Diminishing Returns?

[Billnpatti]

Well, I can say that I am one of the few men you will ever meet who got hit in the "boys" by a bullet fired from a .44 Magnum and still fathered two normal children. I was doing the scoring in a bowling pin match when a "bounce back" hit me right in "the boys". It had me on the ground for a minute or two. Needed icepacks for a couple days and walked a bit funny for a few more days but no permanent damage. I still have the bullet that was found stuck in my jeans.

 

[azmntman]

:shocked2: OUCH!

 

[galamb]

Responding in general here - please, no one take offence.

So properly sighted and loaded a ball will be 6 to 8" low at 150 yards.

So here's a herd of deer at 150 yards - so do I hold 6" or 8" high?

Not trying to "mock" here, and I do admire guys who spend years practicing to make a shot like this with open sights.

But for the rest of us - "seriously", you would take this shot with open sights if you hadn't done A LOT of practice??

The "rifle" might be capable but are you as the shooter "capable"??

 

[azmntman]

Did it twice when young n dumb,,,lucky both times. Not again though. I'd circle em and try to get closer first. Like Dan said sometimes ya walk outta yer way 2-3 miles to make t happen. Gut shot animules are rarely recovered when the meats still usable, and I don't wanna feed no coyotes! :nono:

 

[Zonie]

I sure am getting tired of hearing about the Davenport formula.

Maybe it would sound better if we called it the Sofa formula or the Couch formula?

I guess some might call it the Settee Formula.
They would probably start off by saying,

"Just settee yourself down and listen to what I'm about to tell you......." :yakyak:

 

[necchi]

Yeah you said.
And through all of this only one guy mentioned the point that really matters.

There may be a decrease in accuracy at some point while increasing powder charges. There have been many on this forum who have said they experimented extensively to find that sweet spot in accuracy. This would certainly be another thing we might consider as a diminished return.

It's true.
Many of us advocate working up charges in 5grn increments and 5 shot groups.
While doing so, if keeping all other conditions the same, there will come a point when the group your shooting begins to open showing that you've gone beyond a sweet spot your rifle likes.
The "Point of diminishing returns" is spoken of by Dutch Schoultz in his papers and he only refers to it as the size of the group.
Other variables can be changed to help a shooter with heavy charges but they involve all of the variables, Charge, Ball size, patch thickness and lube properties.

The PODR is much more than simply the math behind what the rifle will use efficiently, it's also about finding the sweet spot in the load combination.

 

[Billnpatti]

Judging by the way so many rail against it, perhaps it ought to be known as the "Black Powder Bed of Nails". :haha: I have found how to lie on it comfortably but it is not for everyone. :hmm:

 

[George]

I have found how to lie on it comfortably but it is not for everyone. :hmm:

That's not hard, all that's required is that you shut off your brain. :haha:

Spence

 

[longcruise]

For our Canadien members we could call it the "chesterfield formula". :haha:

 

[galamb]

Yes, as I sit on my reclining chesterfield, drinking a pop (since we all know "soda" is that clear bubbly stuff some use to "ruin" good Scotch) I realize that we can't use the Davenport formula in Canada since it can't be easily translated into French, and everything here must be in both official languages.

Then with the metric conversion I'm having a hard time figuring how much powder I should use given the .745 grams of powder per 16.387 cubic centimeters of bore space consumption rate when I have in my 91.44 centimeter long, 12.7 millimeter barrel.

 

[George]

I suspect Davenport may have been Canadian? :haha:

Spence

 

[azmntman]

He was Native American, came from far northern AZ (like Montana or Wyoming I believe?)

 

[longcruise]

Not sure how my comments on trajectory managed to lead to discussions of how one uses it as well as scopes and lasers😵 how one uses it is up to the individual. Then there is always the concern over leading the "newbies" astray as though we are the arbiters of their ethics!
Then there is the idea that a mathematical example of trajectory requires the condemnation of "pipsqueak" loads. Would not want to have any ignorant newbies running off into the woods with crazy misconceptions about a 1000 fps .50 ball at their own self imposed 20 yard max range not being able to do the job.

oh well, hopefully the hundreds of members here who only read all the sage advice of we forum "experts" will manage to muddle their way through all this and actually enter a match or the hunting woods and perform with some measure of success. All the while giving thanks to Us and Davenport for making it all possibl

 

[longcruise]

That concludes my annual [strike]rant[/strike]..er I mean unfettered expression of opinion for2014😉.

