Historical loads?

[pocono-rick]

Hi All!
Ive been shootin front stufers about 8 years now and own a few of them.My hunting rifle is a Traditions 50 cal Shenandoah.I used to load 75grs of 3f and a .15 patch for all my 50 cals when I first started.Eventually I started reducing powder just to see what happens.I went down to 35 grs. I found 45 grs and an ..018 patch to be the most accurate and thats what Ishoot now.I can sometimes touch holes in a 3 shot group and the gun stays a lot cleaner.I still run 70 grs in my Civil War gun.
I have killed deer with the 45gr load so Im not worried about penetration.All my shootin is under 50 yard anyway.
What I was wondering is: Is there any documentation as to what the average load used by the first rifled longuns; like the Pennsylvania rifle.I read gunmakers would provide powder measures for the load that the gun was sighted in for.
It seems everyone these days shoots between 70 and 90grs in their 50s but is it for historical reasons? Im using half that with real good accuracy and very little fouling.

Just curious!
Pocono

 

[paulvallandigham]

Pocono: I have looked for years for historically accurate data on loads use, and the like, but have not found much satisfying data. The big problem with loads is that no one measure powder in Grains, or had the scales to do so accurately. Volume measures were the norm.

Add to that the fact that there was no standard for the quality or even the granule size of powder, and even knowing how much powder was used does not tell you much about the velocity produced.

With the slower ROT barrels used back then, the larger calibers, the hand made ball molds, and powder measure by " covering the ball with powder while held in the palm of your hand" , or "using the same weight of powder as your ball weighs," and other such " rules of thumb", anything we have found in writing does not tell us much in terms we understand today. Sorry about that. It would be nice to know.

 

[boar]

My first gun (82)TC .54 Hawken for RB liked 46grs 2ff. Would not group good with heaver charges.110 grs for Max-ball. Have read where they would double charge for long shot. Marshal Hooker said he never owned a measure, just poured it in his hand. My buddy always said, A little bit of powder and little bit of lead, shoots far and kills dead. The Indians could tell if it was a white man by the gun report as they shot heavier loads then the whites. I shot one groundhog at 72yrds with the RB load(46grs) and it pumped right thru him. More is not always better. Dilly

 

[Grizzled Roberts]

If you look in Madison Grant's books on pouches and horns most of the old original shooting bags
had powder measures of bone, horn or brass, tied on the bag and hanging down. I do the same thing now as it makes the measure easy to find when you are shooting. We could look at some of these original powder measures hanging on the bags and determine how much powder they were shooting, But I have to agree we have no idea of what grade of powder they were shooting.

 

[Rod Lassey]

In Sir William Drummond Stewart's book "Edward Warren", he mentions buying two grades of powder, a finer grade for his rifle, and a coarser grade for trading (to the Indians). You're guess is as good as mine as to what constituted finer/coarser grades in the 1830s. But it is a reference to the difference in powders in rifle vs. smoothbore.

As far as original measures go, there have been a couple of studies done on how much they hold. As I recall, most didn't hold all that much, about 50 grains or thereabouts. Stands to reason, if you wanted more then doublecharge. And doublecharging is mentioned now and again in historical accounts.

Of course, you could measure it out like Henry Boller tells of in the 1850s. Seems there was signs that the Sioux were looking to ambush a steamboat in a narrow channel in the Upper Missouri. An Indian on board prepared by loading his NW gun with a double handful of powder, and 8 or 9 balls. Boller reckoned that the safest place to be when he touched that off was in front of it!

Rod

 

[Stumpkiller]

One account (Lord knows where I picked it up) said to load up until you got a "Krack!" when shooting instead of a blam or boom.

I believe I also read in a reprint of a period letter that one gunsmith recommended 3/7 of the weight of the ball for all rifle calibers.

I shoot a squib load of 42 gr in my .54 as well as a normal hunting load of twice that and the lighter load is accurate, but I'd sure feel undergunned going after a deer with it.

Remember also that a common measure of powder in times past was drams. One dram equals about 27-1/5 grains. Modern shotshells still list drams equivalent. So, the whole sizes of 1, 2 & 3 would be: 27.5,55.0 and 82.5 (The last is my usual measure for .50 & .54). 2-3/4 drams => 75.6 gr. and that is what I shoot in my 12 ga. m/l.

 

[cowpoke1955]

I read something a long time ago that agrees with Rod L. I read that Jed Smith carried a powder measurer that threw 50 grains. For long shots he would dump two charges. I don't know what caliber or type of rifle he carried. That was only one person. I'm sure there were several methods.

