My homemade black powder

[ChrisPer]

I pick up deadfall branches and sticks down to a little finger thickness. Its old, not green, and I peel the bark with a sharp knife.

[Trapper-Jack]

I pick up deadfall branches and sticks down to a little finger thickness. Its old, not green, and I peel the bark with a sharp knife.

That's the same as what I've been doing. When the trees begin to green up, I'll char some green stuff and compare the two.

[DoubleBuck]

I usually cut my wood green, mainly because it is so much easier to strip the bark. A small willow limb you can nearly split with a knife and peel like a banana, when it's green. My sassafras has more firm bark, but less limbs per foot, on the small ones which makes less bark seam.
I have always kept my branch size to about one inch max diameter. The reasoning there was the smaller the size the easier to cook. With the new brown powder, and using a controlled cooking temperature, it may not matter. And larger pieces may actually tend to hold more creosote. It will be interesting to see.
Most of my charcoal has been cooked green. My thought is the moisture will slow down, and help control the cooking wood. I don't know if it does or not, but only adds a few minutes to cooking a batch of charcoal. When the moisture content is low enough for the volatiles to ignite, the oxygen from the moisture makes nice blue flames.
My next venture is to finish the powder tests I started more than a month ago, for and with Almar, and cut some wood. I never really considered the sugar content of wood, until the subject was recently brought up. It makes a lot of sense. Which actually makes the smaller branches higher in sugar content, because the leaves is what it is feeding. That area of a limb has more bark seam, and can be a drawback if it is excessive and you are obsessive of clean wood. I use lopping shears to just cut the bark seam off, and not use it.
I burned an area of cattails, two days ago. I have sworn I would quit testing things, but can't help myself. While they were burning like wildfire, I was thinking, as fast as they grow, with the very small amount of ash they make and as fast as they burn, I wonder if they would make fast powder? haha They'll be ready for testing about mid summer.

[Dieselhorses]

Dieselhorses;
The bark and what is called bark seam are dirty. The bark seam is the dark wood around a limb sprout, that runs down into the limb base. That is where it was exposed to the air and the dirt in it, over its life. If you check the charcoal for ash, it will have more if the bark is left on. If one is not worried about ash content or the cleanliness of powder burn, it is fine to use. For example, in making fireworks lift powder, it really doesn't matter how clean the burn is. But, in a rifle, pistol, or flintlock, the cleanliness of the burn is pretty critical to accuracy and burn reliability. So, we try to clean the wood of all contamination, before cooking it. And, try to keep the ash content below 3% or so. Certainly less than 4% if possible.
Bark usually makes very slow, and dirty powder, generally speaking.

So that explains the "tar-like" substance in my old paint pale! I tried using the multi tool with a new 2.375" blade- a little time consuming but I want to do this right. Have my eye on some old time pressure cookers I want to convert into a carbon cooker. Will hold more wood and more heavy duty than a one gallon paint bucket.

[indian joe]

So that explains the "tar-like" substance in my old paint pale! I tried using the multi tool with a new 2.375" blade- a little time consuming but I want to do this right. Have my eye on some old time pressure cookers I want to convert into a carbon cooker. Will hold more wood and more heavy duty than a one gallon paint bucket.

Maybe dont jump to conclusions - I get tar using clean, dry, willow with no bark or inclusions at all. I think the tar is more a function of keeping temperature low(ish). That said I agree dont cook it with bark on.

[indian joe]

I usually cut my wood green, mainly because it is so much easier to strip the bark. A small willow limb you can nearly split with a knife and peel like a banana, when it's green. My sassafras has more firm bark, but less limbs per foot, on the small ones which makes less bark seam.
I have always kept my branch size to about one inch max diameter. The reasoning there was the smaller the size the easier to cook. With the new brown powder, and using a controlled cooking temperature, it may not matter. And larger pieces may actually tend to hold more creosote. It will be interesting to see.
Most of my charcoal has been cooked green. My thought is the moisture will slow down, and help control the cooking wood. I don't know if it does or not, but only adds a few minutes to cooking a batch of charcoal. When the moisture content is low enough for the volatiles to ignite, the oxygen from the moisture makes nice blue flames.
My next venture is to finish the powder tests I started more than a month ago, for and with Almar, and cut some wood. I never really considered the sugar content of wood, until the subject was recently brought up. It makes a lot of sense. Which actually makes the smaller branches higher in sugar content, because the leaves is what it is feeding. That area of a limb has more bark seam, and can be a drawback if it is excessive and you are obsessive of clean wood. I use lopping shears to just cut the bark seam off, and not use it.
I burned an area of cattails, two days ago. I have sworn I would quit testing things, but can't help myself. While they were burning like wildfire, I was thinking, as fast as they grow, with the very small amount of ash they make and as fast as they burn, I wonder if they would make fast powder? haha They'll be ready for testing about mid summer.

I split mine - nothing over 3/4 inch goes in the can - its a bit of work!

