Olde Eynsford

[rodwha]

I used to buy my powder from Grafs. It took about 3 lbs to negate the hazmat fee vs having bought the same T7 at Bass Pro, and 3 lbs was a reasonable about to spend. But they no longer carry it. I think it’s back in production. Where can I buy the amount elsewhere?

They do still sell Swiss ($39), which I’ve been interested in trying as well, but Olde E does well and costs less, and supports American jobs.

 

[hawg]

Everywhere I looked has it listed as out of stock. Maine Powder House has a projected restock of Fall 2024 so it's probably that way everywhere.

 

[Roverguy]

I see it available at a lot of online places that seem dodgy and OOS at all the usual suspects. Wasn’t there an explosion at the Goex factory last year?

 

[hawg]

Wasn’t there an explosion at the Goex factory last year?

Three years ago.

 

[armoredman]

Estes SAID they were shipping Goex and others this year, but I've not seen any. I am glad I snagged several pounds of OE before the shortage hit, by accident, almost.

 

[hawg]

Estes SAID they were shipping Goex and others this year, but I've not seen any. I am glad I snagged several pounds of OE before the shortage hit, by accident, almost.

Powder Inc. and Maine Powder House both have Goex.

 

[rodwha]

Powder Inc. and Maine Powder House both have Goex.

I use nothing but energetic powders, Olde E, Triple 7, and one day Swiss. Thanks though!

 

[Blackpowderwarrior]

I use nothing but energetic powders, Olde E, Triple 7, and one day Swiss. Thanks though!

Still have a case of oe where ya located

 

[hawg]

I use nothing but energetic powders, Olde E, Triple 7, and one day Swiss. Thanks though!

I was answering Armoredman.

 

[Ugly Sauce]

Buffalo Arms in Idaho has Swiss and Scheutzen. Or they did not too long ago when I stocked up. I may be wrong, but I think, don't know, and forget why I thinks so, but isn't Schuetzen superior to Olde E? I find it to be good powder, and plenty "energetic". It is less expensive than Swiss. 4fg Scheutzen gives me 1000fps out of an 1860 Colt with a six inch barrel. Anyhow, I use Swiss in my Jeager now, and Scheutzen in everything else, and have been totally satisfied with the Scheutzen.

 

[rodwha]

Still have a case of oe where ya located

I still have two unopened pounds along with a new Triple 7. I very much appreciate the offer though.

I had moved where the nearest outdoor range was over an hour away so I stopped shooting for 9 years! But I’m back and intend to go each month like before. I just wanted to see if there’s a place to shop at, I hate changing when I feel good with a company. Got nearly ten tins of Rem #10’s so I’m set for a bit, I’ll probably run out of lead before anything else. Gotta see if I can get more from the ole scrap yard, though I may buy 2% tin from Rotometal.

 

[armoredman]

My next BP loads in 45 Colt will actually be powered by home made BP with toilet paper charcoal. We will also be testing that powder in the Hip Howitzer.

 

[rodwha]

Buffalo Arms in Idaho has Swiss and Scheutzen. Or they did not too long ago when I stocked up. I may be wrong, but I think, don't know, and forget why I thinks so, but isn't Schuetzen superior to Olde E? I find it to be good powder, and plenty "energetic". It is less expensive than Swiss. 4fg Scheutzen gives me 1000fps out of an 1860 Colt with a six inch barrel. Anyhow, I use Swiss in my Jeager now, and Scheutzen in everything else, and have been totally satisfied with the Scheutzen.

From what I’ve seen Scheutzen has similar velocities to standard Goex, but cleaner burning.

From the test results I should expect roughly 900 fps pushing a 230 grn bullet (I have mine made at Accurate Molds to be short for its weight with a very wide meplat for hunting. My 1858 uses a weighed 33 grns of 3F Olde E. That’s a conservative figure with some claiming I should barely reach .45 ACP +P performance. We shall see.

As to 4F I’m getting great results. Were energetic powders unavailable it’s what I’d go to. And maybe if I ever decide to save up my hobby funds for a bit and get that Colt Police. With that said I do believe I’ll likely one day try Swiss 4F just to see what I see, but it seems those who have always seem to report that it’s not nearly as accurate. I know that the Civil War paper cartridges made by Hazard’s used their Pistol Powder which was powerful as Swiss and a 4F granulation. Something like a 211 grn bullet pushed by 36 grns of powder IIRC.

