modern vs. 1800's black powder

KWK · Post by **KWK** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 7:41 pm

In the recent discussion on how well the various older leverguns cope with black powder fouling, it was mentioned that BP from the 1800s is thought to have been much cleaner than the modern stuff. I've read this claim before. I recall reading the British BP was among the very best.

When was the art of making BP lost? Did the manufacture of BP in the US cease at one point, only to be revived by Goex later? I thought BP had other commercial uses, in blasting, etc., which would have kept the plants -- and the art -- alive. Perhaps that is a different grade of BP than was used in firearms?

JReed · Post by **JReed** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 7:50 pm

Most explosives these days aren't BP they are made from things like C4 and the like. BP these days is really only used in firearms and fireworks with fire works being the market share of its use.

Post by **Chuck 100 yd** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 7:59 pm

I have read much on this subject and from what I have gleaned
from it I think modern Black is no dirtier than powder of old and most likely is cleaner burning. The "experts" seem to think that the fouling was softer in old powders from the period. Modern refining methods are better than those of old and the powder formulas are the same.
The grass is always greener........

Post by **Chuck 100 yd** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 8:13 pm

Read an interesting thing once.
Said that the old DuPont powder mill in NY blew up so often that when they put it back up they only drove the nails half way through the boards so they would not split when it blew again. It must have been exciting to work there.

Ben_Rumson · Post by **Ben_Rumson** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 9:14 pm

FWIW...I bought 2K rounds of 11mm Mannlicher ammo back in the 70s at a price that was cheaper than 22 long rifle at the time..... Manufacured in 1887-88 all BP paper patched with a carded grease cookie about 1/8 to 3/16ths thick.. 385 gr proj over about 77gr (2f I think) Shot it thru a French Gras.. It shot incredibly clean..I don't recall fouling out with the stuff within 30 or 40 shots..The bore didn't look any dirtier after 30 or 40 shots than it did after a couple of rounds.. The gun and ammo held about 8" groups @ 100yd.. Many rounds had a line of corrosion just below the bullet at the grease cookie.. Sometimes I could snap the neck off with my hands.. Eventually I broke down enough ammo to wind up with about a pound.. Been meaning to run some thru my 73 SRC...

Don McDowell · Post by **Don McDowell** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 9:18 pm

I fired some powder from a Buffolo horn powder horn I got once at an old guys farmsale. The horn has 1884 inscribed on it. That powder was about like Elephant , it was filthy and slow , but accuracy was ok.
For the most part I'm of the mind this powder being better then stuff, is just so much bellyachin......

KirkD · Post by **KirkD** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 9:29 pm

Ben_Rumson wrote:.. Eventually I broke down enough ammo to wind up with about a pound.. Been meaning to run some thru my 73 SRC...

Ben, that would be very interesting. Please be sure to let us know the details (bullet weight, # grains used, Chronographed velocity, and primer and brass used).

BigSky56 · Post by **BigSky56** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 9:34 pm

BP is used in quarrying of marble and granite that is slabbed as BP is a low exp and doesnt produce fractures in the stone that high exp does. I have heard from old timers that there was several grades and manufactures of BP . danny

Don McDowell · Post by **Don McDowell** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 9:48 pm

Theres some difference between blasting bp, and sporting bp.
There were several sellers of bp in the 1800's, but I don't think there were really anymore manufacturers than what we have now.

C. Cash · Post by **C. Cash** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 9:55 pm

Meshack Browning in his "Fourty Four Years a hunter" describes getting ahold of some Dupont powder at one point and he commented on how much more powerful it was than what he was used to. I think this was around 1830 or 40's in his career and he states it nearly pushed him over from the recoil. If you ever get a chance, a great read. There was also a discussion on americanlongrifles.com that I will try and dig up on the qualities of 1800's black vs. todays black.

http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/ind ... pic=1792.0

Nate Kiowa Jones · Post by **Nate Kiowa Jones** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 10:00 pm

The idea that old black powder was better than new is probably because black powder if properly kept will actually meld with age and become stronger and burn cleaner. I had read that the old powders did this but really didn't know this until I tried some Du pont I had that dated back to the 70's. It wasn't a controled test because I didn't have the original gun to shoot it from but the same loads did seem to shoot more consistant with less fouling than what I remember. I tend to believe it because I know what aging can do for a fine whiskey.

