Help choosing my first flintlock

[MountainEMTIV]

How would either 54 or 58 loaded for hunting (guessing 100 grn, maybe 120?) compare to a 12 guage with 2 3/4 target loads?

 

[jethro224]

To me it feels like less recoil than the modern 12ga.
I can shoot my .54 rifle literally all day long loaded with 83 grains of 3F (more than plenty for deer) with no pain at all.

 

[Critter Getter]

I would rather shoot the 12 gauge with target loads than a 54 with either a100 or a 120 gr of black! My 54 gets 70 grains and that's just fine. Greg.

 

[MountainEMTIV]

I added the 54 and forgot to add the grains for it :idunno:

 

[Zonie]

Hey Zonie,

So that explanation about rifling depth and twist rate brings something to mind. If the shallow rifling was better for the conicals, could that be overcome by using a patch of the conical instead of just lubing it? Not that I'm going to go out and shoot them; I'm fine with patched round ball. But sounds like if you can get that "round ball rifling" filled up with a patch, the conical might work in a 1:56 or 1:66 twist?

Twisted_1in66 :thumbsup:
Dan

Using a patch on a conical would seal the deep rifling grooves on a barrel made for shooting patched roundballs but the conical would have to be undersized to allow for the patching material on its diameter.

That said, the very slow twist rate of the roundball barrels will limit the conicals length to rather short bullets.

The "Greenhill Formula" which can be used to calculate the twist that is needed to stabilize a conical could be used to find out how long the bullet could be.

The formula is T=150 (d/r), where T is the twist/inch rate, d is the bullet diameter and r is equal to the bullet length divided by its diameter given as a ratio.
(This formula is for velocities of 1500-2800 fps.)

If we use a .50 caliber roundball, its length/diameter ratio is .50/.50 = 1 so we have:

T=150 X (.50/1) = 150 X .50 = 75. Of course, a roundball doesn't need stabilizing because it is a sphere.

If we had a .50 caliber conical that was 1 1/4" long we would have a ratio of 1.25/.50 = 2.50 so we have:

T=150 X (.50/2.50) = 150 X (.200) = 30

For a .50 caliber bullet 3/4 inches long the r ratio is .75/.50 = 1.50

Put into the formula we have
T= 150 (.50/1.50) = 150 (.333) = 50

That indicates to me that the 1:70 twist is still too slow for shooting a .50 caliber bullet that is 3/4" long.

This is going to bring up the question, "Why does a Minie' bullet work with these slow twists?"

I don't claim to have the total answer but a lot of it is because the length of the mass of the bullet is what is really being the important thing that needs stabilizing.

Although the Minie' bullet looks long, its hollow base and bullet shaped nose removes mass from both ends of it leaving "the length" as a rather short blob of solid lead that needs stabilizing much shorter length than the actual total bullet length.

 

[fleener]

the felt recoil will be partially dependent on the geometry of the rifle and the weight.

I have a light .54 in a English Sporting rifle style and with a 80 grain load it is not fun to shoot it.

fleener

 

[Zonie]

Something that's been hinted at but not really mentioned is the way black powder shoots.

While modern smokeless powders create a tremendous amount of pressure just after the powder ignites, black powder takes a while to build up its pressure.

Because of this, smokeless powder loads accelerate the ball/bullet very rapidly, giving a sharp WHACK to the gun and the shooters shoulder.

Black powders slower pressure buildup on the other hand gives a hard PUSH to the gun and the shooters shoulder when it fires.

This is true even if the muzzle velocity of the smokeless and the black powder loads are the same.

It's kind of the same thing as two cars stopping from a speed of 10 miles an hour with one cars driver stomping on the brakes while the other cars driver runs it into a massive truck.

Both end up stopped but the final effects on the occupants are very different.

 

[longcruise]

Well, critter, I'm more and more of that same mind. My .45 gets more exercise than the .50's and .54 lately. If a .45 RB was legal here for deer and antelope, the .54 would only come out for elk.

 

[longcruise]

""Whole modern smokeless powders create a tremendous amount of pressure just after the powder ignites, black powder takes a while to build up its pressure.""

Without entering into the effect on recoil, I must respectfully disagree.

The key to shooting Conicals in a BPCR or an ML loaded with a conical is the sudden and immediate pressure of the bp charge which upsets the bullet into the rifling before gasses have a chance to blow by and lead the bore. The smokeless indeed is capable of much higher pressure, but it is gradual enough that the high pressure point is further up the bore.

If I load a 500 grain govt bullet over 67 grains of fff in a 45-70 case it upsets into the rifling and seals the bore without blow by. The exact same load using fast burning smokeless to the same velocity and peak pressure leaves the bore heavily smeared with lead.

 

[Zonie]

The effect on recoil is exactly what I was talking about.

IMO, the upsetting of slugs in the bore or leading of the bore has little or nothing to do with with selecting a caliber and what the expected effects on recoil are.

