50 cal roundball FFF load 170 grs.

[Welchman]

I've notice from previous posts that the most popular hunting load is 80-100 gr. of FFF for the 50 cal.

My Lyman Black Powder Handbook (1975) lists a max. load of 170 gr. of FFF with a MV of 2354 fps and 2212# engery at 100 yards engery is 739# compared to 510 # shooting 90 grains of FFF.

In 1975 I purchased a TC Hawken 50 and the manual listed 110 grains of FF

170 grains out of my Penn 50 cal. is accurate.

Your thoughs please.

Welchman

Please remember to pray of our troops.

 

[Stumpkiller]

170 grains out of my Penn 50 cal. is accurate.

Your widow will proudly display your last target over your closed casket.

IMHO that's an insane overload for any use. That's more than twice as much as I use for deer hunting, and FFFg is denser & faster burning than the FFg I use. You's knuckin futz if you continue to shoot that load.

Goex recommends FFg for any caliber over .40 They also show no .50 roundball loads over 80 grains! Get the hint?

http://www.goexpowder.com/load-chart.html

 

[shmrck1]

Welchman,
double ditto to what stumpy said. i could not agree more 170grs is insane. :imo:
HAPPY HOLIDAYS
snake-eyes :m2c: eace: :thumbsup:

 

[Rebel]

Ain't no Mastadons left on this continent, so why the need for such a load? All you are doing is absorbing a lot of extra recoil pain with the possiblity of destroying your rifle. If you need that much power go to a larger caliber.

 

[roundball]

You's knuckin futz if you continue to shoot that load.

Stumpy...I think you made a couple typos...shouldn't that be........ :crackup: :crackup: :crackup:

At any rate, I know the amount posted is somewhat on the 'large' side, but we need not "pile on" this gentleman...he in fact quoted a published source document by a leading name in the industry.

Then he mentioned reading several posts here that raised questions in his mind about that load, and he's done the right thing by posting here to ask for clarification...don't need to embarrass him and run him away
::

Welchman...I agree with the others that the 170grn load of FFFg in a .50cal exceeds any currently accepted load data I know about, and is potentially unsafe, although probably still within the proof house limits of your rifle.

As an example, TC publishes load data and I think the max round ball load in their manual is 120grns FFg (2F).

When using FFFg (3F) the charge should be reduced about 15%, in this example to around 100grns max.

In my case, I use 90grns Goex FFFg for hunting loads, and 50grns for target work.

It would probably be best if you backed that 170grn charge down some...and an immediate benefit is you'll get about twice as many shots per lb of powder as you're getting now.

:imo: :m2c: :redthumb:

 

Well!!..... I'm literaly "speechless" !!!! :what: :youcrazy: :shocking: :nono: :shake: :: :no: :huh:

Thet's gotta be a "MISPRINT" , or sumpthin,.... "WHATEVER" it is,.... it's liable ta git ya "KILT" thet's fer sure!!

"PLEASE",.... reduce yore load by 100 grs.!!

YMHS
rollingb

 

[bob1961]

in my T/C hawken i use 70 grs 3f for PRB and won the postal shoot in oct with it so that says alot....and i didn't have to flinch when i was going to shoot it off cause i know it was going to hurt....but really the others have said it and my T/C book has the same info of 120 grs MAX....i use 80 grs for T/C's 240 gr cheap shot sabots and get the same poa for both loads.....................bob

 

[Rat]

Yes but....what kind of accuracy are you getting at 100 yards with 170 grains of fffg???????????????

::

Seems like the ball would be jumping the rifling pretty much.

Would also be curious to know what kind of recoil you are getting with such a load.

Rat

 

[Ohio Joe]

The barrels used in the Lyman Black Powder Handbook were test barrels that were all 1 1/8 inch Outside Diameter.

I know that Green River Rifle Works were listed in the book as having a suggested load for a .50 at 90 grains 2fg, and a maximum load of 125 grains 2fg.

I would suggest not to go beyond the maximum load of what the manufacture suggest.

 

[Stumpkiller]

Then he mentioned reading several posts here that raised questions in his mind about that load, and he's done the right thing by posting here to ask for clarification...don't need to embarrass him and run him away

Well Roundball, ye caught me plumb square with that one. I should'a paused to wash down my plug after swallerin in and before I spat.

Welchman, I didn't mean to kick yer legs out'n under ye, just get yer attention. I don't wany no one with the brains and decency to be a member here gettin thayself hurt. We also got little partners readin these writins, ye know.

Nuttin gets me hotter than someone puttin my friends in danger. Someone bein mean spirited to 'em comes close, though. I shouldn't have done one meself on the pretext of preventing the t'other. Sorry Welchman, I apologize.

