My homemade black powder

[almar]

Its true that grain size is a big factor but our grain size is consistent, not the density. The question is how does that affect our powder.

In a quick attempt to test it out, I loaded three rounds of 45 colt with 30 grains per volume of three powders under a 220 grain bullet, the exact same case was used in the same chamber every time. (I only have one 45 colt brass case for now haha)

First powder was swiss FFFG with a typical 30 grains of weight per 30 grains volume velocity 912 fps.




Second powder was my 30-60 mesh powder but 77 13 -10 this time of brown willow (not my fastest batch) but this one has a density of 1.40 g/cc and 24.2 gr/30 gr volume velocity was 882 fps.



Third powder was the same as the second but with a 1.82 g/cc with 30.58 gr/30 volume, velocity was 918 fps,




If you can base the efficiency on velocity per grain (weight) since the bullet weight is the same:

swiss : 30.4
2nd: 36.4
3rd: 30.02

Now obviously this isn't a full blown large scale conclusive test with several shots and several bullets weights and barrel lengths, but I think it gives a birds eye view of the effect of density on efficiency and fouling.


edit: not a 220 grain bullet, this was a 230gr RN that I typically use for 45 ACP

[almar]

now one thing I forgot to mention however, the 1.4 g/cc is not satisfactory for grain strength, they hold together much better than screened but nothing compared to the 1.82 g/cc or swiss grains. There must be a proper balance in there and I have a gut feeling that its between 1.65 and 1.7 g/cc.

[Vettepilot]

Indian Joe told me a good while back that our homemade powder would shoot a good bit cleaner than commercial powder, and I've found it's indeed true. Just still don't know why...

I've never used Swiss powder though, and am mildly surprised to see it verified there as well.

Vettepilot

[almar]

you have me confused - in my world grains is WEIGHT - was your second load 30 grains weight ? . I tested several years ago and so long as the initial components were same (taken from same batch of meal) there was negligible velocity difference in brass case loads caused by density so long as charge weight was the same - even to the extent that screened powder held same (squeezing the equal weight charge of screened into the case was "interesting") some of this was surprising

No all were by VOLUME, measured in the powder measure, all at the same 30 gr mark. I measured their weight also with that amount and that's what I put there.
I personally was not surprised at all, it answers a lot of the frustrating results that I couldn't answer before. I was darn near quitting this altogether at one point. I press a powder one day, get great results then press the same powder the next day and get way off results with the same measures by weight. This answers it and i'm at peace, Its also what these people discovered way back when at Waltham abbey, they have a whole chapter dedicated to it.

[indian joe]

No all were by VOLUME, measured in the powder measure, all at the same 30 gr mark. I measured their weight also with that amount and that's what I put there.
I personally was not surprised at all, it answers a lot of the frustrating results that I couldn't answer before. I was darn near quitting this altogether at one point. I press a powder one day, get great results then press the same powder the next day and get way off results with the same measures by weight. This answers it and i'm at peace, Its also what these people discovered way back when at Waltham abbey, they have a whole chapter dedicated to it.

FWIW forget volume in your testing - weigh each charge - 30 grains by weight, then you at least are comparing apples to apples. By the way did anybody happen to notice your velocity is right there alongside swiss per grain weight. and it looks a cleaner burn - I think I would call that a win !!!!!

[ChrisPer]

Over at the Muzzleloading Forums, user sealgaire has posted this:

A chemistry professor at West Point has published her research on black powder used in 14th and 15th century bombards. There is a non-technical article in today's New York Times at

www.nytimes.com
This Chemist’s Pandemic Hobby? Firing Medieval Cannonballs.
Gunpowder used in cannons helped change the nature of warfare, but it took a while to get the recipe just right.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

Dr. Riegner's technical report in the Amer. Chemical Society journal Omega can be found at

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acsomega.1c03380#

Enjoy
t

This article covers recipes from the early period of bombards and tests them chemically. Still to read all the way through myself but so far its very good info.

[ChrisPer]

Frustration: it's such dirty work. Can't pop into the workshop, cycle the press for a few pucks plus maybe weigh some charcoal without getting clothes changed, peeling off gloves and a major laugh session when the family spot the raccoon emerging, blinking in the daylight.

[ChrisPer]

Someone asked where the most dangerous moments are in making your own.
My views on safety:
1) Bad housekeeping - allowing buildups of dust to remain - is the single worst risk.

2) Airborne dust. If a mill leaks, and the motor fan blows mill dust into the air, is a time of maximum danger. Remotely turn the power off and leave it alone for hours. When the mill finishes a run I power it off and leave it for a while before opening the barrel; heat and static can dissipate. When I tip out the barrel into the media screen and bucket I do it outside, with full face protection, and try to minimise rising dust. I immediately mist in moisture for pucking and mix it through the meal. The dust is now partly suppressed. Close the container and put it away.

3) After each job, brush and vacuum up all spillage, all dust, all floor sand, all drill press shavings, all sawdust, all misplaced scraps of flannelette from cleaning, all offcuts of stuff.

