Flintlock Bullet Barrel

[Larry Pletcher]

Another problem that you have to face, with a patched ball, for instance, is the amount of speed that is lost. From the muzzle, you might be able to obtain near hydrostatic speed, but by the time it reaches 50 yards, a fourth of the speed is lost, and at 100 yards, almost half the speed is lost. It is very difficult to achieve enough speed and maintain it, in order to put the animal into shock. Best we can hope for is a clean kill; but super fast....probably not.

I agree with Hadden's comments. It seems to me that the way to increase energy is to simply use a bigger ball.

Regards,
Pletch

 

[coloradoclyde]

Another problem that you have to face, with a patched ball, for instance, is the amount of speed that is lost. From the muzzle, you might be able to obtain near hydrostatic speed, but by the time it reaches 50 yards, a fourth of the speed is lost, and at 100 yards, almost half the speed is lost. It is very difficult to achieve enough speed and maintain it, in order to put the animal into shock. Best we can hope for is a clean kill; but super fast....probably not.

hydrostatic speed

:haha: That's a new one. but I understand what your saying and quite agree.
Heck! it still more efficient than bow hunting.

 

[Grumpa]

"Heck! it still more efficient than bow hunting." [/quote]

Don't get that one going! :stir: :haha:
Never got into archery myself, but I saw a film of Fred Bear years ago, he arrowed a BIG Grizzly, and it dropped right there, and never took another step. Most impressive.

 

[Dphar]

Just use a RB. A Rb of the same weight as the conical is a better killer.
Conicals in MLs, were never popular for HUNTING back in the day. Even for large game like African Elephant. But of course this knowledge is lost unless people want to read some old books. F.C. Selous said that he never used a gun that "drove better" than the 4 bore smooth MLs he was killing elephant with in the 1870s.
Jame Forythe, who hunted in India, whote a book explaining in detail why the RB was superior to the Conical.
African elephant hunter John Taylor in "Pondoro" tells of using a borrowed smooth 10 bore regulated for 167 gr of powder to kill "13 good Bulls (Elephant) and several Rhino in Africa in the 1930s when his ammunition shipment was misdirected. He stopped using it when the limited supply of hardened 10 ga balls ran out.
A 22 in 54 is a complete waste of time. It will surely stabilize a 1000 grain bullet. Pointless since there is no way in a rifle under 15-18 pounds that any velocity can be obtained.
Then there is the problem of movement. "Naked" conicals tend to move off the powder if the rifle is carried muzzle down. Does anyone wonder why there was never a general issue Calvary Carbine for the minie ball? It because they unload themselves when carried anyway but muzzle up (as do all ML carbines if slung as the cavalry did).
The ONLY advantage to the conical is penetration. However, the RB, if sized reasonably to the game always produces adequate penetration. I have NEVER had a RB fail to penetrate adequately on animals as large as elk and on deer they almost always pass through. A 45 RB will shoot to the far side hide on a deer at 40-50 yards started with only 45 gr of powder. With more it will pass through.
Then there is the bullet design problem. Unless properly designed bullets at BP velocitied may fail to expand. This was a common fault of the original "Maxi-Bullet". It actually seemed to be more streamlined after its struck the animal than before.
Here are some comments from the 1850s-60s found in Forsythe's book. Greener should need no introduction and Sir Samuel Baker should not either.