[DoubleBuck]

Today I finished the 'Brown' Black Willow Tests, which I started a month and a half ago. I had I believe 8 batches of various recipe's, and Winter showed up about half way through the tests. Today was our best of the year, I think. 75° and 14% humidity. 10-15 mph wind when I started and complete calm when I finished.
All the shots are Patched Round Ball .570 with .010 lanolin/bee's wax lubed patch. 60 grain weight on the charges. 42" barrel caplock.
I started with a mix which was each batch left overs, that wouldn't make a full load each, but made four shots to get started.
They averaged a respectable 1224 fps.
Next was Batch 6. 78-14-8 recipe. 1.551 density. 2ff (<12 >20 mesh)
3 shots averaged 1198 fps. As observed before, this backs up the thought that this powder likes it's Sulfur and more nitrate was not a good answer.
Next was Batch 5. 75-16-9 recipe. 1.596 density. 2ff
3 shots averaged a respectful 1233 fps, and the first thing I noticed, this recipe shot really clean. The cleanliness of the burn was immediately noticeable.
The next batch was the main one I have been waiting for. Batch 2, 76-14-10 2ff. 1.6 density. This was to be the addition to Almar's tests, using his charcoal and recipe, with a longer barrel.
When I made the powder I made a test and didn't like it. It had clumped in the mill, several times. So, after completely making the powder I got scared of it and remilled, repucked and rescreened it.
Long story short, it didn't like something that was done, and was a dismal failure, for the most part.
6 shots averaged 974 fps. They were all within 10 fps of each other and made excellent groups (not at point of aim). I feel very strongly that this recipe is capable of 1300 fps in my rifle, and I'll say why, next; but I screwed something up, by reprocessing the whole batch. I have more charcoal left and am already planning the next batch of this. Almar, after the long wait, I'm sorry the main test was a bust.
When I made the 76-14-10 powder, I took the time to make some 3fff, as well. Screened <24 >50 1.6 density. This was the powder I was expecting to be at or near the top and it didn't disappoint.
4 shots averaged 1354 fps, printed a 2" group at 50 yards at very near point of aim.
I'm going to use the rest of the charcoal on this recipe with both 2ff and 3ff.
Below is all a recap of the January tests, as much for my own reference as anything.
January 14, 2022.
Even though I was only shooting max 4 shots of each mix, the changes were subtle and followed the subtle changes in the recipes, though each change was definite.
75-15-10 density 1.66 2ff was the first batch and the three shot average of 1229 fps was close to the 1262 average I got with my own homemade brown Black Willow, which was a 20 shot test and was 1.72 density tested in October. That powder was screened <24 >50, and was the reason it was a little stronger, but not much. Given a true heads up, I think this powder is slightly better, actually.
The next batch of 4 shots was 76-15-9 2ff density 1.618. The 1174 fps average speed was my sign that this powder likes it's Sulfur and less is not better, even though four shots shot nearly on sight with a 2" 50 yard group. So maybe less is better. I could not tell a bit of difference in how it lit. Every shot was smooth and quick. It did seem to have less smoke, and I couldn't tell a difference in cleanliness, other than residue seemed more dry (flakey).
Next was three shots of 76-16-8 2ff density 1.655. Impact was about two inches above sight, and a group of about 3 inches. Average speed was 1165 fps. I think this was more evidence this powder likes it's Sulfur and increasing Nitrate and Charcoal both did not overcome the lack of Sulfur. Every shot lit well and they seemed to me to have more of a push than a sharp crack. Which may be why they grouped well. Fouling again seemed to be more dry than the previous sets, but not cooked on, by any means.

[ChrisPer]

Very interesting Doublebuck! Thanks for posting.

[ChrisPer]

I just got the grain mill delivered. Look forward to trying it. I expect I will want to mod the rollers, gear them together and and increase the available spacing more like a jewellers rolling mill. And replace the very nice knurled points with a more wobbly shape for busting pucks not mincing them to dust.

[Hossfly]

Got a question about density testing. Can you use like a plastic syringe tube measured in cc to determine density?
Have some BP made with willow, shoots very robust, just fired once through ML rifle, not over chrono but just to see if would shoot. Would like to do more testing.

[maillemaker]

I think density testing is done on pucks.

Steve

[Vettepilot]

Excellent testing and report DoubleBuck!! Very nice, and thanks!

Yeah, that's an interesting point Mailemaker. I'm not doing pressed powder at the moment. Maybe Almar, whom has done a lot of density experimenting can help, by telling us what his various calculated puck densities weigh once granulated. How much do portions of a puck of a 1.6 density weigh once it is made into 2f. 3f? 1.7 density? That would be interesting to know. I believe with commercial, which is supposedly 1.72 density, a 100 grain volumetric measure is about 101 grains actual weight, but don't quote me on that.

