powder question - The HuntingPA.com Outdoor Community
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 9 (permalink) Old 11-16-2014, 06:17 PM Thread Starter
New Arrival
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: corry pa.
Posts: 48
Back To Top
powder question

does anyone know how many grains of powder is in a 1 pound bottle of jim shockys gold? also what do you think of this powder? I tried some this weekend and I really seem to like it. very clean powder think I might stick with it.a little pricey but I really seem to like it.
chuck2701 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 9 (permalink) Old 11-16-2014, 06:51 PM
Part of the Community
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Saxonburg, PA
Posts: 118
Back To Top
Re: powder question

To answer the first part, I have no clue. But I have tried JSG powder. I will admit it is clean burning but in my flintlock I had to back it up with real black powder to get consistent quick ignitions. Maybe if I had an inline I would go with a BP substitute but in my flinter I have always found real BP to be the way to go.
Dano08 is offline  
post #3 of 9 (permalink) Old 11-16-2014, 06:57 PM
Diehard Outdoorsman
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: north central Penna
Posts: 2,828
Back To Top
Re: powder question

Believe there are 7000 gr in a lb

Save a wolf , take one to the taxidermist
darkhollowarcher is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 9 (permalink) Old 11-16-2014, 07:03 PM Thread Starter
New Arrival
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: corry pa.
Posts: 48
Back To Top
Re: powder question

that's what I was thinking with black powder but didn't know if it was the same with black powder substitute.
chuck2701 is offline  
post #5 of 9 (permalink) Old 11-17-2014, 04:52 PM
Part of the Community
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: sewickley hills, Pa.
Posts: 123
Back To Top
Re: powder question

1 pound = 16 ounces or 7000 grains
at 75 grains per shot = just under 94 shots/ loads.

Chartiers valley#725 F&AM
NMLRA,HCH,CLA,
Forest Grove Sportsmen
Sewickley S & F Club
Wpalongrifle is offline  
post #6 of 9 (permalink) Old 11-17-2014, 05:22 PM
Diehard Outdoorsman
 
Retired_Rusty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Susquehanna Valley
Posts: 4,936
Back To Top
Re: powder question

Substitutes were designed as volumetric substitutes, and not by weight.

They are only to be measured by Volume for shooting. Weight in grains could get you into a bit of trouble with breech pressures. And more so with 777.

"those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
Retired_Rusty is online now  
post #7 of 9 (permalink) Old 11-17-2014, 06:22 PM
Part of the Community
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: sewickley hills, Pa.
Posts: 123
Back To Top
Re: powder question

this may help??
Unmasking the Blackpowder “Volumetric Grain” of Doom

By Randy Wakeman



Gun manufacturers and powder sellers have been generally ignorant, lackadaisical, and sloppy about referring to “volumetric grains” and volumetric equivalents of blackpowder and blackpowder synthetic replica powders for decades. It is not what you might think, and not only not are there no “universal standards” for volumetric grains, there never were. Yet, some manufacturers dodder on, suggesting that blackpowder is supposed to be measured by volume, or was designed to be. This is absolute rubbish.

You won’t find any definition of a blackpowder volumetric grain from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), or any other source that I know of. The reason is simple; there is none. Blackpowder has always been measured by weight, not by volume; just like breakfast cereal. You buy blackpowder by the pound, and that is weight, not a “volumetric pound.”

The avoirdupois dram is the unit of weight used to measure black powder. There are 256 drams in a pound avoirdupois, 16 drams in an ounce, and 7000 grains in a pound. 1 gram = 15.432 grains = 0.564 drams. These are all weight measurements, and always have been. Volumetric measuring of blackpowder has never been accurate, and it isn’t today.

A closer look at this mess makes it obvious why volume is not precise. The geometry of blackpowder itself varies by its own granulation size; Fg, FFFg, FFFFg, and so forth. Trying to measure blackpowder (or anything else) by its bulk is tricky. Blackpowder varies all over the place by geometry, moisture content, and even composition percentages. Ian McMurchy published actual weight of 100 gr. volumetric Goex FFg as 101.3 grains, 100 gr. volumetric Goex FFFg as 101.6 grains. (Page 81, Modern Muzzleloading For Today's Whitetails.) Mr. McMurchy didn’t stop there; Pyrodex Select (which is a very large granulation size) weighs in at 63.9 grains, Pyrodex RS at 72.5, Pryrodex P at 73.0, Pyrodex pellets at 74.2, Arco at 94.7, Clean Shot at 85.1, and Quick Shots at 65.5 grains of actual weight. The “Arco” cited is the old “Black Mag 2.”