During the mountain man trapper era there were several makers of black powder but the best was Du Pont. When the traders showed up for the Rondavoo's (sp?) They brought Du Pont and other powders to trade but the DuPont was the preferred. It could sell for as much as $30 a lb. The others for far less. I'm sure it had to do with the quality, mostly. The belief was De Pont shot cleaner and more consistant.

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:31 pm

Nate Kiowa Jones wrote:The idea that old black powder was better than new is probably because black powder if properly kept will actually meld with age and become stronger and burn cleaner. ...

That and people back then knew that consistent granulation is the key to clean shooting and would re-corn their BP if necessary.

I've brought it up before and done a bunch of testing to prove it...

The cheap Chinese (Lidu) 3F I buy shoots cleaner than Swiss, if with a marginally lower velocity, because I sift out all of the Larges & Fines and get a pure, consistent 3F granulation.

I can shoot my flinter quite literally all day without heavy fouling.

Last shoot I did a 25 shot string (PRB, 70gr 3F, sifted 4F in the pan) and only ran a single damp patch down the bore at the end of the string. The patch came out only moderately green. No black gunk at all.

OTOH, if I shoot the Lidu "straight" - without sifting - it's only slightly less gunky than Elephant.

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:35 pm

C. Cash wrote:Meshack Browning in his "Fourty Four Years a hunter" describes getting ahold of some Dupont powder at one point and he commented on how much more powerful it was than what he was used to. I think this was around 1830 or 40's in his career and he states it nearly pushed him over from the recoil. ...

GOOD powder is made in such a way as the components are combined in as ideal a proportions throughout the grains as possible.

If you take your KNO3, Charcoal & Sulphur and mix it by hand, it will go "foomp", but if you actually mechanically blend to as close to the molecular level as possible it will go BOOM.

That, granulation the grade of charcoal makes all the difference in the world.

Doc Hudson · Post by **Doc Hudson** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 12:02 am

To the best of my knowledge, DuPont has continuously manufactured blackpowder since about 1804.

I've also heard the stories about the frequent explosions. The version I heard was that the planks of the building were hinged on the top and just lightly tacked at the bottom so that when the explosion came, it would blow out the nails at the bottom, and push the boards out, when the pressure wave passed, the hinges would swing the boards back in place. I can't swear to the truth of the story, but you got to admit it is rather entertaining to think of the sides of a building flapping up during an explosion and flopping back down afterwards.

I've heard contradictory stories about the comparative cleanliness of modern blackpowder versus blackpowder from earlier eras. I don't know what the truth of the matter might be. What puzzles me is that some folks here consider Elephant brand powder to burn excessively dirty. That is not the case in my experience. Granted the vast majority of Elephant Powder I've used has been in .45-70 cartridges. In my experience, it burns cleaner than GOEX. Perhaps I put a heavy enough crimp to ensure more complete ignition, but I'm quite happy with Elephant Powder.

Yet another proof of my old friend Bryant Grace's oft stated truism: Differences of opinion are what lets cheap whiskey sell and ugly people get married.

Don McDowell · Post by **Don McDowell** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 12:14 am

Doc the elephant 2f I have delivers decent accuracy in a 45-70, but wiping between shots is a must. If you don't by round 2 the barrel will look something akin to the insides an ancient bathroom sink trap.

, and accuracy will be allllll gone.

BigSky56 · Post by **BigSky56** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 12:45 am

BP companies and such from the past and present. danny http://home.pacbell.net/rlmurra/timeline.html

Lefty Dude · Post by **Lefty Dude** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 12:48 am

Alder Charcoal makes the best BP. DuPont used Alder and positioned there Mfg. Plants for BP in area's with large stands of Alder trees. Read the history of the DuPont Family, very interesting.

Doc Hudson · Post by **Doc Hudson** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 4:19 am

Don McDowell wrote:Doc the elephant 2f I have delivers decent accuracy in a 45-70, but wiping between shots is a must. If you don't by round 2 the barrel will look something akin to the insides an ancient bathroom sink trap. , and accuracy will be allllll gone.

