low POI

[Matt85]

Whoa, didn't realize this thread would turn out like this!

Some good advice in here though! I played around with the load and 100gr seems to give the highest POI with Goex Fg. This puts it about 8" low at 40 yards which is fine by me. These are musket cartridge loads and don't need to be precise, just good enough to hit a torso sized target out to maybe 50 or so yards (I'm not taking it into combat). I really like the idea of the make-shift rear sight and will likely give this a try!

For those talking about raising or lowering my face, it's a little difficult with this musket. The 1777 French musket has a very specific style of stock that is cut out for your cheek to go in a certain place. Small adjustments can be made but it really won't feel good if you try to raise or lower your head much.

To those who think I'm using too large of a powder charge... you need to do a bit of studying into the history of military muskets (it's fun, I recommend it!). This is not a 45 caliber rifle firing a patched .44" 127gr ball... it's a 69 caliber smooth bore firing a .65" 400gr unpatched ball that requires a sizable powder charge to get it moving. A 120gr cartridge is below average for this gun, charges of 130-150gr cartridges were more common. I tested my 120gr cartridges (roughly 110gr in the barrel) using a chronograph and the velocities averaged around 1100fps which is lower than velocities given for original cartridges.

 

[Grenadier1758]

The quality of powder has changed considerably in the 250 years since these muskets were used in combat and the 130 to 150 powder charges loaded in the cartridges was common using military grade musket powder. Our powders today, even the 1Fg coarse powders, are closer to the sporting grade of the more energetic powders of 250 years ago. Also, about 10 grains of powder in the paper wrapped cartridges was used in the priming pan. I see you note that a charge of 10 grains is used in the pan. @Matt85 has also tested his load on a chronograph to compare to original calculated velocities. His load with 1Fg is probably within the pressure maximum for his musket. A lighter charge of powder would be recommended when using a finer grade of powder or a more energetic powder such as Swiss or Old Eynsford.

Due to the stock configuration of his 1777 French musket, barrel bending is a good solution if cheek weld and changes to the stock mounting are out of the question.

 

[Britsmoothy]

The quality of powder has changed considerably in the 250 years since these muskets were used in combat and the 130 to 150 powder charges loaded in the cartridges was common using military grade musket powder. Our powders today, even the 1Fg coarse powders, are closer to the sporting grade of the more energetic powders of 250 years ago. Also, about 10 grains of powder in the paper wrapped cartridges was used in the priming pan. I see you note that a charge of 10 grains is used in the pan. @Matt85 has also tested his load on a chronograph to compare to original calculated velocities. His load with 1Fg is probably within the pressure maximum for his musket. A lighter charge of powder would be recommended when using a finer grade of powder or a more energetic powder such as Swiss or Old Eynsford.

Due to the stock configuration of his 1777 French musket, barrel bending is a good solution if cheek weld and changes to the stock mounting are out of the question.

See now I don't buy into this poor powder of old thing.
It may of been not so energetic as you put it but how does it make modern powder dangerous?
First off I respect you very very much but what is the pressure maximum? Has one of these muskets ever blown up from to much powder?
How I understand things, muzzloaders don't blow up from heavy charges or heavy loads but from cavitations, correct?

 

[Grenadier1758]

@Britsmoothy, it doesn't really mean that the 120 to 150 grain charges are dangerous. They may not be necessary for the desired performance of the load.

I have not heard of muskets blowing up unless there is an obstruction in the bore and an airspace between the powder charge and the obstacle.

Basically, I agree with you. I am not recommending a lesser charge with finer powder to prevent a blow up of the barrel. I am recommending a lesser powder charge to maintain the desired performance equivalent to the historic paper cartridge load.