Blackhorn209 By Weight
- Thread starter exMember
- Start date
Help Support Modern Muzzleloading Forum:
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2009
- Messages
- 3,391
- Reaction score
- 1
mapache,
What can I do for you :?:
Ray.......
What can I do for you :?:
Ray.......
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2010
- Messages
- 13,946
- Reaction score
- 915
Depends on the load. Ray gets 55, but I think that's 110 gr. About 60 if you use 100gr loads.mapache said:
5lb jug would be x8.
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2010
- Messages
- 13,946
- Reaction score
- 915
Or read my post. :clown:
Kind of.
I was calculating cost per shot too. Trying to figure out if it's worth it to get a couple 10 ouncers locally or get a 5 pounder and hoard it. Has anyone had the powder go "bad" or loose velocity due to its age?
I was calculating cost per shot too. Trying to figure out if it's worth it to get a couple 10 ouncers locally or get a 5 pounder and hoard it. Has anyone had the powder go "bad" or loose velocity due to its age?
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2010
- Messages
- 13,946
- Reaction score
- 915
BH 209 won't go bad, or absorb moisture if you keep it sealed up. It's just like smokeless.
5lbs is the way to go if you plan on shooting a lot.
5lbs is the way to go if you plan on shooting a lot.
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2010
- Messages
- 13,946
- Reaction score
- 915
PT Gold bullets are pretty cheap if you buy in bulk, and they shoot good.
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2010
- Messages
- 13,946
- Reaction score
- 915
Hey fellas....
Just FYI (so take this at face value - do your own validation to confirm my results)
Being a long-time Center-fire precision hand-loader, I could not help but use the tools I have in order to confirm the data presented here.
Using an A&D FX-120i scientific scale (accurate to within 0.01 grains weight), I first set up my TC powder measure at precisely 100 grains volume. Then, I "threw" 5 individual 100 grain (volume) charges. Then I weighed each thrown charge on the A&D scale to determine the closest approximation to the volme-to-weight ratio. Here are my results...
72.54
72.16
72.88
71.98
72.12
Using ALL samples, the avg. charge = 72.34. If we throw out the high and low charge (outliers), we get an avg. of 72.27. And, lastly, if we look for grouped values, we can see that 2 out of 5 (40%) fell into the 72.1-72.2 bucket.
From this data, I can conclude that it is reasonable and more accurate to use a ration of 100:72.2 volume-to-weight ratio (and you could just round that to (72).
You can use that ratio to calculate whatever charge you are seeking, but here is a quick reference chart (that I will be using):
<table style="border-collapse:
collapse;width:96pt" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="128"><tr style="height:15.0pt"><td style="height:15.0pt;width:48pt" height="20" width="64"> Volume</td><td style="width:48pt" width="64"> Weight</td></tr><tr style="height:15.0pt"><td style="height:15.0pt" align="right" height="20">80</td><td class="xl63" align="right">57.8</td></tr><tr style="height:15.0pt"><td style="height:15.0pt" align="right" height="20">90</td><td class="xl63" align="right">65.0</td></tr><tr style="height:15.0pt"><td style="height:15.0pt" align="right" height="20">100</td><td class="xl63" align="right">72.2</td></tr><tr style="height:15.0pt"><td style="height:15.0pt" align="right" height="20">110</td><td class="xl63" align="right">79.4</td></tr><tr style="height:15.0pt"><td style="height:15.0pt" align="right" height="20">120</td><td class="xl63" align="right">86.6</td></tr></table>
Using my knowledge and experience, I can also conclude that the most important aspect to the charge is the density. So, while I/you can keep the weights accurate, it is up to the individual to ensure that the "load" is consistent with respect to the final "pressure" used to compress the charge in the breech.
NOTE: None of these samples were handled differently in any way and no sample charge was tamped down or otherwise manipulated to increase it's density.
Just FYI (so take this at face value - do your own validation to confirm my results)
Being a long-time Center-fire precision hand-loader, I could not help but use the tools I have in order to confirm the data presented here.
Using an A&D FX-120i scientific scale (accurate to within 0.01 grains weight), I first set up my TC powder measure at precisely 100 grains volume. Then, I "threw" 5 individual 100 grain (volume) charges. Then I weighed each thrown charge on the A&D scale to determine the closest approximation to the volme-to-weight ratio. Here are my results...
72.54
72.16
72.88
71.98
72.12
Using ALL samples, the avg. charge = 72.34. If we throw out the high and low charge (outliers), we get an avg. of 72.27. And, lastly, if we look for grouped values, we can see that 2 out of 5 (40%) fell into the 72.1-72.2 bucket.
From this data, I can conclude that it is reasonable and more accurate to use a ration of 100:72.2 volume-to-weight ratio (and you could just round that to (72).
