4fg swiss BP and 45 long colt revolver

[Claudius]

Hi all, I have a Pietta 1873 SA revolver and I got a lot of fun shooting cartridges loaded with 26grs of 3fg swiss powder and .452 255grs boolits from a Lee mold. Is it safe to use the 4fg swiss BP with the same loads instead of the 3fg? I ask you this because the 4fg BP is faster and I don't want blowup my hands! Thank you for your help.

[725]

No. Use nothing finer than FFFg. FFFFg is for pan ignition in flintlocks. It would be dangerous as a revolver charge.

[Loudenboomer]

can you use 4F .....(FFFFG) black powder in a 45 colt?
Don't do it. Search this thread on here a few months back.

[Claudius]

Thank you for your replies, I have read that old discussion but I didn't get any clarification on this topic, so I went to the site of the Poudrerie Aubone (the BP swiss producer), and I found some more info about the "mesh" of the several types of BP: http://www.blackpowder.ch/powder/shooting-powder

It seems to me that the US FFFFg is 40-100 mesh and the nr. 1 swiss BP is 35-65 mesh, so you can see that they are not the same and the swiss nr. 1 has larger grains. Also I found some shooters that are using loads of nr. 1 swiss BP from 15 to 18 grains (with semolina fills) for their 44/40 and 1858 Remington revolvers. So I'll give a try starting to use this nr. 1 swiss BP with my 1858 cap&ball Remington Uberti, it is a very strong revolver and I hope that it will lead me to right and safe loads for my Pietta 1873 SA. I'll let you know what will happen (finger crossed, not blowed up).

[Claudius]

I tried this morning the #1 swiss BP in the 1858 Remington Uberti before loading cartridges 45lc for the Pietta Colt 1873 SA, I loaded 27 grains with a 200 grains conical boolit from a Lee mold. The shooting was safe and comfortable and very accurate at more than 20m (imho), it was a beautiful experience. The revolver was more cleaner than before, when I used other coarser BPs. Lubing with 1p of beeswax, 2p tallow and a bit of olive oil.
Here a video of my first 6 rounds:


https://youtu.be/IF2J2eXPtWM
So I can tell you that the #1 SWISS BP is safe in the cap&ball revolvers, let's see what will happen in a 45LC cartridge the next days.

[greenjoytj]

Why do you want to use such a fine granulation in such a large bore muzzle loader?
The finer granulation will just spike the pressure faster. Why stress the firearm?
Conventional wisdom has the finest grade of BP used in small caliber firearms and priming flintlocks/matchlocks.

[kokomokid]

The #4 swiss for Europe is sold as 1 1/2 swiss in the US. The #4 very fine Swiss sold in the US would be for flash pans and 22 rimfire.

[Nobade]

The #4 swiss for Europe is sold as 1 1/2 swiss in the US. The #4 very fine Swiss sold in the US would be for flash pans and 22 rimfire.Yes, the numbering method Swiss powder uses is confusing to us Americans. The powder we get is re-labled so we can understand it here.

[Claudius]

Why do you want to use such a fine granulation in such a large bore muzzle loader?
The finer granulation will just spike the pressure faster. Why stress the firearm?
Conventional wisdom has the finest grade of BP used in small caliber firearms and priming flintlocks/matchlocks.
I didn't find so many differences from the swiss #2 (barely FFFg), and my revolver wasn't stressed at all, so it is possible to use this #1 swiss BP safely for a 44/45 revolver. I have old shooter friends that are using the swiss nr. 1 for years without any problem. I like to use it because it shoots very well with so low dirt.

[indian joe]

Thank you for your replies, I have read that old discussion but I didn't get any clarification on this topic, so I went to the site of the Poudrerie Aubone (the BP swiss producer), and I found some more info about the "mesh" of the several types of BP: http://www.blackpowder.ch/powder/shooting-powder

It seems to me that the US FFFFg is 40-100 mesh and the nr. 1 swiss BP is 35-65 mesh, so you can see that they are not the same and the swiss nr. 1 has larger grains. Also I found some shooters that are using loads of nr. 1 swiss BP from 15 to 18 grains (with semolina fills) for their 44/40 and 1858 Remington revolvers. So I'll give a try starting to use this nr. 1 swiss BP with my 1858 cap&ball Remington Uberti, it is a very strong revolver and I hope that it will lead me to right and safe loads for my Pietta 1873 SA. I'll let you know what will happen (finger crossed, not blowed up).