Don,

I am not doubting your experience with Elephant powder. I'm just saying that it does not match my experience. I had no trouble loading five to ten rounds before needing to swab the bore, a single wet patch followed by two dry patches was enough to get me shooting again. As for accuracy, I had no trouble smacking the kill zone of a life-size deer target all five shots at 300 meters without swabbing between shots. Even before I installed the tang sight, I could repeatedly hit the 200 meter deer target, at least after I worked out the Kentucky Elevation (all of that big shark-fin front sight, and just a smidgen of barrel to get on target, then it was CLANG, CLANG, CLANG).

My load was 65 grains of FFg Elephant powder, with a cardboard over-powder wad, a 510 grain RCBS Semi-Spitzer bullet lubed with Jon Erdmann's Montana Gold Lube, with a CCI Large Rifle Primer and a heavy roll crimp. Perhaps the difference was the amount of crimp I used, or perhaps it was Jon's lube, but I simply did not find Elephant to be any dirtier than Goex. And I found that my velocities were a little higher, about 50 fps, and more consistent, IIRC standard deviation was in the high single digits while the GOEX was close to 20 fps.

Remember the saying, "Your Mileage May Vary." Our results definitely varied

BTW, if you've never tried Montana Gold Blackpowder Bullet Lube, I highly recommend it. It was formulated by Jon Erdmann of Kalispell, MT. Jon is a serious Long Range Blackpowder Cartridge Rifle competitor and was at one time, State Champion. If you want to give it a dry, drop Jon a line @ jperdmann@bresnan.net . Tell him I recommended his bullet lube.

C. Cash · Post by **C. Cash** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 8:38 am

Old Ironsights wrote:
C. Cash wrote:Meshack Browning in his "Fourty Four Years a hunter" describes getting ahold of some Dupont powder at one point and he commented on how much more powerful it was than what he was used to. I think this was around 1830 or 40's in his career and he states it nearly pushed him over from the recoil. ...
GOOD powder is made in such a way as the components are combined in as ideal a proportions throughout the grains as possible.

If you take your KNO3, Charcoal & Sulphur and mix it by hand, it will go "foomp", but if you actually mechanically blend to as close to the molecular level as possible it will go BOOM.

That, granulation the grade of charcoal makes all the difference in the world.

That makes sense OI...appreciate the additional info. From what I gather here and elsewhere, it looks like a good bit of the BP pre-1900 was premium stuff(Dupont especially). Interesting how we go backards on the most simple things. That being said, glad we have what we have today. Good thread!

w30wcf · Post by **w30wcf** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 8:48 am

KWK,
Bill Knight aka Dutch Bill has more experience with early and present black powders than anyone I have heard of having tested examples from the 1800's and today.

Based on that experience his perception is yes, most, but not all late 1800's b.p.'s are better than most of what we have today in their ability to provide softer fouling and thus continued accurate shooting without having to wipe the barrel between shots.

He states that Swiss B.P. is the closest powder that we have today that compares with the best 1800's b.p.

---------------------------------------------------------------
BACK TO THE LATE 1800's
Take, for example, Doc Pardee's 30 shot target made with an 1873 Winchester .44 W.C.F. rifle. At 110 yards, all 30 shots grouped inside 3.7". He commented that that the Winchester was steady in her performance with no wiping between shots.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Try that with most of today's b.p.'s and minimally lubed bullets that were used back then. It won't happen!

My testing of currently available b.p.'s in two different lever action rifles has shown me that Swiss will continue to give accurate shooting well past the point that today's other b.p.'s will.

w30wcf

Don McDowell · Post by **Don McDowell** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 9:33 am

Doc, I have a friend in Arizona that has a batch of Elephant he saves for only match shooting. It's nasty fouling stuff, but it makes his 45-100 sit right up and pay attention.
Like I said this Elephant I have is accurate, altho it does leave a ton of fouling, and the velocity is a bit lower than Goex.
I've settled on sticking with Goex powders, and Sagebrush alox lube. The Goex will consistantly outperform Shuetzen, and even the planejane goex leaves easier to deal with fouling than Swiss. The Sabebrush Alox lube is built and sold by Harlan and Wendy Sage, aka SageOutfitters. Harlan is an excellent shot, and Wendy brought home all the womens trophy's from Raton a few years back. Plus they're just all around good folks I'm pleased to know.
I still think most of the nonsense we hear about powders of yesteryear is mostly just yappin, to be yappin. The powders we have today are as good as ever, even the imported stuff. The powder companies had no real reason to produce the amount and quality of black from about 1920 until the 1970's as the demand for sporting powder was so low as to hardly even warrant production. Had it not been for the military use of bp in artillery, I doubt sporting grade black would of even been available after world war 2.
Nowdays there's probably more sporting grade powder being manufactured , used and sold than anytime in history. When you take into consideration the amount of shooting folks do in all the various sides of bpcr, and the CAS competitions, piled alongside the muzzleloader.So yes quantity and quality will be there as the market demands.

