Can anyone confirm this information

[Andy Cross]

Can anyone confirm this information. It was given to me by a chemical engineer who was not a shooter. He worked in quality control in an explosives plant and is now eighty years of age. The story he gave me goes that the number on the canister of powder is derived from two pieces of information. Those being the burning rate and specific gravity ie loading density of the powder.

The burning rate is found by determining how long it takes for one gram of the powder to burn away from a pre ignition temperature of twenty five degrees C at sea level. Time measured in milliseconds. The SG is found by determining how much distilled water at twenty five degrees C it displaces which is calculated in cubic millilitres.

The two measurements have a constant applied to them which results in the number on the canister. Because commonwealth countries use a constant based on the British naval gun standard the same powder will have a different number on the canister when the constant used in Europe which is metric based is applied and be different again when the US constant is applied. To avoid confusion with some numbers finishing up similar, even though the powders may be quite different, a name is often given to the powder instead.
Andy.

 

[alinwa]

Yesterday we fired some blackpowder revolvers..... My 3-son had spent his Saturday casting balls and making blackpowder. His goal was to make a powder that bulked, burned and chrono'd similar to Pyrodex 'P'

He'd never done this before.

This was an experiment.

This much I know, cuz I was there

Blackpowder isn't the same as smokeless, but here's what he DID. (I've skipped some steps)

#1, using acetone and screen in the mfgr he made a rack for varying granulation repeatably, consistently.
#2, using 4ft hunks of angle-iron lined w/brown paper he built a "racetrack" and raced powders for burnrate.
#3, using a precision scale and some liddle cups he massed and bulked the several powders for comparison.
#4, using interpolation, extrapolation, isolation and consistent hydration he played with these variables till happy
#5, using a replica Remington 1858 Army revolver he fired for effect, chronographed various powders and loadings.


At the end of the day we had a lingering pall of smoke in the shop and over the yard, da' boys smelt like hillbillies and grinned like skunks.

And the home-ade powder made 1060fps just like the Pyrodex and rolled like thunder around the mountain.

And we called it,

quits

al

 

[Andy Cross]

updated obviously

Yesterday we fired some blackpowder revolvers..... My 3-son had spent his Saturday casting balls and making blackpowder. His goal was to make a powder that bulked, burned and chrono'd similar to Pyrodex 'P'

He'd never done this before.

This was an experiment.

This much I know, cuz I was there

Blackpowder isn't the same as smokeless, but here's what he DID. (I've skipped some steps)

#1, using acetone and screen in the mfgr he made a rack for varying granulation repeatably, consistently.
#2, using 4ft hunks of angle-iron lined w/brown paper he built a "racetrack" and raced powders for burnrate.
#3, using a precision scale and some liddle cups he massed and bulked the several powders for comparison.
#4, using interpolation, extrapolation, isolation and consistent hydration he played with these variables till happy
#5, using a replica Remington 1858 Army revolver he fired for effect, chronographed various powders and loadings.


At the end of the day we had a lingering pall of smoke in the shop and over the yard, da' boys smelt like hillbillies and grinned like skunks.

And the home-ade powder made 1060fps just like the Pyrodex and rolled like thunder around the mountain.

And we called it,

quits

al

Old Richard made no reference that the British standard used todaywas dated back in the days of black powder canon. Just that three different constants were used to determine the number on the canister. Hence the different numbers for the same powder. So I am still trying to find another two sources of confirmation that this information is correct. I have not had the courtesy of a reply from any manufacturer which is why I posted this thread.
Andy.

 

[mks]

Not saying the powder manufacturers don't use some other standard, but specific gravity is usually nondimensional. For instance, SG = 1.03 means that the material is 3% more dense than water. 1.03 is still 1.03, whether you use metric or British units.

 

[Andy Cross]

The constant not the data

Not saying the powder manufacturers don't use some other standard, but specific gravity is usually nondimensional. For instance, SG = 1.03 means that the material is 3% more dense than water. 1.03 is still 1.03, whether you use metric or British units.

True the burning rate is what it is and the SG is what it is. He told me that the constant applied to the data was different not the data input. Big difference.
Andy.

 

[Andy Cross]

690 hits and nada

With this post now being viewed nearly 700 times and still know confirmations on the accuracy of the information it makes me wonder where to post the queries next. Still no responce from the manufacturers.
Andy.

 

[David Halblom]

Thanks to the damn lawyers

With this post now being viewed nearly 700 times and still know confirmations on the accuracy of the information it makes me wonder where to post the queries next. Still no responce from the manufacturers.
Andy.

I truly doubt you will hear from any Mfg's or by any of their employees who can be identified.

Unfortunate aspect of modern life, at least in the US.

David

 

[Andy Cross]

Not a trade secret

I truly doubt you will hear from any Mfg's or by any of their employees who can be identified.

Unfortunate aspect of modern life, at least in the US.

David

It's not like I am asking them to give away manufacturing secrets. Makes no sense. As far as knowledgable people on this forum, you would think someone could confirm the accuracy as it applies today.
Andy.