And

Note that the 9 pound rifle Forsythe used was a "14 bore" using a "no. 15" ball. Think 69 caliber rifle with a ball around .678-.680". His rifle with a hardened ball and 137 gr of "Halls #2" powder (probably FFF Swiss granulation today) would penetrate an Indian Elephants head from side to side. It also shot point blank past 100 yards. In fact my 15 bore rifle with a .662 ball (16 to the pound) and 140 gr of FF Swiss will allow a center hold on a deer or elk to 120-130 yards. No guess work or hold over. Just center hold from 0 to 130+- yards. Its virtually impossible to do this with a 54 caliber conical unless its little heavier than the RB when BP is the propellant. Then we have high breech pressures, eroded nipples, excess recoil and the risk of a bore obstruction.
I would suggest that anyone looking for information on the relative effectiveness of the RB vs a conical of the same weight go to Beartooth Bullets website http://www.beartoothbulletscom/rescources/index.htm
Then go to the "Thornily Stopping Power" calculator. Lets try a 440 gr 54 Maxi vs a 437 gr RB. My rifle makes 1600 fps. This gives us a 249 on this scale. Forsythe BTW says that a 16 bore is about as light as anyone would use for dangerous game in India.
The Maxi at 1500 (I can't find exact data but it should be close to this) gives 208. And remember its done at higher pressure. Large bore RB guns operate at even lower pressure than typical Kentuckys do.
Experiences of hunters I know in Northern BC, Canada bear this out. They have tried the Maxi on Moose and found it lacking. But the .69 caliber RB is very effective and the .735 (from a Brown Bess) with only 80 grains for powder was a very effective moose stopper. One has seen a 54 RB penetrate side to side of a moose at 175 (lasered) yards and kill the moose went down in about 10 yards.
So people REALLY need to do some research and LOOK at what was used in the past and what was proven to NOT WORK WELL. Before jumping on the modern bandwagon that tells us how bad the RB is and how good elongated bullets are. If a 10 ga RB will reliably kill African Elephant and Rhino with chest shots then a 50-54 will (as has been proven repeatedly for hundreds of years) work on deer sized animals and even Elk and Black Bear. The larger balls are, within their range, fully as effective as many modern large bore rifles so long as they are used withing their capability. While a 10 bore will kill African Elephant with lung shots, its too small for a stopping rifle since this requires a heavily loaded 6 or 4 bore.
So if you need more power use a 62 or 69 caliber RB rifle. Barrels and even complete rifles are available if you look or you can have one made. Steve Zihn (rifle maker) and Ed Rayle is a good source for barrels, are points of contact. I would not advise a twist slower than 80" in a rifle of 69 caliber though. Modern testing has show that slower than this is a waste of time.
Dan

 

[varsity07840]

I've never been a fan of conicals other than the minie when used in rifles/muskets intended for them. I own muzzleloaders in calibers from .50 to .72 and I've taken more deer with .54s than with all the others combined. Most were shoulder shots that put them down on the spot. I agree with the other poster's
comments that regardless of caliber, deer will run with lung hits. The buck I took this year ran about 40 yards after a lung hit with a .710 patched ball and 150 gr of 2F.

Duane

 

[Dphar]

Typical run distance for lung shots (or shots at the shoulder that miss major bone) with almost anything is 40 yards. Unless its something really nasty like a light bullet HV thing like 25-06

 

[coloradoclyde]

My dad always said..."a deer can run a 100 yards on adrenaline alone".
After everything I have seen over the years, that's not far from the truth.

 

[nkbj]

That's why changing the point of aim is the answer if you need to avoid tracking and recovery over distance. Weight of lead rather than diameter is the way to get it done. Close in, heavy short bullets (round ball). Far away, heavy long bullets.
That's what's worked in muzzleloaders for centuries and it isn't likely to change any time soon.

 

[don hepler]

The bottom line is, when we shoot a deer, he will die from hemorrhaging, whether it be arrow or bullet. A super fast bullet sends a shock wave, through the body, that can shut down organs, until the hemorrhaging takes place. If you believe in "Hydrostatic Shock", and studies have supported it, then at what speed, and impact location on the animal will it occur. I don't think that most of the traditional muzzleloaders, are going to achieve it. A double lung shot, probably creates the best shot to bleed out quickly and I can accept that.

 

[jbiros]

Actually if you are getting pass through, your getting good blood trails, but wasting energy. If you want to dump all your energy in the animal to kill it faster,I have heard of ppl using a lower powder charge, Like 70 gr with a power belt, so it expands and dumps the energy in the animal.