w30wcf · Post by **w30wcf** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 10:22 am

Here's another perspective from someone who has actually used some late 1800's powder.....

By Daryl S. Cast Bullet Forum –
Many years ago, I bought a 3 pound can of 'American Deadshot' black powder in 2F granulation. After that, I learned that that company blew up in around 1898 - true or false, I don't know.

As I was currently shooting a .50 cal Bauska fast twist barrel on my caplock, I tried the powder. It may have lost velocity compared to when it was new, but it was the fastest and most accurate black powder I'd ever shot. Also, it was the cleanest burning of all the black powders I have used including those currently produced.

I was shooting a 450gr. cup-based Lyman bullet from an old mould, no longer in production. The hollow base shaft was the same size as the bullet's sides, which allowed me to easily convert the mould to an adjustable weight mould, from about 420gr. on up to about 700gr. At 450gr., they shot extremely well with the American Deadshot, grouping mostly 1" at 100 yards. This was the original bullet length, but with the plunger turned down to make cup-based bullets, thus the slightly heavier weight.

I used a card wad on the powder, then the lubed bullet. At that time, I was using plain crisco for lube. Now, the only reason I mention this, is that old black powder, with it's extremely shiny, hard, deep black grains of powder shot cleanly, never needing wiping for the entire string of shots that day, with only crisco in the bullet's 2 grease grooves. With the typical powders of today, I had to wipe the bore every 5 or 6 shots.

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 smokepole 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 or aperature sights.

w30wcf

Nate Kiowa Jones · Post by **Nate Kiowa Jones** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 6:30 pm

w30wcf wrote:Here's another perspective from someone who has actually used some late 1800's powder.....

By Daryl S. Cast Bullet Forum –
Many years ago, I bought a 3 pound can of 'American Deadshot' black powder in 2F granulation. After that, I learned that that company blew up in around 1898 - true or false, I don't know.

As.............................................

....

............The Deadshot powder I had was very clean burning and very accurate as well. My smokepole 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 or aperature sights.

w30wcf

Good article but, I still don't think it was made any better back then. I just think it ages to a better compound. Instead of three components mixed it becomes one with age

Post by **Hobie** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 6:57 pm

Age is a variable we have no way of quantifying. It might have an immense effect or no effect at all. BP is, after all, a compound. Do the components of that compound change in relation to one another based on the environment in which they've existed for 100+ years? Did the elements in the container in which the BP was stored have an effect on the compound?

w30wcf · Post by **w30wcf** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 9:35 pm

The quality of the components used, including the quality of the water has everything to do with the quality of the powder. Once the powder is made, it is in a solid state and there there is no further infusion of the components.

There were a number of domestic b.p. producers back in the 1800's (DuPont, L&R, Austin, Hazard, American Powder Mills, etc.) and each worked to make a product superior to their competitors.

The net result is that some of the best quality, performance b.p.'s were made in that time period.

w30wcf

Nate Kiowa Jones · Post by **Nate Kiowa Jones** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 9:57 pm

w30wcf wrote:The quality of the components used, including the quality of the water has everything to do with the quality of the powder. Once the powder is made, it is in a solid state and there there is no further infusion of the components.

There were a number of domestic b.p. producers back in the 1800's (DuPont, L&R, Austin, Hazard, American Powder Mills, etc.) and each worked to make a product superior to their competitors.

The net result is that some of the best quality, performance b.p.'s were made in that time period.

w30wcf

I'm sorry, I just don't believe that. That would be saying that 100 years later it's exactly the same as the day it was made. I can't thing of hardly anything man-made that can claim that. Even steel from that era has been know to change it properties.

