Attachment 325238
This is my powder die. Works good and very cheap.
Attachment 325239
Attachment 325239
Homemade press. Again, works good and cheap.
Printable View
Attachment 325238
This is my powder die. Works good and very cheap.
Attachment 325239
Attachment 325239
Homemade press. Again, works good and cheap.
PMA-440;
I believe you get the Extreme MacGyver Excellence In Using What U Got Award (EMEIUWUG)!!
AND, you're making some real nice looking powder! We'll have to get MacGyver himself to personally give you that award!
You're doing great and good luck with your quest!
@maillemakerQuote:
Originally Posted by maillemaker
How well does the plastic die hold up? After using it a couple years, do you still think that's the way to go, or have you changed your puck buster design? Would you mind sharing your .STL file for that die?
A while back DB and I were talking about poi changes with char changes, I also mixed all my powder before polishing. After the 18 hrs of rolling I resifted or screened to remove dust because as I mixed I saw a lot of dust I thought I removed after grinding and storing. I did get more out and I believe the extra dust may also affect accuracy due to erratic burn with some dust or the next with less. What do you gents see?
Graysmoke
Doublebuck
Thanks for the compliments.
Its the little birdie that gaurds my wallet that helps. Every time i go to spend he goes CHEAP!
Although I have not done any testing to prove it, I sure suspect that different types of charcoal would give enough difference in burn rate/dirtiness to likely show up on target. I have noticed a little bit of difference in the type of fouling that some of my batches have given me over the course of all my testing of different woods. Certainly can see differences when I did some string burn tests on paper. Certain woods were much dirtier than others back before I started testing for ash levels before making up batches of powder.Quote:
Originally Posted by Graysmoke
After chasing my taiI a good while, I had about decided on stopping my search for that perfect char wood, I did decide to combine all my batches together and blend them out in the bright sunlight on a light breezy day. I separated a lot of dust out of the batch onto a tarp. I do feel that a good amount of dust can certainly change the volume/weight as well as burn characteristics, so the less of the dust the better consistency i sure think.
If I get a wild hair later this spring, I might just try tumbling my accumulative amount of home made powder and re-screening and re-dusting as I know it will improve it somewhat. As far as for my uses though, I don't feel that it is necessary, but heck why not give it a whirl just because I can. I think I have about 10-12 lbs. made up so it will have to be a few days worth of milling without media even though my mill can easily handle 5-6 lbs.
I just bought (on Gunbroker) an older four digit absolutely beautiful like new Thompson Center Hawkins style .45 cal. Flinter, so I will surely be wanting to burn up a bit more powder and might want to re-screen out some 4F for the pan. I guess many just prime with 3F, so I will see how that goes. Sort of anxious to get that new smoke pole in the mail. I have 8 lbs. of ball and a good amount of freshly cut and lubed patches already waiting for it and of course, plenty of Black.
That inverse bevel bottom on the die could be the culprit. I don't have a picture of it, but my die sleeve (Woody's) has a bevel on the inside diameter at the end. This would cause the flowing powder to push upward a some small amount on the sleeve.Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleBuck
Does anyone else that uses Woody's die have one with a bevel on the ID of the sleeve?
HighUintas;
Yesterday, I pressed a few pucks from fines I had collected over the last few batches. I found something else that can cause your die to lift; cycling the press.
I put first one, and then two milk jug spacers at the bottom of my die. I cycled my press because my first test puck had a wee bit too much moisture, and I've found cycling the press makes that nearly go completely away. When I weighed the fines that had been re-milled for over 12 hours, I did the moisture weight, as well. I wanted to start with 4%, but when stirred all up, it was still a little dry, or so I thought; so I added 1% more distilled water to it, and thought it was perfect. I let it set, stirring frequently, over a 24 hour period. Well, I should have stuck with the 4%, in the first place. The math was right and my instinct was not. I didn't use heat, but just stirred until my arm fell off; for about an hour, to dry it; and it was back good.
So, in cycling my press twice; by putting hard pressure for maybe a minute, and full release for thirty seconds or more, and back on full pressure. On the second cycle, I saw some pressed mud squeeze out of the edge of my die. On the third cycle, it pushed the spacer out and had approximately 1/16" space between the die and backing plate. On the fourth and last cycle, I played with it. The pressure ruined the spacer and stretched it out of round BAD, and pumped probably two grams of plasticized powder out. Every few seconds I would lean on the press handle and it would barely move, but did move. More goo out, and then it quit. I waited probably two minutes and it still wouldn't move. The powder that squeezed out was just a few thousandths thick, but was hard as a puck, or nearly so.
