BHP FAN
Member
Conventional wisdom is often wrong, and if we always did things the same, just because it was good enough for our forfathers, we'd all still be packing percussion six-shooters...which, I guess, would be pretty cool!
Just ran several tests..
- Thread starter GENTLEMAN OF THE CHARCOAL
- Start date
- Status
Norton Commando
Member
I have a gun book at home that covers the history of guns/firearms from Friar Bacon's time until just after the civil war.
Interestingly, in the early makings of black powder, the book quotes the use of Hazelwood for the charcoal. Also, the first projectiles fired via black powder were not balls, but rather arrow/spear shaped objects; at least that's what the book and early paintings of "cannons" suggest.
Great stuff!
Interestingly, in the early makings of black powder, the book quotes the use of Hazelwood for the charcoal. Also, the first projectiles fired via black powder were not balls, but rather arrow/spear shaped objects; at least that's what the book and early paintings of "cannons" suggest.
Great stuff!
Last edited:
GENTLEMAN OF THE CHARCOAL
Member.
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2008
- Messages
- 1,632
Well anyway....I looked up Hazelwood on the internet and found many links. Couldn't find anything about it's being used in the making of blackpowder or of any type of gunpowder. Dosen't mean it wasn't there though for sure. I bet it's on here somewhere; I just wasn't lucky enough to stumble across it..I use TS3fff. The only reason I make a couple of ounces every now and then is just to keep my hand in so to speak. The reasons I experimented with different woods is because I got to wondering what people done when they needed to make some powder and no willow wood was handy. Then Articap told me something about charcoal natural lump would work good. He was right to. (he usually most always is). Then I checked with some chemical supply houses and they told me hell yes. Natural hardwoods charcoal with no additives would work excellent. They were right to. The only reason I tried Mesquite is because as many people on here already know, I am a Walker man. (Uberti 1847 Colt Walker). I know I read somewhere on this damn computer (from archives and posted as fact) that Old Man Walker was known to turn down gunpowder supplied to his rangers here and there because he preferred his own powder for his personal use which he more or less made for himself and used Mesquite for burning charcoal..I had to change the mixture (formula) around but it didn't take much changing (stayed basically the same) and I ended up with what I would rate as some pretty damn good powder. (I compare everything to TS3fff and BlackMag3 as far as easy ignition and power. If it won't ignite easily then it's not worth a damn to me. If it has no power to push that ball on down the line then it SURE isn't worth a damn to me)
As I mentioned in an earlier post, simply go to www.skylighter.com and Harry will help you with all the stuff you need to make BP at good prices...you don't have to hassle with stump remover or anything else. You will even get a great newsletter with amazing info on everything you ever wanted to know about BP (and pyrotechnics) from the simple to more complex techniques.
Another good supplier is Firefox...Gary and Diane are really nice folks!
http://www.firefox-fx.com/
Another good supplier is Firefox...Gary and Diane are really nice folks!
http://www.firefox-fx.com/
makos_goods
Member
You do know that Walker really wasn't an old man, he was 30 when he died...
GOATC,
I am very serious about tracing the story you related about Samuel Walker and his production of gun powder in Texas. I have an entire section of my library devoted to the books about the early Texas Rangers. I have the works of Walter P. Webb, Mike Cox, Clyde Durham[FONT="], [/FONT]Samuel Reid, Jr., Stephen L Moore, Frederick Wilkins to name a few.
I know you are an expert on Samuel Walker so forgive me for being so gauche, but could you identify the time period in his time in Texas that he set up this powder manufacturing operation? I am including a time line of Walker’s life you will undoubtedly be familiar with from the time he entered Texas in 1842 until his death in 1847. It would greatly reduce the amount of searching I will need to do if you could identify the specific period it took place in from the list below.
- Jan 1842 Walker came to Texas
- Mar 1842 Vasquez loots San Antonio
- Sept 1842 Woll Occupies San Antonio
- Sept 1842 Walker Signs on with Capt. Billingsly (Hays and Wallace part of Billingsly’s force) during the Woll incursion
- Oct 1842 Somervell Expedition into Mexico, Walker participates
- Dec 18, 1842 Gen. Somervell declares the expedition over
- Dec. 19, 1842 William Fisher refuses to quit, Walker and Wallace join him, Jack Hays returns to Texas and warns them of failure.
