hunting load ?

[morehops]

There's no doubt that 70g of powder will kill a deer in most any normal caliber. I usually start out with 80-90g of 3f as a good comprimise load. It gives me pretty good accuracy in most of my rifles, has plenty of knock down power and I can sight in at 50 yds and take deer to 70. If I am going hunting in an area where i know I might get a shot out to 100 yards, I up my load to 110g and resight my rifle. This will give me a nearly point blank trajectory out to 100 yds.
One main point though is that I always sight in with whatever load I'll be hunting with. I sight in at 50 yds and also try a few shots at my maximum hunting distance to know where those shots will be. At 90-110g sighting in is not the most pleasurable experience. I bought a Lead Sled and while it won't balance a long rifle, I bring a set of bags for the front rest. It really absorbs a lot of the pounding that I would be taking otherwise.

 

[Dave Marsh]

The primary use of my guns is for hunting so I set up my guns and loads for that end. I target shoot as often as I can and I hunt with the best loads I get on paper. My .58 and .62 like 90 grains FFG with a PRB on paper so that is what they get in the woods. Have never had an issue and the way they knock down the deer I see no need to change.

 

[ebiggs1]

4...More powder means more smoke and more recoil...

This I agree, the others :idunno: ?

 

[Rifleman1776]

as far as the rifling stripping the patch/ball- I've never heard of it

Oh, I have heard of it. The subject has been cussed and discussed for-almost-ever.
I still haven't met the guy who was looking down the bore to observe this (alleged) phenomonon when a rifle was fired. :shocked2: :rotf:

 

[JCW]

The best RB load in my .54 Renegade is 90 gr. 2F, .530 rb., .012 cotton patch lubed with either balistol or Lehigh valley lube.

 

[kevin beers]

That was my thoughts exactly just wanted some other input ! Thanks fellas not gonna change a thing! My 54 likes 90gr gonna leave it there!

 

[buttonbuck]

shooting the 70 grains of 3f Goex gives me consistent accuracy dead on 25, 2" high at 50, I need to work on 75-100. On a deer A couple years back the roundball went in 530 came out and left a 1" exit hole. Someone will have the chart that shows the most efficent use of powder based on ROT and all but it is more fun and better practice to just shoot your gun. I am totally excited that my younger kids are getting to the age they can go to the range.

 

[jerrywh]

If a round ball going faster slows down faster it would be easier to stop a car at 100mph than it is one going 50 mph. BS. Prove the point. Physics says not so.

 

[aeatwood]

Well, it does slow down "faster", but it also remains faster at every point along the trajectory. According to Lyman's BP handbook, the energy of a PRB went up linearly with the powder charge up to crazy heavy charges in their pressure barrels. Something like 180-190 grains in .54 barrels. The velocity increase grew less, because e=mv**2. What the heavier charges buy you is reduced time-of-flight, which translates to less drop, and less windage adjustment, which given the way the wind slaps around a PRB, probably counts more.

The downsides are 1) more recoil and 2) with pure lead balls, penetration is _reduced_ at very close ranges due to the ball flattening out. I generally use range scrap rather than pure lead. You can go all the way up to WW for PRB's, and it certainly increases the penetration when the ball does not deform.

My .54 and .58 GM 1:70 guns shoot best with anything over about 90-95 grains with a good tight patch/ball combo, and they are still shooting well up to the max. recommended load.

 

[jerrywh]

I agree with everything you say except the statement below which is totally contradictory.
"Well, it does slow down "faster", but it also remains faster at every point along the trajectory"---impossible according to the laws of physics.
It takes the same energy to stop a bullet as it does to move it. Both objects weighing the same the faster one goes faster for more distance.
This is like the old rumor that hot water freezes faster tan cold water. If i'm wrong some body will have to proove it to me. Where is Zonie?

 

[Isiah1103]

I shoot 80g FF in my 54 caliber and set my sights for 75 yds, that's my hunting limit. I've taken several deer with this load and with each kill I'm amazed at the damage it does. Nothing ever goes far after being hit. If you're shooting out to 100 yds, maybe the 90gr will help with a slightly flatter trajectory, but for killing power - that's plenty.

 

[jerrywh]

I use the same load you do but my rifle is sighted in for 100 yds and has a 150 yd flip up blade. I have no trouble killing a deer at 150 yds.

 

[aeatwood]

Not contradictory. I will give a totally fake example using round numbers.

load a: 1800 fps at muzzle 1600fps at 20 yards
load b: 1600 fps at muzzle 1460fps at 20 yards

load a loses some of it's initial advantage over load b, but it has already gone 20 yards. If we assume same caliber and weight of projectile, A lost more velocity in the first 20 yards than B, but at 40 yards it is still traveling faster than B, because B has continued to lose velocity too. The wind resistance they are fighting declines with velocity.

Now, in the real world, there is a high-drag range from roughly 1400fps down to 1100fps that mucks with things, but you get the idea.

A loses velocity faster, but it had more to lose. It will travel faster than b until they hit the ground, which if fired at 0 degrees of elevation from the same height, will be the same time. A will just have gone farther than B.

