if I use 3fff how should I reduce

[canuck4570]

if I use 3fff to what percentage should I reduce from my 110 gr. double f maximum... I have a 54 rocky mountain from Pedersoli

 

[paulvallandigham]

How long is the barrel? You can only burn 11.5 grains per cubic Inch behind a round ball, so the load you are using is pushing it a bit, and wasting powder. My calculator shows a maximum burn of 85.6 grains of powder in a 32.5 inch .54 cal. barrel. If you are shooting a conical, you can burn more powder, but much more than 100 grains is probably a waste, too, even shooting a conical.

You are shooting a 230 grain round ball in that caliber, which is slightly more than 1/2 an Ounce! That is a huge slug. Once it gets going, it keeps going! You don't need to send it down range at 1600 or more fps for it to kill out to 100 yards.1200 fps is more than enough.

I doubt that you or most of us can shoot well enough with open sights to hit much of anything at distances further than 100 yards, off-hand, and even hitting targets using a standing rest in the field is largely dependent on light conditions at longer ranges.

A .54 round ball will go through both sides of the chest of any white tail deer you are likely to shoot with no more than 70 grains of FFg powder behind it. The load will shove your shoulder, rather than kick it, as your current load of FFFg probably does. You will not go home at the end of a day's shooting with bruises to your shoulder, you will not have the same flinch you have developed, and you will shoot more more accurately and consistenly with the lighter charge. Some use up to 80 and 90 grains, although you can see that at 90 grains some of that powder is just going to add to the flash in front of the muzzle. Add some 20 more grains, and a part of that charge will land on the ground, unburned, in front of the muzzle. It will, however, contribute to the recoil forces you feel.

So, decide why you are shooting that .54. If its primarily to show other guys on the range how " Macho " you are, then bang away with that 110 grain charge of FFFg. powder. I am sure you will find someone who is impressed. But, if, instead, you want to fire an very accurate rifle, and use it for both target shooting, and hunting, knowing that any deer sized game you shoot will probably drop dead in its tracks, use a lighter load.The American Mountain men killed thousands of deer, buffalo, Elk, Bear, and moose with lighter loads than what I have suggested to you. Why not try it their way?

 

[FishDFly]

Reduce to 93 grains or so.

RDE

 

[Dave K]

My very unscientific method is to back up about 20% on powder and work up from there. If I am happy with my POI at 100yds, with 2F and want to try 3F, I would start 20% below the 2F load and add powder until the same POI is reached. You will probably see a change in grp. size as well. I am more than happy to use 2F. For me,the recoil is softer and my particular guns are more accurate. Each gun is different, see what yours likes.

 

[Glenfilthie]

Paul, at what range are you making that statement? And what is the source of your math?

That would be so great if I could get away with a small powder charge like that at 100 yards. I have never hunted with a front stuffer and would hate to wound an animal.

 

[paulvallandigham]

The formula came from a man who was a life member of the NMLRA and was also the chief of Naval Ordinance in both WWI, and WWWII, who would walk the firing line asking men the caliber of their rifles, and barrel lengths, and then consulting his book to tell them the maximum charge for their barrel, shooting a PRB. I got the information from a long time barrel maker, and national champion pistol shooter, Phil Quaglino, who now lives in Florida.

As to the source of the loads: I don't own a .54, but I have been reading the posts of members here under both rifle accuracy, Percussion, and Hunting , and they confirm my observed findings watching friends use their .54 rifles to kill deer and wild boar. I shoot a .50. IN my Hodgdon Manual No. 23, a 70 grain charge of FFg powder is listed as pushing a 230 grain, 54. cal. PRB at 1401 fps. 80 grains will raise that velocity to 1569 fps, an increase of 168 fps. 90 grains increases the velocity to 1670, an increase of only 101 grains. And 100 grains will push the velocity to 1797 fps, an increase of 127 fps. largely because the excess powder is now adding so much mass to the load, that it is delaying the movement of the ball down the barrel until pressures begin to rise substantially. At 110 grains, the velocity is 1854 fps, an increase of 57 fps, proving that good things don't last, but recoil just keeps on building!

