View Full Version : BP "grains volume"?

04-23-2006, 11:17 PM
I am completely un-experienced with loading BP. What little reading I've done I see reference to 'grains volume'. Not understanding this, is it a weight of BP or is it a volume measure referenced in grains of black?

04-24-2006, 12:26 AM
BP is real tough to weigh accurately because it is so hydroscopic that it changes desity all the time. To get around this, it is measured in volume. What you need to accomplish this is a volume BP measure like that used by muzzle loaders. These cost about $10.00 and are indestructable. I use one to set my Lyman #5 measure. It's a simple tube with a sliding piston graduated in grains.

Bad Ass Wallace
04-24-2006, 05:22 AM
BP is real tough to weigh accurately because it is so hydroscopic that it changes desity all the time.
??????????????? I don't leave the lid off the tin that long:roll: :roll:

It is weighed the same as any other powder!

04-24-2006, 06:10 AM
................It's also not the same, lot to lot either in weight or performance. Especially big differences between manufacturers. Using Elephant 2Fg with my measure set to 70.0grs volumn, it throws about 72.0grs actual weight. With the same volume setting Swiss 2FG comes in at 80.0grs actual weight.

There was a guy at our range who was really into BPCR shooting. Well there are a few others but I knew this guy :-). Shooting a super nice LoneStar rolling block in 45-70 he was a consistant 2-1/2" group shooter at 200 meters off the bench. He eventually ran out of that batch and bought another case (of another lot number) and his 200 meter groups became 6" groups. So back to the drawing board to re-work up a load.

He said he probably spent $75 calling all over the country trying to locate another case of that other lot number to no avail.


04-24-2006, 06:25 AM
I weigh all my BP charges. By doing it this way, I'm seeing equal powder column height and consistant compression pressures. Those items figure in pretty big when you are trying to maintain MOA out to 500m and beyond for some folks.

All powders, smokeless or black change from lot to lot. Sometimes you don't have to change a thing, when you change lots, but other times its like starting from scratch.

04-24-2006, 07:15 AM
One certainly can weigh BP charges and many do, but make sure you understand that when you see a load listed as a 70 grain load, it means by volume not weight. I loaded several dozen 45-90 rounds last night. The volume measure said I was throwing 75 grains of 2f. The scale said I was throwing 68.5 grains. That same charge measured 75 grains by volume last February too but according to my logs, it weighed 73 grains using a different lot of the same brand of 2f. BP will deliver the most accurate loads in those big cases you can ever imagine with shot to shot velocity spreads of as little as 5 fps difference but, you've got to know that each and every time you open a new can it's a whole different ballgame.

04-24-2006, 09:30 AM
Like Buckshot said BP changes lot to lot,mfg to mfg.I shoot up over 25 lb a year mostly in ff and fff.So I buy in 25 lb kegs.Well it is not in kegs anymore,a big baggie in a box. So when I measure my loads I use a powder measure and then weight it.That info will stay the same till I change lots.I have found that the changes I need to make with Goex in my short range [under 200 yd] is +- 2-5 gr
This work is mostly with front loaders or the 44-40 cartridge.
Now you guys doing long range stuff with real compressed loads my find more problems changing lots? This could be a real PITA if you only buy a can at a time.

Old Ironsights
04-24-2006, 04:02 PM
2 important things:

#1: Using a "standard" granulation & moisture content, classicly manufactured 2F BP will throw Volume & Weight equivelents. Actually the "Volume" you are measuring is not a real volume at all, but the volume of that idealized powder.

#2: Sift/Screen your powder. Your volume of BP may be almost 80% smaller granulation than you expect, and therefore burn faster.

Here is a bit of research I did:

I recently ordered mixed powder from Powder Inc. I received one pound each of Goex, Goex Express, Swiss and KIK in 3F. (I also will be receiving one lb of Graf 3F, which will be added to the test as soon as I get it.)

My first question was: “How consistent is the granulation in a pound of powder?”

To analyze this, I sifted each pound of 3F with a 3F Master Screen from CalGraf (http://www.cal-graf.com/screen.html).

Before screening, I tumbled each can lightly and poured off 1 oz of powder for later velocity testing. I then double-sifted each pound and weighed the results on a standard Palouze Spring-type postal scale. All 5 brands of powder had more than 16oz net wt of powder in the can.

SWISS powder yielded 11.3 oz of 3F and 4.0 oz of 4F & Fines. (11.3+4.0+1 = 16.3oz)

Goex Express yielded 9.3 oz of 3F, 7.3 oz of 4F/ Fines. (9.3+7.3+1 = 17.5oz !!!)