So, on the next puck, I did the same thing; only the powder had been dried nearly perfect. I put two spacers on the bottom and got me four layers on top of it and laid down on the press. On the second cycle, I let it set for a bit and actually took the die off the press, and looked at it. The bottom spacer was already out of the die. As it set, and over about three more cycles, the second spacer was out, ruined; and the powder had squeezed nearly to the edge of the die.
I think this is a very good argument for what guys have commented long ago, to let the press set on full, for a time. It gives the powder time to take a 'set' and won't move from there very much. When you get off the press, the powder definitely expands. I found in further pressing, that if I let it set a minute or more, and just barely release the press, where it still had a half load, or so, it didn't give any problem, or much less. I still ruined another double spacer playing around, to see what it would do. I've actually concluded that if you want good pucks with even density, one at a time is the way to more insure that. But there is definitely something to be said for making stacks, too.
I found out that if I use no spacer on the bottom, it works the best. Which is how I did it for a long time, without problem. Cycling the press, and shooting for as heavy a puck as I could get, I came out with some great pucks and a stack of them measured density at 1.707 G/CC. at 4% moisture. 1.69 G/CC @ 5% moisture. I know they didn't have the 5% and I think the 4% would be very close. I normally figure density dry, but wanted to try breaking them up damp and screening and tumbling/polishing in one function. It has worked amazing so far.
I ran the powder over a 10 screen to begin, with a 20 under it and a 40 under that. I stopped with 40, to see what results are after polishing. I just looked at it and it is beautiful dark, high sheen grains and has had nearly zero dust, since breaking up the pucks. Less dust than any powder I've worked. Well, except for screened, of course.
I would like to compliment PianoManA-440 on the damp processing. I know others have tried it and it will be how I process, from here out. Hat's off to you! And, the powder polishes twice as good, in half as long.
I'll be testing this powder soon to see if re-milled and re-pressed fines are an advantage, or not. It sure looks good, so far.
I finished re-milling, re-pucking, and re-processing the mixed together fines.
It made 305.680 Grams of finished powder, after original screening of <20 >40, then tumbled and polished a total of 14 hours. It was then re-screened with a #50 screen, and that added to the total. Then dried at 150 degrees for three hours, spread out in a biscuit pan and stirred frequently.
Total loss through the tumbling/polishing process produced 37.680 grams of fines, for a total loss in the process, of 12%. Less fines than I've ever had left over and very nicely polished 3fff powder. About 90% of the final <50 screened powder also went through a #60, just to see how much dust it was actually removing. Most all of it.
At left is Charmin TP powder, worked with dry pucks. 1.597 density, 3fff, screened <20 >50, tumbled/polished 12 hours. Re-screened <50.
At right is the re-milled, re-pucked and re-processed fines from several previous batches. 1.707 density worked damp and screened <20 >50, polished 14 hours and re-screened <50. The picture does not show the darker color as much as it actually is.
The charmin side appears to have more >50, while the right side fines seems to have more <20 grain size. It polished easier and did a better job of it, with a LOT less dust. I will be processing my pucks damp from here on, and dry them afterwards. Hopefully, it performs well.
Attachment 325387
FWIW, I use a grain mill to grind my pucks and any level of moisture will gum up the works. DB, it sounds like screening without milling is what works for you with damp pucks.
I also tried grinding damp pucks with my grain mill. All it did was plug it up and make mush out of mush of it, even with the plates backed off. Maybe if one used one of the mills with the two rollers, it may work fine.
question 1)....what does your density number represent?Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleBuck
is it pressed puck or finished powder in a measure?