I think 35 to 65 mesh powder would be safe and appropriate in cap and ball revolvers - we have used proper FFFF (40 to 100mesh) in 357 mag cases without incident or signs of it

[bigted]

I always wonder the why of trying to gas up these revolvers. They are perfection used with 2 or 3 Fg powder. Never any problems and economic to shoot. If set up correctly accuracy is just exelent.

So my question [ meaning no disrespect in the least] why?

[indian joe]

I always wonder the why of trying to gas up these revolvers. They are perfection used with 2 or 3 Fg powder. Never any problems and economic to shoot. If set up correctly accuracy is just exelent.

So my question [ meaning no disrespect in the least] why?

Ted - I agree - these guns are fun just how they were intended - I have never shot anything other than round ball in them despite the urging of many around me and plenty on this forum - again why? round ball is tops for accuracy and convenience of loading why mess about with boolits ?

couple of points to my post
1) 35 to 65 mesh is only a tad finer than FFFg - last century we used bags of Goex 5FA that screened pretty close to those numbers so for my money the Swiss that started this is not really FFFFg (40 to 100mesh is a different critter I think)
2) 357 magnum loaded with black I reckon we were gassing it down quite a bit - its a fine BP round tho.
in any of this if common sense is lacking then trouble will be the end result.

[John Boy]

The #4 very fine Swiss sold in the US would be for flash pans and 22 rimfire.
I reload 22 LR primed empty cases the fastest Swiss Null-B, 4.5 grains. Chrono 1040 with excellent ES and SD's

[Dave T]

The OP asked about loading the "45 Colt". That's a cartridge, not a cap-n-ball revolver. Some of you guys need a reading comprehension course. (smiley face goes here)

And based on my years of loading and shooting the 45 Colt (cartridge) in single action revolvers, including original 1st Gen Colts, I would not use FFFFg powder, what ever it's called across the pond.

Dave

[Good Cheer]

Using boolit molds and sizing the back half of the boolit a few thousandths smaller is easy enough with percussion revolvers. So much simpler than messing around with those brass cases. And once they start down that slippery slope, why next your boolits won't even be lead. It's madness I tell you. Stop while you still can!
[smilie=w:

[Claudius]

I tried to load .45 cartridges for my Pietta 1873 SAA with 22grs of #1 swiss BP, filling the gap with the semolina (1/16" compression), 255grs boolits from a Lee mold. I used a small Lee reloading kit and I shot 5 cylinders.
The shooting was comfortable and I didn't have any problem, the brasses came out normally and I can reuse them, it's just necessary to adjust the loads for the best accuracy. I'm thinking to add some lube in front of the cylinder (the 255 grs boolits have rather shallow grooves, good for smokeless powder but not for BP), like in my 1858 Rem, in this way the fouling remains softer and you can shoot the entire session without cleaning the barrel. I remember you that here in Italy I'm not the first one to use the #1 swiss BP in .45 cartridges, this is just a normal option. Here a short video of the shooting, your opinions and advices are welcome:


https://youtu.be/tgdl--Dfb0Y

[bigted]

Yes i have comprehension skills that have gotten me through 62 years of life ... thankyou very much! I also trust my eyes and ears and when i see and hear a feller using 4Fg powder in a Remington new model army , i comented on the why of "gassing" them up.

I did not forget the original post for a second concerning the 45 Colt round.

Still cant figure the why of trying to goose either revolver into something it is not intended to do. Just purchase a modern magnum built revolver and have at it.

My post is simple ... i have been shooting cap n ball's as well as 45 Colts for a good many years and i maintain that they work very well indeed with 2 and 3 Fg black powder.

Many men and animals have wound up dead with these revolvers and many a meal has been served as a result of these revolvers shooting the 2 and 3 Fg loads.

Guess i am just gettin old. I just ask why is all. Been askin why all my life ... it is how i learn things.

[Claudius]

Why the n. 1 swiss BP? Because it is faster and cleaner for our handguns, it is not like using magnum loads and smokeless powder, it is just finer black powder with typical black powder pressures. Also the swiss manufacturer indicates the n. 1 good for handguns like .38 and .45 calibers. The real US 4fg is a different business.

[bigted]

So getting back here ... srry for the tardyness ... I went back up and read the original post and indeed we are answering the original question ... pertaining to 4Fg powder ... not the n.1 swiss ( do not know what N.1 is ).

My impression is a discussion of using 4Fg Swiss powder in place of 3Fg Swiss.

Allow me to add this as a comparison for you;

I loaded compressed loads of Ol E powder in 40 grain loads. I used 3Fg and 2Fg granulations and discovered a valuable lesson in felt recoil and flattened primers [ indicating beginnings of pressure signs ] in my 2nd gen Colt SAA infantry length barrel (7.5 inch ) revolver topped with that same Lee 255 grain flat round nose boolit.