4) Chain reaction. Store amounts of product, commercial powders, and intermediate materials like meal or pucks, labelled in the proper containers, locked in a wooden container suitable for Class 1.1C dangerous goods, away from work areas and work in progress.

5) Sources of ignition must be controlled. Poof tests. Soldering, lead casting, steelworking. Electrical switches in dusty conditions. Candles or smoking. Testing flintlocks. Electric motors in appliances if flammable dust gets in, are dangerous. Use none of these if dusty powder or mixed pyro materials bigger than a tiny test amount are open or even closed but in the same room.

[almar]

I agree with the dangers you mentioned Chris, its important no to become complacent.

On another note, after fixing a detail that was giving me off results (dryness again), I made and intermediate density powder of the same milled powder as the other 2. This powder gave me 27.56 gr of weight for a 30gr volume measure.

Velocity with 30 grains of volume on the powder measure under the same 230 gr RN gave a predictable 900 fps average over 3 shots. For a efficiency of 32.7 fps/gr.

For those interested in how this performs for a weight for weight, a full 30 gr measure by weight gave me 993 fps or 33.1 fps/gr. I think that the added compression of powder in the case might have given it a little more power output but not a whole lot (32.7 vs 33.1). It would have given 981 fps if it was still at 32.7 fps/gr.

**to the comedians out there, no I wasn't shooting towards my patio door.

Now to recap,

low density powder gave 36.4 fps per grain weight.
Medium density gave 32.7 fps per grain weight.
High gave 30.02 fps per grain weight.

The high density powder gave 918 fps for 30.58 grains of weight, the medium density gave about 993 fps for 30.00 grains of weight. Do with that what you will but I will be sticking to the medium density powder at about 1.63 g/cc from now on. The grain strength at that density is very good.

[maillemaker]

Interesting info, Almar. I think the last time I went and looked at sources they targeted a density of 1.7. Can't remember.

That is a great idea to base your density on the volume in the puck with a mark. Then you put in a measured amount of green meal, and when compressed to that volume, you should get that density (not accounting for water in the mix though).

I am also thinking that building a kiln like you did for making charcoal is a key component to consistent powder. I think I way over-cooked mine, and it showed with about 100 fps slower powder and dirtier powder.

Steve

[almar]

Glad you found it interesting Steve. I corrected a typo though, it was 1.63 g/cc not 1.67. I may squeeze a little more next time to get it to 1.65 or so but its in the ball park. Be aware that there may be a little fine tuning required with that volume method to adjust theory vs reality but its pretty close. A little tip: When adding the moisture to the mill powder before pucking, passing the mix through a 20 mesh screen before pressing does a great job at evening out the mixture.

[Vettepilot]

So, it's been a long road, but very fruitful. Intensely interesting! Thank you Almar!

To summarize:

Use a good wood. There are two or three that seem best.

Cook at 500-550 F. Quit cooking when??

Compress to 1.65g/cc.

Is this a fair, if over-simplified, conclusion?

Vettepilot

Edit: Ah yes; and 77-13-10. Right?

[almar]

So, it's been a long road, but very fruitful. Intensely interesting! Thank you Almar!

To summarize:

Use a good wood. There are two or three that seem best.

Cook at 500-550 F. Quit cooking when??

Compress to 1.65g/cc.

Is this a fair, if over-simplified, conclusion?

Vettepilot

Edit: Ah yes; and 77-13-10. Right?

I personally only really tried willow with more advanced methods but my sassafras (thank you doublebuck) is about to be pressed, we will see how that does. I think that it will require different parameters for the charcoal though. It came out darker and less thoroughly cooked than the willow. More to come on that but the milled powder is already quicker than willow after only 6 hours of milling. So to answer your question about cook time, I would not go much under 550 and time is dependent on the amount you are making and the type of wood. (trial and error)

I think 1.65 is spot on right now, a little more or a little less will average out when you mix it all together. You can still measure by weight for better precision when you add in the cases but you just dial it down. ie to obtain the same velocity as swiss for example, I would try rounding it up this specific powder to 28 grains by weight and see. Regardless, this density gives nice well defined solid grains and that's as far as I would go. I found that it is very important to get that moisture evened out in the powder before pressing or you will get dark spots instead of an even color and therefore different grain strength.

As far as the ratios go...to be determined, 77-13-10 works great but I would try 78-12-10 as well. Its what the swiss company uses apparently but I think I already have them beat.

edit: Vette, you're tip on leveling out the ball mill jar is top notch, its still milling no clumps after now 9 hours.

Now that I'm done with this pet project or pretty much...what's my next one? I always wanted to make beer...well see.

[HamGunner]

Now that I'm done with this pet project or pretty much...what's my next one? I always wanted to make beer...well see.

I have made wine for many years as well as beer. I do not drink much of either one, but I do enjoy making it. I started out making around 10 gal. of wine as I had an Aunt and Uncle who both had heart conditions and their Dr. suggested that they drink a little red wine every evening after dinner, so most of my brew went to them.

