Powder Comparison
06-10-2007 | 06:19 PM
#31
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 3,246
Likes: 0
From:
RE: Powder Comparison
ORIGINAL: falcon
Have used Hornady SST bullets (Shockwaves)to kill several deer and a couple of dozen hogs-some very big ones. Yes, sometimes the retained weight is not just wonderful, but i could care less since all my shots on hogs werebang flops or near bang flops.All but one deer was bang flopped, it was hit lowthrough both shoulders at 160 long paces.My favorite load for the Encore is 90 grains of JSG. For my old CVA Staghorn it is 100 grains of Pyrodex RS.Used to use very heavy loads of powder for deer and hogs but found that this is not needed. There is a bonded Shockwave bullet for you guys who want high retained weight.
Have used Hornady SST bullets (Shockwaves)to kill several deer and a couple of dozen hogs-some very big ones. Yes, sometimes the retained weight is not just wonderful, but i could care less since all my shots on hogs werebang flops or near bang flops.All but one deer was bang flopped, it was hit lowthrough both shoulders at 160 long paces.My favorite load for the Encore is 90 grains of JSG. For my old CVA Staghorn it is 100 grains of Pyrodex RS.Used to use very heavy loads of powder for deer and hogs but found that this is not needed. There is a bonded Shockwave bullet for you guys who want high retained weight.
http://www.basspro.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product_10151_-1_10001_55311?cmCat=CROSSSELL&cmid=PP_P0_2
I need to get some of these to try. Thanks for the tip. Chap
06-10-2007 | 07:39 PM
#32
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,081
Likes: 0
From: New Mexico
RE: Powder Comparison
Hey Chap, I recently got the F1 Master that is listed down the page just a bit. I like the fact that the display is remoted to the shooting table where it is more protected. And at $15 more than the plain F1 it is a good deal at that price, I think I paid about 5 or 10 dollars more than the sale price they have on it. I haven't used it a lot yet but so far it seems to work just fine.
06-10-2007 | 10:27 PM
#33
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 828
Likes: 0
From:
RE: Powder Comparison
Chap: I used the Shockwaves last year. I was not happy with them. They do, however, shoot very well out of the Encore. I thought the bullet would good to compare velocities between two different powders.
06-11-2007 | 05:53 AM
#34
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 3,246
Likes: 0
From:
RE: Powder Comparison
ORIGINAL: dmurphy317
Hey Chap, I recently got the F1 Master that is listed down the page just a bit. I like the fact that the display is remoted to the shooting table where it is more protected. And at $15 more than the plain F1 it is a good deal at that price, I think I paid about 5 or 10 dollars more than the sale price they have on it. I haven't used it a lot yet but so far it seems to work just fine.
Hey Chap, I recently got the F1 Master that is listed down the page just a bit. I like the fact that the display is remoted to the shooting table where it is more protected. And at $15 more than the plain F1 it is a good deal at that price, I think I paid about 5 or 10 dollars more than the sale price they have on it. I haven't used it a lot yet but so far it seems to work just fine.
06-11-2007 | 05:55 AM
#35
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 3,246
Likes: 0
From:
RE: Powder Comparison
ORIGINAL: Doegirl75
Chap: I used the Shockwaves last year. I was not happy with them. They do, however, shoot very well out of the Encore. I thought the bullet would good to compare velocities between two different powders.
Chap: I used the Shockwaves last year. I was not happy with them. They do, however, shoot very well out of the Encore. I thought the bullet would good to compare velocities between two different powders.
Chap
06-11-2007 | 10:17 AM
#36
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,092
Likes: 0
RE: Powder Comparison
The chart Cayugad posted at the beginning of this thread is "reasonably" accurate but would leave a lot of questions and has, by itself, no real application as energy content is not even a factor. All that chart is telling you is that Pyrodex (probably the original RS variety) weighs 80% of an equivalent volume of "some" black powder (which?).
That's neat, but it tells you nothing about the energy content or load behavior of either powder. The chart is not advising loads for either powder, it's simply showing that same weight relationship for a variety of volumes. Replacing that chart with a simplestatement would have provided just as much information... "Pyrodex (?) weighs 80% as much as Black Powder (?) when comparing equal volumes." And that by itself is as useful as saying 1 cup of nitroglycerine weighs 80% as much as a cup of water.
