Lefty38-55
Member
Test 1 - Chronograph testing done! Loading by VOLUME measure
FYI - Pretty interesting chronograph results of testing the NEW Goex black powder versus the ‘old’ Goex Company formulation.
It does load 'volume for volume' like the old powder, or as any BP powdah should, However it weighs 9% less in physical weight, in case one loads by physical grain weight, like some BP cartridge & NSSA competition shooters do.
The new 2F was close in velocity to the old powder, but there were wild velocity swings and higher extreme spread (999 to 1160), whereas the extreme spread for the old Goex was only 37.
New Goex 2Fg had 1098 FPS vs 1104 FPS of the old in a 33.3” barreled 62-cal Baker (80grn load by volume)
New Goex 3Fg had 1491 FPS vs 1603 FPS of old in a 42” barreled 45-cal SMR (50grn load by volume). But get this, even the report at the shot was MUCH LESS of a 'bang'! It too had a ~3X higher extreme spread. It was also light gray in color, looks more like Pyrodex, and wasn’t black at all … not that that means anything, LOL!
All powdahs tested in flintlocks, w/ the 1st few fouling shots thrown out.
I remain VERY impressed with the chronograph velocity of a 50grn 3Fg load in a 45! I for one, found the barrel VERY dirty, and I on;y fired 16-shots, as sometimes the chrono wouldn't read due to the strong winds or sun, whatever.
Test 2 - More new vs. old Goex testing: Measured by physical WEIGHT (grains)
These results as measured by weight appear to be better than the results that two others got above when they measured/loaded by volume. It also seems to indicate that perhaps the more powder, the better the performance. That might also be why the rifle tested below cleaned up fine, hypothesizing that the higher charge burns or combusts more efficiently.
Yes, the data sets are small (please don't flame me ... just read on), however, I am running them through my specialized statistics program which includes a module for 'short run’ SPC. That concept actually has some ways to validate data, i.e., to ‘normalize’ it (a statistical term), for such small data sets when combined in the aggregate.
More testing to be done!
FYI - Pretty interesting chronograph results of testing the NEW Goex black powder versus the ‘old’ Goex Company formulation.
It does load 'volume for volume' like the old powder, or as any BP powdah should, However it weighs 9% less in physical weight, in case one loads by physical grain weight, like some BP cartridge & NSSA competition shooters do.
The new 2F was close in velocity to the old powder, but there were wild velocity swings and higher extreme spread (999 to 1160), whereas the extreme spread for the old Goex was only 37.
New Goex 2Fg had 1098 FPS vs 1104 FPS of the old in a 33.3” barreled 62-cal Baker (80grn load by volume)
New Goex 3Fg had 1491 FPS vs 1603 FPS of old in a 42” barreled 45-cal SMR (50grn load by volume). But get this, even the report at the shot was MUCH LESS of a 'bang'! It too had a ~3X higher extreme spread. It was also light gray in color, looks more like Pyrodex, and wasn’t black at all … not that that means anything, LOL!
All powdahs tested in flintlocks, w/ the 1st few fouling shots thrown out.
I remain VERY impressed with the chronograph velocity of a 50grn 3Fg load in a 45! I for one, found the barrel VERY dirty, and I on;y fired 16-shots, as sometimes the chrono wouldn't read due to the strong winds or sun, whatever.
Test 2 - More new vs. old Goex testing: Measured by physical WEIGHT (grains)
These results as measured by weight appear to be better than the results that two others got above when they measured/loaded by volume. It also seems to indicate that perhaps the more powder, the better the performance. That might also be why the rifle tested below cleaned up fine, hypothesizing that the higher charge burns or combusts more efficiently.
Yes, the data sets are small (please don't flame me ... just read on), however, I am running them through my specialized statistics program which includes a module for 'short run’ SPC. That concept actually has some ways to validate data, i.e., to ‘normalize’ it (a statistical term), for such small data sets when combined in the aggregate.
More testing to be done!