If you doubt the varasity of this load ... I suggest you obtain some/ load some in 2Fg Swiss or Ol E powder [I understand these powders are very close in speed and power] and take a sound revolver to the range and report back your impression of the power of these ORIGINAL Colt loads.

Bear in mind that the 4Fg powder questioned in your first post is an entire different and MUCH faster powder then the original powder that was used in these revolvers.

I fear a diet of the 4Fg in these old style Colt and aftermarket revolvers with concern that hands and bystanders of those shooting a 4Fg powder load. This is simply my answer to the question posted in the OP here.

Still not sure about what the N.1 Swiss powder translates to in American powder sizes.

12-30-18 is awhile back and seems like we have moved past this. However I for one would like a revisit to it and find level ground as well as agreement as to the safety of shooting 4Fg powder in larger then a 31 cal BP revolver.

[Springfield]

The hotter you load your gun the faster it will wear out, generally speaking. So unless you are really needing that extra power, why do it. I one experimented with my Tanfoglio 9mm Action Express with a custom Bar-Sto barrel, and finally managed to get a 125 grain bullet going 1700 fps, chrongraphed. Sounded like a shotgun when I used it at our indoor range at work. Didn't blow up the gun, but no way was that a recommended load. It would bury itself halfway through a bullet proof vest, had to dig it out. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

[indian joe]

So getting back here ... srry for the tardyness ... I went back up and read the original post and indeed we are answering the original question ... pertaining to 4Fg powder ... not the n.1 swiss ( do not know what N.1 is ).

My impression is a discussion of using 4Fg Swiss powder in place of 3Fg Swiss.

Allow me to add this as a comparison for you;

I loaded compressed loads of Ol E powder in 40 grain loads. I used 3Fg and 2Fg granulations and discovered a valuable lesson in felt recoil and flattened primers [ indicating beginnings of pressure signs ] in my 2nd gen Colt SAA infantry length barrel (7.5 inch ) revolver topped with that same Lee 255 grain flat round nose boolit.

If you doubt the varasity of this load ... I suggest you obtain some/ load some in 2Fg Swiss or Ol E powder [I understand these powders are very close in speed and power] and take a sound revolver to the range and report back your impression of the power of these ORIGINAL Colt loads.

Bear in mind that the 4Fg powder questioned in your first post is an entire different and MUCH faster powder then the original powder that was used in these revolvers.

I fear a diet of the 4Fg in these old style Colt and aftermarket revolvers with concern that hands and bystanders of those shooting a 4Fg powder load. This is simply my answer to the question posted in the OP here.

Still not sure about what the N.1 Swiss powder translates to in American powder sizes.

12-30-18 is awhile back and seems like we have moved past this. However I for one would like a revisit to it and find level ground as well as agreement as to the safety of shooting 4Fg powder in larger then a 31 cal BP revolver.

Ted
No I wouldnt do it (FFFFg) in a 45 revolver - I posted earlier we had used FFFFg in a 357 mag - that was a sound Rossi 92 rifle - have also used it in a 32/20 - both very nice results
Why ???? simple ----homemade powder - not tryin to goose anything up - gotta find a home for the FFFFG or else recycle it back

The Swiss at 35 to 65 mesh is not FFFF either -- 40 to 100mesh is different stuff altogether thats a whole grade finer again.

Your right about those original loads - try 40 grains in a 44/40 revolver - we did it under a 225 boolit - changed a few ideas at our local pistol club - guys thought them ole fashioned cowboy gunz was all smoke - punkin rollers

[bigted]

Joe ... yes those original loads were for sure not lite weight rounds. It is testament of the why of the US army asking and getting a lighter load in 45 Colt being (I believe anyway) 35 grains powder and a 230 grain boolit ... still stout enough in its own rite.

I have never had nor fired a 44WCF yet. I have purchased loading dies for it tho as I am rebuilding my new style Winchester 92 with a bulged barrel back into a lined 44WCF. Need to return to that project and get my barrel lined so I too can play with the 44 WCF.

I much prefer the old original chamberings to the new ones.

[mazo kid]

I have not, nor ever will, load ffffg in any gun (well maybe my NAA 22 BP revolver as that is designed for it). From what I have read, because it is a very fine grained powder, pressures will be erratic and inconsistent, not conducive to accuracy, let alone safety.

