Mike Belliveau Load

[BrownBear]

Oh yeah.

I won't shoot 10 gauge loads from a 20 gauge, no matter what someone else chooses to shoot and write about.

Their guns, their business. Doesn't inspire me to do more than turn the page.

 

[bender20]

First I'm going to admit that I'm an outsider and have 0 experience with a smoothbore muzzleloder and not much experience with muzzleloaders in general, but I've been bit by the bug.

Having said that I've been following this forum pretty closely for a couple months now and have noticed a couple constants here.

Everytime someone asked about a load for a smooth bore gun you give advice about where to start but always state that every gun is different. There is even a thread about strange loads that seem to pattern well (thanks skychief it's been fun following your adventure). I'm not really sure why some of you responded to this thread the way you did. Yes, it does seem to be overkill but if that's what works for him then so what? Sure he may be submitting himself to more punishment and cost per shot then he may need to. But, he also may have found that as of now that is the best load for his particular gun.

Not intended to bash anyone just alittle confused and maybe I misunderstood your posts and if that is the case I sincerly apologize. And if I missed something or this post is out of ignorance please educate me I love learning and will certainly apply any advice to my own shooting. I can't wait to get a smoothy and I thank you for all of the help I've recieved and I'm sure I will recieve in the future.

 

[BrownBear]

He asked for opinions and experience, and that's what he was getting. In this case, "20 gauge" covers a whole lot of ground in gun design, barrel wall thickness, weight, users and uses. So there will be lots of reports. Negative responses are only reflecting an individual's experience. Attacking the questioner is where things go over the line.

For an example, I'm both an upland hunter and a duck hunter. I like light guns and light loads for upland, heavier loads and guns for ducks. No way Jose would I use my light guns for heavy loads. My 12 gauge SxS Pietta is very light for a double, and gets downright unpleasant to shoot with shot charges heavier than 1 1/4 oz. Putting 2 oz of shot in a light 20 sounds like prescription for something I really wouldn't like. In my guns 1 5/8 oz of shot is my "heavy" 10 gauge load.

But I'm firing lots of shots in a day and often walking many miles. Answers will be completely different for a guy sitting in a blind for a turkey and firing one shot on a very good day.

 

[bender20]

Roger that brown bear thanks. Makes more sense now.

 

[tenngun]

The o p was asking what we thought of the load. So we told him. It is your own gun and your own money so you can shoot it any way you please, your welcom in my camp any time. I will shar an opinion if asked but no ones required to care about it. Looking at ballistic data When I started ml 40 years ago I thought if you hunted with an ml you had to load the biggest charges your gun could take. Since then I leans you didn't have to load for bear. In my .50 I use loads that when I stated were target and plinking loads. Traditional ml needed to be treated as what they are and learn to work within their limitations.trying to make a ml a ' magnum' only results in something that north fish fowl or good red meat. No one says you can't or even shouldn't do it, only that your down range prefomance won't be improved. Many of us found that out via sore shoulders. And most of us tried it before.

 

[George]

The gun I shot 2 oz. and 80 gr. 3F in is a smooth rifle, 20 gauge, weighs 8 1/4 pounds, has a breech wall thickness of .19" which is beefy, suitable for heavy charges. Like BrownBear, I shoot a 12 ga. Pietta double, and I agree with him, I won't be shooting that load in it, or in my 20 gauge double flintlock, which is even lighter. My gun is beefy enough I'm not concerned about the safety aspects of such a load, and it fits me perfectly, which, with the heavy weight, means I am not punished by shooting that load. I was working up a one-shot load for turkeys, and I know from experience when the gobblers show up, I can shoot a howitzer from the shoulder and pay no attention to it. I wouldn't want to shoot a round of skeet with it, but it creates absolutely no problem for me with the gun I shoot and situation I would be shooting in. If those patterns were decidedly the best, that would be my turkey load.

Some always come down on the killing power, but that's rarely the reason I load heavy. Surely we all know it doesn't take a powerhouse load to kill a turkey if you hit him in the head. There are other aspects to working up a load, though, and dense patterns at longer ranges aren't easy to come by with a cylinder bore, so it's entirely possible we can hit him in the head a bit further out if we load heavier.

