[mr_dove]

can anyone tell me how it came about that powder is measured in grains rather than some standard measure such as grams or something?

Is there a conversion from grains to grams?

I'm that there's some interesting history behind this, I just hope that someone here knows what it is.

[Third_Rail]

Blackpowder was originally measured quite literally in grains. Then there was some standarization, then grainloads for brass cases, then smokeless powder came along, which had to be loaded with MUCH less in terms of grains, and then we have the current "grains". So basically, it's because of blackpowder.

[Mal H]

Is there a conversion from grains to grams?

Seems there's a conversion from most anything to anything else. To convert grains to grams, multiply grains by .0648.

To convert feet per sec. to furlongs per fortnight, multiply fps by 1832.5. (Don't ask me why I remember that. :) ))

http://www.convertit.com/Go/Bioresearchonline/Measurement/Units.ASP?Letter=A

[Cortland]

The grain is the base unit of measure for the troy, avoirdupois, tower, and apothecary (and probably other) systems of weight measures and is by no means confined to the loading of firearms (either in origin or practice). The grain is the common unit of all of these systems, but from that point onwards they tend to diverge. For example, an avoirdupois pound (on which the U.S. Customary system is based) consists of 7000 grains, whereas a troy pound consists of 5760 grains (as does an apothecary pound). The grain is quite plainly not derived from blackpowder; it is a unit of measure whose application was (and still is) much more diverse. It has existed for a very long time and was no doubt standardized in England based on the measure of (you guessed it) grain. Blackpowder has historically been measured in avoirdupois drams. 1 dram = 1/16 oz. = 7000/256 gr. = ~27 gr.

Gunpowder has been measured in America and abroad for a very long time, well predating the metric system. You could measure powder in something like centigrams, but that's no more standard (and indeed in America, less standard) than grains. I have an old Norma loading manual from the late 60s which shows everything in grains AND grams -- this of course was when metrication was taking off in the Europe and looked like it might actually be possible in the U.S. -- I'm not sure if the Europeans (those who can still own firearms anyway) still use grains.

There are few applications in which such tiny weights are of consequence in daily life, so most people haven't heard of the grain, but that doesn't mean it's not standard. Many of the more standard units in the U.S. Customary system are based on more units esoteric: for instance, the U.S. acre is defined as 1 chain x 1 furlong. That works out to 66 ft. by 1/8 mile.

Certainly the metric system is more user friendly, especially with respect to unit conversions, but U.S. Customary measure has a certain charm. It's a system that's been cobbled together over the course of centuries (if not millennia), and the more esoteric units of measure conspire only to give a depth of character and rustic warmth that you'll never find in the cold, scientific (and dare I say French) metric system.

Regarding a conversion factor from grains to grams, I would very respectfully ask what use a loyal American has for the Système International d'Unités?

[Swampy]

Good explanation from Cortland. Thanks.

IIRC, the "grain" in question was English barley... a very useful item in the making of those wonderful Ales, Porters, & Stouts.

7000 good, plump barley corns equaled 1 English pound. A measurement that's been around since long before black powder.

Best to all.

Swampy

[Third_Rail]

I stand well corrected! I'm going to have to double-check the rest of the "history" in my books.... :fire:

[M67]

Cortland You could measure powder in something like centigrams, but that's no more standard (and indeed in America, less standard) than grains. Try milligrams. It's standard even in the US for measuring small quanties of for example drugs.
I have an old Norma loading manual from the late 60s which shows everything in grains AND grams -- this of course was when metrication was taking off in the Europe and looked like it might actually be possible in the U.S. -- I'm not sure if the Europeans (those who can still own firearms anyway) still use grains. Actually, the metric system took off in Europe with the signing of the metre convention in 1875. Norway and Sweden (Norma was a Norwegian company that set up business in Sweden) both converted then. Prior to that we had our own systems, both different from the English. Both Norwegian and Swedish inches were for example longer than yours.

