How many grains of FFFg will a 45 Colt hold?

[Seldom Seen #16162]

If you measure BP by weight why do you compress it when you seat the bullet? Compressing the powder reduces the volume not it's weight.

[Jefro, SASS#69420]

My point was, how can one generalize the weight of powder that will fit into a case by measuring how much water it will hold, when different brands of powder clearly weigh different amounts?

 

I have several references in my loading notebook that I have kept over the years as I have used different brands of powders. For instance, my favorite load for both 45 Colt and 44-40 is 2.2CC of powder. When I actually weighed these volumes, I got the following weights:

 

2.2CC of Elephant FFg weighed 37.5 grains.

2.2CC of Goex FFg weighed 34.5 grains.

2.2CC of Schuetzen FFg weighed 33.5 grains.

 

Those are actual measurements that I took and recorded.

 

Likewise this morning I filled a 45 Colt case with Goex FFFg and weighed it. It came to 40.4 grains on average.

 

I know that I am splitting hairs, and perhaps I should stop doing so, but referring to a table someplace that says that a 45 Colt case will hold 42 grains of powder based on the volume of water completely misses the point that not all brands of Black Powder weigh the same. You cannot generalize how much a specific charge of powder weighs by comparing it to a volume of water.

 

If you measure BP by weight why do you compress it when you seat the bullet? Compressing the powder reduces the volume not it's weight.

As noted by DJ, for SASS volume is all you need to know, cause each brand of BP will have a different weight for the same volume, thus goes the age old discussion. For BPCR or silhouette once you find a load that's just right those folks want to repeat the exact same load by weight for each shot, therefore they use weight. My comments from the other thread

"Ah ha!! the old discussion Well for CAS I use volume cause it's so simple. For my cartridges I like about 1/16'' to 1/8'' compression using real BP. So I adjust my powder measure to throw that volume and then rock and roll with the progressive. For Shotshells I load the volume needed for a specific wad, usually less than a sqaure load. Find the Mec bushing that throws that volume then rock and roll. I do weigh them as a point of record. Not all brands or lots of BP weight the same, so volume works for me. I use Schuetzen, which I have found weighs more then the same volume of the Goex I had on hand. A couple of times when I have shared my shotshell recipe the fellers could not get the crimp to stay closed using Goex, since then I use CCs and weight of the brand when sharing. Once they backed off a couple of grains (the same CCs) the load worked great. I'm sure for BPCR or silhouette shooters there is a need to weigh each charge, but not for CAS, IMHO."

 

Jefro Relax-Enjoy

[Dick Dastardly SASS #45219]

Merry Christmas Possum Skinner.

 

That front stuffer will shoot fine with a 45 Long Colt case full of powder under yer bullet. Be sure to seat your bullet snug on the powder. Enjoy some fine shooting. FWIW, I'm getting between 40.3 and 40.5 grains of FFFg Schuetzen in a 45 Colt case.

 

DD-DLoS

[Possum Skinner, SASS#60697]

Merry Christmas Possum Skinner.

 

That front stuffer will shoot fine with a 45 Long Colt case full of powder under yer bullet. Be sure to seat your bullet snug on the powder. Enjoy some fine shooting. FWIW, I'm getting between 40.3 and 40.5 grains of FFFg Schuetzen in a 45 Colt case.

 

DD-DLoS

 

Thank you.

 

The gun was shooting very well and I was having lots of fun until the ramrod broke (I had help ). Got it pretty well sighted in before that happened.

 

I'm in the process of ordering a flask, powder measure and new ramrod now.

 

A very, merry Christmas to all of you and yours.

Possum

[Pit Bull Tex]

Possum, Merry Chirstmas to you and all of yours. God bless you guys.

[Driftwood Johnson, SASS #38283]

Merry Christmas Every Body

[Crazy Mingo]

Heee Haaa Possum..

 

Two full 45lc cases will give ya about 80gr. of FFg goex. Deer Killer loads

 

Heee Haaa Crazy Mingo

[Captain Woodrow Cahill, SASS # 54363]

Merry Christmas to you as well Driftwood.

 

It seems we are caught on a Mobius Loop with this, and as scintilating as the discussion is it's obvious there will be this debate until the grass no longer grows and the river no longer flows.

 

The convention has been for a long time that BP is measured by volume, and while weight may be more precise we're stuck with it and it seems to work. How BP measures were initially calibrated is something I don't know, except that by and large the difference between the volume and the weight seems to be about 4%. For smokeless that would be probably be significant, but BP is a little more forgiving due to the different characteristics when ignited. Compressing it to eliminate an air gap between the bullet and charge doesn't change the weight one bit, true, but it does reduce the chance of disaster when fired.

