50 cal roundball FFF load 170 grs.
- Thread starter Welchman
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
There is a great chance of the ball/patch slipping and allowing the gas from the powder to blow by, and this would be a good thing for reducing the effects of the heavyist of charges in the slim PENN rifle...
The fireball at the muzzle must be an awesome sight as well...
In the picture of the PENN rifle below you will see a pointy butt plate, just imagine this with 170 grains of FFFg in the bore and your lightly shirted shoulder...
Guest
I think it has been established over the years, thet huge blackpowder charges are not conductive to accuracy in small-arms for "whatever reasons".
Nor, will huge blackpowder charges in our muzzleloaders ever expel a projectile at 3000 FPS.
If such things were possible, the modern inliners would be do'n it!! (Lord knows,.... ther always chase'n thet "elusive dream") :haha: :haha:
YMHS
rollingb
brushbuster
40 Cal.
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2004
- Messages
- 471
- Reaction score
- 0
:imo:whether you are loading b/p or center fire rifle cartridges one thing you must always do GET FRESH LOAD DATA
the great thing about goex and swiss powders are they are pretty consistant with the way they make their powder,how ever there can be slight differences between lots causing different and sometimes dangerous pressure levels.this especially holds true for(gulp!!) center fire cartridges.
i always check for fresh data any time i buy a new can of powder.just look at the previous responses,170gr of powder is close to a proof load .neither you ,or espesially your gun will hold up to that much abuse !
no one wants to see you get hurt or see your gun get damaged and i am glad you posted this question instead of staying quiet and continuing to do what you were doing,that shows me you had doubts about that load and had the gumtion to ask. :thumbsup::imo:
the great thing about goex and swiss powders are they are pretty consistant with the way they make their powder,how ever there can be slight differences between lots causing different and sometimes dangerous pressure levels.this especially holds true for(gulp!!) center fire cartridges.
i always check for fresh data any time i buy a new can of powder.just look at the previous responses,170gr of powder is close to a proof load .neither you ,or espesially your gun will hold up to that much abuse !
no one wants to see you get hurt or see your gun get damaged and i am glad you posted this question instead of staying quiet and continuing to do what you were doing,that shows me you had doubts about that load and had the gumtion to ask. :thumbsup::imo:
RussB
45 Cal.
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2004
- Messages
- 882
- Reaction score
- 13
Welchman, Welcome to the forum.
I hope you haven't left the room. Please don't read something in this "bashing" that is not there.
I assure you...with all my heart, that everthing said has been said in your interest. Forum members help each other, and if we get out of line just a bit, or suggest trying something that will get us hurt, we don't just sit by and watch it happen. That's what a "GOOD FORUM" is all about.
Tell us some more of your experience with this load. Like the others, I am at a loss as to how you've made it up to 170gr with out something going south on you before now.
Did you "work" that load up? Or, did you just "dump it & pump it". What's recoil like on that puppy?
Tell us some more of on the what you've done/not done with the load....just talk to us, we all mean well and want to help.
Russ
I hope you haven't left the room. Please don't read something in this "bashing" that is not there.
I assure you...with all my heart, that everthing said has been said in your interest. Forum members help each other, and if we get out of line just a bit, or suggest trying something that will get us hurt, we don't just sit by and watch it happen. That's what a "GOOD FORUM" is all about.
Tell us some more of your experience with this load. Like the others, I am at a loss as to how you've made it up to 170gr with out something going south on you before now.
Did you "work" that load up? Or, did you just "dump it & pump it". What's recoil like on that puppy?
Tell us some more of on the what you've done/not done with the load....just talk to us, we all mean well and want to help.
Russ
Guest
Well, I might as well add my 2 pesos.
: Lyman's data indeed does show 170gr. 3F G-O as giving 15,000 CUP pressure with a patched .498" round ball of 180gr. in their 43" test barrel. Would I use it, NO, but for different reasons than pressure.
: How many here on this forum use the .50 calibre 370 gr. maxiball with 90gr. 3F GOEX- or maybe only 85gr. 3F.? I am certain, there are bound to be one or perhaps more.
