My homemade black powder

[indian joe]

in an effort to explain the anomaly with the Goex FFFg sample - try this - re screen it - I bet you get a variation of granule sizes that allows it to pack more densely in a measure than FFg - so the FFFg sample will have some small granules that can settle into the spaces between the larger granules .

well screened FFg wont do this
my FFg always weighs a little more in the measure than my FFFg but I do get serious with the screens

[HWooldridge]

DB,

That sounds like comparing apples to oranges to me (or granite to sandstone <LOL>). If you grind and grade pucks from the same batch, I should think 3F packs tighter in a cartridge case and takes up less space than 2F, simply because the grains are smaller and can pack together better.

I don't disagree with the Waltham findings but the 1853 Enfield was a muzzleloader and those of us who shoot cartridges are constrained by the case capacity, while the front stuffers can just add more as needed.

This is easy to test - try 50 grains of all available sizes (from the same production batch) and drop tube each sample into a 45-70 case, then measure the remaining space to the case mouth. I may do that this weekend for my own satisfaction since I have a fresh batch that was ground and graded from 1F to 4F.

[FrankJD]

DoubleBuck, HamGunner, LAGS - thanx for the comments on watering the meal powder.

If 4% water might be an ideal or starting point, is that via weight >>> weigh the meal powder, then add 4% of that weight in water ?

[Trapper-Jack]

DoubleBuck, HamGunner, LAGS - thanx for the comments on watering the meal powder.

If 4% water might be an ideal or starting point, is that via weight >>> weigh the meal powder, then add 4% of that weight in water ?

What I do is weigh my meal powder in grams and then multiply that weight by whatever percentage I want for my water as a decimal (as in .040) and that is the weight in grams for the water and will be quite close to how many CC's of water if you use a syringe. The only thing I can remember about my college chemistry was the professor said that the beauty of the metric system is that one gram of water will occupy one cubic centimeter of space at one degree centigrade.

[Trapper-Jack]

For what it's worth HWooldridge, I've been comparing my corned powder weight against Goex. The measure I used for both weighed 158 grains for the 4F and the same volumetric measure of 2F weighed 189 grains weighed on a reloading balance beam scale.

[HWooldridge]

For what it's worth HWooldridge, I've been comparing my corned powder weight against Goex. The measure I used for both weighed 158 grains for the 4F and the same volumetric measure of 2F weighed 189 grains weighed on a reloading balance beam scale.

Good to know T-J - I'll weigh some for my own educational purposes and report back on a few grain sizes.

[DoubleBuck]

DB,

That sounds like comparing apples to oranges to me (or granite to sandstone <LOL>). If you grind and grade pucks from the same batch, I should think 3F packs tighter in a cartridge case and takes up less space than 2F, simply because the grains are smaller and can pack together better.

I don't disagree with the Waltham findings but the 1853 Enfield was a muzzleloader and those of us who shoot cartridges are constrained by the case capacity, while the front stuffers can just add more as needed.

This is easy to test - try 50 grains of all available sizes (from the same production batch) and drop tube each sample into a 45-70 case, then measure the remaining space to the case mouth. I may do that this weekend for my own satisfaction since I have a fresh batch that was ground and graded from 1F to 4F.

HW;
I didn't say you had to believe me. I just said I'm right. Two of the laws of physics say smaller grains equal more volume and the greater the density equals less volume.
Take some of your 2f powder from the same batch, same density. Pour your 45-70 case brim full, and tap it down, then refill brim full and pour it out on your scale. Now take some of your 3f powder from the same batch, same density. Pour your case full, tap it down and refill it brim full, pour it on your scale, and tell me which one weighs the most.
I'll bet you three quarts of buttermilk, churned in a cat's horn and a broken piece of a duck's eye, that your case full of 2f weighs more than your case full of 3f.

[indian joe]

HW;
I didn't say you had to believe me. I just said I'm right. Two of the laws of physics say smaller grains equal more volume and the greater the density equals less volume.
Take some of your 2f powder from the same batch, same density. Pour your 45-70 case brim full, and tap it down, then refill brim full and pour it out on your scale. Now take some of your 3f powder from the same batch, same density. Pour your case full, tap it down and refill it brim full, pour it on your scale, and tell me which one weighs the most.
I'll bet you three quarts of buttermilk, churned in a cat's horn and a broken piece of a duck's eye, that your case full of 2f weighs more than your case full of 3f.