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 10:20 pm

Wet process milling introduces contaminants into the composition unless you use distilled water.

Using Alcohol works better and dries faster... important if you are making Powder on the run/in a hurry.

Really guys, go read Ulrich Brechster's Black Powder pages. Everything you wanted to know is there, with none of the BS.

http://musketeer.ch/blackpowder/history.html
http://musketeer.ch/blackpowder/recipe.html
http://musketeer.ch/blackpowder/charcoal.html
http://musketeer.ch/blackpowder/saltpeter.html
http://musketeer.ch/blackpowder/sulfur.html
http://musketeer.ch/blackpowder/homemade_bp.html

Nate Kiowa Jones · Post by **Nate Kiowa Jones** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 10:46 pm

Old Ironsights wrote:Wet process milling introduces contaminants into the composition unless you use distilled water.

Using Alcohol works better and dries faster... important if you are making Powder on the run/in a hurry.

Really guys, go read Ulrich Brechster's Black Powder pages. Everything you wanted to know is there, with none of the BS.

http://musketeer.ch/blackpowder/history.html
http://musketeer.ch/blackpowder/recipe.html
http://musketeer.ch/blackpowder/charcoal.html
http://musketeer.ch/blackpowder/saltpeter.html
http://musketeer.ch/blackpowder/sulfur.html
http://musketeer.ch/blackpowder/homemade_bp.html

Sounds reasonable but I also remember reading some history of making BP back then and some claimed the best was made using urine, and one even claimed the urine from a wine drinker was the very best, so who knows.

It was mentioned that because the Du pont powder house blew up so often the wooden slates were hinged and barely nailed in place. What I read on it was there were several stations spread along the river. When one blew the others just kept producing. When the operator of that station was killed in the blast the others would say of his death that he crossed the river as in "Ol' Joe crossed the river with that last blast"

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 11:15 pm

The urine thing is because it could add extra nitrates... but it could also add other less desireable elements. All depended on what the "water carrier" was eating & drinking.

Certainly wouldn't make for a consistent powder from batch to batch.

Nate Kiowa Jones · Post by **Nate Kiowa Jones** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 11:21 pm

Old Ironsights wrote:The urine thing is because it could add extra nitrates... but it could also add other less desireable elements. All depended on what the "water carrier" was eating & drinking.

Certainly wouldn't make for a consistent powder from batch to batch.

My point exactly, they didn't do anything consistant back then.

w30wcf · Post by **w30wcf** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 9:47 am

Interesting discussion!

Nate Kiowa Jones wrote:
w30wcf wrote:The quality of the components used, including the quality of the water has everything to do with the quality of the powder. Once the powder is made, it is in a solid state and there there is no further infusion of the components.

There were a number of domestic b.p. producers back in the 1800's (DuPont, L&R, Austin, Hazard, American Powder Mills, etc.) and each worked to make a product superior to their competitors.

The net result is that some of the best quality, performance b.p.'s were made in that time period.

w30wcf
I'm sorry, I just don't believe that. That would be saying that 100 years later it's exactly the same as the day it was made. I can't thing of hardly anything man-made that can claim that. Even steel from that era has been know to change it properties.

Doc Pardee's 30 shot target made with an 1873 Winchester .44 W.C.F. rifle, speaks well of the quality of the b.p. Winchester used in those cartridges. At 110 yards, all 30 shots grouped inside 3.7". He commented that that the Winchester was steady in her performance with no wiping between shots.

That is pretty amazing since the factory bullets were swaged with two very shallow (.015" dp.) lube grooves. No b.p. today can keep that kind of repeated accuracy in a 24" barrel with bullets that have very little lube. I know, because I have tried. That would indicate that no aging was required for great b.p. performance back then.

As for the aging of powders improving them(?), several years ago, I bought some W.R.A. CO. .44 W.C.F. headstamped b.p. cartridges manufactured in 1916. A Winchester catalog so dated indicated a velocity of 1,300.6 f.p.s.

I shot some of those cartridges across my chronograph and the average velocity was 1,283 f.p.s. @ 15 feet which would put the muzzle velocity "spot on" the Winchester catalog velocity. Pretty interesting since the cartridges were almost 90 years old at the time.