: Lyman also went UP TO 90gr. of G-O 3F with the TC 370 gr. maxiball and registered 15,600 CUP for their trouble, and 14,625 CUP for 85gr.3F. That puts the 170gr. 3F load in the middle.
: This shows more pressure for 90gr.3F with the slug, than almost twice the powder with patched RB. If one follows the pressure curve, even 180gr.3F & ball wouldn't have produced as much pressure as 90gr. with the slug.
: The G-O powder used is said to be of lower power than what is being used today although my chronograph results don't show that in the large bores - they show virtually the same results.
: If you're not following my 'gist' here, it is that people who say not to use 170gr. 3F with a single patched RB, use similar pressure loads with 3F and slugs, yet think they are well below max pressures. Many fail to understand how quickly a slug's increased weight and friction increases pressure. The 45-70 produced up to 22,000CUP. That was 70gr. 1F with a 405 or 500gr. slug. The .45/100/550 (2 7/8") produced up to 27,000CUP. They had closed systems without vents or nipples - good thing ML's do, isn't it?
: Personally, I use 2F in all guns of .50 and larger. I did try up to 3 drams of 3F in the .69 but it was hard on patches where the same velocity with 2F was easy on patches.
: Now, 120gr. 2F in the .50 cal will produce over 2,000fps. Due to the rate of velocity loss in a round ball, and very crawling rise in velocity above this level, any more velocity increase is not worth extra powder, nor is it worth the risk of wear and tear on the stock or barrel. Subjecting it to loads that produce another 150fps greatly incresses the recoil. Very few people use even 120gr.2F even with round balls, and most find 100gr/110gr. will answer for all game up to Elk and Moose. In the past, I prefered the flatness of trajectory to 125yds, that 120gr. gave me. Any more powder was wasted as the efficiency was very poor. The gain per grain was too low to be worth while.
: With a RB gun, it is normal to increase the bore size, not the powder charge - such is history repeating itself.
: A .50 cal RB will punch through both lungs of a Moose or an Elk at 100yds., when started by 100 2f. to 120gr. 2F. Adding more powder increases nothing in this load - no more penetration, no more damage to the vitals. They both punch about a 1 1/2" hole through the soft tissue of the lungs. This, "Larger than ball" hole is caused by the shock wave at the front of the ball, nothing else. FT. Lbs energy doesn't kill the beast. Destruction of vitals by the ball does. If FT. LBs. energy was what killed, a .17 Hornet would be a better moose gun that a .54 rifle is & WAY ahead of a .50. THAT quite simply isn't the case.
: Lyman's data indeed does show 170gr. 3F G-O as giving 15,000 CUP pressure with a patched .498" round ball of 180gr. in their 43" test barrel. Would I use it, NO, but for different reasons than pressure.
: How many here on this forum use the .50 calibre 370 gr. maxiball with 90gr. 3F GOEX- or maybe only 85gr. 3F.? I am certain, there are bound to be one or perhaps more.
: Lyman also went UP TO 90gr. of G-O 3F with the TC 370 gr. maxiball and registered 15,600 CUP for their trouble, and 14,625 CUP for 85gr.3F. That puts the 170gr. 3F load in the middle.
: This shows more pressure for 90gr.3F with the slug, than almost twice the powder with patched RB. If one follows the pressure curve, even 180gr.3F & ball wouldn't have produced as much pressure as 90gr. with the slug.
: The G-O powder used is said to be of lower power than what is being used today although my chronograph results don't show that in the large bores - they show virtually the same results.
: If you're not following my 'gist' here, it is that people who say not to use 170gr. 3F with a single patched RB, use similar pressure loads with 3F and slugs, yet think they are well below max pressures. Many fail to understand how quickly a slug's increased weight and friction increases pressure. The 45-70 produced up to 22,000CUP. That was 70gr. 1F with a 405 or 500gr. slug. The .45/100/550 (2 7/8") produced up to 27,000CUP. They had closed systems without vents or nipples - good thing ML's do, isn't it?
: Personally, I use 2F in all guns of .50 and larger. I did try up to 3 drams of 3F in the .69 but it was hard on patches where the same velocity with 2F was easy on patches.
