My homemade black powder

[Linstrum]

Measuring by volume is pretty "iffy" at best, and isn't reliably repeatable for what we do. How fluffy is the charcoal, etc. Stoichiometric ratios for chemical reactions are an absolute must, so how much of what is always by weight. When too much or too little of a reactant is in a mixture, the reaction goes too slowly because the other reactant behaves as though it were a contaminant or impurity when it is in excess.

Back 60 years ago when I was in 8th grade, one of my buddies tried making black powder by measuring the ingredients by volume, using kitchen measuring spoons. I told him it was done by weight, but he wouldn't believe me. He said that wasn't how his mom measured ingredients to make cookies and cakes! His attempt at making black powder would just barely fizzle, and then go out. What he had was a pile of mostly potassium nitrate, with a little sulfur and some sprinkles of barbecue briquette charcoal in it. Barbecue briquette charcoal has a lot of sawdust and sand mixed in with it, along with some dextrin and Portland cement to make it all stick together.

Because my dad was a chemist, he had a one kilogram Ohaus balance that was accurate to a tenth of a gram. So, I mixed up maybe 10 grams, about 150 grains, of crude black powder meal to show my buddy how it is done, and how the powdered ingredients burn. I simply got some lumps of charcoal out of the back yard grill pit, probably lemon tree wood. In fifteen minutes I had made some fine dry serpentine powder, which made a pretty good mushroom cloud when it burned. Nothing like 150 grains of GOEX that I wouldn't dare get close enough to light with a match in my fingers, but a pretty good WHOOSH! That made a believer out of my buddy that chemists weigh ingredients, and that measuring spoons and cups are great for cookies and cakes in the kitchen.

[Sandro_ventania]

I fully agree! The ideal would be to measure in moles... but that's too much to ask!

[Graysmoke]

I give credit to all who have given me instruction and courage to make BP. I just cooked my first batch of tp charcoal using kirkland brand. Milled it for 15 min. and it can definitely be air born powder fluffy like I’ve never seen char. I wont be able to mix and shoot some for a while, I can’t wait to see the comparison to the red cedar char I have been making BP with.
Thanks again to all!!
Graysmoke (n lots of it!)

[HamGunner]

I cooked another batch of TP into charcoal. The first batch that I charred was three rolls of Wal-Mart's Great Value Ultra Strong. I had to really work at getting all three rolls into my large pressure pan cooker. When charred, it weighed out enough charcoal to make 1.5 lbs. of Black, or about 1/2 lb. of powder per roll.

This time I used three rolls of Sam's Club Member's Mark Ultra Premium. Was able to squeeze all three rolls into the cooker without as much difficulty and after charring and then weighing the results I could see why. The three rolls only weighed out enough charcoal to make barely 1 lb. of Black. Certainly less dense tissue in these rolls. About 35% less.

I have the Potassium Nitrate dried and weighed out and dumped into my mill along with the rest of the ingredients and will mill it up tomorrow. I am curious as to whether there is any difference in the two Toilet Paper tissues other than weight. I am guessing that the Sam's Club TP is just fluffier, but perhaps I will soon find out.

[Linstrum]

Well, gosh! It seems like using toilet paper as a source of charcoal is about the best thing to come along since, since what? Since toilet paper was invented! That, sliced bread, and the Victor mouse trap!

I did a quick ash test using the cheapest paper towels from Walmart. I didn't do an assay, I couldn't because there wasn't anything left to assay, it burned to nothing. But I did have to hold a flame under the piece of paper towel to keep the charred part burning, which does not surprise me or cause me any concern, since everything burned and disappeared, as it should.

So, the next part is to figure out which is more cost effective. Which costs more per pound, toilet paper or paper towels? Cheap paper towels fall apart like toilet paper as soon as they get wet, which would seem to indicate that there isn't any binder used in with the paper pulp to impart wet strength. Nothing "brawny" about cheap paper towels.

I also burn-tested a strip cut from a coffee filter. Forget that! It left a lot of fine gray ash.

[DoubleBuck]

I shot the last of the first batch of Charmin T.P. powder I made awhile back, today. I was able to make a fair test of that 3fff powder which was finished without polishing, versus the same powder which was polished for 12 hours. The test was my first with the new (to me) Pietta .44 Navy I bought a couple of weeks ago. Powder was 1.6 density screened size <20 >50 and rescreened >50 after polishing.
290 grains of powder lost 19.8 grains of fines after polishing.
I had 12 shots of unpolished 25 grains each under a Wonder Wad under a .451 Round ball, kicked with a RWS 1075 plus cap.
They averaged 742 FPS, with a spread of 73 FPS and a average efficiency of 29.68 fps/grain.
11 shots of polished 25 grains averaged 798 FPS, with a spread of 62 and average efficiency of 31.912 fps/grain.
I had one shot of the last dab of powder which was 14.1 grain, which went 629 FPS with an efficiency of 25.16 fps/grain.
I think I will be polishing my powder from here out. The only difference in the two powders tested was polished and not polished.
I really don't know from inexperience if these numbers are good or bad. The efficiency of the polished powder was, I thought, very good. In my rifle experience, an efficiency above 31 fps per grain, is a good thing. Don't know about pistols.
I hope everyone else had as much fun, today!

