Muzzle velocity Hawken vs Longrifle

[EndoftheLine]

From Lyman Black Powder Handbook, Ramage (Ed), 1975

54 cal .535 PRB/ 43” Barrel/100 grains powder/ 1740 FPS
54 cal .535 PRB/ 30” Barrel/ 100 grains powder/ 1639 FPS

AT 40 grains the difference is 56FPS.
AT 160 grain the difference is 86 FPS. There are figures for 10 grain increments between, but you get the idea. There’s probably not much real world difference in those numbers.

 

[Grenadier1758]

Bear in mind that the data and the powder used in 1975 will perform slightly different especially since we now have move energetic powders such as Swiss and substitute black powders that were not tested 50 years ago. I have no idea on how the new GOEX powder will perform compared to the powder used in Lyman's testing. Needless to say, the performance is sufficient for putting meat on the table, knocking over silhouettes or punching holes in paper.

 

[Comfortably_Numb]

Also keep in mind that a true Hawken style has a heavier barrel and can hold a heavier charge.

The 'arkins Bros built squirrel rifles too. It's getting pretty obvious people are posting information with out any grasp of the subject.

 

[tenngun]

When TC was building its ‘Hawken’ it went with a 28” barrel. The real Hawkens were mostly 32” or so.
Compared to modern hunting guns popular in the 1970s 28” was long. 32’ would look to many shooters like a long Tom.
Even the ‘Kentucky rifles’ turned out by Navy Arms and Dixie Gunworks was mostly less than three feet. WTBS reinactors often carried the zouave that was 33”.
This boom time for over the counter ml tended to shorter barrels.
So TC did some work. How long should their gun be and still look like a ml but appeal to the market that thought in terms of 22” or maybe 24”
They chronographed different lengths. What they found was about 10 fps per inch.
Lyman found similar
A longer barrel can get some better performance from heavy chargers. However ball just can’t keep velocity.
A .50 at 2200 fps loses half of its velocity in a hundred yards. Once it goes subsonic it holds a little better but not much.
A .50 at 1100 mv at hundred yards slows to about 800. Big gains at the muzzle just doesn’t pay off down range.
So, in the end the gain you get from long barrels doesn’t pay off down range.
Longer barrels have longer sight radius, it makes it a little easier to aim.
To my eye I just don’t think short is as pretty as long, but in practice a 24” carbine is going to hunt as well as the barrel twice as long.

 

[brushblind]

There may be some useful info in the back of the Dixie catalogs also!

 

[Greg Y]

Your actual bore condition and dimensions will have more effect than the extra inches.

 

[oldwood]

Oblase.......I'm in Central Pa. , with a camp north of Snowshoe.

 

[olskool]

speed is a wonderful thing, i have been a handloader since i was 10 years old in 1967 and shooting BP in the early 70s, i stopped worrying to much about velocity long ago. i concentrate on accuracy,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

[PastorB]

Buy a chronograph. Seriously. There are so many variables, that is no way to ascertain with any consistency. Powder type (grain size, Swiss vs. Goex, real black vs. subs), patch thickness and lube, ball size, cap manufacturer, flinter vs. caplock, temperature, etc. are all variables. Longer barrels generally give a little more velocity, but with lighter powder charges, sometimes the push of the powder runs out and barrel friction actually slows down the projectile. The inverse is also true, heavy powder charges do better in long barrels, giving it more time to burn. Tighter patches give more fps than thinner patches. My .54 long rifle (40" barrel) gets slightly more fps than my .54 Hawken (34" barrel) using identical loads, but they are close enough that there is no real world difference. The Hawken actually gets more fps with my standard 60 grain charge. Published velocity data, especially T/C's, is very, hmmmmm, optimistic. Those numbers are generated by the marketing department, not actually shooting over a chrono. Powder charge increases seldom give a linear increase in velocity. If knowing fps is important, see my first statement, buy a chrono. Or just dump 60 or 70 grains down the barrel of whatever caliber, and know that is plenty for everything but the largest of bores.

 

[longcruise]

Tighter the load the slower it goes.

.
Didn't play out in my chronograph testing.

The tighter the slower? Gut feeling tells me a tighter load would build more pressure, hence, more velocity.

That's what I found. Two 54 caliber rifles both 1:48 twist. One barrel 32", one barrel 28". Both loaded with the same identical load components. Same day, same everything. Conventional wisdom says the longer barrel is faster. NOT SO! The 28" barrel was faster. The only difference in the two was the 28" barrel was significantly tighter.

 

[Boomerang]

The 'arkins Bros built squirrel rifles too. It's getting pretty obvious people are posting information with out any grasp of the subject.

I know that, but we aren't talking about squirrel rifles here.

 

[nit wit]

Accuracy is more important than velocity!
Nit Wit

 

[Grenadier1758]

.
Didn't play out in my chronograph testing.


That's what I found. Two 54 caliber rifles both 1:48 twist. One barrel 32", one barrel 28". Both loaded with the same identical load components. Same day, same everything. Conventional wisdom says the longer barrel is faster. NOT SO! The 28" barrel was faster. The only difference in the two was the 28" barrel was significantly tighter.

There is a difference. The 28" barrel was tighter with the same patching, round ball and powder charge. There is likely a difference in the diameter of the bore. What is the land to land diameter? What is the groove to groove diameter? A slightly smaller diameter will increase the pressure in the smaller diameter bore and the velocity from the same loading will increase over a larger diameter bore.

