did I ever hear anyone say LOAD BY VOLUME MEN!! In every discussion that I had was something like I use 60 grains for my ball loads with a patch and 80 grains for the Minnie. In my Lyman 41st manual in the MZ section it starts off about the North -South Skirmish clubs and how they load the muskets. The load is given as most shooters prefer to use a load of 60 grains of 2F powder for their loads. They do have some that use 50 grains as the recoil starts to bother them. I have said this time and time again my friends, this is in print and there for you to see. I'm like Elmer Keith on this one  " HELL I WAS THERE" The term of load by volume was not present in the shooting sports until the advent of the sub or fake black powders!!