You can use that ratio to calculate whatever charge you are seeking, but here is a quick reference chart (that I will be using):
<table style="border-collapse:
collapse;width:96pt" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="128"><tr style="height:15.0pt"><td style="height:15.0pt;width:48pt" height="20" width="64"> Volume</td><td style="width:48pt" width="64"> Weight</td></tr><tr style="height:15.0pt"><td style="height:15.0pt" align="right" height="20">80</td><td class="xl63" align="right">57.8</td></tr><tr style="height:15.0pt"><td style="height:15.0pt" align="right" height="20">90</td><td class="xl63" align="right">65.0</td></tr><tr style="height:15.0pt"><td style="height:15.0pt" align="right" height="20">100</td><td class="xl63" align="right">72.2</td></tr><tr style="height:15.0pt"><td style="height:15.0pt" align="right" height="20">110</td><td class="xl63" align="right">79.4</td></tr><tr style="height:15.0pt"><td style="height:15.0pt" align="right" height="20">120</td><td class="xl63" align="right">86.6</td></tr></table>
Using my knowledge and experience, I can also conclude that the most important aspect to the charge is the density. So, while I/you can keep the weights accurate, it is up to the individual to ensure that the "load" is consistent with respect to the final "pressure" used to compress the charge in the breech.
NOTE: None of these samples were handled differently in any way and no sample charge was tamped down or otherwise manipulated to increase it's density.
patocazador
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2012
- Messages
- 5,496
- Reaction score
- 17
Write to Western Powder and tell them your results AFTER you try 2 or 3 other brands of volume powder measures.
More than likely your results will change judging by how manufacturing tolerances are nowadays. It might even work out to be 74 or 75 ... who knows??
More than likely your results will change judging by how manufacturing tolerances are nowadays. It might even work out to be 74 or 75 ... who knows??
Are you suggesting that "other" volume powder measures are different? I was under the impression that "grains" (in the case of muzzle loading) was a volume and that 100 grains is 100 grains. Please correct me if I am missing something.patocazador said:
With respect to the "weight" for Blackhorn209, I stand by the results as long as my assumption that 100 grains volume does not differ. Even so, I doubt it means nearly as much as the overall charge density (which I pointed out as important).
The purpose of the post was to give the reader a tested ratio for Blackhorn209. I think this was accomplished very well and the results are valid.
patocazador
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2012
- Messages
- 5,496
- Reaction score
- 17
Just because it says 100 gr. doesn't mean they are really that accurate. 100 grs. of what? 100 grs. of 2F? 3F? 1F? sugar? salt? etc.
I'm suggesting that you tested one aspect of accuracy but neglected to verify that your T/C powder measure was an accurate standard. A CVA powder measure or another brand may vary. In fact, T/C powder measures may vary between different samples.
Your results, as all controlled tests are, are only as valid as the most inaccurate measure used in the test. Unless you verify that your powder measure is accurate for 100 gr. of a certain type and weight of powder, you results are subject to error.
You are correct in the statement, "as long as my assumption that 100 grains volume does not differ."
Your results may turn out to be perfectly valid but you have only tested one side of the problem as far as accuracy is concerned.
I'm suggesting that you tested one aspect of accuracy but neglected to verify that your T/C powder measure was an accurate standard. A CVA powder measure or another brand may vary. In fact, T/C powder measures may vary between different samples.
Your results, as all controlled tests are, are only as valid as the most inaccurate measure used in the test. Unless you verify that your powder measure is accurate for 100 gr. of a certain type and weight of powder, you results are subject to error.
You are correct in the statement, "as long as my assumption that 100 grains volume does not differ."
Your results may turn out to be perfectly valid but you have only tested one side of the problem as far as accuracy is concerned.
Some measures throw heavier or even lighter charges. I went through 3 measures before the 4th got me within 1 grain of the .7 rule.
When wanting to figure out how much 100 grains blackhorn209 weights, just type into the calculator 100x .7 and it will show up as 70 grains weight.
When wanting to figure out how much 100 grains blackhorn209 weights, just type into the calculator 100x .7 and it will show up as 70 grains weight.
So... what I've learned here is that [1] Grains with respect to Muzzle Loading is - in fact - NOT a volume, but is instead derived from it real measurement - weight. I had been convinced from reading that it was - in fact - a true volume but confusing because it had the same name (glad I got that cleared up); and [2] Volumes from muzzle loading charge tools for measurement are NOT consistent. I wondered why some guys got so caught up in that argument...FrontierGander said:
In any case, if you are making the argument that the volume (100 grains) varies from one measure to another, then this is all a moot point. Use .7 or .722 either one is right. That is not so far from what I said in my initial post
Just FYI (so take this at face value - do your own validation to confirm my results)
...which is to say - for my volume measurement device (made by TC) - 100 grains = 72.2 grains actual weight. There is no doubt that is true, and it works for me (you can and possibly should use your own validation based on the volume measure you use). What I stated was more important was that consistent density was probably more important, as long as the powder measurement was also consistent.
Using my knowledge and experience, I can also conclude that the most important aspect to the charge is the density. So, while I/you can keep the weights accurate, it is up to the individual to ensure that the "load" is consistent with respect to the final "pressure" used to compress the charge in the breech.
I do not believe that 70.0 will make any difference than 72.2 (but that remains to be seen at the range should I decide to try it). What we learn as precision hand-loaders is that consistency is the MOST important aspect of our loads/cartridges.
See.... one learns something everyday!
Similar threads
- Locked