So when Norma and other European manufacturers still publish loading data in both metric and US units, it's probably for two reasons: One is that they can publish just one version of the manual for European and the US markets. Even if they may (or not) translate the text, the numbers are the same. The other reason is that, yes, some Europeans use grains to an extent. We don't "still" use it, because we never used the English avoirdupois weights. We use it alongside the metric system because a lot of the reloading equipment we use is US made and because we "all" read English and use American loading manuals as well as European ones.
Regarding a conversion factor from grains to grams, I would very respectfully ask what use a loyal American has for the Système International d'Unités? He can do that. The metric system has been legal in the US since the Metric Act of 1866. Also, may I very respectfully ask whether Thomas Jefferson was a loyal American? Didn't he propose a metric system? :D

[Cortland]

M67: you make some interesting points, thank you for enlightening me.

He can do that. The metric system has been legal in the US since the Metric Act of 1866. Also, may I very respectfully ask whether Thomas Jefferson was a loyal American? Didn't he propose a metric system?

My closing question was asked in fun (and clearly you realize that), but for well over 200 years the U.S. has stood firm against the metric system and the dangers of metrication, and to cop out and give up now would be, I believe, a disgrace. We're too far entrenched

Thomas Jefferson was a brilliant philosopher and statesman, but he was also a confessed Francophile. I believe that clouded his judgment in this case.

[Jim Watson]

Thomas Jefferson proposed *A* system of decimal weights and measures. It was NOT the French metric system or anything close to it.

His basic unit was the length of a rod pendulum with a period of one second at 45 deg latitude, 58.7+ inches. The "centre of oscilation" of a rod swung as a pendulum is at 2/3 the length of the rod. Not as easy to visualize as the usual wire and bob pendulum, but easier to measure. Note that a one second wire and bob pendulum is 39.15 inches which is close to a French metre and a lot easier to measure than 1/10,000,000 of the distance from pole to equator.

Jefferson actually had two proposals.

One was to define conventional measures in terms of the pendulum - a "line" or tenth of an inch was to be 1/587.2 of the pendulum length - and to drop out some of the specialized systems like different size gallons for beer and wine. (A US gallon is the 1842 Winchester wine gallon of 231 cubic inches. The British beer gallon of the period was 268 cubic inches. His first system worked out to give a gallon of 270 cubic inches.)

His other plan was to start from scratch and define everything in terms of the pendulum. A Jefferson foot would be 1/5 the pendulum, about 11 3/4 English inches, but there would be 10 inches to that foot, so the US inch would be larger than an English inch. And on from there into weights and measures. He thought there would be less confusion to use the traditional names even though the units would be of at least slightly different size; unlike the French system with a new name for each unit.

In Jefferson's own words:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/t_jeff.htm

[Standing Wolf]

Regarding a conversion factor from grains to grams, I would very respectfully ask what use a loyal American has for the Système International d'Unités?

None for me, thanks!

[Third_Rail]

I always use metric measurements; they're the scientific standard, and I like to be clearly understood. It's not a pound to me, it's 454 grams.

[Smokey Joe]

Some thoughts on the horrible metric system: (Rant mode: ON )

Hey, guys, WE are the only advanced country in the world where the metric system is not the standard. WE are the ones out of step.

In earlier times, every country had its own system of measurement (Which each country thought was THE BEST, of course) and it severely inhibited international trade. Now we are the only ones thus still shooting ourselves in the foot in international trade.

What's this about the "dangers" of the metric system? I fail to see as dangerous a system of measurement and calculation. Any system. Please explain how this can be dangerous. Different, ok. Scary to some, maybe. But dangerous?????

Canada converted from the "English" system (which even the English now do not use) all on one "Metric Day". We can't do that? Are we dumber than the Canucks?

As to the problems of switching, it's a one-time hassle, then done forever. Like getting an infected tooth pulled.

Are American machinists too dumb to learn to use a new set of dies? And most mechanics already have a set of metric wrenches—to use on the imports!

We've been doing it wrong. That's a tradition—a reason to continue to do it wrong? I thought a tradition was something to be proud of.

As to being automatically against anything French, well, I remind you that our own Statue of Liberty is French. So was Washington's excellent helper, Gen. Lafayette. So was the Louisiana Purchase before Napoleon needed some $$. So is the French Quarter of New Orleans. So is the genetics of many Americans whose ancestors emigrated from France. Marie Curie's husband Pierre was French, and that's where they did most of their work, discovering radium and paving the way for the atomic age. (She had moved from Poland to France to continue her education.)

