Powder measure question
- Thread starter fordfisher
- Start date
Help Support Modern Muzzleloading Forum:
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2006
- Messages
- 88
- Reaction score
- 0
I sure appreciate all the input and have learned a lot from the debate. But jaybe was correct allthough my question was admitably confusing. The T/C powder vile is obviously intended to measure volume but they make the quote about ""7000 grains per pound" in the instructions sent with the vile, and I got really confused. I was wondering if grains per volume are different than grains of weight. maybe its just a stupid question.
Patrick, I see your point crystal clear.
Patrick, I see your point crystal clear.
I might be wrong
I'm positive someone answered this question in another post, although i can't find it. I believe what was written was 80gr by volume actually weighs 65 - 67 grains. I THINK that is what was said. Anyway powder measured by weight is less than powder measured by volume. You DO NOT want to weigh 150 of loose powder and load it in your rifle. Am I wrong?
I'm positive someone answered this question in another post, although i can't find it. I believe what was written was 80gr by volume actually weighs 65 - 67 grains. I THINK that is what was said. Anyway powder measured by weight is less than powder measured by volume. You DO NOT want to weigh 150 of loose powder and load it in your rifle. Am I wrong?
- Joined
- May 18, 2005
- Messages
- 4,261
- Reaction score
- 223
Patrick, whut? :lol: :wink:
There are 7000 grains in a pound of powder - PERIOD. Both being measures of weight - NOT volume. How much a given volume of a particular type of powder weighs is one real variable, how much energy that volume of powder releases when ignited is another.
That volumetric measures are referenced to the weight in grains of true black is probably unfortunate. They should probably be marked off in CCs or similar units of volume. It's a confusing carryover from the past.
A given volume of Pyrodex is more energetic than most black powders, the same volume of Triple 7 of the same granulation will be more energetic than the Pyrodex. The other powders fall somewhere above or below the reference of standard black powders so far as energy content. Volumetric equivalents get real confusing when they are discussed as units of weight (grains).
Pellets are a world of their own. There is gain in energy from a pellet vs loose due to the compaction and affect on burn rate. There is FURTHER confusion in that a 50 grain "equivalent" pellet of Triple7 is not comparable to 50 grains of Triple7 or true black, but comparable to a 50 grain equivalent pellet of Pyrodex. Is that clear as mud? Should be just about that clear. :shock:
Current production Triple7 pellets are 50 grain equivalents of a 50 grain Pyrodex pellet which is supposed to be equivalent to 50 grains (BY VOLUME) of black. :huh?: So how could anyone be confused.
There needs to be standardization of loads either by weight or volume with an energy correction. Pellets? Shoot 'em all up and be done with 'em! Too much confusion. 8)
As to two pellets of Triple7 producing the same velocities of 100 grains of loose Triple7 - I doubt it but can't prove otherwise since I don't buy pellets and only have my thumb for speed measurement. :wink:
There are 7000 grains in a pound of powder - PERIOD. Both being measures of weight - NOT volume. How much a given volume of a particular type of powder weighs is one real variable, how much energy that volume of powder releases when ignited is another.
That volumetric measures are referenced to the weight in grains of true black is probably unfortunate. They should probably be marked off in CCs or similar units of volume. It's a confusing carryover from the past.
A given volume of Pyrodex is more energetic than most black powders, the same volume of Triple 7 of the same granulation will be more energetic than the Pyrodex. The other powders fall somewhere above or below the reference of standard black powders so far as energy content. Volumetric equivalents get real confusing when they are discussed as units of weight (grains).
Pellets are a world of their own. There is gain in energy from a pellet vs loose due to the compaction and affect on burn rate. There is FURTHER confusion in that a 50 grain "equivalent" pellet of Triple7 is not comparable to 50 grains of Triple7 or true black, but comparable to a 50 grain equivalent pellet of Pyrodex. Is that clear as mud? Should be just about that clear. :shock:
Current production Triple7 pellets are 50 grain equivalents of a 50 grain Pyrodex pellet which is supposed to be equivalent to 50 grains (BY VOLUME) of black. :huh?: So how could anyone be confused.
