How do I figure out what load I need of Pyrodex P vs blackpowder? IE if I'm told to say start out at 40gr for a Uberti Walker, I assume that's blackpowder grain, is not Pyrodex P more powerful and therefore less is required? It says FFFG equivelent but I guess that's by volume not weight? I assume that means loads are different...
Pyrodex P vs Blackpowder
- Thread starter greenr18
- Start date
- Status
Noz
Member
Use the same volumetric measure for Real Black and Pyrodex.
Clean immediately after using the Pyrodex.
Clean immediately after using the Pyrodex.
col.lemat
Member
I have found there to be no difference using the same volume, although the black powder seemed better overall.
robhof
Member
robhof
As long as you are measuring by volume, all the subs are volume equal to real black. The only exception is Triple 7, it recommends a 10 to 15% reduction for equal performance.
As long as you are measuring by volume, all the subs are volume equal to real black. The only exception is Triple 7, it recommends a 10 to 15% reduction for equal performance.
Pyrodex P isn't equivelent to any BP that I'm aware of. It's more powerful than standard Goex but less powerful than Swiss or Olde Eynsford. As all 3 are BP it can't be said to be more or less powerful, which brings us to Triple 7 as it's said to be ~15% more powerful than BP, which isn't exactly true as it gives very similar velocity compared to Swiss and Olde E with the same volume of powder. But then when T7 made the market there was no Olde Eynsford or Blackhorn 209, and if Swiss was produced it wasn't common here as everyone used the weaker common powders such as standard Goex. Mike Beliveau's testing in Ruger Old Armies showed that despite a 15% reduction of powder it was still much more powerful giving energy figures with bullets a bit higher than .45 Colt loads whereas the Goex loads were merely in the .38 Spl range.
J-Bar
Member
You are shooting a repro Walker made with modern steel.
If you were competing with a rifle shooting at long range targets, the distinctions become important, but for having fun at a range just use a volumetric measure to charge the chambers with 40 grains of whatchagot and enjoy the smoke and noise.
Noz
Member
Again! Whatever volume of Black Powder you may choose to use, use the same volume of Pyrodex or APP. Back off a bit for 777.
The problem you get into is there is no such thing as a volumetric grain. There are measures that proport to dispense x number of grains but it is an estimate at best.
Since you are dealing with black powder, accept what te measure says and get on with your shooting.
A 40 grain measure is perfectly acceptable for a Walker. The Walker can handle 55-60 grains with ease.
The problem you get into is there is no such thing as a volumetric grain. There are measures that proport to dispense x number of grains but it is an estimate at best.
Since you are dealing with black powder, accept what te measure says and get on with your shooting.
A 40 grain measure is perfectly acceptable for a Walker. The Walker can handle 55-60 grains with ease.
Total volume is one place where I see Pyrodex and T7 differ from BP as they both compress more, which means you can actually use more powder. Prior to buying Olde Eynsford powder I had only used Pyrodex and Triple 7. I knew I could get 45 gems of 3F T7 with a ball into my Ruger with just a hair of room after seated. Not knowing any better I had to shave the end of the ball when I did that with 3F Olde E.
There's a fellow who hunts hogs with a Walker using a ball and his load is 66 grns of 2F T7.
There's a fellow who hunts hogs with a Walker using a ball and his load is 66 grns of 2F T7.
Noz
Member
Just to keep a pointless thread going: 777 is not supposed to be compressed.
Not true unless you are specifically talking about loading cartridges where "light compression" is used. To seat a projectile "firmly" against muzzleloading powder will compress it. As many people have stated this despite the loading data given by Hodgdon I've emailed them asking for specification of what is meant by firmly but never received a reply. However were it as dangerous as it says it is in cartridges it would have their warning there too I'd think as they wouldn't want liability there either.
J-Bar
Member
Imaginary conference at Hodgdon Powder Company:
"A customer wants to know how much compression on Triple Seven is too much," says the email reader.
"If we give him a number and he or his firearm are harmed at that level of compression, we can be sued," says the lawyer.
