Comparing b.p.'s of the 1800's to today

[w30wcf]

I have had the opportunity to work with some early W.R.A. CO. .44 W.C.F. and U.M.C. .44-40 head stamped black powder ammunition. It was an interesting look back into the past to experience how the early black powders performed and how they compare to what is available today in the 44-40 and similar cartridges developing less than 15,000 psi..

I looked for some evidence of the historical performance of the .44-40 and found it in the 1875 Winchester catalog. Illustrated therein was a target that was made by an 1873 Winchester. It was a 30 shot group that was “fired without wiping” with all bullets landing in a nice round group at 110 yards. Impressive!

I soon realized that I was not going to be able to replicate that performance with modern day Goex. I used the same type of bullet (2 lube grooves) with a good b.p. lube but saw that accuracy started to deteriorate rapidly after 10 rounds. Drats. (I am aware that the "Big Lube" bullets were developed for use with Goex and they do a great job, but my goal was to recreate the original cartridge successfully.)

I then reasoned that the difference between then and now was the type / quality of the black powder(s) used. I then found some Schuetzen b.p. and gave that a try with pretty much the same disappointing result. Bummer.

Still later I tried some KIK and found that it did perform better than Goex & Schuetzen by allowing more rounds to be fired (18-20) before bore fouling put an end to continued accuracy.


In doing some research, I learned that Winchester RepeatingArms Co. had purchased part interest in American Powder Mills. I also located some information in the form of ballistic lab records that showed “American” as being at least one of the b.p.’s that Winchester used in loading the .44-40.

http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o25/w30wcf/bp%20apm.jpg


I decided to try and find some vintage W.R.A. CO. and U.M.C. head stamped b.p. ammunition. I contacted a cartridge collector that I knew and thankfully he had some. I dissected the cartridges and retrieved the powder for testing. Appearance wise, I noticed that it had a polished appearance.

I loaded a number of .44-40’s with the retrieved powder.I don’t recall the number now but I do know that the ammunition performed flawlessly and delivered good accuracy in repeated shots. There was no foul out (hard ring of fouling building inward from the muzzle) like there was with Goex,Schuetzen & Kik which I knew now were inferior to the b.p.(s) that Winchester had used way back then.

U.M.C. - I contacted a fellow that was rumored to have some of the internal records of the old Union Metallic Cartridge Co. to find out if there was any indication of the b.p. used in loading their .44-40 ammunition. He said that there was a reference to "O.E." but that was it. I reasoned that was short for Orange Extra which was manufactured by the Laflin & Rand Co. Extra possibly meaning Extra refined?

http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o25/w30wcf/bp%20hp%20lr.jpg


About that time in my journey, I had been reading about Swiss B.P. and that some felt that it was close to some of the original sporting b.p.’s. I obtained some for testing and found that it too, had the ability to provide continued accuracy (100 rounds most fired in a row to date) with no foul out. Alleluia!


Is it as good as the early black powders? Well I don’t know, but I do know that in the .44-40 it is. In 2007, a fellow on the Cast Bullet forum had written that he had usedsome American “Dead Shot” powder so I inquired in a PM how he rated it against Swiss. He responded“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 in my experience. The Deadshot powder I had was veryclean burning and very accurate as well. My smoke pole shot many 5 shot 1"groups at 100 yards off the bench, with the 'norm' being in the 1-1/4" to1-1/2" range.

Back in the day Winchester & U.M.C. recommended a number of different b.p.’s for reloading:American, Hazard, DuPont, L&R, etc.

Update – Olde Enysford was newly introduced by Hodgdon Powder Co. a few years ago and, thankfully, it too has proven to provide performance & reliability comparable to the b.p.’s of yesteryear in the .44-40.


The journey continues….

w30wcf

[shredder]

I find this so very interesting. I wonder what the difference is? Type of charcoal? Processing? Whatever the method they had it perfected back then. Some information seems to have been lost to history!