If you read enough of the posts, and really pay attention on the range, you will find that round balls pretty much act the same in going through the air, with the larger diameter balls doing a little better than the smaller ones, but none of them doing so well that you might want to write a letter home about it!

The way to understand why you don't need all that velocity is to do penetration testing with both light and heavy loads. Whatever medium you choose to use for testing, just use a control gun that fires a cartridge or load you know will pass through a whitetail deer. I put a .50 cal. ball through both sides of a large doe at 40 yards with a charge of 70 grains of FFg. That had a MV of 1556, according to the manual, and was probably traveling 100-200 fps less when it struck the doe. The 180 grain ball broke a rib going in, and another going out.

How much more power do you need to kill a deer? Or were you licensed to kill the trees and mountain behind it, too?

 

[buttonbuck]

The forumla tell us the secret formula, I guess I could fumble with it but I would like to see how it is applied or written out. I could definately use less powder. I did really well with 85 grains of 3f behind a 400 grain conical I never saw a deer drop like that a field dressed 160 lb buck . The year before I had the same conical with 100 grains of 2f That doe 140 field dressed ran a good 75 yards with a double lung hit. this is with a .54 tc renegade.

 

[paulvallandigham]

I don't know how you look at things, but putting all that energy into the ground on the other side of a deer's body doesn't help kill the deer any quicker, to my way of thinking. The idea is to dump as many foot pounds of energy inside the body, to send shock to the organs, and central nervous system. Most conicals will not expand in a deer sized target. They may-- I say may-- expand on an elk sized target, particularly if they hit the much thicker and more massive bones in an elk, moose, or caribou. But the bones in deer are just too thin, and fragile to reliably expand a conical. Now, deer's bones will cause a round ball to expand on impact. That is why using round balls makes so much more sense for hunting deer than shooting them with conicals. Conicals just pass on through.

If you insist on shooting conicals in your .54 for deer, remember that the military adopted the .50-70 Black Powder cartridge for their rifles when the conversions of muzzle loading rifles first began in 1865-6. In 1873, after brass casings had replaced copper casings, the army decided to use a flatter shooting cartridge, and adopted the .45-70. Both were loaded with 500-550 grain bullet, and the .45-70 was later loaded with a cast lead 405 grain bullet to be used in front of 55 grains of powder in the carbines. That is a .50 caliber conical, being pushed by 70 grains of black powder.

Now, you are shooting a .54. conical. with 70 grains of powder, you are shooting what is a much more massive round than the .50-70. It was the .50-90 Sharps that Billy Dixon use at Adobe Wells, to hit an Indian on a ridge at about 7/8 of a mile. The Indian was reported to have died a few days later. The .50-90 was called the " Big Fifty " in its day, to distinguish if from the military cartridge. it was with the .50-70 that Buffalo Bill Cody earned his nickname, and killed hundreds of buffalo to feed railroad crews building the Transcontinental Railroad. So, any time anyone suggests that you need more powder behind a .54 cal. conical than the " modest " loads I have mentioned, look at them like they are crazy, and you will be very close to the truth. There were documented cases of 3 indians being killed with one shot from either the .50-70 or .45-70 rifle load, so just how much energy do you think you need to kill a deer? Try hunting deer with a round ball. It actually works better as a deer killer in that caliber of gun, its easier on your shoulder and ears, and its a lot cheaper to shoot RBs than conicals.

 

[FishDFly]

Why is it when Mongrain Michel asks a simple question, he gets a lecture?

Sure makes a person wonder why?

RDE

 

[roundball]

if I use 3fff to what percentage should I reduce from my 110 gr. double f maximum... I have a 54 rocky mountain from Pedersoli

A rule of thumb many people use when substituting 3F in place of a 2F load data, is to reduce it 10-15% to keep the pressures in the same ballpark.
I've personally done that for years and it works perfectly.

