Crockett Pistol Velocity Surprise

[pab1]

I was at the range today to file down the rear sight of my .32 cal Crockett pistol. I brought my chronograph along to see what velocity I was getting with it. The load I'm using is the minimum shown by Traditions for this gun. Its a .310" (45gr) ball with a .010 patch over 10gr of 3F Goex.

According to Goex load charts, a ball that size fired from a handgun (they don't state barrel length, revolver or pistol) should be around 500fps with an 8gr charge of 3F. They show a 15gr charge of 3F coming in at 590fps.

I fired two shots through my chronograph about 15 feet from it. I was surprised when my first shot came in at 970fps. I thought maybe it was a bad reading since it was so much higher than the expected velocity. I fired a second shot which came in at 976fps. I was definitely not expecting those velocities from such a low charge.

The gun is very accurate with that charge. It's dead on at 50 yards with this load. The good news is that I can get 700 shots out of a pound of Goex with this load.

 

[No second place]

Your results are typical with that pistol... When first trying to learn about ML back in the late 80s I first read many of those formally popular paper pulpy things we called "Books" . They sounded very informed and in the know. Never quite worked out with my BP guns though. Then, I went to my first ML match. A State Championship. The top shooter there took me under his wing and had me shoot one of his guns. When I mentioned BP books and Mags he chuckled a bit warning me to just ignore that stuff and learn properly from the guys who performing well in the matches. Just happened he was a National NMLRA Champ and record holder I found out later. Seems none of those entertaining righters do well in any of those events. Guess they must be too good to have to prove it...c

 

[pab1]

Your results are typical with that pistol... When first trying to learn about ML back in the late 80s I first read many of those formally popular paper pulpy things we called "Books" . They sounded very informed and in the know. Never quite worked out with my BP guns though. Then, I went to my first ML match. A State Championship. The top shooter there took me under his wing and had me shoot one of his guns. When I mentioned BP books and Mags he chuckled a bit warning me to just ignore that stuff and learn properly from the guys who performing well in the matches. Just happened he was a National NMLRA Champ and record holder I found out later. Seems none of those entertaining righters do well in any of those events. Guess they must be too good to have to prove it...c

I should have added that part of why I was surprised by such a difference in their listed velocity and what I'm getting is that their data has been close to my velocities in other guns. When I chronied my .54 cal Lyman Plains Pistol in 2011 it came in at 655fps with 20gr of 3F (and 890fps with 45gr of 3F). Goex listed 640fps with 35gr of 3F which is not too far off from my velocity since they may have used a shorter barrel, etc.

In 2014 I was curious about what velocities I was getting with my .54 cal GPR. Goex's rifle velocities (using 2F) were very close to my velocities (using 3F). At 70gr we were within 50fps, 80gr about 20fps and at 90 gr I was 70fps lower than what they listed. Again, not knowing the length of barrel and other variables that's pretty close.

I don't put a lot of stock into what most writers/books/articles state. Data from a component/powder manufacturer is usually thoroughly tested and fairly accurate. As I noted above, in my experience that's been the case with other guns. That's why velocities nearly double what they list that I got today with the Crockett was so surprising.

 

[No second place]

Science fiction writer's sometimes get things right also...c

 

[pab1]

Science fiction writer's sometimes get things right also...c

One of those huh?

 

[No second place]

Yes, one of those who discovered learning tech from hacks whose only credentials are entertaining displays of writing or videos is a waste of time. One of those who only takes tech from high level competition shooter who have to prove their tech...c

 

[pab1]

Yes, one of those who discovered learning tech from hacks whose only credentials are entertaining displays of writing or videos is a waste of time. One of those who only takes tech from high level competition shooter who have to prove their tech...c

Data from component manufacturers is far different than articles and videos by "hacks." You seem hung up on them but at no point in my posts did I reference any writer, article, book or video. I'm happy for you that you've had top level instruction. I've learned on my own from study and personal experience.

 

[No second place]

Data from component manufacturers is far different than articles and videos by "hacks." You seem hung up on them but at no point in my posts did I reference any writer, article, book or video. I'm happy for you that you've had top level instruction. I've learned on my own from study and personal experience.