That works at my place (not by a lot, but some)
FFg is screened 16 to 22mesh
FFFg is screened 22 to 40 mesh
if we took that out to 22 to 50 mesh - ????

my commercial compare to is Goex 5FA

heres another test for ya

rig up some kind of pressure measuring thingy (I use a luggage scale on the handle of my old simplex press) so you can measure the actual compression pressure rather than the depth and I bet you proper ice cream that most homebrew will take more depth of compression to reach the same compression pressure ---unless you are going to the extra trouble of tumbling grains and graphite coating after corning and screening

[HWooldridge]

HW;
I didn't say you had to believe me. I just said I'm right. Two of the laws of physics say smaller grains equal more volume and the greater the density equals less volume.
Take some of your 2f powder from the same batch, same density. Pour your 45-70 case brim full, and tap it down, then refill brim full and pour it out on your scale. Now take some of your 3f powder from the same batch, same density. Pour your case full, tap it down and refill it brim full, pour it on your scale, and tell me which one weighs the most.
I'll bet you three quarts of buttermilk, churned in a cat's horn and a broken piece of a duck's eye, that your case full of 2f weighs more than your case full of 3f.

DB,

The actual test results were inconclusive. I used a 44-40 case and filled it to the brim, then did a tap and level off. My 1F, 2F and 3F were all throwing right at 33 grains and averaged within .2 gr for three tries between the three sizes. I also dumped the charge down a drop tube and took pictures of each one settled in the case from 30” height; there was no visible difference - all picked up about 3/16” free space from the case mouth. I used the same case for all tests.

In support of your theory, the 4F weighed 31 grains so it could be that a 44 WCF case just wasn’t big enough to register the deltas. I may try the test again with 100 grains if I have some spare time.

Thanks, HW

[DoubleBuck]

HW;
I hear you on a slight difference in the amount of powder to fill a cartridge case. The other thing is to take a pound of 3f powder, and pour it into a measurable container and then take a pound of 2f and pour it into the same container. A few grains may not show a huge difference, but in a pound of powder, again, my money says a pound of 2f has less volume than a pound of 3f. And, it will be a measurable difference.

[HWooldridge]

HW;
I hear you on a slight difference in the amount of powder to fill a cartridge case. The other thing is to take a pound of 3f powder, and pour it into a measurable container and then take a pound of 2f and pour it into the same container. A few grains may not show a huge difference, but in a pound of powder, again, my money says a pound of 2f has less volume than a pound of 3f. And, it will be a measurable difference.

I’ll concede your point and agree - it clicked in my head after you mentioned the laws of physics. I mentally laid out the different grain sizes over a circle and then imagined them as 3D inside a sphere.

[DoubleBuck]

HW;
I certainly don't mean to be a smart aleck, and hope you didn't take my post as that. This has came up several times, over the years.
I might not should have used the granite/sandstone as an example. I could have just said a 1.5 gram per CC puck (represented by the sandstone); and a 1.7 gram/CC density puck (represented by the granite). My meaning was, given equal weights, the more dense puck will have a smaller volume.
The volume comparison I tried to make was, if you make a container which will exactly hold your puck, and you start fracturing the puck, it will no longer fit in the container. And, the more you fracture it, the less will fit.
I'm glad you clicked on it. I only used the rock because I have been around it. A 50 ton granite rock carried to the crusher on one truck takes two trucks to haul the 2" rock after being crushed. It still weighs the same, but it gained nearly two times in volume. It was just an easier example to use, than a one ounce puck (or less) and measuring the difference in grains or tenths of grains.
Same sing. Same sing, Joe. Same damn sing.

[Brimstone]

DB,

The actual test results were inconclusive. I used a 44-40 case and filled it to the brim, then did a tap and level off. My 1F, 2F and 3F were all throwing right at 33 grains and averaged within .2 gr for three tries between the three sizes. I also dumped the charge down a drop tube and took pictures of each one settled in the case from 30” height; there was no visible difference - all picked up about 3/16” free space from the case mouth. I used the same case for all tests.

In support of your theory, the 4F weighed 31 grains so it could be that a 44 WCF case just wasn’t big enough to register the deltas. I may try the test again with 100 grains if I have some spare time.

Thanks, HW

You should see a greater difference in settling with increased volume.