You are correct in that chronometer testing is the way to have the data that describes the velocity of the ball and charge.

 

[Johnny Too-Tall]

.
Didn't play out in my chronograph testing.


That's what I found. Two 54 caliber rifles both 1:48 twist. One barrel 32", one barrel 28". Both loaded with the same identical load components. Same day, same everything. Conventional wisdom says the longer barrel is faster. NOT SO! The 28" barrel was faster. The only difference in the two was the 28" barrel was significantly tighter.

When I tested is through my chrono with a 440 round ball and .015 lubed patch it was 29 fps faster averaged than a .445 round ball with same patch. The .445 was a super tight load and need a hammer strike on short starter to initially seat the ball. The .440 set up was seated with average palm strike on starter.
This data led me in my experience to believe that the loss in speed was the tightness of the ball and patch in the barrel. There's a fine line between tight and sealing properly to reduce blow by and pressure loss and too tight and reducing speed by constriction in the barrel. But also a .440 rb is lighter than a .445 as well but the speed change shouldn't be what it is between ball weight. Again this is just testing I did using a 45 cal SMR percussion.

 

[Mike in FL]

Tighter the load the slower it goes. Percussions are faster than flintlocks if everything is the exact same. A ton of variable come into play beyond what I mentioned.

I don't think so. The opposite is true.

 

[DementedMindOfJac]

Hey all,

I've been doing some research online but I can't seem to find any meaningful information on the matter.

I have been trying to figure out what kind of muzzle velocity you can expect out of a similar caliber/powder charge Hawken rifle vs a Longrifle. I understand there are many varieties of each and I'm asking kind of a vague question, but a vague answer will satisfy.

Basically wondering what % increase you get from the extra barrel length/time for powder to burn, if any at all? Is a Hawken long enough to burn all the powder?

Thanks!

I chrono my 38" .451 with a 90gr 3F 777 charge under a 330gr minie ball at 1330 fps, give or take 30fps, if I recall correctly. I expect it'd walk a little faster with a percussion ignition. If I find my little book I could DM you, but all the load data is all for conical as the twist in this gun is waaaaay too fast for RB.

 

[Johnny Too-Tall]

I don't think so. The opposite is true.

Not true to which part. If your referring to the tightness of load I got data that shows i am correct. If your referring to flint being slower than percussion I got data to support it too. Of course others could have conflicting data as I have learned nothing in ML is exact science.

 

[beardedhorse]

A little too vague. You could take the same barrel, say 42" in .54 and switch it between a full stock Hawken and long rifle. Same ignition with same touch hole liner or drum and nipple. With same powder charge, patch and round ball weight, get similar velocities. Most folks think of the Sam Hawken half stock Plains Rifle with shorter (36" more or less) barrel in a half stock. I've handled originals in both full stock and half stock with barrels longer than 36" and a variety of rates of twist. Sam and Jake half stocks are mostly all percussion, many with a snail breech - either patent or hooked. Christian Hawken made a lovely fullstock flinter featured in The Gunsmith of Greenville County. There were flintlocks made by gunsmiths with the Hawken name outside of St. Louis (Chadron and Glorieta museum collections).

My hunting and target load in a full stock Hawken style with a 33 1/3" Green Mountain barrel uses 70 grains of FFFg under a .015 patch and .530 round ball. Around 1430 fps using drum and nipple. Lower, 1415 in flint. Recoil not unpleasant. Upping the charge to 100 grains FFFg will get me 1900 fps in the percussion form of the convertible. Comparable to an unmentionablei .44 mag. Rifle weighs slightly less than 12 pounds and burdensome hunting elk on foot. Mountaineers rode horses and carried their rifles on horseback.

There were indeed half stock Hawken's in the mountains in percussion before 1849 not nearly as common as Deringers, Henry's. Much more expensive and not near as many made. Original half stocks with solid breech and heavy barrel could take loads of 200 grains of the powder these used back in then. Many were closer to .53 caliber with seven lands and grooves and a 1 in 48 inch twist. More than one source in that period talks of shooting bison from 150 yards. Hawken rifles will burn all the powder if you don't use a ridiculously high charge. No problem burning all the 120 grains of FFFg in my .54 than the noticeable heavy recoil.

Pros and Cons. I'd rather hunt elk in the Rockies on foot carrying a swamped barrel flint lock long rifle. In really nasty weather I'd prefer a snail breech percussion but in dry weather the properly adjusted flintlock will shoot as fast as the percussion, often times faster. Straight octagon Hawken barrels 1" or bigger across the flats seem muzzle heavy till you get used to them. They hold steady in the wind and have less barrel rise. Recoil is quite tolerable when shooting 100 grain loads of FFg.

 

[longcruise]

There is a difference. The 28" barrel was tighter with the same patching, round ball and powder charge. There is likely a difference in the diameter of the bore. What is the land to land diameter? What is the groove to groove diameter? A slightly smaller diameter will increase the pressure in the smaller diameter bore and the velocity from the same loading will increase over a larger diameter bore.

Pretty much was the point of the post.

 

[Vikingman1981]

I have a Lyman Deerstalker in .54 flint and I picked up a TC Hawken .54 flinter this summer. Shooting at some steel I have the Hawken puts a much more considerable dent in the steel than the Lyman. Both with PRB and 70 grains of FFF. 24" barrel on Lyman and 28" on TC. Thought that was interesting.