Quality of old BP (1860's)

[oldred]

I have read several articles that made the statement that today's BP is much better than what was available back "then" but I have always been under the impression that the powder of old was as good as, or maybe even more so, than what's available today. This came up again last weekend when a buddy of mine said that old BP firearms might not be safe with modern BP but of course we all know that is nonsense yet he insists that modern BP is not only better as in cleaner and more consistent but actually makes more pressure than the old powder, I say he is full of,, well, you know! Thoughts about this?

[Washington1331]

It was my understanding that black powder back in the day was of superior quality in comparison to today's powder. It had to be as peoples lives depended on it and a nation's security rode on it.

You didn't want bad powder for your nation's small arms. A modern example is the use of ball powder in the 5.56mm NATO during the infancy of the M16 rifle. How many troopers were KIA/WIA because their weapons jammed up due to fouling out?

I once read an article, which I'll try to find... it said that the closest thing to 1860's black powder made today is Swiss Brand... This might be why they charge a higher price per pound and why a large number of competition shooters utilize it.

Much like the explosive charges in today's anti-ship cruise missles and High Explosive Ordnance, I would assume that the manufacturing of said black powder back during the day was a closely guarded secret... you needed your armed forces to put more metal on target than the opposing forces and having state of the art black powder manufacturing techniques and quality were critical to winning battles.

With the development of that darned heathen smokeless powder, powder manufacturers jumped on the band wagon, and the secrets / tools of the trade for the manufacture of high quality black powder were forgotten... add Federal and State EPA standards, as well as OSHA regulations and liability insurance (Americans really like to sue people now-a-days), powder manufactures have less money to spend on quality... especially for a product that is not their highest demand/selling item.

So long story short... (and I appologize for the rant...) There is a reason why people find loading black powder firearms from the civil war, cap them and can fire off the round in the chamber. The stuff back then was superb.

Unless your friend is talking about the black powder subs such as Tripple Seven/Pyrodex (which I agree can be used, but are not the best choice for BP cartridges IMHO; too compression sensative) I don't think he is correct that modern black powder is unsafe to fire in antique firearms. In my experience when most people now-a-days say black powder they are talking about the subs because that's what's on the shelves of the local sporting goods store.

Just my two cents.

[Don McDowell]

There were at least 3 types of sporting powders back in the day. Not all were suitable for use with everything as there was shotgun and rifle powders. There were two grades of rifle powders. When you read in the old books there is considerable mention of not using "moist" powders if compressing the load, not to use shotgun powders in a rifle as they were to quick and would give "wild shooting". Dry powders such as the government powder were to be preferred for compressed loads.
I'm also pretty well convinced that what we now now as 2f powder is probably closer to what they graded as 1f rifle powder.
The Swiss , Schuetzen and Olde Eysnford powders are awfully close to what were the premier sporting powders of the day, regular goex similar to the "government" powder, and KIK somewhere in between.
It is interesting as we've read so many times that Curtis and Harvey's powder was the #1 choice, but when you read Perry's book, Laughlin and Rand was the clear leader for powder choice in the equipment list of one of the last Creedmoor events.

[aspangler]

Your friend IS full of it. If you don't think the BP of the Civil War era was good stuff, just read what happened at Antetium (sp?) or Fredicksburg. How about The Bloody Angle, or Gettysburg. The Union and the Confederacy both bought the best that could be found. The sharpshooters back then could hit a man at 800 yards. If that is not consistency if don't know what is. As for the pressure, BP pressures are BP pressures. As long as you are loading the same granulation and charge it will be so close you wont be able to tell the difference.
That being said, different manufacturers can and do make their powder somewhat different. Formulas vary as well as components so today one powder may shoot better in some guns and something else will shoot better in other guns. As far as power, there is really not much difference in any of it.
YMMV

[M-Tecs]

I have no useable knowledge to contribute on the quality of the old powders but I have read that the "moist" powders produced softer fouling. An truth to that claim? What actually is a "moist" powder?

[ascast]

I would like to know how to make the comparison; i.e. if you had a limited supply to test, how would you test it such that this question could be answered once and for all. I am saying, if you had say 50 - 100 rounds ( or more ) or a pound or 2, how would you test it? What would you test? Assuming you will never get any more.

[oldred]

The discussion started when he was telling me of another fellow that he works with has an original ML (cap lock) pre-dating the civil war and he was debating on whether or not it would be safe to fire. That's when the disagreement about the powder came up, when I told him that if they should have the rifle checked to be sure it was sound then it should be safe enough I was then "corrected" and told that the powder today might not be safe for a gun that old. I didn't argue with them since I think they shouldn't be shooting this thing anyway and that old rifle needs to go to someone who knows and appreciates these old beasts for what they are. To each his own I suppose.

