# About Black Powder, some history, some chemistry, some names



## rogerw

[This is not required reading....if this sort of thing hurts your head just move on, no big deal]

Once upon a time, blackpowder was simply known as "gunpowder" or just "powder" before smokeless came along. There were many many different powder manufacturing sites in the world, hundreds if not thousands. Today there is only one in the US, Gearhart-Owens Explosives, or Goex. Goex bought the old Moosic, Pa plant some years ago where DuPont had made powder since about 1920, having moved it then from a nearby community of Wapwallopen, Pa. where it had been made since the 1855. http://www.councilcup.com/BlackPowder/index.html Goex moved to Doyline, Lousianna in the late 1990s.

Blackpowder makes smoke because it consumes itself about 43% into hot gasses and 57% solids. Solid particulates suspended in the air is what we call smoke. Depending on outside temperature, either more or less of your fouling will remain in your barrel, but somehting like between 5% and 15% will remain, being more as temp goes up. Smokeless powder is smokeless because it consumes itself almost 100% into gas. This is also why it has much higher energy content and will blow the breech of a normal ML gun.

The first substitute for Blackpowder in the 1880s was smokeless nitro-based mixed with Blackpowder. But the eventual acceptance of smokeless and commecial loads in cartridges supplanted all use of blackpowder in those guns. In those days, smokeless (new) was discussed as a substitute for gunpowder (the standard) in cartridges, not in MLs.

Blackpowder is 75% Potassium Nitrate (Saltpeter), 15% charcoal, and 10% sulfur. Charcoal is the fuel, the saltpeter provides the oxygen for combustion, and the sulfur lowers the ignition temperature. You can make a smokeless blackpowder if you leave out the sulfur, but it has a much higher ignition temperature. Ok for percussion guns, not for flintlocks. It also has a little less energy yield than BP with sulfur.

The proportions of byproducts of combustion vary widely depending on the exact nature of the charcoal and the weather conditions (temp and humidity of the air). There appears to be two sequential chemical processes, first combustion (very quick), and then a further "reduction" (slower) where the first byproducts may re-combine with each other and/or with atmospheric moisture and form new compounds.

The main products of combustion are 
1) carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide (CO), and Nitrogen (N2) gasses initially heated to 2200degC. these gasses would expand to 280 times the original powder volume once they cool to 0degC and atmospheric pressure. If you set off BP in a closed space, loaded to 100% volume, the initial pressure before cooling would be about 96,000psi. The reason your breech does not see this pressure is becaue the bullet moves long before all the powder burns.

2) Potassium Chloride (K2C03), potassium sulfate (K2SO4), and potassium sulfide (K2S) are most of the solids, either smoke or fouling.

These reactions all come from a oversimplified chemical equation that represents charcoal as merely carbon.....however charcoal is much more complicated than that and has hydrocarbon volatiles in it like "creosote." This is highly variable depending on a) what wood is used to make the charcoal, and, b) how long and how hot it is cooked.

It is desirable to have a relatively high content of hydrocarbon "volatiles" in the charcoal. They play a part along with the sulfur in aiding the ignition process, but they also play a part in throwing the chemical process over to making more potassium chloride and less potassium sulfate....and in the process they make a little bit of H2O, ie, moisture (providing the hydrogen which was not present in the oversimplifed chemical equation). Alder wood charcoals that were made at lower temps so as to not drive out the "volatiles" are best. Maple is also used. Potassium sulfate is a compound that breaks down with moisture from the air and produces small amounts of sulfuric acid in fouling. The sulfate is also the portion of the fouling that is hard and likes to adhere to the barrel. The chloride is softer, more powdery, but is also hygroscopic and a salt (similar to sodium chloride, table salt).

Moisture is both friend and foe to the BlackPowder Muzzleloader...depending. BP is mildy hygroscopic before burning and in very damp weather will pick up a little bit of moisture if exposed (like in the pan of a flintlock) and ignition will be slowed, ie, hangfire. This moisture (a few percent at most) in powder before ignition is not good moisture.

If you have a higher hydrocarbon content in your charcoal, the hydrogen burns and makes moisture in the combustion process, while eliminating some of the potassium sulfate from the process. This leaves the fouling less troublesome and softer. This is obviously good moisture, and avoids a hot and dry burn and fouling. Premium English powders of the 19th century, like Curtis and Harvey, were exquisitely known for this. This is the kind of powder that gave the reputation for being able to shoot without ever wiping, still maintaining first rate accuracy.

Thirdly, atmospheric moisture can mix with fouling and form acids and activate the salts to form rust. Obviously not good moisture.