 

My first BP loading book from the 1970's had as its first caution "Charges Are By Volume". It's only been recently that I've seen anything in print about weighing BP or sub charges, and that was an article about loading for the 1876 Winchester repros. That said, every other bit of literature I've ever seen on the subject says volume.

 

Getting away from powder for a moment but staying with the concept of things being the convention, look at batteries. Conventional thinking is that the electricity flows from positive to negative, but in reality the electron flow is from negative to positive. No matter which way the little buggers are running though, your flashlight still comes on when you press the switch.

 

Volumetric grains ... again, it's the convention when discussing BP, and goes back to whomever devised the BP measure to begin with. An incorrect term perhaps, but again one we're stuck with.

 

And to think it all started with the carob seed.

[Driftwood Johnson, SASS #38283]

Ahhh, the old theory of negative electron flow. Remember it well.

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

Heee Haaa Possum..

 

Two full 45lc cases will give ya about 80gr. of FFg goex. Deer Killer loads

 

Heee Haaa Crazy Mingo

 

MERRY CHRISTMAS PARD!

 

GG ~

[Doc Windshadow]

the first thing our minister had to say in his sermon today was

 

"Good Day everyone have you all had your Christmas Rows yet?: (Row as in fight he is British)

 

Worth a thought

 

Cheers

Windy

[Captain Woodrow Cahill, SASS # 54363]

I think we've run this one to ground. Point well taken Doc.

 

There'll be another wire riot another day.

 

Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night.

[Dakota Rebel, SASS# 58412]

What a wild ride. Lots of good info from a simple question.

 

Here is a suggestion for a ramrod (not for the rifle, but for the range). I tood a 3/8 dowel, cut it about 12" above the muzzle, and glued a furniture ball on it. I pinned a 38 Sp case on the ranrod end. I marked it for empty, and various powder charges with a Sharpie. It works great as a clenaing rod. It saves wear and tear on the rifle ramrod.

[Cowboy Rick, SASS #49739L]

Lots of cartridge information for an OP asking about muzzle loaders.

 

FWIW - I check the weight of a load for a given batch of BP that fills the case (either .45LC or 44-40) to the desired level. Different brands casses will hold different amounts of powder. That way, I can repeat the load using my scale. When I get a new batch of powder, I re-weigh the loads and change my notes. Usually falls between 33.0 and 33.6 grains. Schofield usually hits around 25gr. The full case with slight compression has always been my target. Record keeping will help repeat the load with less trial and error.

 

Hope everyone had a Merry Christmas!

 

CR

[JD_Kid]

HAHAHAHA at last from years and years ago sleepless night wondering why the answer on The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy was 42 it becomes clear it's the Vol of a 45 colt case ..

 

any hows that also clears up some thing mate of mine uses chinaman powder fffG i'm useing ffG goex both load much the same way but his load in weight is miles diffrent to mine i was starting to question my scales

 

JD

[Fairshake]

Captain Woodrow, With all due respect sir, it seems as if you care not to research the information that you post but are quite satisfied to continue posting it incorrectly. I will repeat this again. There was no such thing as load by volume until the advent of the subs which I believe was Pyrodex. The reason for that was that it was more powerful than common black powder and could cause damage if used in equal weights. I am 63 and started reading books on guns at about the age of 9. They interested me from the start. My dad finally gave me a single barrel 410 from Western Auto at age 12. I have reloading books going back to the 50's and not one of them says anything about loading black powder by volume. The Lyman 41 first from around 1956 has every load for black powder listed as by grains not volume. To give you a quote; Where loads are concerned each rifle is an individual and each load must be worked out painstakingly with respect to ball size, patch thickness, and powder charge. Measure your powder before pouring it down the barrel. First class performance depends on working out the proper load for that individual rifle. I fail to find in any of my older books any instructions on loading by volume!!!! If you go further back than the fifties you will find the same. The old ammo boxes have the grains each round was loaded with. Do you ignore this so that you may be correct or is it your pursuit in life to change history?

[JackCoKiller]

There was NO SUCH THING AS LOAD BY VOLUME UNTIL THE ADVENT OF THE SUBS!!

 

Yeah, all those volumetric measures weren't used in the 1700's. The civil war volumetric meaures didn't come out until after the invention of pyrodex.

 

I understand what you posted, however loading by volume is the accepted method of loading black powder and substitutes.