Vettepilot

Edit to add attachment:

[DoubleBuck]

Got a question about density testing. Can you use like a plastic syringe tube measured in cc to determine density?
Have some BP made with willow, shoots very robust, just fired once through ML rifle, not over chrono but just to see if would shoot. Would like to do more testing.

Hossfly;
The pucks are where the density is tested. However, a while back I did just what you proposed, with the plastic syringe. I weighed 60 grains of 1.6 density powder of 2ff and put it in the syringe with a cap on it and shook it to fill the nipple. Then squeezed the bulk of the air off the load and it was barely over 4 CC's. 60 grains divided by 15.4324 grains per gram would be 3.8879 grams. So, my finished powder was very slightly less than 1 gram per CC density. If that helps you.

[Vettepilot]

So, if I did this right:

1.7 g/cc = (Commonly stated commercial density.)

1cc = 15 grains volume

@1.7 g/cc-->15 volumetric grains should weigh 1.7 grams, or 15.432 weight grains.

From that chart I posted above, we see that 15 volumetric grains of Goex 3f actually weighs 15.2 grains. So the difference is 15.432 calculated versus 15.2 weighed. Is that due to the air spaces between the granules of granulated versus a solid pressed puck? I suspect yes, but someone check me on this please.

The next column over, for Goex Express 2fg, has a weight of 15.7, which clearly either indicates a density above 1.7 g/cc, or else maybe I've figured this all wrong...

Vettepilot

[DoubleBuck]

Vettepilot;
I think you are right with your figures and right in your assumption.

[Vettepilot]

Thanks.

We are often guilty of thinking only in terms of burn speed. I'm thinking, that in terms of chemical energy, a denser powder would have more energy even though it burns slower. The common 1.7 g/cc being a convenient compromise choice. I wonder where the cutoff is? At what point does a longer barrel favor a higher density, yet slower burning powder? Of course, bore diameter, (caliber), and projectile weight would figure in as well.

Anyway, fun "thought exercises" if nothing else...

Vettepilot

[indian joe]

Thanks.

We are often guilty of thinking only in terms of burn speed. I'm thinking, that in terms of chemical energy, a denser powder would have more energy even though it burns slower. The common 1.7 g/cc being a convenient compromise choice. I wonder where the cutoff is? At what point does a longer barrel favor a higher density, yet slower burning powder? Of course, bore diameter, (caliber), and projectile weight would figure in as well.

Anyway, fun "thought exercises" if nothing else...

Vettepilot

couple comments / observations
1) I have a lot of difficulty getting low ES numbers with a muzzleloader so I do my tests with what I would class target quality loads in a cartridge rifle (45/70 or such)
seems like there is about 50 fps variation in how I use the ramrod - (it was a flntlock too so theres some extra variation)
2) this is a WAG based on shooting not testing but coarse, slow, or dirty burning powder performs way differently (much better I would say) under a heavy projectile - we burnt a lot of chinese fireworks powder around the turn of the century (all we could get at the time) - that stuff would clog up a round ball gun right quick but in a 45/70 sharps with a heavy boolit over it - was not so bad - we made the ball gun work buy loading really wet patch and minimising the time from ramming to discharge (so the wet patch didnt damp the powder ----coulda, shoulda, woulda ----- a card wad on the powder likely would have made it better - didnt think of it at the time
3) there a huge amount of variables in blackpowder as a propellant -some of em been scientifically tested and conclusions written -many not tested and some likely not even thought of to date.

[almar]

so you can see in this table the different weight, volume obtained for different densities.

I currently am trying different 45-90 loads in a 34 inch barrel. I use a big old 543 gr paper patched bullet. What i find is that the priming system make a huge difference even between normal rifle primers and magnum rifles primers. When using a cap and ball, the colt walker with 50 grains of powder under a 250 gr conical got about the same velocity as a 45 colt with a pistol primer using a 260 grain conical and 30 grains of the same powder.

Im pretty much done with testing for now. i set up a system to obtain the same density puck after puck and its about 1.6 i believe so its where i am staying. 90 gr in the volumetric BP thing gives me 75 grains weight.

[Vettepilot]

so you can see in this table the different weight, volume obtained for different densities.

I currently am trying different 45-90 loads in a 34 inch barrel. I use a big old 543 gr paper patched bullet. What i find is that the priming system make a huge difference even between normal rifle primers and magnum rifles primers. When using a cap and ball, the colt walker with 50 grains of powder under a 250 gr conical got about the same velocity as a 45 colt with a pistol primer using a 260 grain conical and 30 grains of the same powder.

Im pretty much done with testing for now. i set up a system to obtain the same density puck after puck and its about 1.6 i believe so its where i am staying. 90 gr in the volumetric BP thing gives me 75 grains weight.

I saw a video once, I think by YouTube channel "MannyCA", whereby he used a small length of plastic (vinyl) or rubber tubing in order to adapt/use pistol primers in place of a standard cap. With your comment Almar, it makes me want to try it!

Vettepilot

[almar]

I think the distance primer to powder might be a factor too.