- Dec. 23, 1842 Fisher Invades Mier
- Dec. 25, 1842 Wallace wounded and captured
- Dec. 26, 1842 Fisher and rest surrender
- July 30, 1843 Walker escapes a second time (this time for good)
- Sept. 1843 Arrives by ship in New Orleans
- Late Winter 1844 Enlists in Texas Rangers as part of Jack Hays’ company
- Late Winter 1842 Wounded by lance recuperated over several months
- June 8, 1844 “Walker Creek Fight” First major use of Hays’ tactics with Paterson revolvers against Comanches
- June 8, 1844 Wounded in “Big Fight” , out while recuperating
- Wounded two more times each time out for a month or more while recuperating
- Wounded again, gets the nickname “Unlucky” Walker for his multiple wounding beginning in Mier.
- Mar 28, 1846 After last convalescence discharged from Hays’ company
- May 13, 1846 American Congress declares war on Mexico
- June 1846 Joins Gen. Taylor at the Rio Grande
- June 30, 1846 Appointed as Capt. In the U.S. Mounted Rifles by Taylor (he is allowed to retain his Ranger Commission until Oct. 2, 1846
- July 1846 Heads East for six months to raise money and get equipment for his command. Heads to Washington
- Nov. 1846 Meets with Colt in New York
- April 1847 Back to Texas
- May 10, 1847 Disembarks his force in Vera Cruz
- May, 27, 1847 Sets up a post in Perote Castle
- July – Oct 1847 Protecting American supply lines for Taylor and Scott
- Oct. 4, 1847 Gen Lane passed through Perote Castle on the way to Puebla enlists the aid of Walker’s force
- Oct. 9, 1847 Walker killed in the assault in Huamantla
Fortunately for you I am a registered researcher with access to the archives at the Texas State Library, the Texas Ranger Research Center in Waco, the Texas A&M military history archives and the Sanders-Metzger Collection and museum. I also have reciprocal access rights with almost any of the State university library systems both electronically and onsite. I will declare myself guilty of shamelessly using my relationship with my 2nd cousins husband to have gained access to the archives and in obtaining the necessary credentials. Once you give me the lead I need it will be relatively easy to find the original source of the information you have cited.
Regards,
Mako
Last edited:
I would like to understand more about how 'Sugar' ( as in White, refined, Cane Sugar? Or? ) and in what proportions, increases the burn rate or whatever it is that it does do, in otherwise basic Black Powder.
And, would it have to be introduced early in the process ( as a Powder form, or, as a Liquid Suspension in Alcohol and or Water? or? ) to be mulled or ground with the Sulfur and Saltpeter? Or..?
This is very interesting...
And, would it have to be introduced early in the process ( as a Powder form, or, as a Liquid Suspension in Alcohol and or Water? or? ) to be mulled or ground with the Sulfur and Saltpeter? Or..?
This is very interesting...
Last edited:
Smokin'Joe
Member
Samuel Wakler
M.G. Was Samuel Walker ever armed with the revolver that is named for him?
M.G. Was Samuel Walker ever armed with the revolver that is named for him?
Norton Commando
Member
GOTC - the Hazelwood charcoal reference was made by Harold L. Peterson in his book The Treasury of the GUN.
Interestingly, when I as perhaps 11-12 years old, I and a friend made a big batch of black powder using ground up sulfur, saltpeter and of all things, Kingsford Edge charcoal. We guessed at all the proportions. It certainly wasn't a very efficient black powder mixture, but it was a real thrill for us kids to see it burn and explode homemade firecrackers!