That bit of information is useful only when combined with the added knowledge (claimed) that Pyrodex(?) and black powder(?) possess roughly equal power for roughly equal volumes. So volume to volume, the two powdersproduced resultsessentially the same.Not such a heavy information load to carry around and one which worked well with the common equipment in use by muzzleloaders -namely volumetric measures.
But then comes BlackMag (in one of its numerous formulations and names), Triple7 (whose energy content has changed), Clear Shot, Clean Shot, American Pioneer, PELLETS!!! of this or that, and yadda-yadda powders all trying to use volume equivalence in the description of their power potential. It's really pretty crazy and no wonder at all why folks are so easily confused.
Look in any reloading manual for centerfire rounds and you won't see much mention of "volume equivalence". You will find grain weights and correspondingpressures/velocities developed for a given set of components in a specific test rifle. Things are a whole heap more standardized in the centerfire world, data is much more specific and useful, and the safety factor involved in using that information must be considerable in this world of lawyers and law suits.
Part of the appeal of muzzleloading has been theindividual'smethodology and the personality of his equipment. Hopefully that will remain the case but the vagueness of load description by the various manufacturers is cause for concern. There MUST be a way to more reasonably describe both recommended and maximum loads than the confusion that exists today.
Even aside from the nonsensical approach used in describing the power of "pellets", comparing regular black powders can be a challenge. What rules of thumb does one use if switching between Goex, KIX, Swiss, or Elephant...? The differences even there are not insignificant.
Mypersonal opinion is that pellets have done more to add confusion to this quagmire than any other single element. And now we have "magnum" pellets. [:-]
That's neat, but it tells you nothing about the energy content or load behavior of either powder. The chart is not advising loads for either powder, it's simply showing that same weight relationship for a variety of volumes. Replacing that chart with a simplestatement would have provided just as much information... "Pyrodex (?) weighs 80% as much as Black Powder (?) when comparing equal volumes." And that by itself is as useful as saying 1 cup of nitroglycerine weighs 80% as much as a cup of water.
That bit of information is useful only when combined with the added knowledge (claimed) that Pyrodex(?) and black powder(?) possess roughly equal power for roughly equal volumes. So volume to volume, the two powdersproduced resultsessentially the same.Not such a heavy information load to carry around and one which worked well with the common equipment in use by muzzleloaders -namely volumetric measures.
But then comes BlackMag (in one of its numerous formulations and names), Triple7 (whose energy content has changed), Clear Shot, Clean Shot, American Pioneer, PELLETS!!! of this or that, and yadda-yadda powders all trying to use volume equivalence in the description of their power potential. It's really pretty crazy and no wonder at all why folks are so easily confused.
Look in any reloading manual for centerfire rounds and you won't see much mention of "volume equivalence". You will find grain weights and correspondingpressures/velocities developed for a given set of components in a specific test rifle. Things are a whole heap more standardized in the centerfire world, data is much more specific and useful, and the safety factor involved in using that information must be considerable in this world of lawyers and law suits.
Part of the appeal of muzzleloading has been theindividual'smethodology and the personality of his equipment. Hopefully that will remain the case but the vagueness of load description by the various manufacturers is cause for concern. There MUST be a way to more reasonably describe both recommended and maximum loads than the confusion that exists today.
Even aside from the nonsensical approach used in describing the power of "pellets", comparing regular black powders can be a challenge. What rules of thumb does one use if switching between Goex, KIX, Swiss, or Elephant...? The differences even there are not insignificant.
Mypersonal opinion is that pellets have done more to add confusion to this quagmire than any other single element. And now we have "magnum" pellets. [:-]
06-11-2007 | 01:21 PM
#37
Boone & Crockett
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 11,410
Likes: 1
From: Comance county, OK
RE: Powder Comparison
Somehow i have managed to do pretty well with my Pyrodex RS, Clean Shot,and JSG over the years. Just got into Triple Seven and so far it seems to be a pretty good powder.Something is going to go away soon: Too many powders to mess with. Gave up on the pellets, not worth the added expense.Have looked at theClean Shot and Pyrodex tables and have a ball park idea of the velocity of my favorite muzzleloader loads: Farther than that i could care less. All i know is that they kill hogs and deer; sometimes, under the right conditions, at very long ranges.Havelostone animal, a cowelk, when that useless TC PTX bullet failed to expand and the blood trail petered out.Another hunter foundthat elkand took her out.