[Tom Herman]

Did you chronograph the loads by any chance? The older powder is supposed to give higher velocities than newer powder.

[missionary5155]

Greetings w30wcf
Thank you for this informative write up. Piece by piece the puzzle becomes far more than speculation pointing to the fact we are not using as good of BP as out fore fathers were blessed with. Happily there are some good powders still available.
But I recon it should not be too surprising available BP has suffered from possible cost cutting and "profit" guidelines. All we need to do is look at the manufacture of guns today as compared to the fine fit and finish of the same models made 100 years ago. Why would not the same mentality rule in the offices of BP suppliers.
Mike in Peru

[williamwaco]

That was very informative and interesting. It took a lot of work on your part. Thanks for sharing.

[9.3X62AL]

Another BIG "Thank You" here. I had suspected the powders of the BP Era were superior to any available currently, and it is nice to have that feeling borne out with facts.

[bigted]

I also enjoyed your write up on the old versus new black powders. I feel justified somehow in your findings as years ago when I first began my cartridge loading with BP I asked that particular question here and on another board about the value of our "new" black powder versus the old stuff that the ODG's used to shoot with ... was promptly informed that the fault was entirely mine as the powder used today ... [5 or so years ago] is as good as any ever produced.

I am grateful for your long hours and cost of pursuing this and finding your results. I enjoy the findings very much and am thankful for your post. kinda fly's in the face of some old smarty's here from awhile ago and their arrogant views of {I know all cause I been here so long} thinking.

keep at it friend and please do post your findings as I find them [along with others here] informative and educational.

I also find the Old E powder to be very good powder both in my muzzy's as well as the cartridges I load and shoot. I find it to be more powerful as well as very much cleaner and the repeat shots far less foul effected then any I have used thus far. [ I have not used any Swiss tho].

[w30wcf]

Guys,
Thank you for the kind words. I neglected to mention that 2F was the granulation in the vintage factory cartridges so my testing was done with 2F in the powders I tested.

The original cartridges I tested appeared to come from 4 different lots. 2 of the lots were head stamped W.R.A. CO. .44 W.C.F. Another lot was U.M.C. .44-40 and the last U.M.C. S.H. .44 C.F.
All contained 40 grs + - 1 gr charges.

I screened the power to remove the fines created from factory compression.

I loaded 40 grs by weight of the reclaimed powder and in a 24" barrel the W.R.A. CO.'s
averaged 1,320 f.p.s.. The U.M.C. .44-40's averaged 1,342 f.p.s.

I did not have many (7) of the U.M.C. .44 C.F. so could not test for fouling control but when I ran them across the Chronograph........ 1,420 f.p.s. average!

Certainly the quality and strength of the components, the type and processing of the charcoal and time on the mill has everything to do with a b.p.'s ballistic strength and ability to control fouling.

The powder used in the .44 C.F. cartridges was certainly of a bit higher ballistic strength.

All powders exceeded the catalog velocity of 1,301 f.p.s.

By comparison, 40 grs by weight of Goex & Schuetzen fell 100 f.p.s. short. Kik did a bit better at 1,231 f.p.s.

40 grs. by weight of Swiss & Olde Enysford produced velocities in the mid 1,300's comparing very favorably with the original powders. :-)

w30wcf

[Nobade]

Let's see if LynC2 will chime in here on this thread...
He's been shooting a 38-55 with powder reclaimed from some Werndl ammo and getting extremely high velocities compared to modern made powder.

-Nobade

[Tom Herman]

I loaded 40 grs by weight of the reclaimed powder and in a 24" barrel the W.R.A. CO.'s
averaged 1,320 f.p.s.. The U.M.C. .44-40's averaged 1,342 f.p.s.

I did not have many (7) of the U.M.C. .44 C.F. so could not test for fouling control but when I ran them across the Chronograph........ 1,420 f.p.s. average!