 

[Stumpkiller]

The .54 Harper's Ferry rifles of 1803, I do believe, had a recommended load of 2-3/4 drams. I'd have to try and search that one up.

At one great gather-round-the-stove discussion (may have been here) someone tried to determine the charge of how Lewis & Clark loaded by dividing the weight of lead balls by the kegged powder they carried (the manifests still exist). That didn't hold water as they also had lead casks to hold the powder and it wasn't known if they factored in the extra available lead those would generate as emptied. ;-)

 

[Thunderchild]

Acording to the reference area of the dixi gun works catalog.

A dram is equil to 1/16 of a ounce or 27.24 grains.

TC

 

[Dphar]

Hi All!
Ive been shootin front stufers about 8 years now and own a few of them.My hunting rifle is a Traditions 50 cal Shenandoah.I used to load 75grs of 3f and a .15 patch for all my 50 cals when I first started.Eventually I started reducing powder just to see what happens.I went down to 35 grs. I found 45 grs and an ..018 patch to be the most accurate and thats what Ishoot now.I can sometimes touch holes in a 3 shot group and the gun stays a lot cleaner.I still run 70 grs in my Civil War gun.
I have killed deer with the 45gr load so Im not worried about penetration.All my shootin is under 50 yard anyway.
What I was wondering is: Is there any documentation as to what the average load used by the first rifled longuns; like the Pennsylvania rifle.I read gunmakers would provide powder measures for the load that the gun was sighted in for.
It seems everyone these days shoots between 70 and 90grs in their 50s but is it for historical reasons? Im using half that with real good accuracy and very little fouling.

Just curious!
Pocono

Some rifles will not shoot well with light loads. I have had at least two that like about 1700-1900 fps to shoot well.
I tend to shoot about 1/2 ball weight of powder. This charge is mentioned as far back as the Revolutionary War by a British Officer, Col. Hanger I believe, but I cannot locate the quote. Could be in "Colonial Riflemen in the American Revolution". And its down stairs right now. The quote as I recall concerned an American rifle he had come into possession of the would "shoot 1/2 ball weight of powder without the slightest recoil".
From the distance riflemen were engaging targets during the Revolutionary War it is obvious they were using enough powder to produce fairly flat trajectorys. Hanger reported a horse killed by a ball that passed near him fired from 400 yards.
I would also point out that powder charges used for war might be heavier than those used to shoot a turkey. To further confuse the issue there is the relative strength of the powder, Rev War powder was not a strong, would not produce the same velocity for a given charge volume (or weight I suspect) as modern powder would.
One grain per caliber will work in 45-54 caliber guns for deer if the range is short. But if shooting to 100 yards at a deer with the light load it will require adjusting the point of aim to compensate for bullet drop. Shooting 80-90 gr of powder in a 50, for example, will allow using the same hold on a deer at 50 as at 110 if properly sighted since the ball will be within 3-4" of the line of sight anywhere to about 110 yards.
Also then, like now, some shot heavier charges for the bore size some shot lighter ones. Some liked larger bored rifles some liked smaller bores.
And as I stated the rifle will often make the choice. Many TCs with shallow grooves and 48" twists will not tolerate large charges of powder. But I had a 48" twist barrel 50 with about .012" deep grooves that was very accurate at 100 yards with 90 gr of FFFG.
Below is the trajectory my ballistics program yields using Lymans BC for a .495 RB.

This is the real advantage to larger charges of powder. I have killed deer to 130 yards or slightly more with 50 and 54 caliber round balls. Past 130 yards it becomes very difficult to judge distance with sufficient accuracy due to the distance the ball is falling per yard. Note from 120 to 130 the ball drops over 1.5".

Dan

 

[faw3]

As Stumpkiller was saying about drams..seems 2 was about right for some guns and then again I've read about useing 2 drams, then it messes with the "Jed Smith carried a powder measurer that threw 50 grains. For long shots he would dump two charges." that I've read a ot about from different shoooters as in the "sniper's shooting Bakers would dump out a bit of the mil load as it was to much to hit a target at 3 to 400 yards. :shocked2: Fred :hatsoff:

 

[BrownBear]

On the purely practical side, I followed this general line of thinking for the powder measure I made to go with my 50 GPR kit gun. Coincidentally my favorite messing around/small game load for it is 35 grains and my deer load is 70 grains. Rather than making up two measures and have to change them off my bag all the time, I just made a 35. Double dump for deer and one for everything else. Seems like the practical side of the question to me.