Interestingly, when I as perhaps 11-12 years old, I and a friend made a big batch of black powder using ground up sulfur, saltpeter and of all things, Kingsford Edge charcoal. We guessed at all the proportions. It certainly wasn't a very efficient black powder mixture, but it was a real thrill for us kids to see it burn and explode homemade firecrackers!
col.lemat
Member
Walkers Colts
He was presented with two pistols. S.N. 1009 & 1010
He was presented with two pistols. S.N. 1009 & 1010
Smokin'Joe
Member
Samuel Walker
At what point was the Walker revolver officially named "Walker"? Was this before or after his death?
At what point was the Walker revolver officially named "Walker"? Was this before or after his death?
Norton Commando
Member
At what point was the Walker revolver officially named "Walker"? Was this before or after his death?
Good question; I'd say that this particular Colt was named in his honor after Walker's death during the battle of Huamantla. But this is just a WAG.
Good question; I'd say that this particular Colt was named in his honor after Walker's death during the battle of Huamantla. But this is just a WAG.
makos_goods
Member
Joe,
It never was
After Walker's death it was said that Colt referred to it as the Walker. The primary cause for us to know it as the Walker is because of Colt's collectors.
We could just as easily call it the Model 1847 Colt, just as we designate the 1851, 1860, 1861 and so on. The 1848 models become a bit more complicated because there is a pocket pistol in .31 caliber that shares the same date. But the Dragoons are actually in the parlance that the Army purchased them US model 1848 Holster Pistols.
The very misnamed 1848 "Baby Dragoon" shows just how that the names we use today are whimsical creations of modern writers and collectors. The .31 caliber pocket pistol has no connection whatsoever with the pistols being purchased by the U.S. government for their mounted troops (note this is not Cavalry). The factory official name for the "Baby Dragoon" was the Colt Pocket Pistol Model 1848, .31 Caliber.
Have you also noticed how that any square back trigger guard is often called a "Dragoon trigger guard?" Once these names get started they take on a life of their own.
Now there is one Colt pistol that has a mystery to the name, and that is what we should call the 1848 Whitneyville Dragoon produced by Whitney before the move to Hartford. Some argue that it should simply be called the 1848 Dragoon, or more correctly the US Model 1848 Dragoon without any model designator. They argue that it is no different than the 1911 without a suffice preceding the 1911A1 or the M16 preceding the M16A1 and A2 models.
There is debate about whether or not the Army ever even saw any of these pistols as submissions, or if they all went the commercial route and Colt waited to submit his (1st model) first pistol produced in Hartford to meet the critiques of the original 1847 Holster Pistol design. I tend to support the second position.
~Mako
It never was
The Army board called it the U.S. Model 1847 Holster Pistol, that is the official name.
After Walker's death it was said that Colt referred to it as the Walker. The primary cause for us to know it as the Walker is because of Colt's collectors.
We could just as easily call it the Model 1847 Colt, just as we designate the 1851, 1860, 1861 and so on. The 1848 models become a bit more complicated because there is a pocket pistol in .31 caliber that shares the same date. But the Dragoons are actually in the parlance that the Army purchased them US model 1848 Holster Pistols.
The very misnamed 1848 "Baby Dragoon" shows just how that the names we use today are whimsical creations of modern writers and collectors. The .31 caliber pocket pistol has no connection whatsoever with the pistols being purchased by the U.S. government for their mounted troops (note this is not Cavalry). The factory official name for the "Baby Dragoon" was the Colt Pocket Pistol Model 1848, .31 Caliber.
Have you also noticed how that any square back trigger guard is often called a "Dragoon trigger guard?" Once these names get started they take on a life of their own.
Now there is one Colt pistol that has a mystery to the name, and that is what we should call the 1848 Whitneyville Dragoon produced by Whitney before the move to Hartford. Some argue that it should simply be called the 1848 Dragoon, or more correctly the US Model 1848 Dragoon without any model designator. They argue that it is no different than the 1911 without a suffice preceding the 1911A1 or the M16 preceding the M16A1 and A2 models.
There is debate about whether or not the Army ever even saw any of these pistols as submissions, or if they all went the commercial route and Colt waited to submit his (1st model) first pistol produced in Hartford to meet the critiques of the original 1847 Holster Pistol design. I tend to support the second position.