You are making this way more complicated than it really is.

 

The guy wants to know the volume of a 45 colt case. That question was answered.

My pet load for my 50 cal hawken rifle is 70 grains of FFFg by volume. My hunting load is 90 grains of FFFg by volume.

 

If you are using black powder, use volume measures only. You will never get in trouble using real black powder or substitutes using a volumetric measure. You will only confuse yourself and everyone else if you start weighing charges.

 

Here is a website to buy a black powder volume measures, cappers, and other cool stuff.

Personally, I like the Plain Powder Measure at the bottom of the page for $9 and the famous Ted Cash Capper for $21.

http://www.tdcmfgstore.com/agora.cgi?produ...hootingSupplies

[Captain Woodrow Cahill, SASS # 54363]

Here I thought we'd tossed the last shovel of dirt, sang a chorus of Amazing Grace, and all gone home.

 

You've got several good points there Jack. Looks like those German powder measures from the 16th Century I've seen on the auction sites are all clever fakes, as are the reproduction 1800's measures Dixie sells. Looking at them carefully, I don't see anything that resembles a scale attached to them.

 

The reference books I have must all be wrong too - the Lyman manual, the Gun Digest Blackpowder Manual, and the book by Sam Fadala where they all state to measure BP and subs by volume. Even the quote from Elmer Keith where he said "...you fill the case with powder, strike it off with a knife, and seat the bullet ..." is obviously a flight of fancy by a confused old man.

 

Even Hodgdon obviously has it wrong when they state:

 

"All charges of Triple Seven or Pyrodex should be measured by VOLUME not weight. A simple, adjustable blackpowder measure is the correct tool for this job. All loads listed in this brochure are measured by VOLUME.

 

Triple Seven is a high energy product designed to provide the muzzleloading hunter with higher velocities when used in the same VOLUME as blackpowder. To duplicate a blackpowder load velocity using Triple Seven, you must decrease the powder charge by 15%. *See WARNING below.

 

Pyrodex is lighter in weight than blackpowder and weighs only about 70% as much as blackpowder. However, because Pyrodex yields more energy per pound than does blackpowder, the same volume of Pyrodex gives similar performance to blackpowder. Pyrodex loads given in this manual for muzzleloading guns are measured by volume, not weight."

 

Randy Wakeman, writing on the Chuck Hawks site says:

 

"Pyrodex is the most common "black powder substitute." It is really the only synthetic black powder "performance" substitute in common use. By performance substitute, I refer to a charge of loose powder measure by volume. A 100 grain volumetric charge of Pyrodex RS (Rifle/Shotgun) is very close in performance to Goex FFg black powder.

 

There are differences, though, and this is where things get a bit convoluted. Pyrodex is bulkier, another way of saying "less dense." By weight, it is more powerful than Goex black powder. But, the traditional method of measuring black powder is indeed by volume, so in that sense it is a black powder performance substitute.

 

By actual weight, it is not the same. 100 grains measured by volume of Goex FFg is about 101.3 grains by weight. 100 grains measured by volume of Pyrodex RS is about 72.5 grains by weight. Pyrodex is where confusion can start to set in, as the standard "F" designations of powder coarseness start to go out the window.

 

Pyrodex "Select," formulated for use in muzzleloading rifles, is touted as an "extremely consistent" grade of Pyrodex, and has the largest grain size of them all. It is even farther away from black powder by actual weight; 100 grains volumetric equals about 63.9 grains by actual weight."

 

This bit of history concerning the 45 Colt, courtesy Wikipedia:

 

Colt began work on their 1873 Single Action Army Model in 1871. Sample cartridges submitted for Army tests were made by UMC, using the Benet cup primers; commercial ammunition used the Berdan-type primer, followed by the more common Boxer priming. Original UMC loads used a 40-grain (2.6 g) powder charge and 250-grain (16 g) bullet. This was reduced to 35-grain (2.3 g) of powder, and later, by the Army, to 28-grain (1.8 g).

 

40 grains of powder ... where did they get that amount? Seems danged close to Elmer Keith's method.

 

So obviously almost 400 years of firearms history, several respected publications and authors, and even the powder manufacturers themselves have been doing it all wrong.

 

Thank you Fairshake for clearing up the confusion and showing us all the error of our ways.

[Driftwood Johnson, SASS #38283]

Ah geeze, I thought we beat this thing to death already.

 

I ain't gonna add anything to the confusion.

[Guest diablo slim shootist]

no need to Driftwood -I answered possums question in the 2nd post!HAHA