AmericanLongRifles Forums

General discussion => Black Powder Shooting => Topic started by: bob in the woods on August 12, 2019, 12:15:29 AM

Title: hunting, effectiveness vs velocity
Post by: bob in the woods on August 12, 2019, 12:15:29 AM
I have been thinking  ,  [ dangerous, but it does sometimes happen ! ]    Almost all the deer I've shot with my flintlocks , have been at distances of less than 50 yards, with most being at 25 or less .  I've been in the habit of using rather heavy loads for hunting. As an example, my 10 bore with 140 gr of FFg will pass right through a black bear.  120 or even 100 will go through a deer. In all my years, I've only ever found 2 balls in game . One , a .54 in a deer after going lengthwise through the animal, and the other a .735 ball on the off side of a black bear just under the hide.  I'm wondering if a lower velocity would be even more effective , especially for deer.  I like the flatter trajectory the higher velocity gives, especially for moose hunting, but that's not an issue at 25 yards.   Perhaps 80 gr FFg for the .54 and 100 for the smoothbore would transfer more energy to the deer ?    Thoughts, opinions and experience appreciated.
Title: Re: hunting, effectiveness vs velocity
Post by: Fyrstyk on August 12, 2019, 01:10:38 AM
I have used 85 grains of 2f in my .54's for years for deer hunting.  I still haven't recovered a ball, but I only take shots inside of 60 yards, and only at the chest cavity. 
Title: Re: hunting, effectiveness vs velocity
Post by: Jerry on August 12, 2019, 02:12:37 AM
I understand the thinking behind heavier charges flatter trajectories, but if you are shooting deer at 60 yards or less why be concerned about shooting through an animal. I shoot 20 ga smoothbore and never shoot above 62 grs 2fg for shot or round ball. I ‘m not criticizing your choice of loads for game at close distances, I was only wondering, why? Thanks, Jerry
Title: Re: hunting, effectiveness vs velocity
Post by: Anonymous on August 12, 2019, 03:43:18 AM
I have been thinking  ,  [ dangerous, but it does sometimes happen ! ]    Almost all the deer I've shot with my flintlocks , have been at distances of less than 50 yards, with most being at 25 or less .  I've been in the habit of using rather heavy loads for hunting. As an example, my 10 bore with 140 gr of FFg will pass right through a black bear.  120 or even 100 will go through a deer. In all my years, I've only ever found 2 balls in game . One , a .54 in a deer after going lengthwise through the animal, and the other a .735 ball on the off side of a black bear just under the hide.  I'm wondering if a lower velocity would be even more effective , especially for deer.  I like the flatter trajectory the higher velocity gives, especially for moose hunting, but that's not an issue at 25 yards.   Perhaps 80 gr FFg for the .54 and 100 for the smoothbore would transfer more energy to the deer ?    Thoughts, opinions and experience appreciated.
Don’t know why you would change something that’s working for you.  Faster moving ball will expand more. Damage is more important than mythical ‘energy transfer’ with ball just under the hide on the far side.

