FFFG in a .50cal?

[martysport]

Is it OK to use FFFG in a .50cal inline? (Tracker 209)
I have both FFG and FFFG powder but I've found a good offer on some FFFG powder.
I have a two .44 Pietta revolvers I can use it in them, I'm just curious if I can use it in a rifle too

 

[Voodoochile]

Sure why not, it is just a suggestion that many has passed on to use FFG for anything over .45 cal. but you're not going to hurt anything if you use FFFG as long as it's a resonable charge that the weapon is rated for, besides if that is the largest caliber rifle you have then the logistics of keeping one type of powerd will make things a little easier.

Just like any powder you just have to work at the charge/projectile that the weapon likes for best performance.

 

[towboat_er]

Been shooting fff fer years in my carbine.

 

[sltm1]

All day everyday and twice on Sunday....55-60g will shoot's superbly out of both my T/C Renegade & Mowrey.

 

[Beagle333]

I use Pyrodex P (fffg) in my inline (Genesis). I just don't go over 120 grains. (not sure why anybody would... but)

 

[PapaG]

Have used GOI 3Fg in everything from a Zouave, to a TC Hawken/Renegade in 50, to a Big Boar 58, through my 12 ga shotguns. Never a problem. Nice pop to it, good results and I think the fouling might just be a little less.

 

[ThorinNNY]

There`s nothing wrong with using FFFG, provided you understand use of FFFG will cause higher pressures than use of FFG. Solution- reduce the load by 10 percent.
If your rifle is rated at say 100 grains FFG, using 90 grains of FFFG will be safe.

 

[longrifle346]

I always try to find an accurate load in FFFG first and I've been using FFFG as the primary powder in my rifles and smoothbores from 45 up to 62 caliber for years. I use less powder and the fouling is greatly reduced.

 

[Busyhands94]

I use FFFG in my .50 rifle, it's clean burning and shoots nice and flat. I love it!

75 grains of Triple Seven and a patched round ball is what I use, it'll blow away just about anything. I think for deer or buffalo I'd use that load, it's powerful and shoots flat.

 

[303tom]

http://www.chuckhawks.com/difference_black_powders.htm

 

[Buzzard II]

3F gives a little more boom for your buck than 2F. Try both, see what the gun likes! Both are safe!

 

[timber crasher]

I happily shot 3f in everything for years, till I was told I was wrong.Now I shoot kind'a stiff 777 loads in my .58 , so it's 2f now for .50 and up.

 

[Ray P]

Very helpful (& timely) thread. Just received today a Green Mountain .50 cal PRB barrel for my T/C Hawken. Tomorrow, I think I'll try some T7 FFFg; 60-80 gr spread.

 

[ReloaderEd]

50 grs of FFFG in the 50 or 54 Caliber TC with round balls is very accurage and my favorite load for paper and deer. .

 

[1911 guy]

I've found the same thing as ReloaderEd. My T/C Pa. Hunter like 50gr of FFFg under a PRB. I do use FFg as a hunting load since i can't get a heavier load of the finer stuff to shoot for poop and I consider 50gr to be too light for deer.

I wonder what the actual pressure curve looks like with smaller charges of finer powder under the heavy conicals?

 

[Ray P]

ReloaderEd & 1911 guy; I'll start out at 40 & go up Using .490 & maybe some .495 & linen from the plains pistol makin's box.

1911 guy; Agreed. A 'Hammer' would be helpful about now, if the grandkids don't screw it up.

 

[Zeke/PA]

Maybe I am the "Dumb One " BUT, in my .50 ,I use FFg and FFFg in my .36 Seneca and all my Pistols.
Years ago when I was just "getting started", those in the know recommended FFg in the .50 and up.
Followed advice and have NO problems.

 

[ThorinNNY]

Zeke
No you`re not the dumb one.But to every rule o thumb, there are exceptions.
I have a Parker Hale 1861 Enfield artillery/cavalry carbine. With 2 FFG,it throws a big fireball and fouls quick.I was clued into the fact that I can use FFG in it -no fireball, a lot less fouling.Also requires slightly less powder. I got this straight from our regional NMLRA rep.He`s a member of our muzzleloading club and shoots with us.
Even the instruction book for my .50 cal Lyman Great Plains Rifle gives suggested loads using both FFg and FFFG Black Powder.It`s more a matter of personal taste with .50 caliber and up.
Use FFg in a .32 or .36 rifle and you almost have to clean after every shot due to fouling making reloading so difficult.

 

[Ray P]

Well, FFFg loads from 45-65 grains worked very well in my new Green Mountain roundball barrel in my 30 year old T/C lock & stock. Generally seemed to shoot nice 1" groups (at 50 yds; 2 MOA) using the 55gr load under .490 rb & pre-lubed tc patch. The .495 & linen patches shot to the same point of impact. No noticible difference.