"OK, we will just stick with the warning about compression on the label. If he wants to use a pile driver to pack 777 in his chambers he's on his own."
Good luck with that.
"A customer wants to know how much compression on Triple Seven is too much," says the email reader.
"If we give him a number and he or his firearm are harmed at that level of compression, we can be sued," says the lawyer.
"OK, we will just stick with the warning about compression on the label. If he wants to use a pile driver to pack 777 in his chambers he's on his own."
Good luck with that.
Last edited:
And that's why I asked for clarification on what "firmly" was as there are many who claim it shouldn't be compressed at all as it creates a dangerous situation. They certainly specify how it's dangerous and what is too much when loading cartridges. Very, very specific and with numbers.
Pete D.
Member
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2010
- Messages
- 2,660
volume
About volume measurements for Pyrodex and BP.
I did not see this addressed at all....the OP wrote
I can see why he is (or was )confused.
The measure is set for 40 grains (or 50 or 90, whatever). Ideally, if one fills the measure with BP and weighs it, the powder charge of BP will weigh 40 grains (or 50 or 90 whatever).
If the OP takes that powder measure at 40 grains and puts Pyrodex in it and then weighs the Pyrodex....It will weigh less than 40 grains. Noticeably less.
A 4.3 CC Lee dipper will drop 68 grains of FFFg BP +/-. Use it with Pyrodex P and it will give you a charge in the low 50's (nominally 52 grs.).
Pyrodex is bulkier than BP as well as more powerful.
A 2.5 CC Lee dipper throws just about 40 grs. of FFFg; it throws 30 grs of Pyrodex.
About that compression business. Yes...their loading notes are specific to cartridges. The instructions are more detailed than "light compression" and specifically state "Loading density should be 100% with light compression not to exceed .100"."
Anyone who is unsure about what "firmly" means regarding loading a muzzleloader shouldn't be shooting one.
Pete
About volume measurements for Pyrodex and BP.
I did not see this addressed at all....the OP wrote
I can see why he is (or was )confused.
The measure is set for 40 grains (or 50 or 90, whatever). Ideally, if one fills the measure with BP and weighs it, the powder charge of BP will weigh 40 grains (or 50 or 90 whatever).
If the OP takes that powder measure at 40 grains and puts Pyrodex in it and then weighs the Pyrodex....It will weigh less than 40 grains. Noticeably less.
A 4.3 CC Lee dipper will drop 68 grains of FFFg BP +/-. Use it with Pyrodex P and it will give you a charge in the low 50's (nominally 52 grs.).
Pyrodex is bulkier than BP as well as more powerful.
A 2.5 CC Lee dipper throws just about 40 grs. of FFFg; it throws 30 grs of Pyrodex.
About that compression business. Yes...their loading notes are specific to cartridges. The instructions are more detailed than "light compression" and specifically state "Loading density should be 100% with light compression not to exceed .100"."
Anyone who is unsure about what "firmly" means regarding loading a muzzleloader shouldn't be shooting one.
Pete
Last edited:
Caliper_Mi
Member
Try wrenching on a car with some other people. One mans "firm" is far from the same as the next.
"Anyone who is unsure about what "firmly" means regarding loading a muzzleloader shouldn't be shooting one."
Ah, yes, which doesn't truly have anything to do with compression of a load, which is my point. There is nothing said whatsoever about compression in any other way other than in cartridges where the crimp makes all the difference holding the projectile in place as pressure builds, which does not happen with a friction fit, which is what you have in cap and ball pistols and muzzleloading arms.
But there are many people who read the warning listed under the cartridge loading and use it as a blanket statement.
Something else I've seen claimed often is erratic pressures when compressed. As the way means for accuracy is consistency, and since it would be quite difficult to reliably give minimal compression that's repeatable with the loading levers on cap and ball pistols once the resistance from the oversized projectile is gone from shaving, I use the same amount of force as I do with Olde E as I do with T7, and I get virtually the same size groups. Were there erratic pressures this wouldn't be the case. Maybe it's because im not using a cheater bar to really get some leverage.
