Comparison of strength of 18th century and contemporary black powder:

eprouvette data

Herman Karl
2018

Introduction

There is a great deal of speculation and controversy about the strength (power) of
th
18 century gunpowder (black powder) relative to contemporary black powder. Devices
called eprouvettes were developed as early as the 16th century to test the strength of
powder (Kempers, 1998). This paper presents historical data about 18th century gunpowder
acquired with an eprouvette and data collected with a replica of it using contemporary
black powder. I know of no comparative data other than that reported in this study.
Many 18th century (and later) firearms experts cautioned that data from eprouvettes
were too variable to accurately measure the comparative strength of gunpowder (e.g., de
Marolles, 1789, 166; Mordecai, 1845; discussion in Kempers, 1998; von Maltitz, 2010). An
alternative was to fire the ball or shot into a backstop such as clay; the penetration into the
backstop would be a measure of the strength of the powder (de Marolles, 1789, 172; Page,
1770, 59 ff.; Mordecai, 1845). Following publication of Robins’ 1742 treatise on the new
principles of gunnery, a pendulum could be used to measure accurately the velocity of
projectiles for the first time. The velocity in turn was a measure of the powder strength. So,
in other words, the proof of the powder is in the shooting.
Present-day researchers speculate about the relative strength of 18th gunpowder to
contemporary black powder, using records of powder charges as a proxy and arbitrarily
assuming that the weight indicates the relative quality (strength) of the powder. Heavier
powder charges are assumed to indicate poorer quality and weaker powder (e.g., Klatt,
1999). There are obvious pitfalls involved with this reasoning.i An example of such records
is the Philadelphia Association Committee of Safety Report 29th May 1776 (Force, 1846, p.
667) that specified the powder charge should be two-fifths the weight of the ball. The
report listed powder charge weights for seven bore sizes.

Table 1. Data from Philadelphia Association Committee of Safety Report

Bore size (caliber) Dwt.* Gr. Powder weight (grains)
A ball 13 to the pound (.73) 9 20 236
A ball 15 to the pound (.69) 8 12 204
A ball 17 to the pound (.66) 7 12 180
A ball 19 to the pound (.64) 6 16 160
A ball 21 to the pound (.62) 6 2 146
A ball 24 to the pound (.59)** 5 8 128
A ball 30 to the pound (.53)** 4 6 102
*The abbreviation dwt. is pennyweight and gr. is grains. A pennyweight is 24
grains.
** Sporting gun loads could be much less; for example, de Marolles (1789,
81) recommends a charge of between 34 and 41 grains for fowlers
between .53 and .59 caliber loaded with shot.

1
 The above are heavy charges relative to contemporary standards. But what does that
tell us? Was the gunpowder weaker then? Did the shooters prefer heavy charges? Were
heavy charges only used for military applications? Were heavy charges used to compensate
for possible differences in strength between batches of powder? A limited literature search
indicates there was large variability in charge weights among firearms of the same or
similar bore. That is only one factor that hinders an accurate comparison with
contemporary black powder based on charge weight. Among other factors complicating
comparison is that 18th century gunpowder is presumed to have varied greatly in quality,
which affected its strength. As previously stated shooters were advised to test the powder
to determine its strength (e.g., de Marolles, 1789, 169 ff.; Page, 1766, 40-43; Hawker,
1986). With the exception of the data presented below, I am not aware of any record of 18th
century data acquired with these devices. Kempers (1998, chapter 5) describes
contemporary experiments with various eprouvettes, but the purpose was to better
understand the functioning of the devices.
Page (1766, p. 40-43) not only described a simple powder tester (mortar eprouvette)
but also recorded data acquired with it. I had Page’s eprouvette replicated with minor
design changes (Fig. 1) and conducted a series of experiments to compare contemporary
black powder to the five types of gunpowder tested by Page.ii

Figure 1. Replica of Page eprouvette

A fixed charge (18 grains) of black powder propels a 13 oz. steel ball. The mortar “barrel”
is at a 45-degree angle. The 1 ¾” diameter ball rests in a shallow depression about one-
third its diameter above the charge. The distance the ball travels is a measure of the
strength of the powder (Table 2).

