My homemade black powder

[HWooldridge]

FWIW, I use nitrate "liquor" to dampen the powder prior to compressing pucks. I was always mashing out some level of moisture under compression and figured I was losing some nitrate in the process, so I made up a weak solution in a spritzer bottle instead of plain water. I also use distilled water for the mix, rather than tap water - which has a lot of calcium where we live.

[nanuk]

....
The tests I've done on strictly Density did show somewhat slower burn rates and velocities, from 1.5 to 1.8 G/CC, but not vast differences. Basically, an average of 30-40 FPS maximum on a 60 grain charge, PRB .58 caliber....

so, less density = greater velocity?

[nanuk]

Whats it mean?? A low Extreme Spread number means EVERYTHING I did to get there was consistent - and repeatable - I think it is super important. Does it mean accuracy? maybe - maybe not - we go to load development for that - ladder tests - whatever you think is best - but without consistency all along the way - how can we expect the best accuracy? I dont know the numbers but I reckon 60 - 80 FPS variation in a string (common enough if you get a little casual with some part of the process) likely translates to noticeable difference in drop at say 600yards ----so I want to know 1) is my velocity up to standard - 2) what is the extreme spread for the load chain I assemble 3) what dumb thing did I do that changed that 10fps ES into 89fps ---if we fix (3) we can change (2)

I understand that now, that you are talking 600yd shooting, but in reality, does it really matter all that much?
There's a quote by a world champion silhouette shooter who has stated that a Rifle capable of 1.5MOA can be a winning rifle if the shooter can hold true
IF your powder/load is capable of 0SD/0ED, are YOU capable of using that to make perfect shots?

but most here with MLs are not talking that distance

If we are going to load up cartridge rifles, shoot 'em at 500+ yds, then for sure, the SD/ED is important, as the percentages become larger the slower the round, but if the accuracy/shooter ability is not there, then it is all just a crap shoot regardless

and even if you have a rifle capable of 0.000MOA, and SD/ED of 0, can you still hold it well enough to make perfect groups at 500+yds?

My initial point was, we get caught up in minutia, and lose sight of the bigger picture
This is Black Powder, and by its nature is "inefficient"
Now, that doesn't mean ineffective, nor inconsistent, but for most, I would guess, getting a decent burn, clean with soft fouling, decent consistency, and ease of production, is far more important than wringing out the last 0.001MOA and 1ED.


Also...
I've always called it SD Standard Deviation, and ED Extreme Deviation
using different standards can cause confusion....
is ED the same as ES?
NOPE! it is not
How is it, I have read someone say they have a SD of 10, and ES of 15? I would that that statistically impossible
now, I'm just rambling off topic

Back to our regular programing!

[DoubleBuck]

so, less density = greater velocity?

Yes. And possibly No. The harder the grain, the longer it takes the flame front to consume the grain. It is considered by the studies I've read, to be more prominent above 1.5 G/CC, with it being most noticeable at and above 1.7.
There are several other things that can affect the velocity, as well. In a certain gun, the longer burn may boost velocity. But, generally, it will be slower. My experience has shown slower. The burn rate definitely is slower. Lighter density and smaller grain size will both generally equate to faster burn rates.

[indian joe]

I understand that now, that you are talking 600yd shooting, but in reality, does it really matter all that much?
There's a quote by a world champion silhouette shooter who has stated that a Rifle capable of 1.5MOA can be a winning rifle if the shooter can hold true
IF your powder/load is capable of 0SD/0ED, are YOU capable of using that to make perfect shots?

but most here with MLs are not talking that distance

If we are going to load up cartridge rifles, shoot 'em at 500+ yds, then for sure, the SD/ED is important, as the percentages become larger the slower the round, but if the accuracy/shooter ability is not there, then it is all just a crap shoot regardless

and even if you have a rifle capable of 0.000MOA, and SD/ED of 0, can you still hold it well enough to make perfect groups at 500+yds?

My initial point was, we get caught up in minutia, and lose sight of the bigger picture
This is Black Powder, and by its nature is "inefficient"
Now, that doesn't mean ineffective, nor inconsistent, but for most, I would guess, getting a decent burn, clean with soft fouling, decent consistency, and ease of production, is far more important than wringing out the last 0.001MOA and 1ED.