 

[roundball]

On the purely practical side, I followed this general line of thinking for the powder measure I made to go with my 50 GPR kit gun. Coincidentally my favorite messing around/small game load for it is 35 grains and my deer load is 70 grains. Rather than making up two measures and have to change them off my bag all the time, I just made a 35. Double dump for deer and one for everything else. Seems like the practical side of the question to me.

Over the years I've adopted the "caliber" philosophy I read about some time back and with Goex 3F for targets/plinking I use:

.40/.45cal = 40grns
.50/.54cal = 50grns
.58/.62cal = 60grns

 

[Dphar]

As Stumpkiller was saying about drams..seems 2 was about right for some guns and then again I've read about useing 2 drams, then it messes with the "Jed Smith carried a powder measurer that threw 50 grains. For long shots he would dump two charges." that I've read a ot about from different shoooters as in the "sniper's shooting Bakers would dump out a bit of the mil load as it was to much to hit a target at 3 to 400 yards. :shocked2: Fred :hatsoff:

If my references are correct Jim Bridger's powder horn had a measure holding about 51 grains of FFFG powder that is carved from a horn tip and is also the horn stopper. This charge would be a light load "single" in a 54 and a full load if doubled. Similar to your Jed Smith citation. In this case, having a charger on the horn stopper, having a large measure would not work well.
The problem with 1/2 charges is that on the plains many shots are long shots and the targets might be armed. One only gets to match the powder charge to the range when shooting matches.

Baker thought 118 grains (1/3 ball weight, 355 gr ball) was the "best estimate" for a service charge in the Baker rifle. The Army settled on 96 grains but later increased this to 110.
I have no doubt that individual rifleman in the Baker armed companies might have played with powder charges in individual rifles. They had horns and measures and did not use paper cartridges for precision work only skirmishing etc.

It should be pointed out that larger bores, probably above 62 use the powder more efficiently than the smaller bores, producing better velocity for a grain of powder.
My 16 bore flint rifle uses a 1 oz ball (437 gr.) and will generate 1640 fps with 110 gr vol of FFG Swiss in a 29" barrel. This is only 1/4 ball weight of powder. In a 50 1/4 ball weight is only 45 grains and this will not make 1640 with a 180+- gr RB. Probably about 1300 in a similar barrel length with FFG. Lyman shows 1445 for 50 gr of FFFG.
While I have never owned a 20 bore (62) rifle it would be interesting to see how it performs with Bakers 1/3 ball weight.
Basically the bigger bores extract more energy from the powder charge. *Probably* because the heavier ball has more inertia.

Dan

 

[bingo1952]

The larger bores are more efficient because of the increased surface area for the hot expanding gasses to push against. An anology is two V8 engines both putting out 250 HP at X# of RPM, one is a big block with large diameter pistons and the other is a small block with smaller diameter pistons. You have to pull a 5,000 lb trailer up a 15 degree inline. The big block is going to have an easier time of it because of the more efficient extraction of energy from a given amount of fuel.

 

[squirejohn]

I noticed in some of the above posts some pretty light loads for target shooting. Are these stout enough to cause the ball to obturate, or isn't obturation really necessary for good accuracy?

 

[ApprenticeBuilder]

I shoot 45 gr 3f in a fifty flinter, doesn't take alot to upset a pure lead ball. Accurate enough to hit a 5' oxygen cylinder @ 145yds, just had to wait a bit to hear the ring, made lunch. :rotf:

 

[roundball]

I noticed in some of the above posts some pretty light loads for target shooting. Are these stout enough to cause the ball to obturate, or isn't obturation really necessary for good accuracy?

Obturation is not necessary...the patching that's jammed down into the grooves does the steering...takes the rotation from the rifling and by virtue of having a tight grip on the ball, rotates the ball with it.

I've never seen a rifling mark on any lead ball in any caliber out of any of my rifles. I've recovered some from jugs of water and from deer, not a mark on them...and I use stout max load powder charges for hunting.

 

[paulvallandigham]

Roundball: If you expecting to see the same kind of rifling cuts, or grooves, on a PRB as you see on a copper jacketed, or lead bullet fired out of a modern gun, you will wait a long time. What you do see is a flat on the side of the ball representing every land in the barrel. If the ball is from soft lead, you may see faint patterns of the weave of the cloth patch impressed into the lead.

 

[ApprenticeBuilder]

If the ball is from soft lead, you may see faint patterns of the weave of the cloth patch impressed into the lead.

And if the ball patch combo is tight enough you will see the above described markings just from seating the ball.