As another Lame Cherry exclusive in matter anti matter.........
A long while ago, as of the buffalo reduction era, I came across the existential experience of a German named Frank Mayer who was like most Germans in knowing too much for their own good. He was a fascinating over opinionted gun crank who provided me a discertation which puzzled me for some time.
Mr. Mayer stated he only used British gunpowders as they burned with more force to create greater pressures and left a softer, more liquid fouling in the barrel to make cleaning easier.
The easier cleaning was of the residue in potassium sulfinate which smells of rotten eggs, but is readily washed away with water, but it left in contact with gun metals rusts them as it is caustic.
The American powders were dismissed in burning hotter and drier, and left more rigid fouling.
I wondered of this for some time as to what the British formula was and if they were adding anything which was causing this. I came across a chart provided by British gunmaker William Greener, which was a comparison of various nations from England, to Russia, to China to America, and it was there I noticed something in the British formula.
England at Royal Waltham Abby, Nitre 75, Charcoal 15, Sulfur 10
American powders were Nitre 75, Charcoal 12.5, Sulfur 12.5
The Americans were reflective of the French National Mills, although France had military, mining and sporting formulas. This is important as DuPont was an early powder maker and the French and American connection would have produced a like product.
Sulfur is a regulating agent in the combustion and solid state process. If one examines the difference between American and English powders, the ratio is altered in the charcoal and sulfur, in the British having a higher charcoal ration and a lower sulphur ratio.
The reason this matters is charcoal absorbs moisture and gun powder ratios are quite exact in the molecular levels of the Postassium Nitrate and Charcoal oxygen exchange. If one adds a bit more charcoal it would be of no use and would leave residue in the bi product of normal caustic of potassium sulfinate.
This points to the answer to why the British powders burned with more energy for force and were wetter. The charcoal was the key in this, as while the American powders were more efficient it would seem as one does require sulfur for an efficient release of energy as that is what a gunpowder explosion does, a "wetness" of a fluidity which retains more water, would create a steam pressure in minute amount to generate higher pressures, and the residual charcoal would then retain that water making for softer fouling.
William Greener explains in the following quotes the dynamics of gunpowder before and after detonation.
Gunpowder consists of a very intricate mixture of sulphur, carbon (charcoal), and nitrate of potash (nitre).
The proportions in which they exist are one equivalent of nitre, one of sulphur, and three of carbon. The great explosive power of gunpowder is due to the sudden development from its solid constituents of a large quantity of gases; these gases are nitrogen and carbonic acid.
The mixture, consisting of one equivalent of nitre, one of sulphur, and three of carbon, would yield three equivalents of carbonic acid, one of nitrogen, and one of sulphuret of potassium. The change may be represented thus,— S + C 3 + KONO 5 = 3 CO 2 + N + KS. The only solid residue, therefore , is the sulphuret of potassium, and this is the compound which produces the sulphurous odour on washing out a gun barrel; water is decomposed, sulphuretted hydrogen and potash being the result of the decomposition.
William Greener. Gunnery in 1858 / Being a Treatise on Rifles, Cannon, and Sporting Arms
In this treatise, Mr. Greener explains why fire does not burn, when it has two molecules which are explosive in hydrogen and oxygen.
Chemical action is a force exerted at insensible distances only, and chemical substances having the greatest affinity for each other will not combine, unless their elements are brought into immediate contact : thus oxygen and hydrogen may be mixed together in the exact proportions to form water; but no chemical combination will occur, simply because the ultimate particles of the two gases are not sufficiently near to each other for their chemical affinities to be brought into play; if, however, these gases are subjected to very strong pressure, so as to bring their particles into immediate contact, combination occurs, and the production of water is the result.
William Greener. Gunnery in 1858 / Being a Treatise on Rifles, Cannon, and Sporting Arms
It is the base chemical reaction of the molecules being forced in proper formulations which cause an efficient burn. To a point it is concluded that a slightly altered ratio, will produce the fouling which is softer when carbon, water and postassium suflinate are left in the barrel, which Frank Mayer was extrapolating upon.
Mr. Greener mentions in 1858 a huge explosion at Gatehead, where all the elements of "gunpowder" were there with other chemicals, but not mixed. Such a condition even when fire is present should not produce a horrific explosion as Gateshead was consumed by.
An investigation after the fact concluded the sulfur had melted in the fire and then joined to the saltpetre. It was stated that no charcoal was present, but I question if the burning warehouse was providing the carbon in a super heated or gaseous form, as would be in a gun barrel.
As no one is usually combining chemicals at 451 degrees or above, perhaps other conditions were present in creating an accidental super gun gas as this seems to be a mixture of potassium nitrate powder, charcoal gas and liquid sulfur.
Fascinating volatile theory which the Lame Cherry examines in matter anti matter exclusives.
... or a Greener wonders, could gunpowder have been in the warehouse all along and not known.
I digress.....
Because the purpose of this was to conclude an answer to what the buffalo hunter was noting. More examination of British elements to American elements might provide further examinations as are British elements polluted with different contaminants or would the British charcoal be of a tree or deposit different from American types to form a softer fouling.
William Greener is concluded with the last quote which examines milling and incorporation in this mystery as the English powders were superior to the French powders.
"If the elements are imperfectly incorporated, the powder can never be equal to that which is properly made; and the manufacturer, having ascertained the best proportions in which to mix the elements, had better improve his machinery for incorporating them, rather than his knowledge of the chemistry of gunpowder . These observations will also serve to explain the apparent anomaly, that the French, and some of our other continental brethren, are held to produce a much inferior sporting gunpowder to that which is manufactured in old England."
William Greener. Gunnery in 1858 / Being a Treatise on Rifles, Cannon, and Sporting Arms
The only "like" powders to British were Swedish and Chinese, but that does not include the Fg, FFg, FFFg and FFFFg in granulation size which is all part of this too.
Overt evidence concludes it was the charcoal in the formulation, covert evidence would ponder the milling process in the granulation size. At the very least, I am closer to my answer than anyone in history ever has been.
"Experience, however, has demonstrated the truth of my observations, for, in all extreme range shooting with the expansive or “Greenerian”-principled rifles, not only is considerably greater accuracy obtained with it, but an increase of range equivalent to fifteen or twenty per cent. Another advantage of using gunpowder of a suitable granulation is the absence of sharp recoil; and thus greater accuracy of range is obtained—accuracy of range and steadiness of weapon being inseparable."
William Greener. Gunnery in 1858 / Being a Treatise on Rifles, Cannon, and Sporting Arms
Most interesting as all things are found here.
agtG
