hunting load ?

[Dphar]

Its not about remaining velocity its about trajectory. Apparently a number of people don't understand this.
With a HV load a 54, properly zeroed say on at 105 or 110, will stay on a deer's kill zone from 0 to 130+- yards.
This means if you hold center on the deer from 0 to 130 it kills the deer.
No worry about how much to hold over no extra sights. Just hold center and press the trigger.
Slight holdover but still "in the hair" will kill at 150.
THIS is the advantage of HV loads.
Many in the east never shoot over 40-70 yards. At this distance 50-60 grains will kill the deer (an 8" barreled pistol in 54 will kill deer dead at 25-40 yards) if the trajectory is not such that making hits is difficult. Hunters in the west may not be as lucky though I killed 2 deer under 50 yards this year. The last deer I shot was 105 yards offhand. Only shot I had and given the deer population crash it was probably the only shot I would get. No way to take a rest just do the shot.
If the rifle was loaded and sighted to be on at 75 this shot would have required hold over more than likely.
With a proper ball fit 1/2 ball weight or a little more of powder will not foul excessively.
Most of the points made concerning HV loads are apparently being "made" by people who have never actually used them.
I once had a 54 percussion that was disappointingly inaccurate with less than 120 gr of FFF going up there was little change in accuracy until 120, 110 poor, 120 good, the groups tightened dramatically. It made the rifle into a hunting gun rather than a wall hanger. I have a 54 flint that really does not like light loads and I use 100 gr of FFF in it.
Most rifles will actually produce the smallest groups with powder charges at or over 1/2 ball weight in 50-54 caliber.
Some people have reported 60-70 as an accuracy load in 40 cals.

HV loads spend more time in the high drag ranges and thus tend to slow faster. But they still shoot flatter at any distance than the lower velocity loads will.

Dan

 

[Zonie]

Dan's about right on the high velocity .54 depending on the size of the kill zone.

Just for giggles I ran my roundball trajectory calculator for a .535 diameter roundball shot at 1700 fps and zeroed at 100 yards.

At 50 yards it would be hitting high about 3.1 inches.
At 80 yards it would be hitting high about 2.4 inches.
At 120 yards it would be hitting low about 4 inches
At 140 yards it would be hitting low about 10 inches.

Although 10 inches is very low for some small deer, a gun sighted in and loaded for those kind of velocities would probably bring home the deer meat.

Before folks run out and start pouring a lot of powder down their barrel for hunting, find out if your gun will shoot large powder loads accurately. Some won't.

 

[tg]

I know, but then this enlightening comment came up, which has always been pretty much accepted by most.

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

 

[tv_racin_fan]

All I know is back in the day the manual that came with my rifle listed 30 grains as minimum and I used that load for plinking. Then I used a load around 80 grains for hunting. (my bad luck never got me in range for a shot on a deer) I hit coke cans at 100 paces with either load

 

[LaBonte]

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 was discussed widely all during the 18th/19th Centuries in most shooting treatises, many of whom were excellent shootes so I don't totally disregard it. One of the reason that gain twist rifling was developed, at east by some builders/smiths was due to the idea of stripping the balls.

As for the 1-48" twist not only did the Hawken Bros use it but it is the most common twist found in rifles built in America during the 1700's. I do know that some folks had troubles with it back in the 1970's in the early shallow groove T/C's but it may have been due that or something else., or in most case it ws guys pumping up the charges to the 130grn plus range in their 54's.
In every rifle I have owned in 54, most with eitehr 1-48" or a couple in 1-56" (Bill Large consider that the best twist for a 54)I generally use 80-90 grns of 3F and have taken a number of big game with them up to the size of big bull elk and big black bear.On the otehr hand I once owned a Hawken 54 with a 34" Bill Large barrel in 54 with a special order 1-48" twist. Like Dan's 54 above it liked 120 grns of 3F - a pretty hefty load but that's what it liked and since I took a lot of game and won a lot of matches with that gunI wasn't going to argue. Generally the slower twists like more powder, but every gun I've ever owned had a mind of it's own.

PS Dan I used that one to hit the gong on my 4th or 5th try at Ed Webber's place back in 1973 during the 1st (Unofficial) NAPR Rendezvous - IIRC it was at 520 or 540 yards?
On the other hand Doc Baker using his 54 Hawken flinter hit it with 90 grns of 2f on his second shot. Eitehr way it took a heck of a hold over and we were the only two to hit it until Ed brought out his Sharps (which the range had been set up for).