All powders exceeded the catalog velocity of 1,301 f.p.s.w30wcf

Thanks for running the chronograph, collecting and sharing the data!
The results were what I expected... Quick question: In reference to the catalog velocity, did they state what length of barrel they used?
I just want to make sure we're dealing with an "apples to apples" comparison...

-Tom

[milrifle]

Just to play devil's advocate, do you think there is any chance the powder quality increased with age? Could the three components have gotten more intimately ingrained into one another from being tightly packed together for a century?

[Blackwater]

Thanks here too, 30wcf. Very interesting. All the records and tests I've seen seem to indicate exactly what you've found. I have some old Goex that does pretty well in my .45/70 Browning BPCR. I heard some say that Swiss burns hotter, and heats up the barrels quicker, so that keeping the bore moist and fouling soft becomes difficult in long strings of fire, so went with the Goex. Still haven't shot it all up yet. Black is a whole 'nother ball game from smokeless, and we seem to still be learning things about it all the time. Tests like yours are instructive in this, and I appreciate your sharing your results. It's a very interesting field of study, and kind'a gives us moderns a dose of humility, doesn't it, to think that EVERYTHING we have isn't necessarily "new and improved," and that the wisdom and knowledge of the past still holds sway in some areas that have been forgotten by us now. Intriguing!

[LynC2]

Let's see if LynC2 will chime in here on this thread...<br>
He's been shooting a 38-55 with powder reclaimed from some Werndl ammo and getting extremely high velocities compared to modern made powder. <br>
<br>
-Nobade
I was amazed at how much more powerful the old powder was even when compared to Old Eynsford which is one of the better new ones. Using the same 55 gr charge of the old Werndl powder gave an average of 132 fps advantage over the O.E. in the 38-55 using a 286 gr. paper patch bullet. I will most likely run some through my Browning BPCR 45-70 in the future to get another comparison. <br>
My comparison link: http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?293677-129-year-old-powder-test

[w30wcf]

Tom,
I did not find a reference in the early catalogs to the length of the barrel used, but in the 1875 Winchester catalog where they initially indicated a velocity of 1,325 f.p.s. I would think that it was in the standard rifle barrel length (24"). That compares with the velocity that the vintage W.R.A. .44 W.C.F. head stamped ammo produced in the 24" barreled rifle I used.

I did find in testing that the velocity difference between a 20" & 24" barrel was only about 30 f.p.s.

milrifle,
That could be possible. There were some rounds that I tested without dissecting. I removed the dead mercuric primers and replaced them with 1 1/2 Remingtons. Velocities averaged about 2% greater than the ones loaded with the reclaimed powder.

Blackwater,
You are most welcome. History was my absolute worst subject in school but now history of vintage firearms and powders is my favorite! (I have also experimented with vintage smokeless powders.)

LynC2,
Interesting test. I added a comment to your post on what I think could be the reason for the superior performance of the original 11 MM powder.

w30wcf

[TXGunNut]

Awesome post and research effort, w30wcf. I've always felt some modern BP's were rivals to the powders of 100 plus years ago but never knew for sure. My favorites are KIK and OE, now I know why. Thanks for the info and effort, nicely done!

[SSGOldfart]

I find this so very interesting. I wonder what the difference is? Type of charcoal? Processing? Whatever the method they had it perfected back then. Some information seems to have been lost to history!

Maybe it's age like a fine wine or whisky?

[SSGOldfart]

This post needs to be a sticky,w30wcf should be given a golden Boolit award great post

[GOPHER SLAYER]

I have a book written by an old time buffalo hunter named Frank Mayer. He began hunting them in the mid 1870s. He died in 1954 and still had his rifle. This man reloaded his brass as most of the hunters did. He says in the book that the English powder made by Curtiss & Harvey was the best. Several years ago I remember reading about a brown powder that was developed about the time smokeless powder came on the scene. It was made with charcoal made from the willow tree. It was said to be as powerful as the first smokeless but it still produced lots of smoke so no one was really cared for it.