: Now, 120gr. 2F in the .50 cal will produce over 2,000fps. Due to the rate of velocity loss in a round ball, and very crawling rise in velocity above this level, any more velocity increase is not worth extra powder, nor is it worth the risk of wear and tear on the stock or barrel. Subjecting it to loads that produce another 150fps greatly incresses the recoil. Very few people use even 120gr.2F even with round balls, and most find 100gr/110gr. will answer for all game up to Elk and Moose. In the past, I prefered the flatness of trajectory to 125yds, that 120gr. gave me. Any more powder was wasted as the efficiency was very poor. The gain per grain was too low to be worth while.
: With a RB gun, it is normal to increase the bore size, not the powder charge - such is history repeating itself.
: A .50 cal RB will punch through both lungs of a Moose or an Elk at 100yds., when started by 100 2f. to 120gr. 2F. Adding more powder increases nothing in this load - no more penetration, no more damage to the vitals. They both punch about a 1 1/2" hole through the soft tissue of the lungs. This, "Larger than ball" hole is caused by the shock wave at the front of the ball, nothing else. FT. Lbs energy doesn't kill the beast. Destruction of vitals by the ball does. If FT. LBs. energy was what killed, a .17 Hornet would be a better moose gun that a .54 rifle is & WAY ahead of a .50. THAT quite simply isn't the case.
Welchman,
I have a current Lyman owners' manual, I purchased the gun about a month and a half ago. The current manual lists the maximum load for a .490 round ball as 70 grains.
I think the primary reason for the reduction of load recommendations is the question of legal liability. Manufacturers have to be aware that any load data they print could be used by some idiot in inferior or damaged guns and lead to a large lawsuit.
By the way, have you compared the data from your old reloading manuals to the current editions? I think you'll find that the major companies have all reduced their recommendations for loading cartridges as well.
I have a current Lyman owners' manual, I purchased the gun about a month and a half ago. The current manual lists the maximum load for a .490 round ball as 70 grains.
I think the primary reason for the reduction of load recommendations is the question of legal liability. Manufacturers have to be aware that any load data they print could be used by some idiot in inferior or damaged guns and lead to a large lawsuit.
By the way, have you compared the data from your old reloading manuals to the current editions? I think you'll find that the major companies have all reduced their recommendations for loading cartridges as well.
Guest
Welchman,.... See'ns as how you addressed yore last post to me, I feel as tho sumpthin I said must have hurt yore feel'ns.
I've went back and re-read all my posts, and I think they well express my concern for yore saftey and nuthin more. (Maybe I'm miss'n sumpthin here? :
As far as contact'n Lyman,.... I think thets a great idea, I'm sure they will give you ther "current load reccomendations",.... and, they would also probly give you an explanation of ther 1974-5 "load data".
I think the helpful members of this forum would also be innerested in Lyman's explanation,.... 'cause without the book you have, we're jest "guess'n" in regards to such load data.
rollingb
P.S.,.... I do have one question tho (see'ns how you have a chrony),... what was the "increase" in velocity from 120 grs. of FFFG,... to 170 grs. FFFG in yore .50????
I've went back and re-read all my posts, and I think they well express my concern for yore saftey and nuthin more. (Maybe I'm miss'n sumpthin here? :
As far as contact'n Lyman,.... I think thets a great idea, I'm sure they will give you ther "current load reccomendations",.... and, they would also probly give you an explanation of ther 1974-5 "load data".
I think the helpful members of this forum would also be innerested in Lyman's explanation,.... 'cause without the book you have, we're jest "guess'n" in regards to such load data.
rollingb
P.S.,.... I do have one question tho (see'ns how you have a chrony),... what was the "increase" in velocity from 120 grs. of FFFG,... to 170 grs. FFFG in yore .50????
I do believe some of the companies used data from George Nonte's book. And most of what I have seen in there is horrendous, dangerous overloads. I recommend to any who have that book, to burn it, so it doesn't fall into innocent hands.
When you increase the load to that level, it is obvious that all of the charge can not burn in the barrel. So there is a lot of powder blowing out the barrel, wasted. Something to consider, that excess powder translates to projectile weight. So, breech pressure is increased, and the usual result is cracking of the stock in the wrist area, if you are lucky.