[HWooldridge]

HW;
I certainly don't mean to be a smart aleck, and hope you didn't take my post as that. This has came up several times, over the years.
I might not should have used the granite/sandstone as an example. I could have just said a 1.5 gram per CC puck (represented by the sandstone); and a 1.7 gram/CC density puck (represented by the granite). My meaning was, given equal weights, the more dense puck will have a smaller volume.
The volume comparison I tried to make was, if you make a container which will exactly hold your puck, and you start fracturing the puck, it will no longer fit in the container. And, the more you fracture it, the less will fit.
I'm glad you clicked on it. I only used the rock because I have been around it. A 50 ton granite rock carried to the crusher on one truck takes two trucks to haul the 2" rock after being crushed. It still weighs the same, but it gained nearly two times in volume. It was just an easier example to use, than a one ounce puck (or less) and measuring the difference in grains or tenths of grains.
Same sing. Same sing, Joe. Same damn sing.

No offense taken - I prefer education over speculation. I understood the density analogy; just had to get the broken grains image straight in my head.

As you said earlier, it would be visible in a pound of powder but maybe not so much in a fairly small cartridge case.

[DoubleBuck]

I agree 100%. I use weighed 60 grain charges for all my heads up tests. Those volumes when using different densities and grain sizes can be near identical, at 60 grains. Yet the charge will perform totitally different. There are so many variables that can affect the outcome...

[Linstrum]

That's too bad about the particular batch of grapevine charcoal running 7.5% ash. Yep, been there, had a similar thing happen!

I've found what seemed like a good wood to make charcoal, peeled the bark off and cut out the knots, split it into pieces the sizes of pencils and clothes pins, roasted it for about an hour, or so, at the right temperature, and then let it cool down.

Well, foo! It assayed at 16% ash. About one-sixth of my charcoal wasn't charcoal, which is the worst I've ever come across. I could have saved myself the bother by testing the wood before ever beginning the whole process of making charcoal from it.

My field test isn't fool proof, but it gives a fairly good indication of how much ash is in the wood. I actually do two tests, the first is to get an "educated guess", and then the second test is an accurate ash assay before running a full load of wood in the roaster. So, when I find what I think is a good candidate, I do my first test before taking a big load of wood home.

I split off a piece of wood the size of a large toothpick, and then light it. Wood with low ash will burn down to almost nothing, the ash that is left should be very light gray or white, and just be a feathery wisp that can be blown away. If the piece of wood burns and leaves a black stick or curl, keep it red hot with a cigarette lighter flame until all the black has burned away. Sometimes the wood is still a bit wet or green, so keep the test sample red hot with a cigarette lighter, or whatever, to do a fair test. If the test sample leaves a lot of ash like a cigarette ash, then there is obviously too much ash.

If you already have some good wood that you know makes charcoal with less that 4% ash, practice by burning some toothpick-size pieces so you know what to look for when testing candidate samples.

The next part is after you find a candidate wood, is to make a small test batch of dead-burned * charcoal from it, which is pretty fast and easy compared to roasting a full load of wood that has been cleaned, de-barked, cut, and split. What I do is clean, de-bark, cut, and split just a handful of the wood into tiny pieces, like little short french fries, so it roasts all the way to being dead-burned in maybe half an hour. The reason for taking it all the way to being dead-burned is so the temperature doesn't matter, just run the temperature up to red hot to save time plus keep things simple. I use a small tin can like a 10.5 oz condensed soup can to roast the wood in. Pack the bottom half of the can with the pieces of wood, and then pinch the top half of the can closed almost all the way down to the wood sample in the bottom, followed by folding the closed part of the can over as far as it will go to seal it. After that, heat the entire can red hot all over until no more smoke comes out and burns. Shake the can and continue heating it red hot for another 5 or 10 minutes, and then let it cool down. Just a rule of thumb, dead-burned charcoal that assays about 5% or 6% ash will run under 4% ash when it still has creosote in it, which is acceptable.

A word of warning about dead-burned charcoal is that it can spontaneously ignite several days after it has cooled down, so, leave it outside where it can't set anything on fire! edit: I suppose it could have had a hot spot I didn't see, but I've had it happen more than once after checking it pretty carefully.

My own rule of thumb is my cut off point for ash is 4% in dead-burned charcoal, where that may give under 2.5% ash in dark brown charcoal.

