Load Database

[Trimp]

I have been pondering this idea for sometime about creating some sort of central location on information for people's loads with various muzzleloaders. While every gun is different and exploration should be used to find that load your gun likes best, I think a compilation of accurate loads could serve as a good starting point for some. I know some less serious shooters will dump a pretty heavy amount of powder down their barrel and take it out hunting.

When I started shooting a lot and developing a load, I did searches on forums and saw guys being successful in terms of accuracy with similar loads. Usually the powder would vary 5-15 grains but the .015 patch was common between posts.

What're your thoughts on compiling a database for accounts of successful loads? I think it could be a fun project and may show some "preferences" on the different variables for production guns over the years.

 

[wiscoaster]

I think it's a great idea.

 

[The Crisco Kid]

It's a good idea that would take a lot of work to compile in a usable format. Another problem would be that one man's definition of a successful load is different than another man's definition. I don't mean to throw cold water on the idea but I do see some difficulties.

 

[Eterry]

Lyman did that with the 36, 40, 44, 45, 50, 54, 58 and 72 PRB, Minie Ball, and Conicals under a very controlled environment, with barrell lengths from 24" to 44". They also tested 31, 36, 44 and 45 CNB revolvers with prb and conicals. They even ran ballistics; ft/lbs & trajectory, out to 300 yards for rifles.

Only thing is it was quite some time back, and they only tested Goex and C&H powder.
But I think it gives a great starting point, I really enjoy my copy and browse it often.

One issue with Crowd Gathered Data is everyone has a different opinion of accuracy.
Our neighbor would buy a new deer rifle, hang a coke can on a limb at 50ish yards, and shoot offhand until he hit the can. He declared it fit to deer hunt out to 400 yards.

 

[Trimp]

It's a good idea that would take a lot of work to compile in a usable format. Another problem would be that one man's definition of a successful load is different than another man's definition. I don't mean to throw cold water on the idea but I do see some difficulties.

Yes that is true and I did think about that. Some people would be happy with hits in a pie plate at 50 yards and others want to their shots to be touching. I think some type of result is warranted for any given load. Sometimes there is a picture of a target along with the load information so that is some type of confirmation on results.

Definitely a good point and something to consider.

 

[ronaldrothb49]

As you point out no two barrels are exactly the same so I think you data base would turn into a book. I shot in competition so my idea of accuracy is different than many today. The rule of thumb back 45 plus years ago when I started was to start with a powder charge equal to the bore of the rifle and a ball slightly smaller with a .010 or ,015 patch. You then worked up or down changing different things one at a time to find the best group that you could repeatedly shoot. It doesn't matter if it is a target rifle or a hunting rifle For me accuracy is a one inch group at 50 yards. How many times do you see posts that someone is using X amount of powder with X patch and ball combo and they can't get it to group, Why could that possibly happen? I see people bragging about shooting an 8" group at 25 yards so now they are ready for hunting season. Too many today want instant gratification. Personally I love the time involved in sighting in a rifle.

 

[bigstick6017555]

There is more of what a gun likes for its accuracy besides loads. It could be it does not like the way it is being held, type of sights. I think there is more accurate firearms than there are shooters that can shoot them accurately.