When the testing was done years ago at Montana Rifle Barrel co., formerly Sharon Rifle Works, it was found it was almost impossible to burst a barrel, unless the projectile was not seated upon the powder. However, even though they worked up to 1700 gr. of powder, and seventeen patched round balls, it isn't necessarily a good idea!
It puzzles me that so many, who go down the trail of shooting mini type balls, stoke such huge loads in them. Most are trying to load them far beyond what the old buffalo cartridge rifles use. And the Sharps, Remingtons, Borchardts, etc., have been known to drop a few head of animals. If a person is wanting more velocity for flatter shooting, a muzzleloader probably isn't thier game.
When you increase the load to that level, it is obvious that all of the charge can not burn in the barrel. So there is a lot of powder blowing out the barrel, wasted. Something to consider, that excess powder translates to projectile weight. So, breech pressure is increased, and the usual result is cracking of the stock in the wrist area, if you are lucky.
When the testing was done years ago at Montana Rifle Barrel co., formerly Sharon Rifle Works, it was found it was almost impossible to burst a barrel, unless the projectile was not seated upon the powder. However, even though they worked up to 1700 gr. of powder, and seventeen patched round balls, it isn't necessarily a good idea!
It puzzles me that so many, who go down the trail of shooting mini type balls, stoke such huge loads in them. Most are trying to load them far beyond what the old buffalo cartridge rifles use. And the Sharps, Remingtons, Borchardts, etc., have been known to drop a few head of animals. If a person is wanting more velocity for flatter shooting, a muzzleloader probably isn't thier game.
Guest
Ric/Waksupi,.... As you know, I'm not into those large loads, so I've never ran "anythin" like thet 'cross my chrony.
Jest off tha "top" of my head tho,.... I'm guess'n the velocity increase from 160 grs FFFG to 170 grs. FFFG, was probly in the "single digits". (hardly what I would consider "worth the risk" in safty)
..... and, yore "spot on" 'bout burn'n George Nonte's book!! :thumbsup:
YMHS
rollingb
Jest off tha "top" of my head tho,.... I'm guess'n the velocity increase from 160 grs FFFG to 170 grs. FFFG, was probly in the "single digits". (hardly what I would consider "worth the risk" in safty)
..... and, yore "spot on" 'bout burn'n George Nonte's book!! :thumbsup:
YMHS
rollingb
Welchman,
I think your confusion arises from the fact that the Lyman data from the 1975 edition is almost useless to a shooter. First off, nowhere do they say those tables are suggested to be maximum loads. Look closely at all the data for .54 roundballs and it runs from 150 to 170 grains 3F GO. The only consistency is that ALL the max listed loads peak out at very close to 15,000 CUP. They further confuse the issue by switching partway through from LUP (lead units of pressure) to CUP (copper units of pressure) then tell you the two are not the same but a pattern can be seen. Sure, a pattern is seen but to me it is not useful as I don't know what to do with the data.
Because of this confusion, earlier this year I asked a well known and respected barrel maker how to work up a maximum load for a ML, obviously the signs we look for in rifle loading are missing here. His answer was that he knew of no way to do what I was asking. He also stated that some years back they had tried to blow up a test barrel with 3FG and they never did succeed in blowing it with a "Properly" seated ball. But a ball that did not seat on the powder seemed to be the key to ruptured barrels.
And that my friends is exactly why we should mark our ramrods.
As for the question between 2F and 3F, I have said before its like fords and chevys and sometimes personal likes and dislikes replaces proper testing and reason in our decisions and what we suggest to others.
I used to be a dyed in the wool 2FG believer in the .54, then one day a case of 3F was shipped by mistake and since I couldn't send it back I tried some of it in a .54, now the 2F gathers dust and all I shoot is 3F.
Earlier this year I did some bench testing with a 38" Colrain .54 barrel in a longrifle. I used both 110 grains of 2F and 80 grains of 3F. I was trying to find a good heavy elk load.
The bottom line was this; The 2FG load at 110 grains had a trajectory like a rainbow compared to the 80 grain 3FG load. Now to me that doesn't sound like the high velocitys some 2FG proponents claim.
The 2FG load also kicked like a mule and pounded my cheek off the bench. Much worse than the 3FG.
The 2FG load also fouled much worse than the 3FG load.
