ffg vs fffg

Status
Not open for further replies.

BCRider

Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
7,853
Location
Pacific North"Wet" Coast of Canada
Got talking yesterday to someone that shot some black powder way back when. He was surprised to find out that I was using fffg in my Remingtons instead of ffg. At one point I mentioned that the balls loaded deep with the fffg. Me mentioned he was able to shoot Remingtons with a much fuller load of ffg since the coarser grain meant that the same weight resulted in less powder since it didn't pack in as tightly. He mentioned that they used to load up to where the ball would barely fit with ffg and it did not over power the gun. To me that suggests about 35 to 38 grains by volume but I'm not sure what the weight would be.

What say the THR pundits to this?
 
To me that suggests about 35 to 38 grains by volume but I'm not sure what the weight would be.

The ffg black powder volume to weight conversion ratio is accepted as being ~1:1, i.e. - ~100 grains by volume equals ~100 grains by weight.
See chart 1 on the linked page:

http://www.curtrich.com/BPConversionSheet.htm

Note: All Black Powder Loading Instructions refer to VOLUME. 100 gr. VOLUME of BP equals approximately 100 gr. WEIGHT.
 
He mentioned that they used to load up to where the ball would barely fit with ffg and it did not over power the gun. To me that suggests about 35 to 38 grains by volume but I'm not sure what the weight would be.

Why be concerned about weight at all. All black powder c&b loading is by volume. A chamber full of FFg is the same volume as chamber full of FFFg. The FFFg should be a bit hotter load because it burns faster. Maybe I'm missing your point, I'm still working on my first cup of coffee.
 
Ah yes, the burn rate. Since I can already see still burning particles coming out of the other C&B's being shot at these events it's likely that running with 2fg would end up with more of it burning externally. Sort of ends up being a self limiting velocity setup I'm guessing :D Don't notice it on my own because I'm too busy looking over the sights.

I'm going to stick with the 3fg since I've managed to secure a long'ish term source of it. But it's only the 3Fg that is available.

Anyone else ever noticed that you can't truly appreciate the smoke and flame our toys belch out until you're standing to the side watching them being shot by someone else? Somehow the concentration of shooting them well gets in the way.
 
BC, I am with ya on that one!:what:
It is fun watching others shoot Black Powder guns.

short story:

On my way to work tonight, I stopped at the local gun store. (he he he)
took a pic of this bran new Traditions trapper 50 cal. Sent it to my wife.

Her response, "So you want that for Christmas?"

Mine, YEP!.

He he he I love her.
 
Um I don't think the burn rate is hugely different between the two; I don't think 2Fg is 50% slower than 3Fg for example. I think that nearly the same percetage of volume of unburned powder is launched out the barrel, but as the individual bits of powder in 2Fg have a bit more mass and so take a split second longer to be consumed, the naked eye sees them better as they fly. So say 3Fg throws 10% of burning powder bits out of the muzzle, and 2Fg thows 12%, the 2Fg is easier for you to see it so appears to be a big difference. So it's more fun. I think the fellow who thought that simply by using 2Fg he was free to use max volumes is a testiment to modern Italian metalurgy. Back in the day with some revolvers, he might have had a problem.

LD
 
If you look at the Lyman Black Powder Handbook section on shooting C&B revolvers the velocities and pressures generated by equal weights of 2F verses 3F, you'll see that 3F consistently has higher velocity and pressure.
 
A shooter I know claims that 2F doesn't blow the caps back and jam up the cylinder the way 3F does on his 1858. Wonder what granulation they used back during the Civil War?
 
I'm feeling really confused now...


I thought burn rates respectively recommended 3f for Pistols, and, 2f for Long Barrel Rifles or Muskets or Shotguns.


Should I be intending then to use "2f" in my .44 Dragoon? Or in re-loading .45 LC metallic Cartridge?

Or...should I use 3f?


Will the same 'full charge' volume of 2f really give higher fps than 2f, out of a Revolver???
 
I thought burn rates respectively recommended 3f for Pistols, and, 2f for Long Barrel Rifles or Muskets or Shotguns.
Yep. Some people modify that to use 3f in long rifles of less than .50 cal, but it's essentially true.


Should I be intending then to use "2f" in my .44 Dragoon? Or in re-loading .45 LC metallic Cartridge?
Nope.

Or...should I use 3f?
Yep.


Will the same 'full charge' volume of 2f really give higher fps than 2f, out of a Revolver???
Huh?

Pick one:
Will the same 'full charge' volume of 3f really give higher fps than 2f, out of a revolver?
Yes.
Will the same 'full charge' volume of 2f really give higher fps than 3f, out of a revolver?
No.
 
Ooooops...Lol...that was a typo...


Meant to say/ask -

"Will the same 'full charge' volume of 2f really give higher fps than 3f, out of a Revolver???"


Anyway...thanks mykeal...
 
Should I be intending then to use "2f" in my .44 Dragoon? Or in re-loading .45 LC metallic Cartridge?

I'll put it this way...in my Dragoon the .45 Colts I had were 35gr of fffg Goex BP w/ a 255gr conical ... they were hot even in the Dragoon, not too hot but good hot(accurate).
I'm using 35gr ffg KIK BP in my .45Colt carts(fill um) for my Rogers&Spencer and my ROAs Revs.
You could use either by volume in the C&B cylinder mode...fffg creating tighter groups.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top