Interesting history.

w30wcf

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 10:00 am

The diffrerence between Steel and Black Powder is that Steel is a crystiline matrix while Black Powder is a simple mechanical composition.

There is no direct chemical interaction between the the components in Black Powder until it combusts.

Steel,OTOH, requires a chemical/mollecular bond between the carbon & iron to be steel. THat crystiline structure is much more sensitive to long-term variations in temperatre/stress than is a mechanical composition.

To put it another way, you can strip the KNO3 & Sulfur out of BP (effectively, strip the carbon out), but you can't strip the carbon out of steel. That's the difference.

w30wcf · Post by **w30wcf** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 10:07 am

Old Ironsights wrote:
There is no direct chemical interaction between the the components in Black Powder until it combusts.

OI,
Thank you for your input and references. The testing of almost 90 year old cartridges in my previous post would confirm your statement.

w30wcf

Don McDowell · Post by **Don McDowell** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 10:11 am

The whole" was it better arquement" is pretty much wasted band width , I suppose.
First off we're not going to get to shoot any powder from the 1800's or at least not enough of it to really make any difference. So we must try the brands and granulations we have available today.
The powders we have available to us today are just as good if not better than anything available then. So we need to learn to live with what we have. Folks try to bring to much smokeless technique into bp, and the 2 just don't cross well. Some folks have decided we need bullets that are oddly shaped bullets, using 1% of the bullets weight in lube. You can get to much lube and that will cause almost, if not more, problems than not enough lube.
Just in the last few years bpcr folks are relearning what most kids knew back in the 1870's, and that's how deadly accurate and efficient paper patch bullets are. It's been a steep learning curve, but any of this bp stuff is just bringing back what was common 100+ years ago.
Myself I wish that you could still buy 73's,92's, and 86's for the same price as a 94 right out of the Winchester catalog, just as it was in 1916,

but it ain't gonna happen

Don McDowell · Post by **Don McDowell** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 11:12 am

Lookout, get the wemmens an kids off the streets, there's a gonna be a rookus

John done went calling for some reenforcements.

http://www.theopenrange.net/forum/index ... ;topicseen

w30wcf · Post by **w30wcf** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 11:21 am

Howdy Don,
Yep! Its always good to have a few more opinions!

John

Don McDowell · Post by **Don McDowell** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 11:29 am

Don't look like Bill wants to come over and play

John in your 44wcf experiments have you actually ran a 205 gr bullet to the original 1300 fps from a rifle with bp loads?

KirkD · Post by **KirkD** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 11:54 am

Boys, I got my chair up on the boardwalk longside the street, leaning against the front of the general store, enjoying the 'dust-up'! Very interesting stuff!

Don McDowell · Post by **Don McDowell** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 12:36 pm

Well if Dutch Bill can get in here later today, there'll be some more info for the ponderizing .

ProfMarvel · Post by **ProfMarvel** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 7:02 pm

Regarding Elephant and fouling - I have an old can of 2F Elephant from the infamous "bad lot" of over 6 or 8 years ago. It fouls so badly it plugs the breech of my 12 ga percussion fowler in one shot. This was seemingly a QA problem, exacerbated by certain humidity conditions (I think excessive dryness, ie the desert I live in!) .
If I recall, Elephant replaced the powder of anyone who complained to them. Unfortunately, like many things on the internet, this seems to continue to haunt them ...

Nate Kiowa Jones wrote: I also remember reading some history of making BP back then and some claimed the best was made using urine, and one even claimed the urine from a wine drinker was the very best, so who knows.

It has been my observation that most references to urine in BP can be traced back to two major sources:
the reprint of an old medieval text named, (I think) Pyroteknica, and the Foxfire Books.

In Pyroteknica we find the oft-used quote regarding the wetting of the mixed powder prior to caking; that
wetting with urine provides a stronger powder, and (paraphrasing as my copy is in storage) that the Urine of a Wine Drinking Bishop is superior to that of a Beer Drink Monk. This formulary dates from about the 16th or 17th century.

The Foxfire Books, referenced mixing urine with manure, letting it evaporate to obtain saltpeter for home-made powder.

Both of these are references are often quoted to indicate how primitive BP manufacture was "in the olden days".