~Mako
Here is a great text/video tutorial from Skylighter on the making of your own BP...he uses dextrin (a type of potato starch) in his formula which I refrain from because it slows the burn rate down a little bit.
This should answer most if not all of your questions on how this is done. His grains are comparable to 2Fa but by further breaking them down you can produce good 2Fg or 3Fg sizes...he shows you how...very easy and simple.
Hope you guys enjoy it...let me know!
http://www.skylighter.com/fireworks/how-to-make/Black-Powder-Quick-and-Cheap.asp
This is his chem kit for making 10 pounds of your own powder at under $6/pound.
And no I don't work for this guy...have never met nor even talked to him but I know of him and his reputation, which is excellent.
Enjoy...
http://www.skylighter.com/mall/kits.asp?fl=search#KT0700
This should answer most if not all of your questions on how this is done. His grains are comparable to 2Fa but by further breaking them down you can produce good 2Fg or 3Fg sizes...he shows you how...very easy and simple.
Hope you guys enjoy it...let me know!
http://www.skylighter.com/fireworks/how-to-make/Black-Powder-Quick-and-Cheap.asp
This is his chem kit for making 10 pounds of your own powder at under $6/pound.
And no I don't work for this guy...have never met nor even talked to him but I know of him and his reputation, which is excellent.
Enjoy...
http://www.skylighter.com/mall/kits.asp?fl=search#KT0700
Last edited:
Oyeboten...I don't know of any true BP formula using sugar although I have read somewhere there is a BP substitute using sugar.
Sugar in just about any pyro mixture would be considered a fuel...and not a bad one at that. It's a common ingredient in smoke mixtures (lactose/milk sugar) but in there normally as a cooling agent. For "candy" rockets, you use small tubes and a formula of 70% pot nitrate and 30% sugar (powdered confectioners). It is simply run through fine mesh screens a few times then rammed into the rocket tube which has to be a core burning type. They are not very powerful but they are unique and give off a nice, thick, milky white trail all the way until it burns out.
There is another type of "candy" rocket fuel which is far more powerful but it entails cooking the chemicals and unless you are experienced it's best to stay away from it
Sugar in just about any pyro mixture would be considered a fuel...and not a bad one at that. It's a common ingredient in smoke mixtures (lactose/milk sugar) but in there normally as a cooling agent. For "candy" rockets, you use small tubes and a formula of 70% pot nitrate and 30% sugar (powdered confectioners). It is simply run through fine mesh screens a few times then rammed into the rocket tube which has to be a core burning type. They are not very powerful but they are unique and give off a nice, thick, milky white trail all the way until it burns out.
There is another type of "candy" rocket fuel which is far more powerful but it entails cooking the chemicals and unless you are experienced it's best to stay away from it
CharlesK80
Member
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2011
- Messages
- 23
Makos, I have never made BP nor purchased any lot greater than 25 pounds at a time. I am jealous of your knowledge of the sport, its tools and powders.
However, I was astonished at your implication that Union black powder was inferior to that produced in the Georgia mill based upon the sole assertion of a Gen. Rains who was the manager of that mill.
Not exactly an unbiassed source and certainly not an objective test. The memory of the good General is not much of a reasonable basis upon which a reasonable conclusion can be made. A speech made at a Confederate reunion may perhaps exaggerate a bit, yes? And you take it at face value?
Further, why suggest that all Southern BP was superior to all Federal based upon the alleged production of one Rebel facility ?
Sorry, I’m not buying it.
Give Gen. Rains another drink and he may well exclaim that Southern brass was better than Northern steel. And the Visitor Center will quote it.
However, I was astonished at your implication that Union black powder was inferior to that produced in the Georgia mill based upon the sole assertion of a Gen. Rains who was the manager of that mill.
Not exactly an unbiassed source and certainly not an objective test. The memory of the good General is not much of a reasonable basis upon which a reasonable conclusion can be made. A speech made at a Confederate reunion may perhaps exaggerate a bit, yes? And you take it at face value?
Further, why suggest that all Southern BP was superior to all Federal based upon the alleged production of one Rebel facility ?
