Black powder and black powder suds
 

First we will look at the black powders.

Goex prior to late 2000 was more corrosive than the other brands on the market at that time. This was due to the grade of potassium nitrate they were using. Their long-time supplier folded in 2000 so they had to switch to potassium nitrate produced in Chile. Their long-time supplier had been shipping them a fertilizer grade of potassium nitrate while telling them it was a technical grade. They refused to listen to me when I told them that back in 1984. But at the same time they had no choice. There was no other U.S. producer of potassium nitrate they could buy from.
Then in 2001 they got their charcoal problem in hand. After they closed the Moosic plant their long-time charcoal supplier was pulling a fast one on them.

But as it stands now the major brands of BP, GOEX, Schuetzen and Swiss all use a grade of potassium nitrate where the chlorides are measured in parts per million.

On to the subs.
APP, Shockey's Gold, Pinnacle and Black Mag are based on ascorbic acid and potassium nitrate. Only Black Mag's patent shows the addition of potassium perchlorate. Which makes its residue more corrosive than the other 3. APP, Shockey's Gold and Pinnacle are all made by the same company. So there is really nothing that makes one really superior compared to the others.

Blackhorn 209 was handed to me. The mfg. claimed it was not a smokeless (nitrocellulose) powder. So I had at it in the kitchen with different solvents. Turned out TO BE a nitrocellulose powder with 17 parts of an unidentified chemical used to tone it down in the gun. The unknown chemical is highly soluble in water. I just saw no need to spend another day or two in the kitchen to identify it. And given the price per pound I figured it simply was out of the picture. After reading a post or two in this thread I might just take another look at the 17 parts of the unidentified water-soluble chemical and see if that would cause corrosion.


With Hodgdon we have Pyrodex and Triple Seven. The whole patented concept in Pyrodex was the use of sodium benzoate with potassium nitrate. But to get the two to react fast enough to make it a usefull firearm propellant they had to heave in something like 17 parts of potassium perchlorate. When the powder burns the potassium perchlorate simply gives up its oxygen and remains as potassium chloride. ANY chloride will be most corrosive in the gun. Does John Boy use Alantic Ocean water to clean his guns after a shoot?? I think not.
Onto 777.
The patent on Pyrodex ran out a few years back. Then the in-line ML hunting crowd wanted faster powders. A big push came when the plastic sabots came into use in the in-line ML rifles. That 17 parts of potassium perchlorate that was converted to potassium chloride causes a lot of grief with tight fitting sabots. The little crystals of potassium chloride are scattered to the bore. When you would push a sabot down the bore the crystals would embed in the plastic. So you would reach a point where you could not get the sabot down onto the powder charge.

So what we see in 777 is a change to sodium dintitrobenzoate sulonate. Think of it as going up a notch in benzoates. This dinitrobenzoate is HIGHLY reactive with charcoal. So there is no need to heave in a bunch of potassium perchlorate to "strengthen" the powder. This makes 777 a lot LESS corrosive compared to Pyrodex. When I checked the 777 on brass plates there was no surface pitting of the brass as with Pyrodex. Hodgdon's MSDS for 777 shows potassium perchlorate. From what I saw in my steel plate and brass sheet corrosion tests I don't think it has any perchlorate in it.

With this development of 777 Hodgdon can claim that it is an improved version of Pyrodex. Makes getting it onto the market a lot cheaper than going through it as if it is an entirely new explosive composition.


The thing about potassium chloride corrosion in gun bores is that a lot of times the average shooter would never know it is happening. You can get a lot of micro-pitting of the bore which gives the surface of the metal a frosted look. This comes up to bite the shooter if the shooter switches to black powder. BP fouling will then act as if it is welded to the bore walls. Simply because the metal's surface is so rough and pitted.


Just keep in mind that ALL of these powders are based on potassium nitrate as a source of oxygen for powder combustion. As a result they produce potassium carbonate as a product of combustion. This "potash" is in itself slightly corrosive in the bore. Anything in the bore that will dissolve in water to form an electrolyte solution will be corrosive. So this gives all of these powders what might be called a baseline corrosiveness. Any chlorides present will enhance/increase this base level of corrosiveness. Potash itself will only cause a uniform shallow rusting of the surface metal. As soon as you add chlorides you can get pit corrosion that bites deep into the surface of the metal. be it steel gun barrels or fired brass cases.

This is a quote from a fellow named Lou Gram who posted it on an other forum to answer some questions after he checked it out chemically.

RE: Black powder and black powder suds
 

SW, this is why I think what I do. I know of the fellow that posted it and he has an excellent reputation. Lee

RE: Black powder and black powder suds
 

If we take this at face value (making the assumption here) it would explain the decreased corrosiveness of BH209 because if it IS nitrocellulose-based it does not need to contain potassium nitrate or perchlorate as an oxidizer -- nitrocellulose contains its oxidizer intramolecularly (the oxidizing group is part of the same molecule, two molecules do not need to combine). Thus you won't get the potash and less need to swab the bore, explaining another characteristic of the powder.