Hope for the best circumstances, but plan and be prepared for the worst. A pass though resulting in two holes from any angle has got you covered. In my opinion. 
Title: Re: hunting, effectiveness vs velocity
Post by: Darkhorse on August 12, 2019, 08:48:13 AM
I've been hunting with a .530 PRB since 1976. I've shot deer with 120 grs. of 2fg down to 65 grs. of 3fg. Never recovered a ball, all were pass throughs. The trend I noticed was they all took about the same time to die making me think expansion was minimal.
I mainly hunt with 85 grains of 3fg now because there are some very big hogs where I hunt, and I always want a pass through if possible. More blood is vented from 2 holes than from 1.
If recoil is a factor contributing to poor accuracy I would not hesitate to recommend a 60 gr. charge of 3fg.
Title: Re: hunting, effectiveness vs velocity
Post by: OldMtnMan on August 12, 2019, 04:08:56 PM
I used 80gr of Swiss 2F for elk and it would pass through at 50 yds. It shot flat close enough at 50yds to not notice a drop. Aim center kill zone for a double lung shot and get out the skinning knife.
Title: Re: hunting, effectiveness vs velocity
Post by: Daryl on August 12, 2019, 07:28:44 PM
I used 165gr. 2F GOEX in my .69 with a .682" ball of 482gr. weight for the first shot. The velocity was 1,550fps
and worked very well on moose. Would pen to the offside and smash a leg on either side then
end up under the hide.
The second shot, if needed (only once) was/is a 466gr. WW ball from the same mould
but held in a paper ctg., same powder charge. These shot right to the sights and into the same group size
at 100meters.
If I were hunting only deer, I know and have my zeros using 82gr. (3drams) of 2F GOEX and the .682"pure
lead ball. A .675" ball of pure or alloyed lead is easier loading with the 14 oz. denim the rifle likes. This is almost
as accurate as the larger ball and same patch & would certainly do for hunting.
My .50 also uses 82gr. 2F GOEX, but I would likely not take that rifle on a hunt.  I had Taylor make the .69 (14bore)
for my hunting. It is the best design I have seen for this purpose. My buddy has killed close to 40 moose (just a guess)
with his .75 that Taylor built him. Keith uses 140gr., seems to me, with a WW ball.
Title: Re: hunting, effectiveness vs velocity
Post by: Majorjoel on August 12, 2019, 08:45:03 PM
I have been playing around with the idea of shooting my next deer with a new 60 caliber flinter I built last year.   My thinking is related to having to track wounded animals off my property, which I have had to do a few times.  I've had my best success using my 45 caliber flintlock Bucks County rifle in the past but the property lines are close to my hunting spot where there is a well worn deer trail.

I load the 45 with 80 grains 3F Goex with all the shooting within about a max range of about 40 yards.  I have never had a ball pass through a Michigan white tail, always find the ball on the backside of the hide.  Last season, the ball hit a shoulder bone and was found in several pieces inside the chest cavity. 

My problem has been while doing target work with my 60, I have zeroed it in at my backyard range shooting a target load of 60 grains 2F Goex at 33 yards and a patched .595 ball.  Have had two ricochets' off the target back board (3\4" plywood).  One ricochet hit my garage about 40 yards from the target. I found the flattened ball on the deck of the garage.  The 2nd ricochet hit a tree in the same direction to the garage but the ball was lost.

After these incidents I quickly removed the target backboard and now just shoot through cardboard!

I could not believe the 60 grain loads would not penetrate the plywood into the berm behind it at only 33 yards!!!   Big bore rifles are certainly a whole new ball game for me!  I will try again using heavier loads of perhaps at least 90 grains and see if I can keep the same accuracy going.   
Title: Re: hunting, effectiveness vs velocity
Post by: Darkhorse on August 12, 2019, 09:19:53 PM
In the book "The Gunsmith of Grenville County", Peter Alexander tells of a friend with a .45 caliber rifle who was shooting .45 roundballs completely through 1/2 Tempered steel ploughshares. I assume by "Tempered" he means some heat was applied in order to toughen up the ploughshares? But I'm not sure as it's a term I haven't used much.
The distance was 60 yards. And he was shooting 60 grains of 3 fg in his .45, and getting complete pass throughs.
I personally find this doubtful but I admit that I wasn't there so I don't know for sure. But it's something I've often wondered about.
Title: Re: hunting, effectiveness vs velocity
Post by: OldMtnMan on August 12, 2019, 09:24:19 PM
That's hard to believe. Round balls on steel flatten like pancakes.
Title: Re: hunting, effectiveness vs velocity
Post by: rich pierce on August 12, 2019, 10:03:35 PM
Maybe he was using tempered steel round balls on lead plowshares. I’m surprised any silhouette targets hold up to that guys rifle.

But back to topic, if the goal is pass through load more. If just looking for lethal cardiopulmonary damage then moderate loads are fine. Lewis and Clark planned a 1:3 ratio by weight of powder to lead for their .54 rifles. That worked except on some buffalo and any grizzly if I recall.
Title: Re: hunting, effectiveness vs velocity
Post by: hanshi on August 13, 2019, 01:03:53 AM
My shots (with a few exceptions hunting in a hay field) are much like yours.  My last deer was 20 yards with a .62 smoothbore and patched ball over 70 grains of 3F.  It was a running shot and dropped DRT.  I'm looking to doing more testing with 2F; but 3" groups at 50 yards using 3F tells me a lot.  My .50 likes 70 grains of 3F for nearly 1700 fps; while the .45 gets over 1800 fps with that load.  Recently I've been feeding the .45s 60 grains for around 1700 fps.  It simply doesn't take great power to blast through a deer.
Title: Re: hunting, effectiveness vs velocity
Post by: Leatherbark on August 13, 2019, 01:38:59 AM
 For what it's worth, my buddy and I both shot a deer each at 60 yards in a corn field on the count of 3.  Both .440 balls were propelled by 70 grains of 3f Goex.  His was a perfect shot through the lungs broadside.  Mine was a raking shot from behind the ribs. His deer expired within 20 yards.