Also...
I've always called it SD Standard Deviation, and ED Extreme Deviation
using different standards can cause confusion....
is ED the same as ES?
NOPE! it is not
How is it, I have read someone say they have a SD of 10, and ES of 15? I would that that statistically impossible
now, I'm just rambling off topic

Back to our regular programing!

I made my post in good faith - dont find your sarcasm helpful or friendly

[indian joe]

Yes. And possibly No. The harder the grain, the longer it takes the flame front to consume the grain. It is considered by the studies I've read, to be more prominent above 1.5 G/CC, with it being most noticeable at and above 1.7.
There are several other things that can affect the velocity, as well. In a certain gun, the longer burn may boost velocity. But, generally, it will be slower. My experience has shown slower. The burn rate definitely is slower. Lighter density and smaller grain size will both generally equate to faster burn rates.

So are you thinking screened powder might be a little quicker than pucks?
Not something I have tested properly but the bit of screened I've fired in cartridges i reckon was at least equal

[DoubleBuck]

So are you thinking screened powder might be a little quicker than pucks?
Not something I have tested properly but the bit of screened I've fired in cartridges i reckon was at least equal

Yes I do, Joe. But, I qualify that to say; I believe it has a faster burn rate. Not sure that guarantees total energy, or velocity increase. But, my second fastest (velocity) powder was screened.
My faster burn rate powders have all equated to higher velocities, and some of that I don't really understand. Like Waltham Abbey's 1.5f powder in 1.55 Density for the 1853 Enfield. That combo did not do nearly as well, in my 40" barrel .58 as an equal dose of 1.66 Density 3fff. By over 100 FPS. The UK Government and Waltham Abbey selected it for its high velocity/accuracy and clean burn. The only thing I can think, is they were using a bullet that was more than two times the weight of my round ball. THAT would give that slow powder time to build some good pressure. My tests on velocity may not be fair to a heavy bullet.

[Swineherd]

It's understandable, expending only the thought and effort required to produce something, in this case blackpowder, that is adequate, but not perfect, for your own use.

I also understand exploring every avenue, conventional or otherwise, in the pursuit of the most perfect final product imaginable.

Some folks like the minutia.

Not really sure how blackpowder is, by its nature, "inefficient" either. Compared to what? Smokeless? TNT? Space lasers?

[Swineherd]

Consistency in components is important.
Inconsistency in a powder can diminish the results of an expert shooter and compound and magnify the inconsistencies in the shots of those with less-than-expert shooting skills.

[StevenDJ]

...so I made up a weak solution in a spritzer bottle instead of plain water.

This is an interesting idea, however I imagine that the 'water' squeezed from the puck is closer to a saturated solution of KNO3. Maybe it would be better to make up a saturated solution to spritz your dry powder rather than a weak solution if this is what you are trying to achieve. Just my 2c worth, not a criticism of your idea.

I add 2% water using my digital mass balance, then I incorporate the water evenly by passing several times through one of the coarser sieves. At 2%, I don't have any water squeeze from my pucks under 20 tonnes of pressure in a 70mm pucking die.

[HWooldridge]

This is an interesting idea, however I imagine that the 'water' squeezed from the puck is closer to a saturated solution of KNO3. Maybe it would be better to make up a saturated solution to spritz your dry powder rather than a weak solution if this is what you are trying to achieve. Just my 2c worth, not a criticism of your idea.

I add 2% water using my digital mass balance, then I incorporate the water evenly by passing several times through one of the coarser sieves. At 2%, I don't have any water squeeze from my pucks under 20 tonnes of pressure in a 70mm pucking die.

I don’t disagree with you on the saturation aspect and simply figured some extra nitrate was better than dampening with plain water. I can certainly increase the nitrate percentage - it won’t hurt anything.

I don’t weigh my water - just spray the powder until it’s “damp” and holds a ball when I squeeze a handful. If I make pucks at this point, there won’t be any dry spots in the finished plug. Once dry, they ring if tapped. I usually get similar amounts of 2F and 3F, with smaller amounts of 1F and dust - maybe 20% total of the latter two.