[Good Cheer]

In the 1860's war production there was much variation in loadings. The elongated boolits used in percussion revolvers reduced the powder space. Apparently using more energetic powder in the reduced available volume was sometimes the way they done it. And then again sometimes they used FFg in the prepackaged paper cartridges.
Me, I use what I have and make it work.

[Jeff Houck]

Does anyone have chronograph data comparing 3f and 4f in the 45 colt? In all the discussions I've never seen any real live data presented.

I also wish someone with a transducer pressure set up would volunteer to do some pressure testing for us.
BIG SIGH

[bigted]

I would welcome these facts as well. Seems time to begin factual provable facts rather then Idle speculation. Personally I would prefer all would abstain from using 4 Fg powder, aside from prime in a flintlock, till some real facts are established. The risk is just too high to shooters and bystanders.

[Oyeboten]

If we expect "4F" to be iffy or worse for over-pressure effects, let's not forget, please don't ever try and use the old time Photographer's "Flash Powder" in any kind of Firearm!

I have read though that some .41 RF Factory Loaded Cartridges used a mixture of 3 and 4 F, but it did not say what the proportion was.

Probably that was done for some other Cartridges as well back when.

I myself would not use 4F in anything but Magnum Cartridges.

3F is indeed plenty stout for anything Hand Gun wise which was originally loaded with it.

Original Spec for BP .38 Special, longer Barrel of course, was 950 FPS with the 156 Grain RNL Bullet.

No slouch there.

.45 Colt original Black Powder round, with the usual longer Barrel length of the day, ran about 1050 FPS and 255 Grain Bullet.

That' a whallop for whatever it hits..!

[John Boy]

Is it safe to use the 4fg swiss BP with the same loads instead of the 3fg?
The round was originally loaded with a 255-grain lead bullet over 40 grains of FFg black powder for a velocity of about 900 fps (out of the issue SAA's 7½-inch barrel).

[Jeff Houck]

The following information come from this book: Lyman Black Powder Handbook,C. Kenneth Ramage, editor, 1975
It would be worth peoples time and effort to get this book for their library. There is also a second edition out, but I've not been able to browse thru it for BP pressure data. Both books are available thru Amazon.

It lists 3f AND 4f loads for 31, 36, 44 and 45 caliber handguns using C&H and Goex powders, with both RB and bullet. The 36 and 44 listings give pressure data. All pressures are so low that they were measured in LUP, ie lead unit pressure rather than CUP which is copper unit pressure.

44 cal., 8" barrel, 155gr bullet #450229
28gr. G-O 3f gave 861 vel, 8820 LUP
28gr. G-O 4f gave 885 vel, 8480 LUP

28gr. C&H 3f gave 785 vel, 6080 LUP
28gr. C&H 4f gave 862 vel, 7220 LUP

44 cal., 8" barrel, 138gr. RB
37gr. G-O 4f gave 960 vel, 7420 LUP
37gr. C&H 4f gave 943 vel, 6820 LUP

45 cal Ruger Old Army, 7 1/2 barrel (no pressure data for this one)
190gr. #45467, 33gr. G-O 3f gave 780 vel
190gr. #45467, 33gr. G-O 4f gave 863 vel

190gr. #45467, 33gr. C&H 3f gave 709 vel
190gr. #45467, 34gr. C&H 4f gave 898 vel

There is lots more data for the 31 cal., 36 cal., and the 44 cal., all showing the same low LUP levels for 3f vs 4f.
So here is data from Lyman that supports using 4f powder in cap and ball revolvers.

Hope this helps, Jeff

[Castaway]

Originally, the factory load for the 45 Colt was 30 grains under a 250 grain bullet. During development 40 grain loads were considered in testing but were not an issued cartridge. Shortly afterwards, in mid 74 the charge was reduced to 28 grains, the same as the newly adopted Smith revolver. The 40 grain load was a civilian cartridge used later in the life span of Colt’s SAA

[Chill Wills]

The following information come from this book: Lyman Black Powder Handbook,C. Kenneth Ramage, editor, 1975
It would be worth peoples time and effort to get this book for their library. There is also a second edition out, but I've not been able to browse thru it for BP pressure data. Both books are available thru Amazon.

It lists 3f AND 4f loads for 31, 36, 44 and 45 caliber handguns using C&H and Goex powders, with both RB and bullet. The 36 and 44 listings give pressure data. All pressures are so low that they were measured in LUP, ie lead unit pressure rather than CUP which is copper unit pressure.