Table 2. Results recorded by Page

Powder Distance (yards)

2
 A. Some Dutch powder, large grained: 1 1/2
B. Some powder bought at the grocers, at 16 d. per pound, near: 4
C. Battle powder*: 8 1/2
D. Double strong ditto**: 8 1/2
E. Best double strong ditto: 12
*Battle powder is not military or government gunpowder as might be inferred; it is named
for the village Battle in Kent where it was made (Anonymous, 1798, Encyclopedia of Arts
and Sciences… p.238-239). de Marolles states (p. 169), “Our experience, however, induces
us to recommend with confidence Hervey’s battle powder, as being superior to every other
we have met with.”
**The meaning of double strong and best double strong is unclear. The 1798 Encyclopedia
(p. 238) offers a clue. Gunpowder that requires half as much as another to achieve the same
velocity is double strong and should be sold at double the price.

We do not know the granulation of these powders and cannot compare them on that basis
to contemporary black powder, other than to infer, for example, that Dutch powder is
similar in strength to FG and so forth and so on.

Data Collection

I conducted twenty-eight trials (at temperatures of 32-37 degrees) with two brands
of contemporary black powder (Table 3). The large variability from trial to trial is striking
and results in overlap between granular classes.iii Figure 2 presents a visualization of the
data to grasp more easily the variation.

Table 3. Summary of data (yards) collected with contemporary black powder

Powder Range Mean Mean Percentage
(Average) Deviation*
Goex FG 0.4 – 3.3 1.4 1.0 71
Goex FFG 1.2 – 5.7 3.4 1.3 38
Goex FFFG 3.1 – 8.3 6.1 2.0 33
Swiss 1 ½ FG 3.0 – 5.9 4.4 1.0 23
Swiss FFG 2.7 – 7.7 5.7 2.4 43
Swiss FFFG 4.3 – 6.6 5.4 0.7 14
*Mean deviation about the mean (average) is a measure of repeatability the higher the
percentage the worse the repeatability. It is akin to an error bar on a graph (see Fig. 2) that
represents the uncertainty associated with the data point.

3
 Figure 2. Black powder type vs. distance (yards). G=Goex, S=Swiss, A, B, C, D,
and E are the gunpowder types in Table 2. In the figure, the horizontal lines indicate
the variation in ranges with tests of each powder type; triangles mark the mean
distances; the arrows indicate the mean deviation about the mean; the vertical
dotted line passes through the largest mean distance of the contemporary powsers;
the shadowed oval highlights the three strongest 18th century gunpowders in Page’s
results.

Discussion

One must exercise caution when interpreting these results based on so few data.
Any inferences or conclusions about these data should be guided and conditioned by the
discussion that follows.
Kempers (1998, 207) states, “It is well known that accurate results in an absolute
sense can never be obtained with … [18th century] tester types. The results have relative
values only.” Research on and testing of black powder is severely hampered by the lack of
a standard by which to compare powders, as well as the unknown accuracy, precision, and
repeatability of the testing devices. As previously stated, inconsistency of results with
powder testers was commonly noted during the 18th century. One reason quite likely is “…
quite different results are obtained when Black Powder is ignited under different conditions

4
(von Maltitz (2010, 143)” — such as the difference between a small charge in a small
chamber of a powder tester and a large charge in a gun barrel.
A discussion of historical and contemporary black powder testing techniques is
beyond the scope of this paper. For a comprehensive discussion of the instruments and
protocols of testing, the reader is referred to Kempers (1998) and von Maltitz (2010).
Page experienced variability, but was able to achieve consistent results:

The experiments were tried first with the strong powder, which increased
the second trial about a yard and a half, and third trial nearly a yard more.
After which, the iron being a little warm’d, the trials with the same powder
came pretty nearly alike, and each sort was tried three or four times; the
ball was also carried very nearly in the same line. From which
circumstances I conclude this the best method of proving gunpowder that I
have yet met with.