I figured the OP should know, there are differences in recoil and the way it is felt when one is shooting black powder.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

Well I'm 6'3" 240lbs, but my shoulders (among other joints) aren't the greatest after being 366 lbs since I 14 ...
so I'm really thinking about smaller calibers, would a .54 be punishing with moderate hunting loads?

You will be fine

I've noticed recoil more from two sources...a thinner than I'm used to butt of the rifle stock against my shoulder (decreases surface area = increase in pressure from the recoil on my shoulder) and from using conical bullets vs. the patched round ball.

A little more than 10 years ago I went for moose in Canada with a .50 caliber rifle and a 320 grain conical. It kicked pretty hard with that bullet.

When I got back I sold that rifle a few months later, as I wanted something closer to the time period I was doing in living history. I found a great, used .54.

Now the .50 shot a 177 grain bullet. The .54 shoots a 224 grain bullet. That's almost a 50 grain increase in lead, but for reference, that's about the same amount of lead in a .22 LR bullet...so we can agree that's not much when it comes to lead. I noticed no real increase in kick, in fact the area of the butt of the stock against my shoulder on the new rifle gave me less perception of recoil.

My .530 round ball with a 70 grain charge of 3Fg has been shown to go through a whitetail at 110 yards. Some folks prefer to go as high as 90 grains with a .54, but I've had no performance problems.

LD

 

[azmntman]

As I have often reported I use .80 gr (or 70, depending on which gun) and PRB for elk in my .54 and .58. Never not recovered one and never not had a pass through. I shoot em broadside though. My pop shot a buffalo with a .58 conical with 80 gr and it was DRT and the conical passed through ribs and the opposite shoulder and was recovered bulging through the opposite side skin (85 or 90 grains would have pushed it through).

I dont like recoil but am not "scared" of it. I just have never had a reason. With side lock guns I believe its all about shot placement and distance.

I did finally (on the last day) get my FIRST archery kill Thursday, a FAT cow at 40 yds. Now I have a muzzleloader deer tag to fill. Also a turkey tag the week (or two, i better check :idunno: ) before in same area so I can scout. I will likely use the ol .50 CVA thats the most accuarte as with elk hunt and working two jobs I have had no time to shoot my new TC .45 and I have to mess with the trigger, dont wanna stay cocked half the time :idunno: (may be why it was sold).

Others use mag loads of powder for elk but as they dont wanna fight back I shall stick to 70-80 gr and PRB. Wont shoot em if they not broadside but if you "hunt" em you got time for em to mill around and present a good shot. Now of course I only hunt cows, a big bull would make me consider a stouter load as I recall they have a tremendous will to live and are very hard to drop within sight (have done it though years ago when horns was more important than meat :redface: .

 

[MountainEMTIV]

While I don't have any plans to hunt elk or bison I would like too, I do hunt hogs often, occasionally deer, and maybe coyotes when the opportunity presents itself :wink:

I was really considering a .45 but I'm not sure if its strong enough for hogs? I don't hunt from a stand or blinds either

 

[MountainEMTIV]

Well I just got back from Tip's, all I can say is wow! Really glad I made the trip.

Handled most of his rifles and think I've decided on an early Virginia style, with swamped barrel in .54. What I'm not sure about is the length, the 42" felt really nice but the the 38" felt even better :hmm:

 

[jethro224]

So many choices... so little $$$... :haha:

 

[fleener]

See I told you a swamped .54 was the barrel to get. Also, go with the Green Mountain barrel I know that Tip has a few of those in stock as well, I just bought one from him a few weeks ago.

Green Mountain uses a stronger grade of steel than most custom barrel makers use.

Fleener

 

[don hepler]

I have a Tip Curtis, Late Virginia, in .50 cal. with a Colrain barrel, Siler lock, Davis trigger.

The metal to wood fit is better than most expensive custom built rifles. The lock panels, are perfectly shaped. All of the work, is perfect. My rifle is not highly decorated, but the wood, and brass work, is beautiful. My rifle will shoot as accurate, or better than rifles that cost thousands of dollars more.

You don't need all the high power loads. I shoot 70 grs. and a patched round ball. It gives a shove, not a sharp recoil.

Tip's guns are higher price, than a kit, but you get a gun well worth the extra. I'd rather have one of Tip's guns vs. two kit guns.

 

[MountainEMTIV]

Would the 38" be historically incorrect for an early rifle? I'll mainly use this rifle for hunting but I still want it to be as historically correct as possible.

 

[Pete G]

Longer is better (In my world anyway). My favorite rifle carries a 44" 50 cal B weight.

 

[don hepler]

I'm not a real historian on long rifles, but I don't think a 38 inch barrel would be wrong. Lewis and Clark carried shorter rifles, and the Jaegers were down to at least 31 inches. However, the 42 or even the 44 inch, just looks like a long rifle, is supposed to look.

Some others may chime in, that actually knows the history. You could probably do some on-line research, and get a better answer, than mine. Some of the ladies in our club, shoot shorter rifles, but the entire rifle is scaled down, and use a small Siler lock.