Powder charge. How much powder do you use.

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
100gr of 2f Olde Eynsford gives me 1820 ft a second from my 44" Kolonial. Almost exactly what the ballistic program shows with 3f Swiss.
Screenshot_20230704-142728_Samsung Internet.jpg

Davenport erroneously suggests 134gr is my max powder burn before "unburnt" powder is ejected from the muzzle.

Just for fun I entered 500gr into the calculator.. ALL powder burns by the 35.4" mark, and peak pressure being achieved within 1.1 inches!
Screenshot_20230704-142520_Samsung Internet.jpg
 
Last edited:
I find the most interesting aspect of this calculator is the barrel length at which all powder is burnt.
Fun to play with for sure and some surprising info.
Swiss is the only powder in the formula, witch is good stuff, so keep in mind scheutzen and goex may produce lower numbers.
 
Here is one method. It is based on the volume of each barrel:

cubic in of the barrel for powder
.50 cal Divided by 2 = .25
.25(squarded) X .25 = .0625
.0625 X 3.1416 (Pi) = .19635
.19635 X 11.5 = 2.258 grain per cu in of bore
so it works out for a 32 inch barrel to 72.25 grains
 
My background is in match shooting. Any rfle I sight in will have a one hole group at 50 yards. I will use that same charge or possibly 5 or 10 grains more for 100 yard if it doesn't blow the group for hunting. It is my belief that the deadliest load is the most accurate. It doesn't matter how many foot pounds of energy your load has if you can't put the ball in the kill zone.
 
Here is one method. It is based on the volume of each barrel:

cubic in of the barrel for powder
.50 cal Divided by 2 = .25
.25(squarded) X .25 = .0625
.0625 X 3.1416 (Pi) = .19635
.19635 X 11.5 = 2.258 grain per cu in of bore
so it works out for a 32 inch barrel to 72.25 grains

Stolen. Thanks. :)
 
My background is in match shooting. Any rfle I sight in will have a one hole group at 50 yards. I will use that same charge or possibly 5 or 10 grains more for 100 yard if it doesn't blow the group for hunting. It is my belief that the deadliest load is the most accurate. It doesn't matter how many foot pounds of energy your load has if you can't put the ball in the kill zone.

Do you do any longer range target shooting with an elongated bullet? .451cal or similar?
 
Here is one method. It is based on the volume of each barrel:

cubic in of the barrel for powder
.50 cal Divided by 2 = .25
.25(squarded) X .25 = .0625
.0625 X 3.1416 (Pi) = .19635
.19635 X 11.5 = 2.258 grain per cu in of bore
so it works out for a 32 inch barrel to 72.25 grains
What does the 11.5 represent in the equation?
 
I use and like what others consider "stout" loads. Works for me, and more importantly my guns like it.

My guns like it too.

Last Sunday i fired my .58 caliber TC New Englander. Several years ago the barrel was re-bored and rifled by Mr. Hoyt with a 1-66" twist rate with rounded grooves. i had never seriously worked up a load using patched round ball.

First tried 80 grains of Shooters World 3F: Accuracy was poor: Ditto for 90 gains. Accuracy began to improve at 100 grains. The rifle was sighted 2" high at 50 yards using 120 grains of powder.
 
Do you do any longer range target shooting with an elongated bullet? .451cal or similar?
I built a rifle last year to do exactly that. A .45 caliber with a 1 in 22 fast twist barrel but haven't been able to get to the range to shoot it. Intend to take it out to 300 yards. Have 3 molds to try with it. A 250 grain real, a 300 grain improved minie and a 350 minie, Been looking for a 400 bullet mold but haven't found one yet. Tied up right now building a rifle I promised for September. I hate having a deadline I should have learned by now not to do that.
 

Attachments

  • 20221205_145202.jpg
    20221205_145202.jpg
    1.5 MB
Hi tenngun. I don't have a 45 cal ML, only 50's. And I do have 2 45/70's and do quite a bit of loading for both of them. But I did notice that when pushing projectiles of the same weight, even in a 50 ML to 45/70 comparison [I know, that's a sin.], the data and my own experience says that velocities are quite comparable. A 50 roundball weighs close to 180 grains so, I am guessing that a 45 rb weighs about 150/160. Of course, that in no way compares to the standard 405, 45/70 grain payload but if you loaded a 45/70 w a 150/160 grain pill [admittedly very impractical], I would think the velocity would comp w a 45 ML prb if both used the same volume of powder. The data I have seen for a 50 hdy Great Plains, 385 bullet shows velocities quite similar to the ones I get w my 45/70's using projectiles of similar weight and 70 grains.

So, even though heretical for many, the comparisons can be useful when they are made apples to apples. [loads and bullet weights] It should be kept in mind that the 1st brass cartridge development was done by people who, previously, only had ML experience and they were making comparisons and predictions based on the physics of black powder and lead. While details in difference of design cause variations that have to be taken into account, there is no magic wall separating the principles involved in this. If the OP erred, it was in not specifying equal bullet weights per charge. Open to criticism here. Maybe I am missing something.

As to the OP's question on charges, even the 45/70 405 was found wanting by many and shortly, along came every imaginable variable of charge and bullet weight in .45 up to [and probably past] 120 grains of black. Of course, the larger variants had diminishing returns and, overall and in time, the 45/70 won out while some variants [90, 110, 120] still hang on to this day. I think, even in the huge variants, it was quite likely that, in the 1800's more 45/70 cases were fired in them than the cartridge the rifles were chambered for. [availability] And I think his basic thrust about huge charges of black powder for ML's [and even substitutes] is mostly warranted. It seems that somewhere around 70 grains or so there is a sweet spot for accuracy in these rifles. While a bit more power never hurts, accuracy kills. But some do find the accurate medicine they want with bigger charges and they should not have to justify that preference. SW
To sum up what you have written, if it works for you then use it. I had a customer tell me his scope is mounted slightly canted to the right because of the way he holds his rifle. Due to an injury to his hand he can't hold his rifle in a traditional way. Some people might call him a fool for doing this. However, it works for him.
 
Interesting thing is I use a spent 4570 casing for a powder measure because filled to the top it is exactly 70grs. With a bullet it must be something like 60grs of powder.
The powder is usually compressed. They actually did use 70 grains in the old days. Some people utilize a drop tube, which helps compress the powder in the casing.
 
This also demonstrates that the Davenport formula is useless and false. More powder equals more velocity until grossly overloaded.

There's no such thing as wasting powder, unless you spill some or miss.

That being said, the fun level goes way down in a hurry, it's even less fun if your stock breaks.
I shoot a lot of target matches with just 45 grains of cheap 5fa and a 58 caliber Kolonial rifle. For hunting elk, 100 or 120 grains of 2ff Olde Eynsford will really flatten the trajectory and gives me a velocity of 1850 fps w a 280gr ball.
I disagree. People do waste powder by using more than needed to do a specific job. When powder is cheap and plentiful that may not be an issue. When it is expensive and/or scarce we need to be thriftier with it.
 
I never understood the need for more and more powder. All my research when i did re enacting for Civil War, had approx 50-60grs as the std load for .58 caliber muskets like Zouaves, Springfields etc. A lot of men died from that load. Seems there was/is no need to use more. Maybe if I was going after large,dangerous Bear etc, I agree with several others who have posted that, shot placement is key. Also, I would rarely shoot at anything over 100yds, probably never,because the sights on ML are usually pretty poor to say the least. IMHO
 

Latest posts

Back
Top