DaveK makes a good point of starting even a little lower then working up to the same POI...particularly if you're using a rifle with fixed sights...with my rifles having been made a long time ago in the last century (1970's TC Hawkens) I just select a powder charge and re-adjust the rear sight. :grin:

Specific to your example, I happen to use 90grns Goex 3F in place of a 110grn 2F load data...it's actually a 19% reduction...but I just deal in 10grn increments at those charge levels as I can't come up with a precise measurement of 93grns for example, without resorting to using modern powder scales to weigh my charges, and that's something that personally I just don't do in this grand old sport of muzzleloading.

10-15% reduction keep everybody safe, then tinker from there...

 

[CoyoteJoe]

Paul, I've seen you several times post that notion that only a certain amount of powder will burn in a given barrel. I just don't know where you get that notion. I know you have the Lyman Black Powder Handbook and a brief skim through will show that simply is not true. I have just looked through my book and find that regardless of caliber, barrel length, ball or bullet and regardless even of powder type, in every case the maximum load listed will show an increase in velocity and energy over the next lighter load.
The one absolutely consistent fact to be found in this data is that an increase in powder charge produces an increase in energy. Taking the .54 round ball for one example, from a 32" barrel, 1-60 twist, 110 gr. 2g Goex gave 1660fps and 1408 ft.lb. energy. stepping up to 120 gr. of the same powder shows 1803fps and 1661 ft.lb. That's an 18% increase in energy from a 9% increase in powder and I'd call that pretty durn efficient.
That is just one example but if you'll look through the book you will find in every case the velocity and energy continues to increase with increased powder charge right up to the max listed load. That holds true for barrels as short as 22", for balls and bullets, for 2f and 3f Goex or Elephant black powder and for Pyrodex RS, P and Select.
Now if you feel that the velocity increase is not needed, does not justify the increased recoil, is less accurate in your rifle, etc, well, I may agree with you. I am not a fan of heavy loads myself and seldom shoot over 80 grains. And there is some theoretical point at which an increase in powder will produce less velocity but that occurs only well beyond any sensible load level, say half a barrel full. But it is a fact that within any rational limit, more powder does produce more velocity.

 

[paulvallandigham]

Joe: I only want to say this one more time. I DID NOT INVENT THE FORMULA. A man far more experienced than I every will be with black powder came up with the formula, and shared it with the top shooters, who would listen, back in the 1950s, and 1960s, when He had retired from the Navy. I got the formula from my brother, who got directly from Phil Quaglino, who still holds several National pistol shooting titles, and had several rifle titles for many years, also. Phil was a barrel maker and gunmaker in Vermont, until he retired to Florida, where he lives today. He is still making a few guns, but has been forced to slow down for health reasons.

My personal observation is that the formula works pretty good for FFg powder, in most calibers 50 and under, shooting a round ball. I do think that the formula deserves to be questioned with the heavier round ball loads.

You, on the other hand, have to consider that Half the weight of any powder charge is going to simply contribute to more recoil forces, based on simply laws of physics. That added weigh, or MASS, also causes a delay in the movement of the ball down the barrel. The more mass you add to the load in the form of powder, the slower the barrel time is on the PRB. This causes more recoil, but also causes higher pressures, and the few milliseconds longer in the barrel causes more efficient consumption of the black powder, and hence, higher velocities.

There is a point at which the law of diminishing returns enters the picture, and the formula is an expert's attempt to tell shooters when that begins.

I discovered that fact long before I owned a chronograph, when I was seeing how much powder my new .50 cal. rifle, with its 39 inch barrel would shoot behind a PRB. Using rocks and pieces of house brick to hold it down, we put newspapers on the ground in front of the shooting bench at our range, and I fired increasing charges out of my gun until we began hearing the " patter of rain " on the paper, After each shot, I would fold the paper, and pour the contents out into a shallow can, and put it aside. When I got to 100 grains, I had a substantial quantity of unburned something. Being a cynic, I told my friend that is was just large powder residue. He claimed it was unburned powder. So, we put a match to the small piles in the several cans, and ashtrays we had " borrowed " for the testing, and there was unburned powder in each of the cans. I think I had to buy him coffee over losing that bet.