When this country was being started, one of the advantages we built in was a decimal system of money. (This was a new idea at the time. Jefferson had a hand in adopting it. Therefore it's French, therefore it's bad, right?) We've used such a system ever since. It makes it easy to count change. Why the great reluctance to make it easy to measure stuff?

Well??? (Rant mode: OFF)

[mtnbkr]

Smokey Joe, you're absolutely correct. Keep in mind, however, that this is the nation of Freedom Toast and Freedom Fries.

Chris

[Cortland]

It's way too late now. If the U.S. had gone metric before the 70s, that would've been great. We would have been integrating ourself into the global community and promoting trade in the process.

It's too late now. The U.S. is constantly being brow-beaten by Europeans who proselystize the metric system like it's the one path to salvation, who deride the U.S. for being antiquated, backward, and insular, and who smugly point out that the only places left using Imperial measures are the U.S. and some of the deepest, darkest corners of Africa.

Hey, guys, WE are the only advanced country in the world where the metric system is not the standard. WE are the ones out of step.

We're also only one of two advanced countries in the world to use the death penalty. Should we get rid of that? We're one of only a handful of advanced countries in the world that allow private machine gun ownership. I suppose we need to step in line and get rid of that, too? We're also one of an increasingly smaller number of advanced countries to retain our national currency. Europe is switching to the Euro so I guess that means we should do the same.

What's this about the "dangers" of the metric system?

Going metric now would show great American weakness in the face of countries which are increasingly seeking to undermine American interests abroad. France, Germany, Spain -- they're all metric. To go metric now would be to accept defeat, and I shudder to think of the implications that may have for our national security.

Canada converted from the "English" system

Canada has spent the last 50 years trying with all its might (marginal though that may be) to be more European than the Europeans. Socialized healthcare, open borders, gun registration, metric system, etc. -- this is what Canada's reverence for European social innovation has brought it, and is precisely why I think America should remain firm in the face of such pressures.

Franco-American relations, while friendly at times, have historically always been characterized by the political interests of the French -- whether they be a war with Britain, increasing German militarism on the continent, or trying to stick it in, twist it around, and break it off with respect to the war in Iraq.

It's too late for the U.S. to say -- "oh, the metric system looks like a good idea, let's switch!" To give in to the primary proponents of the metric system would be accepting defeat from those countries trying hardest to undermine American influence and prosperity. America retains U.S. Customary measures not because we're incapable of change, it's just our way of telling the world: "we're not gonna take your crap any longer."

[Smokey Joe]

Cortland, you raise some interesting points. I just don't see a measurement system as being emotionally and socially charged, as you (and many others, apparently) do.

It's measurement, not politics. Ask any third grader, is dividing (for example) by 2.54, then 12, then 5280, easier, or is dividing by multiples of 10.

It's never too late to climb out of a puddle of horse doo doo. Ankle deep is better than knee deep, which is better than hip deep, which is better than shoulder deep, which is better than up to your nose.

[Johnny Guest]

I can't believe this has gone on for a month now. It started out very much on-topic, then veered slightly, and then wildly. We're 'WAY off into politics, internationalism, philosophy, and I don't even know what else.

So long as everyone stays polite, I'll leave it open, though . . . .




:)
Johnny

[30Cal]

To convert feet per sec. to furlongs per fortnight, multiply fps by 1832.5. (Don't ask me why I remember that. ))

I can only guess that you've stood the midwatch back in the engineroom of a ballistic missle submarine.

[Smokey Joe]

Thanx for the reminder. I've said my say, and I feel better for having done so. :)

[RonO777]

Try here
http://www.ispeck.com/Tweight.html


Ron

[BluesBear]

Well, it's actually 1832.7272 but who's counting. :neener:

[BigG]

Got the old sliderule out again, eh Bluesbear? :neener:

[Mal H]

:D :D

Nope, looks like he used a calculator. OTOH, I probably did use a slide rule, can't remember.