I’ve wanted to use the same powder for all of my arms, but I’m having trouble getting my .50 cal to do well, though I still have more things to test. And if nothing else works I’ll try 2F. If it can get me the desired results I’ll try it in my .44’s. Being energetic it’ll still pack a thump and outdo Goex, likely at the top end of .44 Spl, low end of .45 ACP performance with a fairly heavy boolit. My Ruger uses 5 more grains so it’d still have a whallop.

I would love to hear about your 4F usage, what you’ve tried and found to work and not work well. Not many believe it to be safe claiming it’s only to be used in the pan. Swiss’ former packaging clearly shows 4F as pistol powder and 3F as rifle. I’ve been told several things that I’ve found just aren’t necessarily true such as these pistols being too weak, no more powerful than a .38 Spl, and therefore inhumane to hunt with. Or you have to slather Crisco everywhere. And that they absolutely need cleaning as soon as you get home, which I do. But I’ve been shown and tested myself that if ever you can’t you can use an oil such as Ballistol and wet it fairly good. It’ll soak in and keep moisture from touching the steel.

 

[hawg]

Buffalo Arms in Idaho has Swiss and Scheutzen. Or they did not too long ago when I stocked up. I may be wrong, but I think, don't know, and forget why I thinks so, but isn't Schuetzen superior to Olde E? I find it to be good powder, and plenty "energetic". It is less expensive than Swiss. 4fg Scheutzen gives me 1000fps out of an 1860 Colt with a six inch barrel. Anyhow, I use Swiss in my Jeager now, and Scheutzen in everything else, and have been totally satisfied with the Scheutzen.

I have no experience with Sheutzen but I don't see how it could be better than Olde Eynsford when Olde Eynsford is pretty close to Swiss.

 

[Ugly Sauce]

I have no experience with Sheutzen but I don't see how it could be better than Olde Eynsford when Olde Eynsford is pretty close to Swiss.

I might have it mixed up with that "Elephant" powder that was notoriously crappy. ?

 

[Chief TC]

Swiss 1.5 is the ticket for me loading for my Sharps rifles that I use in competition. Just recently paid $36 a pound and is a good price in my book for a top quality powder.

 

[.38 Special]

I experimented with OE 1.5f in my Gibbs, and it wasn't quite as fast or quite as consistent as Swiss 1.5f.

I've used OE 2f in flintlocks and couldn't tell a difference between it and Swiss. Both were significantly faster and more uniform than Schuetzen.

I used quite a bit of OE 3f in my percussion revolvers and came to prefer it over Swiss. There was no difference in velocity or ES, and it seemed to me that fouling with OE was a little softer - I could go longer between cleanings, and cleaning was easier and faster. Schuetzen seemed about equivalent to standard Goex, i.e. functional but meh.

If I had my druthers, I would use OE for most things, and save the Swiss for the Gibbs.

 

[Ugly Sauce]

I would love to hear about your 4F usage, what you’ve tried and found to work and not work well. Not many believe it to be safe claiming it’s only to be used in the pan. Swiss’ former packaging clearly shows 4F as pistol powder and 3F as rifle. I’ve been told several things that I’ve found just aren’t necessarily true such as these pistols being too weak, no more powerful than a .38 Spl, and therefore inhumane to hunt with. Or you have to slather Crisco everywhere. And that they absolutely need cleaning as soon as you get home, which I do. But I’ve been shown and tested myself that if ever you can’t you can use an oil such as Ballistol and wet it fairly good. It’ll soak in and keep moisture from touching the steel.

The 1000fps out of my 1860 is with a round ball. That's with 33 grains of Scheutzen 4fg. In my Remington, I can get 34 grains under a 207 grain bullet, but I have not chronographed it.

Don't slather crisco. Just press a lube-pill over the ball. Faster than putting a wad under the ball (or bullet) and the results are amazing. Yes, crisco is an absolute mess.