Sorry, I’m not buying it.
Give Gen. Rains another drink and he may well exclaim that Southern brass was better than Northern steel. And the Visitor Center will quote it.
Last edited:
makos_goods
Member
Charles....
Go back and read the post you are referring to more carefully. You are arguing with the wrong person, I didn't say it, Gen. Rains didn't say it either, furthermore the information is just provided by the visitors center, they didn't create it.
Your argument is with Gen. Dyer chief of ordnance for the U.S. Army who accepted the report from the test of Confederate munitions secured at Fort Monroe. The U.S. Army Ordnance Board said the Union powder was inferior as you put it.
The speech by General Rains also made no mention of the report, I doubt Rains would have cited it to a meeting of the "Survivors of the Confederacy." General Rains speech talked about the advanced methods they employed, the quality they maintained until the mill was closed and the fact the Confederate Armies East of the Mississippi never ran short of powder while the mill was open. So before you "sniff" at Confederate powder production there is another book you should read called Never for want of powder: the Confederate Powder Works in Augusta, Georgia.
That was very true, they often had powder and no projectiles for their artillery. Confederate guns often resorted to stones and anything they could stuff down the tubes.
There are also entire books written on the efforts to obtain Potassium Nitrate and Sulfur during the war. One such book is Caverns of War: Confederate Saltpeter Cave Operations in Western Virginia. In another book about the logistics of the Confederacy called General Lee's Army: From Victory to Collapse[FONT="], there are entire chapters devoted to the mining operations of sulfur, copper, gold, silver, lead, iron and soft coal. Nitric acid was always in short supply and that became a major strategic need for the Southern States.
This isn't a whim or mythic tale of Southern superiority, the report to the Army Board is simply a scientific report based on data gathered in the years following the war. The reason people know about it today is that it wasn't popular at the time in Washington and they repeated the tests. Later when the Department of the Army tried to compel the former staff of the Powder Works to relate what they knew, you can guess the answer they got.
I'll leave this for you to research now...See if you can find who gave the information to the Army in 1867, the same information that they had been threatening individuals with imprisonment with if they didn't divulge it. After you find it report back here and also tell us what the "ransom" paid for that information was.
Regards,
Mako
[/FONT]
arcticap
Member
Here's info. about the 2 largest northern powder manufacturers that are alleged to have produced about 80% of the north's black powder during the Civil War.
CharlesK80
Member
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2011
- Messages
- 23
Makos, thank you for your excellent reply. My researches are quite limited and the prospect of my finding answers to your questions would be like a pig searching for pearls. Please, since you know the answers, favor us with the information.
The only significant report on this issue is that of the Federal Department of War, not the self-serving Gen. Rains.
I think the Secretary of War was at that time Stanton who was opposed to Pres. Johnson’s reconstruction efforts. Secy. Stanton would have encouraged the publication of such a threatening report, whether true or not. Just another reason to keep a boot on the neck of the South.
I confess that I have never read nor heard any prior expression to the effect that the Union black powder was not the equal of any produced by any of the Rebel mills.
I toured what remains of the Augusta Powder Mill 5 years ago and recall being told by the friendly staff it survived without any war time damage to the structure, Sherman having elected to by-pass Augusta.
Making wonderful/horrible gun powder is one thing. Getting it to Rebel Gen. Johnson or Lee was another.
The only significant report on this issue is that of the Federal Department of War, not the self-serving Gen. Rains.
I think the Secretary of War was at that time Stanton who was opposed to Pres. Johnson’s reconstruction efforts. Secy. Stanton would have encouraged the publication of such a threatening report, whether true or not. Just another reason to keep a boot on the neck of the South.
I confess that I have never read nor heard any prior expression to the effect that the Union black powder was not the equal of any produced by any of the Rebel mills.
I toured what remains of the Augusta Powder Mill 5 years ago and recall being told by the friendly staff it survived without any war time damage to the structure, Sherman having elected to by-pass Augusta.