 

[Wilbur]

Andy - why is this important to you? The information the fellow gave you is probably correct or at least it was when he got the info. He surely has the credentials.

 

[karls42]

So how does this work with the American powders that have no numbers?
Bullseye?
Unique?
Benchmark?
Varget?
Trail boss?
Red Dot?
Tight Wad?
Clays?
TAC?
and a hundred others!

 

[Andy Cross]

Accuracy is everything

Andy - why is this important to you? The information the fellow gave you is probably correct or at least it was when he got the info. He surely has the credentials.

As a BR shooter you know accuracy is everything. Any information can be considered worthless unless it can be confirmed one way or another. That's why good quality journalism usually require three sources of confirmation before they run a story.

.....and before you ask the question why do I need to know something like this.

Well some people just like to eat cake without knowing what's in it. Some not only like to know what's in it but how it was made as well.

 

[Andy Cross]

From what old Ted told me

So how does this work with the American powders that have no numbers?
Bullseye?
Unique?
Benchmark?
Varget?
Trail boss?
Red Dot?
Tight Wad?
Clays?
TAC?
and a hundred others!

From what old Ted told me when a powder labled under one system is sold in another country using a different constant sometimes the number could be confused with a powder with quite different characteristics. Out of necessity the manufacturer might give it a trade name instead.

 

[GerryM]

Your question can be answered at Hodgdons powder.

Contact Ron REIBER
I hope this helps.

 

[alinwa]

In my world, anytime someone steps up to state as "fact" that "this is the system".......... someone's gonna' soon pay a price. IMO you should value the time spent with your friend, sounds as if he's privy to some fascinating inside history. History is fun,

history is changeable, unverifiable. History is perception.......and the best laid plans of mice and men go oft awry.









Did George chop down a cherry tree?
Did he cross the Delaware to save the day?
Are the state highways assigned numbers rationally?
Do ZIP codes get bigger as you go west?
Are expiration dates accurate?
Is that lump benign?
Am I?

al

 

[K Hope]

Australian propellant code

Andy, from what it looks like the original Australian powder codes (using Dupont formulations ) were drafted in 41-42 and worked as follows:

Example: AR2201

AR = Australian Rifle

First number = grain shape according to the following:

1 = Tube shaped
2 = disk shaped
3 = porous

Second number = Moderant to controll rate of burning according to the following:

1 = Dinitrotoluene
2 = Methyl Centralite
3 = Carbamite

Last two numbers indicate that it is a single base powder in a series from 0 to 49.

It looks like by the late 70’s early 80’s they had developed their new line of Extreme Rifle Powders and new powders were either given names or placed where prior numbers had been left out for future use.

Ken

 

[Vibe]

Am I?

al

You've been listening to Harry Chapin songs again, haven't you.

 

[spfld]

In one of the shooting sports magazines in the 1980's (cant remember which) Rick Jameson or Layne Simpson reviewed new and old standby smokeless powders and used the term "gravimetric density" much of the time. Is this a correct term for describing a certain property of pwoder?

 

[XBBR Shooter]

In one of the shooting sports magazines in the 1980's (cant remember which) Rick Jameson or Layne Simpson reviewed new and old standby smokeless powders and used the term "gravimetric density" much of the time. Is this a correct term for describing a certain property of pwoder?

Kinda...

It means the volume density (in weight per cc) as opposed to the specific gravity.

In one of the gun digests many years ago, they published the volumetric densities of all the powders on the market at the time.

It has no scientific meaning, because it varies depending on how it is dropped in the graduate.

 

[Andy Cross]

I printed this out

Andy, from what it looks like the original Australian powder codes (using Dupont formulations ) were drafted in 41-42 and worked as follows:

Example: AR2201

AR = Australian Rifle

First number = grain shape according to the following:

1 = Tube shaped
2 = disk shaped
3 = porous

Second number = Moderant to controll rate of burning according to the following:

1 = Dinitrotoluene
2 = Methyl Centralite
3 = Carbamite

Last two numbers indicate that it is a single base powder in a series from 0 to 49.

It looks like by the late 70’s early 80’s they had developed their new line of Extreme Rifle Powders and new powders were either given names or placed where prior numbers had been left out for future use.

Ken

Hi Ken,
I printed your post out to show Ted. You have to get him on a good day as he is 85 and his health can be unpredictable. He informed me that much of this information was correct until about '72 when a range of different burn rate moderators were developed from different cracks of crude oil. That was followed by the addition of different emulsifiers which allowed more efficient extrusion methods. Consequently the constants used had to be changed if there was to be any continuity throughout the range of propellants each company made. But still no one would agreee on using the same one throughout the industry.
Andy

 

[Andy Cross]

According to

Kinda...

It means the volume density (in weight per cc) as opposed to the specific gravity.

In one of the gun digests many years ago, they published the volumetric densities of all the powders on the market at the time.

It has no scientific meaning, because it varies depending on how it is dropped in the graduate.

According to Teddy White this terminology was never adopted by propellant manufacturers or even powder measure manufacturers because of this very reason.
Andy.