4fg being priming powder is a myth. Originally, rifles and muskets were primed out of the horn, with whatever was being used for the main charge. I believe 4fg was originally referred to as "fine pistol powder". As far as anyone knows, there has never been a container of 4fg labeled as "priming only". However, the myth marches on. Except for my single shot, .54 caliber Plains Pistol, I use 4fg in all my handguns. (my vast collection of four)

As I carry/use my pistols in the field, I load them all with a maximum charge. (except the 1862)

My .36 Remington will take 30 grains 4fg under a ball, and 24 under a 140 grain slug.

The 1860, as mentioned will take 33 grains 4fg under a ball, (or 34?) and ball is all I shoot out of it, just seems to like it best.

My Remington in .44 will take a little more than the Colt, I can get 33-34 grains 4fg under a 207 grain slug in it. That pops off pretty good. I think it will take around 37+ grains of 4fg under a ball, but it's my "slug gun", or what I take when I want maximum smack down from a cap-n-ball. (without going to a very heavy revolver such as a Walker or Dragoon)

The 1862 Pocket Police won't take much more than about 22 grains under a ball, but that penetrates through a 2X6 no problem, the purpose of that pistol is for taking small game should a wilderness survival situation ever occur, but I think it would put some hurt on a wolf or cougar if needed. I get very fine accuracy in that pistol with 4fg. It will only take 15 grains under a slug, and that load will not penetrate as far as the ball over 20-22 grains. So in that pistol, the ball is a better choice, and again, it's for popping off rabbits and grouse if I'm starving.

Those are all measures by weight, not volume. In the field, I have different spouts on my small pistol flasks that throw those weights, more or less. Usually I trim them for slightly less, so I don't get a high seated ball or bullet when reloading in the field, in a tense situation. That would suck. When loading them up at home before heading out I use the scale. I also take some paper cartridges for faster reloading in case the cougars and wolves are all attacking at once. (the rifle or musket will take care of any bear problem) The cartridges require less powder to fully seat, so if time permits loose powder and ball gives me a slightly heavier charge so that's what I prefer to use.

Hope that helps...that's one heck of a lot of blah-blah-blah-yada yada....but I type too fast.

 

[Ugly Sauce]

Swiss 1.5 is the ticket for me loading for my Sharps rifles that I use in competition. Just recently paid $36 a pound and is a good price in my book for a top quality powder.

Yes that's what I use in my Jeager. Only the Best for Rosie.

 

[Ugly Sauce]

Schuetzen seemed about equivalent to standard Goex, i.e. functional but meh.

Interesting. This batch I got is certainly superior to Goex, or at the least the Goex I used to have.

 

[hawg]

I might have it mixed up with that "Elephant" powder that was notoriously crappy. ?

That stuff was nasteee.

 

[armoredman]

What lube to make those lube pills?

 

[rodwha]

The 1000fps out of my 1860 is with a round ball. That's with 33 grains of Scheutzen 4fg. In my Remington, I can get 34 grains under a 207 grain bullet, but I have not chronographed it.
View attachment 1207614
Don't slather crisco. Just press a lube-pill over the ball. Faster than putting a wad under the ball (or bullet) and the results are amazing. Yes, crisco is an absolute mess.

4fg being priming powder is a myth. Originally, rifles and muskets were primed out of the horn, with whatever was being used for the main charge. I believe 4fg was originally referred to as "fine pistol powder". As far as anyone knows, there has never been a container of 4fg labeled as "priming only". However, the myth marches on. Except for my single shot, .54 caliber Plains Pistol, I use 4fg in all my handguns. (my vast collection of four)

As I carry/use my pistols in the field, I load them all with a maximum charge. (except the 1862)

My .36 Remington will take 30 grains 4fg under a ball, and 24 under a 140 grain slug.

The 1860, as mentioned will take 33 grains 4fg under a ball, (or 34?) and ball is all I shoot out of it, just seems to like it best.