06-11-2007 | 02:20 PM
#38
Thread Starter
Dominant Buck
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 21,193
Likes: 0
From: Wisconsin
RE: Powder Comparison
I've tested about every kind of powder out there, loose or pellet. The only powder I can think of that I have not shot is Jim Shockey Gold. The only powder that ever gave/gives me accuracy fits (as it did again today) is American Pioneer Powder. I can make most rifles behave and shoot very well with most powders. Today I was shooting three different powders, two different rifles, four different projectiles. One of the powders of course was APP 2f. What a shock when I shotgroups with that. If you could even call it a group. So I tried the powder two different ways, swabbing between shots, and not swabbing. Both ways, the groups were not acceptable. Even simple Goex outshot APP hands down. My next thing is to try APP in a couple more rifles to see if one of them likes the stuff. I am pretty sure my Black Diamond XR will shoot it, as it shoots about anything you want to shove down the barrel.
Like already said, the powder companies are trying to sell powder. They will promise you about anything they think will make you buy at least a pound of it. So we know this powder is x% stronger then that, but only in loose form... And that powder is only stronger a little in the finer grains.. now there are Magnum pellets.
Makes me more and more want to load a simple flintlock and shoot roundball with Goex... Life was easy back then with just Goex and Pyrodex around. They both shot about the same. They all seemed more then able to meet my hunting needs.
Of course that is also what makes this sport so fun, is trying all the different things out there.
Like already said, the powder companies are trying to sell powder. They will promise you about anything they think will make you buy at least a pound of it. So we know this powder is x% stronger then that, but only in loose form... And that powder is only stronger a little in the finer grains.. now there are Magnum pellets.
Makes me more and more want to load a simple flintlock and shoot roundball with Goex... Life was easy back then with just Goex and Pyrodex around. They both shot about the same. They all seemed more then able to meet my hunting needs.Of course that is also what makes this sport so fun, is trying all the different things out there.
06-14-2007 | 11:42 AM
#39
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
From:
RE: Powder Comparison
ORIGINAL: Underclocked
The chart Cayugad posted at the beginning of this thread is "reasonably" accurate but would leave a lot of questions and has, by itself, no real application as energy content is not even a factor. All that chart is telling you is that Pyrodex (probably the original RS variety) weighs 80% of an equivalent volume of "some" black powder (which?).
That's neat, but it tells you nothing about the energy content or load behavior of either powder. The chart is not advising loads for either powder, it's simply showing that same weight relationship for a variety of volumes. Replacing that chart with a simplestatement would have provided just as much information... "Pyrodex (?) weighs 80% as much as Black Powder (?) when comparing equal volumes." And that by itself is as useful as saying 1 cup of nitroglycerine weighs 80% as much as a cup of water.
That bit of information is useful only when combined with the added knowledge (claimed) that Pyrodex(?) and black powder(?) possess roughly equal power for roughly equal volumes. So volume to volume, the two powdersproduced resultsessentially the same.Not such a heavy information load to carry around and one which worked well with the common equipment in use by muzzleloaders -namely volumetric measures.
But then comes BlackMag (in one of its numerous formulations and names), Triple7 (whose energy content has changed), Clear Shot, Clean Shot, American Pioneer, PELLETS!!! of this or that, and yadda-yadda powders all trying to use volume equivalence in the description of their power potential. It's really pretty crazy and no wonder at all why folks are so easily confused.
Look in any reloading manual for centerfire rounds and you won't see much mention of "volume equivalence". You will find grain weights and correspondingpressures/velocities developed for a given set of components in a specific test rifle. Things are a whole heap more standardized in the centerfire world, data is much more specific and useful, and the safety factor involved in using that information must be considerable in this world of lawyers and law suits.
Part of the appeal of muzzleloading has been theindividual'smethodology and the personality of his equipment. Hopefully that will remain the case but the vagueness of load description by the various manufacturers is cause for concern. There MUST be a way to more reasonably describe both recommended and maximum loads than the confusion that exists today.