KIK yielded 7.3 oz 3F, 9.0 oz 4F/Fines (7.3+9.0+1 = 17.3oz !!!)

Goex (Red can) yielded 4.9 oz 3F and 10.7 oz 4F/Fines !!! (4.9+10.7+1 = 16.6oz)

Graf/Schutzen: 7.7 oz 3F, 8.0 oz 4F/Fines (7.7+8+1=16.7)

That puts Graf between Goex Express and KIK for qty 3F/lb.

Graf is, if anything, MORE "dusty" than KIK. Sifting produced quite noticable clouds of fine dust.

Shooting (TC Firestorm Flintlock)

Using 50gr loads 3F, no powder was appreciably more fouling/dirty than another. Goex Red Can had the strongest Sulfer smell.

Sifting brought both velocities and average deviations down.

Velocity & Deviation:

Using 5-shot strings, and cleaning between strings, I saw the following:

Swiss, Unsifted: AvVel: 1471.2 AvDev 21.20fps
Swiss, --Sifted: AvVel: 1412.0 AvDev 20.64fps
Express, Unsifted: AvVel: 1443.2 AvDev 53.80fps
Express, --Sifted: AvVel: 1337.6 AvDev 35.00fps
KIK, Unsifted: AvVel: 1423.2 AvDev 52.00fps
KIK, --Sifted: AvVel: 1310.4 AvDev 20.32fps
Goex Red, Unsifted: AvVel: 1427.0 AvDev 32.80fps
(I wasn't able to finish before the range closed. Gotta get there earlier Next time:)
Goex Red, --Sifted: AvVel: ------ AvDev -----fps
Graf, Unsifted: AvVel: ------ AvDev -----fps
Graf, --Sifted: AvVel: ------ AvDev -----fps
10%4F: AvVel: ------ AvDev -----fps
20%4F: AvVel: ------ AvDev -----fps
30%4F: AvVel: ------ AvDev -----fps
40%4F: AvVel: ------ AvDev -----fps
50%4F: AvVel: ------ AvDev -----fps

04-24-2006, 04:04 PM
I have a theory about the difference between black powder volume measures and scale-weighed charges.
If anybody can point me at historical data that confirms...or debunks it...please do so.

The grain, as a unit of weight, was originally based on actual cereal grains. Some areas used wheat, some barley...whatever was the most common in a geographical area. Naturally, this caused a lot of variation for a number of reasons beside the differing crops used.

By the time black powder needed to be measured accurately, some 'standardization' had been accepted. The substance which weighs the same (for a given volume) all over the world is water. If you read enough about black powder, you are sure to run across the term 'water grains'.

I believe that when a muzzloader's measure, with the marks on the adjusting rod, is locked at the 70 grain mark (for example) that sets the measure to hold a volume of water which weighs 70 grains. The powder charge thrown by that setting will weigh something different on a scale.

I had been toying with this theory for some time when I purchased my first load of brass for my new .45-90 rifle. Taking one of the new cases and plugging the primer hole, I filled it with water and weighed the volume it held.

Guess what...the water weighed 90.2 grains.
(Bell brass, before trim to length)

Sure, different brands of brass will have slightly differing volume based on it's manufacture, but this served to make me think I am on the right track.

It also leads me to think that (possibly) the .45-70 designation (or whichever one you choose) does not necessarily mean that original ammunition actually contained 70 grains of powder.
It may be that a given load had 70 grains of powder mashed into it, but room was needed for a certain amount of lead in there, too.

Instead, I tend to believe that the .45-70 designation (or pick your favorite) actually meant that the case used was of a volume that would hold 70 grains of water. Since the diameter was fixed, the water weight requirement would accurately establish the length, no matter where in the world the case was produced.
(Sharps accomplished the same degree of standardization by simply designating the length of a case in tenths of an inch.)
They then put in as much powder as was deemed necessary...which might also have been 70 grains.

I don't own any BP brass other than .45-90, so you will have to check to see if my indications transfer to other cartridges. How much water can you pack into a .44-40...a .50-90?
(If there is a primer seated, it's tough to shake the water out of bottlenecks...)

04-24-2006, 05:27 PM
MT Charlie; just reading your post and thought what the heck, took out my TC adjustable powder measure, set it on the 90 gr hash mark, filled to the top with water and weighed the h20 in it on the scale 89.9 grs of water. That's pretty close for these being mass produced! But a WRA Co. 38/72 WCF primed case holds 77.2 grs of water.