[texassako]

The formula for BP has been around for ages. It can only be tweaked a bit with different percentages, different charcoals, etc. The safety of an old BP(or smokeless for that matter) firearm is related more to workmanship, condition, and metallurgy than modern BP versus what the powder made back then IMHO.

[M-Tecs]

http://firearmshistory.blogspot.com/...r-quality.html

Testing Black Powder Quality

Back when black powder was the common propellant in use in the 18th and 19th centuries, the power of the powder produced sometimes varied from batch to batch. Hence, it was considered prudent to conduct a standardized test to measure the strength of the black powder in a batch, so that people could calculate how much powder the firearm should be underloaded or overloaded with.

A common device used to do this was the eprouvette. This is a French word and these days it means a "test-tube", but in an earlier era it was used to also denote a device used to test and prove the strength of gunpowder.

The simplest form of this device is a fixed mortar tube, such as the one shown below:

An Eprouvette mortar made of cast iron. Click on image to enlarge.

These were typically made of cast-iron or bronze. The one shown in the image above is only about 5 - 6 inches long, but there were some larger models made as well. The angle of the barrel is fixed at 45 degrees. To test the strength of black powder, a person simply loads the device with a standard amount of powder, then adds a standard weight of shot. Then the person discharges the device and measures the distance that the shot weight flew and compares it with the expected standard distance for the powder.

Of course, with a device such as this, the person conducting the test has to be outside and be able to see where the shot landed, which might be difficult in certain situations. Therefore, people began to invent more portable eprouvette devices.

Three eprouvette devices. Click on images to enlarge.

In devices like the ones above, a standard charge of black powder is loaded into them and then the devices are discharged. The force of discharge compresses a spring, which moves an indicator. In the first two examples, the force of the explosion moves a ratchet gear (the round wheel with teeth) against spring tension. There are markings on the ratchet gear that indicate the strength of the explosion. In the third example, the spring is V shaped and when the tester is discharged, the spring compresses and moves a slider which indicates the force of the explosion.


These devices went out of fashion in the middle of the 19th century as black powder manufacturing quality began to improve. These days, they may only be purchased in auction houses or by manufacturers specializing in period firearms.

[Boz330]

The devices above were used to estimate velocity since there were no chronographs at the time. They adjusted powder charges to keep velocities advertized consistent.
In some testing I did of my homemade BP against Swiss of a similar granulation my homemade by weight was within several FPS of the Swiss. Swiss powder was considerably denser hence much less volume. In a ML though you can load what you want.
As far as the firearms not standing up to modern BP that is BS. A good friend shoots an 1850s original English made target rifle in LRML competition and shoots in excess of a 100gr of Swiss in it. The barrel on this particular rifle is much more slender than the Pedersoli Gibbs rifle and he has no problems with it other than the recoil. He has been shooting this rifle for 4 years now up to and including 2 LR World matches. Many of the Brit shooters shoot originals as well.

Bob

[Tackleberry41]

As I have read the wood used for the charcoal part of the equation is a big thing and why the Swiss stuff is highly rated, they use what is considered the best to use, I want to say it was ash wood, but dont quote me on it. Their stuff is more money due to using more expensive charcoal. I would imagine just like today powder quality varied depending on who made it, somebody is always going to cut a corner to make a buck, like using cheaper wood or some other short cut. The military probably had set specs they expected to be used, tho we all know how corrupt military contracts can be, then and now. So probably was an issue.

The sub stuff is usually pretty clear about about using less than you would of the real stuff. Im not a purist like some are. Some of the muzzle loader crowd are just as big a fan boys as ARs or 1911s. That using anything but the real stuff is sacreligious, or even the proper brand. They probably argue that till the cows come home. I used substitutes for a long time not knowing any better, that and availability, real stuff is not so easy to get.

[M-Tecs]

IIRC Swiss and KiK use charcoal from buckthorn alder.

http://www.schuetzenpowder.com/swiss-black-powder

interesting read here

http://www.laflinandrand.com/madmonk/Swiss_Booklet.pdf

[trap4570]

I have also read many articles and some it is easy to see where misinformation is released. An example is a comparison of powders where powder from a civil war shell was used. The mixtures for shell powder and musket powder is a bit different. Grain size looks similar and that is where it stops. As time passed after the Civil War closer to the development of smokeless the process of manufacture became much more controlled and sophisticated using chemicals to clean the different ingrediants and mixing processes that were repeated. Also a brownpowder was developed using rice hull charcoal that gave a more consistant burn and was used in naval guns. The standard basic mix stayed basically the same and is used today. The way it is made and the treatments applied have changed and the demand for quality powder has brought quality control to a higher standard to meet the demands of today's shooters. Today we demand accuracy with minimal fouling where the average soldier of the Civil War or Plains Wars just wanted their weapon to go off and hit something that allowed them to survive another day. Like all things to do with the military the R&D was an ongoing effort to provide the best in the least amount of time. I would say the powder of today is more consistant in burn rate than that of the distant past. To add a fickle finger of fate into the mix - I have a Colt's .58 musket that shoots more accurately with the standard Goex 2f than any of the other brands or grades.