The last moisture is that which you add in copius quantities to clean out the barrel. This is good moisture! Of course it must be dried out and oil applied, or it too can become bad moisture! (It is a bit of a mystery to modern gun shooters that plain old water was always used to clean guns...BP fouling is largely soluble or washable with water. Modern nitro solvents are not the best for cleaning BP fouling, though they may well be best for a nitro based sub powder.)

Blackpowder used to be a strategic war material, nations put lots of research tax dollars into understanding it. Now, of course they have moved on and spend your tax dollars in so many more exquisite ways. In the 19th Century they had all this figured out. What woods worked well, what baking profiles for charcoal for expensive powders, and what they could do quicker and less expensive for "value" powders. Making charcoal and making BP is dangerous and labor intensive.

It is all pretty much figured out today too, except the demand for sporting blackpowders is very low compared to 19th Century, and labor is much more expensive generally.

Goex is made with maple wood, a good wood but not the best. Alder comes frm Eastern Europe. Goex makes a very good powder for the price, but perhaps not the best powder if price is no object. Goex burns a little hot and produces fouling that is variable, and Goex would NOT be a premium powder in the 19th century. Goex would be a higher-end VALUE powder, but not premium, and not up there with the best English powders that used to be, but a good adaptation to the realities of the US market. They also still sell tons of the stuff to the military (used as a squib charge to set off the maincharge in big cannons) and to commercial blasting (cheaper made blasting powders).

Curtis and Harvey was still on the US market back in the 1970s. I have a 1975 first edition of the Lyman Blackpowder Handbook and it lists loads and velocities, etc, for both Goex and C&H. But it is no more.

The 2001 second edition of the Lyman Blackpowder Handbook lists loadings for Goex, Elephant, and Pyrodex. I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in what velocity comes from a given load of powder in a given caliber with a given barrel length and bullet weight, etc. It is available online if you search.

Swiss powder is perhaps the closest thing to 19th century premium sporting powders, producing softer and less fouling in the barrel. The price reflects the fact that it uses more expensive to obtaina alder wood and more expensive processing.

Schuetzen powder is made by WANO of Germany, and other powders under that same name. They also use alderwood from E. Europe. "Schwarzpulver" is German for blackpowder ("schwarz" meaning "black"). I have a small quantity of this from 1992 which was given to me a long time ago, but I have never used it.

Elephant powder is made in South America. Some like it, some don't. I think it may have been somewhat lot-dependent which would explain differnt folks having different experiences. Goex used to have this problem too.

Kik is a powder from China, cheapest available from what I understand, though I have never seen it for sale.

Only powder I have ever personally used is Goex in 2F and 3F grades, except for 4F and 7F for priming flintlocks. I agree with BBJ that 3F is the only powder you ever really need, though some guns may shoot better with 2F....that may be a lack of enough load development though. I have actually, generally gotten best accuracy from 3F anyway and it burns cleaner. (oh, I almost forgot....I have used Pyrodex in a ML percussion shotgun years ago, but I have no comment other than it worked fine...)

Much of the information above came from Bill Knight who is a chemist, a flintlock shooter who lives in Pa, and perhaps the most knowlegeable expert in the world today on BP. Being an enginner myself, I like to understand how things work.... Bill still consults to all of those powder makers named.....

If you search online you can find sources of all of these powders, but you would have to have them shipped, pay hazmat fees, order in minimum quantity of 25lbs usually. That is what I do. I paid 8.50 per pound for 25 lbs about 5 yrs ago and more recently I paid 11.50 per pound about 2 years ago (and split a lot with a friend). That includes hazmat and shipping fees. You can't get that kind of deal in any retail store.

May the Schwarz be with you! 

YHS,
rogerw


----------



## rogerw

http://www.powderinc.com/catalog/order.htm

I just checked, the current price is 13.10 per pound of Goex if you order a 25lb lot. If you find a friend to split this with, it helps make it affordable.

You can also buy in lesser size lots, but the price goes up.

YHS,
rogerw


----------



## Powerfisher

Didnt head your warning and I read it anyhow. Very good info. My head does hurt and I have purged...ummmmm.....I know I purged someting from my memory but cant remember what it was!  I get soooo deep into a subject that micro analyzation (how ever you spell it) just comes naturaly. I just wish that with with my CRS (cant remember s_it) and my CRAFT (cant remember a friggen thing) it gets in the way of my retension. Ohhhh, I also suffer from Marital Deafness, Selective Listening and Sometimerz. Im ok with those but the CRS and CRAFT are really annoying. The sky is dropping white stuff in heaps so my range day will have to wait........ :******: This too shall pass and there is always another day. I guess I will just read, learn and purge more! :lol: 8)


----------



## rogerw

I have been accused of being "anal-retentive"......I choose, however, to understand that as "analysis retentive." 