Many years late, my brother, recently, told me that formula, and we calculated what my rifle should be able to burn 88 grains of FFg powder behind my PRB. That information tends to conform to my visual inspections and testing on the range. If you use FFFg powder instead, you can burn more powder, and get higher velocities. If you shoot conicals, you can shoot more powder and get higher velocities. You also get higher pressure, higher recoil forces, and while your shoulder may be able to stand all that kick, the stock on your gun may not do so after a couple of years of pounding. If the tang and breech are not bedded correctly, using those heavy loads can destroy the wood around the screws in the tang, and then crack the wrist of the stock beginning at the tang.

So, like most things in life, all decisions have consequences, both intended, and unintended. That is where personal judgment enters the picture. I only suggest that shooters do one of two further tests before selecting a heavy powder charge for their shooting and hunting requirements:

1. Either put a chronograph down range and get an actual reading on the DOWNRANGE velocity of that PRB that you send out of the barrel at a couple of hundred feet per second faster than I recommend; I think you will find that all that extra velocity disappears in the first 50 yards, OR

2. Do penetration testing with your heavy load, and your target load to see how the two different loads compare. I think you will be very surprised. ed

 

[Glenfilthie]

Paul's findings coincide with what I read in Sam Fadala's black powder handbook.

There is a point of diminishing returns. If I recall though, he was using a bigger dose of black powder but he was probably shooting bigger critters like elk. I think he was using FFg if I recall too.

One of the black powder geeks at my club recovered the ball after it passed through the deer...and you could see the hair indentations the fur left on the metal.

What should a fella use for penetration testing, fellas? I need something readily available, I don't have access to stuff like ballistic gelatin and such...

 

[roundball]

Paul's findings coincide with what I read in Sam Fadala's black powder handbook.

There is a point of diminishing returns. If I recall though, he was using a bigger dose of black powder but he was probably shooting bigger critters like elk. I think he was using FFg if I recall too.

One of the black powder geeks at my club recovered the ball after it passed through the deer...and you could see the hair indentations the fur left on the metal.

What should a fella use for penetration testing, fellas? I need something readily available, I don't have access to stuff like ballistic gelatin and such...

What will you be hunting?
Do you know the typical most likely shot distance?
What caliber will you be using?

 

[paulvallandigham]

Penetration testing is a test of comparatives. You can use any medium, as long as you have some standard gun you know shoots a bullet that will kill the game you are hunting to shoot to test how much it penetrates. A couple of bundles of newspaper is probably the easiest medium to come by. Put the bundles in a box, just to control them, shot after shot, and fire away. You can look through the layers to find your spent slug, and then measure the distance it traveled. I have seen men build long wooden boxes into which they put newspaper bundles, with a piece of masonite, or similar light weight plywood on the ends to hold the newspapers upright and in place. Some provide spacers, and fill in between with the newspapers. You do have the additional expense of the spacers, and the end pieces, but you also have a sturdy box that will allow you to do penetration tests over and over again, for a lot of guns. I have a friend who shoots everything into sandbags, because he knows from his years of doing penetration testing, and actually killing deer with the same bullets, balls, or slugs, what those projectiles will do in real game based on what they look like after penetrating his sand bags. He has a cardboard box full of spent bullets removed from game he has killed, and its very easy to compare a slug shot into sand to one of those to get an idea how that load will perform on deer.

 

[Glenfilthie]

I will give it a go Paul. I am just shooting deer...max range would probably be 50~75 yards. I don't dare trust my smoke pole past that.

For some reason my accuracy goes to pot after 75 yards.Years ago I experimented with patches and balls and nothing could improve it past 75 yards.

Weird.

