- Joined
- Jan 24, 2022
- Messages
- 121
- Reaction score
- 560
-
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
How much powder?
- Thread starter Stone
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
That came from the Pedersoli manual. Same charts are in the back of my 2013 Pedersoli manual from my 20 ga SXS.
While I agree that it's quite amazing what a "big", "slow" bullet will do as far as penetration, I can assure that a 45-70 cannot penetrate 4 feet into meat and bone, or even meat alone. The hydra-shock of tissue is very different than wet newspaper.
Having killed many deer with a 45-70 and butchered those deer, I can honestly say that the bullet seldom leaves the deer.
In my younger days I believed the heavy bullet was the best for a quick clean kill, now that I have had the opportunity to hunt with different guns, I can tell you that on 100 to 200 pound deer, the small fast bullets are much more effective.
You've fallen prey to the modern "energy" notion. It's very commendable that you are concerned about not wounding a deer, but as long as you have worked up an accurate load, and have practiced, as long as there isn't some sort of failure in equation, you won't be wounding anything.
Impact energy does not kill deer, never has. It's a poor litmus test of the terminal ballistics. It's just a starting point. Too many folks discussing modern projectiles (imho) use it as their primary factor. I can show you a venerable cartridge from 1906 that has killed an amazing number of big game, and dangerous game, and in that cartridge I can show you two variations, with identical "energy" levels..., but one will be a well known deer or even elk round with a proven track record, and the other will be outlawed in most states for big game because it's such a poor performer. Again, both will have identical energy. The difference will be the projectile used. IF it was up to energy, the results between the two would be much, much, similar. The dirty little secret the modern guys too often don't mention..., energy factor does NOT make up for poor accuracy, or poor marksmanship, or worse, both of those combined.
When it comes to black powder and muzzle loading, especially with this forum, we are talking about what a projectile will do after impact. Where you hit the animal is exactly the key, and the animal will not know the difference between the impact of a round hitting at 30 yards having 1100 ft.lbs. of energy vs one hitting at 100 yards having 480 ft.lbs of energy. I know this because I've delivered round balls with both those "energy" levels, and bunch in between those two, and the deer fall where they are hit or can be seen when I reach the point where they were hit. No wounded deer got away because of a lack of "energy", and OH the bullet that hit at 480 ft.lbs. went right through a deer, standing broadside, ribs and all, taking out both lungs.
Since you will be using a projectile with more mass, and better ballistic coefficient than I use, you should not fret that the deer will be properly taken. You are not going to equal the shape changing design and pounds per square inch impact on that bullet as it's a mach-two modern spitzer bullet at impact. You cannot use that as your standard.
LD
Last edited:
Thus the reason I said it requires a well placed shot. Which is not a given with flintlock rifles, it's not a given with any rifle!
You seriously don't think that placing the shot is a factor when using all rifles for big game hunting?
Interesting....
LD
????? I stated it in both of my posts? It's the most critical factor.
My apologies.
"...,it's not a given with any rifle" I thought indicated a different viewpoint.
LD
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2021
- Messages
- 2,812
- Reaction score
- 6,027
Penetration with a 45-70 has as much to do with bullet hardness as it does with velocity.
Soft lead versus 20-1 versus linotype versus full metal jacket round nose.
But none of those have anything to do with muzzleloaders
Soft lead versus 20-1 versus linotype versus full metal jacket round nose.
But none of those have anything to do with muzzleloaders
Actually I have been extending some leeway with this thread, because of our new member, as he was honest to mention he's using a type of projectile we don't discuss, and folks are comparing to modern stuff, which sometimes helps to illustrate things.
Let's all, me included as I skirted the rule too, let's all not stray too far into disallowed areas of discussion. Thanks folks.
LD
Let's all, me included as I skirted the rule too, let's all not stray too far into disallowed areas of discussion. Thanks folks.
LD
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2021
- Messages
- 2,812
- Reaction score
- 6,027
Like most of the posters here I have always used pure lead in my muzzleloaders and I personally have been amazed by how even the lowly 32 caliber deforms when it hits flesh and destroys a squirrel if you are not careful where you hit it.
I would be most interested if someone took the time to compare a common caliber, say a 50 caliber muzzleloader in ballistic gelatin and used soft lead, 20-1, linotype and say a ball bearing or the like (protecting the bore with a patch of course).
The differences in penetration would be very interesting
I would be most interested if someone took the time to compare a common caliber, say a 50 caliber muzzleloader in ballistic gelatin and used soft lead, 20-1, linotype and say a ball bearing or the like (protecting the bore with a patch of course).
The differences in penetration would be very interesting
Dave, if I have breached a rule, crossed a line, or even just committed a faux pas, I sincerely apologize!
Naw, close but no real foul, and I think we can agree that a humane kill is important. You're trying your best with a rather troublesome design.
It's all a moot point for you if the rifle doesn't go BANG in a quick manner, eh? I wonder if you put 10-20 grains of 4F down the barrel ahead of a pellet or loose main charge of 3Fg, if that wouldn't help with ignition?
LD
It's all a moot point for you if the rifle doesn't go BANG in a quick manner, eh? I wonder if you put 10-20 grains of 4F down the barrel ahead of a pellet or loose main charge of 3Fg, if that wouldn't help with ignition?
LD
1. Please point me to where I messed up so I don't do it again. I have looked for rules but have no idea where I came close?
2. I haven't shot this gun enough to say whether or not I have ignition problems. I use 3F specifically so that it can get into the hole in the breech and I put 4F into the touch hole prior to priming the pan.
3. I get the impression that although named "Muzzleloadingforum" that maybe this is a patch and ball flintlock forum? I have seen reference to numerous things that are not allowed to be mentioned here but not sure why?
Well, @Stone, this discussion is taking place in the Flintlock Rifles forum topic. I expect that most replies are going to pertain to flintlocks. You are very new to muzzleloading and flintlocks. You have been very open with respect to your intentions with the GPR Pellet flintlock rifle and recognition of its drawbacks.
I was taken aback when it was stated that a humane kill wasn't a given with any rifle unless the energy from a high velocity bullet was factored into the event. We do agree that it is most important to make an accurate shot placement. I do not agree in the implication that a high velocity round should be sought to overcome poor shot placement. Poor shot placement is overcome by good load development and practice. One needs to work on the hunting skills to hunt the game to be where shot placement will be the best for the conditions. I do believe that ultimately is your goal.
Please take the time to work within the limitations of your rifle to achieve the results you desire.
I was taken aback when it was stated that a humane kill wasn't a given with any rifle unless the energy from a high velocity bullet was factored into the event. We do agree that it is most important to make an accurate shot placement. I do not agree in the implication that a high velocity round should be sought to overcome poor shot placement. Poor shot placement is overcome by good load development and practice. One needs to work on the hunting skills to hunt the game to be where shot placement will be the best for the conditions. I do believe that ultimately is your goal.
Please take the time to work within the limitations of your rifle to achieve the results you desire.
Thanks, that is good advice.
I am not new to muzzle loading but I am new to flintlock, and I finding out here that those are very different.
I in no way would indicate that "energy" is a substitute for shot placement. What I intimated was that with the inherent movement in flintlocks, a poorly placed shot without sufficient energy could result in a wounded deer. I fully understand what energy means in a projectile and I fully understand that shot placement trumps all. I'm just trying to be a conscientious hunter while I learn.