I have spent considerable time studying what was written in the 19th and 20th centuries about blackpowder interior ballistics. One major source is Capt. James Ingalls US Army Artillery School textbook entitled "Interior Ballistics" second edition in 1894, which contains details of Noble and Abel's extensive experiments with BP in 1874 and onward. It is available in its entirety online, as are many books on explosives and gunpowder....

It is this information that I have used to calculate the breech pressure curve and bullet velocity that will result from powder load, powder type, bullet weight, caliber, and length of barrel, and I posted an example in a different thread.

:idiot: uke: :eyeroll:

Not everyone can stand the heat though.... :fiddle: best to stay away from the kitchen, if that is the case.....

My eventual goal is to be able to predict (in a user friendly software package) for a given load, in a given rifle, what the breech pressure, muzzle velocity and energy will be, what the trajectory will be (drop, etc), and what the wound depth and cavity diameter would be in a soft tissue simulant target at a given range (or a deer, if no significant bones are hit). Up close you get higher cavitation and less penetration, farther out you get less caviation but better penetration until you go so far that you get neither. For muzzleloaders. I have mastered certain aspects of the whole problem, other aspects still have me mastered....but the science exists to do all of this. A lot of it was understood in the 19th century. The basic equation of projectile penetration was developed by a man named Poncelet before 1850.....brilliant people walked the earth back then.

  

Ok....I finished that thought... :soapbox:

YHS,
rogerw


----------



## oldfireguy

I just printed this out for placing in a 3 ring-binder of stuff I can refer back to.
Thanks for an excellent article!


----------



## rogerw

Thanks OFG!

In line with my recent line of thought that even though I don't personally use the subs, they are not so bad at all, and may in some respects be better, but are generally going to have most of the characteristics of BP for some fundamental reason......

I have read over the years some reports about some new sub-powder with the claim that "it is not corrosive!" and then later on I would read a claim that "it doggone well IS corrosive!" My thought is that both of these claimants are probably honestly telling their experience, but the conditions may have been different.

Certainly that is the way BP is.....Blackpowder fouling is far less of a problem in dry climates than in moister ones. If you live in the Great American Desert you could go days without cleaning and have no problems. If a guy in Vermont or E.Texas tries that, his gun is toast in two days. Contrary to common perception, colder air is dryer than warmer air(unless there are no water sources, ala, desert), though going from cold outside to warm inside can cause condensation, of course.

BBJ has said it consistent and true: we haven't seen anything yet that doesn't need to be wiped and cleaned, and there have been quite a few different subs over the years.

Among subs I probably think Pyrodex to be the best, but that is just my very limited opinion based on the relative longevity in the market....It matters to me that I don't want to be an "early adopter" and experience all the problems versus the hype on behalf of everyone else's benefit....I would rather hold back and learn from others in this regard who love to be the early adopters. I don't demand "magnum" performance and energies but just reliable and safe performance and if i want more energy I use my .58 flinter or .62 percussion rifles.....I have come to the conclusion that very few ML guns and applications need more than 100gr or equivalent of BP. It is simply wasted energy in most cases.

Your mileage may vary, we are all at different places in life, and in need.

YHS,
rogerw


----------



## Powerfisher

rogerw wrote:
My eventual goal is to be able to predict (in a user friendly software package) for a given load, in a given rifle, what the breech pressure, muzzle velocity and energy will be, what the trajectory will be (drop, etc), and what the wound depth and cavity diameter would be in a soft tissue simulant target at a given range (or a deer, if no significant bones are hit).

OK, ok......experement on me.
I have a T/C Omega Z5 .50cal. 28"bbl, 1-28" twist. IYHO, what would be the best bullet/load combo so that I could take deer sized game out to 200yds? 8)


----------



## rogerw

Powerfisher said:


> OK, ok......experement on me.
> I have a T/C Omega Z5 .50cal. 28"bbl, 1-28" twist. IYHO, what would be the best bullet/load combo so that I could take deer sized game out to 200yds? 8)


Well, you misunderstand the nature of what I am trying to do...to mathematically model the process(s), and the effort is incomplete.

However, I am not without opinion, and I can give an opinionated answer:

Generally MLs are 100yd or less weapons, and for many people with iron sights they are 70yd or less weapons. It is not that an ML bullet cannot kill at even 500yds, but that the trajectory is such that it is almost impossible to realiably hit unless range is absolutely known and calibrated. This is not the case for general hunting.