Making wonderful/horrible gun powder is one thing. Getting it to Rebel Gen. Johnson or Lee was another.
makos_goods
Member
Charles,
Thank you for the gracious answer. I read over my post and saw I made a mistake on a date, the first report from the tests at Fort Monroe was submitted in 1867. I should say “accepted,” according to records of the activities they had conducted earlier tests. That is not when the person I told you to research submitted their report to the Army.
The majority of the records are now in the national archives. For a while some of them were at the Augusta Museum of History which for a while had storage in the warehouses near the remaining chimney and the new mill that was built. Since you’ve been there then you know the history of the entire facility and how it was a huge complex, much more than just a powder mill. The mill actually ceased operation over a week after Lee surrendered. Since the city was bypassed everything remained intact.
G. W. Rains (who despite being called a General by the U.S. Parks service was actually a Colonel*) returned to his profession as a professor of Chemistry and Pharmacy at the Medical College of Georgia. He stepped in after the city acquired the complex which had been stripped by the U.S. Army and some of their “contractors” from 1865-1868. The reason the chimney remains is due to efforts by Rains and chronicled in the book about his speech. The city of Augusta tore down the two miles of water front factory but left the one chimney and gave it to the organization Rains had made his speech to seven years after his petition.
You probably guessed it was “General” Rains who stepped in by some accounts as early as 1868, but the official record shows 1870 and stopped the pressure being applied to the foreman and the chief chemist who helped close the facility in April of 1865. Rains had been given deferential treatment by the department of the Army because he was a West Point graduate and he had returned to teaching in Pharmacology and there was a dearth of doctors or anyone involved in medicine in the South after the war. Acting the gentleman as he always had he prepared a report which is in the National Archives in Washington D.C.
The entire complex was a marvel, and the safety measures put in place were unfortunately only implemented at one of the mills that Arcticap cited, The Hazard mill was destroyed in a huge blast in 1913 that was heard as far away as Connecticut. After that blast they begin looking for answers and the determination was that they hadn’t been applying the standards set by none other than G.W. Rains. Powder manufacturing is a dangerous business, as I wrote earlier the last “major” Goex incident was in 1997.
There was never an accident at the Augusta plant which produced close to 3 million pound of powder. This is testimony to the efforts and organization of the work processes. Rains had entire sections of the facility shut down after dark because he forbade use of artificial lighting. They prepped materials in areas which could be safely worked under lamp light and worked 24/7. This in some ways was a forerunner to J.I.T. manufacturing (Just In Time) that is now ballyhooed and attributed to the Japanese. It involved prepping just the right amount of materials the night before to allow complete use and shut down of the potentially explosive portions of the operation by nightfall.
Regards,
Mako
* "History" and the narrative now records Rains as a General, but CSA records show otherwise. The narrative takes on a life of it's own and is repeated until it becomes "history." If you think that is interesting you should study the "history" and the multiple narratives of Samuel H. Walker sometime. Even the information at the Ranger Museum is often wrong. They know it too, I kid the director almost everytime I see him and we are alone. Someday it may be rectified, but it will require the "historian" who wrote the material and former administrators to be out of the picture. I have encouraged him to put the information in place to be unsealed at a later date, because I am sure he will retire before it can come about. The Ranger Museum is not part of the Texas Rangers but it enjoys a close and supported relationship with them. The actual records in the State archives and the action reports maintained by what is now the combined DPS and Ranger archives are what determines in the factual record of the activities of the Texas Rangers.
Thank you for the gracious answer. I read over my post and saw I made a mistake on a date, the first report from the tests at Fort Monroe was submitted in 1867. I should say “accepted,” according to records of the activities they had conducted earlier tests. That is not when the person I told you to research submitted their report to the Army.
The majority of the records are now in the national archives. For a while some of them were at the Augusta Museum of History which for a while had storage in the warehouses near the remaining chimney and the new mill that was built. Since you’ve been there then you know the history of the entire facility and how it was a huge complex, much more than just a powder mill. The mill actually ceased operation over a week after Lee surrendered. Since the city was bypassed everything remained intact.