question 2) ....how does your powder density compare to commercial powder density ? (finished powder in a measure)
been looking at a gain mill on the net for ages ...how much fines do you lose in the grinding process ?Quote:
Originally Posted by HWooldridge
I get about 20-25% fines by weight on first grind, but I just re-puck and grind again. After three cycles, there isn’t much dust left, so I keep in a small plastic container and toss the remainder into the next batch.Quote:
Originally Posted by indian joe
HW;
I broke the pucks up mostly by hand, and the rest with my puck buster. I screened all the powder off, and ran all of it through my ceramic blade coffee grinder. I put it through a 10 screen and reground anything bigger. What held on a 20 screen I reground, but was catching #40 under that. I ground each setting at least two times, before tightening up the grain size. It only took one grind to pass the #10. The #20 probably three times. But it did break down much easier. Everything catching on the #40 screen I kept. The powder had a bunch less fines, with almost no dust. After tumbling/polishing it, I ran it through a 50 screen and kept everything it caught. I wanted to see how much grain size was lost, or there about, by polishing. I did not weigh the results, but am figuring 3- 5 grams got caught on the 50 screen. So, there was some loss of grain size, but very little.
indianjoe;
I measured a column of pucks, without spacers; in 8 places, with 4" micrometers, and averaged the numbers. The pucks were marked to place them as they came out of the die, and the column weighed, then I subtracted 4% for added moisture. That gave me the numbers to figure straight out of the press density. 1.707 Grams per CC.
I only have a 50 grain adjustable brass measure, but filled to the top and leveled off with the back of a knife; without tapping the measure, and measured 5 times they weighed: 48.9; 49.0; 48.8; 49.6 and 49.9, for an average of 49.2 grains in a 50 grain measure.
Tapping the side of the measure against the jar mouth I was pouring over, 5 taps each over five measures, they weighed: 51.2; 53.1 52.4;51.1 and 51.4 grains each, which averaged 51.64 grains. Taped about ten times on the side of the jar mouth, and leveled off, three measures weighed 52.8; 53.1 and 53.3 grains, for an average of 53.07 grains in a 50 grain brass measure.
I have zero commercial powder, and have not had any for over two years. Closing in on three. So, all I have is my past test records and for two years or nearly so; chronograph records.
The first and only commercial powder I have ever bought was 5 pounds of Schuetzen powder, from Graff and Sons. 2ff. I assumed from the name and a German manufacturing address, that it was good powder. You said it was the same as Wano, and no good. I have no idea. I do know several of my homemade powders have out performed it, but by how much, I cannot say. My good powder is stronger and cleaner and has as good of accuracy, if not better. I shot three pounds of it and gave my brother 2 pounds with a new Colt Signature Series 1861 Springfield .58 rifled musket. Never shot GOEX, nor Swiss. Tried to buy a pound of Swiss on line, and had to buy a minimum of 5 pounds with hazmat fee and shipping, at around $200, if memory serves. My powder shoots better than that, just from the price. ha For 200 bucks I can probably make at least 20 if not 30 pounds of my own, and get the fun of doing so, right?
IF I come across a pound of GOEX or Swiss, I can buy locally; I'll sure enough love to test some, against my powders.
I'm in mid 1500 Feet Per Second numbers with 60 grains of HM, in my .50 cal. TC Renegade with patched round ball. From test numbers and factory recommendations on that rifle, with ballistics; I'm right there with them, on velocities, but they don't say what powders were used in their tests. I have not shot heavy bullets in it, to find the ballistics on them. Hope this answered your question. I'll see how it shoots, this weekend, if possible.
It's racing season and there's alcohol in the air. Grand kids racing go carts. Sons racing cars. But, hopefully, I have enough time to get out and melt some lead.
I did a friend a deed, and he rewarded me a nearly new Pietta .44 caliber pistol, in brass just today. So, I have reasons to shoot. That makes three new pistols in six months and two new (to me) rifles, in a year. Black powder has consumed me, for a minute.
thanks HWQuote:
Originally Posted by HWooldridge
i proly buy the mill soon - might need it to make breakfast the way these idiot politicians are going -- but will try DB's damp busting idea first - anything tht reduces fines % and overall amount of effort is a plus.
......Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleBuck
I would like to give you guys an idea on how a coffee grinder performes.
Yesterday I made a 1/2 lb of powder using Cottonelle charcoal.
I pressed it into pucks and let it dry .
There were 12 pucks total with a combined weight of 8.1 oz
The pucks were made in a “Fly” die with three tablespoons of powder per puck on a 20 ton HF press.
I broke the pucks up with a pair of wire cutters into chunks about 3/16 to a 1/4” diameter.