[BrentD]

Curtiss and Harvey #6 was, by all accounts the crem-dela-crem of blackpowder. The closest powder to it today is Swiss 1.5 fg.

[upnorthwis]

Here's my experience shooting original BP loads. I took 6 shots with a 71/84 Mauser chambered for .43 Mauser. First shot was over chronograph then five in paper at 100 yds. This rifle has nice clean rifling but the first four shots on a TQ-4 were about a 10" group, don't know were the last one went. Fouling was the worst I've ever seen and I've been shooting BPCR for almost 20 years. I'll "unload" the rest of these for the brass, then use Swiss 1-1/2 to see what it does.

[w30wcf]

Guys,
Thank you for the kind words.

upnorthwis,
The reason for the heavier fouling might possibly be that the bullet lube had dried out as I found in dissecting the vintage cartridges I extracted the powder from. Either that and /or the quality of powder quality was below the great powders of that time.

w30wcf

[Klaus]

@w30wcf

thx a lot to handle this very interesting topic because it will bring some light in the darkness of the question what was the truht of yesterdays Blackpowder and there accuracy / handling / fouling we often read and never could answer because the todays BP are not able to reproduce the results of the old days.

If we read in forums of todays long range shooter using PP Bullets we see that they must wipe between shots to have accuracy. But in the past as PP Bullets are common in most Cartridge i dont think about that they wipe after every shoot to get accuracy.
if we read about battles like Rokes Drift or at Pleva ( Turkish / Russia War ) they have had very good accuracy on long distance with their present Ammo in rapid Fire to defend their positions.
So my question is if todays Black Powder Manufacturer will be able to process this high quality Black of the Old days?
Todays Black are **** as my Powder Dealer says it is not the Money worth......

wish you all a Happy New Year

Klaus

[BrentD]

Klaus, long range target shooting has little to do with military requirements. And when you say "shoot with accuracy ", what does that mean? Match winning, competitive accuracy or accuracy sufficient for mass volley firing by the military. These are not comparable. Wiping will always be more accurate than not wiping and always has been.

[Gunlaker]

I think when you want to compare two powders you have to decide how you define better. For hunting a bunch of extra speed could be a good thing, but for target work I would rather have one of the newer powders that gave much less muzzle velocity variation. At even 500 yards you will get significant vertical spread in your groups with such large velocity variations. I'm biased because I only hunt paper :-)Chris.

[Jpholla]

People today have experimented with making better black powder...it can certainly be done, but the bottom line is that it costs too much to do on a commercial scale. Time and wages cost too much today. It's no secret what makes good black powder. The most important things are not to over-cook the charcoal, and the longer it is milled, the better it will be. People have found that even substandard ingredients can out-perform commercial powder with enough milling time. Even sulfur-less black powder can perform as well as commercial with enough milling time. Back then it's all there was, so it was worth the extra effort. Today, it's a fringe novelty and few people would be willing to pay two to three or more times the price for a little extra performance.

[BrentD]

Who knows how much folks are willing to pay if it isn't available. How does anyone know? If there was truly better powder, I would pay 2-3x more for it. But I have rather rigorous requirement for proof of superiority. However, no one has ever even claimed to have a powder better than Swiss.

[Klaus]

Hi Brent,

i would say with "shoot with accuracy" that an Infantrie Man was able to hit a target ( man sized) at 400 or maybe 500 yards under given battle circumstance with his present PP Rounds and the old BP without cleaning the Barrel.
Match Competition are a different thing for sure.

Klaus


Klaus, long range target shooting has little to do with military requirements. And when you say "shoot with accuracy ", what does that mean? Match winning, competitive accuracy or accuracy sufficient for mass volley firing by the military. These are not comparable. Wiping will always be more accurate than not wiping and always has been.