[cajun shooter]

If you look into the making of BP, it's not just the mixing of the three items it takes to make a simple BP. To say that all BP is alike is also not true. Yes it all uses the same three basic items but that is where it stops. It's not just the charcoal that makes a good BP, it's the process in which that charcoal is made. If it was just having some charcoal then you could go to any store and pick up a bag of Briquettes and then go to find the sulphur and saltpeter.
The corning process is where most powders began to either be good or bad. BP burns from the outside in and the more irregular each grain is, the harder and longer the burn, this causes low pressure and low performance.
Take time to study BP under a microscope and you will began to see the "WHY" in the different powders. If you also do screen testing, that will give you a good idea about the performance levels.
If you look at the Swiss 2F and then the current run of Olde Eynsford you will see a huge difference in the color and sheen of the two powders. This is from the process that each company uses to make it's product.
I've not been able to do any range comparison yet but I have the loading bench going at this time with some 45-70 and the RCBS 500 BPS for testing. I'm loading 20 with the OE and 20 with the Swiss for a SXS test. Waiting on the weather to warm also.
I spoke with the owner of the Back Creek shop in Winchester, Va. about 4 years ago about the difference in some powders. He advised they used the old mortar test in their testing. I was curious about the Diamond back BP as compared to the standard Goex. They said the mortar would only shoot the ball half the distance with the Diamondback as compared to the Goex. That testing started me to mixing a pound of Goex with a pound of Diamondback for use in my shotgun SASS loads. Later David

[EDG]

There is almost no chemical product made back then that cannot be made more consistently today.

All the electronic insturmentation for time, temperature, pressure, specific gravity, humidity, moisture content etc etc
is far superior. Todays brains are also superior.

Sulphur - Available in greater purity (this is an element so it has only one chemical formula)

Potassium nitrate - Available in greater purity (made of only 2 chemicals)

Charcoal ( pick what you think is best)

If someone made a truly superior product at twice the price would you pay for it?

[Maven]

"Potassium nitrate - Available in greater purity (made of only 2 chemicals)" ...EDG

You meant to say 3 "chemicals" (elements), right, EDG: potassium, nitrogen, and oxygen as in KNO3?

[JSnover]

Consider the market back then. There were more than 100 manufacturers of powder. 150 years ago if you asked what the best brand and type was, the discussion might continue for hours or days, as it might nowadays when you ask what's the best motor oil.
As some powders were as good as our best (maybe better), others must have been 'bargain basement' quality, giving inconsistent burn rates, excessive fouling, etc.

[JonnyReb]

In the late 80's i was working a summer job on a Boy Scout summer camps rifle range. The Range Officer, a Navy lifer named Bill knew about all there was to know about muzzleloaders and talked about them nonstop. A scoutmaster heard about Bills knowledge and brought in an old family gun for Bill to check out. Was an 1861 springfield and the first thing Bill did was check to see if it was loaded. It was. He coached me on how to dig out the old charge and i did, netting chopped up pieces of screws? for shot, old linen type wad and a nice little pile of blackpowder.

We lit the old powder up with a bit of cannon fuse and i remember being amazed that it went up with such fierceness, raised a big cloud of smoke to which we all kinda revelled in. Can't remember for the life of me the smell just remember we all remarked on it. No doubt about it, 100 year old powder is capable of being plenty potent.

[prs]

The old timers had huge advantages over modern production. No OSHA, no EPA, no Workers' Comp, way less lawyers. I reckon working around a ball mill was not the safest occupation.

prs

[EDG]

If your processes are designed to be safe they will be safe.

There is a collosal company called Applied Materials that does about 6 to 8 billion a year in revenue.
The guy founded the company to supply poisonous silane and arsine gas to the semiconductor industry.
Instead of wanting his liquid silane IBM wanted his liquid and gas delivery equipment for use in their labs.
That company grew into a huge corporation because the semiconductor had to have safe processes and equipment or go out of business.

The old timers had huge advantages over modern production. No OSHA, no EPA, no Workers' Comp, way less lawyers. I reckon working around a ball mill was not the safest occupation.

prs