-
Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.
We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.
Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103
Enough
- Thread starter Walks with fire
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2004
- Messages
- 1,715
- Reaction score
- 526
My 7ga shoots a 1000 grain ball, I will set up the video camera for any one who wants to shoot 500 grains of 2F in it! :blah:
After they sign about 7 pages of release forms! :grin:
After they sign about 7 pages of release forms! :grin:
John Taylor
45 Cal.
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2005
- Messages
- 776
- Reaction score
- 3
[/quote]
Half the ball weight is well documented from as early as the 1750's on up into the industrial revaluation. It does not say anything about
calibers. Only records of store purchases, 1lb of lead, 2 lbs of powder. This is repeated 100's of times. So it is pretty clear that lead and powder
where being used at this ratio.
Sometimes the lead was recovered and used again. That's a little hard to do with the powder.
A report on one early shooting match shows the first place got the stump that was used to hold the targets, it was full of lead. Secound place got a side of beef. I can't remember where I read about it.
Half the ball weight is well documented from as early as the 1750's on up into the industrial revaluation. It does not say anything about
calibers. Only records of store purchases, 1lb of lead, 2 lbs of powder. This is repeated 100's of times. So it is pretty clear that lead and powder
where being used at this ratio.
Sometimes the lead was recovered and used again. That's a little hard to do with the powder.
A report on one early shooting match shows the first place got the stump that was used to hold the targets, it was full of lead. Secound place got a side of beef. I can't remember where I read about it.
BuffaloGun
Pilgrim
- Joined
- May 18, 2006
- Messages
- 2
- Reaction score
- 0
I have two .50 flinters and they won't fire the same load. One will work well with a PBR over 80gr of FFg while the other is useless with anything but 75gr FFFg under the same PRBs. Barrel lengths and weights are similar. These are good hunting loads and have worked at up to 100 yards. I've found that every barrel ahs it's own requirement. I am currently working out loads for a .72 Pedersoli double express rifle and trying to resolve issues of regulation between the two barrels. It's a reason to go to the range.
This philosophy has changed a LOT in the past 200 years. Lewis and Clark and outfitters for fur trade companies typically carried 3 pounds of lead for every pound of powder. That would be 50-60 grains in a .50, but keep in mind this was for muskets, trade guns, rifles, pistols, everything a man might carry. If you look at the early Winchester etc calibers, 32-20, 44-40- 38-55, oddball stuff like that, even a 45-70 (huge long bullet) you can see they were not magnums by any means. I believe we Muzzleloading shooters, even traditionalists who shoot flintlocks, are still influenced by the magnum phase of centerfire hunting rifles in the 1950's-1970's. Those magnums were designed for long range shooting with bullets with great ballistic coefficients. With a round ball, the power drops off rapidly, and gains in muzzle velocity are mostly lost at 100 yards.
I try to keep my shots at 70 yards or less for deer with the .45, 100 yards or less with the .50, and 100 yards or less with the .54 because my eyes are old.
I hunt with 60 grains in the slow twist .45 Green RIVER barrel and 75 grains in the .50 and 90 in the .54 because they shoot those loads really well. That's a lot of powder for the .45 but underloaded by some standfards with the .50 and .54. No doubt in my mind is that bigger caliber is better than more powder when it comes to stopping power.
I try to keep my shots at 70 yards or less for deer with the .45, 100 yards or less with the .50, and 100 yards or less with the .54 because my eyes are old.
I hunt with 60 grains in the slow twist .45 Green RIVER barrel and 75 grains in the .50 and 90 in the .54 because they shoot those loads really well. That's a lot of powder for the .45 but underloaded by some standfards with the .50 and .54. No doubt in my mind is that bigger caliber is better than more powder when it comes to stopping power.
Sutallee
32 Cal.
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2005
- Messages
- 33
- Reaction score
- 11
I am new to black powder, and these posts have been very informative. Thanks to all for the valuable information.
This discussion of accuracy, energy, and penetration has prompted my curiosity about a couple of stories about spectacular shots with flintlock rifles that I have seen repeated many times.
In one story, Timothy Murphy, one of Daniel Morgan’s riflemen, is reported to have killed a British general at 300 yards during the Battle of Saratoga. In the other story, a resident of Boonesboro made a shot of 250 yards that picked off a Shawnee who had mooned the fort.
Given your knowledge of black powder ballistics and long rifles with iron sights, are these stories credible? If so, are there characteristics of rifle and load that would have made it more likely? If these stories are not credible, why not?
