Another .32 Crockett Thread

[user 31257]

I’d shoot a groundhog at 50 yards with a patched ball but I wouldn’t hunt hogs with a .32 anything.

 

[Zonie]

Did anyone notice the foot pounds energy of the little 85 grain conical at 50 yards, that's an ethical groundhog, feral pig/hog non-head shot round .

The Lyamn data shows that a .32 caliber rifle loaded with a 40 grain powder load using 2Fg GOEX powder will give a MV of 1878 fps and 352 lb/ft of energy.
Using this data, my Roundball trajectory calculator says the ball will be traveling at 1101 fps with 121 lb/ft of energy at 50 yards distance. This is for a 45 grain, .31 caliber roundball.

With a 30 grain powder load of 3Fg GOEX powder gives a MV of 1940 fps with 376 lb/ft of energy. At 50 yards the ball will be traveling at 1127 fps with 127 lb of energy.

I don't have any data about the muzzle velocity of a 85 grain conical but IMO, that roundball would be more than enough for a groundhog.

 

[user 43911]

The Lyamn data shows that a .32 caliber rifle loaded with a 40 grain powder load using 2Fg GOEX powder will give a MV of 1878 fps and 352 lb/ft of energy.
Using this data, my Roundball trajectory calculator says the ball will be traveling at 1101 fps with 121 lb/ft of energy at 50 yards distance. This is for a 45 grain, .31 caliber roundball.

With a 30 grain powder load of 3Fg GOEX powder gives a MV of 1940 fps with 376 lb/ft of energy. At 50 yards the ball will be traveling at 1127 fps with 127 lb of energy.

I don't have any data about the muzzle velocity of a 85 grain conical but IMO, that roundball would be more than enough for a groundhog.

I would not worry about shooting groundhogs etc with round ball, was just making a point that the extra power available with the 85 grain projectile from the .32.
Something to note is the weight has to be correct, I have a .32 rb mold that drops a 41 grain ball and one that drops a 49 grain ball, balls are a few thou different but the molds say .32RB , energy figures change a good bit.

The 85 grain at muzzle = 1,635fps gives 504 fpe, velocity was based on 1 in 48 barrel twist and RPS to get best stability ( in Crockett, Pedersoli and more), max load for T/C with 1 in 30 twist could be a couple hundred feet per second faster putting it in the 1,835 fps range with a muzzle energy of 635 fp's.
Zonie, I'm sure you took a look but the data for the conical I'm working on is on page 4 of this thread and gives the velocity and energy in 25 yard increments.

 

[user 43911]

Just another note, I'm sure many know that round ball velocity drops quickly and has been well covered, I'm not against round ball and love it in my .54 Lyman Trade rifle, but I'm having fun working this .32 deal out. The velocities given by Zonie above are spot on and also indicate the point of velocity lose, the 45 grain round ball velocity drop is around 800 fps over 50 yards, 85 grain conical velocity drop is 245 fps over 50 yards. In this small caliber a little extra mass goes a long way and if that mass does not lose velocity as quickly, it carries more energy to target, if that's your thing.
99% of my shooting is against paper but I do have a squirrel, groundhog and rabbit problem to sort out.

 

[SDSmlf]

The Lyamn data shows that a .32 caliber rifle loaded with a 40 grain powder load using 2Fg GOEX powder will give a MV of 1878 fps and 352 lb/ft of energy.
Using this data, my Roundball trajectory calculator says the ball will be traveling at 1101 fps with 121 lb/ft of energy at 50 yards distance. This is for a 45 grain, .31 caliber roundball.

With a 30 grain powder load of 3Fg GOEX powder gives a MV of 1940 fps with 376 lb/ft of energy. At 50 yards the ball will be traveling at 1127 fps with 127 lb of energy.

I don't have any data about the muzzle velocity of a 85 grain conical but IMO, that roundball would be more than enough for a groundhog.

I can certify that out to 30 yards 12 grains of 3F or 4F under a patched round ball (#1-1/2 buck from Ballistic Products) in my 32 caliber Pedersoli Scout Carbine flintlock will without doubt dispatch a groundhog. Right now that 32 is 5-0 on woodchucks (2 this year, 3 last year if my memory is correct). If the ball does not hit any bone I gotten a few pass throughs, but to be honest, I have not really been checking, just noticed with a few.

Got second groundhog this year early this morning with the gun at about 20 yards near the fence around our raised bed garden. Loaded the gun last Friday and left it on the screen porch loaded (second floor screen porch with no access from the outside) until I shot it today. Was curious how our 50 -95% humidity would impact the powder in the pan and main charge. It went boom as normal.

I’ll only mention this as a comparison, but usually use a subsonic ‘sniper’ 60 grain 22 RF to keep the yard clear of groundhogs and coyotes, and inside of 30 yards, the 32 roundball is holding its own. Wouldn’t hesitate out to 50 yards, but beyond that would up the powder charge, but have no reason to worry about that for what I am doing
Brush and woods start about 30 yards behind the house.