04-24-2006, 06:11 PM
MT Charlie; just reading your post and thought what the heck, took out my TC adjustable powder measure, set it on the 90 gr hash mark, filled to the top with water and weighed the h20 in it on the scale 89.9 grs of water.

Not that the measure holds about the amount of water I thought it might...but that it was SO EASY TO GET SOMEONE TO TRY IT.

I posted a similar rundown on my theory on the Shiloh forum a few (couple?) months ago. All I got was a ration of crappola from that gang of 'self-important experts' saying that ALL powder is measured 'volumetrically'.

The only 'volume' they could envision was the amount of powder thrown by the micrometer-adjusted cavities on their Belding and Mull measures...and how 'consistent' they were.
Well...DUH!...if one doesn't use a scale to adjust the cavity, how does he know that the measure will throw the 'volume' he wants?

Thanks, swheeler, for taking time to provide that 'data'.

04-24-2006, 08:47 PM
The "grains / volume" idea harks back to about 1900, when there were several "Schuetzen" and shotgun smokeless powders which were "bulked-up" (like today's "Trail-Mix Cheerio's") so that they would give about the same performance as the common black powders of the day, when measured out with the little dippers that were included with the Ideal, Winchester, etc., tools of the day, in the same cartridges. Remember that there were other "rifle" type premium powders like the Curtis & Harvey which were considerably hotter (like today's Swiss vs. GOEX, with "Elephant" even less potent) than the standard "shotgun/musket" powders available then; also going to finer powders than "standard" for the calibers (Fg for .50 caliber or over rifles and pistols, FFg for .40 - .45, and FFFg for .36 and under and for shotguns) could also "hotten" things up - so the old-timers had to know what they were doing, too. (You COULD blow a gun with the wrong choice, even with BP!)

But the issue came to the fore again - after years of DuPont / GOEX middle-range BP - when Pyrodex hove onto the scene. People had to remember - or be reminded - to use "grains volume", because P-Dex was about 30% less dense (i.e., lighter for a given volume), and if you loaded it by weight, you could indeed get into trouble. Now, with "hotter" BP substitutes like 777 - and with Swiss - you can even get into trouble loading by "grains volume", and the general shooting public (like Bubba, out to get a few extry deer with his in-line) would be better served if we dumped the "grains / volume" idea altogether.


04-24-2006, 10:34 PM
.................Floodgate. "...........Now, with "hotter" BP substitutes like 777 - and with Swiss - you can even get into trouble loading by "grains volume", .........."

HA! Yessiree indeedy[smilie=w:. Six or 7 years ago when I'd first gotten my 3 band 577 Snider, a buddy said he'd take one of my cracked neck 577-450 Kynochs and mangulate me up a 577 cartridge case. Well heck, if he volunteered ................ :-)

So there we were. Me an my longish 3 Band Snider Enfield and presented with a reasonable facsimile of a Snider case. Dang if it didn't chamber too. So all we had was that one case, but I did have some other primers so we'd be able to shoot it a couple times. No case sizing mind you.

I poured in some 2Fg Swiss BP (no scale, just enough to look 'right'). Used our thumb on some cork gasket material against the casemouth for a wad so the powder wouldn't filter past the Minie, precariously perched in the case. Oh yes we did have one piece of caseforming tool. That was a pair of pliers. Before seating the slug the pliers were used to oval the casemouth, so when you kind of rolled the Minie' in, it would stay. Pretty much somewhat, stay. Actually the hot ticket was to point the muzzle skyward to chamber the round, close the breech and THEN level it to aim.

I perched my left buttock cheek on the edge of a bench to shoot it and all it did was go Clack!. I recocked the hammer for another whack at the old Kynoch primer and oh brother did we have ignition. When that thing went off it about rolled my personal butt over backwards right off the bench:oops::drinks:


So after that we only filled the case a bit more then half, put in some wadded newspaper, then the cork wad and the Minie'. We sure couldn't hit anything we deliberately aimed at, but it sure was fun.


04-24-2006, 10:48 PM
I tried 777 in my 45-90 Sharps and got a similar surprise. I loaded it right at the same volume that I did 2F Goex. Next to zero compression, maybe .035" or less BUT, and this is a big BUT, the bullet was seated out to the second lube groove and the case extra full. I also used my standard Rem 215 primer. DANG! That sucker barked! Chronograph showed that 520 gr. Postel to be clocking in excess of 1600 fps. Primers were flat as a pancake. So, obviously, this was a hot load. I went back and accessed the web site. Duh, zero compression and 10% less using a STANDARD primer. To this day I wonder what the pressure was really like. All I know is that my shoulder did not want to do many loads like that at all. Moral of the story ..... Know what you're doing before you do it. READ the literature and check with the experts before going the "Bubba" route.