G. W. Rains (who despite being called a General by the U.S. Parks service was actually a Colonel*) returned to his profession as a professor of Chemistry and Pharmacy at the Medical College of Georgia. He stepped in after the city acquired the complex which had been stripped by the U.S. Army and some of their “contractors” from 1865-1868. The reason the chimney remains is due to efforts by Rains and chronicled in the book about his speech. The city of Augusta tore down the two miles of water front factory but left the one chimney and gave it to the organization Rains had made his speech to seven years after his petition.
You probably guessed it was “General” Rains who stepped in by some accounts as early as 1868, but the official record shows 1870 and stopped the pressure being applied to the foreman and the chief chemist who helped close the facility in April of 1865. Rains had been given deferential treatment by the department of the Army because he was a West Point graduate and he had returned to teaching in Pharmacology and there was a dearth of doctors or anyone involved in medicine in the South after the war. Acting the gentleman as he always had he prepared a report which is in the National Archives in Washington D.C.
The entire complex was a marvel, and the safety measures put in place were unfortunately only implemented at one of the mills that Arcticap cited, The Hazard mill was destroyed in a huge blast in 1913 that was heard as far away as Connecticut. After that blast they begin looking for answers and the determination was that they hadn’t been applying the standards set by none other than G.W. Rains. Powder manufacturing is a dangerous business, as I wrote earlier the last “major” Goex incident was in 1997.
There was never an accident at the Augusta plant which produced close to 3 million pound of powder. This is testimony to the efforts and organization of the work processes. Rains had entire sections of the facility shut down after dark because he forbade use of artificial lighting. They prepped materials in areas which could be safely worked under lamp light and worked 24/7. This in some ways was a forerunner to J.I.T. manufacturing (Just In Time) that is now ballyhooed and attributed to the Japanese. It involved prepping just the right amount of materials the night before to allow complete use and shut down of the potentially explosive portions of the operation by nightfall.
Regards,
Mako
* "History" and the narrative now records Rains as a General, but CSA records show otherwise. The narrative takes on a life of it's own and is repeated until it becomes "history." If you think that is interesting you should study the "history" and the multiple narratives of Samuel H. Walker sometime. Even the information at the Ranger Museum is often wrong. They know it too, I kid the director almost everytime I see him and we are alone. Someday it may be rectified, but it will require the "historian" who wrote the material and former administrators to be out of the picture. I have encouraged him to put the information in place to be unsealed at a later date, because I am sure he will retire before it can come about. The Ranger Museum is not part of the Texas Rangers but it enjoys a close and supported relationship with them. The actual records in the State archives and the action reports maintained by what is now the combined DPS and Ranger archives are what determines in the factual record of the activities of the Texas Rangers.
makos_goods
Member
Gentleman of the Charcoal,
I am going to have some free time this week and I could visit the stacks if necessary to review materials on Samuel Walker. Of the items of interest less than half of them have been electronically copied. If I had some direction as to the time period it would be of great help because I have to ask for each item one by one.
I have carefully read your posts and the inference is that it would have been during the time he had a command. Contrary to a lot of “historical” references (actually bad) you read about Walker, he was never was an officer or had a command in the Texas Rangers, he was an enlistee and never progressed beyond a basic Ranger. His days of command were entirely in the U.S. Army and based on your comments that would indicate he was producing powder while in Mexico.
Let me know as soon as you can. I’m heading out to Philadelphia next week and will be tied up for a while.
Regards,
Mako
I am going to have some free time this week and I could visit the stacks if necessary to review materials on Samuel Walker. Of the items of interest less than half of them have been electronically copied. If I had some direction as to the time period it would be of great help because I have to ask for each item one by one.
I have carefully read your posts and the inference is that it would have been during the time he had a command. Contrary to a lot of “historical” references (actually bad) you read about Walker, he was never was an officer or had a command in the Texas Rangers, he was an enlistee and never progressed beyond a basic Ranger. His days of command were entirely in the U.S. Army and based on your comments that would indicate he was producing powder while in Mexico.
Let me know as soon as you can. I’m heading out to Philadelphia next week and will be tied up for a while.