Spence

 

[George]

This is another of those arguments which started with our ancestors and has continued at high volume down to the present day, and this thread. :haha:

Cleator, 1789:

"Thus to overload, is the strange fancy of poachers, who imagine they cannot kill unless they put two ounces, or more, of large shot into their pieces. It is true, that they destroy a great quantity of game, but then it is not fairly shot. Such men are in some measure punished by the severe strokes they receive on the shoulders and cheeks, in consequence of the excessive recoil."

Spence

 

[tiswell]

I have a Colerain 20 gauge turkey choke barrel. On their website is a list of suggested loads, the first of which references 100 grains of powder under 2 oz of #6 shot. It might not be the load that you want to use in every 20 gauge barrel, but apparently Colerain thinks it is safe.

The load when put together with the wads suggested is a squirrel killer! It gives up virtually nothing to any modern 12 gauge I have ever used. And it will get your attention when you touch it off!

Tiswell

 

[coloradoclyde]

Poor Mike is sure taking a beating on this topic.....

I'd like to remind folks that Mike is a rare breed....He is willing to share what he does in literary and film fashion, when other just throw stones...
whether we agree with his load or not.....I think he deserves our admiration and respect.

 

[bender20]

Thanks Clyde that is what I was trying to insinuate in my post. Some of the posts seem to have a pretty negative tone to them.

 

[George]

Poor Mike is sure taking a beating on this topic.....

I would say it has mostly been Mike's ideas which caught some flack, and that's fair. There is always an open season on ideas, but not the parent of them.

What is it they say, though, "Everything old is new again." Some of the old boys had reached the same conclusions as Mike did in his video. For instance, he said it had been his experience that the ever popular 'square load' or 'equal volume load' was a fairly open one, good for him out to only 20 yards, and that's why he was fiddling with those heavy ones. Well, in 1717 Markland recommended as the standard load:

"One Third the well-turn’d Shot superior must
Arise, and overcome the nitrous Dust,"

and was emphatic that you should let the partridge get out to about 40 yards before shooting it, or:

"Oh! Sir, you’d Time enough, you shot too soon;
Scarce twenty yards in open Sight!__for Shame!
Y’had shatter’d her to Pieces with right Aim!
Full forty Yards permit the Bird to go,
The spreading Gun will surer Mischief sow;
But when too near the flying Object is,
You certainly will mangle it, or miss;"

It would seem his load of 1/3 more shot than powder was a fairly tight one. But, when you want to open your pattern for shooting the little "flocking Larks", he recommends the 'square load':

"Now let the Sportsman so dispose his Charge
As may dispense the circling Shot at large:
The Shot and Powder well proportioned be,
Neither exceeding in the Quantity:
Destruction thus shall a wide Compass take
And many little bleeding Victims make."

That seems to me to be the same conclusion Mike reached, open patterns with equal volume, tighter, more dense pattern with more lead than shot. A square load with Mike's 100 grains of powder would be 1 5/8 ounce.

If people reach the same solution to a problem at time periods separated by 300 years, it's possible there is some basic truth working in the background. :hmm:

Spence

 

[ohio ramrod]

My thinking is that it would be a good heavy load for a 10 or 8 gauge goose gun -not for a twenty gauge!But then I've only been hunting with muzzle loaders since the early sixties! :idunno: :idunno:

 

[Stobey]

PHi Guys,

I started this discussion and the question I asked was based on my ignorance of the smooth bore world, but I'm learning.

Let me be clear, no one has said anything that has come close to offending me. I'm listening to all opinions.

Thanks

Steve

 

[bigted]

interesting that opinions begin like a thought and end up as a bible thumpin truth ... at times :surrender: :surrender:

I know that for me my double 12 is a kickin gouging thumper when I get exuberant with the loads.

my hat IS off to Mike as he has the gumption to put his ideas into action and then publish them for others like us to like, agree with, or begin to justify the why of our own opinion based upon our experience or thoughts.

KEEP GOIN MIKE !!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

[George]

Reading the old shooting literature is sometimes not all that different from reading TMF or any other discussion group. Just like here, today, any opinion expressed is likely greeted with doubters with opposing opinions. Everybody has their own system, and naturally believes it is the correct one. Markland's 1717 recommendation of more shot than powder is expressed today by some version of that old rhyme, Less Powder, More Lead, Shoots Far, Kills Dead. Fifty years later Cleator disagreed, and said:

"Although proverbs are generally true, or at least possess some portion of truth; yet nothing is so glaringly absurd, or less founded in rational principles, than that old adage, “sparing of powder, and liberal of shot:” a saying, which is not only in the acquaintance, but in the constant practice of most sportsmen."