[dtknowles]

I shot the last of the first batch of Charmin T.P. powder I made awhile back, today. I was able to make a fair test of that 3fff powder which was finished without polishing, versus the same powder which was polished for 12 hours. The test was my first with the new (to me) Pietta .44 Navy I bought a couple of weeks ago. Powder was 1.6 density screened size <20 >50 and rescreened >50 after polishing.
290 grains of powder lost 19.8 grains of fines after polishing.
I had 12 shots of unpolished 25 grains each under a Wonder Wad under a .451 Round ball, kicked with a RWS 1075 plus cap.
They averaged 742 FPS, with a spread of 73 FPS and a average efficiency of 29.68 fps/grain.
11 shots of polished 25 grains averaged 798 FPS, with a spread of 62 and average efficiency of 31.912 fps/grain.
I had one shot of the last dab of powder which was 14.1 grain, which went 629 FPS with an efficiency of 25.16 fps/grain.
I think I will be polishing my powder from here out. The only difference in the two powders tested was polished and not polished.
I really don't know from inexperience if these numbers are good or bad. The efficiency of the polished powder was, I thought, very good. In my rifle experience, an efficiency above 31 fps per grain, is a good thing. Don't know about pistols.
I hope everyone else had as much fun, today!

I am not sure your "efficiency" number is meaningful. One would get less fps per grain with a heavier bullet. Even round balls of different calibers would show different efficiency with the same powder.

Tim

[DoubleBuck]

I use the efficiency number more than anything else. Personal preference. If you use the same ball and load, the only thing that changes is the efficiency of the powder. A heavier bullet still has an efficiency number. Start low and work up until the efficiency starts to fall and you've reached maximum load value. As I say, I use it. If you don't, it won't hurt my feelings. It may have zero meaning to you. It means plenty to me.
Different Charcoal; different grain sizes; recipe changes; density changes; mill times; moisture content; every change you make to powder affects its efficiency number.
Testing different powders, using the same gun, the same loads and the same ball/patch/bullet combinations leaves far too many variables to pinpoint the slight variation causes. Doing them one at a time and observing the efficiency numbers helps to quickly narrow them down. Comparing only powder changes makes that percentage critical to finding the best that can be expected from each powder. As long as that number is going up, it is indicating positive results. I've found it works for me.

[Sandro_ventania]

I use the efficiency number more than anything else. Personal preference. If you use the same ball and load, the only thing that changes is the efficiency of the powder. A heavier bullet still has an efficiency number. Start low and work up until the efficiency starts to fall and you've reached maximum load value. As I say, I use it. If you don't, it won't hurt my feelings. It may have zero meaning to you. It means plenty to me.
Different Charcoal; different grain sizes; recipe changes; density changes; mill times; moisture content; every change you make to powder affects its efficiency number.
Testing different powders, using the same gun, the same loads and the same ball/patch/bullet combinations leaves far too many variables to pinpoint the slight variation causes. Doing them one at a time and observing the efficiency numbers helps to quickly narrow them down. Comparing only powder changes makes that percentage critical to finding the best that can be expected from each powder. As long as that number is going up, it is indicating positive results. I've found it works for me.

Did you weigh each one individually? Or were these 25 grains by volume? We know that polished grains sit better, allowing more grains to fit into the same volume.

[2TM101]

My goal is to make a functional product in the cheapest way possible as opposed to the best performance, so I do things a bit differently. I make my charcoal out of either paper from the company shredder or Amazon boxes, as those are free.

Since it appears everybody here watches Jake's youtube channel and learned about toilet paper, you probably saw the Duplex powder one, and yes, I do that too. My .38 special loads consists of 2.5 grains of W244 topped with as much of my Amazon BP as will fit without compressing any more than I need to keep the smokeless component in place. Sounds like a regular load but with all the BP smoke. Great cowboy action stuff but the real reason is to make the smokeless powder last twice as long.

[HWooldridge]

My goal is to make a functional product in the cheapest way possible as opposed to the best performance, so I do things a bit differently. I make my charcoal out of either paper from the company shredder or Amazon boxes, as those are free.