Regards,
Mako
BADUNAME47
Member
- Joined
- May 8, 2011
- Messages
- 24
Dear Makos Goods!
I guess that I am one of the few contemporary Americans that can claim that I MIGHT have shot some of the gunpowder made at the Augusta Powder Work. (Or it MIGHT have been from another Confederate powder mill or imported British powder.)
Back in the early 1970's a friend of mine that was into metal detecting found some old Confederate artillery shells. He "unloaded" them and was rewarded with about 5 pounds of gunpowder.
What I remember about the powder was that the grains were of various sizes. We screened the powder and ended up with some that, the grain size, was, roughly, in the modern FFg grain size.
We shot the powder in our muskets and I noted that rather than the blue/gray gunsmoke produced by DuPont, the smoke produced by this antique powder was very gray.
In your experience does black powder produced by willow charcoal, coal dust or whatever ingredients produce different colored gunsmoke? I am just curious why the gunsmoke produced by the Confederate gunpowder was so gray.
I guess that I am one of the few contemporary Americans that can claim that I MIGHT have shot some of the gunpowder made at the Augusta Powder Work. (Or it MIGHT have been from another Confederate powder mill or imported British powder.)
Back in the early 1970's a friend of mine that was into metal detecting found some old Confederate artillery shells. He "unloaded" them and was rewarded with about 5 pounds of gunpowder.
What I remember about the powder was that the grains were of various sizes. We screened the powder and ended up with some that, the grain size, was, roughly, in the modern FFg grain size.
We shot the powder in our muskets and I noted that rather than the blue/gray gunsmoke produced by DuPont, the smoke produced by this antique powder was very gray.
In your experience does black powder produced by willow charcoal, coal dust or whatever ingredients produce different colored gunsmoke? I am just curious why the gunsmoke produced by the Confederate gunpowder was so gray.
BADUNAME47
Member
- Joined
- May 8, 2011
- Messages
- 24
Dear Makos Goods
Regarding Sam Walker-my understanding is that although he had received a gift pair of Walker revolvers in Mexico from Sam Colt, his unit were not issued their Walker Colts until AFTER Sam Walker had been killed in combat.
Apparently Whitney were up to their old tricks-turning out lower quality arms when they made the Walker Colts for the government because many of the Walker Colts "blew up" in Mexico when the cylinders failed.
This might have led to the assumption that "homemade powder" was used in the Walker Colts because G.I. issue powder was "too powerful." That is my theory, at least!
Regarding Sam Walker-my understanding is that although he had received a gift pair of Walker revolvers in Mexico from Sam Colt, his unit were not issued their Walker Colts until AFTER Sam Walker had been killed in combat.
Apparently Whitney were up to their old tricks-turning out lower quality arms when they made the Walker Colts for the government because many of the Walker Colts "blew up" in Mexico when the cylinders failed.
This might have led to the assumption that "homemade powder" was used in the Walker Colts because G.I. issue powder was "too powerful." That is my theory, at least!
BADUNAME47
Member
- Joined
- May 8, 2011
- Messages
- 24
Dear Charles Regarding Yankee Powder
I understand that there were cases during "The Late Unpleasantness Between the States" where some Yankee powder contractors were caught mixing powdered charcoal into musket powder. The reason, of course, was to defraud the government by providing inferior powder. I.E., 100 pounds of powdered charcoal plus 400 pounds of gunpowder = 500 pounds of gunpowder for billing purposes!
I understand that there were cases during "The Late Unpleasantness Between the States" where some Yankee powder contractors were caught mixing powdered charcoal into musket powder. The reason, of course, was to defraud the government by providing inferior powder. I.E., 100 pounds of powdered charcoal plus 400 pounds of gunpowder = 500 pounds of gunpowder for billing purposes!
If that's true it would have been discovered after the gunpowder keg was opened. The powdered charcoal would be significantly different from the granulated gunpowder and of course the powdered charcoal would have settled to the bottom of the keg during shipment. At any rate the gunpowder truly would not have been inferior nor contaminated as it would have been a simple task to screen the gunpowder from the charcoal.
- Status
