Is this level of historical inaccuracy acceptable?

[Gabe-KC]

I'm writing a story set in the 1840s/1850s, and I need one of the characters to use dynamite. However, dynamite wasn't invented until about 20 years later. I did some research and there were other kinds of explosives in existence then, but none of them would be capable of the destruction I want to depict. So I've got two choices, either use a tool that wasn't invented yet, or exaggerate the capabilities of another tool. Which is more acceptable?

 

[Feutus Lapdance]

I'd go for exaggeration over historical inaccuracy personally. Most people won't know what quantity of [insert explosive here] is needed to do a certain damage. Just look at grenades, their use in film drives real soldiers up the wall.

You have seen the Joe Rogan show about that soldier?

 

[Jack Lynt]

I'm in the it-probably-doesn't-matter-camp, depending on context etc.

Or, does it have to be set in the 1840s/1850s? Could you bump the setting up a few decades?