Not "hung up" just decades of personal experience. BP muzzleloader manufacturers data is not anywhere as accurate as handloading modern data...c

 

[Stantheman86]

Also today I learned , conicals out of a percussion revolver offer very little increase in Ft Lb energy vs a round ball.

There are always surprises

 

[pab1]

Not "hung up" just decades of personal experience. BP muzzleloader manufacturers data is not anywhere as accurate as handloading modern data...c

Bringing up writers and articles repeatedly when they were never mentioned gave me that impression.

Using Goex's published data as a reference for the powder they manufacture seems reasonable. As I mentioned above, it has been very close to the velocities I get in other guns.

That's great that modern handloading data is more accurate. The focus of this thread (and forum) is black powder and muzzleloaders, not modern handloading data.

 

[pab1]

Also today I learned , conicals out of a percussion revolver offer very little increase in Ft Lb energy vs a round ball.

There are always surprises

What were you shooting?

 

[Stantheman86]

What were you shooting?

I didn't actually shoot, I looked at results from someone else shooting Kaido .454 bullets in a Pietta .44 snubby vs the round balls

There was very little gain in energy with the bullets

So when the Confederate cavalry vets who talked about using round balls in their revolvers because "they put a man down and they stayed down better than conicals" maybe there was some science behind it, the round balls may have transferred energy differently when they hit vs a conical?

 

[new2bp]

So when the Confederate cavalry vets who talked about using round balls in their revolvers because "they put a man down and they stayed down better than conicals" maybe there was some science behind it, the round balls may have transferred energy differently when they hit vs a conical?

Energy is not quite the same as stopping power but it is something that can be calculated... What did that crazy old professor say? Ah yes.... energy is mass times velocity times velocity

Differences in stopping power come down to being able to penetrate to and deliver sufficient kinetic energy to a critical thing (heart, brain, upper spine, etc) which takes both mass and velocity to accomplish. And then the really weird physics and physiology stuff kick in. But basically while the conical may provide an equal or larger amount of kinetic energy, due to design and speed it is moving it doesn't have what is needed to let it penetrate enough and deliver enough energy to provide the immediate knock-down power.

 

[Stantheman86]

Energy is not quite the same as stopping power but it is something that can be calculated... What did that crazy old professor say? Ah yes.... energy is mass times velocity times velocity

Differences in stopping power come down to being able to penetrate to and deliver sufficient kinetic energy to a critical thing (heart, brain, upper spine, etc) which takes both mass and velocity to accomplish. And then the really weird physics and physiology stuff kick in. But basically while the conical may provide an equal or larger amount of kinetic energy, due to design and speed it is moving it doesn't have what is needed to let it penetrate enough and deliver enough energy to provide the immediate knock-down power.

I'm fascinated by this because people will assume that a conical is automatically superior and is "more powerful" but basically the conical was required for nitrate cartridges and has better ability to go farther downange, like the Minie ball vs the round ball.

But through some ballistic magic and with a soft lead ball basically becoming oval shaped when fired, it apparently upset inside tissue causing a more immediate and catastrophic wound channel. Most likely with these Confederate cavalrymen talking about round balls being better stoppers, they were shooting at close range and the ball was more effective.

 

[The Crisco Kid]

It's been my limited experience that soft lead round balls are far more effective killers of game than their weight and velocity would indicate.

 

[No second place]

I have had many ML friends and fellow BP match competitors who have and feed their families game meat year round only shooting traditional round ball ML guns. Both rifle and pistol. Had one friend shoot 3 deer within an hour from walking from our club range with a .45 patched ball with 60grns of Goex. Onother friend uses a .40 cal. with 60grs of Goex for decades on deer. I have no doubt under 50cal. works just fine. Maybe it helps both are good enough shots to be national champion's and record holders with BP guns. No follow-up shots required...c

 

[new2bp]

I'm fascinated by this because people will assume that a conical is automatically superior and is "more powerful" but basically the conical was required for nitrate cartridges and has better ability to go farther downange, like the Minie ball vs the round ball.

But through some ballistic magic and with a soft lead ball basically becoming oval shaped when fired, it apparently upset inside tissue causing a more immediate and catastrophic wound channel. Most likely with these Confederate cavalrymen talking about round balls being better stoppers, they were shooting at close range and the ball was more effective.

Hydrostatic shock is a thing, and you only get that with velocity and enough weight to carry that velocity thru to the squishy stuff...