There needs to be standardization of loads either by weight or volume with an energy correction. Pellets? Shoot 'em all up and be done with 'em! Too much confusion. 8)
As to two pellets of Triple7 producing the same velocities of 100 grains of loose Triple7 - I doubt it but can't prove otherwise since I don't buy pellets and only have my thumb for speed measurement. :wink:
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2006
- Messages
- 88
- Reaction score
- 0
so let me muddy it up a grain or two more. My T/C measuring vile says that I am measuring out 80 grains. But if grains are only a measure of weight. It would depend on the material used when making the vile mold as to whether or not I'm truly getting 80 weight grain of T7? Is the only way to really know, to weigh what my vile calls 80 grains? In that case does Hodgden make a vile to measure with?
Underclocked said:
I propose a new measuring system. Underclocked units of measure. 1 UCM = 1/1000th UC ? pounds per sq in. Of course we will have to revise it annually or every time UC gets weighed. :lol:
Honestly the reason it is the way it is is that it's easy to do. A volume measure is easy to use and even if it is a sloppy way to measure powder it's safe. It's only us lunatics who weigh out our powder trying to gain an additional 1/10th inch.
If you want to change the ML world get us some standards. Start with bore diameter, then get us a meaning of what a grain of weight really is since powder measurements vary from measure to measure. Also get clarification of how we are supposed to use them properly to get the proper measurement. Then get us some safety standards for muzzleloaders. And as a little nit picky thing, get us some scope base standardization. It's an annoyance to try to find the right base. Also while your trying to change the world, how about a powerrod with every gun?
:lol:If there was one right way we'd all be doing it. All the little quirks make it interesting.
fordfisher said:
Just as a rule of thumb I've found that for my volume measure 100 gr by Volume (V) is 80 Gr by Weight (W). To get a weight from a volume charge subtract 20%. To get a volume from a weight add 25%. This is for Triple Seven ONLY.
100 gr (V) - 20% = 80 gr (W)
80 gr (W) + 25% = 100 Gr (V)
- Joined
- May 18, 2005
- Messages
- 4,261
- Reaction score
- 223
Fordfisher - no. :wink:
The markings on that measure are based upon true black powder (of some sort). Whatever powder they used, T7 had nothing to do with it.
If a load references 80 grains black powder and that's what you wanted to use, you would fill your measure to that 80 grain mark. Ideally the measured weight of that black powder would also be 80 grains. If you wanted to achieve similar results from Triple7 vs whatever black powder, you would fill the measure to about 20% less as Triple7 is more energetic than most common blacks. So, to achieve an equivalent load to 80 grains of black, you might set your measure to the 65 grain mark. Neither the 80 grain mark nor any other on that measure has anything to do with the actual measured weight of your T7 powder.
T7 is lighter than true black (less dense) so equal volumes of each will result in the charge of T7 powder being lighter actual weight. In the case of the 80 grain setting on that measure, you would find that volume of T7 FFg to weigh ~64 grains actual weight.
The 65 grains by volume of T7 FFg which would be roughly the energy equivalent of 80 grains by volume of common black powder would only weigh about 52 grains on your scales.
Each powder is in different in it's relationship to true black. The example of actual weights of T7 I've use are ONLY true for T7 FFg.
The markings on that measure are based upon true black powder (of some sort). Whatever powder they used, T7 had nothing to do with it.
If a load references 80 grains black powder and that's what you wanted to use, you would fill your measure to that 80 grain mark. Ideally the measured weight of that black powder would also be 80 grains. If you wanted to achieve similar results from Triple7 vs whatever black powder, you would fill the measure to about 20% less as Triple7 is more energetic than most common blacks. So, to achieve an equivalent load to 80 grains of black, you might set your measure to the 65 grain mark. Neither the 80 grain mark nor any other on that measure has anything to do with the actual measured weight of your T7 powder.
T7 is lighter than true black (less dense) so equal volumes of each will result in the charge of T7 powder being lighter actual weight. In the case of the 80 grain setting on that measure, you would find that volume of T7 FFg to weigh ~64 grains actual weight.
The 65 grains by volume of T7 FFg which would be roughly the energy equivalent of 80 grains by volume of common black powder would only weigh about 52 grains on your scales.
Each powder is in different in it's relationship to true black. The example of actual weights of T7 I've use are ONLY true for T7 FFg.
- Joined
- May 18, 2005
- Messages
- 4,261
- Reaction score
- 223
Patrick, you made two posts while I made one - not fair. :wink:
I think the problem is really that everything is compared to volumes of true black. (some true black??) Seems pretty outdated to me.
I think the problem is really that everything is compared to volumes of true black. (some true black??) Seems pretty outdated to me.
