nchawkeye
58 Cal.
larry wv said:
And that flatter ball is less likely to exit, due to the increased resistance once it flattens...
I've heard this discussion since the '70s...Never has been resolved...
Lighter hunting charges?
- Thread starter Danny Ross
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
And that flatter ball is less likely to exit, due to the increased resistance once it flattens...
I've heard this discussion since the '70s...Never has been resolved...
nchawkeye said:larry wv said:
And that flatter ball is less likely to exit, due to the increased resistance once it flattens...
I've heard this discussion since the '70s...Never has been resolved...
LOL...I've resolved it for myself...I don't need 2 holes for a big blood trail when the deer is down in plain sight of me
:wink:
armymedic.2
45 Cal.
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 586
- Reaction score
- 1
wow rb, that is a ton of powder. i was shooting 95 grains last year. had a bunch of deer go right down. had some run off
turned it down to 70 grains this year bc sighting in my shoulder was getting sore in a tshirt this summer. had two go right down, one was a high shoulder shot. had two run off. one went the prescribed 40 yards. other went aways but that was my fault, and i did finally seal the deal.
to prove your point, or anothers though, the one that went aways the ball was stopped by the shoulder bone where it meets the arm. and i mean stopped, no further damage. though the ball was quite deformed. it was slightly low but well within the kill zone normally. it was MUCH further than it looked when i took the shot. a little better than 100 yards. hence why it was my fault. it looked to be 75 or so, but when i paced it off i got real worried real fast.
all i will say is that the 62 performed just as well this year as last, with the exception of that deer i shot at that was too far away to begin with. had i a 50% heavier load like yours, it may have ended right there. then again, it had plenty of zip to punch through every other deer i shot at this year so who knows.
turned it down to 70 grains this year bc sighting in my shoulder was getting sore in a tshirt this summer. had two go right down, one was a high shoulder shot. had two run off. one went the prescribed 40 yards. other went aways but that was my fault, and i did finally seal the deal.
to prove your point, or anothers though, the one that went aways the ball was stopped by the shoulder bone where it meets the arm. and i mean stopped, no further damage. though the ball was quite deformed. it was slightly low but well within the kill zone normally. it was MUCH further than it looked when i took the shot. a little better than 100 yards. hence why it was my fault. it looked to be 75 or so, but when i paced it off i got real worried real fast.
all i will say is that the 62 performed just as well this year as last, with the exception of that deer i shot at that was too far away to begin with. had i a 50% heavier load like yours, it may have ended right there. then again, it had plenty of zip to punch through every other deer i shot at this year so who knows.
LOL, which are you calling "a ton of powder"?
90grns 3F in medium calibers? 110grns 2F in the big bore calibers?
Both charges are below published recommended max charges.
And to be clear, I did not tell...nor do I ever tell...anybody else what to use...I only talk about what I use.
For example, during PRB load development for my .62cal, when I reached the test increment of 110grns Goex 2F, the sound changed to a crack and group size shrunk in half...120grns didn't improve it further, so I dropped back to 110.
First deer with that load in that new .62cal was a beautiful 10 pointer...dropped in his tracks.
90grns 3F in medium calibers? 110grns 2F in the big bore calibers?
Both charges are below published recommended max charges.
And to be clear, I did not tell...nor do I ever tell...anybody else what to use...I only talk about what I use.
For example, during PRB load development for my .62cal, when I reached the test increment of 110grns Goex 2F, the sound changed to a crack and group size shrunk in half...120grns didn't improve it further, so I dropped back to 110.
First deer with that load in that new .62cal was a beautiful 10 pointer...dropped in his tracks.
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2010
- Messages
- 5,396
- Reaction score
- 5,162
To answer the original question my best friend has a 54 hawken and when doing load development he started with 50grs FFFg and found it made one ragged hole at 50 yards. He hunts from a stand where 60 yards is the longest shot, so he uses that load. Two deer shot, 2 pass through's, 2 dead deer.
I last hunted with my 58 musketoon I used 60 grs of FFFg and a PBR and also minie's. No problems with pass though shots either, but was using same short range stand. If I was hunting more open country I would up the charge.
My .02
Eterry
I last hunted with my 58 musketoon I used 60 grs of FFFg and a PBR and also minie's. No problems with pass though shots either, but was using same short range stand. If I was hunting more open country I would up the charge.
My .02
Eterry
armymedic.2
45 Cal.
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 586
- Reaction score
- 1
I wasnt implying u were telling me what to do. Except when you did, bc i asked u how to get my barrel finish like urs
And 110 2f is what i was referring to. I wasnt saying it isnt safe. I was just saying ...... Dang..........
I used to run 110 2f in a 54. I " dont do dat no mo'"
And 110 2f is what i was referring to. I wasnt saying it isnt safe. I was just saying ...... Dang..........