 

[aeatwood]

One of the reasons that Forsythe published his book (drawing a blank on the name right now) is because a LOT of English makers in the middle/late 19'th century were putting very fast twists in their rifles and selling them for use w/ PRB. The theory was that you needed a full turn of rifling in a barrel to be accurate.

In England, you could pop a stag w/ 35-50 gr of powder, and then chase it down w/ dogs. In Germany, you would run up and kill it w/ a sword. Killing it DRT with a gun was "unsporting".

What got the hunters in trouble was using these guns in Africa or India. Load up a 20-30" twist 10-bore rifle w/ 6-7 drams of BP and a PRB and you would be lucky to hit the side of a barn from the inside. The patch shredded and the ball went skidding down the barrel naked, or near enough to it.

Forsythe said take that same patch/ball/powder combo, put it in a slow twist, shallow groove, narrow land barrel, and you get superb accuracy and power.

I never actually measured my 16-bore barrel, but I'm using a .658" ball, .020" patch, and spit or Mink oil for lube. Accuracy w/ 5 drams of FFg is outstanding, and I don't wipe the bore til I get home.

 

[excess650]

I know, but then this enlightening comment came up, which has always been pretty much accepted by most.

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

tg,

Let me correct that to make it a bit more applicable. "As the caliber gets smaller (ball lighter) it becomes less efficient ballistically".

Some of us understand the physics involved, but more insight is gained when the real numbers are presented.

For those that just speak and think in generalities, I apologize for boring you, and you may return to playing your banjo. :wink:

 

[tg]

The realities of the performance of the lighter vs heavier ball are quite important for hunters and were quite important 200-300 years ago even if they did not fully understand why but there was no dopubt that bigger was better from handgonnes to naval cannon than there is the barrel length to factor in..a whole other story in itself.I meant no insult to your post. I actualy found it interseting how we went full circle to come back to the very basics that were used for determining bore/ball size 250 years ago.

PS the banjo remark was rather clever :hmm:

 

[tg]

"Dan's about right on the high velocity .54 depending on the size of the kill zone'

I thought it was pretty well known that to get the use of the "point blank" aimimg method that enougn velocity was required to achive the resuluts desired. Personaly I went to lighter loads when my eyes started giving me problems and I rarely had a shot past 75yds anyway, it all depends on what one "needs" out of their gun

 

[George]

I thought it was pretty well known that to get the use of the "point blank" aimimg method that enougn velocity was required to achive the resuluts desired.

The point-blank aiming concept is a simple definition and doesn't depend on any particular velocity. It is defined as the range at which the ball falls as far below the line of sight as it was above it at its highest, the mid-range trajectory. That means that it works for any velocity, and it doesn't matter whether you are talking about a flat trajectory or a looping one.

An interesting thought: shooting the same caliber ball at different MVs, the trajectories at every velocity all fit on one trajectory, they are all part of the same. The section of the trajectory you get depends only on what speed you start at.

Spence

 

[nchawkeye]

Spence, not referring to you specifically, you were just last in line...

Remember "Kentucky Windage"...

I suspect "back in the day", they were less worried about velocity, point blank range, the size of their balls, etc...

If they saw supper on the next ridge I suspect they went to their Kentucky Windage...

As has been mentioned, I use to shoot out to 150 yards...I'm good to 60-70 now..

 

[tg]

I will take your word for it Bob It just seems that years ago I had better results with a hotter load in my .50 when zeroing at 90-100 yds, maybe I just had less filing to do on my sights with a stout load and found it easier to sight in initialy.It has been quite a while since I have shot past 50 yds

 

[George]

I suspect "back in the day", they were less worried about velocity, point blank range, the size of their balls, etc...

If they saw supper on the next ridge I suspect they went to their Kentucky Windage...

To the board, nchawkeye, not just you.

I'm sure you are right, and I do the same thing about 99% of the time. When I see a deer, I decide if it's shootable, point and shoot. My first mule deer was blasting past me at 35 yards as fast as a mulie can go, which is considerable, and I dropped him on his nose like shooting a rabbit. Ballistics was the last thing on my mind at that moment. Only in really unusual circumstances do I spend any time doing the numbers. But.... and this is a point where I differ with the thinking of the majority of BP shooters, I think.... if the occasion comes up in which the numbers can offer me some help in making a successful shot, I have them in my head and can dial them up. I couldn't do it any other way.