 

[jerrywh]

A fake example has no relation to reallity. No I don't get it but I can see some merit in the high drag element part if it actually exists. The fact remains that it takes more to stop the faster of two objects that are of equal weight and shape. What is the source of your info. If I'm wrong I want to know it. It doesn't matter to me who is correct I just want to know what is correct.
I agree that both balls would hit the ground at the same time because they both drop in elevation at the same speed regardless of velocity. At the spot where the first ball hit the ground the second ball going faster, was ahead of it. That juat prooves my point imo.

 

[tg]

It seems like the drag effect might be more on a projectile of a larger surface but the added weight of such a projectile could overcome that difference or is that what you said, all this thinking makes my head hurt that is mostly why I approach it all with an 18th century mindset

 

[excess650]

Using a fake example is bogus. There is an external ballistic program for roundballs and I punched in the the following parameters: 45cal 137gr RB MV 2200fps, 50cal 187gr RB MV 2000fps and 60cal 324gr RB 1500fps

At 50 yards the 45cal has already dropped to 1483fps, the 50cal to 1393fps, and the 60cal to 1192fps.

At 100 yards the 45cal is down to 1066fps, the 50cal is at 1057fps and the 60cal at 979fps.

The 45cal dropped 51.5% of its velocity, the 50cal 47.15%, and the 60cal 34.7% in 100 yards.

If we boost the MV of the 60 to a reasonable 1600fps, it sheds 37.1%.

What is obvious from the charts is that the higher the initial MV above the speed of sound, the more velocity is shed percentage wise. As the speed drops below the speed of sound is less dramatic.

Keeping the same 45cal 2200fps, 50cal 2000fps and higher (less efficient)60cal 1600fps we find that at 200 yards the 45cal is 768fps, the 50cal 786fps and the 60cal 791fps. Despite its 200fps and 600fps initial velocity advantage, the 45cal is the slowest of the 3 examples at 200 yards.

As the caliber gets smaller (ball lighter) it becomes less efficient.

 

[Joel/Calgary]

I agree with everything you say except the statement below which is totally contradictory.
"Well, it does slow down "faster", but it also remains faster at every point along the trajectory"---impossible according to the laws of physics.
It takes the same energy to stop a bullet as it does to move it. Both objects weighing the same the faster one goes faster for more distance.
This is like the old rumor that hot water freezes faster tan cold water. If i'm wrong some body will have to proove it to me. Where is Zonie?

I think that the confusion lies in imprecision in the language, not in the physics. The problem is that "slows down faster" can be interpreted as applying to different aspects of the question - the instantaneous decelleration at any particular point in the trajectory, the resultant velocity at some point in the trajectory, the cumulative affect over the trajectory, etc. Often, the expression is used in a sentence that does not specify which is meant. The instantaneous decelleration is actually higher, because drag is (non-linearly) proportional to velocity, and thus the cumulative decelleration at some distance will be higher - the initially-faster ball will have lost more speed than the slower. The drag on a given size of ball will be higher at 2000fps than it will be at 1600fps, so that in the first umpteen yards, the first ball will have lost more energy, and hence velocity, than the latter, but it will still be going faster, just not as much faster as it was at the muzzle. At some distance the faster ball will be moving at 1600fps and be slowing at that instant at exactly the same rate as the slower ball was at the muzzle, but at that distance, the slower ball will have lost less than the 400fps that the faster one lost.

The point that many folks who raise the "slows down faster" factor are often addressing is that the difference in energy/velocity downrange will be less than it was at the muzzle, and getting smaller as the range increases, and that the extra velocity may not be worth the extra powder/recoil/muzzle-blast/etc. For some folks, it is, for others, the downrange energy is not but the flatter trajectory is, for others, both are worthwhile, and for still other, neither is so the extra velocity is wasted.

I apologize if I'm belaboring the familiar, but I've observed that "differences" on the forum are as often due to miscommunication as they are to actual differences in understanding.

Regards,
Joel

 

[tg]

"As the caliber gets smaller (ball lighter) it becomes less efficient.'

Did it really take three pages and charts and chronies to make that conclusion, most folks talk about this relationship as a matter of fact in many different subforms from time to time with little or no arguement about the issue and without the need for any references to equipment needed to determine the fact and so forth, unless I missed something along the way....yep....simple, simple as pie, Hell, even my rabbit knows the bigger pellets hit harder than the smaller ones when pooped out at the same speed :idunno: uh-huh, very interesting and informative stuff we got goin'here....and simple to boot.

 

[jerrywh]

we weren''t talking about different calibers. The subject is about the same sized ball going at different velocities.

 

[Deadeye]

Jerry, look at any ballistic chart and you'll see that the faster ball does slow down faster. This is something that I thought everyone who is familar with firearms knows. Drag is greater on the faster ball. From Lyman's ba,llistic chart.
.495 ball at 1600 drops to 956 at 100 yds. Loss 644 fps
.495 ball at 1400 drops to 884 at 100 yds. Loss
516 fps.
The faster ball loses 128 fpos more than the slow one. While it started out 200 fps faster at 100 yds. it's only 72 fps faster and at 200 it's down to only 42 fps faster, hardly worth it at that distance.
I don't have the exact figures on shotguns here but as I recall, a 1300 fps load of shot and a 1200 fps load are going about the same velocity at 60 yds.
Sorry but it's true.
Deadeye