Even though Page concluded the mortar eprouvette is the “best method of proving
gunpowder,” many researchers have criticized its accuracy (von Maltitz, 2010, 174, 175).
“It is worth noting that powders … optimized for sporting firearms appear to perform
woefully inadequately when tested in a mortar-type apparatus. This is because these
powders are designed for high pressure applications (von Maltitz, 2010, 161).”
Comparing test results is further complicated because black powder is comprised of
naturally occurring organic components, each of which may contain impurities. In the 18th
century the proportion of components could be controlled during manufacture, but the
purity of each could not. How much of the variation from trial to trial was due to the
variability of the powder and how much to the testing device was not known.iv It could not
be determined because there were no standards for gunpowder and none for the testing
devices. Moreover, operator error may have also contributed to the inconsistent results.v

Conclusions

Page’s results apparently are the average (mean) of three or four trials of each type
of powder after the eprouvette had “warm’d,” so that successive trials were fairly
consistent (“came pretty nearly alike”). I reported the mean of three or four trials (five trials
of Swiss FFG and FFFG) of each granulation of black powder. This number of trials was
insufficient to achieve reasonably consistent results, so the conclusions are preliminary. It
may be the eprouvette is not capable of greater repeatability, or that igniting black powder
in an essentially open vessel produces inconsistent burn rates that are the cause of the
variability (for a discussion of principles of accurate measurement see von Maltitz, 2010,
160,161). Many more trials are needed to establish whether one or the other or both is true.
Nonetheless, no mean value of distance came close to the means (8 ½, 8 ½, 12 yards) of the
three best powders tested by Page; these three powders form a grouping separate from all
the other powders (Fig. 2). Goex FFFG achieved the highest mean 6.1 yards of the
contemporary powders and longest distance 8.3 yards in one trial. The data are too few for
a robust statistical comparison, and the testing conditions with respect to those of Page are
unknown. Nonetheless, I took care to duplicate the testing technique of Page (comparing
apples to apples), and the data suggest the best 18th century powders were stronger than the

5
best black powder today. Roberts and others (2008) concluded that 18th century gunpowder
was stronger than contemporary black powder. However, their assumptions are flawed and
their conclusions suspect.vi These results ought not be generalized to interpret the relative
strengths of gunpowder then and now. They are, however, the only known hard data
comparison and, thus, contribute to an informed discussion. Arguments about the relative
strength of 18th century and contemporary black powder are inconclusive and may remain
so until more data are uncovered and/or more tests conducted. The data reported here may
not provide a firm conclusion, but they can at least warn us away from blithely drawing
wrong conclusions.

Acknowledgements

Donald Hafner reviewed the manuscript, which was improved by his edits.

References Cited

Anonymous, 1798, Encyclopedia; or a dictionary of arts, sciences, and miscellaneous

literature ….: v. VIII, GOB—HYD, Philadelphia, printed by Thomas Dobson, at the
Stone House, no. 42, South Second Street, MDCCXCVIII, p. 239-240.
de Marolles, M., 1789, An essay on shooting. Containing the various methods of forging,
boring, and dressing gun barrels,…: Ecco Print Editions, reproduction from the British
Library, London, printed for T. Cadall, 303 p.
Force, Peter; "American Archives: Fourth Series." Volume VI. Washington,1846, p, 667-
668.
Hawker, Peter, Lt. Col., 1986, Instructions to young sportsmen in all that relates to guns
and shooting: Seventh Edition, The Field Library, Southampton, Ashford Press
Publishing, 507 p.
Kempers, R.T.W., 1998, Eprouvettes: a comprehensive study of early devices for the
testing of gunpowder: Royal Armories Museum, 306 p.
Klatt, P. E., 1999, Musket cartridges of the American Revolution: Gun Report, v. 45, n. 7,
(December 1999), p. 20-24.
Mordecai, A, 1845, Report on experiments on gunpowder, made at Washington Arsenal in
1843 and 1844, Washington.
Von Maltitz, I., 2010, Black powder manufacturing, testing & optimizing: American
Fireworks News, 208 p.
Page, T., 1766, The art of shooting flying: familiarly explain’d by way of dialogue.
Containing directions for the choice of guns for various occasions. An account of
divers experiments, discovering the execution of barrels of different lengths and
bores.: Ecco Print Editions, reproduction from the Bodleian Library (Oxford), printed
by J. Crouse, and sold by the author T. Page, 46 p.
Page, T, 1770, The art of shooting flying’ containing directions for the choice of guns:
experiments discovering the execution of barrels of different lengths and bores ... the
fourth edition: Ecco Print Editions, reproduction from British Library, printed by J.
Crouse,: sold by the author; and by E. Johnson, London, 104 p.
Ramage, C. K. (ed.), 1975, Lyman black powder handbook: Lyman Publications.