However, by the 1850's the scientific method was well embraced, and the manufacture of strong, consistent and reliable powder from quality refined ingrediants was a profitable pursuit, and in several countries a national priority. In my humble opinion, the acme of BP development occurred around the turn of the 20th century, and prior to that time we have written records of incredible accuracy at short, medium, and long range matches using the finest sporting grade Black Powders. Creedmore and Wimbledon are just two of the great venues.
Try googling
historic "long range rifle" match

The gentlemen shooting these matches would not put up with poor performing powder, and the great powder companies were vying to supply them in order to get endorsements.

After the world embraced smokeless powders , BP continued to be commonly sold well into the early to mid 1900's,
but the BP industry was mainly supported by the military since BP is all that is used in large artillery and naval guns.
The result is that continued research in BP development and QA tapered off, and numerous companies folded since it was no longer *as* profitable.

IN the last 15 or 20 years we have seen a resurgence in BP shooting that I think is unprecedented, which has led to other players coming into the market, with a variety of substitutes and true BP choices that vary from "bloody marvelous" to "******* floorsweepings" and everything in between.

I do hope Dutch Bill will chime in as he can discuss the technical and historic details of powder manufacture and performance in great detail, having been in the thick of the modern BP business.

yhs
Prof Marvel

KWK · Post by **KWK** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 7:39 pm

since BP is all that is used in large artillery and naval guns

I believe they switched to nitrocellulose well before WW-II. The priming charge was still BP, I think. Some landmines continue (?) to use BP to propel the mine out of the soil before detonating.

ProfMarvel · Post by **ProfMarvel** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 8:50 pm

KWK wrote:
since BP is all that is used in large artillery and naval guns
I believe they switched to nitrocellulose well before WW-II. The priming charge was still BP, I think. Some landmines continue (?) to use BP to propel the mine out of the soil before detonating.

My word, regarding the US Artillery, you are correct sir., I stand corrected.
Primers, fuses, and blanks. Perhaps it was when they switch to rockets for anything larger than 155mm. The Navy still uses bagged BP charges in larger guns, such as the 16inch guns, I am unsure about smaller guns. I do know "the military" is a big customer of certain companies starting with "G" ....

I am still hoping for Dutch Bill to chime in, but you can see some of his comments beginning here:
http://www.theopenrange.net/forum/index ... n#msg46169

yhs
ProfMarvel

Griff · Post by **Griff** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 8:53 pm

Sure is a long way from Flagstaff to Kingman with no internet... wonder how the "dustup" is coming.... did I miss much?

Good stuff! Kirk, I think I'll join ya, let me grab a pickle from the barrel and a sasspariila. I got 2-bits sez the "better then than now" boys'll be left standing!

My avaristic bent sez competition is good for the consumer, monopolies are bad.

Ben_Rumson · Post by **Ben_Rumson** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 10:07 pm

I think it was in Frank Mayer's book that he mentioned getting his hands on some English made powder and was astonished at how much more powerful it was than the Government powder he was getting from breaking down the free 50-70 ammo the Army was giving away.... He started using English powder from then on.. Sold and traded the Gubment powder to the Pilgrims and melted the bullets and cast his own..

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 7:28 am

ProfMarvel wrote:
KWK wrote:
since BP is all that is used in large artillery and naval guns
I believe they switched to nitrocellulose well before WW-II. The priming charge was still BP, I think. Some landmines continue (?) to use BP to propel the mine out of the soil before detonating.
My word, regarding the US Artillery, you are correct sir., I stand corrected.
Primers, fuses, and blanks. Perhaps it was when they switch to rockets for anything larger than 155mm. The Navy still uses bagged BP charges in larger guns, such as the 16inch guns, I am unsure about smaller guns. I do know "the military" is a big customer of certain companies starting with "G" ....

I am still hoping for Dutch Bill to chime in, but you can see some of his comments beginning here:
http://www.theopenrange.net/forum/index ... n#msg46169

yhs
ProfMarvel

Bagged artillery charges over a certain volume use Black Powder as an igniter booster (it's the red "patch" on the back of the charge-bag that goes near the breech) but not for total propellant mix. Can you imagine needing to swab a 16" gun to get rid of carbon fouling?

