Loading 45 Colt black powder cartridge- need some help

[Cowhide Cliff]

Uh guys, you are arguing.

Anyway, if you go back to my photo, that is 41 grains of Schuetzen inside a Starline 45 Case. Yes, I weighed it. After a little bit of tapping on the table top the powder settled down to about 1/8" below the case mouth. Yes, if I tried to seat a bullet on top of this charge it would need a lot of compression and would probably deform the bottom of the bullet. If I was going to use this charge I would have to use a compression die to compress the powder enough so the bullet could be seated and crimped without deforming the rear of the bullet. If I was gonna, which I ain't.

And my photo shows it spilling over the case using two different powder measures. Mine was new brass so maybe lightly smaller but either brass is varying a lot which I don't believe or powder measures are all over the place.

 

[arcticap]

Swiss powder has been said to be about 11% denser by weight compared to Goex, so it shouldn't fill the case as much.
And it's a faster powder even when compared by equal weight.
That's why folks sometimes use Swiss 1.5F in rifles to replace equal volumes of Goex 2F.

 

[Dave T]

Uh guys, you are arguing.

No Mr Johnson, I am not arguing. I did not say Ugly Sauce is wrong, I simply stated my experience has been different. There are too many variables involved to say anyone is wrong. Different powder (brand), different brass, different measure, or an inaccurate scale all can change someone's results. Even loading technique could make 40g work or not work, depending.

Dave

 

[jaguarxk120]

In the "olden days" it was much easier to get 40 grains of powder in the 45 Colt case,
since the cases were inside primed and had greater inside volume.
It would be easier to get 40 grains todays case's if you used a long drop tube.

 

[Ugly Sauce]

Oh you guys beat me to it. For sure, big difference between argument and discussion.

Anyhow, I just got done weighing out 40 grains of 4fg, 3fg, 2fg. Granulation makes a difference. That's why our results vary! 4fg left the most space in the case, 2fg the least. I didn't try 1fg as the trend was obvious at that point. Didn't take any pics though.

I don't know if anyone knows what granulation was used originally, but I've seen plenty of old references to "fine" when talking about pistol powders. Pretty sure they weren't loaded with 2fg.

I will argue, I mean discuss, that the phase "black powder is always measured by volume, not weight. I believe a powder measure is set up to throw a specific weight of powder, but after that, depending on granulation or density of the powder that weight may "vary". !! Did that make sense? One is using volume to approximate weight. Otherwise we'd be referring to our loads in "cc's". "Hey Jeb, what you powder charge you using to hunt Grizz? Well Abe, 5cc is what old Betsy likes". I mean, if I was making a powder measure out of an antler tip for a rifle, and wanted it to be 80 grains, I'd be throwing powder charges on the scale until I got the weight I wanted. I wouldn't be measuring the volume in fractions of an inch. Of course in the old days, one would probably just hollow the measure out until it "looked" about right. So, saying that black powder is not measured by weight, does not really make sense. It is true that it's not practical to carry around scales, so we use volume to measure weight. I think I just said a whole lot about nothing.

 

[Ugly Sauce]

And my photo shows it spilling over the case using two different powder measures. Mine was new brass so maybe lightly smaller but either brass is varying a lot which I don't believe or powder measures are all over the place.

For sure, measures are all over the place. !!

 

[jaguarxk120]

In the "Old Day's" the starting load, was the ball in palm of hand and enough powder to cover the ball.
Starting load--adjust from there.

 

[Ugly Sauce]

True. I guess that would be a true volume measurement. Of course, that was a whole different "ball game". Factory loaded metallic cartridges being a little more concerned with more precise measurements.

I have an old powder horn and antler tip measure dating back to 1846, or perhaps a year or two before that, and I doubt that whoever made the horn and measure had any thoughts as to what the weight of the charge was that it threw. (throws 20.8 grains of 3fg) I'm thinking that they just kept carving it out until it "looked right", or the gun shot the way that they wanted.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

In the "Old Day's" the starting load, was the ball in palm of hand and enough powder to cover the ball.
Starting load--adjust from there.

That was the standard for muzzle loading, mostly with muskets. With a smooth bore musket, accuracy did not matter all that much. When metallic cartridges started being manufactured, something more repeatable was needed than covering a bullet in the palm of the hand with powder.

 

[Ugly Sauce]

No Mr Johnson, I am not arguing. I did not say Ugly Sauce is wrong, I simply stated my experience has been different. There are too many variables involved to say anyone is wrong. Different powder (brand), different brass, different measure, or an inaccurate scale all can change someone's results. Even loading technique could make 40g work or not work, depending.

Dave

Wait a minute! Are we arguing about not arguing? I could build a strong argument pertaining to that argument.

 

[woodnbow]

That was the standard for muzzle loading, mostly with muskets. With a smooth bore musket, accuracy did not matter all that much. When metallic cartridges started being manufactured, something more repeatable was needed than covering a bullet in the palm of the hand with powder.

Even in rifles shooting round ball or bullet such a “method” of measurement would be inaccurate to put it mildly. I’m sure the wired in types of the day did not arrive at a proper load using that technique. Turner Kirkland published it though so...

 

[Ugly Sauce]

More than likely, the common shooter understood "about" how much volume of powder was appropriate for the rifle in question, and was able to carve out a powder measure giving him/her/she/it the amount desired. Probably starting with a light load, and then enlarging the measure until they got the power level, or accuracy that they desired. I'm sure they understood weight, but probably though more in terms of volume. Well I just made that up, but why not?

Also, most if not almost all people grew up shooting rifles from an early age, as did their daddies, and just had a darn good idea of what amount of powder was appropriate for a given bore size. It was probably very common knowledge.

I suppose one could do the cover-the-ball-with-powder-in-the-palm-of-the-hand thing, and then make a measure that held that amount. Certainly can't imagine loading the rifle every time in such a manner. That does not make sense. "Hey Abe, how much powder do you put in old Betsy?? Well Leige, depends on how sweaty my palms are".

 

[woodnbow]

More than likely, the common shooter understood "about" how much volume of powder was appropriate for the rifle in question, and was able to carve out a powder measure giving him/her/she/it the amount desired. Probably starting with a light load, and then enlarging the measure until they got the power level, or accuracy that they desired. I'm sure they understood weight, but probably though more in terms of volume. Well I just made that up, but why not?

Also, most if not almost all people grew up shooting rifles from an early age, as did their daddies, and just had a darn good idea of what amount of powder was appropriate for a given bore size. It was probably very common knowledge.

I suppose one could do the cover-the-ball-with-powder-in-the-palm-of-the-hand thing, and then make a measure that held that amount. Certainly can't imagine loading the rifle every time in such a manner. That does not make sense. "Hey Abe, how much powder do you put in old Betsy?? Well Leige, depends on how sweaty my palms are".

“When you pull his teeth he’s as harmless as a heel hound!”

 

[Ugly Sauce]

"Watch out Abe...he's probably got a hide out gun"!

 

[Dave T]

In all my research on the 45 Colt's cartridge, some of it going back 30+ years, I have seen repeated references to the original load being 40g of FFg under a 255g RNFP. And initially the only ammunition available was factory loaded, either in a government armory/plant or a civilian ammunition maker.

My notes tell me in 1880 UMC's catalog listed the 45 Colt's as being 40g with a 250g bullet. The No1 & No5 Ideal Handbook list the 45 Colt load as 35g with a 250g bullet. An 1889 Winchester catalog lists their 45 Colt ammunition being loaded with 38g of powder behind a 255g bullet.

All interesting stuff and food for study and discussion.

Dave