Thanks.
Sutallee
This discussion of accuracy, energy, and penetration has prompted my curiosity about a couple of stories about spectacular shots with flintlock rifles that I have seen repeated many times.
In one story, Timothy Murphy, one of Daniel Morgan’s riflemen, is reported to have killed a British general at 300 yards during the Battle of Saratoga. In the other story, a resident of Boonesboro made a shot of 250 yards that picked off a Shawnee who had mooned the fort.
Given your knowledge of black powder ballistics and long rifles with iron sights, are these stories credible? If so, are there characteristics of rifle and load that would have made it more likely? If these stories are not credible, why not?
Thanks.
Sutallee
paulvallandigham
Passed On
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2006
- Messages
- 17,537
- Reaction score
- 89
Yes. These men were not shooting a .32 cal. gun. The guns used were most likely in the 60-70 caliber range, just like the Brown Bess musket they faced. A round ball for a .50 cal. rifle weighs in at 170-190 grains, depending on actual diameter. A 54 cal. RB will weigh roughly 230 grains. The .62( 20 ga.) Rb will weigh in at 325 grains, and the .69 cal. RB will weigh in at one ounce. Once you get these balls moving, they don't slow down very much. And even long beyond the effective aiming range of a rifleman, they will kill a man. To make a shot at 250 yds would require a very good shooter, who had practiced making long distance shots, so he had some idea how much sight he had to hold over to hit a target at that range. But, these men shot their guns daily, and they didn't have distractions for recreation like we do. As kids, like all kids, they tested their skills by making bets with each other, and tried to make very long shots on very small targets. They could not waste powder and ball, because they were expensive, but they could learn over the years how to make such a shot. Both of the shots you refer to have been documented as much as anything in that time period could be documented by witneses who were credible people, so there is no reason to believe the shots were not made as described.
Guest
Somewhere on this site the other day I saw a question about ballistics of a .490 ball with 90 gr ffg out of a 42" barrel, but for the life of me I cannot find it[url] now....in[/url] any event it seems to more or less fit in here: My old Lyman tables unfortunately do not give stats for the .490 ball and all of their shooting was with fffg. BUT, for comparison sake: they got for a 43" bbl, .498 ball and 90 gr fffg: MV = 2000 fps; ME = 1596 ft/lbs and E at 100 yds = 510 ft/lbs. I think a .490 ball out of a 42" bbl and using 90 gr ffg might be comparable in ballistics. Personally, I think 90 gr is overkill in a .50, but each to his own. Certainly if that is what is most accurate in your rifle, do it!
Last edited by a moderator:
Walks with fire
54 Cal.
My TC seems to have a sweet spot at 60 grains 2f and again at 100 grains 2f. The 60 grain load is very mild to shoot and just wondered if it would take deer cleanly?
Guest
Walks with fire said:
It should at reasonable ranges with a well-placed shot. I friend of mine admitted to killing a deer once with a .22 Stevens Favorite--he was squirrel hunting and a doe walked close by and he shot it in the neck/spine as he needed the meat. He said all four legs wemt out and it dropped like a rock. [not advisable--just an example] Another acquaintance shoots 60 gr fffg in his .50 because it is the most accurate--a whole lot more energy than the .22, for sure!
Toomuch_36
45 Cal.
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2005
- Messages
- 746
- Reaction score
- 2
Though shots like this were not common by any means they are real, such as Davy Crocket picking off the Mexican cannonear at the Alamo. (unclear whether this one was real or just Hollywood reality)
As Paul has said these men were very acomplished rifle shots and knew their rifles well.
It should be noted however that when such shots were made, in most cases, the shooter also had a spotter beside him to tell him where his first shot hit and it might take three or four shots to find the mark. This was seldom if ever done with just one shot.
Toomuch
..........
Shoot Flint
As Paul has said these men were very acomplished rifle shots and knew their rifles well.
It should be noted however that when such shots were made, in most cases, the shooter also had a spotter beside him to tell him where his first shot hit and it might take three or four shots to find the mark. This was seldom if ever done with just one shot.
Toomuch
..........
Shoot Flint
skunkskinner
50 Cal.
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2005
- Messages
- 1,107
- Reaction score
- 2
75 grains of ffg in .50 flinter has never let me down.
The very reason those stories have been retold for hundreds of years now is that they were and still are fantastic. Probably involving fantastic luck as much as skill! "Better to be lucky than to be good!"
