BH209 Volume Experiment

LAST EDITED ON Jun-12-18 AT 09:55PM (MST)[p]Just getting back in to MZ and did a volume measurement consistency experiment tonight - this may have been previously discussed so apologies for the redundancy.

First off, I have the TC U-View powder measure (the clear plastic measurer with the top that swings over the measurer and cuts the powder). I was measuring 100 grains by volume of BH209. To test the consistency of volume measurement, the first sample group I measured and weighed 10 separate pours by filling the measurer to overflow with micro tapping at the end and a swing of the measurer top cutting excess powder to ensure an even level of powder to achieve the 100 grain by volume measurement. The average of this sample group was 75.15 grains by weight with a standard deviation of 2.32.

The second 10 set group I first used a dryer cloth and wiped the inside of the powder measure to remove any built up static. Then I poured powder until half full and micro tapped the base of the measurer on a table, continued to fill until almost full and again micro tapped the base of the measurer on a table, and finally filled to over flow and micro tapped the measurer. The average of this second sample group was 82.18 grains by weight with a standard deviation of 0.76 - a full 7.03 grains by weight difference which equals 10.47 grains difference in volume (1 grain by weight X 1.49 to convert to volume).

Clearly the micro tapping in stages creates a dramatic load difference. It is unclear if the dryer cloth had an effect as I used it about a week ago and confirmed each pour of the first sample set was clean (i.e., no powder remaining in the measurer). It maybe that the measurer was static free enough for clean pours but may have had enough static to effect efficient volume loading?

Thought I would pass this experiment along for anyone considering using the BH209 maximum recommended volume load as you may get more than you bargained.

Great test! I tested the volume like you did but not as extensive.
I weigh all my charges since the volume test.

Good to know, I use the same volume measure. Thanks

I did 3 shots by volume and 3 shots by weight. Then repeated a different day. I found better grouping measuring by volume. This was not what I expected. I shot the 3 let cool then the next 3. switched which one was first the second time around. Both times volume was better.

Goforbroke
Did you test different weights and volumes or just one?

I think either way is fine for my hunting distances where the max range is 150 yards. Don't think 2 gr will make a real difference in accuracy, as shown by the above poster. I use volume.

For those that like to tinker and spend the extra time and have lost of tubes prefilled, knock yourself out. But I sometimes go to the range and shoot 30 times. I don't want to take my scale to the range or have 30 tubes. And when you are going to tinker with the load, you will have to have lots of different loads. So unless someone does an experiment where the weighed loads are superior for my distances, won't be weighing the loads.

I don't say this to knock you guys that do. Being exact is probably always superior. However, don't want newbies to think that they have to do this to get accuracy.

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)

LAST EDITED ON Jun-19-18 AT 08:09PM (MST)[p]>I think either way is fine
>for my hunting distances where
>the max range is 150
>yards. Don't think 2
>gr will make a real
>difference in accuracy, as shown
>by the above poster.
>I use volume.
>
>For those that like to tinker
>and spend the extra time
>and have lost of tubes
>prefilled, knock yourself out. But
>I sometimes go to the
>range and shoot 30 times.
> I don't want to
>take my scale to the
>range or have 30 tubes.
> And when you are
>going to tinker with the
>load, you will have to
>have lots of different loads.
> So unless someone does
>an experiment where the weighed
>loads are superior for my
>distances, won't be weighing the
>loads.
>
>I don't say this to knock
>you guys that do.
>Being exact is probably always
>superior. However, don't want
>newbies to think that they
>have to do this to
>get accuracy.
>
>txhunter58
>
>venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore
>I am)

Thanks for the input. Not disagreeing with you, but a point of clarification. My post was not about shooting accuracy -it was simply a warning that volume measurement may push the load to past recommended charge levels if you are pouring by volume near the maximum recommended load. This issue may be more acute with different measurers as they don't seem to be consistent in measuring. The post was simply to highlight something to think about when stepping up volumes while trying to find a load and bullet combination. Obviously, I failed in getting my point across.

As a side note in terms of accuracy - your comment of 2 grains difference affecting accuracy is based upon the standard deviation for test set 1, which does not reflect the extreme variation in load in the data set. In this case, the first test set had a low of 73.1 and a high of 80.9 by weight difference - a variation of 7.8 grain by weight difference. The second test set had a low of 81.1 and a high of 83.1 - a variation of 2 grains on the mark. In the end, this highlights the need to have a consistent loading practice if loading by volume. Nothing is more aggravating than putting together a great group on paper to have that one or two shots that do not play ball, whether it is a function of variation in volume measurement, seating the round consistency, etc.