Spence

 

[Deadeye]

This is the way I was taught and what I still believe. It requires that you shoot the same gun with the same load with the same trajectory and are able to shoot at any distance to become proficient at any distance. The shooter doesn't think about distance in yards or how high or low his ball will hit at that distance. After a lifetime of shooting, he sees a target and holds his sights appropriately for that target. This knowledge only comes from shooting a lot and at all distances. It's like throwing a ball to someone. You don't have to think, he's 50 yds. away so I'll have to throw it at a certain velocity, you just look and throw it but if you'd never thrown it at that distance you might throw it over his head. It takes a lot of practice. Baseball players and quarterbacks understand this well.
Deadeye

 

[Walks with fire]

Very well said Deadeye. I just hold up more sight for the longer distances just like I do with my revolvers.

One of things I do is have too many rifles when one is all I need. I always shoot the favorite one for the most part anyway and the more I shoot it the better I get with it. I just have trouble parting with a rifle once I have it.

 

[Dphar]

I know, but then this enlightening comment came up, which has always been pretty much accepted by most.

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

tg,

Let me correct that to make it a bit more applicable. "As the caliber gets smaller (ball lighter) it becomes less efficient ballistically".

Some of us understand the physics involved, but more insight is gained when the real numbers are presented.

For those that just speak and think in generalities, I apologize for boring you, and you may return to playing your banjo. :wink:

Darn it just lost a whole post. I need to learn to do the typing in my word processor.... :cursing:

Anyway.
Efficiency can be determined to be far different things.
Smaller balls are increasingly less efficient in the velocity they get from a grain of powder as the size decreases.
Small bores, 32-40 caliber may use 60-70% of ball weight to get useful accuracy. A 32 caliber using a .315 ball and 32 grains of powder is using just over 66% of ball weight.
A 50 caliber using 50% is using about 90 gr.
My 16 bore FL rifle with a Nock breech and a 30" barrel will make 1600 fps on LESS than 1/3 ball weight 140 gr with 437 gr ball.
Forsythe's 14 bore rifle made almost exactly the same velocity with a 466 gr ball and 137 gr of powder.
John Taylor used a 10 bore smooth with 167 grs of powder to kill African elephant and Rhino. If the ball was a true 10 bore this would have given 25% of ball weight charge.
The increased BC of the 16 bore ball gives my rifle about the same trajectory as my 50-54 rifles using 45-50% of ball weight.
But there are other ways to look at efficiency.
The American rifles of the Rev-War generally outshot the German mercenaries that were hired to counter then.
The German rifle of the time (and most European rifles) were larger in the bore, had short barrels usually under 30" and have rifling twists of one turn in the length of the barrel. This limited the velocity and the rifles might have 2-3 leaf rear sights to allow a dead on hold between the muzzle and 100 yards. A fixed leaf for maybe 50 yards, another for 75 and yet another for 100.
The smaller bored, longer barreled, slower twist (but still about 1 turn in the "4 ft" barrel") at higher velocity would shoot within a few inches of line of sight to 100-120 yards an needed no multi leaf sights. They were deadly on men with little hold over to 150 or even 200 if you held on his head or hat. The German rifles were accurate but the trajectory was so high that sighter shots were needed if the range was very far at all and unknown.
In its element in Germany the German rifle worked well. The large ball was effective on the game they hunted and the ranges were generally short. The cost of ammunition was not important.
In "British" America the poor on the Frontier were very often rifle armed. But a rifle of 20-22 to the pound cost FAR too much to shoot and was no more effective than a 44-50 caliber rifle that got 38 to 50 balls from a pound of lead. Few rifles were larger than 36 to the pound. With the higher velocity and longer range they were more efficient and adequate for the use.
They were very efficient.
But as the frontier moved west of the Missouri to the Plains of west this calibers changed with it. Rifles using balls under about 48 caliber were not effective at the longer ranges and against the larger game often encountered. To many animals shot with smaller bores were lost. This is specifically documented from writings of the era.
So efficiency can mean a smaller bore for actual use or larger for most efficient use of powder and ballistic efficiency.
But the American hunter/frontiersman had little use for the large bore rifles of Europe and the even larger ones of 1840s-1870s Africa. In the context of the the American hunter a 22 or 16 bore rifle was LESS efficient since it was no more effective than the American rifle and might use 2-3 times the lead, more material to patch, more powder to drive it even if more efficient. So the American rifle was really a minimalist approach to firearms. This carried over till at least the early 20th century with people in the west. The ammo was FAR heavier to carry. J.J. Henry enroute to Quebec in 1775 had 70 rounds of ball in his pouch. They were likely 44 caliber (based on his description of the rifle he puchased to replace the one he lost in a river). 70 rounds of .44 balls weighs 1.27 pounds. 70 rounds for my 16 bore is almost 4.4 pounds. The common British Musket ball of the time is even worse.
But a man shot with a 44 of 48 caliber ball is going to be ineffective if the ball is anything like well centered in the body or much of anyplace else.
My experience shows that deer run just as far after being shot with a 662 ball and 140 grains of powder or a 495 ball and 90 grains.
So the western hunter with a 50-54 caliber rifle have a very effective and “fuel efficient” rifle for almost every use. The only place bigger would be really nice is a Gbear that was way too close.