44 cal., 8" barrel, 155gr bullet #450229
28gr. G-O 3f gave 861 vel, 8820 LUP
28gr. G-O 4f gave 885 vel, 8480 LUP

28gr. C&H 3f gave 785 vel, 6080 LUP
28gr. C&H 4f gave 862 vel, 7220 LUP

44 cal., 8" barrel, 138gr. RB
37gr. G-O 4f gave 960 vel, 7420 LUP
37gr. C&H 4f gave 943 vel, 6820 LUP

45 cal Ruger Old Army, 7 1/2 barrel (no pressure data for this one)
190gr. #45467, 33gr. G-O 3f gave 780 vel
190gr. #45467, 33gr. G-O 4f gave 863 vel

190gr. #45467, 33gr. C&H 3f gave 709 vel
190gr. #45467, 34gr. C&H 4f gave 898 vel

There is lots more data for the 31 cal., 36 cal., and the 44 cal., all showing the same low LUP levels for 3f vs 4f.
So here is data from Lyman that supports using 4f powder in cap and ball revolvers.

Hope this helps, Jeff
Here are Lyman pages for the 44 Round ball and of course a 45 C&B is not a 45 Cartridge and not a 255gr bullet. Good info non the less.

[Chill Wills]

I'm not sure that 15-18 grains of FFFg under a wheat filler in a 45 Colt is much of a problem but I have no data to back that up either. To each their own.

Standing next to that at the public range or standing next to some Bubba and his handloaded 338 whizzbang is about the same in my mind.
Some of these goofballs on the highway trying to kill me while I am going to the public range are definitely scary too.

[Larry Gibson]

As of late, in my travels, I have acquired a pound of GOEX FFFFg powder. I intend on pressure testing (Oehler M43 PBL and Contender test barrels) loads in the 32 S&WL, the 357 Magnum, the 44 SPL, the 44 Magnum, the 45 American, 45 Schofield and perhaps the 45 Colt.......pressures permitting. That should answer a lot of questions and prove suppositions right or wrong.

[indian joe]

The following information come from this book: Lyman Black Powder Handbook,C. Kenneth Ramage, editor, 1975
It would be worth peoples time and effort to get this book for their library. There is also a second edition out, but I've not been able to browse thru it for BP pressure data. Both books are available thru Amazon.

It lists 3f AND 4f loads for 31, 36, 44 and 45 caliber handguns using C&H and Goex powders, with both RB and bullet. The 36 and 44 listings give pressure data. All pressures are so low that they were measured in LUP, ie lead unit pressure rather than CUP which is copper unit pressure.

44 cal., 8" barrel, 155gr bullet #450229
28gr. G-O 3f gave 861 vel, 8820 LUP
28gr. G-O 4f gave 885 vel, 8480 LUP

28gr. C&H 3f gave 785 vel, 6080 LUP
28gr. C&H 4f gave 862 vel, 7220 LUP

44 cal., 8" barrel, 138gr. RB
37gr. G-O 4f gave 960 vel, 7420 LUP
37gr. C&H 4f gave 943 vel, 6820 LUP

45 cal Ruger Old Army, 7 1/2 barrel (no pressure data for this one)
190gr. #45467, 33gr. G-O 3f gave 780 vel
190gr. #45467, 33gr. G-O 4f gave 863 vel

190gr. #45467, 33gr. C&H 3f gave 709 vel
190gr. #45467, 34gr. C&H 4f gave 898 vel

There is lots more data for the 31 cal., 36 cal., and the 44 cal., all showing the same low LUP levels for 3f vs 4f.
So here is data from Lyman that supports using 4f powder in cap and ball revolvers.

Hope this helps, Jeff

Jeff -- good info - kinda backs up my musings on the C&H versus GoEx - you would have to wonder about the pressure read on the 28gr GoEx FFFFg in the first test - that would fit the picture nicely if it read 9480 LUP instead of the 8480 - is that a typo maybe??

[bigted]

Showing my ignorance here ... what is the comparable difference between LUP and CUP as opposed to PSI?

Larry, will watch with interest in your findings ... was hoping you would take interest in this subject.

[Jeff Houck]

Jeff -- good info - kinda backs up my musings on the C&H versus GoEx - you would have to wonder about the pressure read on the 28gr GoEx FFFFg in the first test - that would fit the picture nicely if it read 9480 LUP instead of the 8480 - is that a typo maybe??

I wondered about that too. Perhaps a typo on their part when they wrote the book. I'd like to see the second edition to see if it had changed.

[Castaway]

Interesting

[Larry Gibson]

Showing my ignorance here ... what is the comparable difference between LUP and CUP as opposed to PSI?