My old Lyman charts show a .562" ball at 1800 fps (a VERY heavy load) will drop about 10 FEET at 300 yards and a 5 mph breeze will drift it nearly four feet! There is 30 inches of drop in just the last 25 yards! Yes, the 239 ft.lb. of energy remaining would still be lethal but a hit would be plain dumb luck.
I very much doubt that anyone wasted much powder, lead and time "practicing" 300 yard shots or even 200 yard shots. Very few people had time and money to waste on such foolishness. Even today I don't waste time or money practicing a shot that would be more luck than skill no matter how much I practiced!
That is why people still talk about Billy Dixon's one mile shot with a sharps rifle and Dixon freely admitted it was pure luck! :grin:
My old Lyman charts show a .562" ball at 1800 fps (a VERY heavy load) will drop about 10 FEET at 300 yards and a 5 mph breeze will drift it nearly four feet! There is 30 inches of drop in just the last 25 yards! Yes, the 239 ft.lb. of energy remaining would still be lethal but a hit would be plain dumb luck.
I very much doubt that anyone wasted much powder, lead and time "practicing" 300 yard shots or even 200 yard shots. Very few people had time and money to waste on such foolishness. Even today I don't waste time or money practicing a shot that would be more luck than skill no matter how much I practiced!
That is why people still talk about Billy Dixon's one mile shot with a sharps rifle and Dixon freely admitted it was pure luck! :grin:
paulvallandigham
Passed On
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2006
- Messages
- 17,537
- Reaction score
- 89
The full understanding of Billy Dixon's shot is that he was not aiming to hit one Indian sitting on a horse. If people read the histories correctly, and carefully, he was shooting at a group of perhaps 2 dozen Indians up on the bluff. His aim was to put a bullet close enough to them to worry them. His group resented the fact that the Indian chief thought they were safe on that knoll, and could sit up there all day long, laying seige to the " fort ". ( really a trading post.) So, Billy volunteered to see if he could not " worry them ", and borrowed a gun from the owner of the store- his gun was waiting on parts to make a repair- and he took the shot.
Of course, Billy claimed it was just luck that he hit the Indian, who later died of his wounds. The gun was a .50-90 Sharps, shooting a 550 grain bullet. Thats about 1 1/8 ounce of lead, going out at about 1250 fps. at the muzzle. Maybe less.
Mr. Dixon would have been just as happy if he had hit a horse. The effect would have been the same. The Indians did get worried about being hit at that range, decided their medicine was wrong, and broke off the seige. Billy was given credit for ending the seige( He did!) by taking a shot no onle else was willing to even try! He was later awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for that shot. That is why you hear about the shot so often, even in the poorly distorted versions of the true history. The shot has been measured to be approx. 1683 yards, or about 7/8 of a mile. Dixon did not have any idea what the range was. All he did was hold up all the sight he had, and then some, and held off for the wind, and fired the shot. Dumb luck to hit the Indian. Particularly when he wasn't aiming at the Indian! Maybe the Indians were right about their medicine being bad! No?
Of course, Billy claimed it was just luck that he hit the Indian, who later died of his wounds. The gun was a .50-90 Sharps, shooting a 550 grain bullet. Thats about 1 1/8 ounce of lead, going out at about 1250 fps. at the muzzle. Maybe less.
Mr. Dixon would have been just as happy if he had hit a horse. The effect would have been the same. The Indians did get worried about being hit at that range, decided their medicine was wrong, and broke off the seige. Billy was given credit for ending the seige( He did!) by taking a shot no onle else was willing to even try! He was later awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for that shot. That is why you hear about the shot so often, even in the poorly distorted versions of the true history. The shot has been measured to be approx. 1683 yards, or about 7/8 of a mile. Dixon did not have any idea what the range was. All he did was hold up all the sight he had, and then some, and held off for the wind, and fired the shot. Dumb luck to hit the Indian. Particularly when he wasn't aiming at the Indian! Maybe the Indians were right about their medicine being bad! No?
Blivetmaker
40 Cal.
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2005
- Messages
- 154
- Reaction score
- 1
I agree completely. Any shot is possible- Connnecting is the task at hand. An experienced marksman can gauge where a round might strike but only the shot will tell. The task seemed,in this situation,to be to define "Where is the safe line". It appears that the safe line was a bit too distant for a standard rush attack. :grin:
Similar threads