[BrentD]

Klaus, that can be done with today's powder and a decent grease cookie. But that is nowhere near target grade accuracy. That's where shooting with a fouled barrel really becomes challenging - so challenging that is simply hasn't been done.

[Jpholla]

Who knows how much folks are willing to pay if it isn't available. How does anyone know? If there was truly better powder, I would pay 2-3x more for it. But I have rather rigorous requirement for proof of superiority. However, no one has ever even claimed to have a powder better than Swiss.

Yeah, I expected someone to say they would pay several times more for better...but what I'm saying is the number of people is so few that the powder companies do not see a benefit at this point to make better grades. If by "no one" you mean a commercial company, then I believe you are correct in saying Swiss is the best. If you want better, you will have to make it yourself--which may be quite reasonable to you if money is no object and you want the absolute best. There are many people currently proving they can do better than Swiss. Anyone seriously interested in black powder re-development should look to the hobby firework makers. Some of them have competitions to see who can make the best black powder, and commercial powder is used as a control. It is shocking how much better they do.

Bear in mind that powder companies are large endeavors and must maintain a balance. If memory serves me right Swiss's recipe uses more sulfur than many traditionally did. The wood they use to make charcoal is not the absolute best; it is a mixture of what is generally available and will be generally available for the foreseeable future to maintain lot to lot consistency . I believe the high sulfur content is used to help make up for lower quality charcoal and shorter milling times. Swiss may be good, but it can be improved. Just not in the current balance of things. With respect, I just don't see enough people willing to pay (hypothetically) $100 for a pound of powder to have the absolute best. If Swiss wants to be the best, they don't have to make the best; they simply have to make it a little better than the next best company. And if we look at the amazing accuracy being attained with what is currently available, how much incentive do they really have to become better? How many emails do they get every day requesting a better powder?

There is plenty of information online about black powder. This guy http://www.musketeer.ch/index.html has one of the most scientific approaches to the subject. Ironically, he happens to be Swiss.:smile:

Another random though: Many people today use 3f in roles where 2f was traditionally used. I think this is possibly more proof that yesteryear's powders were better.

[BrentD]

I have seen exactly zero people with powder that is better than Swiss. Not one. I know of several that make their own and it is not even the quality of Chinese fireworks powder, which is piss poor indeed.

I don't know what "better" means to fireworks people, but "better" in shooting means accuracy. I'll wager that there is not one person making powder that can outperform Swiss on targets.

Swiss might be improved upon, but right now they are top of the heap by a long ways.

Granulation size means nothing about quality. Results on targets do. Your suggestion that it does mean something suggests that you equate better with more energy or power. That will get you nowhere fast in target shooting.

[w30wcf]

Klaus,
You are most welcome. Happy New Year to you as well!

Jpholla & Brent D,
Thank you for the additional information.

My experience has been in repeating rifles, mostly with the 44wcf/44-40, a cartridge developing less than 15,000 psi with b.p. Using a quality b.p. like Swiss and the original two lube grooved bullet, accuracy has been consistent for many rounds fired (100) with no cleaning nor blow tubing. Wiping between rounds did not improve accuracy. Certainly cartridges burning larger quantities of b.p. and higher sectional density bullets are another matter entirely.

w30wcf

[Klaus]

Hi Brent

you`re right, but it would be a pleasure to see a practical trial between
a, let`s say , two Martini Henry Rifles and each 20 Rounds of orginal history Ammo and 20 Rounds of todays present Ammo on a given distance .

who would be the winner in fouling issues and accuracy ?

Klaus :roll:




Klaus, that can be done with today's powder and a decent grease cookie. But that is nowhere near target grade accuracy. That's where shooting with a fouled barrel really becomes challenging - so challenging that is simply hasn't been done.

[Klaus]

Hello w30wcf,

thx a lot and all the best for 2016

i have run a trial with the RCBS 44-200 FP and Emmerts Lube
35 grs Swiss 2 with a similar good result as your ( 40 Rounds)
Kik FFFG are good as Swiss.