The beer I started making because I like a good beer if I drink one. Not a watered down American type beer that many drink by the case, but a good bodied sipping beer. And one or perhaps two is about all I want and that created a problem as most ingredient kits make enough for 48-50 bottles. The stuff sometimes got old before I got around to drinking it all, so that too I ended up giving half of it away. Fun to make it though.

I enjoy the challenge of making things myself and learning the ins and outs of the process. Ham radio was one of those challenges and I enjoyed the engineering challenge of making my own antennas and setting up a great station. I did not get too far into the electronics, but did enough to be able to align a radio and such, back when you could actually work on one. Now days, they are all tiny little machine soldered circuit boards and if something does not work correctly, you just change out a circuit board. Took all the fun out of it for me. I never did really enjoy ratchet jawing much, so once I had it mastered to where I was happy, I lost a lot of interest in the hobby. I still maintain a station. A good station, but it just does not get used much.

Now shooting, casting, making my own gas checks, and now my own primers and Black Powder, I do not think that I will get bored with this hobby. And I have been reloading and casting since 1973.

[HamGunner]

I have my Sassafras powder finished, but have not had time to test it. The ash was very small and the initial checking of the weight/volume comparison shows it denser than my Carolina Buckthorn and very near my Black Willow. Hopefully it will be as energetic. Might shoot some tomorrow.

[almar]

I was looking into making it from grain, its a science in itself. I prefer that kind of beer as well!

I also made sassafras powder tonight but it got too late to try over the chrono, well see tomorrow.

[Eddie2002]

Use the sassafras bark in the beer, don't let it go to waste.

[ChrisPer]

I added up my last six batches' yields, and broadly speaking when I crush and sieve the sizes I get are:
>15# - first pass about 60% but I re-grind until it all goes through the 15# sieve.
FF 15-20# - 28%
FFF 20-40# - 28%
FFFF 40# -100# 25%
Fines < 100# 19% go into next batch of pucks (except a teaspoonful for a poof test).

I chose to design for a 500g mill batch, which limits the size of risk if something goes wrong. I have been putting in about three to five hours work to make each batch. This means that at the end of processing a batch, I have about 160 g of FF and 160g of FFF, the two important sizes for most of us.

If I could buy it, I would be better doing so.

I am trying a few different puck breaking and grinding ways, and they don't seem to make much difference. Last time I tried a wood-chisel to 'cut' them on a hardwood block but it didn't improve yield. Next time I plan to use a sharp edge to slice before drying the pucks, and spend more time to reduce them below coffee bean size with the sharp edge, before drying.

almar, your PID controller uses a mathematical algorithm rather than an 'on-off outside a plus and minus switching temps' like a bimetallic strip switch. I am thinking how a better screening method or sizing choice could improve my yields or reduce the input effort.
I am considering targeting 15- 30# for FF, increasing its share, and re-pucking 4F as well as fines. 3F is good, but 2F needs more bulk as its used for the 100m heavy charges, ie three times as much powder per shot as a 3F pistol charge and 45% more than a 3F 50m charge in a rifle.
That means I need some different sieves for the deck.

[almar]

sassfrass with 78-12-10 didn't do well at all with a medium density. The mill powder took an unusual amount of applied flame to ignite it and when it did it left puddles of unreacted potassium. It gave poor velocities and fouled terribly. So I will run that powder in the mill again with higher charcoal content and Sulphur to verify again. There may be a different learning curve for every type of wood...I hope not.

[indian joe]

[QUOTE=ChrisPer;5286529]I added up my last six batches' yields, and broadly speaking when I crush and sieve the sizes I get are:
>15# - first pass about 60% but I re-grind until it all goes through the 15# sieve.
FF 15-20# - 28%
FFF 20-40# - 28%
FFFF 40# -100# 25%
Fines < 100# 19% go into next batch of pucks (except a teaspoonful for a poof test).

I chose to design for a 500g mill batch, which limits the size of risk if something goes wrong. I have been putting in about three to five hours work to make each batch. This means that at the end of processing a batch, I have about 160 g of FF and 160g of FFF, the two important sizes for most of us.

If I could buy it, I would be better doing so.

I am trying a few different puck breaking and grinding ways, and they don't seem to make much difference. Last time I tried a wood-chisel to 'cut' them on a hardwood block but it didn't improve yield. Next time I plan to use a sharp edge to slice before drying the pucks, and spend more time to reduce them below coffee bean size with the sharp edge, before drying.

The bottleneck in my system is breaking the pucks down so they go through the ceramic grinder - making thinner pucks I use plastic spacers in the pressing die and aim for 1/4 inch or no more than 3/8 thick - if you go to half inch theres a lot of big hard chunks that wont feed in the grinder . I tried breaking the pucks before they dried but got too much fines .

also someone mentioned spotting of moisture ? I couldnt get an even mix unless I used too much water - ended up I damp the mix, then form it into balls by hand (almost tennis ball size) then I grate those balls back through a wire screen into a pile that I put into the pressing die - gives me a thorough mix = no moisture spotting without getting it too damp .