Another rule of thumb is that for using the 75/15/10 formula, under 2.5% ash you don't need to compensate for the ash in how much extra charcoal is added to make the black powder, it just isn't that critical.

* Dead-burned charcoal is charcoal that has been heated red hot long enough so that most of the volatiles have been cooked out of it or decomposed. Dead-burned charcoal conducts electricity.

[HWooldridge]

Great technical info Linstrum - bravo! I am planning to check a couple of different local woods and this will save a ton of wasted time. I will also check a piece of my grapevine wood because that batch of BP turned out pretty decent.

[DoubleBuck]

Mad Monk Complete part 1 page 10:
"Heating black powder above 170 degrees F results in the volatilization of a portion of the sulfur and it is not then possible to relate weight loss as moisture loss alone."

I don't know if this pertains to anyone else but I now know not to heat my powder to 200°F, which I have done several times. Since it melts at 238°F, I thought below that was good enough. I will be going back to my ten stack dehydrator and 145° from here out. Those file PDF's are a treasure trove of information. I have not had an ignition problem from any of my powder, but no telling how that has affected performance. Another variable, as if there aren't enough.
Mad Monk Complete Part 7 page 14:
"When one looks at black powder production today in China one point stands out. They do not use wheel mills to produce black powder. Only ball mills. With the use of a ball mill to grind and mix the ingredients it is not possible to produce a rifle bum rate black powder, let alone a fast, hot burning sporting type powder. A musket bum rate powder is about the best one might expect out of a ball mill."

I'd be interested what others have to say on this. I believe I tend to disagree.

[Brimstone]

Mad Monk Complete part 1 page 10:
"Heating black powder above 170 degrees F results in the volatilization of a portion of the sulfur and it is not then possible to relate weight loss as moisture loss alone."

I don't know if this pertains to anyone else but I now know not to heat my powder to 200°F, which I have done several times. Since it melts at 238°F, I thought below that was good enough. I will be going back to my ten stack dehydrator and 145° from here out. Those file PDF's are a treasure trove of information. I have not had an ignition problem from any of my powder, but no telling how that has affected performance. Another variable, as if there aren't enough.
Mad Monk Complete Part 7 page 14:
"When one looks at black powder production today in China one point stands out. They do not use wheel mills to produce black powder. Only ball mills. With the use of a ball mill to grind and mix the ingredients it is not possible to produce a rifle bum rate black powder, let alone a fast, hot burning sporting type powder. A musket bum rate powder is about the best one might expect out of a ball mill."

I'd be interested what others have to say on this. I believe I tend to disagree.

I disagree as well, he should have said while it is takes effort to learn and tune your mill to achieve rifle or sporting powder performance, it isn't impossible. Then again, a lot has changed in 15 years.

Llyod Sponenburgh's book Ball Milling Theory and Practice (2004) wasn't all that well known even by 2008 and I'm willing to bet many here haven't read that either. We've still benefited from Llyod's work as word of tuning has spread through various circles.

Swiss is a sporting powder and I've exceeded it. My Western Red Alder did the job just peachy.

Like most things out of China, their attention to quality is the question. Sure some things can be extremely good but most is cheap junk. We all know this. Furthermore, if he's right about the powder having been imported as fireworks and then broken down to extract the powder, I would expect that whoever pulled that fast one went with the lowest bidder.

[DoubleBuck]

Brimstone;
I never gave the dates of publication a thought, and had never heard of Mad Monk, before a couple of weeks ago. I had heard of Bill Knight, but wouldn't have related the two. I looked just now, and from what I quickly scanned, it appears they were originally published 01-01-2001. Things surely have changed since then.
On the Lloyd Sponenburgh's book, I've read several excerpts from it, even on this thread; but not the book. I will have to see if I can't get that done. Thanks for the reminder.
According to some of the data I have found, I have made some powders that have competed with commercial, in velocity, and cleanliness but not sure about accuracy. I was working on too many things at one time (like sights), to make good accuracy tests, when I had the Swiss powder. I have only shot my own powder for about 5+ years now. But some of it has been consistently suitable quality for my use. I've spent a bunch of time testing different woods and materials. Have it narrowed down to pretty much Black Willow and Sassafras, until something grabs my imagination.
As information comes to me and I modify my processes, it has got better, all the time. Most of that information has came from this thread and the many links posted by others, like you. Thanks to you all.