Larry, will watch with interest in your findings ... was hoping you would take interest in this subject.

LUP and CUP are essentially the same method using the same test equipment. The difference is a lead pellet is use instead of a copper pellet because at low end pressures (<10,000 psi) the copper pellets aren't crushed (actually riveted) consistently. The lead pellets are crushed more uniformly and a tarage table for them is used to convert the amount of "crush" to pressure. Many, if not most, older shotgun loads were pressure tested using LUP.

[bigted]

Rite on. Thanks for the explanation. Look forward to your findings concerning pressure with the 4Fg powder in comparison to 3Fg and/or 2Fg of the same powder manufacturer and maybe same lot numbers ... but for sure pressure of 4Fg powder in larger (45 Colt) chamber.

[35 Whelen]

I'm interested to see Larry's findings when he pressure tests 3F vs. 4F. I recall reading in Keith's SIXGUNS that he "ground" black powder to the consistency of flour and loaded it in his 45 Colt's, although I don't recall the context.

It bears mentioning that the Pietta which the OP is using is a far cry from great-grandpappy's Colt SA. The Italian revolvers are required to be proofed to 130% of standard pressures, which for the 45 Colt would be around 18,000 psi.

35W

[Chill Wills]

As of late, in my travels, I have acquired a pound of GOEX FFFFg powder. I intend on pressure testing (Oehler M43 PBL and Contender test barrels) loads in the 32 S&WL, the 357 Magnum, the 44 SPL, the 44 Magnum, the 45 American, 45 Schofield and perhaps the 45 Colt.......pressures permitting. That should answer a lot of questions and prove suppositions right or wrong.

I would be interested in the OP's subject load of 15-18 grains of FFFF with a filler under the bullet. I am guessing this would produce a very low pressure load. We'll see if you should decided to test it at some point.

[StrawHat]

Subscribing to see results of pressure testing.

Kevin

[Good Cheer]

The following information come from this book: Lyman Black Powder Handbook,C. Kenneth Ramage, editor, 1975
It would be worth peoples time and effort to get this book for their library. There is also a second edition out, but I've not been able to browse thru it for BP pressure data. Both books are available thru Amazon.

It lists 3f AND 4f loads for 31, 36, 44 and 45 caliber handguns using C&H and Goex powders, with both RB and bullet. The 36 and 44 listings give pressure data. All pressures are so low that they were measured in LUP, ie lead unit pressure rather than CUP which is copper unit pressure.

44 cal., 8" barrel, 155gr bullet #450229
28gr. G-O 3f gave 861 vel, 8820 LUP
28gr. G-O 4f gave 885 vel, 8480 LUP

28gr. C&H 3f gave 785 vel, 6080 LUP
28gr. C&H 4f gave 862 vel, 7220 LUP

44 cal., 8" barrel, 138gr. RB
37gr. G-O 4f gave 960 vel, 7420 LUP
37gr. C&H 4f gave 943 vel, 6820 LUP

45 cal Ruger Old Army, 7 1/2 barrel (no pressure data for this one)
190gr. #45467, 33gr. G-O 3f gave 780 vel
190gr. #45467, 33gr. G-O 4f gave 863 vel

190gr. #45467, 33gr. C&H 3f gave 709 vel
190gr. #45467, 34gr. C&H 4f gave 898 vel

There is lots more data for the 31 cal., 36 cal., and the 44 cal., all showing the same low LUP levels for 3f vs 4f.
So here is data from Lyman that supports using 4f powder in cap and ball revolvers.

Hope this helps, Jeff

Went and pulled out my copy...
In 1981-82 my cat shredded the cover and a few pages for a baby nest. It was her first litter and the book smelled like me, so, I was out of town on business and she made herself a comfort zone.
Any how, in looking through the data, did you notice the pressure and velocities' differences by brand of powder? It was about as significant as the granulation! About like Red Dot versus Unique or something. Gives me something new to think about when banging away with SWC's in the Walker.

[smithnframe]

Elmer Keith used to put 4F in a mortar and pestle to make it as fine as possible! Of course it was faster burning giving him higher velocities in 45 Colt but it also increased pressure considerably. After blowing a few Colt SAA's up he switched to the 44 spl and the new smokeless powders and the rest is history!

[indian joe]

Elmer Keith used to put 4F in a mortar and pestle to make it as fine as possible! Of course it was faster burning giving him higher velocities in 45 Colt but it also increased pressure considerably. After blowing a few Colt SAA's up he switched to the 44 spl and the new smokeless powders and the rest is history!

Elmer was foolin around with 45/70 sized boolits in that colt that he blew up - t'wernt just the finer powder..