It also makes the powder illegal for ML seasons in a large number of states.

Now this is not what the manufacturer claims it to be, right? So I'm just following the logic train in the post.

http://www.theopenrange.net/forum/index.php?topic=6150.0;highlight=blackhorn+209

I must mention that I have more than a bit of training in chemistry, and the spectrograph data in this article is provacative. I'm fairly suspicious that BH209 is, in fact, nitrocellulose based (Trail Boss is marketed as a smokeless powder). I wish I still had access to a GC/MS machine to confirm but I do not. If I ever get ahold of a bottle (never seen one yet) I may have to run some basic chemical analysis on it...

This article goes on to state that at least on individual claims to have found sulfur in BH209, which can turn corrosive in a humid environment.

RE: Black powder and black powder suds
 

Thanks for the information. I think it's priceless in my opinion. Until proven other wise cleaning the gun should be the norm after use.

RE: Black powder and black powder suds
 

I'm new to black powder, but it seems in threads like this and others that the usage of 777 is the best propellant/easiest to clean also. Is this correct?

RE: Black powder and black powder suds
 

Each has its own peculularities. BH209 is harder to ignite than 777, requires tighter compression (tight sabot), and likes to put a hard residue in the breech plug flame channel. It is also far more expensive per shot. All of this is what I have gathered on here, I've never shot it myself.

Conversely, it requires much less swabbing when shooting, produces higher velocity with similar pressure, and is less sensitive to moisture.

If they were near the same price point and the ignition temp wasn't as high (I like my ACP conversion) I'd shoot BH209. Since they are not, I am content with 777.

RE: Black powder and black powder suds
 

I clean my rifle after I shoot each day. I don't like it, but am willing to swab after each shot. So it does not matter to me what I shoot as long as it is cost effective, produces accurate results, and can be obtained easy...

RE: Black powder and black powder suds
 

cayugad

Well, that pretty much sums up the whole situation in one smal statement.

RE: Black powder and black powder suds
 

1) Cost effective -- pricey as heck
2) Accurate -- see #3
3) Easily obtained -- never even seen a bottle on a shelf, can't even TRY without pricey HAZMAT fees requiring bulk purchase online

Yup, that pretty much sums up my thought process....:D

RE: Black powder and black powder suds
 

spaniel, i agree to a point. For your long range shooting you would see a big difference with bullets heavier then 200grns. If all you use is 200grn bullets it might not matter. 100fps is a big difference at three, four, five hundred yards in my opinion. That would even change the wind drift as well.

RE: Black powder and black powder suds
 

Agree 100%. I've been eyeing some of your velocity numbers. I check the shelves in every shooting/sporting store I enter. Maybe I'll get lucky eventually.

RE: Black powder and black powder suds
 

Grouse45

I disagree somewhat.... I have to go back to my centerfire reloading days to reach what i am proposing... but, anyway very often the maximum load in a 300 Win Mag or even the 270 with a particular bullet is not the most accurate... it may be going a bit faster and it will have a bit more energy, but more often than not the most accurate loads are not the max loads available for each powder type.

RE: Black powder and black powder suds
 

Works for me.

RE: Black powder and black powder suds
 

Well I posted this for two reasons. #1 was to try to get SW to understand why I don't agree with the MSDS, I am inclined to believe the other 17 parts are a standard retardant. #2 I though all the guys no matter what they shoot would find it interesting.
But after reading the posts I think that there is on point some of you are missing. I disregard the price I got a chance to pick some up cheaper than 777 I think [not sure what 777 costs any more but I bought 2 cases of BH for 16 dollars a case.
When I judge a powder I look at two things first, how much work and time it costs me to use it, my time is often limited and its valuable to me.
The second thing is where I differ from a lot of people. Pressure is what pushes a bullet but it can be applied in different ways a powder that goes quickly to peak pressure [ which black and most of the subs do not ] you have to worry about what peak pressure is more but you won't find unburned powder going out the barrel, this is what limits what you can get out of a powder.
Now when we talk about progressive burning powder, the more the pressure the faster it burns, and when you can find a progressive burning powder with an elongated peak and you do enough pressure testing to know what your limit is so you can take best advantage of it then you compare that velocity to the velocity you can get with other powders, and remember the longer lower pressure peak when pushed up to the same point as the other powders is still safe but more stable so long range accuracy should be better. Several people have mentioned the velocity obtainable so I won't repeat there work. Lee

RE: Black powder and black powder suds
 

All is out the window if you can't get the accuracy, I don't think anyone is discounting accuracy but rather assuming you can get it at the increased velocity or it doesn't matter that you have the incremental velocity.