 

[Greenjoytj]

Even with a 300 Winchester Magnum (high velocity) double lung hit won't guarantee the deer will drop when hit, their just too high strung. A 458 Win Mag won't either. Like the distance run vs time of death (pass out from blood loss) chart in a previous post you are just going to have to look for the downed deer every time your bullet connects with a deer.
Develop a super accurate PRB load and put your ball in the brain or spine (a low percentage high risk shot) or resign your self that the deer must always be tracked down after the hit.

 

[theoldredneck]

I like lung shots because of less meat loss. I expect the deer to run. Like most bow hunters, even with a gun and well placed shot I wait. Giving the deer time to stop and bleed out it will always be dead. The entrance and exit holes pour blood. At the shot I watch and mark how and where it runs. Blood trail is easy found and followed. Lung shots usually have the deer blowing blood from nose that paints a trail also. I played with bullets, sabots, etc and patched ball over black powder kills deer dead.

 

[Walks with fire]

The first thing that flintlock users must understand is that real black powder is the only propellant that works right. It has limitations to it's possible velocity from both the powder and the mandatory vent hole.

Longer barrels are needed for the utmost in potential velocity. Custom barrels can be made by certain people in whatever twist, length and caliber someone wants. The thing to remember is the velocity limitations; heavier bullets, ball or whatever needs a heap of powder to get any kind of long range flat trajectory. The longer the projectile in relation to it's width the better ballistic coefficient so caliber is important to both charge levels and twist rate.

The projectiles specific gravity also affects twist rates. Lead requires less twist than copper or brass for example. It just not feasible to push a .30 caliber bullet of 180 grains or so from a muzzleloader with black powder because the charge is too long. The old 30-30's were black powder powered and had velocities of 2400 fps. or so but were talking a larger cartridge than .30 bore size. The wheel just can't be reinvented.

If you want to shoot long bullets then look harder at the .45 and .50 calibers than a .54 because you will have a more efficient weapon than a .54 fast twist. I would choose a .45 if it were me. A .54 with a short flat slug for woods ranges is going to hit hard but IMO a .58 or .62 ball is the better choice.

I have some 1/28 twist .50 caliber barrels that shoot the conical bullets and some unmentionable bullets very well and they are more accurate at the longer beyond 100 yard ranges. The handgun bullets shoot flatter, drift less but they don't expand well. The long conicals can have more recoil and more trajectory plus unless paper patched can move off the charge. I don't want that potential in a gun I'm shooting. I have taken whitetail deer in PA with all of the projectiles and none of them kill them any deader than a patched ball.

These types of discussions can go on forever about the virtues of different twists, calibers, and projectiles. I like the simplicity of the patched ball and except the limitations of them.

Fire in the hole!

 

[TFoley]

Sir, I beg to differ. The 30-30 was never a BP cartridge - it was designed from the get-go as an early smokeless powder cartridge. The -30 refers to that load, not BP.

tac

 

[Walks with fire]

Yes; you are correct it was originally designed from the get go to be a smokeless round and thank you for pointing it out. I had always thought it was originally loaded with black powder. :thumbsup:

I knew it had been reloaded using black powder and for some reason always believed it was designed that way from the start.

 

[BigBoreBLR]

I use 325gr 450 marlin often during rifle season. One shot at 150 yards was dead on. I broke the front leg on entry, exploded the heart to bits, and wrecked the muscle and nicked the bone on the exit leg. The deer still went 70 yards.

Only had two dead right there shots. A 30 yard 130gr 270 win to the neck, and a 70 yard 450 marlin that hit high in the lungs. The hydrostatic shock ended up damaging the spine above the lungs.

I hunt deer with a 54 cal roundball.

If going for a non-saboted conical, then buy a 45 cal. Anything bigger will kick your butt. Bloodshot meat might be your shoulder.

If sticking it out with roundball, go for a 54 or 58.

In all reality, there is little difference between the deer I have shot with a rifle versus my muzzleloaders. A 54 cal roundball, 50 cal sabots, or 45 cal roundball. All more or less the same results. All more or less made exit holes.

Although, I do notice shooting a gun with a bow and arrow makes more blood trails. Shooting with rifles makes more of a blood trail than muzzleloaders.

I really do not think your new barrel will change anything except recoil.