[StrawHat]

Elmer Keith used to put 4F in a mortar and pestle to make it as fine as possible! Of course it was faster burning giving him higher velocities in 45 Colt but it also increased pressure considerably. After blowing a few Colt SAA's up he switched to the 44 spl and the new smokeless powders and the rest is history!

EK blew up more than a couple of revolvers of all makes. Smiths, Colts, you name them. He was looking for a powerful cartridge and did not care what caliber or manufacturer.

Kevin

[StrawHat]

Elmer was foolin around with 45/70 sized boolits in that colt that he blew up - t'wernt just the finer powder..


According to his story, the case head let loose and blew the gate of the Colt. He probably fixed it and continued using it.

Kevin

[bigted]

Elmer Keith was a dangerous man! He published very dangerous loads including some 06 wildcats. The end results are legendary ... however I personally would NEVER load 45-70 loads he loaded AND published for the 1886 Winchester rifles.

As stated ... his end results in the 44 Mag and the 338 Win Mag are legendary. His experiments however ... and ruined guns ... are a testament to God watching after screwball's and old folks.

His crushing black powder to fine flour ... is today ... ludicrous.

I always thought he pushed the limits too far ... but ... when he did it, there were not many to call him out on it nor a platform to do so as we have today.

Some of his descriptions of his life experiences were/are a bit condescending to others that also lived the same time period and crossed paths with ol Elmer.

Any rate, put the rope away, I am done diminishing the memories of a legend now. My apology to the Elmer fans.

[Jeff Houck]

interesting video.
https://www.forgottenweapons.com/elmer-keiths-ka-boom-video/

[Oyeboten]

I always took for granted that 4F would burn a lot faster than 3 F...

That 3 F would burn faster ( maybe not a lot faster, but, faster how-ever much ) than 2 F...

Etc...

For the Pan of a Flintlock, the 4F is necessary for the smaller size particles to be carried in to the Breech through the tiny hole for effective ignition.

It'd be very easy to load up some .41 or .44 Magnum, even using somewhat reduced charges ( as far as Case volume ) and deeper seated Bullet if one wanted, good compression, using 2 F, 3F, 4F...use right Lube so no fouling.

Keep everything the same but for the F...

Chronograph them.

If no meaningful difference or meaningful steps of progression in FPS down through the granulations, then, I think we can suppose the pressures generated are not markedly different.

I can try this sometime...with .41 Magnum Cartridges anyway...

[LIMPINGJ]

bigted which 45-70 load are referencing? The only load I remember was the 53 grains IMR3031 and a Rem 405 grain he recommended for the reintroduced Marlin 1895 and Win 1886. If so better not use Hodgdon’s data, they go to 55 grains with a 400 grain bullet.
400 GR. SPR JFP
Starting Loads Maximum Loads
Manufacturer Powder Bullet Diam.
C.O.L.
Grs.
Vel. (ft/s)
Pressure
Grs.
Vel. (ft/s)
Pressure
IMR IMR 3031 .458" 2.540" 51.0 1,809 26,900 CUP 55.0C 1,971 37,300

[Good Cheer]

I always took for granted that 4F would burn a lot faster than 3 F...

That 3 F would burn faster ( maybe not a lot faster, but, faster how-ever much ) than 2 F...

Etc...

For the Pan of a Flintlock, the 4F is necessary for the smaller size particles to be carried in to the Breech through the tiny hole for effective ignition.

It'd be very easy to load up some .41 or .44 Magnum, even using somewhat reduced charges ( as far as Case volume ) and deeper seated Bullet if one wanted, good compression, using 2 F, 3F, 4F...use right Lube so no fouling.

Keep everything the same but for the F...

Chronograph them.

If no meaningful difference or meaningful steps of progression in FPS down through the granulations, then, I think we can suppose the pressures generated are not markedly different.

I can try this sometime...with .41 Magnum Cartridges anyway...

I'm looking forwards to loading black with paper patched in my .41 single shot rifle.
In the .45 Colt single shot rifle it works fine.
Golly would love to have a 460S&W single shot to shoot black but will stick with the Colt.:razz:
For hand guns any more I just prefer caseless ammo (percussion).

[Oyeboten]

Some really good info here - just read on down a ways...it goes in to what the Powders were really about, for the Cap & Ball Revolvers following the Dragoon era.