Got poor results with Wano Nr.1 or Wano FFg Grades
first 10 Rounds are accurate as well but after the 12th Round the Bullets spread all over the Paper.



We found out a "new" Powder from Wano which called Sporting Powder.
Have just very good results in Muzzleloaders and 45-70 - 100 or even 44-40 with FFFG and FFG .
This Powder burns relative clean and need one damped Patch to clean the Barrel

Lot of Guys here moved over from Swiss to Wano Sporting Powder.
Unfortunately we have no access to the Olde Eynesford here in Germany
so far i read in serval Forums it shall be the new Highlight

Klaus


Klaus,
You are most welcome. Happy New Year to you as well!

Jpholla & Brent D,
Thank you for the additional information.

My experience has been in repeating rifles, mostly with the 44wcf/44-40, a cartridge developing less than 15,000 psi with b.p. Using a quality b.p. like Swiss and the original two lube grooved bullet, accuracy has been consistent for many rounds fired (100) with no cleaning nor blow tubing. Wiping between rounds did not improve accuracy. Certainly cartridges burning larger quantities of b.p. and higher sectional density bullets are another matter entirely.

w30wcf

[upnorthwis]

Update to my #20 post where I was going to shoot the boolits and then load with Swiss 1-1/2. Am going to make a change to that. Will pull the boolits instead, then measure the amount of powder, replace primers, (the original ones where all hangfires), then see if I can relube boolits. Then reload with the original powder and boolit. New primers may give it a better chance to ignite the powder. Then I'll load up a Swiss equivalent for comparison. But it's going to have to be above ZERO and my recent prostate operation will have to feel better.

[upnorthwis]

Another update. Took the remaining UMC 11mm apart. These are the ones that I shot the 5 shot group with that were all hangfires. Powder looked like FFg. Tried to shoot the original Kynoc loads for a group. None would go off, even after recocking and hitting primer again. Took them apart. Powder was everything from dust to Cannon size. Will not be able to replace primers in Kynoc as they are Berdan. Instead of loading this powder in the 71/84 Mauser, will shoot in a scoped Browning .40-65WCF. And once again, it's going to have to be warmer with less blowing snow.

[kokomokid]

When Venturino and Garbe wrote thier spg reloading book back in the early 90s they recomended magnum primers which makes me wonder if the Goex powder at that time was even sporting grade.

[Gunlaker]

I think that plain Goex is all over the map. Several years ago I put a lot of effort into getting a low SD load with Goex Fg for one of my .45-70's. Federal Large Rifle Magnum Match primers were clearly the best. Using a two diameter bullet I found that it took 74gr and those primers. I ended up just over 1200fps and got excellent muzzle vel statistics. Until I got a new lot of powder. :-)

With the latest lot I've had excellent accuracy breech seating one of my .38-55's using Goex Fg and large pistol primers. Go figure.

I find that different lots of the stuff can vary by quite a bit.

I have yet to go through my first case of Goex Olde Eynsford. I hope that it is much more consistent from lot to lot.

Chris.

[Don McDowell]

I've been thru 3 lots of Eynsford, haven't had anything change yet.

[Gunlaker]

That's great to hear Don.

Chris.

[BrentD]

impressive.

be careful!

[upnorthwis]

I was hoping to wrap up my testing on the old powder out of the .43 Mauser cases by now. Problem is when the water based cleaning solution freezes, that's still too cold for me.

[Fly]

Now you have me interested. I know our US muzzle loading team that shoots in long range compaction
uses Swizz powder. These guy's shoot long range events as far as 1200 yards. And you are saying the
powder of old was better than Swiss of today? I,m not saying that you are wrong, but I make my own
& I,m is the quest of the best I can make. I have surpassed Swiss as far as how fast my powder burns.

But not in accuracy. I must investigate more on this.