Not only does volumetric grain have no exact correlation to weight, it has no precise correlation to performance. Ian McMurchy (in the very same book) chronographed 100 volumetric grains of various blackpowders and substitutes through his Oeher 35P pushing a 300 grain bullet, recording 5 shot average velocities from 1233 fps up to 1594 fps all with “100 grains of powder.”

When muzzleloader manufacturers say “100 grains by volume max load” they really are saying nothing that can be accurately quantified. As far as I’m concerned, it is a pretty darn stupid statement—considering that the pressure a powder charge develops has a lot to do with projectile type and weight. A “maximum load” is not a logical thing to proclaim without inclusion of precise projectile weight and type. This starts out dumb, and just gets dumber.

Not only does “by volume” vary all over the place by propellant, the volumetric blackpowder measures themselves are hooked to no particular standard. You cannot buy an SAE, ANSI, CIP, or SAAMI calibrated black powder measure—no such animal exists. The 10 grain (or 5 grain) hash marks on various blackpowder measures (whether made from brass in Red China, India, or in the US from clear plastic) themselves do not agree on what 100 grains by volume is.

The shotgun industry has also has its problems with “drams equivalent.” Many shotgun shells sold today still have “drams equivalent” of blackpowder printed right on their boxes. Somebody, somewhere, decided that a weighed charge of three drams of some brand and some granulation of blackpowder in some 12 gauge shotgun with some type of hull, some type of wad, and an unspecified barrel length, bore size, and choke constriction just happened to propel 1-1/8 ounces of shot at exactly 1200 fps on the nose in front of the muzzle. The scattergun sports industry has been stuck promulgating black powder dram equivalents ever since; an amazing shame.

Nevertheless, the volumetric grain of true blackpowder was “close enough” to the actual weight (within 10% as a generalization); considered more than close enough for field use with such a very inefficient, low yield propellant. It was and is, with true blackpowder.

It is of little help to today’s muzzleloading hunter, who ponders how such crudely made propellants such as American Pioneer / Shockey’s Gold with all the consistency of gravel can be accurately volumetrically measured, and how pellets and sticks can be considered volumetric equivalents to powder when they suck moisture and have clearly visible chunks missing out of them. There must be some type of perpetual motion or circular logic at play here: pellets and substitutes are touted as “volumetric equivalents” to “blackpowder volumetric measures” which are inaccurate, imprecise, and comport to no recognized standards in the first place.

It is currently a triumph of how accurately one can reproduce inaccuracy in measurement. I hope we all wake up soon and decide that words means things, including the word “equivalent” that means "equal to," not “it just might go bang.”

Chartiers valley#725 F&AM
NMLRA,HCH,CLA,
Forest Grove Sportsmen
Sewickley S & F Club
Wpalongrifle is offline  
post #8 of 9 (permalink) Old 11-18-2014, 11:26 PM
Frequent Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Centre Cy, PA
Posts: 575
Back To Top
Re: powder question

I agree WPA. I have actually weighed loads on an accurate scale with real BP. The actual weight of a volume load can vary as much as 5 grains under to 5 grains over. FFFG black powder comes the closest to what the volumetric reading is. It is usually within 2-3 grains under to 2-3 over actual weight. I have been told many times not to use weighed loads and stick with volume loads. Since I do not shoot max loads and only use real black powder in all my front loaders I do actually weigh each load. It is nearly impossible to tell if my weighed loads are more accurate as both seem to shoot well but personally I feel better knowing each load weighs the same.
PA RIDGE RUNNER is offline  
post #9 of 9 (permalink) Old 11-18-2014, 11:37 PM
Diehard Outdoorsman
 
Retired_Rusty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Susquehanna Valley
Posts: 4,936
Back To Top
Re: powder question

The weighing method is not necessarily more accurate, but it is more uniform, like measuring and weighing the round ball. And competition BP shooting is more about constancy, just like modern rifles and hand loading. The most accurate load is already known. Keeping it exactly at that point makes all the difference.

Most on here, myself included, don't pay attention when we do measure. The difference between top and bottom of 5gr line, as well as how level you hold the measure, can make a difference of 2-3gr. To me, 2-3gr is still in the boilerplate if I do my part!

"those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
Retired_Rusty is online now  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the The HuntingPA.com Outdoor Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome