doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Load Data

Took them a long time to get powder T in place as a true, smokeless, proof powder, after the first notions of the concept. But, that was still in front of everybody else.

Best,
Ted

“Bulk” Smokeless (“Semi-Smokeless” in England) powders for use in shotguns began in Europe with “Schultze” (nitrated wood granulated with a saturated solution of barium and potassium nitrates) in 1862 (U.S. Patent 38789 of 1863), Volkmann in 1870, and The Explosives Company of Stowmarket, England “E.C.” (made from cotton) in 1882.

Scientific American Supplement, October 4, 1890 “Smokeless Powder”
https://books.google.com/books?id=6d45AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA12308
Wetterven, Walsrode, Maxim, Nobel, and Vieille all mentioned

Poudre B was perfected between 1882 and 1884 at "Laboratoire Central des Poudres et Salpêtres" in Paris. It was first called "Poudre V" for the inventor, Paul Vieille, and renamed "Poudre B" for poudre blanche.

Alfred Nobel's “Ballistite” Dense Smokeless was introduced in 1887, patented in 1888, then “Sporting Ballistite” (for shotgun shells) was patented in 1889, but not released to the trade by Nobel’s Explosive Co. until 1895.
DuPont began marketing “Ballistite” in 1909 and discontinued the powder in 1927.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/23787093
Paul Vieille tested in the 1880's smokeless Cordite and Ballistite, in addition to his own poudre B. This is reported in his 1893 publication a major source for past and recent research, leading to questions about early powder developments. The following are the major questions addressed in this essay and their speculative answers, based on the original publication and additional sources:
(a) Were Vieille and the French powder establishment knowledgeable about other options when developing poudre B during 1884-1886? It seems that they were knowledgeable about methods to increase powder energy as was done later in Ballistite and Cordite, yet chose poudre B;
(b) Did they regard Alfred Nobel and his smokeless Ballistite as rivals to poudre B, before or immediately after Nobel's 1887 patent in France? One famous Nobel biography claims that Ballistite was technically better and seen as a rival to poudre B. But this is unlikely since the French powder establishment considered Ballistite's high barrel erosion as a genuine obstacle and almost totally refrained from such powders until 1918;
(c) Vieille tested two Ballistite samples, one from Spain and what seems to be a later one from Italy, yet did not report test dates. The samples contained aniline, a stabilizer in Italian Ballistite from 1889, approximately. Nobel's activities closed down in France in 1889 leading one to suppose that the samples weres sent in 1889. Yet Spanish activities in 1889 are known to have come only after Italy. Establishing an exact date would illuminate Nobel's Ballistite activities in Spain and the time when Vieille made his famous conclusion that all nitrocellulose based powders burn in layers.

I think a lot of the more conservative shooting members were slow to go to smokeless and steel barrels because they were very comfortable with black powder and Damascus barrels and saw little reason to change. I recall one antidote from Lord Ripon who had a three gun set, made with the new Whitworth Steel barrels which he had rebarreled to Damascus. His compliant was that steel got hotter he did not like the sound they made. Considering he was perhaps the best shot of his day I expect other followed his lead.

Perhaps if Lord Ripon had endorsed the new barrel materials or new powder the move to both would have been much quicker. Most powder development I suspect was more for military purposes and any bird shooting improvements were a byproduct. I do wish I had been alive in that period with a ten thousand pound a year income to enjoy the high shooting fun.

Walsingham
https://books.google.com/books?id=4xRmHkr7Lp8C&pg=PA175&source
“On August 30 (1888), when I killed 1,070 grouse to my own gun in the day, I shot with four breechloaders. No.1, a gun made in 1866 by Purdey, subsequently converted from pin-fire to central principle, to which new barrels were made last year. Nos. 2 and 3, a pair of central fire breechloaders, made also by Purdey, about 1870, for which I have likewise had new barrels. No. 4, a new gun made by Purdey this year to match the two mentioned above, but with Whitworth steel instead of Damascus barrels. The guns are all 12 bore, with cylinder 30 in. barrels, not choked.”
“My cartridges were loaded by Johnson, of Swaffham; those used in the down-wind drives containing 3 1/8 drs. Hall’s Field B powder to 1 1/8ozs. No. 5 Derby shot; those used in the up-wind drives (where the birds, of course, came slower) had 3 drs. only of the same powder, with the same shot; not hardened shot in either case.”
“I find I never go out shooting without learning something. If I had the day again, I should cut off the extra eighth of an ounce of shot, not on account of recoil or discomfort of kind – from which I never suffer, although always using black powder – but because I failed to get as much penetration at long distances as I do with an ounce only. I distinctly remember firing three barrels at one bird, striking well in the body every time, but killing dead only with the last shot; the powder seemed to burn too slow.”
“Another thing I learned was that Whitworth steel barrels are not desirable for a heavy day’s shooting. The explosion in them makes quite a different sound from that given off by Damascus barrels: there is more ring about it, and I can imagine that this might prove a serious annoyance to anyone who minds the noise of shooting. I have no recollection myself of ever having had a headache from gun-firing. Moreover, the Whitworth barrels become hot much more rapidly than the Damascus; and this is a serious drawback, especially to a man who shoots without gloves. I can well imagine that they last much longer, and are in many ways suited for ordinary light work; but am now replacing them with Damascus, as in all my other guns.”

Frederick Oliver Robinson, Earl de Grey, after 1909 was the 2nd Marquess of Ripon

Marques, not Lord. My bad. I guess in those days I would never be allowed in polite company. Funny how clear his opinions were and I suspect they were wildly circulated by others. Certainly gun makers would be glad to spread his words of wisdom about their guns if positive. I would have loved to kill 50,000 head of game which would only be one tenth the game he shot. Different days, different values as they say.

Drew, do you have any information on the powder described as "Blended Amberite" ?
I have seen references to its use in making heavy loads for wildfowling guns - notably for thin brass case chamberless guns. Some texts with tables of loads and powder charges list data for the standard shot charge with black powder, bulk and condensed nitro but I have never seen any reference to "blended" amberite contined therein.
Also some tables give similar powder weight for Schultze and Amberite, but others show the latter powder at a slightly lower weight.

So was "blended" referring to a factory labelled product or was it a homeloader's concoction?

“Amberite (Bulk) Smokeless Sporting Powder” was introduced by Curtis & Harvey in 1893. In 1894, John Hall & Son introduced “Cannonite”, manufactured by the War and Sporting Smokeless Powder Co.



Hall & Son was acquired by Curtis & Harvey in 1896 and "Cannonite" became “Smokeless Diamond” in 1903.

I don't think "Amberite" was marketed in the U.S., and it is not mentioned here
https://books.google.com/books?id=Wv0MAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA442&lpg

It is included here with "Cannonite"
https://books.google.com/books?id=BFRDAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA66&lpg

I couldn't find a reference to "blended Amberite", but "Amberite No. 1" was a mixture of nitro-cellulose, nitro-glycerin, paraffin, shellac, with ammonium carbonate
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1896/july/notes-literature-explosives

Curtis’s & Harvey ad in 1908.
“E.C.” was marketed in Europe "Ruby" or "Poudre Rose E.C".

“New E.C. (Improved) No. 3” (introduced in U.S. in 1904) and Curtis’s & Harvey “Diamond Smokeless” (1903) were both 33 grain = 3 Dr.Eq.

Another example of matching the load to the gun; a 6# 1 oz. 12b with 28" barrels
"Normal charge" 40 gr. "Schultze" which would be about 2 7/8 Dram with 1 oz shot
1 oz. 2 3/4 Dr.Eq. would be 1235 fps