FT Lbs Energy?

[Kentuckywindage]

Im just wondering what kind of FPS/ftlbs energy a .54cal makes @ 100 yards. Lets say a 32" barrel, 90 grains ffg goex and a .530 roundball. I read on another forum that a load like this made over a 1000ftlbs energy @ 100 yards but then i read somewhere else it was close to 600ftlbs.

 

[Le Grand]

KW, In the Lyman Blackpowder Handbook of 1975 they list a .54 caliber rifle with a 34" barrel using a .535" ball in an .015" patch loaded over 90 grains of GOEX FFFg giving a muzzle velocity of 1591 feet per second. That works out to a muzzle energy of 1235 foot pounds with only 487 foot pounds remaining at 100 yards. Your load with the FFg powder would give you numbers below the FFFg figures. Le Grand

 

[Stubert]

When I do math to find energy I use the Taylor Ko formula. I think it gives a better all around idea of power with the larger calibers, ( 45 and up) vel. x diam. x weight -:- 7000. A 54 ball doing 1500 fps, 1500 x .54 x 220 -:- 7000 = 25 tko. A 30-06, 2800 x 180 x .308 -:- 7000 = 22 tko

 

[roundball]

Im just wondering what kind of FPS/ftlbs energy a .54cal makes @ 100 yards. Lets say a 32" barrel, 90 grains ffg goex and a .530 roundball. I read on another forum that a load like this made over a 1000ftlbs energy @ 100 yards but then i read somewhere else it was close to 600ftlbs.

Don't know exactly but foot pounds of energy is a modern means of attempting to size the amount of energy delivered by high speed elongated bullets.

The energy and effectiveness of a round ball is not a good fit for that sort of 'energy measurement'...doesn't operate that way...doesn't have or use shock power we associate with modern bullets that makes us look for high levels of energy in our centerfires.

One way to think of a round ball is like an extended range broadhead...it kills by punching holes in things that handle blood & oxygen to the brain, not by shock power...put the pump out of action, or punch holes in the air bags, and the brain gets no oxygen...only need enough energy to get through an occasional rib, then the soft tissue of the heart and/or lungs...couple hundred ft lbs?

The typical .45cal ball only has about 300lbs energy at 100yds but if put through the heart/lungs will kill a deer as dead as if it was 10 yards in front of the muzzle. If you use the manufacturers recommended max or near max powder charge and place your shot, all but the small size round balls will get it done to 100yds.

My .02 cents on modern energy measurements vs. the effectiveness of a patched lead ball.

:thumbsup:

 

[windwalker_au]

When I do math to find energy I use the Taylor Ko formula. I think it gives a better all around idea of power with the larger calibers, ( 45 and up) vel. x diam. x weight -:- 7000. A 54 ball doing 1500 fps, 1500 x .54 x 220 -:- 7000 = 25 tko. A 30-06, 2800 x 180 x .308 -:- 7000 = 22 tko

i tend to agree with you on this it all cums down to mas,i think that the taylor ko formula is a better way of looking at the energy of muzzeloaders.
bernie :thumbsup:

 

[Zonie]

The Lyman 2nd edition has the same data that Le Grand's book has but one of the things he forgot to mention is at 100 yards, the ball is traveling at 976 feet/second. That's 666.8 miles/hour which when you stop and think about it is movin' right along.

In fact, it is about the same as the muzzle velocity of a .54 cal pistol with an 8 inch barrel and a 50 grain powder load.
I suspect that if a person shot a deer at point blank range with this pistol loaded like this, they wouldn't have much doubt that the deer would die in short order.

As many of the folks here know, I'm a firm believer in the old caliber X projectile weight X velocity method of comparing killing power.
A good part of this is based on the diameter of the ball and, if one thinks about it they will realize that a .54 caliber ball is as large or larger than a modern .30 caliber soft nosed bullet will expand to and that's the size of it going in. Many .54 caliber balls will expand even larger after hitting the game.
In other words, a .54 makes a damn big hole and does a whole lot of damage.

zonie

 

[roundball]

Agree...it's one of the basics of muzzleloader hunting that I've really come to appreciate...the simplicity of it all...if you put a lead ball...most any size lead ball...through the boiler room of a deer you got a dead deer. No more worrying about energy levels and all that...it's just:

Go into woods with loaded muzzleloader;
See a deer through the woods;
Point small end at deer and pull trigger;
Ball goes through deer's heart/lung area;
Drag deer to truck;
:wink:

 

[Kentuckywindage]

Thanks guys. I was just mainly wondering what kind of energy it was putting out. Hopefully late this year or next year i'll put the .54 up against an Elk. I normally place my shot so it clips the heart but takes out the lungs and liver. Havnt had any problems yet.

