The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

I am new to this so bear with me and give reasons for your contentions where possible.

I understand that black powder is measured volumetrically for loading, which makes contextual sense given the accuracy of volumetric measurement in the field versus weight measurement with 19th century technology.

This has carried on to modern Bp and substitute loading, it seems for that reason and no other?

Secondly there seems to be some controversy over whether 777 load data is a range or whether it is an either/or situation.

I confess I can see no reason in logic, science or superstition for it not being a range but does anyone know the answer?

I tried looking up some info on the Hodgdon website regarding Triple 7G and loads but their site is a hot mess to navigate. I've emailed them for a link. I ought to get a response from someone and when I do I'll put this very question to them. Who better to ask? Of course, being risk averse as the Americans are, I might not get a proper response to the latter.

Ok,

I've just rung Mike at Hogdon, he's told me that "of course it's a range" and has promised to put something in writing for me by email.

I will post it up when I have it.

Why is powder still measured volumetrically though?

The Lord Flashheart wrote: Why is powder still measured volumetrically though?

I don't know. I'm sure there was / is a reason but I'm happy to go with the flow on that so long as it's clearly stated for use.
I suppose if you were to stick with the same brand and product that you could simply measure it in traditional grains if you found it easier once you had a by volume measure to hand. The danger though is if they changed their formula - as they might if they were to have to meet some EU legislation - then you could get caught out with some nasty surprises.

That's the reason there is an upper and lower figure, that explanation would not explain problems with charge weights between the two.

He seemed rather unequivocal on the point and so I await his email to see if there any caveats.

The Lord Flashheart wrote: Why is powder still measured volumetrically though?

This makes for interesting reading. Also confirms something I've already discovered. Ladle some powder into a volumetric measuring tube at 25 grains by volume. Give it a tap and the load settles and you may then find the load is down to 20 grains by volume.

So which is correct? Your first measure or the second?

http://www.chuckhawks.com/blackpowder_volumetric.htm

The bit you edited from your post makes my subsequent one nonsense Dark skies...

From first principles I think the answer to your question would be "it doesn't matter much as long as long as it's done the same each time" but I would have thought the powder measure manufacturer would say if you were meant to tap or not.

Lyman for example tell you to use the little door knocker thing each time you work the lever on their 55 powder measure but then again they use arbitrary units on their gauging system so precision is their aim rather than accuracy per se.

Thanks for the link, I am more confused after reading it as to why BP uses volumetric measurements and not weight though...

The Lord Flashheart wrote:The bit you edited from your post makes my subsequent one nonsense Dark skies...

From first principles I think the answer to your question would be "it doesn't matter much as long as long as it's done the same each time" but I would have thought the powder measure manufacturer would say if you were meant to tap or not.

Lyman for example tell you to use the little door knocker thing each time you work the lever on their 55 powder measure but then again they use arbitrary units on their gauging system so precision is their aim rather than accuracy per se.

Thanks for the link, I am more confused after reading it as to why BP uses volumetric measurements and not weight though...

Yeah. I do that. It's a picture-straightener thing. Always fiddling to get it just so. :)

Reading on the subject the general consensus seems to be that it's measured by volume because back in ye olde days it was relatively easy to carry a preset device that gave out a measure for a firearm than trying to measure by weight and being obliged to carry about a set of scales and weights. Thus people could carry about a horn flask of powder and be reasonably sure-ish that the load was okay-ish. Fiddle-faddling about with scales wouldn't really be viable - especially in a combat situation.

Having said that ... black powder is denser than substitutes. So when we're loading 20 grains X volume or 25 grains by volume of Triple 7 or what have you using a powder measure designed for black powder - we're not really loading those volumes at all ... probably. :)

I think weight/volume was pretty academic right through the black powder era. - I believe black powder was so variable in quality from one batch/manufacturer to another, (and still so today) also being very hydroscopic conditions of storage played a considerable part in the energy available for any given sample. Black powder was tested in an eprouvette and the load varied according to the energy produced.

As an aside - has anyone used the smokeless pellets in a revolver?
http://www.dauntseyguns.co.uk/proddetai ... &cat=81400

1066 wrote:I think weight/volume was pretty academic right through the black powder era. - I believe black powder was so variable in quality from one batch/manufacturer to another, (and still so today) also being very hydroscopic conditions of storage played a considerable part in the energy available for any given sample. Black powder was tested in an eprouvette * and the load varied according to the energy produced.

As an aside - has anyone used the smokeless pellets in a revolver?
http://www.dauntseyguns.co.uk/proddetai ... &cat=81400

* Ahhhh, I had wondered what those stubby little things were!

I've not tried pellets and I don't think anyone at my club uses them but they do look convenient and it says they can be posted...