Case in point, 200gr SMK in my 300WM I can load 74.0gr Re22 and get max accuracy. This is already above max load by the book (but I seat my bullets out long as I have a long throat so it's ok). However, with the 200gr Accubond I only load 73.2gr Re22. While my goal was to have loads of identical velocity with the 2 bullets, I can't because I lose accuracy with the Accubond over 73.2gr.

Same goes for what I said in another thread about why I jump straight from 200 to 300+ grain bullets -- I can't drive 250s with full charges in my gun but I can do it with 300-325gr bullets so I don't get a velocity advantage with 250s, I can drive the 300s just as fast (with accuracy) giving me identical/better trajectory to the 250s but more energy delivered.

RE: Black powder and black powder suds
 

Sabotloader, spaniel answered correctly. I would never sacrifice accuracy for speed. Of course we all have are own way's of considering what's accurate enough for us.

RE: Black powder and black powder suds
 

Lee

I can only speak for myself and my thoughts, but:

As you can see I have not finished building this spread sheet still have some shooting to do. But, based on what I have collected so far I really do not see that huge of a difference. When I shoot the T7-3f loads the value difference will even be less. So for myself the cost of BH does not outweigh the advantages.


For my part on this I am grateful for the the additional time, albeit minimal, that T7 costs me to shoot. It does slow me down, one of the reasons I turned to shooting ML's - shooting a CF rifle was just to quick and to easy. Clean-up I really see very little difference between the two - they both must (should) be cleaned and they both clean up a lot easier - but I think I do save a couple of bucks with T7 because it cleans with water and Windex.

But I really gotta admit if you got two case of BH for $16 bucks each - Outstanding - for that I could do the switch...

I really want to finish this table just not sure where the time will come from - and it is really hot here...

RE: Black powder and black powder suds
 

Just have to add on the whole time thing -- it amused me at the public range when people gave me a hard time about how long it took to reload the ML between shots, claiming it took to long to shoot them. #1, if you wanted to shoot accurately in the summer you needed 3-5min between shots with any gun (though many of them thought any 100yd group minute-of-pieplate was GREAT), and once I started reloading I learned that it took more time to reload a quality rifle cartridge than to reload a quality ML shot.

The only difference was I had to reload the ML at the range, and I could reload the rifle shell at home during the winter when I had nothing better to do...

RE: Black powder and black powder suds
 

I guess it depends what your threshhold for significant improvement is. 100fps gain would mean 5 inches less drop and 1.5 inches less wind drift with the 325gr FTX load I have been developing, at 300 yards. If you never shoot over 200 yards, it means squat. If you are about 300 and certainly longer ranges, it starts to be pretty meaningful. I'd pay the premium if it was easy to find and I got 100+fps advantage.
Of course, over 2-3 years I could probably justify a smokeless gun instead!

RE: Black powder and black powder suds
 

spaniel

For myself... 200 is my max with a ML, buteven them it is pretty difficult to get a 200 yard in the areas that I hunt.... not may level spots in Idaho... We would be bigger than Texas if they could flatten the state.

Andy, I just do not have the faith in a ML for 300 yard shots - one because of energy and 2 my own abilities.

RE: Black powder and black powder suds
 

Well I guess I am a shooter not a writer I can see I did not make my point.
I do not judge by the volume of the load but by the pressure of the load; it takes close to 140 gr of BH to give you the same pressure as 120 gr of 777 FFF the difference is close to 20 percent or a bit more.
Volume is the way we normally measure so that's the way I am designating but it is not the true limiting factor pressure is. Lee

RE: Black powder and black powder suds
 

Lee

It is my belief and I am certainly not as qualified as you... but I believe that BH works like any other progressive burning powder with different burning rates. I believe that BH does create more total pressure than T7 with an equal amount of powder either by volume or by weight. The difference being that it never creates the as much pressure as T7 does in a given time period. It takes longer to burn and as it burns pressure is created. T7 burns much faster and at a constant rate - therefore it reaches peak pressure sooner than BH.

Further it is my belief if you put equal amount of T7 and BH confined them in a given space - ignited them, the total pressure created would be greater with BH. In a confined space the progressive nature of the BH would even be further inhanced building even more pressure as pressure would not be released until rupture of the container. In other words you could build a bigger bomb with BH than you could with a like amount of T7.

Lastly, I agree with your thought that at no given time within the barrel does BH build the peak pressure that T7 does in a given moment of time after ignition. If T7 could build greater total pressure over the length of the burn - then we could use it in a centerfire also.

RE: Black powder and black powder suds
 

Mike that is about 95 % correct always remembering that the more progressive powder you bur the higher the pressure goes before it levels off. There for overloads are more dangerous. We do need to take care to stay within the pressure levels that fit the design of these guns. Even so what can be accomplished with BH is different partly because the more you put it the faster it burn so you don't end up blowing powder out the end of the barrel.
Of course the cost per load goes up as fast as the attainable velocity for anybody that cares. Lee

RE: Black powder and black powder suds
 

Lee

Concur