04-24-2006, 10:54 PM
Additional information


Black Prince
04-25-2006, 06:47 PM
Trooper Dan

Your question is " is it a weight of BP or is it a volume measure referenced in grains of black?"

The answer is the powder weights given in grains in your reloading manuals are refering to actual weight, not volume. Set your scale at the listed powder weight given for a particular load. Adjust your powder measure until it throws charges that matches the scale. Lock down the set screw on the powder measure and load your cases.

Grain (gr)

a traditional unit of weight. The grain, equal to 1/480 troy ounce (see also pound), or exactly 64.798 91 milligrams, was the legal foundation of traditional English weight systems, with various pounds being defined as a specified number of grains: 5760 grains in a troy pound and 7000 grains in an avoirdupois pound, for example. In the version of the troy system used by jewelers, there are 24 grains in a pennyweight and 20 pennyweight in an ounce. In the version used by apothecaries, there are 20 grains in a scruple, 3 scruples in a dram, and 8 drams in an ounce.

Since your loading manuals clearly state xx grains for a particular load, it is refering to weight as per the standard definition of weight given above. If it were not so, Lyman would have been sued out of business long ago for using a weight definition when it meant volume. Volume is an entirely different unit of measure as any competent attorney could easily prove to a jury.

Don't let the hocus pocus of black powder jargon keep you from loading it. It's fun to shoot, but there is more bullspit put out about it than you can shake a stick at. Read your loading manuals and follow them. Once you are comfortable with the whole process of loading black powder, experiment with your loads until you find the one your particular rifle likes.

Good shooting to you partner.

04-26-2006, 02:15 AM
What little reading I've done I see reference to 'grains volume'. Not understanding this, is it a weight of BP or is it a volume measure referenced in grains of black?
Please forgive me for not attempting to help with your question, trooperdan.

I was so interested in publicising my 'theory', I ignored your confusion.

In order to actually answer it (as Black Prince at least tried to do) it's necessary to know exactly what you read.

If the term came from a reloading manual (as Black Prince presumes) it may well refer to scale-weighed grains. If you were reading an account of someone's pet .45-90 load, I would have to know his actual praseology to have any hope of determining what he meant.

The term 'grains volume', without the rest of the sentence to provide context, sounds to me like a measurement made with a device whioch holds a known volume of powder, is probably marked with the amount it holds, and the marking probably says X (number of) grains.

That would be very typical of the measure used by a muzzleloader to pour a known amount of powder down his barrel.

In the case of a shooter loading black powder metallic cartridges...well, there are several possibilities.

Some guys (for instance) just dip a .45-70 case full of powder and compress it enough to seat their bullets. At least one shooter with a pretty good reputation does it about that way.
When describing his method, that reloader might say he uses 70 'grains volume' in his ammunition. The actual weight of his charge would, of course, be a mystery to the reader...and perhaps even to the reloader, himself.

So, as you can see, terminology can get jumbled when you get information from a variety of sources. Therefore, unless you can provide some 'context', it's pretty tough to answer your question accurately.

Black Prince
04-26-2006, 09:22 AM
You are exactly correct in the context that you describe Charlie. However, when a newbie is trying to get started as Trooper Dan is, I submit that confusing jargon and statements out of context are reasons why many people are reluctant to load black powder. His question here is evidence of that. He is confused and doesn't feel comfortable with the process because he has conflictig information. Those of us who've been doing this awhile often don't consider that everything we know and take for granted is not known by a newbie and it can cause them problems.

The standard reference for reloading both smokeless and black powder is a reloading manual. Lyman is arguably the oldest one out there and has a lot of information on loading black powder that some others do not have. I always suggest to any newbie that he get a Lyman manual and READ it throughly. Paul Matthews books and Wolf's book are also excellent sources of information, but I don't want to over load them all at once. I assume a newbie would be getting information from a good loading manual because to do anything else is absolutely ASKING for trouble.

You state "If the term came from a reloading manual (as Black Prince presumes) it may well refer to scale-weighed grains."

I submit that when the term comes from a reloading manual it DOES refer to scale weighed grains. It isn't "may refer to"; it does refer to it absolutely.