Since it appears everybody here watches Jake's youtube channel and learned about toilet paper, you probably saw the Duplex powder one, and yes, I do that too. My .38 special loads consists of 2.5 grains of W244 topped with as much of my Amazon BP as will fit without compressing any more than I need to keep the smokeless component in place. Sounds like a regular load but with all the BP smoke. Great cowboy action stuff but the real reason is to make the smokeless powder last twice as long.

In your experience, do the duplex loads leave less BP residue in the gun?

[DoubleBuck]

Sandro;
I weigh every one to the tenth of a grain.

[Nobade]

Duplex loads are way cleaner. You can shoot all day and not really have to worry about fouling control. Most of my cowboy silhouette ammo was loaded that way, it's more fun to keep shooting and know where it's going to hit than suddenly fouling out and shots start going wild.

[dtknowles]

I use the efficiency number more than anything else. Personal preference. If you use the same ball and load, the only thing that changes is the efficiency of the powder. A heavier bullet still has an efficiency number. Start low and work up until the efficiency starts to fall and you've reached maximum load value. As I say, I use it. If you don't, it won't hurt my feelings. It may have zero meaning to you. It means plenty to me.
Different Charcoal; different grain sizes; recipe changes; density changes; mill times; moisture content; every change you make to powder affects its efficiency number.
Testing different powders, using the same gun, the same loads and the same ball/patch/bullet combinations leaves far too many variables to pinpoint the slight variation causes. Doing them one at a time and observing the efficiency numbers helps to quickly narrow them down. Comparing only powder changes makes that percentage critical to finding the best that can be expected from each powder. As long as that number is going up, it is indicating positive results. I've found it works for me.

I understand. The number will work for you but can't be compared to someone else's unless they have the same gun and use the same projectile.

Tim

[Jadkins87]

I am so glad i found this thread.. my brother in law that basically raised me and i have been talking about this for some time and we haven't made the jump yet in to making it we have everything on hand to do it just haven't.. will post info if we do make some..

God Bless

JDAS

[DoubleBuck]

I understand. The number will work for you but can't be compared to someone else's unless they have the same gun and use the same projectile.

Tim

Nobody has the same gun, load, powder, projectile, or ten other things. What is it you would suggest I use that would suit you?

[dtknowles]

Nobody has the same gun, load, powder, projectile, or ten other things. What is it you would suggest I use that would suit you?

I like comparisons to an equal weight charge of GOEX fff (3f). Compare volume, velocity and fouling. I am going to get some of the new GOEX to compare to the older stuff I have.

Tim

[DoubleBuck]

I haven't had any commercial powder for three years. But, three years ago I was making faster and cleaner powder, per weight of charge than the commercial I had. I've got notes on five years of powder making comparisons. I just use those, when testing something new. I've tried to be done with testing, and stick with my Sassafras, and was comfortable with my results with it. Then this Toilet Paper came up and I had to try it. I'll be using it from here out, more than likely and I have 30 pounds of Sassafras cleaned and dried, waiting to be cooked. What is good for me, you may not find useful. Post your results and good luck with the Goex comparisons.

[dtknowles]

I haven't had any commercial powder for three years. Post your results and good luck with the Goex comparisons.

I have been saving my commercial powder for comparisons and using my homemade. I will post my forward results, new GOEX is on the way, I have posted my GOEX comparisons in the past.

One example.

https://castboolits.gunloads.com/sho...=1#post5535137

Another example,

https://castboolits.gunloads.com/sho...=1#post5531844

Tim

[HamGunner]

I suppose I use my own method of grading my home made. I had some older Goex 3F that I was comparing to my different wood charcoal powders since the beginning as I mostly make 3F. Comparing by weight per volume as well as velocity, but have never really calculated density in the pucks per say.

I used up that Goex from just my testing, as of course I had to shoot a bit of it along the way. Did not have much Goex left to begin with. Managed to get possession of another almost full older can of Goex 3F from 2004 vintage and that is what I am using now for my comparisons along with my other charcoal powders.

The % of weight per volume density gives me an indication whether or not I am getting a good scald on milling and pressing. Of course the average velocity results along with the extreme velocity spread and deviation by using at least a cylinder full of shots out of one of my revolvers keeps me mostly lined out as to how each powder is doing in comparison. I have been using the same revolver, load, and ball since the beginning of my tests.

I suppose any data one can get and keep record of that is mostly repeatable should be useful for testing and comparison. Some like to know their powder's density for a comparison of how good their batch came out, but I have never attempted to do the calculations. My math skills are likely not high enough on the chart to be of much use anyway, so I stick to the easier methods.

I have a second batch of TP powder made from somewhat lighter weigh rolls ready for testing and comparison once the weather breaks again. A bit damp and windy out right now.