That being said, I have a .45 conical rifle that will shoot about 4" groups at 200yds with iron (peep) sights. I had the barrel made to specification by a small outfit in California, and the rifle was built in RoundRock TEXAS. I did design that gun to kill deer at 200yds, but I have never used it for that. I just came to the conclusion that I did not need it for the style of hunting I do. (It is beautiful SideLock percussion gun made up like an early-war Southern sniper rifle in the Great War to establish a Southern Nation....  )

If you want to kill a deer at 200yds consistently with a ML, you will need first to use a good scope. This does not mandate either a modern scope nor an inline, but the inline is the modern gun adapted to modern scopes and to do this with traditional gear is very expensive by comparison. So, you will choose an inline with a good scope unless your eyes are much better than mine now.

A short digression: A percussion cap fits on the outside of a nipple and is otherwise unsupported against back pressure, and limits the breech pressure that is attainable safely....however, modern primers (ie, 209) fit inside a pocket and are more supported all the way around by more metal, hence can support more breech pressures, all else being equal or better.

So, an inline with a scope (preferably a mil-dot for helping judge distance and drop) and 209 ignition. You probably have all this, but I thought I would explain why I think it is so, IMHO of course.

Powder wise I would experiment, but include goex3f as BBJ has suggested already. my guess is that around 100gr of Goex 3F is the most you want to use.

Accuracy and bullet placement are the two most important criteria....too many folks get caught up in a sort of "magnum mania" and want to go to "full house" loads, etc, and never get the best long range accuracy as a result. It is possible to overstress the plastic sabot and lose accuracy as a result, especially if load development was done in cold weather and shooting in warmer weather....you may not have that problem where you are but the weather in TEXAS is all over the map!

You want to use a reasonably [edit] high ballistic coefficient (BC) bullet, and this will mean using a sabotted bullet. However it will not be the [edit] highest possible BC, because it needs to be a bullet that will expand reliably at 200yd penetration velocities, and that compromises BC some.

(I do NOT mean that you cannot use a big naked lead conical and kill deer at 200yds....in fact that is what I WOULD use...but if you are trying to maximize effective range by taking advantage of the latest in technology, which you are, then you will choose a sabot.)

I will digress again to explain: while the bullet is in the breech you want it to be big caliber, because for a given maximum attainable breech pressure, the force accelerating the bullet is equal to pressure times base area of the bullet. The bigger the caliber, the larger the area and the larger the force to accelerate the bullet even with the same pressure. This explains why I dwelt earlier on the issue of attainable breech pressures and 209 primers. It is not for reliability, it is for more breech pressure. IMHO.

However, after the bullet exits the muzzle you want the same mass of lead to be long and pencil shaped... the bullet has to push a long column of air out of its way in the trip from muzzle to target.....the smaller diameter the column of air the easier the job is, and the higher the BC is (assuming weight of bullet is held constant).

Then, when the bullet hits the soft target, you want it to be big again so that it sheds its energy doing the work of creating a substantial wound channel, and not merely drilling a small pencil hole thru.

So, ideally you want your bullet to be 1) big caliber in the barrel, and, 2) small caliber in the air, and, 3) big caliber again when it hits the target.

Modern Sabot technology with expanding bullet accomplishes all of this. Traditional ML bullets are big in the barrel (good), big in the air (not good), and big in the target (good). two out of three aint bad, and is good enough for a lot of practical hunting, even out to two hundred yards, but if you want the optimum possible you will use a Sabot.

There is another reason for a sabot....barrels are not always made with great tolerances from end to end....a naked conical is much more sensitive to this than the plastic sabot....the plastic sabot hides a multitude of barrel flaws inside, and gives wonderful accuracy anyway in an otherwise cheaply made barrel. And, at 200yds you want all the accuracy advantage you can get.

I think you should look at using the longest smaller caliber bullet (for BC) you can find available in a sabot. This will be dictated by the twist of your barrel which is probably 28" and will work fine.

Once you have solved the sighting and accurate bullet placement at a distance problem (with a scope and a medium-heavy load that is accurate, Then you should practice on water jugs to see at what distance you can still get reliable expansion.

And realize this: expanding bullets are designed to reliably work over some speed range.....expanding ML bullets are NOT the same as modern centerfire ones....the design is "softened" to expand at the lower velocities of ML striking velocity, and are very close to handgun bullets. In fact, the earliest used WERE handgun bullets. What doe sthis mean? If you optimize out to 200yds, and then shoot a deer at 30yds it is very likely to "blow up" and make a ghastly surface wound but not penetrate enough to kill immediately.

AND if you optimize for 30yds ( 30-60yds is where I see most of my deer) you will not as likely be optimized out at 200yds.

But, we have better bullets available now than ever to accomplish a wider range of possibilities by borrowing more and more centerfire technology into a ML, so maybe I am exagerating here....but I know that I hear a lot of ML sabotted bullet failures discussed, and they are often shooting three pellets of pyro (ie, 150grain load) and hitting at 30yds and blowing up the bullet.......So, they blame the bullet and not the knothead behind the gun.