 

[longcruise]

I don't put much stock in any of the load/velocity tables found in popular bp literature. If they ever agree with my own chrono readings, it seems like it's just by chance.

For example, my .54 with a .535 ball and 80 grains of fff will average a bit over 1650 fps and 100 grains of the same powder will hit 1850 fps. There are too many variables between rifles, powder brands, powder lots, patch materials, lubes and even powder measures to be able to say that a given caliber/ball/charge will generate a certain velocity.

I once compared two .54 rifles on the same day, same balls, powder, patch lube material etc. One was a 28 inch barrel and one a 32 inch barrel. The 28 inch barrel ran exactly 100 fps faster than the 32 inch barrel. What was the difference? It was bore and groove dimensions. The 28 inch barrel is noticeabley tighter with the same load components as the longer barrel. Tighter load = higher velocity!

Here's a chart on my 1850 fps load;

Range Velocity Energy
yards f.p.s. ft-lb.
0 1850 1702.1
10 1752 1527.3
20 1660 1370.8
30 1573 1230.9
40 1492 1106.5
50 1415 996.1
60 1344 898.0
70 1277 811.3
80 1215 734.6
90 1158 667.4
100 1107 609.2

and here's the same load at 1650 fps;


Range Velocity Energy
yards f.p.s. ft-lb.
0 1650 1354.0
10 1564 1216.1
20 1483 1093.5
30 1407 984.5
40 1336 887.8
50 1270 802.4
60 1209 726.8
70 1153 660.7
80 1102 603.5
90 1056 554.4
100 1015 512.5

Hope that answers your question.

 

[nchawkeye]

Enough at 100 to still punch through both shoulders and the spine...I've see that myself...

 

[CoyoteJoe]

I think your load will run closer to 500 ft.lb. at 100 yards. Kinetic energy is really the only scientific measure of a projectile's force. People are constantly coming up with other formulas to produce results more in line with their own personal notion of how things should be.
There are two main reasons people don't like kinetic energy numbers. For one, it is quite impossible to quantify "killing power" because there are just far too many variables involved. Anyone with much hunting experience has seen instances where a deer or elk has dropped like it was hit by lightning and other instances where a similar animal hit the same with the same load but ran half a mile before lying down to die. It just can't be quantified no matter what formula one may employ.
Another reason people claim energy numbers are no good is that it really takes far less energy to make clean kills than most people believe. All modern hunting rifles have a great surplus of energy for most American game. We know a 30/30 kills and we know a .50 caliber round ball kills so we try to come up with some formula which makes a round ball equal to a 30/30. What most people don't know is that a .30 carbine also kills with far less energy than a 30/30. You really don't need all that energy.
But think of it this way, if your .54 does produce 500 ft.lb. at 100 yards, that is more energy than most modern combat handguns produce at the muzzle, and we accept that those handguns kill very well. :grin:

 

[Dphar]

54 would be lucky if it makes 500 at 100 yards. Ball weight is about 215-220 gr. Velocity will be about a 1000 fps or less. At 1000 fps 220 gr projectile makes about 488 ft lbs.
The popularity of the FT Lbs of energy as a measurement of killing power came about as a result of the small more HV smokeless cartridge. People KNEW a 45-70 or 50-100 would kill game. They needed a number to show the little 30 cal bullet had power and this was one way to do it.
But it rapidly becomes invalid when the ball diameter exceeds 50 cal. It becomes increasingly so as the diameter increases. A 10 guage ball driven by 140-170 gr of powder will kill African elephant with lung shots yet its energy is pretty low compared to a 458 win mag. At an optimistic 1500 fps the 10 bore, ball at 700 gr. makes about 2/3 the energy of a 458. The 458 with a good solid will out penetrate the 10 bore with a hard cast ball due to its longer jacketed bullets so it will do much better on head shots. But I doubt it will kill as well on broadside chest shots as the 10 bore simply due to diameter.

Dan

 

[MikeWoodyard]

E = m Ӣ v2 / (2 Ӣ 32.1739 Ӣ 7000)

 

[Kentuckywindage]

isnt the smartest when it comes to #'s
:rotf:

 

[MikeWoodyard]

http://www.handloads.com/calc/quick.asp

 

[paulvallandigham]

I suggest using " KILLING POWER" as a way to measure the relative value of various calibers and loads. Killing Power+ Velocity times bullet(ball) weight, times caliber, divided by 100. Using a .54 cal. round ball of .530, at a 100 yard velocity of 900 fps, and a ball weighing 230 grains, you get a KP of 1097.10,

Compare that to a .30-30 (.308) 150 grain bullet With a 100 yd velocity of 1930, you get a KP of 892.12. We know that the .30-30 will and has killed thousands of deer at 100 yds. It seems by comparison that the .54 is equally capable of killing a deer at that range, and from experience, we know it makes a bigger hole, and causes much more damage to the internal organs in doing so.