So, if 3FG shoots faster at lower charge amounts and kicks less and fouls less, then why would I insist on shooting 2FG? Well, for these reasons I no longer shoot 2FG. And I would love to trade some 2FG for 3FG to those who think a 120 grain 2FG load is the cats meow.
I have come to realize that all my barrels must be out of the norm. They all perform the same with 3FG and when I sight one in off a bench they hit the same place whether or not I am shooting offhand, off a log or over a tree limb.
Some people also claim 3FG will erode your bore faster and cut our your touchhole like a water jet. I say "diddly squat" to that also. Show me hard documented scientific evidence of that before you try forcing that opinion on others. If it was so there would be no .28, .32 .36, .40 or .45 calibers with any kind of a shooting bore left in this world.
Old wives tales carry a lot of weight with some people, but sometimes those tales are right out of the dark ages.
If you really want to know, then spend some time at the range and work out what really works for your particular gun. That is the only way to really know the answers to your questions.
By the way, I never completed my load testing. After a couple of bench sessions with 2FG I had a flinch to cure. I decided to stick with 80 grains of 3FG for deer. I didn't get drawn for an Elk tag anyway.
I think your confusion arises from the fact that the Lyman data from the 1975 edition is almost useless to a shooter. First off, nowhere do they say those tables are suggested to be maximum loads. Look closely at all the data for .54 roundballs and it runs from 150 to 170 grains 3F GO. The only consistency is that ALL the max listed loads peak out at very close to 15,000 CUP. They further confuse the issue by switching partway through from LUP (lead units of pressure) to CUP (copper units of pressure) then tell you the two are not the same but a pattern can be seen. Sure, a pattern is seen but to me it is not useful as I don't know what to do with the data.
Because of this confusion, earlier this year I asked a well known and respected barrel maker how to work up a maximum load for a ML, obviously the signs we look for in rifle loading are missing here. His answer was that he knew of no way to do what I was asking. He also stated that some years back they had tried to blow up a test barrel with 3FG and they never did succeed in blowing it with a "Properly" seated ball. But a ball that did not seat on the powder seemed to be the key to ruptured barrels.
And that my friends is exactly why we should mark our ramrods.
As for the question between 2F and 3F, I have said before its like fords and chevys and sometimes personal likes and dislikes replaces proper testing and reason in our decisions and what we suggest to others.
I used to be a dyed in the wool 2FG believer in the .54, then one day a case of 3F was shipped by mistake and since I couldn't send it back I tried some of it in a .54, now the 2F gathers dust and all I shoot is 3F.
Earlier this year I did some bench testing with a 38" Colrain .54 barrel in a longrifle. I used both 110 grains of 2F and 80 grains of 3F. I was trying to find a good heavy elk load.
The bottom line was this; The 2FG load at 110 grains had a trajectory like a rainbow compared to the 80 grain 3FG load. Now to me that doesn't sound like the high velocitys some 2FG proponents claim.
The 2FG load also kicked like a mule and pounded my cheek off the bench. Much worse than the 3FG.
The 2FG load also fouled much worse than the 3FG load.
So, if 3FG shoots faster at lower charge amounts and kicks less and fouls less, then why would I insist on shooting 2FG? Well, for these reasons I no longer shoot 2FG. And I would love to trade some 2FG for 3FG to those who think a 120 grain 2FG load is the cats meow.
I have come to realize that all my barrels must be out of the norm. They all perform the same with 3FG and when I sight one in off a bench they hit the same place whether or not I am shooting offhand, off a log or over a tree limb.
Some people also claim 3FG will erode your bore faster and cut our your touchhole like a water jet. I say "diddly squat" to that also. Show me hard documented scientific evidence of that before you try forcing that opinion on others. If it was so there would be no .28, .32 .36, .40 or .45 calibers with any kind of a shooting bore left in this world.
Old wives tales carry a lot of weight with some people, but sometimes those tales are right out of the dark ages.
If you really want to know, then spend some time at the range and work out what really works for your particular gun. That is the only way to really know the answers to your questions.
By the way, I never completed my load testing. After a couple of bench sessions with 2FG I had a flinch to cure. I decided to stick with 80 grains of 3FG for deer. I didn't get drawn for an Elk tag anyway.