THE ADMIRAL tells me I got a mean-streak. Comin from her, that is a scarry revelation. :shocking:

 

[olgriz]

Fire that 170 grain load over some clean snow, or if you don't have any snow, some white canvass, and you will find about half the powder laying out there unburned. That large of a load is not only un-necessary, but a waste of money also, and powder now days is getting a mite expensive. Last I heard out west here it is 12 bucks a pound. I shoot a .62 and only use 110 grains of FFg. These guys are giving you good advice, and between us we've got a couple of hundred years of ML experience and more than our share of game meat, DON'T load near that heavy, it's dangerous and aint necessary.

 

[Rebel]

Yea, just between cowhand and i we have over half that couple hundred years of experience. :crackup:

 

[ndbilly]

Is it possible that the writer was somehow reading a reference to the weight of the projectile rather than the recommended charge of powder? Also, if the excess powder doesn't ignite (The Snow Test) how do the pressures rise?

Curious Bill

 

Also, if the excess powder doesn't ignite (The Snow Test) how do the pressures rise?

Curious Bill

Any unburnt powder is "dead weight" and must be added to the "weight" of the projectile, thus increase'n the "pressure" of the burning powder.


YMHS
rollingb

 

[roundball]

I have a couple of those original 1975 Lyman BP Hanbooks and they go right on up in the size of the powder charges.
What we don't know is how the powder they used, called "G-O", compares to more current powders that we use today like Goex...maybe 170 of G-O = 100grns of Goex, etc, etc.

PS:
I think the "snow test" may be worth revisiting...IMO, I would think any unburned powder that exits the muzzle is immediately consumed in the muzzle flame/flash, and the only thing that hits the ground is particles of BP residue.

 

Any unburnt powder is "dead weight" and must be added to the "weight" of the projectile, thus increase'n the "pressure" of the burning powder.


YMHS
rollingb

P.S.,.... Thet is also "why" we experience much more recoil with very large powder charges while at the "same time" see'n very liddle increase in velocity!!

The term for such a situation is called the PODR (point of deminishing returns), FFFG will also "spike" much sooner then FFG, which only adds "more pressure" to the situation.

YMHS
rollingb

 

[tg]

if I recall the Mad Monk did some testing and anything you find on snow or a sheet will residue much like is left in the bore, one might collect all the black studd off a sheet and see if it is combustable...my guess would be not.

 

[musketman]

I've notice from previous posts that the most popular hunting load is 80-100 gr. of FFF for the 50 cal.

My Lyman Black Powder Handbook (1975) lists a max. load of 170 gr. of FFF with a MV of 2354 fps and 2212# engery at 100 yards engery is 739# compared to 510 # shooting 90 grains of FFF.

Welchman, I too have the Lyman Black Powder Handbook book and I would like to politely point out a few things to you...

1. The 170 grain load you quoted was developed in a "UNIVERSAL" test barrel, these test barrels are clamped to a table/bench for load developing...

If this barrel was on an actual rifle, the effects of the massive recoil would be different, even if the barrel can handle the pressures, the other components may not be able to... (hammer, sear, nipple, stock, sect.) Any one of them could fail and leave you in a world of hurt, remember, your face is next to the breech area...

2. Just because a load is listed at 170 grains does not mean it is right for your brand of gun, not all .50 calibers are equal...

3. By reducing your load (even by half) you will be able to shoot twice as much, cost effectiveness and economics are one of the roundball's strongest selling points...

170 grains out of my Penn 50 cal. is accurate.

But for how long?

Wear and tare will work it's toll on any rifle, new or antique, why shorten the life span of the Penn and yourself needlessly?

Just like cars, guns get loose with age or being over-worked, more power does not always mean it works better...

Hope this enlightens you a bit...

BTW, G-O powder stands for Gearhart-Owen, who was located just outside of Scranton, PA...

The first DuPont powder was produced in 1804 and they quickly became the leading American powder producer. Laflin & Rand and the Hazard Powder company eventually joined the production scene and together the three dominated the industry. An explosion, in the early 1970s, destroyed the DuPont plant. The company decided to abandon the black powder industry and sold their whole operation to Gearhart-Owen.

 

[Stumpkiller]

I just poked around and my Lyman Reloading Handbook is the 45th Edition - 1970 copyright. The only thing T/C had at the time was a .45 Hawken and it went as high as 100 Gr of Curtis & Harvey powder. The only rifle larger mentioned was a Navy Arms .58 with 60 gr FFg for a Minie and 65 gr FFg for a round ball. Several makers were producing 45 cals at that time . . . and that's about all.

Are you sure it lists 170 Gr?!?!?

 

Musketman,.... Well said, and "spot on"!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

YMHS
rollingb