And the residue from 40 shots of FFFg 777 was very negligible. EASY clean-up.

Now I need to work on a new position for the T/C hunter peep; it doesn't raise high enough with the Lyman 17A front globe sight to put point of impact at point of aim. Tight groups, but consistently 6 inches low.

 

[loose noose]

What ThorinNNY said I shoot a .50 caliber TC Scout and use 3fg. powder exclusively, however, I reduce the load by 10% very accurate load.

 

[Old Cannonballs]

I tried some FFFG for a while in my .54 cal Lyman when I got a deal on some, but it was already used to FFG and didn't like the change. I tried varying the charge and all that, but nothing helped. With FFG I'd been getting fairly good groups at 100 yards, but with FFFG I was missing the paper about as often as I was hitting it. Finally I switched back to FFG, and all of a sudden I could shoot straight again.

 

[TheRodDoc]

There is a real reason for using 2F powder in most rifles.
The flame from the cap must ignite all the powder at once for best performance. that flame has to travel around all the granules of powder to the front of the powder column. The smaller the space between the grains the harder it is to make it to the front. And the longer that column of powder is the bigger the chance it won't make it.

If it does not, the gas from the first part of the charge that did ignite will build up it's pressure quickly and that very high pressure will pack the un-ignited part that was left against the back of the bullet. Then that packed part can only burn from the back as it goes down the barrel and out the muzzle.
And each shot can be different depending on how far the cap blast makes it through the powder. Causing larger differences in velocity between shots.
It is possible that 3F powder can produce slower velocities then 2F due to this.

Here is a drawing of what things might look like in a barrel using 3F powder.
The load in front represents a 30 grain load and the one behind is a 90 grain load. Every thing not ignited in the 90 grain load will be packed against the ball or bullet and not burn properly. The heavier the bullet the worse it gets.

If 2F would have been used the cap flame has more space to go around all the grains to make it to the front of the 90 grain load much easier.

People that crush the powder when loading make this even worse.

 

[mykeal]

Then why do we ever use 3f at all?

And why does 4f routinely produce higher pressures, and thus velocities, than either 3f or 2f?

I believe the Lyman Black Powder Handbook shows higher velocities for 3f in every case where a direct comparison can be made. At least all the ones I checked were - are there any where 2f is higher?

 

[TheRodDoc]

3F will produce a higher pressure then 2F but that is no guarantee that it will produce a higher velocity for the bullet because of the problem that can happen in my last post. In other words a whole column of 2F ignited by the cap all at once can give the same or even more velocity then 3F if it's same length of column does not all ignite by the cap at once.

In revolvers the cap blast most likely can make through 3F ok But it might not in a rifle where the powder column is 3 times longer.

Plus the fact that since the 3F burns faster and creates a higher pressure, that any powder not getting lit by the cap will packed so dense that it can get thrown out the muzzle without burning.

This is all explained in this document below: (plus anything else you would ever want to know about gunpowder) If I remember right it was printed in 1886.



HANDBOOK OF THE MANUFACTURE AND PROOF OF GUNPOWDER,

AS CARRIED ON AT THE Royal Gunpowder Factory, Waltham Abbey.
Captain F. M. SMITH, Royal Artillery,

ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT.

Printed By Order Of The Secretary Of State For War.

LONDON:

Printed under the Superintendence of Her Majesty's Stationery Office

By George Edward Eyre and William Spottiswoode,

Printers to the Queen's most Excellent Majesty.

And sold by W. Clowes & Sons, 14, Charing Cross; Harrison & Sons, 59, Pall Mall;

W. H. Allen & Co., 13, Waterloo Place; W. Mitchell, 39, Charing Cross;

Longman & Co., Paternoster Row; and Trubner & Co., Paternoster Row;

Also by A. & C. Black, Edinburgh;

Alex. Thom, Abbey Street, and E. Ponsonby, Grafton Street, Dublin;

Price Five Shillings.

 

[mykeal]

Well, I don't happen to have a copy of that document in my library at the moment. Perhaps you can provide a link to procure it?

The smaller the space between the grains the harder it is to make it to the front...If 2F would have been used the cap flame has more space to go around all the grains to make it to the front of the 90 grain load much easier.

Does the paper explain why, since 'flame' is a plasma and occupies no space, density of the medium has any effect on it?

In the mean time, nice theory, where's the data? Do you have any response to my observations about the data in the Lyman Black Powder Handbook? Is there evidence (experimental data) of coarser powder producing higher pressures/velocities that you can provide?