My Remington in .44 will take a little more than the Colt, I can get 33-34 grains 4fg under a 207 grain slug in it. That pops off pretty good. I think it will take around 37+ grains of 4fg under a ball, but it's my "slug gun", or what I take when I want maximum smack down from a cap-n-ball. (without going to a very heavy revolver such as a Walker or Dragoon)

The 1862 Pocket Police won't take much more than about 22 grains under a ball, but that penetrates through a 2X6 no problem, the purpose of that pistol is for taking small game should a wilderness survival situation ever occur, but I think it would put some hurt on a wolf or cougar if needed. I get very fine accuracy in that pistol with 4fg. It will only take 15 grains under a slug, and that load will not penetrate as far as the ball over 20-22 grains. So in that pistol, the ball is a better choice, and again, it's for popping off rabbits and grouse if I'm starving.

Those are all measures by weight, not volume. In the field, I have different spouts on my small pistol flasks that throw those weights, more or less. Usually I trim them for slightly less, so I don't get a high seated ball or bullet when reloading in the field, in a tense situation. That would suck. When loading them up at home before heading out I use the scale. I also take some paper cartridges for faster reloading in case the cougars and wolves are all attacking at once. (the rifle or musket will take care of any bear problem) The cartridges require less powder to fully seat, so if time permits loose powder and ball gives me a slightly heavier charge so that's what I prefer to use.

Hope that helps...that's one heck of a lot of blah-blah-blah-yada yada....but I type too fast.

Ah yes, the anemic charges in the Colt Pocket makes them fairly puny with a bullet. Long ago I read of someone loading a 160 RNFP Lee bullet in their repro and was amazed at how short it was, close to that of a ball or something. That got me thinking why not create a WFN bullet of that length gaining mass without losing powder. I created one that’s even shorter (.345”) but weighs 100 grns. Bet that would be close to .38 Spl performance.

I’m rather fond of felt wads lubed with Gatoefeo. I use it for my bullets too. I don’t really shoot a ball much anymore except for target shooting as my accurate powder charges don’t seem to mind what projectile I use.

If you ever get around to chronographing that load I’d love to hear about it.

 

[.38 Special]

Interesting. This batch I got is certainly superior to Goex, or at the least the Goex I used to have.

I suspect there is quite a bit of variation, lot-to-lot, year-to-year, etc. I also suspect that some powders are better than others in some applications, and vice-versa. Regardless, I certainly don't have the patience to test every batch and brand of powder I get - and in many of my applications, whatever difference there might be wouldn't show up anyway.

 

[Ugly Sauce]

Ah yes, the anemic charges in the Colt Pocket makes them fairly puny with a bullet. Long ago I read of someone loading a 160 RNFP Lee bullet in their repro and was amazed at how short it was, close to that of a ball or something. That got me thinking why not create a WFN bullet of that length gaining mass without losing powder. I created one that’s even shorter (.345”) but weighs 100 grns. Bet that would be close to .38 Spl performance.

In .44, I have a 207 grain bullet that is very short with a wide flat nose. For my purposes, it's very ideal, enough extra weight over a ball to make a difference, but doesn't hurt powder capacity very much. I shot a cylinder full of those out of the Remington (34 grains 4fg) at a very old, heavy, seasoned wood block the other day, (is that scientific or what?) and was very impressed with the penetration. I also have a mold for the LEE 200 grain RN, but I retired it as the 207 is superior, or much shorter. But the LEE 200 is not a bad slug.

In .36" the three bullets I have are all in the 140 grain range, give or take one or two grains. They work well in the big Remington, but for sure surpass the "law of diminishing returns" in the 1862. And as mentioned, penetrate less than a ball. On the other hand, for strictly small game, I did get almost a one hole group out of the .62 with one of those slugs and 15 grains of 2fg. But again, did not even penetrate a 2X6. I don't think that would be effective on even something as light skinned as a wolf or cougar. So I'm sticking with the ball as it has (to my mind) at least some defensive capability. And, they shoot minute of grouse or squirrel in my pistol. On a rabbit, "could not miss". !

I think the ideal weight for a .36 bullet would be a 110, short and wide. That's a reasonable weight gain over a ball, and would still leave room for a good powder charge. That would work well in a 1851 and the Remingtons, but I'd still just stick with the ball in the little guns like the 1862. Or not. !!??!

I had a Lee mold that threw a 120 grain RN bullet in .36/.375", that was accurate, but I somehow lost that mold (?!!!?!?) and never did see how well it penetrated, or what velocity it could driven at.