 

[Rifleman1776]

In a word: No.
150 yards is too far for a muzzle gun with prb. That ball loses energy quickly at about the 100 yard mark. Don't forget it is an obsolete type of firearm with lousy ballistics compared to modern stuff. There are those who say they have worked up loads, practiced, etc. but for most of us, just enjoy the view. However at 100 yards, you really should know where yur rifle prints and then the shot would be feasible. At closer ranges (50-75 yards) I aim for the kill zone. When range is about 100 yards, I hold on the spine, normal drops takes it to the kill zone. But, most important, some time at the range before hunting season is critical to learn your ranges and rifle performance. You want to bring home the meat but being an ethical hunter is also important.

 

[longcruise]

150 is too far????

based on low energy and "obsolescence" of the round ball???

well 150 is way too far for me but who am I to say what is too far for others? One season I witnessed two large Julie does killed each with a .54 ball over 80 grains of 2f goes. POI was by chance identical on both. Middle lung shots on broadside deer. In both cases the balls were stopped by the skin on the off side. Both deer went down within a few feet of where the were hit. One was shot at 35 yards and the other at 180 yards. What does your energy calculation have to say about that?

who are you or I to say what is or is not ethical for others. I would NEVER have taken that 180 yard shot!! But that only reflect my own ability.

have said it before and say it again; game is killed by creating a wound channel through vital tissue that leads to a loss of blood pressure. It's the reason a well constructed arrow easily takes down a large animal with a mere 20 to 30 fpe!

 

[hanshi]

My limit for "too far" is determined by my ability to use those crude open sights and NOT anything to do with velocity/energy/drop. It takes better eyes than mine to aim and hit at 150 yards.

 

[galamb]

The issue that comes up with discussions such is this is all the "exceptions to the rules" and each persons individual experience.

The "diminishing returns" question has be adequately answered. Nobody can dispute that at some point you can feed more powder and get less return on a percentage basis.

But then someone will chime in and say "well if you want to get 150 yards...." which has nothing to do with diminishing returns.

If you want to get 150 yards you have to use whatever charge, projectile etc that will give you that result.

It is however, quite rare that someone will post and say -

I have been shooting PRB for many years now but want to try "reaching out" to 150 or 200 yards, how do you few guys, who have taken years to perfect that ability, do it?

More often, if you read between the lines it's "I'm lowering myself from the CF world, I don't plan to practice or put in the developmental time, I just want the "magic formula" to turn this sub-standard weapon into a 200 yard shooter, so I can blast a deer in the special season".

Not that they have ever taken a 200 yard shot, but feel the need for the "capability".

And if that is the case I believe (collectively) we do more of a dis-service by trying to answer or contradicting each other about whether it's possible.

Because while it is, the one asking the question doesn't want to hear about how they will need a special barrel and will have to spend numerous hours learning how to shoot it or how, if they think they will be proficient with it they should first take their 270 out to the range and shoot that with open sights at a 200 yard target.

So for a "new shooter" looking to "start learning" a PRB loaded over a charge determined by the "Davenport formula" is a very good place to start.

Then when they have put a couple hundred balls down the barrel it may be time to experiment some more and come back for some more advice if they can't figure it out for themselves.

And given that the "majority" of white tailed deer (which seems to be the quarry of choice next to tree rats) are taken at distance of 50 yards or less, the "formula" with any "legal" deer caliber is all that you "need".

It will give you a sub-2" point blank range out to at least 70 yards with calibers between 40 and 54 caliber which probably covers more than 95% of the caliber selection for hunters stalking Bambi.

 

[Billnpatti]

Just because someone made such a shot one time doesn't mean that he can do it again reliably. Can he hit a paper plate every time at 180 yards? If he can, then maybe, just maybe he can shoot at deer size game at that distance.

I ran a round ball ballistics program and assumed that he used the hottest load that is in Lyman's Black powder manual. That would be 120 grains of Pyrodex which would give a MV of 1850 fps. I had his rifle sighted for a 100 yard zero. I assumed that he had a light wind of only 10 mph. With those assumptions, at 175 yards the drop would be 23.7 inches and the wind drift would be 31.3 inches. At 200 yards, the drop is 38.5 inches and the wind drift would be 39.9 inches. Even with a very accurate range finder and some darned good windage estimating, that would take some exceptional shooting to be able to put a round ball into a paper plate at that distance. Plus, you only have between 346 and 390 ft. pounds of energy left.

Nope, I have to agree with Rifleman1776. That is not a responsible range for anyone to be taking a shot at a game animal. Paper target, metal silhouette, metal gong.....yeah, blaze away at them but when it comes to a living animal, such shots are simply irresponsible. The figures are definitely against it.

 

[longcruise]

You and galamb both missed the point of my post. I think it was quite clear that I was not endorsing or condemning the 180 yard shot. The 180 was only relevant in addressing the killing ability of the round ball.