This absolute reference gives a newbie confidence in what he is doing and helps him gain skill in loading black powder. My intention here is to answer Trooper Dan's question and to suggest to him a way to begin loading black powder that is safe, and a method in which he can have confidence. I don't have any theories and I'm not trying to establish myself as an expert. I hope that members of this forum understand that newbies need special attention when they ask questions, and that we make a special effort to answer them exactly. In doing that, maybe we can help someone enjoy this black powder loading and shooting as much as we do.

04-26-2006, 01:16 PM
You state "If the term came from a reloading manual (as Black Prince presumes) it may well refer to scale-weighed grains."

I submit that when the term comes from a reloading manual it DOES refer to scale weighed grains. It isn't "may refer to"; it does refer to it absolutely.
You are taking me wrong, Black Prince, and defending against an attack which has not occurred.

trooperdan's original statement was, "What little reading I've done I see reference to 'grains volume'."
Nothing in that sentence leads me to think 'loading manual', or even 'specific load data'. The 'term' might have been found while reading something of an historical nature about cartridge rifles.

I was saying that it is your assumption that 'the term' came from a loading manual. If it did, I have no inclination to argue that 'scale-weighed' is the correct way to take it's meaning...but I would be surprised to see "volume grains" used in a loading manual rather than simply "grains".

That is why 'context' is needed to guess at what the source of trooperdan's confusion (which may not have been a loading manual) actually meant.
That context would then allow someone with your experience
"to answer them exactly".

04-26-2006, 03:10 PM
Black Prince:
Does a troy ounce equal an avoirdupois ounce? Or does a troy pound equal and avoirdupois pound? Or are the two weight systems totally unrelated ? Just curious and you seem to understand both sysyems. Duckiller

04-26-2006, 04:16 PM
I'll let Black Prince handle the comparison...but both systems recognize the same 'grain'.

04-26-2006, 07:15 PM
I am completely un-experienced with loading BP. What little reading I've done I see reference to 'grains volume'. Not understanding this, is it a weight of BP or is it a volume measure referenced in grains of black?

This can be simplified some. One way to get your powder charge, is simply scoop up a case full of Black Powder, Goex FFG or Cartridge. Scrape the powder off level with the mouth of the cartridge case. Weigh this charge, and adjust your powder scale to drop this amount of powder.

Slowly drop this powder charge into the case, through a drop tube, 24” or so long. Put a veggie. Polly or cardboard wad, as you prefer on top of the charge. Compress the powder enough so you can seat the boolit to the overall length you want. If you are shooting a single shot you may want forgo crimping.

There are technical articles available at


And you may specifically wish to refer to



You could also check in at

Alterfurtz BPCR group

Shiloh Sharps

Or take a look at ordering this book

Croft Barker; The Black Powder Cartridge Silhouette Handbook CISTERN PUBLISHING COMPANY, 14010 North State HWY 95 ,Flatonia, Texas 7894
Tel:(361) 865-0030 Fax: (361)865-0031,katbark@pcguns.net

Black Prince
04-26-2006, 09:03 PM

You sir, are a glutton for esoteric information.

The avoirdupois system is a system of weights defining terms such as pound and ounce. It is the everyday system of weight used in the United States and is still widely used in the United Kingdom, despite official adoption of the metric system. It is considered more modern than the alternative troy or apothecary or the medieval English mercantile and Tower systems. The name derives from the Old French term aveir de peis meaning literally "goods of weight", referring to goods sold by weight (as opposed to by the piece, for example).

In the avoirdupois system, all units are multiples or fractions of the pound, which is now defined as 0.45359237 kg in most of the English-speaking world since 1959.
These are the units in their original French forms:
• 16 drams/drachms = 1 once/ounce
• 16 onces = 1 livre/pound
• 25 livres = 1 quarter
• 4 quarters = 1 quintal/hundredweight
• 20 quintaux = 1 tonne/ton

People in the British Isles, when they began to use this system, included the stone, which was eventually defined as fourteen avoirdupois pounds. The quarter, hundredweight, and ton were altered, respectively, to 28 lb, 112 lb, and 2240 lb in order for masses to be easily converted between them and stone. The British colonies in North America, however, adopted the system as it was. In the U.S., quarters, hundredweights and tons remain defined as 25, 100, and 2000 lb (though the two former are virtually unused); if disambiguation is required they are referred to as the "short" units, as opposed to the British "long" units.
The following are the units in the British or imperial adaptation of the avoirdupois system:

• 16 drams/drachms = 1 ounce (oz.)
• 16 ounces = 1 pound (lb.)
• 14 pounds = 1 stone (st.)
• 2 stone = 1 quarter (qtr.)
• 4 quarter = 1 hundredweight (cwt.)
• 20 hundredweight = 1 ton (t.)