I used to run 110 2f in a 54. I " dont do dat no mo'"
Walks with fire
54 Cal.
I like 80-90 3f in both .50 or .54 calibers for whitetails. I have always felt that I might as well stoke er up if it's accurate. Most often it's one and done.
And that is like 90-100grns in 2F granulation.Walks with fire said:
Published recommended range in .54cal load data charts is 60-120 2F...I use 60grns plinking tin cans / steel at the range.
A load data chart shows a .58cal entry level charge is 80grns...and for a .62cal it would be higher yet, I assume 90grns...all based on pressures in ever increasingly larger bore volume space...there's also pressure loss out of the vent.
To each their own of course...
Yes but I thought that you experimented with the shoulder shot, and found that it disrupted the spine, and with a .40 that went deep enough, or with larger calibers, either way with that shot = DRT? :grin:
I don't go for two holes = bigger blood trail. I go for two destroyed lungs, and the deer fall over in a very short distance... as you mentioned, no need to worry about a blood trail. :wink:
But..., after reading about your results, I am thinking of using your point-of-aim on the deer in the future. It makes sense in your explanation of why it works, AND your empirical testing results look pretty good too. :bow:
While impact energy causes round ball deformation, it alone is not the single factor in determining bullet performance. Higher impact energy will result in greater round ball deformation, but when all other factors remain equal, the deformation of the larger load might not equal a large enough increase to give you significantly greater deformation, or results.
For example my load of a .530 round ball with 70 grains of powder is only 66 ft lbs. weaker at 100 yards than the same bullet launched with 90 grains of powder. That equals a 16% difference in energy with the higher load.
So if the deformation was of the same proportion, then a .530 round ball that deformed to .570 with my pet load would deform a mere 9 hundredths of an inch to .66, with the larger load, while not increasing its mass.
All other factors being equal, I doubt the difference in effect on the deer (if any) would be noticed by the hunter.
LD
:grin: pure theory and guesswork. By that theoretical speculation, the same would be true in reverse...using a smaller ball with less energy wouldn't be noticed by the hunter.Loyalist Dave said:
DRT or a few body lengths is a very noticeable difference compared to a 40-50yd tracking job.
:wink:
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2004
- Messages
- 14,767
- Reaction score
- 320
Yeah, it reads like keyboard ballistics- just theory and speculation without the field testing. The ultimate test for me involves game blood and tracks.
I shoot 80grs of Pyrodex in my 50 & 54cal rifles none have bounced off all have went through the deer.
Some have been DRT some I have had to track it depends on RB placement.
I use 100 grs of 3F GOEX in my 50 TC it seems to be the most accurate punching paper at 25 & 100 yards no deer yet with the flintlock.
My father got a nice fat doe at 118yrds with 80grs of Pyrodex aimed at the top of the back went right under the spine dropped like she was hit with a sledge hammer.
Good luck and happy hunting
Some have been DRT some I have had to track it depends on RB placement.
I use 100 grs of 3F GOEX in my 50 TC it seems to be the most accurate punching paper at 25 & 100 yards no deer yet with the flintlock.
My father got a nice fat doe at 118yrds with 80grs of Pyrodex aimed at the top of the back went right under the spine dropped like she was hit with a sledge hammer.
Good luck and happy hunting
Agree, energy is the result. I use about the same in my .45cal...90grs Goex 3F....42" barreled Flintlock and it shoots like a laserlarry wv said:Velocity deforms the ball. Not energy. A whole lot of what if's and nitpicking going on in this thread.
hanshi
Cannon
For many years I shot 80 grains of 3F in my .45 flintlock (only 65 grns in the underhammer), 110 grains of 3F in my .54 and 100 grains of 3F in my 4 .50s. Most times they were through and through but some were not. The loads were very accurate and very powerful. Although I never concerned myself about the number of holes in the deer, I did notice there was always at least one and often two. Noticed, too, a fair number of DRTs, especially with the .45.
Well I've killed more then one with lighter loasds. But you do have to be comfortable with your gun. Shoot what you feel you need. Your the one pulling the triggerroundball said:
INCORRECT!
It's not theory or guesswork at all. My point is that when using a tested and successful load, the principle that although it is a tested and successful load, one should increase the powder simply to add energy until accuracy is effected, is not necessary. No one mentiond using a smaller ball. OBVIOUSLY reducing powder from the tested and successful load would create a new set of parameters.
LD
If velocity alone deformed a projectile, then it would deform in flight. Measure the velocity or measure the energy at impact, the difference between loads can be measured and compared. Who's nit picking again? The point is that the so called rule-of-thumb that one should use the maximum powder load that still gives acceptable accuracy is not neccessarily true.
LD
Similar threads