KCSO · Post by **KCSO** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 11:08 am

A few years ago I was able to dip into a powder collection of sealed cans of powder from about 1890 to 1930. I fired Dupont, Meteor, Curtis and Harvey, And Kings against modern GOEX,and Elephant. Some of the old stuff was better in some respects and some, Meteor! was not as good. The biggest difference was in the milling. Modern powders are graphite coated and are not milled as long. The old Curtis and Harvey was not coated and was millled for a long time and so it gave very soft fouling. All that is somewhat academic as miilling is the most dangerous part of the process and NO ONE is going to go back to uncoated and a long mill time, It's just not going to happen. Velocity wise current Schutzen, and Swiss are the equal of any of the old powders i have ever shot. The problem with this kind of testing is that you can't ever know what the powder would do fresh. Using powder that is between 80 and 90 years old is somewhat problamatic.

When I started shooting B/P I got mine at an old hardware store that had stock left from pre WWII, I shot up a lot of Dupont that would today be prime collectors stuff and i didn't even think to save the cans! The store owner thought I was crazy for messing with that old stuff.

Fairshake · Post by **Fairshake** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 7:12 pm

Prof Marvel, How nice to see you here Sir. Yes we need Dutch Bill to Chime in on this post. He is the most interesting man when it comes to BP. I always read his post and try to gather that info into a storage bank. I would love to meet him FTF.

John Boy · Post by **John Boy** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 8:42 pm

The quality of the components used, including the quality of the water has everything to do with the quality of the powder.

I'll side with w30wcf's statement because it's fact.
... Purity of the sulphur and saltpeter
... Quality of the charcoal: Alder Blackthorn branches gathered in the early Spring loaded with sap (sugar), dried for a few years and properly charred in the retort so that the creosote and fixed hydrocarbons is not burned off ... Priceless!
... Water purity: The less dissolved minerals, including calcium, used in the charcoal wet down and milling process (about 10% water) is key to quality powder
... Density of the powder: The mill time duration to mix all the components together using preferably a 10 ton mill wheel v a 5 ton into a dense granule cake produces quality gunpowder. Ten ton wheels are pretty much non existent now. Respective to density, Swiss runs the wheels for 1200 tours for sporting powder. A tour is one 360 degree turn of the wheels (they use two 5 ton wheels)
... Polishing Process: Rolling time of the powder in the polishing drums knocks off the angular edges of the granules. Important step to producing quality. Rounded polished powder ignites better than angular grain powder. No, coating the powder with graphite is not why good powder looks shiny. It's dense powder that has been polished correctly!
These items produce the good stuff that creates a high pressure curve of gases that is the basis for velocity - powder that is not a dirty foul and is moist.

As for powder getting better with age - I can't buy into it. Two of the 3 ingredients are inert chemically (sulphur and charcoal). The saltpeter will form into a larger crystal chain by it's self but not when the powder is made correctly being dense

And respective to Nobel's Meteor that was made in the Ardeer, Scotland plant - it shoots today with the best of them. I have and have shot many pounds in cartridge rifles with excellent SD's (low teens) - high velocity and clean burning. In fact, digging deep into the history of this powder, I am convinced that Meteor was made using the Curtis's and Harvey formulation and processes after Nobel bought them out in the late '60's. My Meteor is vintage 1973

Griff · Post by **Griff** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:12 pm

Thank you, John Boy. Enjoyed that treatise, stuff I didn't know. But, it does make me curious, why would the size/weight of the mill wheel make a difference?... nope, never mind, slow brain process just answered my own question... pressure.

w30wcf · Post by **w30wcf** » Sat Jan 24, 2009 5:17 pm

I've been "out of touch" the past few days.

Don,
The only b.p. that I have been able to hit 1,300 f.p.s. with 40 gr. charges of FFG granulation in the .44-40 has been Swiss. Average velocity under Lyman's 427098 (210 grs.) was 1,340 f.p.s. Velocities of 40 grs. of Goex FFG and Schuetzen FFG ran in the neighboorhood of 1,250 f.p.s.

Professor Marvel and KCSO, thank you for your input.

John Boy,
Thank you for the excellent summary.

And, "Thank you" to Dutch Bill for sharing his expert knowledge on b.p.
http://www.theopenrange.net/forum/index ... pic=6147.0

b.p. history is interesting!

w30wcf