Troy weight originates from what was called the troy system of mass. Dating back to before the time of William the Conqueror, the name comes from the city of Troyes in France, an important trading city in the Middle Ages.

A troy ounce, the only currently used unit of the system, is 480 grains, somewhat heavier than an avoirdupois ounce (437.5 grains). A grain is exactly 64.798 91 mg, hence one troy ounce is exactly 31.103 476 8 g, about 10 per cent more than the avoirdupois ounce, which is exactly 28.349 523 125 g. The troy ounce is the only ounce used in the pricing of precious metals, such as gold, platinum, and silver, and this is the only remaining use of the troy ounce. In troy weight, there are 12 ounces in a pound, rather than 16 in the more-common avoirdupois system. The troy ounce may be abbreviated to ozt.

A troy pound is 5760 grains (about 373.24 g), while an avoirdupois pound is 7000 grains (about 453.59 g).

It is my contention that God created everything by number, weight and measure. To explain all things is too difficult a task for any one man or even for any one age. It is much better to do a little with certainty, and leave the rest for others that come after you, than to attempt to explain all things.

We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore, when the Lyman manual says 68 grains, it means 68 grains by weight. It means that about smokeless powder and it means that about black powder. And that is all I have to say about that.

I wonder if we have Trooper Dan thoroughly confused by now? The next time he hears the words black powder, he will likely go hide under his bed.

04-26-2006, 10:50 PM
Black Prince:
Thank you

04-27-2006, 12:02 AM
AND, if you carry the avoirdupois system on out, you find that a "hundredweight" is NOT 100 lbs., but 112, and 20 of them make a "long ton" of 2240 lbs. Curiously, this is VERY close to a "metric ton" of 1000 kilograms or 2205 lbs and change.

We could add to the confusion by getting into surveyors' length measurements, but I'll confine myself to noting that the old backwoods American "chunk shootin' " range of 40 rods = 220 yds. is close as makes almost no matter to 200 meters = 218.7 yds.; almost within the range of variation of the old ML barrel lengths.

You can drive yourself (and those around you) CRAZY with this stuff!


04-27-2006, 12:07 AM
Then there was the old Redcoat monetary system: twelve pence to the shilling, twenty shillings to the pound - BUT TWENTY-ONE shillings to the Guinea. Doctors, horses and women were paid for in guineas; ordinary merchandise in pounds.


04-27-2006, 02:06 AM
As a civil engineer I understand rods, chainsand other fun distances. Went to school in midwest and was taught of Sections,township and ranges. Then I came to So. Cal and found that Ranchos were defined by how far a horse could travel in a day. Then there are Varas (sp) that vary from survey to survey. Polite society doesn't talk about the surveys of the City of Santa Barbara. The chain broke several times and it was repaired with rawhide. Distances vary with how many times the chain was repaired and the humidity on the date of survey. Fun stuff. Duckiller

John Boy
05-29-2006, 09:38 PM
Ironsights - I found your hold-pass grain analysis of the various powders most interesting. Thanks for sharing.

To add to your reference info, here are the standards for hold-pass ...

06-05-2006, 04:00 PM
Here is a nice cheat-sheet for folks looking to weigh black powder and subs.

08-04-2006, 10:40 AM
montana_charlie you are rite about the water ,i read it 30 years ago.when i am working up new loads with a new batch of powder i first set the volume measure on the disierd weight then measure that gharge on my scales, example goex cartridge 70 grn volume = 68.2 grn scales now if that load is a good one then i just weigh 68.2 grn on the scales for each case. i dont use a powder thrower,i much prefer to measure each charge gives me beter accuresy.

Ed Barrett
08-04-2006, 03:14 PM
I think we ought to start using the printer's system of points and picas when discribing black powder stuff. It seems like every trade used to have there own method of doing thing to keep uninitiated out of thier black magic. Today it's done with initials or arcane words so that various "Geeks and Wonks" can talk to each other and seem "cool". Luckily here we try to get things so everyone an understand things.

08-08-2006, 01:42 PM
it is both.

I refer you to page 108, Lymans Cast Bullet handbook. Upper left hand quadrant, #1 step. .......using and adjustable measure or a premeasured charge.....