 

[CoyoteJoe]

Paul, I don't care beans as to who invented the formula nor what his credentials may be, the fact remains that it does not agree with tested data. When a calculated result does not agree with a measured result I'd trust the measurement. No doubt there is a formula to prove the earth is flat.
If you are speaking of some point of maximum efficiency that is a different mater but the formula does not work for that either. The maximum energy per grain of powder comes with about the lightest load that will expel the ball.
Referring to the Lyman book again they list the .440 round ball with loads of 40-120 grains 2f Goex. I think most would agree that 120 grains is excessive for a .45 caliber rifle, especially with only a 28" barrel, and it is beyond any manufacturer's recommendation. With 40 grains they show an energy of 498 ft.lb. or 12.5 ft.lb. per grain. With 80 grains it is 889 ft.lb. or 11.1 ft.lb. per grain and with 120 grains they got 1189 ft.lb. or 9.9 ft.lb per grain. The efficiency is steadily dropping but velocity is still steadily increasing.
Now we all would likely pick some point to say "enough is enough" and most would draw that line well below 120 grains in a .45 caliber. But you can not say that a .45 caliber will not burn 120 grains, obviously it does. And since 120 grains showed an 8.5% increase in energy over 110 grains it would appear that it could still burn somewhat more. If that 120 grain load is throwing some grains of unburned powder I'd not be surprised, likely even 80 grains throws some unburned and perhaps even 40 grains but that does not mean there is nothing gained by loading still more, the chronograph shows that there is.
Personally I feel that 80 grains behind a .50 or .54 caliber ball is "powerful enough" and all the recoil I care to stand behind, but that is just my preference and I am under no illusion that 160 grains would not be more powerful still.

 

[paulvallandigham]

If velocity at the muzzle was all that mattered, You would be correct, Joe. However, there is this law of physics that says that in air, anything that goes faster, SLOWS FASTER. It is the retained velocity down range that decides if you are wasting powder, and merely damaging the gun and your shoulder. That has nothing to do with any " maximum velocity", but it does have a lot to do with that efficiency you refer to.

When you reach the point where more powder simply means that some doesn't burn at all, and some other amount burns outside the barrel, the powder is only contributing to velocity in the way I described: its mass adds to barrel time, increases pressure, helps burn a little more powder more efficiently in the barrel, and therefore gives a small percentage increase in velocity of a lighter charge of the same powder.

My first ML rifle had a 25 inch barrel, in .45 cal. I dealt with its limitations, without benefit of a chronograph, or the LYman Second Edition book, shooting FFFg powder. The formulae is for extimating the maximum charge of powder that will burn INSIDE the barrel behind a PRB using FFg powder. It is an average, as are all such formulae. It cannot take into account patch and lube factors, the depth and shape of rifling, and the drag coefficient differences created thereby, etc. It is still a useful formula to use, as in most rifles, you get the best long range ( 100 yard) accuracy with iron sights using a load that is about 90-95% of that maximum burn figure.

 

[roundball]

For some reason my accuracy goes to pot after 75 yards.Years ago I experimented with patches and balls and nothing could improve it past 75 yards.
Weird.

Makes me think of symptoms that can come from balls that are slowing down and/or are out of round or something.

What's the powder charge and ball size that you're using?

Also, Oxyoke wonderwads over the powder are pretty well known for their contribution to improving the consistency of gas sealing and therefore group size...you might try a bag of those, or similar kind of OP wad

 

[Glenfilthie]

RB I played with everything a couple years back. I bought the swaged hornady and speer balls of varying diameters. I tried different patch thicknesses. I tried different powder charges and granulations. Try as I might, the best 'minute of White tail' accuracy that I could get put me out around 75 yards.

I have a used 'Spaghetti Plains Rife' made by Interarms in Italy with a 1:48 twist.

The only hunting load that ever worked in it beyond 75 yards was the Buffalo Ball-et. Conicals had to be driven with inhuman speed or they wouldn't stabilize and key-holed on the target. They only started to stabalize at power levels that turned me into a flinching idiot. I note with some dismay that Buffalo Bullets no longer make the Ball-et in .54 calibre.

I am thinking of getting another front stuffer with a dedicated PRB barrel with a 1:66 twist or slower.