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2006
- Messages
- 88
- Reaction score
- 0
One last question. Earlier Grouse said 85 777 grains is rouqhly equivelant to 2 777 pellets. Is my measuring vile going to be close if I measure out 85 grains? I've only used pellets and I just need a good starting point.
- Joined
- May 17, 2005
- Messages
- 4,940
- Reaction score
- 146
fordfisher said:
85grns of loose 777ffg, will give you about the same velocity of two 777 pellets.
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2006
- Messages
- 88
- Reaction score
- 0
I guess that makes sense. If all measuring viles are made to measure black powder weight, the difference in weight versus volume doesnt really matter. If your viles 85 grains of loose is equal to two pellets mine should be the same. Its the standard that matters. And also the chrono testing you all have done. So thanx for the info and the testing. It really helps those of us with less experience.
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2006
- Messages
- 481
- Reaction score
- 1
Patrick, I am with you on this.
Check out the pellet vs. loose data from Hodgdon.com
If you compare two pellets:
240 Gr. Hdy. XTP 50/44 (100gr two pellets) Two 50 cal. / 50 gr. Speed = 1801
http://www.hodgdon.com/data/muzzleloading/pellets/50sabot.php
Now compare 100gr loose:
240 Gr. Hdy. XTP 50/44 @ 100gr loose Speed = 1927
http://www.hodgdon.com/data/muzzleloading/granular/t7rifle-sabot.php
Now compare 90gr loose:
240 Gr. Hdy. XTP 50/44 @ 90gr loose Speed = 1867
Now compare 80gr loose:
240 Gr. Hdy. XTP 50/44 @ 80gr loose Speed = 1761
So based on this speed data 2 50gr pellets of T7 equals appox. 85gr of loose T7 :!:
Check out the pellet vs. loose data from Hodgdon.com
If you compare two pellets:
240 Gr. Hdy. XTP 50/44 (100gr two pellets) Two 50 cal. / 50 gr. Speed = 1801
http://www.hodgdon.com/data/muzzleloading/pellets/50sabot.php
Now compare 100gr loose:
240 Gr. Hdy. XTP 50/44 @ 100gr loose Speed = 1927
http://www.hodgdon.com/data/muzzleloading/granular/t7rifle-sabot.php
Now compare 90gr loose:
240 Gr. Hdy. XTP 50/44 @ 90gr loose Speed = 1867
Now compare 80gr loose:
240 Gr. Hdy. XTP 50/44 @ 80gr loose Speed = 1761
So based on this speed data 2 50gr pellets of T7 equals appox. 85gr of loose T7 :!:
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2006
- Messages
- 88
- Reaction score
- 0
Good job Hunt 4 Bucks, once again the proof is in the pudding.Hunt 4 Bucks said:
Well - I'm glad we got that all cleared up.
But Mark My Words - when the subject comes up again, we'll all forget what the equivalents are. Somebody please bookmark this and we'll save the discussion next time :lol:
The important thing is (IMO) when using BLACK POWDER (or substitutes), Measure, don't Weigh - - unless, of course ......
Over and Out.
But Mark My Words - when the subject comes up again, we'll all forget what the equivalents are. Somebody please bookmark this and we'll save the discussion next time :lol:
The important thing is (IMO) when using BLACK POWDER (or substitutes), Measure, don't Weigh - - unless, of course ......
Over and Out.
anybody know why they download the 777 pellets? seems like i remember reading that they didnt want people using full 150 grain charges of loose 777 in muzzleloaders. in fact, if i remember correctly, hodgdon doesnt recommend using any more than two pellets - pyrodex OR 777 - in any muzzleloader. its the manufacturers of the rifles who say that 150 grain charges are acceptable
jaybe said:
Yes you can and should weigh black and subs if you want the tightest groups possible. You have to measure first than weigh that charge and do about three for a average then weigh'em all from that point. :wink:
Yup - that was what I meant with the "unless, of course .....".
My point was (especially for those who are new to Muzzleloading and unsure of weight vs volume) the general rule for muzzleloading is to measure charges by volume according to the recommendations provided by the manufacturer.
For more advanced shooters who want to get the tightest groups possible, weighing charges is the way to go.
Over and really out.
My point was (especially for those who are new to Muzzleloading and unsure of weight vs volume) the general rule for muzzleloading is to measure charges by volume according to the recommendations provided by the manufacturer.
For more advanced shooters who want to get the tightest groups possible, weighing charges is the way to go.
Over and really out.
Similar threads
- Locked