I took my coffee grinder and screwed the adjustment ring all the way closed .
Then opened it up 2 1/2 turns and locked it in place.
I weighed the chunked powder before I started grinding it.
It weighed 8.0 oz
I ran all the chunks thru the grinder Once.
Then I ran the ground powder thru my screens.
The material that wouldn’t pass thru the #10 screen weighed 1.8 oz
What stayed on the #20 screen weighed 3.8 oz
What stayed on the #30 screen weighs .5 oz
And so does what stayed on the #40 screen .5 oz
Powder or dust that passed thru the #40 screen weighs 1.4 oz
I will now run the powder that stayed on the #10 screen thru the coffee grinder three more times without changing the grinder setting.
Then I will start doing adjustments on the grinder with only 1/4 turn at a time to fine out each powder that I want to make smaller .
Just an add on.
I went out and ground that powder that would sit on the #10 screen.
I ran it thru the grinder that wasn’t re set yet.
Now it raises the amount that sits on the #20 screen from 3.8 oz to 5.2 oz.
I still have to weigh the powder that passed thru the #20 screen with both the #30 and#40 screens.
indian joe;
I hear ya on the experimenter part. haha. That's pretty much all I do. For me, seeing what I can do and can't do, and where I can gain an inch, is almost as fun as shooting. One day, I'll find a pound of Swiss locally and let you know those results versus my powder.
I've always figured my densities on dry pucks, but wanted to give this damp puck processing a try. Weighing the moisture and meal is the most simple way to do it. I liked the results on the whole process, but especially the much lower amount of dust and fines. And, the polishing, which I've only done one time before, was much more efficient, as well as taking half the time. Drying also went from 24 hours plus, to three hours.
Guys, I'm sorry to make so many posts, but I have an idea for a couple of years, that I have to share. It could be very easily adapted to our use, which would cut process times by half, or more. Maybe a lot more.
Some of you are surely familiar with extruders? I have watched them work two times, and they are amazing machines. While doing contract maintenance, I watched an aluminum extruder make thousands of linear feet of commercial building window frames, like you see on large buildings which look like nearly solid glass. The other was watching Purina Feeds Mill, in Kansas City, make thousands of pounds of cattle cubes, every hour. For those not familiar with cattle cubes, they are not cubes, but about one inch diameter, two inch long round cylinders.
A giant feed hopper under a mixer loads the mixed feed into an extruder, which (in this case) augers the feed to an extruder head, which puts enormous pressure on it and forces it through say 1" diameter holes in the head, with auto cutters designed to cut every two inches, the string of plasticized feed which is coming out at tons per hour, and very warm, from the pressure.
Actually, a good press could be converted to hold the die and extruder head in our case; that head to have the number and diameter of holes to make which ever size grains you want. If you want 2ff powder; according to Skylighter, 2ff powder has grain sizes of .59 mm to 1.19 mm, or .023" to .047". If you know what percentage of each grain size you want, hole size according; by percentage. We are already using two thirds of an extruder. Our dies are two parts and all that is required is the extrusion head. They would have to be HARD stainless, or some other hard metal. Aluminum might work, but it also would surely wear quickly, if used heavily.
As a rough example; if you want 50% of each, and you have five holes of each size, on a 2" diameter extruder, and it takes 3,000 pounds per square inch of pressure to make 1.5 Grams per CC of density, set the hydraulic ram regulator or press, to press that amount. If it takes 3,600 pounds to make 1.7 G/CC density, set your press or ram regulator to 3.600 pounds and run a pound of freshly milled green meal through it in five minutes. The pressure sets the density; the extruder makes the grain size and all it has to have done is tumbled, or ground to break up the strings of pre sized powder worms. Our milling would be perfect for this setup and it would cut out a load of time. Plus, extruders work with near zero moisture. In feed extruders, the moisture is higher, but the extruder heats it and it dries completely, very quickly.
Commercial powder manufacturers have missed the nail, by not extruding powder, in my opinion. It would cut out at least two major steps, them being screening to size and pressing to density. Straight from extrusion to tumbling/polishing, to drying.
I could sell this idea to GOEX or their competitor for millions of dollars, but I chose to share it with everyone who reads this. Mark my words, SOMEONE will be extruding powder, in the very near future. You heard it first, right here.