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/the-truth-about-triple-7.688517/

[bigted]

bigted which 45-70 load are referencing? The only load I remember was the 53 grains IMR3031 and a Rem 405 grain he recommended for the reintroduced Marlin 1895 and Win 1886. If so better not use Hodgdon’s data, they go to 55 grains with a 400 grain bullet.
400 GR. SPR JFP
Starting Loads Maximum Loads
Manufacturer Powder Bullet Diam.
C.O.L.
Grs.
Vel. (ft/s)
Pressure
Grs.
Vel. (ft/s)
Pressure
IMR IMR 3031 .458" 2.540" 51.0 1,809 26,900 CUP 55.0C 1,971 37,300

If you will re-read my post concerning the 1886 and his loads ... what I said was ... "I would never load and shoot his 45-70 loads in 1886 Winchester rifles" ... especially the pre 1897 model 1886's which he purported to be plenty strong for those 53 grain 3031 loads.

I just have a problem trusting somebody that busted and blew up the guns he did while trying his hot loads.

Nothing personal ... I just have belief system that the edge of the envelope in not needed ... nor in my view ... wanted nor desired. I am a cautious loader and my firearms are too hard earned to take reckless and needless chances with.

To say nothing about the uncomfortable recoil generated. Want more horsepower ... get a bigger gun ... my words and thoughts.

I just offer my sentiment. Maybe not for all ... but ... its mine!

[Chill Wills]

Ted, If I may ask; what did Winchester do in 1897?

[Jeff Houck]

http://www.ctmuzzleloaders.com/ctml_experiments/bp_burning/bp_burning.html

The author of this article states in the conclusion: "One thing clearly stood out - black powder, contrary to many popular assumptions, is indeed as progressive-burning as smokeless powder,"......

An excellent read, with direction to many more relevant articles as well.

[indian joe]

If you will re-read my post concerning the 1886 and his loads ... what I said was ... "I would never load and shoot his 45-70 loads in 1886 Winchester rifles" ... especially the pre 1897 model 1886's which he purported to be plenty strong for those 53 grain 3031 loads.

I just have a problem trusting somebody that busted and blew up the guns he did while trying his hot loads.

Nothing personal ... I just have belief system that the edge of the envelope in not needed ... nor in my view ... wanted nor desired. I am a cautious loader and my firearms are too hard earned to take reckless and needless chances with.

To say nothing about the uncomfortable recoil generated. Want more horsepower ... get a bigger gun ... my words and thoughts.

I just offer my sentiment. Maybe not for all ... but ... its mine!

I will go along with that !!!!

[indian joe]

http://www.ctmuzzleloaders.com/ctml_experiments/bp_burning/bp_burning.html

The author of this article states in the conclusion: "One thing clearly stood out - black powder, contrary to many popular assumptions, is indeed as progressive-burning as smokeless powder,"......

An excellent read, with direction to many more relevant articles as well.

another thing that sticks out is that Swiss is clearly a grade finer in granulation than Goex (and Elephant) so comparing these powders is like apples and oranges
Swiss FF would be equivalent kernel size to Goex FFF according to this article??????

[bigted]

Ted, If I may ask; what did Winchester do in 1897?

My impression is ... the date 1897 ... began the smokeless powder steel in firearms in general.

Correct me if I am incorrect with this. I have always understood that there was a metallurgy change this year which made the use of smokeless powder with its higher pressures possible.

Probably does not come through �� I am not a Keith fan. Nor am I a fan of magnum rounds. I really see no need for them ... that is just me tho.

I will pipe down now. I offered my first post with just a personal note on my feelings ... which means not a thing.

[Jeff Houck]

another thing that sticks out is that Swiss is clearly a grade finer in granulation than Goex (and Elephant) so comparing these powders is like apples and oranges
Swiss FF would be equivalent kernel size to Goex FFF according to this article??????

Yes, that's what I understood him to say as well. The Goex he used was PRE-Old Eynsford. So to compare Swiss to the old Goex we'd need to be using Swiss 2f to Goex 3F. I don't have these two powders on hand so I can't do a velocity comparison. I suspect that they'd be quite close though. I'd like to know how Old Eynsford would compare to Swiss.

Wouldn't it be nice if this is the explanation of why Swiss is "more potent" than other powders. That it's as simple as we've been comparing 3F Swiss to 2F Goex? Is there anyone who can do the measurements on OE out there who'd like to try to do the measurements? Is there anyone who has both Swiss 2F and OE 3F on hand and would be willing to do a velocity comparison for us?

You know that we are committing HERESY by comparing 2f to 3F and to say that BP is actually a progressive burning powder. It means that the "unwashed masses" may "burn us" at the stake rather than "blow us up" at the stake. Oh what a way to go!