ӬDan

 

[paulvallandigham]

Perhaps that is why the practice of mountain men to put a second PRB down their heavy barreled Hawkens, or Leman rifles became known as " Loaded for bear"???? :hmm: :shocked2: :idunno: :hatsoff:

It seems to me to be an eminently practical solution to seeing a Grizzly bear coming in your direction when your gun is loaded for Elk, or some lesser animal. NO? :idunno: :surrender: :wink: At ranges of under 35 yards, hitting any bear, no matter how large, with two lead balls of .54 caliber( Or larger) would put a lot of energy into the bear's body, and shock its nervous system hard! Even two .50 cal. balls, weighing ONLY 180 grains each would put a lot of mass into any bear( 360 grains)( 82+% of an ounce!).


Paul

 

[Dphar]

PS Dan I used that one to hit the gong on my 4th or 5th try at Ed Webber's place back in 1973 during the 1st (Unofficial) NAPR Rendezvous - IIRC it was at 520 or 540 yards?
On the other hand Doc Baker using his 54 Hawken flinter hit it with 90 grns of 2f on his second shot. Either way it took a heck of a hold over and we were the only two to hit it until Ed brought out his Sharps (which the range had been set up for).

I was thinking it was 550-560. I just talked to Ed a couple of days ago on the phone and could have asked him. He was looking for a chamber reamer he loaned to someone. I have one of his but not the one he wanted. I thought I had a 40-60 Maynard but had used another reamer then cut the rim separate so I was no help.

Used to have to hold on a tree up on the rim that forms a backstop.
I used to shoot at it with various guns when I worked for CSA and their custom shop was in Ed's old shop. It was not that tough for me (then) with a 7 1/2 44-40.
Ed used to have a Fathers Day shoot too at the same place.
Don King used to shoot at it with his 54 Flint Hawken with good success and even backed off to guessed by the map 1000 but could not get the balls to go that far he said.
I wonder if its still up there. Have not been up there in a long time. Could fix the mainspring on the Mowrey and see if my 40 cal picket would get up to it :grin: Its a 48 twist GM. I put it on the horrid action/stock to play with pickets and the MS broke when I cocked it for the first shot at the Picket Match at Cody last year.
I coulda been a contender :grin:

The flatpoint/flat base is the current design. Swaged out of lead wire.

Dan

 

[asbrown]

OK. I'll throw in my two cents since everyone else is. My deer/everything rifle is a .54. I have a slow twist 1-72" 36" barrel, and it loves 100gr of FFF, or 110 gr FF American Pioneer. For target shooting, such as rendezvous events, I drop to 50gr and it puts me dead on at 25yds, a distance I find fairly common at those novelty shoots. The hunting load lets me point and shoot out to 125 yds which is my absolute outside shot with a good rest. Most shots are taken offhand and something less than 60. I like the .54 so much I'm building a .54 smoothbore with a 48" Burton barrel to go with it. I've already built a 32 bore smooth pistol to tuck in my belt that shoots well with the same components as the 54 rifle.

 

[tg]

"The point-blank aiming concept is a simple definition and doesn't depend on any particular velocity. It is defined as the range at which the ball falls as far below the line of sight as it was above it at its highest, the mid-range trajectory. That means that it works for any velocity, and it doesn't matter whether you are talking about a flat trajectory or a looping one."

The more I think about it and I think for hunting usage the tragejectory must be flat enough so that anywherefrom the muzz to the sighting distance the ball falls in the kill zone of the Deer, when the same poa is used. I cannot recall being able to do this with 30 gr 3f in a .58 rifle sighted at 100 yds?