Powder Volume to Weight
#1
Powder Volume to Weight
Well, it was pouring like heck here today and boredom has set in. I remember a post on one of the forums about the accuracy of the graduation marks on BH209 tube - how accurate they might be if used for measuring. So just for drill I decided that what the heck let's find out!
I always load with a volume measure and over time I think I have become very consistent at using the measure... I also decided besides testing BH which I use sparingly I would also test T7-2f for volume.
Here are a few pictures that show the process I was using:
And this is the table that was created.... Hope the table makes some sense...
Not sure if this shows anything of much interest but it did keep me busy for awhile...
I always load with a volume measure and over time I think I have become very consistent at using the measure... I also decided besides testing BH which I use sparingly I would also test T7-2f for volume.
Here are a few pictures that show the process I was using:
And this is the table that was created.... Hope the table makes some sense...
Not sure if this shows anything of much interest but it did keep me busy for awhile...
#2
Hmmmm...Looks like the BH powder tube is a little bigger than it is supposed to be. The BH one is 5.5 grains OVER and the TC one is 5.3 under the volume to weight conversion table. at 120gr volume the weight is supposed to be 84gr. For someone loading up hot charges and loading by volume, that could get into the danger zone a bit.
#3
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Saxonburg Pa
Posts: 3,925
I think your test would of been better to show the actual volume weight. What people say is the volume weight of the marks on the tubes aren't accurate. I'm pretty sure I found that out to be true as well.
#4
Tom the weights listed are the actual weight of the test. 4 separate loads were thrown for each test and the weight of each of the volume measure is the exact weight as read on my scale.
#7
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Saxonburg Pa
Posts: 3,925
Are you saying if you fill the tube to 120grns marked on the BH tubes, it's truly 120grns by volume? When talking about black powder or substitutes weight means nothing to me. I only concern myself with volume.
#8
Boone & Crockett
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: River Ridge, LA (Suburb of New Orleans)
Posts: 10,917
Volume equivalents are supposed to be based on FF black powder - i.e. a measure set at 100 grains should throw a load of FF black powder that actually weighs 100 grains.
I've tested a number of powder measures and the TC measures always throw a lightest load. The TC U-View measure is the worst, typically throwing at load that is 10 grains light - i.e. when set at 100 grains it throws a load of GOEX FFg that actually weighs 89 grains and a load of GOEX FFFg that actually weighhs 90 grains.
I've tested a number of powder measures and the TC measures always throw a lightest load. The TC U-View measure is the worst, typically throwing at load that is 10 grains light - i.e. when set at 100 grains it throws a load of GOEX FFg that actually weighs 89 grains and a load of GOEX FFFg that actually weighhs 90 grains.
#9
If you fill the tube to the 120 grain mark - according to that volume measure it is 120 grains of BH, but when you weight on a scale it weighs right at 90 grains. And according to the conversion it should weigh right at 84 grains. So the tubes and the graduations on the tube you would be loading more the graduation line indicates. But... it is also consistent each time you use the tube.
So in short - loading the tube to the 120 line you would produce a load somewhat heavier than the 120 you thought you were getting. That would compute out to about 128 grain load of BH.
#10
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Rapid City, South Dakota
Posts: 3,732
Grain is a unit of weight. Measuring weight by using volume is kinda weird is it not? Why is this? My thought is because the old boys couldn't readily carry a balance scale, but could carry container marked to be a weight substitute.
These days, we can all own a scale, and we can all access vials. Me, i never measure powder by volume. In another thread i kept writing my load was 105 grain. This was a lie. I actually have no idea what the volume load was. Every load i used, i never measured; i never knew what the volume was. Every load i used was weighed 73.5 grain. What was done was to weigh the charges, and dump them into the Blackhorn vials. Them markes on the vials were totally ignored. When i go up and shoot, i carry the Blackhorn vials with the erroneous marks filled with 73.5 grain weight of powder.
When i go hunting i carry Lane' tubes filled with 73.5 grain weight of Blackhorn. I 'say'/ write the load is 105 grain Blackhorn, but it isn't. The reason i carry Lane' tubes when hunting, and not the Blackhorn vials, is because the screw on lids don't come off in my pocket.
..
These days, we can all own a scale, and we can all access vials. Me, i never measure powder by volume. In another thread i kept writing my load was 105 grain. This was a lie. I actually have no idea what the volume load was. Every load i used, i never measured; i never knew what the volume was. Every load i used was weighed 73.5 grain. What was done was to weigh the charges, and dump them into the Blackhorn vials. Them markes on the vials were totally ignored. When i go up and shoot, i carry the Blackhorn vials with the erroneous marks filled with 73.5 grain weight of powder.
When i go hunting i carry Lane' tubes filled with 73.5 grain weight of Blackhorn. I 'say'/ write the load is 105 grain Blackhorn, but it isn't. The reason i carry Lane' tubes when hunting, and not the Blackhorn vials, is because the screw on lids don't come off in my pocket.
..