 

[user 43911]

I know round ball will do it, I shot a groundhog and a few squirrels last fall with a break barrel .30 air rifle at 50 yards, they were instantly dead, as I said before I'm not making a point against round ball or it's ability to kill small game, it does and has been doing so for many years. My interest is based on many posts I have seen and read over the years from people asking about conical bullets in a .32, most try and give up, some have good results, some don't try because somebody said it would not work.

I would like to be able to shoot solid sub two inch groups at 100 yards with the .32, after all it's a rifle and it bothers me to think of a long gun as a 25-40 yard tool. I think the conical is the answer for that task, if it's doable then it could also be used at that range for other things as the energy would still be around 270/280 foot pounds (.38spl at muzzle). If it's not doable then as I said before I can use round ball back in handgun range.

 

[RAEDWALD]

I have to break my reply down . 1) contradicts it's self, Crockett is known for being accurate with round ball and twist it has.
2. What, Yes, In some cases harder lead alloy is used with shallow rifling so as not to strip.
Soft lead (pure lead) has a brinell hardness of 5 and obturates far easier than any alloy at lower pressure, one of the conical bullets I'm working with works like a R.E.A.L. type, engagement surface is short, large loads are not needed, the ability to obturate with ease helps it work and as you note the rifling on a Crockett is deep and as such is less prone to strip out, strip out/sliding is normally a problem in the first few inches of barrel, when the conical if formed to the rifling (obturated fully) it is less of a problem and where load work up comes in .

Years ago I had problems with a revolver that would lead the bore, I used a hard lead alloy and at first could not understand why this was happening, short answer I was shooting a low powered load in competition that did not obturate the bullet allowing gas to pass around the bullet and sloughed lead on the way, I made some with pure lead loaded the same powder with the same lube , no more leading.
In the link above on patch bullets, the Whitworth is being shot with pure lead (I think), you want to talk about obturation, form round to hex.

Lastly, to bore out the rifle is not something I would consider (to .33) , the challenge is to make what I have work, otherwise I would just make a custom rifle, if I can come up with something that works across a range of .32's that would be great, if no, we always have round ball.

My apologies that I somewhat piggy backed on your thread. I was just asking if anyone knew of a simple answer to reducing the depth of the grooves. I agree that the Crockett is well optimised for the patched round ball. That is clearly the maker's intention. The consequent depth is a hindrance to a conventional bullet. As you demonstrate there are ways to help get around that, but I was wondering if one could remove the issue entirely for the bullet. I measure a bore from the groove so to me the bore would remain the same size.

 

[user 43911]

My apologies that I somewhat piggy backed on your thread. I was just asking if anyone knew of a simple answer to reducing the depth of the grooves. I agree that the Crockett is well optimised for the patched round ball. That is clearly the maker's intention. The consequent depth is a hindrance to a conventional bullet. As you demonstrate there are ways to help get around that, but I was wondering if one could remove the issue entirely for the bullet. I measure a bore from the groove so to me the bore would remain the same size.

No apology needed, I'm sure someone out there could run a reamer down the barrel and take the top of the lands down 5 thousandths , I'm not sure the reamer would stay on center, to me the better option would be to sleeve it or a new barrel.

How you measure the bore, for new to guns people (not you, just in general) the bore on modern guns is measured to the groove and is normally the only number given, an example would be that you have a 45 1911 pistol the bore size is typically .450/451 with no mention of the land intrusion size, in the black powder era (there is really a lot more to this but) the bore size was the first drill with no mention of groove depth, case in point the Crockett .32, lands are .320 (first drill) and grooves (metal removed to form rifling) measure .342 . The amount of metal removed (groove depth) from one manufacturer to another is not standardized and is the reason people should slug their gun and do a load work up, patch thickness/powder charge etc, numbers given by another person when people ask "what's the best load for my, fill in the blank" really don't count for much, that would just be the best load for that persons gun.
Anyway by modern standards of measure the Crockett would be a .34. I just got long winded for no reason.

 

[user 43911]

Waiting on USPS to find one of my molds, Covid-19 has their panties in a wad as far as tracking goes.
Mold number two should be here Thursday $200 with handles, hope it works .
Mold three should be Friday so I will be casting a bunch for testing over the weekend, good weekend for it.

 

[hanshi]

Good luck with the two new molds, DBrevit.

 

[user 43911]

One mold came in today but handles will be here tomorrow, cast a few with a rigged set of handles.
Anyway on digital scale I'm getting 84.2 grains for 18 of the 20 I cast the other two are 84.0 grains, this is 99.9% pure lead. Conical length total is .447, base is .322, forward band is .325, lube groove is .288.
Things to consider when trying to work conical length max,twist/velocity needed, weight (I'm sure many already know this stuff), is black powder bore measurements are not done like modern guns, in this case a .32 Traditions, by modern method of measure it's a .342 (groove depth) and the length/twist and weight are not the same as a .320, the conical does not start off as a .342 but leaves the gun as one and does not go back in size, at the point of firing the length becomes a little shorter and fills out the grooves, this is important when working a 1 in 48 twist barrel and a .32. I hope my other molds etc show tomorrow two are paper patch conical, would like to cast everything and then test over the weekend.