Even aside from the nonsensical approach used in describing the power of "pellets", comparing regular black powders can be a challenge. What rules of thumb does one use if switching between Goex, KIX, Swiss, or Elephant...? The differences even there are not insignificant.
Mypersonal opinion is that pellets have done more to add confusion to this quagmire than any other single element. And now we have "magnum" pellets. [:-]
The chart Cayugad posted at the beginning of this thread is "reasonably" accurate but would leave a lot of questions and has, by itself, no real application as energy content is not even a factor. All that chart is telling you is that Pyrodex (probably the original RS variety) weighs 80% of an equivalent volume of "some" black powder (which?).
That's neat, but it tells you nothing about the energy content or load behavior of either powder. The chart is not advising loads for either powder, it's simply showing that same weight relationship for a variety of volumes. Replacing that chart with a simplestatement would have provided just as much information... "Pyrodex (?) weighs 80% as much as Black Powder (?) when comparing equal volumes." And that by itself is as useful as saying 1 cup of nitroglycerine weighs 80% as much as a cup of water.
That bit of information is useful only when combined with the added knowledge (claimed) that Pyrodex(?) and black powder(?) possess roughly equal power for roughly equal volumes. So volume to volume, the two powdersproduced resultsessentially the same.Not such a heavy information load to carry around and one which worked well with the common equipment in use by muzzleloaders -namely volumetric measures.
But then comes BlackMag (in one of its numerous formulations and names), Triple7 (whose energy content has changed), Clear Shot, Clean Shot, American Pioneer, PELLETS!!! of this or that, and yadda-yadda powders all trying to use volume equivalence in the description of their power potential. It's really pretty crazy and no wonder at all why folks are so easily confused.
Look in any reloading manual for centerfire rounds and you won't see much mention of "volume equivalence". You will find grain weights and correspondingpressures/velocities developed for a given set of components in a specific test rifle. Things are a whole heap more standardized in the centerfire world, data is much more specific and useful, and the safety factor involved in using that information must be considerable in this world of lawyers and law suits.
Part of the appeal of muzzleloading has been theindividual'smethodology and the personality of his equipment. Hopefully that will remain the case but the vagueness of load description by the various manufacturers is cause for concern. There MUST be a way to more reasonably describe both recommended and maximum loads than the confusion that exists today.
Even aside from the nonsensical approach used in describing the power of "pellets", comparing regular black powders can be a challenge. What rules of thumb does one use if switching between Goex, KIX, Swiss, or Elephant...? The differences even there are not insignificant.
Mypersonal opinion is that pellets have done more to add confusion to this quagmire than any other single element. And now we have "magnum" pellets. [:-]
1. Remove the measure from ones hunting bag as now the powder is in nice neat little bricks easily dispensed.
2. *Possibly* remove one variable from the BP mystique by removing the powder compression variable out of the list of consistency issues. By the factory make the powders in a controlled fashion with their press the charges are now reasonably uniform.
I bring this issue up via a ditty in Muzzleloader mag about 12 yrs ago on the various BP and subsitutes that identified compression as being one of the THE big variables to contend with when using any of the subsitutes. Resultantly the "Kadooty " was born which allowed one to be consistent on load compression as it measured the compression load into the powder-slug one applied...
Is the compression thing still an issue with loose powders? Cant say as I've yet to see a repeat of the chronoed experiment anywhere since the original article was written...
Keep yer powder dry,
D.
06-14-2007 | 04:52 PM
#40
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,470
Likes: 0
From:
RE: Powder Comparison
ORIGINAL: cayugad
So my question is, do you agree or disagree? If so any chronograph data to back your points?
So my question is, do you agree or disagree? If so any chronograph data to back your points?
I don't have my journal with me as I write, but I have found a significant difference between Pyro P and Blackpowder when used with light weight projectiles like PRB and Ballets.
I compare powders not strictly on muzzle velocity, rather on muzzle energy on a volume basis. For PRB and Ballet, I would a agree that Pyro P produces roughly 25% more muzzle energy than does Goex 3f as the table you supplied suggests.
