- Joined
- Jul 8, 2019
- Messages
- 3,264
- Reaction score
- 5,953
I do the same thing 60 grains at 50 yards and 80 grains at 100 yards! Works like a charm!
Velocity affect accuracy ?
- Thread starter kelljp
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
I had physics this morning…
Ninering62
40 Cal
I'd agree with you 100% there. When I'm deer hunting, or, whatever - hunting, I deff like to let my " Magnumitis " out to play. I'll rationalize losing a small amount of accuracy ( example; a sub moa load for a 1 - 1.5 moa load for a much hotter load with alot more velocity. I know, I know, don't ask me why.... I don't have a logical, rational answer. ), but when I'm at the target bench, I don't care what the velocity is, as long as its stacking bullets in a hole, or as close to that as my shooting ability allows at that time.
Playing around the max charge capability in any of my guns has never yielded me the best accuracy the gun is capable of.
But there are always exceptions to the norm right.
Ninering62
40 Cal
NIce shooting. We were just doing some .22 target shooting at my home range last Fri. My brother competes in Germany with his Anschutz .22 at 50m. I've competed at a club level with him & I shoot pretty dang good, like the group you have there, & I got schooled buddy Let me tell ya. I learned as a kid, if you want to build really good shooting fundamentals, air rifle or rimfire are the way to do it.
Ninering62
40 Cal
" the objective is to find the load that produces the flatest trajectory. That should be that specific rifle's most accurate load. Whatever muzzle velocity that results from that load is its most accurate muzzle velocity ".
Yeah, he contradicted himself a lil bit there & neither statement was correct anyway.
not meant at you personally, but when I see or hear flat trajectory I think isn't that an oxymoron?
Trajectory and flat are opposites......
Ninering62
40 Cal
Even if it was meant directly at me personally, I have been putting on my big boy britches every morning for a very long time. So its ok man.not meant at you personally, but when I see or hear flat trajectory I think isn't that an oxymoron?
Trajectory and flat are opposites......
I got a lil chuckle at your comment, at how accurate it was, right down to the " oxymoron". I lol at myself for using that terminology myself knowing that it really is an oxymoron.
As a competition shooter of many years, I just chuckle when I hear it. Glad you weren't offended.
I tend to disagree with this line of reasoning. When I load for my M1 Garand matches, the flattest trajectory is NOT the most accurate. In fact it can be the least accurate.
Using OCW (optimal charge weight) principles as instructed and created by Dan Newberry you will not find that as observable truth.
As long as you have ANY fliers, you do not have OCW. Fliers from an experienced shooter are not “I must have pulled it a little”. It’s a phenomena of physics.
.22 match shooters do not shoot rounds that are above the speed of sound for a reason. They are far more inaccurate at hyper, flatter trajectories. Lead projectiles, especially round balls will hold circular round groups or clusters without ANY fliers once the optimal charge has been found. Any flier is defined as any round not inside the group. Even 1/4-1/2 is a flier.
There is a point of diminishing returns of course. It’s a muzzleloader. True, black powder is inherently more accurate or at least potentially due to the fact that it has less deviation between shot velocities as compared to smokeless powders, but the projectiles are not as efficient.
Ninering62
40 Cal
The statements in parentheses is quoted from a previous post in this thread. I disagree with it completely as well.
Read the last sentence in that quote.
Thank you for your post.
No one would understand this topic more than a competitive shooter.
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2019
- Messages
- 3,264
- Reaction score
- 5,953
I'm older than dirt and have not seen an exception yet? So far no one has been able to deviate from the laws of Physics with any success?
A very unscientific observation on my end, for what it's worth. I have 2 rifles -- both with 1:48 twists and both .50s. They both shoot best right around 1500-1600 fps, regardless of the projectile. I can shoot a 300-grain conical with as much accuracy as a 180 grain round ball as long as they're in that 1500-1600 fps range. So the round balls get less of a powder charge while the conicals get more. I suspect that a faster twist would need to be going slower and a slower twist would need the projectile going a bit faster. But I haven't tested that idea since they're both 1:48s.
Hunting-wise, the slower balls deform less and, therefore, often get more penetration. A buddy & I did a water jug tests several years ago to see what, if any, deformation and fragmentation would be happening with lead. He worked for an agency that encourages hunters to use non-lead. We were both surprised to see that at these lower velocities, there was barely any deformation and zero fragmentation (100% weight retention) in the jug. Those were pure lead, Hornady swaged .490s running at about a 70-grain charge of (*gasp*) Pyrodex and shot from 50 yards. They were darned accurate loads, too. I was consistently hitting a 1" circle -- getting shots right on-target for the test. I'll grant that a faster ball with lead would likely cause more internal damage due to the deformation. But I like 2 holes myself. And since we have to use lead free out here anyway, it's a moot point -- non lead round balls are too hard to deform anyway.