I am sorry if you wanted me to give you a specific recommendation....I cannot, especially since I don't shoot inlines. I seldom even shoot conicals in my traditional guns. I shoot patched roundballs at deer, anywhere from .45cal to .62cal, all rifles, all PRB.

The most specific thing I can reiterate is BBJ's recommendation to try Goex3F, and I would add to try 90-100grs....not more than 120gr at the very outside and maybe no more than 110gr at the outside. Bh209 is about $30/10oz I understand and Goex is (probably) about $18/16oz (though I get mine by internet order at far less in quantity). That means that Goex is (18/16)/(30/10)=37.5% the price of Bh209 per ounce. However, I understand that Bh209 only takes 70% load equivalence by weight, so that 10oz is roughly equal to 16 oz and they could be compared on a price-price basis: Goex is 60% as expensive as Bh209.

All I can do is explain the parameters of the choices, as best I understand them. Others can chime in with what has worked for them in inlines. I did post to you a couple weeks ago a guy's experience with your gun and with specific charges of Bh209 and a bullet similar to yours....I would start by changing only the powder and find what is accurate. Then I would try that longer (heavier) version of the same bullet. I imagine that will solve your problem.

YHS,
rogerw


----------



## Powerfisher

Everything you said I was able to understand. Thank you very much for your opinion. It has helped me put part of my puzzle together. The more I read and learn form sites like these, the more sence it all makes. I didnt think that this hobby would be so consuming but since I am very analytic by nature, I dig to bedrock so I can gather the gold. It reminds me of when I started to flyfish......ahhhhhh. : 8)


----------



## rogerw

Well, as I re-read that I noticed that I said "you want to use a reasonably low BC bullet.."

What I meant was "high BC bullet." I was thinking low drag....but drag and BC are inversely proportional.....

I will try to edit it....

Glad that it might have helped you PF.

YHS,
rogerw


----------



## rogerw

In another thread you said:



Powerfisher said:


> T/C Omega, peep, BH209, 250gr. T/C Shockwave. I just mounted a Williams WGRS peep today.


Changing only the powder to start with, my Excel Spreadsheet simulation says that with a 250gr bullet in a .50cal bore 28" barrel with 90gr 2F you will get about 1520fps at the muzzle. Here is the graphical output:










The red line is breech pressure curve vs time, the green line is barrel travel versus time and the blue line is velocity versus time (if you multiply the righthand scale by 40).

I checked against some examples in the 2nd ed. Lyman BP Manual and got 1519fps for a 240gr bullet with 90gr 2F in a 28" barrel. 3F will shoot slightly faster, but its higher MV is much more pronounced for a lighter ball than for the heavier conical...

The TC website gives .240 as the BC for that bullet....I have no doubt that that is a little optmistic but I don't have a better number, so will use that one.

Here is a tabular output of a Exterior Ballistic s/w for this: (if this is scrambled or folded back on itself line by line, sorry):

Range Drop Velocity Energy Momentum Windage Lead Time Elevation
(Yards) (inches) (ft/sec) (ft-lbs) (lb-sec) (inches) (inches) (secs) (moa)

0 -0.75 1520.0 1282.5 1.6875 0.00 0.0 0.000 -----
10 0.09 1495.2 1241.0 1.6599 0.03 0.0 0.020 0.90
20 0.77 1470.9 1200.9 1.6329 0.12 0.0 0.040 3.87
30 1.30 1447.0 1162.2 1.6064 0.27 0.0 0.061 4.33
40 1.65 1423.6 1124.9 1.5804 0.48 0.0 0.082 4.14
50 1.84 1400.6 1089.0 1.5550 0.75 0.0 0.103 3.68
60 1.85 1378.2 1054.3 1.5300 1.08 0.0 0.125 3.08
70 1.67 1356.3 1021.1 1.5057 1.47 0.0 0.146 2.39
80 1.31 1334.9 989.1 1.4819 1.92 0.0 0.169 1.64
90 0.75 1314.0 958.5 1.4588 2.44 0.0 0.191 0.84
100 -0.01 1293.8 929.1 1.4363 3.01 0.0 0.215 -0.01
110 -0.98 1274.0 901.0 1.4144 3.66 0.0 0.238 -0.89
120 -2.16 1254.9 874.1 1.3931 4.36 0.0 0.262 -1.80
130 -3.56 1236.4 848.5 1.3726 5.13 0.0 0.286 -2.74
140 -5.19 1218.5 824.1 1.3527 5.96 0.0 0.310 -3.71
150 -7.06 1201.2 800.9 1.3335 6.85 0.0 0.335 -4.70
160 -9.16 1184.6 778.9 1.3151 7.81 0.0 0.360 -5.73
170 -11.51 1168.6 758.0 1.2974 8.83 0.0 0.386 -6.77
180 -14.12 1153.3 738.3 1.2804 9.90 0.0 0.412 -7.85
190 -16.99 1138.6 719.7 1.2641 11.04 0.0 0.438 -8.94
200 -20.13 1124.6 702.1 1.2486 12.23 0.0 0.464 -10.06

So, if that came out clear you can see right at 20" of drop at 200yds with a 100yd zero and 90gr of BP. Wouldn't surprise me to see more like 25" of drop with a realistic BC, but that remains to be seen.

