Hunting Washington Forum

Big Game Hunting => Muzzleloader Hunting => Topic started by: arrowflinger on June 20, 2012, 02:08:27 PM

Title: ffg vs fffg
Post by: arrowflinger on June 20, 2012, 02:08:27 PM: Please help me with the difference and why one would be better then the other. Right now I shoot 100 grains of ffg, if I was going to switch to fffg where would I start.

I do see that fffg is finer and says to use in pistols and 45 caliber or less.

Please help me understand!!!
Title: Re: ffg vs fffg
Post by: et1702 on June 20, 2012, 02:20:46 PM: 3F is about 20% more powerful than 2F. So, you might be able to get away w/80gr.

For example, a lot of guys w/1;28 twist barrels that shoot 120gr can get away with 100gr 3F.

ET
Title: Re: ffg vs fffg
Post by: Chesapeake on June 20, 2012, 02:54:11 PM: I use them pretty interchangeably with 777 in the 60 to 110 grain range.

The FFFG seems to have a sharper report but velocity difference with a 340-375 grain bullet is minimal. Seems it was maybe 30 fps or something like that in my rifle.

I could never tell any real practical difference between the two using 777 and Pyrodex in my rifle with my loads.

I suspect you may get better velocity with light bullets using FFFG and better with heavy bullets using FFG, but I havent tested.

I primarily shoot the FFG version. My Father in law shoots the FFFG. We both have the same rifle and shoot the same bullet.

et1720,

20% more powerfull by volume or 20% more velocity for a given volume or 20% more pressure or gas production for a given volume?

All 3 situations would be very different and could all be described as "20% more powerfull" in advertising fodder.

20% more velocity for a given load would have added 300+ fps to my loads.
Title: Re: ffg vs fffg
Post by: et1702 on June 20, 2012, 03:20:34 PM: The 3f will burn faster and therefore develop pressure faster. However, not a lot of velocity difference when using heavier bullets.

ET
Title: Re: ffg vs fffg
Post by: carpsniperg2 on June 20, 2012, 03:27:45 PM: :yeah: Hell for years I have been shooting the gold old RS and been doing great with it. I switched to 777 fffg a couple years ago. Does shoot cleaner but my groups do get a little bigger when using it.
Title: Re: ffg vs fffg
Post by: arrowflinger on June 20, 2012, 03:36:39 PM: I shoot T7 ffg. Put was reading other post here and saw that a few are using fffg. I'm using a Barnes 290 TMZ. I was thinking might experiment some time.
Title: Re: ffg vs fffg
Post by: carpsniperg2 on June 20, 2012, 03:39:03 PM: I shot the 290tmz with the 777 fffg and it shoots well in my black diamond xr and cva elkhorn. The groups are for sure a little bigger then with pyrodex in both the rifles.
Title: Re: ffg vs fffg
Post by: Sabotloader on June 20, 2012, 04:37:56 PM: Not that it matters, but I use T7-3f in all of my cap guns. It is easier to ignite than 2f and works a lot better with a cap in sub freezing weather. I shoot the 3f in a 45 cal as well as all of my 50's. I even use t in my 54 round ball gun. As et1702 says it reaches peak pressure faster but it also burns out faster... In my inlines i shoot 110 to 120 grains of 3f.

According to Hodgdon, T7-2f is approximately 15% faster/pressure than regular BP or the Pyros and T7-3f is approximately 10% faster than T7-2f. Personally I think 10% and 5% are more like it.
Title: ffg vs fffg
Post by: Chesapeake on June 20, 2012, 10:39:31 PM: I own a chronograph and have shot the muzzy across it a lot, though it's been about 4 or 5 years. From what I recall 5 to 10% I could agree with.
I can say this. Ive shot many of the powder choices across my chrono and in the field and in my kit right now is two jugs of ffg 777.
Title: ffg vs fffg
Post by: Chesapeake on June 20, 2012, 11:05:30 PM: So looking at a jug of each. They list on the jug:
100 grain charge, 250 Bar MZ, #11, 1847 for ffg and 1971 for fffg.
100 grain charge, 300 TC XTP, #11, 1746 for ffg and 1749 for fffg.

That sounds right in line with what I remember my chrono saying. By 350 grains ffg was doing as well or better. Must have been better or I'd be using fffg.
Title: Re: ffg vs fffg
Post by: Elk whack master on June 21, 2012, 08:04:40 PM: Does moisture affect one more than the other. :dunno:
Title: Re: ffg vs fffg
Post by: fair-chase on June 21, 2012, 08:37:53 PM: Marking this to follow along.