 

[user 43911]

This is what I have for testing this weekend, two other molds did not show up (stuff happens),
the one on the left is for paper patching, center is just lube and patch round ball (I have 3 sizes of RB).

 

[user 43911]

Started testing today, went right at the 100 yard set up.
90+ deg day and high humidity, Graff's (GOEX) powder is dirty and today was more so, I used 35 grains of 3F for the target shown below, the target was shot 15 times and is probably as good as I can do off a bag of pine animal bedding on a bench with the factory sights.
I used the round nose 84/85 grain conical, chrono was on the fritz but a couple of numbers showed 1,700 fps, I was getting leading at the last 6" of barrel (came out easy) with the pure lead conical, I need to test some other lubes as what I had was not working.
I did test a half dozen of the 95 grain smothered in Crisco and no paper patch and they show promise, I will test them (95gr) with paper on them this week, will solve leading and tighten group (no target shown), like I just noted they show shocking promise considering they just dropped down the bore, load was 5 grains of 4F with 25 grains of 3F on top. I'm also going to try 2F Triple-7 and hope it is cleaner than the Graff powder.

 

[SDSmlf]

I just noted they show shocking promise considering they just dropped down the bore, load was 5 grains of 4F with 25 grains of 3F on top.

Careful. 4F and the idea of duplex loads will cause hell to come to breakfast, regardless of performance.

 

[Bledfor Days]

Thats impressive shooting for a .32 at 100 yds. Did you mention what distance you sighted in at? I'm interested in that 84gr bullet. Thanks for sharing results.

 

[user 43911]

Thats impressive shooting for a .32 at 100 yds. Did you mention what distance you sighted in at? I'm interested in that 84gr bullet. Thanks for sharing results.

Fresh numbers if chrono is correct, BC was amended from last graph, zero at 50. It's not far off, I was aiming best I could tell just above the black, target was turned 90 deg from picture, it was on board so you could read what is on it

Drag Function: G1 Ballistic Coefficient: 0.110 Bullet Weight: 85 gr Initial Velocity: 1700 fps Sight Height : .5 in Shooting Angle: 0°

Wind Speed: 0 mph Wind Angle: 0° Zero Range: 50 yd Chart Range: 175 yd Maximum Range: 1783 yd Step Size: 25 yd

International Standard Atmosphere Altitude: Sea Level (0 ft) Barometric Pressure: 29.92 Hg Temperature: 59° F Relative Humidity: 50% Speed of Sound: 1116 fps

Range	Elevation	Elevation	Elevation	Windage	Windage	Windage	Time	Energy	Vel[x+y]
(yd)	(in)	(MOA)	(MIL)	(in)	(MOA)	(MIL)	(s)	(ft.lbf)	(ft/s)
0	-0.50	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	546	1700
25	0.21	-0.80	-0.23	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.05	453	1550
50	0.01	-0.01	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.10	377	1413
75	-1.29	1.64	0.48	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.15	315	1292
100	-3.88	3.70	1.08	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.21	267	1189
- Sound Barrier (1116 fps) -
125	-8.02	6.12	1.78	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.28	231	1107
150	-13.93	8.86	2.58	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.35	205	1043
175	-21.83	11.90	3.46	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.42	186	992

 

[user 43911]

90+ deg day again today, may do testing late or tomorrow, when I get through testing will move on (sell off .32) to getting a Pedersoli Indian Trade gun (20 gauge smooth bore), smooth bore cleaning is a plus, low expectation of accuracy past 50 yards, utility gun even if it's a rock knocker plus I can work a load with tin ball as speed is your friend with smooth bore. Anyway, will be back to the .32 late today, have to find my 2 thousandth thick paper and I'm good to go.

 

[user 43911]

GOEX must put fillers in the powder they label for Graff, they must be to give a lower price point , I think they use old fence posts or construction cut offs for charcoal base, this stuff is dirty. I had the same thoughts a few years ago with Graff labeled powder when it was supplied by another manufacturer, going back to Swiss or 777, more so Swiss. I feel the GOEX powder does not produce the power that Swiss does, the cost of Swiss is higher I know but it's cleaner and more peppy and working loads with a dirty powder is a pain with a small caliber, cleaning and starting over with 777 late today.

 

[hanshi]

One thing's for sure; your loads are packing a big wallop!

 

[user 43911]

One thing's for sure; your loads are packing a big wallop!

Still shoots very soft, no recoil ( gun is 6 1/2 pounds), still in safe area with regard to pressure,
little more mass of conicals makes a big difference in FPE for sure.
Can't find it but somebody posted about pressure from subs being higher , owners manual states black powder or 3F Pdex is approved.