With 100grains you get MV = 1563fps and 200yd drop is 19". With 110gr you get MV=1633fps and 200yd drop is 17.5". With 120gr you get MV=1703fps and 200yd drop is 16".

There is not going to be a tremendous gain in flat trajectory with adding lots more powder, nor by using a sub instead. So don't punish yourself or the gun and focus on accurate bullet placement at any range.

I am not to concerned with striking ME at the moment but I would say that any of those will kill with good bullet placement. However, I might question whether this is often reasonably achievable, but every man must answer that for himself. Though 700ft-lbs is getting pretty marginal with an expanding bullet design...I suggest experiments with water jugs to test bullet expansion (as well as hitting accuracy).

I have not found the BC for the 300gr ShockWave, but I have no doubt that it willl give you lower MV, more drop in near-range and less drop at far-range, and higher striking ME.

YHS,
rogerw


----------



## rogerw

This site suggests that you can get 2149fps with 120gr of Bh209 and the 250 gr Shockwave:

http://blackhorn209.com/files/pdf/b209m ... erdata.pdf

My calculations suggest that it would take about 200grains of 2F to do the same thing........that is a lot of powder. The breech pressure is gonna be pretty danged high. !!!DO NOT DO THIS!!! I have gone on record not recommending any more that 120gr, and more probably about 100gr max for better accuracy and shooting. I only say that to illustrate what it would take in BP. One thing working against BP in this scenario is that the weight of the powder (most of which is accelerated and expelled from the gun) has to be accelerated along with the bullet....there is a point where adding more powder is raising breech pressure fast and increasing recoil fast but not changing MV much because you are adding powder weight that must be also be expelled at the new velocity. I don't know that you will blow up a modern 209 primed gun doing that (although you might well blow up a cap-primed gun), but I do think it doesn't have a lot of good point to recommend it.... Bh209, having less bulk weight, does not have as much of the same issue as BP in pushing a bullet this fast. Naturally this is true, since Bh209 is smokeless made volumetrically more bulky by some BP addition. This is how they get the pressure down to what a modern ML can stand.

The drop at 200yds would be 11" instead of the numbers previously given, which, btw, were with a sighting-plane .75" over the borecenter (ie, the peep sight PF said he uses) and 100yd zero.

A 175yd zero would result in about a +/-3" trajectory all the way to 200yds.....that is very similar rise/drop to a modern smokeless .30-30 zeroed at same range, but outclasses the .30-30 in strking energy 1359ft-lbs to 989ft-lbs for the 170gr .30cal. A .30-06 delivers about 1827ft-lb at 200yds.

[I removed a paragraph about my .58 PRB gun at 200yds.....doesn't cut the mustard at that range, though it could with MinieBalls.]

I have to say, it makes more sense to me to leave smokless powders in the cartridge guns.......

Some of this, being merely my opinon, is more definitely subject to error. I don't mind having my errors corrected....comments are welcome.

YHS,
rogerw


----------



## rogerw

Musings about the problems to solve with long range hunting with a ML:

I don't know how good any of you are at judging distance......but unless you conspicuously work at it you are probably not very good at it, just like me. There used to be a good online article on this subject where a series of tests were setup with MLs and about 12 different experienced competition shooters....the only guys that were any good at all judging distances beyond 100yds were 2 in the group that also played golf a lot.... but none of the experienced ML shooters were any good beyond 150yds to avoid judgement problems in hitting the "vitals" on mock fullsize animal targets. It is easier now than it was then, with flatter trajectories and higher BCs, but it is still difficult....

With 100gr2F and 250 grain Shockwave with BC=.24 the MV is about 1563fps and the drop at 175 yds is about 8", at 200yds about 15", and at 225yds about 23". If you are off with your judgement of distance at the 200yd mark by +/-25yds, you get a difference of -8" to + 6", a 14" swing of impact point over that distance.

OK, suppose you are going to use a laser range finder, and will know the range to the nearest 2yds.....ok, that is good. Are you going to also tabulate your exact drop, say every 5 yards so that you know what it is? Or know it for every 25yds and accurately interpolate to the range on the rangefinder? It is important....! (I did not even count variations of the load under field conditions, and resulting variation of MV!).