This discussion takes on a whole different dimension when considering hunting conditions. Particularly, distance of shots contemplated. If you hunt where 100 -150 yards is your maximum shot - generally no worries needed as a 7 grain by weight load difference will still put you within an acceptable kill range. If you hunt where you are presented >150 yard shots then the effect of variation comes into play - dramatically so the further the shot. To be clear, I am not a long shot advocate, but if one is willing to take a long shot then I think they owe it to the animal to know with confidence what to expect from their shot. Something I do not think a volume measurement of loose powder provides unless you have a consistent and repeatable measuring practice that you have tested to ensure minimization of variation.

This is why I weigh all my muzzleloader loads for both my muzzleloaders. I car 6 load charges on a typical hunt.

Probably would not make make any difference if you are not near Max load and only shooting within 200 yards. But to grains in a big difference when you are pushing a bullet to 500 yards.

For 24 years I've measured my muzzle loader charges by volume. Last year I started running all my charges through my RCBS charge master. I'm definitely sticking with the charge master. I just run a couple cans of BH209 through it and I'm good to go. This year I have 4 kids with general deer tags, so getting them lined up may take some more powder ;-0 My triplets are 12, so it's their first year.

2 - 4 grains +/- have never made a difference on target with black powder / subs.

www.FrontierMuzzleloading.com

Depends on how accurate you want to be and how far you're shooting. Target shooters want to take out all the variables. NRA long range muzzleloader go to the grain. Some shoot 85 grains and some shoot 86 grain. Most weight it.

Blackhorn 209 makes Volume tubes that you can purchase in the store. I just fill them all to the 100gr line on the tube. I'm shooting a CVA Accura with a 300gr Aerolite. Here's my latest 3 shot group. I would say the visual volume tube works just fine.

Pic of the charge tubes:

>Blackhorn 209 makes Volume tubes that
>you can purchase in the
>store. I just fill them
>all to the 100gr line
>on the tube. I'm shooting
>a CVA Accura with a
>300gr Aerolite. Here's my latest
>3 shot group. I would
>say the visual volume tube
>works just fine.
>

I'd say so! Are u shooting a scope? I'm just trying the same thing w Blackhorn for first time. I'm using the tubes as well.
At 100 yds I'm getting 8? inch groups but that's open sights. So I'm sure it's capable of much better but that seems to be about all I can get out of this setup w factory sights. What would most consider acceptable w open sights at this distance? Thanks! And I've tried finding a peep sight combination but that's a whole another story and basically no one makes anything to really fit

I'd get an actual powder measure. Those visual lines on the BH209 tubes are badly off. Put a 100 grain volume charge on the scale and report how much that 100 grain charge weighs. It should weigh 70 grains.

www.FrontierMuzzleloading.com

LAST EDITED ON Aug-29-18 AT 12:36PM (MST)[p]Nope. This is open sights using a newly installed EABCO Peep sight instead of the rear iron sight.

I shot at 150 the other day and had about a 5" group. However, at 150 yards the front sight covers pretty much the whole target.

Pretty difficult to fine tune a muzzy (open sights) past 100 yards.

So you are telling me that blackhorn made the tubes wrong? I think blackhorn is using volume for standard measuring instead of weight. In the end all that matters is that you get a consistent load that works for you. The volume tubes work great for me and I don't need to weigh anything. I'll stick with what I have, and 'm pretty sure blackhorn intended for users to measure by volume based on the tubes they manufactured.

>LAST EDITED ON Aug-29-18
>AT 12:36?PM (MST)
>
>Nope. This is open sights using
>a newly installed EABCO Peep
>sight instead of the rear
>iron sight.
>
>I shot at 150 the other
>day and had about a
>5" group. However, at 150
>yards the front sight covers
>pretty much the whole target.
>
>
>Pretty difficult to fine tune a
>muzzy (open sights) past 100
>yards.
That's a pretty incredible group for open sights!

I was given a bunch of blackhorn 209 tubes at SHOT show when it first came off. They are what I used until I decided to weigh my charges. THOSE TUBES ARE WAY OFF FROM WHAT THEY SHOW! By as much as 10 grains if I recall correctly. I still use them to store my charges, but not to measure them.

>I'd get an actual powder measure.
>Those visual lines on the
>BH209 tubes are badly off.
>Put a 100 grain volume
>charge on the scale and
>report how much that 100
>grain charge weighs. It should
>weigh 70 grains.
>
>www.FrontierMuzzleloading.com


+1 those tubes are weigh off! Get it, WEIGH off ;-)