Note: You can use Muzzle Velocity and get larger KP numbers, but you aren't like to kill many deer at the end of your muzzle. My closest deer was about 10 feet from my barrel when I fired, but I don't expect that to happen often, or ever again. There are some tables available to give you the down range velocities of various BP loads, both Round ball and conicals. Unfortunately, they are few and far between. The latest issue of Lyman's Black Powder Handbook is probably the most complete data base. Unfortunately, even Lyman continues to give downrange energy figures in Foot Pounds of Energy, because this is the common standard for modern cartridges and bullets. The standard just leave too much lacking when discussing Black Powder velocities, round balls, and has already been noted, the killing power of balls and bullets over .50 caliber. The KP formula I have given here is a better way of comparing relative killing power of different projectiles and powder charges, at various ranges. The KP is strictly an arbitrary number, whereas the FPE number listed in most loading manuals are based on an actual measurement of energy stated in foot pounds. Originally the calculations were made using a Pendulum style impact plate. Today, formula and computers do all the work, based on muzzle velocity.

The same problem exists in measuring the killing power of large diameter revolver bullets, at long ranges. A .44 magnum revolver slug, .429, weighing 280 grains, and doing 600 fps at 200 yds has a KP of 727.27, and we know from witnessed shots that such a slug will penetrate a deer at that range, and can kill out to 600 yards, still.

So, using fpe to base a decision on choosing a hunting caliber is not a good choice of data. We do so, only because Certain game code regulations are written using that as the standard, arbitrarily, and with no data to back it up. But, those are the rules. It is up to us shooters to educate the bureaucrats to the error of their ways, and lobby for changes. Really, the folks who run the Game Departments and write the regulations welcome such comments and suggestions, because the don't like making decisions in the blind.

 

[CoyoteJoe]

We just don't want to accept the fact that there is no quantifiable measure of "killing power".
All of these formulas for "killing power" or "stopping power" which use velocity times weight are "momentum" based as opposed to "energy" which is velocity squared times weight. All you need to know about the momentum bull is that the recoil momentum is always greater, often several times greater than the impact momentum of the projectile. If that is your measure of killing power then you have to accept that your gun is far more deadly at the back than at the front!!!!
You can believe that if you like but it is :bull:

 

[MikeWoodyard]

You can determine velocity at ranges other than the muzzle using this calculator. It will give you energy as well, but not the Taylor KO. All you need to know is the MV and the BC.
[url] http://www.handloads.com/calc[/url]/

 

[MikeWoodyard]

We just don't want to accept the fact that there is no quantifiable measure of "killing power".
All of these formulas for "killing power" or "stopping power" which use velocity times weight are "momentum" based as opposed to "energy" which is velocity squared times weight. All you need to know about the momentum bull is that the recoil momentum is always greater, often several times greater than the impact momentum of the projectile. If that is your measure of killing power then you have to accept that your gun is far more deadly at the back than at the front!!!!
You can believe that if you like but it is :bull:

:bull: Momentum = Mass X Velocity. The rifle, due to its mass, will recoil much slower than the velocity at which the projectile leaves the barrel. Momentum for the ball and the rifle will be equal, but the force will be distributed over a much greater time for the rifle than that of the ball. Pull out your highschool physics book and reread the chapter on kinematics.

 

[paulvallandigham]

Coyote Joe was trying to show, quickly, why the Momentum based " rules " like using Ft.Lbs. of Energy, are inadequate. He is correct. Your description of how the recoil forces work on a stock is also correct.

If we were really smart, we would have much wider buttplates on our guns than you normally see, particularly on the large caliber rifles where people seem to think there is something wrong with their masculinity if they aren't shooting hands full of powder in them. I once held a Tower made English S x S 12 ga. flintlock shotgun, with a buttplate of brass that was just a hair short of being three inches wide. The length of pull was only 12 1/2 inches, but with the down pitch, and drop at heel, the gun easily mounted to my face, with my eye looking right down and over the center rib. At over 6' in height, I was not expecting that, but found the gun balanced, easy to mount, and no real problem mounting in the pocket of my shoulder. The wider the buttplate, and the greater the area of the buttplate making contact with your shoulder, the lower the felt recoil will be. For bird shooters, particular when beaters are used to drive the birds to the shooters, as is done in England, still, the number of shots fired in a very short time is high, and this wide buttplate would reduce the recoil forces to something quite tolerable over a long morning of shooting.