Great post Fly

[BrentD]

I don't think all of the US muzzleloading team uses Swiss, but most do. Any powder will shoot The Grand and more, but doing so accurately, that is the problem. Swiss wins, hands down. I don't know why other powders are so inaccurate, but they sure don't match Swiss.

[Texantothecore]

I wonder if the older powders were compressed to higher pressures during manufacture.

[Fly]

Brent (quote) I don't know why other powders are so inaccurate, but they sure don't match Swiss. Great point my friend.
Me being a home BP maker I work very hard on making the best I can. It is not hard to match the speed of the manufactured
powders. But as you say it is the accuracy.

I have read much on the Swizz process. This is my take. They polish there powder. By doing that it take the raged edges of
each grain. The raged edges make the powder burn quicker. That is most likely why my home made can beat Swiss threw a
Chrono. But each grain can burn at a different rate. That said each shot can be different.

I have not as yet tried polishing my powder. But I plan on trying that soon.

JMOHOP Fly

[BrentD]

I admire your ambition. It would be so cool to win a big match with one's own powder! But I'll not do it. I gotta know my limitations. :)

[TXGunNut]

My thoughts exactly, BrentD. The process fascinates me and at the same time scares the bejeesus out of me. Best I can tell there are no old BP factories. They burn down on a regular basis and the folks working there are probably a lot smarter than I am. I love putting together a rifle, casting a boolit, developing a load, and harvesting game or doing well at the range. Making powder is the logical next step for many of us but I'll pass. I admire the folks that figure it out and make it work, tho. Must be very satisfying.

[BrentD]

Kind of like tying your own trout flies or knapping your own arrowheads. But with rather larger consequences if you screw up.

[Nobade]

Kind of like tying your own trout flies or knapping your own arrowheads. But with rather larger consequences if you screw up.

So far I've gotten hurt way worse knapping flint. I end up bleeding every time I mess with it. Gunpowder is no problem, just keep it away from fire and sparks.

-Nobade

[BrentD]

The key is "so far". Keep it that way and study up on the "Law of Large Numbers" aka "Limiting Probabilities".

[Lead pot]

So far I've gotten hurt way worse knapping flint. I end up bleeding every time I mess with it. Gunpowder is no problem, just keep it away from fire and sparks.

-Nobade

And here I thought when knapping points the blood was to keep the silica dust down. [smilie=l:
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b302/940Leadpot/th_IMG_2572_zpsb5xdtwjh.jpg (http://s22.photobucket.com/user/940Leadpot/media/IMG_2572_zpsb5xdtwjh.jpg.html)
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b302/940Leadpot/th_IMG_2587_zpsznlzkljs.jpg (http://s22.photobucket.com/user/940Leadpot/media/IMG_2587_zpsznlzkljs.jpg.html)

[Ballistics in Scotland]

You have to remember that some of the early advertising was pretty unreliable. I don't know how much if any was faked in the firearms industry, but they sometimes published groups that you might get if you had a month or two of salaried employment to do it in. Even well into the smokeless era, claims of velocity seem to have got a bit more modest since consumer-priced chronographs made their appearance.

Some early black powder was probably quite bad. They didn't make Kentucky rifles with barrels that length for the fun of it. Equally, though, some of it was extremely good, for it was the major war material of the age, and there was heated competition for the custom of civilian users. The major difference was probably in the fineness of grinding and the incorporation of them in a dampened state. To do this really well took many hours, powered by water power, a remote steam engine or an extremely bored horse. It was the most dangerous part of the process. In the UK the mills were limited to 60lb. at a time, an explosions did occur, in buildings with light felt or timber walls with the operator spending most of the time outside, so that they usually got away with it. So the cost of long incorporation added up.

The charcoal used was also important, and well understood. Alder or willow were good, but the best of all may have been dogwood. All the good woods were soft and light, and my own conjecture is that hardwoods might have been fine, but their harder charcoal didn't grind so fine. I have a vague memory that cocoanut shell has been used successfully, but its success, despite being very hard, could have been because it isn't fibrous like timber. Brown powder was produced with charcoal made at very low temperatures. I don't believe it did confer more energy content, but it ignited at lower temperatures. That was probably more important with flintlocks than percussion or cartridge firearms.