6
Roberts, N.A., Brown, J.W., Hammett, B., and Kingston, P.D.F., 2008, A detailed study of
the effectiveness and capabilities of 18th century musketry on the battlefield: Journal of
Conflict Archaeology, v. 4, n. 1-2, p.1-21.
Robins, B., 1805, New principles of gunnery … : a new edition by Charles Hutton,
Reprints from the collection of the University of Michigan Library.

i
The Lyman Black Powder Handbook (Ramage, 1975) lists loads from 20 to 150 grains
FFG for a .75 caliber Brown Bess (142) and loads from 50 to 150 grains FFFG for a .50
caliber rifle (114). It seems to me these data have no value for estimating the relative
strengths of the powders.
ii
Gene Henrikson Walnut, IL (http://walnutforge.com) built the replica from a model
supplied by me.
iii
Nothing is implied nor should any inferences be made about the quality of the brands of
contemporary black powder tested in this study. Contemporary manufacturers adhere to
high production standards. It is unknown how much of the variability demonstrated
between trials can be apportioned between the powder and the eprouvette.
iv
Kempers (1998, 208) calculated the deviation of the mean about the average for data
collected by 14 eprouvettes. The results varied from 4.4% to 35.8%. These calculations
demonstrate the degree of repeatability for each device.
v
Col. Hawker, in the 7th edition of Instructions to Young Sportsmen, however, states (98,
99), “With regard to the strength and other good qualities of gunpowder, I shall; instead of
saying any thing farther, recommend the epreuvette (or powder-proof), whereby we can
always be certain of finding out the best; provided that this machine is properly made,
properly used, and nicely cleaned after every fire.”
vi
Roberts and others (2008) concluded that 18th century gunpowder was stronger than that
today. Their conclusions depend entirely upon the authors’ premise the Brown Bess fired a
ball at a muzzle velocity of 1500 fps. The authors state there are no mid-18th century
velocity data for the Brown Bess (p. 4). They base their premise on historical data from two
sources (one an 1845 U.S. government report), which they extrapolate to the Brown Bess
used in 1745 (p. 4). This is a major weakness of the paper, and it profoundly affects their
comparative analysis of the strength of 18th century and contemporary black powder. They
state that standard cartridges for the Brown Bess contained between 5 drams (137 grains)
and 6 drams (164 grains) of powder (p. 3). Thus, by their extrapolation, it must follow that
such a powder charge generated a muzzle velocity of 1500 fps. The authors then state that
because at least 15 grams (231 grains) of contemporary black powder (mixture of three
powders tested by them) was needed to attain an equivalent muzzle velocity, contemporary
powder must therefore be weaker than 18th century powder. The entire line of reasoning
rests upon the authors’ unsubstantiated assertion about the 18th century muzzle velocity of
the Brown Bess.
Robins (1805, 92, 93) describes experiments conducted with a .77 caliber 45” long
barrel firing a 583 grain .75 caliber ball propelled by 288 grains of gunpowder. This is the
caliber and length barrel of the 1730 and 1742 Brown Bess pattern that would have been
used in 1745; the ball more likely would have been about .69 caliber weighing about 495
grains, i.e., the size ball used by Roberts and others. Robins recorded a velocity of about

7
1690 fps. The amount of powder is considerably greater than the amount (231 grains) of
modern black powder Roberts and others concluded was needed to attain 1500 fps. Robins
(93) recorded a velocity of about 1173 fps using 144 grains of gunpowder. Roberts and
others assumption that 1500 fps was obtained with 137-164 grains of gunpowder is drawn
into question by Robins’ experiments, and hence their conclusions are questionable that
18th century powder was stronger than contemporary powder.