Hunting-wise, the slower balls deform less and, therefore, often get more penetration. A buddy & I did a water jug tests several years ago to see what, if any, deformation and fragmentation would be happening with lead. He worked for an agency that encourages hunters to use non-lead. We were both surprised to see that at these lower velocities, there was barely any deformation and zero fragmentation (100% weight retention) in the jug. Those were pure lead, Hornady swaged .490s running at about a 70-grain charge of (*gasp*) Pyrodex and shot from 50 yards. They were darned accurate loads, too. I was consistently hitting a 1" circle -- getting shots right on-target for the test. I'll grant that a faster ball with lead would likely cause more internal damage due to the deformation. But I like 2 holes myself. And since we have to use lead free out here anyway, it's a moot point -- non lead round balls are too hard to deform anyway.
Last edited:
My mistake. Haha
Ninering62
40 Cal
It’s all good bud
Well, you're getting a little too focussed in on "flat" as an absolute; I think "flatter" would be a better descriptor.not meant at you personally, but when I see or hear flat trajectory I think isn't that an oxymoron?
Trajectory and flat are opposites......
There is no such trajectory as absolutely flat in the presence of gravity.
Muzzle velocity, projectile drag and bore axis elevation all determine trajectory. Movement of the air mass within which the projectile is travelling doesn't affect its trajectory, but does produce a sideways flight path offset (aka "windage"). Given fixed projectile drag and bore elevation and windage, muzzle velocity, which is a variable dependent on variable load, determines trajectory. Therefore "load development" to find the "flattest" trajectory to the desired impact point. Why flatest trajectory? That's the shortest path the projectile takes where it has the minimum time exposure to drag, gravity and windage. I think it's intuitive even without the math that the flatest trajectory would be indicated by the load that produces the smallest group and the most consistent impact point, because all other variables are fixed. Once that load is determined, then the sights can be adjusted to account for elevation and windage offsets of the impact point from the aim point.
Last edited:
I
It was a joke, I pretty much know physics of the concept.
No worries. It's not easy in this media to recognize when somebody's just kidding.
especially not when the forum is running as sluggishly as it as today
You are correct, hard to tell
You are correct, without the inflection of voice and body language written words fall flat.No worries. It's not easy in this media to recognize when somebody's just kidding.
especially not when the forum is running as sluggishly as it as today
I understand what you are saying. A faster velocity is required to have a flatter trajectory.
There is truth in this. But it won’t pan out in accuracy as velocity and accuracy are not related to that extent.
With my match M1’s, after I find the most productive group based on OCW principles, I can then seat my bullet in further incrementally and sometimes out to fill in my group and especially a 1/2” flier that happens to keep showing up. At the higher velocities this becomes problematic at the upper levels of velocity this becomes impossible. Assuming that I’m at the 500 meter line, that problematic 1/2” flier will loose the match for me. That’s with 168 gr. Match bullets.
Enter the muzzleloader. I can’t seat my bullet further in or out to tighten a group. There will be the optimum velocity for any given barrel and charge. It is rarely or at all at the upper limit of velocities for that barrel/charge combination. That’s where harmonics come into play. The wave travels the barrel and influences accuracy. The best accuracy will most likely be found well before max load for that equipment.
We are talking 100 yards for most shooters. Accuracy trumps velocity if you want to kill deer or squirrels or cottontails. If you are looking to send it 200 yards… then me calculate that for a 50 caliber.
100 gr. FF powder will produce 1990 FPS with round ball. Now let’s go with the ballistic table from goex.
With the 200 yard zero and a 188gr ball, at 200 yards you have a 39.7” drop. How accurate can you be at 200 yards traveling the fastest you can? 39.7 inch drop. Really?
50 yard zero is probably the best zero and start with about 70 grains of powder. My .50 long rifle takes 75 grains. My .36 takes 40grains of powder. I’m deadly. I never shoot off a bench or lean my barrel against a tree or rest it on anything. It changes the harmonics.
I find it ruins the accuracy of a fine instrument like a Pennsylvania long rifle. It’s already perfect.
your words are true that the shortest distance is a flatter line. But that is way down on the list for accuracy for me. Does the ball go through a deers shoulder faster if I use more powder?
I don’t know.
I wonder how many texting masters under the age of 30 (?) understand voice inflections?