OK, so you solved that problem with a rangefinder and a table of trajectory in some form. what about windage?

If you look back a few posts at the windage for drift at 200yds with a 10mph crosswind with this bullet (which is such an excellent BC that this is relatively low drift, and not believable at that) you will see you get right at 12" drift for every 10mph of crosswind. do you know how to judge crosswinds for long range shooting? If the wind is 10mph but quartering instead of perpendicularly crosswind? What about differnces in near versus far wind? Do you know the effects, and how to judge the hold?

Likely that BC isn't nearly that high for a 200yd shot (like it would be for a 50yd shot) because the bullet is going trans-sonic to subsonic over that range beyond 50yds and drag/turbulence is incfreasing for the rascal, unlike with a typical centerfire at even twice the range. Lower BC also means higher drift in a given crosswind. (the drop would have to be worse too than given above....for this reason, even if you use Bh209 you will get somewhat more drop than my numbers have suggested).

What about shooting uphill/downhill? With the exaggerated drop of a ML, this problem is exaggerated too. do you know whether to compensate high, or low, and how much? (the answer, somewhat counter-intuitive, is shoot low for angles either above or below horizontal....) The more you extend your range, the more likely you are to encounter this issue.

Of course AFTER you decide you can reasonably guarantee a good hit at 200yds, you have to answer the question of whether the bullet/load delivers a reasonably quickly lethal hit. with a modern expanding bullet (good BC, but must expand to be lethal) it needs to hit with enough energy to expand (saps the energy budget just expanding the bullet alone) and enough leftover to create a lethal wound channel. It is the expanding bullet that establishes about 800ft-lbs as a reasonable minimum....(not round balls or full-bore ead conicals, which arrive already large and do not require as much striking energy to penetrate usually further and create a significant wound channel, typically at much less range).

In the hunting field, conditions are usually not as ideal as at the (horizontal) range on your best day with no wind or moisture. Toby Bridges claims a ML kill on a white-tail at 285yds.....but he hypocritically says between the lines "don't try this at home." I guess it is only ethical for him. He claims a number of kills around 200yds.... All I can say is, "this is not your father's ML." He also used to be a enthusiastic spokesman for the Savage 10ML until he blew one up in his face....he doesn't talk about it anymore, coulda been killed, very lucky.

Here is a link to a 1997 article that considers the Long Range hunting problem:

http://www.blackpowderjournal.com/archi ... pj25-3.htm

So, up to this point I have tried to give mere facts about the difficulty of ethical longrange hunting with a ML. Now I will give you an opinion, and I clearly label it as such....but it is not merely mine, it is on page 6 of the Al Raychard book below:










Here is a link to that book:
http://books.google.com/books?id=mUb0IV ... &ct=result

and here are some more links to general muzzleloading magazine articles that might be of interest:

http://www.blackpowderjournal.com/archi ... pj25-3.htm

http://www.muzzleblasts.com/archives/vo ... bo46.shtml


----------



## rogerw

Here is a list of all the substitute powders I could find or think of at the moment:

Pyrodex

CleanShot

American Pioneer Powder

Jim Shockey's Gold

Black Canyon

Black Mag, BlackMag2, Blackmag3

ClearShot (Goex)

Pinnacle (Goex)

Triple 7

Blackhorn209

Some have come and gone, and some are brand new and some are still here....the ones I think are well established are Pyrodex and Triple 7. Blackhorn209 may well be in this category too, but it is perhaps too soon to tell. All of them made promises....

Here is an article discussing some of these powders.

http://www.chuckhawks.com/black_powder_ ... oundup.htm

I am thinking of inventing my own BP powder and calling it "Holy Schwarz!" 

YHS,
rogerw (Ye fan of the original "Holy Black Powder.")


----------



## Powerfisher

Ok, why Conical instead of a saboted bullet?


----------



## rogerw

Powerfisher said:


> Ok, why Conical instead of a saboted bullet?


I am not sure which remark of mine you are keying on here.... but to try an answer anyway, a sabotted bullet IS a conical of sub-caliber to the bore and is technologically superior in most respects, certainly in BC that is attainable, and therefore in retained velocity and energy downrange.

I may have used "conical" and "sabotted bullet" interchangeably somewhere.

The biggest problems I have read about with sabots is finding ones that fit well to your bore for ease of loading (unlike centerfire rifles there are no industry standards on exactly what .50 cal means, so there are variations from mfg. to mfg.) and "leading" of the plastic to the bore (I suppose with heavier loads) which needs to be cleaned out to maintain accuracy. Also, I have mentioned the possibility of very heavy loads causing a sealing failure of the plastic sabot especially in warmer temps. some newer sabots are specifically designed to avoid this, and the packaging says so. If you stay within mfg. suggested loads you should be ok, but as I have said, I would beware of marketing claims catering to "magnumitis."