[upnorthwis]

Weather was finally good enough to do the side by side testing. Rifle: Browning 1885, Cal. 40-65WCF, 420 gr SAECO cast at 30:1. All loads were 52 gr. and WLRM primer. Range, 200 yds off sandbags, light wind from left.
Group 1 is Swiss 1-1/2 @ 1242 fps. Group in upper left. First shot out of clean barrel in marked #1, then the other four shots followed. With fouler groups was 5.20" Last four shots went in to 2.30". Barrel cleaned with the usual wet 4 patches, dry one.
Group 2 is reclaimed Kynoch @ 1153 fps. Group in lower left. Although I marked the fouling shot at #1, it didn't really make any difference as the group was 18.75". When cleaning barrel for last group, it felt like I was cleaning pea gravel from bore. Took 8 patches before clean.
Group 3 is reclaimed UMC @ 1060 fps. Group in upper right. Although slower than Kynock, the group was substantially better at 7.25" with four shots in 3.50". Barrel cleaned similar to using Swiss.
166226
My conclusion after this small test. Swiss was better by a good margin. Supposedly the other powders were made back when they were supposed to know what they were doing. The Kynoch powder was the worst looking I've ever seen. Granulation size from dust to cannon. Swiss and UMC looked similar, close to 2F. And check out the velocities too. I've used Goex and Wano in the past. Had to duplex to get usable velocity for 1000 yd matches. Swiss obtains the same velocity with straight black. I'll go with Swiss.

[w30wcf]

upnorthwis,
Thank you for your findings. Interesting.
My experience with the early powders has been specifically with the .44-40 and .45 Colt cartridges in 24" barrels.
40 gr. charges by weight reclaimed / reloaded powders / 2F granulation / .44-40
Headstamp / velocity/
W.R.A. Co. / 1,320
......U.M.C. / 1,342
......U.M.C. / 1,420
By comparison, only Swiss 2F and Olde E 2F could compare velocity wise with similar fouling (1,350 / 1,375)
Regarding the 1,420 fps ...... In that batch of cartridges I'm thinking that possibly U.M.C. Might have contacted one of powder co.,s and asked for a powder with the ballistic strength equal to King's Semi-Smokeless which produced an average velocity of 1,430 f.p.s. in my testing.

45 Colt
headstamp / velocity
......U.M.C. / 1,240 f.p.s.
...Swiss 2F / 1,220 f.p.s.
.Olde E 2F / 1,239 f.p.s.

p.s. My dad was from Shawano, WI. He lived on a farm that is still in the family. I've visited there several times although it has now been awhile.

[John in PA]

Earlier in this thread, a question was raised wondering why some modern powders burn with soft moist fouling and others (most) burn dry and hard. The answer is in the species of wood used for the charcoal AND the temperature at which it is charred. Alder, buckthorn alder, (and some say dogwood?), charred BELOW 320 degrees centigrade will retain almost all of their naturally occurring creosote. It is the creosote content that governs moisture content of the powder fouling. many of the modern powder manufacturers have tried to short-cut (cheapen) the process of powder manufacture by ignoring this information, which has been known for at least 25 years. And, petroleum-derived creosote does not yield the same results if added to powder. GOEX tried this with early batches of CTG powder with disappointing results. So, AFAIK, Swiss and Olde Eynesford are the only ones that use the more expensive charcoal to make their powders. KIK also uses alder charcoal, but there is some discrepancy as to whether it has been processed at low enough temperature to retain maximum creosote content.

Technical article can be found here, http://www.laflinandrand.com/madmonk/KIK.pdf (http://www.laflinandrand.com/madmonk/KIK.pdf)page 9 has the details about the creosote.