But then this was the first time I've ever seen it stated that there shouldn't be any compression at all. Hodgdon doesn't say that anywhere, and if the powder were that finicky that there couldn't be any or that people would need a way to verify the amount of force or compression most people wouldn't bother. And were it creating the dangerous situation that many have believed we'd both hear of incidents, and I'd think Hodgdon would have been making a different powder altogether. Who would be any that kind of PR?
Ah, yes, which doesn't truly have anything to do with compression of a load, which is my point. There is nothing said whatsoever about compression in any other way other than in cartridges where the crimp makes all the difference holding the projectile in place as pressure builds, which does not happen with a friction fit, which is what you have in cap and ball pistols and muzzleloading arms.
But there are many people who read the warning listed under the cartridge loading and use it as a blanket statement.
Something else I've seen claimed often is erratic pressures when compressed. As the way means for accuracy is consistency, and since it would be quite difficult to reliably give minimal compression that's repeatable with the loading levers on cap and ball pistols once the resistance from the oversized projectile is gone from shaving, I use the same amount of force as I do with Olde E as I do with T7, and I get virtually the same size groups. Were there erratic pressures this wouldn't be the case. Maybe it's because im not using a cheater bar to really get some leverage.
But then this was the first time I've ever seen it stated that there shouldn't be any compression at all. Hodgdon doesn't say that anywhere, and if the powder were that finicky that there couldn't be any or that people would need a way to verify the amount of force or compression most people wouldn't bother. And were it creating the dangerous situation that many have believed we'd both hear of incidents, and I'd think Hodgdon would have been making a different powder altogether. Who would be any that kind of PR?
Last edited:
Noz
Member
I'm out! Have fun.
TimSr
Member
Been using Pyrodex since the 80's in my .44 cap and ball pistols , and 50 cal muzzleloader. Measure by volume, the same as BP. You don't "compress" it when you measure it.
I'm still in "use up" mode now, but I have to say about every other sub now available sincce Pyrodex is probably less corrosive and cleaner than Pyrodex. My son uses Triple 7 in his inline, and it is sooooo much cleaner, and doesn't rust on the same day you shoot it.
I'm still in "use up" mode now, but I have to say about every other sub now available sincce Pyrodex is probably less corrosive and cleaner than Pyrodex. My son uses Triple 7 in his inline, and it is sooooo much cleaner, and doesn't rust on the same day you shoot it.
Imaginary conference at Hodgdon Powder Company:
"You guys have run this new powder through its paces and it time to discuss your findings."
"Well, we found in loading cartridges that when we compress the powder up to X tenths of an inch we found signs of excessive pressure."
"I believe we ought to descrease the compress depth by X to ensure we cannot be sued," says the attorney.
"Good idea. What did you find when you loaded the cap and ball pistol and various muzzleloaders?"
"We found that when we compressed it mildly it blew the hammer back on most of the guns tested. I think we ought to go on record that compression ought to be mild with all arms."
"Instead I think we shall just leave this part open to debate and just state that the projectile should be seated firmly as they ought to be anyway and just see what happens."
"You guys have run this new powder through its paces and it time to discuss your findings."
"Well, we found in loading cartridges that when we compress the powder up to X tenths of an inch we found signs of excessive pressure."
"I believe we ought to descrease the compress depth by X to ensure we cannot be sued," says the attorney.
"Good idea. What did you find when you loaded the cap and ball pistol and various muzzleloaders?"
"We found that when we compressed it mildly it blew the hammer back on most of the guns tested. I think we ought to go on record that compression ought to be mild with all arms."
"Instead I think we shall just leave this part open to debate and just state that the projectile should be seated firmly as they ought to be anyway and just see what happens."
I'd truly like to hear from those lobo believe loads in anything but cartridges need minimal, if any, compression due to safety. It's just not what I read in their notes and don't understand why people claim what they do. Maybe I'm just missing something.
Last edited:
- Status