Don't know if his opinion of the principle behind the saying is correct, but he sure nailed us... we all know about it, and most of us believe in it.

Another example of how many of the things about shooting which are being cussed and discussed today had their beginnings hundreds of years ago, and have changed very little over the time. Who knew the idea expressed by the rhyme was 300 years old?

Spence

 

[coloradoclyde]

I've been shooting both modern and muzzleloading shotguns since I was a boy, and have come to the realization that .....All three theories are true.
I also have shot clays since I was a boy. when I started I shot 1 3/8 ounce loads.. then as got better I progressed to 1 1/8 and then 1 ounce and then 3/4 once. and my scores improved.....
It wasn't until I went to 1/2 ounce loads that my scores really began to suffer.

The person, gun, application, and components are all factors.

 

[Britsmoothy]

Reading the old shooting literature is sometimes not all that different from reading TMF or any other discussion group. Just like here, today, any opinion expressed is likely greeted with doubters with opposing opinions. Everybody has their own system, and naturally believes it is the correct one. Markland's 1717 recommendation of more shot than powder is expressed today by some version of that old rhyme, Less Powder, More Lead, Shoots Far, Kills Dead. Fifty years later Cleator disagreed, and said:

"Although proverbs are generally true, or at least possess some portion of truth; yet nothing is so glaringly absurd, or less founded in rational principles, than that old adage, “sparing of powder, and liberal of shot:” a saying, which is not only in the acquaintance, but in the constant practice of most sportsmen."

Don't know if his opinion of the principle behind the saying is correct, but he sure nailed us... we all know about it, and most of us believe in it.

Another example of how many of the things about shooting which are being cussed and discussed today had their beginnings hundreds of years ago, and have changed very little over the time. Who knew the idea expressed by the rhyme was 300 years old?

Spence

Well said.
The old principal of use more lead than powder has become keep trimming back on the powder but just use this amount of lead!

Also I have a notion that us whom have had association with heavily loaded cartridges know they come associated with the word magnum.
The word magnum then is associated with high pressure.
High pressure is then becoming excessive breach pressure.
Excessive breach pressure then becomes dangerous.
Dangerous then becomes irresponsible and irresponsible ones should be flamed, flogged or drowned!

Fortunately, black powder does not behave like smokeless so none of the above thought process applies.

Most retard through fear.

Dear Spence, is there any accounts of gonnes bursting from heavy charges please?

B.

 

[George]

Dear Spence, is there any accounts of gonnes bursting from heavy charges please?

I have collected a large number of reports of guns bursting, Most of them assign no reason, just report it. Of those which do give a reason, overcharge is certainly one given, usually without description, so we can't tell if that was actually the case. Well, sometimes, as when one young man loaded with a quarter-pound of powder trying to make a loud noise. Cleator discusses causes of bursting, and includes overcharge. His list is about what you would expect...short starting a ball, muzzle plugged with mud, gun fired with muzzle under water, poor quality barrel as welding flaws, flaws in poor iron, filed too thin, uneven thickness of barrel wall, etc. He describes one test done with a very thin barrel of high quality iron using very high charges which caused no damage, and concluded the quality of the metal was critical.

In the modern world, Sam Fadala tried repeatedly to blow up barrels with overcharges, loaded some ridiculous charges and totally failed to blow up any barrel unless short started...500 gr. 3F and 3 conicals of 600 grains each, for instance, or 300 grains 4F under 3 .50 caliber Maxis. I've never understood why, but his reports aren't given much credence.

Spence

 

[Britsmoothy]

Thanks Spence.

I remember Sam Fadalas experiments.
I guess it is reasonable to conclude that what most fear is excessive in a new build of good breach is not really dangerous at all! Within reason of course.

B :thumbsup:

 

[George]

I don't suppose there will ever be an answer to the question of what constitutes a safe load vs an overcharge, Brits. For myself, I decided long ago that there's no danger from a sound gun properly loaded with any charge I'd want to fire from the shoulder. That's my personal belief, everyone else is welcome to theirs.

Spence