I have personally only shot a relative few sabot rounds out of my father's inline, and it was a real tack driver with medium loads of 90gr. He also had started shooting Triple7 in that gun before he passed away and left it to me. I have not shot it since then. It is a Traditions Pursuit Pro, and I don't recall what the bullet was but it took considerably more force on the ramrod to load and seat than I was accustomed to, downright difficult.

YHS,
rogerw


----------



## Plainsman

roger that was excellent as always. I will try read it all later. I sort of skimmed through.
I have tried many substitutes and like you find that I like Pyrodex best. In my sidelocks I have gone to Pistol Pyrodex with 10% reduced loads. It gives me ignition with no hangfires when I use the finer powder. My pet round ball load is 70 gr in a Green Mountain barrel on my Thompson Center Hawken. With a 370 Thompson Center conical I shoot 90 gr. I have shot a number of deer with that 70 gr load from 40 to 110 yards.

In my inline I have tried Pistol, Rifle Shotgun, Select, and the pellets. The pellets I find are slightly slower than granular RS, but a full 150 fps slower than Select.

My hunting load in my Thompson Center System 1 is 110 gr of Select behind a 250 gr Shockwave. The velocity is 1750 fps. 200 yard shots are not a problem. There is three ways I shoot for longer range. Unfortunately my old eyes don't like the open site anymore. I should go dig a rifle out, but I will try explain this: My open sight I set up somewhat like the old express sight, but without two leaves. I built the sight myself, and what I did was file a wide grove, and a deeper narrow grove. When the front blade is even with the lower grove the rifle strikes at 100 yards. When the front blade is even with the upper grove the rifle strikes at 200 yards. That was from a sidelock using a full bore conical. I didn't think that was very practical and have changed that sight for a 50/125 yard sight. 
The other method is a Lyman peep sight that I replaced the elevation screw with a screw with large head protruding up that I can turn by hand. On the side of the mount I have marked hashmarks for 25, 50, 75, 100, 125, 150, and 200 yards. There is still room left for more elevation. About the only thing I have killed with it at 200 yards was white rocks in a plowed field. I think it was devastating because none run after being hit.  
The third method I am still messing with. It's an inline with a 1X scope. I have it sighted for 100 yards. I shot at a target at 200 yards using the post of the duplex and shot quite high. I have not shot since then, and don't know what yardage that post would be hitting at. I am guessing somewhere around 250 yards or further. 
I don't know what the accuracy in my rifle would be like beyond 110 gr load. It was shooting so nice I just stopped at that load.

Roger, I have been thinking about making a wind powered ball mill for black powder. I don't want five pounds of it going off near the house, and I don't want to run a 1/2 mile electric cord either. I thought a geared down wind powered mill might work. I think I will hold production to two pounds at a time. Sieving it may be the biggest challenge. I'm not real sure I will ever get to it, but I have about a dozen 1 1/2 inch ceramic balls that I think would work perfect in an old rock polishing tub. I just need to power it for turning.


----------



## rogerw

Thanks, and great thoughts on L/R ML shooting too.

Your eyes are probably about like than mine. Mine have never been bad, but I have worn glasses since I was 5yrs old and they have never been good either. I understand the open sighting system you are talking about, and considered something like that for some of my guns, oh ten years ago when I could see better than now. On the other hand, with a peep I can do quite well, and could shoot to 200yds if I wanted to. I am thinking of putting some sort of ghost ring type peep on a flintlock as opposed to moving the sight forward so I can focus a little better. But my property is mostly well covered and there are very few 200yd opptys. I bet there are many more optys in NoDak.

btw, I think windpowered ball mill is an excellent idea. Are you going to use a Vertical or horizontal shaft rotor? I humbly suggest that a vertical shaft, while less energy efficient, has more torque at lower rotor speeds and requires less pulley or gearing down, and might be a match to what you want. One of the search terms would be "Savonius Rotor" for the simplest one to build....it can be a 50gal drum cut in half and situated such that the wind is always catching one or the other, and rotates on a vertical shaft. Perhaps scaled down to whatever size you are planning. The principle of operation is no different from a wind anemometer (cups spinning around), and is very simple.

Here are some links I collected recently:

http://yarchive.net/explosives/black_powder.html

http://www.freepyroinfo.com/Pyrotechnic ... Powder.pdf

other links at that freepyroinfo site....

I guess it goes without saying, be very very careful, keep your lot sizes small, and keep it damp after you mix the ingredients...it has to stay damp....! and don't let the Homeland Security folks get the wrong idea!

Let us know how it goes.

YHS,
rogerw


----------