 Mine went around a hundred yards bucking and humping while running. My ball slipped in under the rib cage from the rear and caught a good section of the offside lung.  While it was taking off like a greyhound blood was filling the body cavity and squirting out the entrance wound.  Ray Charles could have seen that blood trail.  In both deer the balls were found under the offside hide.  Both looked identical.  They looked like thick flattened nickels.  My friend has kill a bunch of deer with his 45 flintlock with .440 balls.  FWIW up close say around 30 yards the .440 balls exit and the deer dies quick.

Bob
Title: Re: hunting, effectiveness vs velocity
Post by: thelongrifle on August 13, 2019, 03:35:28 AM
I can't tell much difference between 70 and 90 grains of 3f in my 54. Both loads pass thru Tennessee deer at 50 yards. I usually use the 90 grain load as it shoots flatter in case of longer shots. I rarely shoot over 50 yards. I like exit wounds do easier tracking if they run.
Title: Re: hunting, effectiveness vs velocity
Post by: bob in the woods on August 13, 2019, 05:13:27 AM
I think I should have rephrased my question.  What I was thinking about was whether or not there is actually an optimum effective velocity for given ball size [ bore ] in terms of killing performance on deer. Overdoing the velocity doesn't get you a " deader" deer.  An example , dare I say it , is the .30 WCF or 30-30    It caught on because it had that combination that just seemed to perform beyond what you'd expect.  I'm sorry to mention a cartridge  :-[ , but as an example, in the ,54 cal I have a friend who shot deer with 55 gr of FFg and ended up losing some. With 80 gr that problem stopped. At 25 yards, I don't think 100 gr would be any more effective than the 80 ?   Hope this clarifies what I'm looking at.
Title: Re: hunting, effectiveness vs velocity
Post by: rich pierce on August 13, 2019, 04:01:55 PM
Nah it’s a perfect question. We all get to share our thoughts.

I think most deer that get away are poorly shot or pushed. I once nicked a jugular vein on a deer with a broad head. It was a 12 yard shot with only neck and head visible. We didn’t push it and it lay down twice and bled out within 80 yards. If we hadn’t waited, at the slow rate of bleeding that deer would have gone at least a quarter mile. And no, I would not take that shot again with a bow.

Certain loads require a near ideal shot placement. Heavier calibers and loads give a little more leeway but a really bad hit doesn’t work no matter what.

Title: Re: hunting, effectiveness vs velocity
Post by: OldMtnMan on August 13, 2019, 04:07:52 PM
We understood what you were asking. That's why we gave examples of what we use to get a pass through and were much less than what you use. I gave you an elk load that gave me a pass though and was still much less than what you use. I'd use way less for just hunting for deer.
Title: Re: hunting, effectiveness vs velocity
Post by: Daryl on August 13, 2019, 07:00:08 PM
When shooting moose, there is a rule of thumb. Shoot, sit down right where you shot from, or back from there a ways and wait 1/2 hour. Walk up on his trail and find him laying dead within 50yards of where you shot it. Push him and it's amazing how far they can go with only one lung hit. If double lunged, usually less than 50yards down and dead. Moose are babies and want to lay down quickly if hurt. Give him time to stiffen up.
Push a single lung shot elk and you might not find him or get another shot. Elk can be very tough & run 500 or more yards if pushed.
Most lost animals are from poor hits - then pushed. I have never heard of a REAL double lung'd animal escaping. MI would about gaurantee "double lung'd" ungulates that are lost, were gut shot.
 Round balls make a poor entrance hole, most often a slit. The fat under the hide slips over the small cut and seals it. No blood.
If a pass-through(exit), there will be a blood trail.
Title: Re: hunting, effectiveness vs velocity
Post by: Daryl on August 13, 2019, 07:03:36 PM
Higher velocity gives a much flatter trajectory. If hunting "in the West" where shots can be long & stalking is not easily accomplished,
the lowered trajectory helps. Having a point blank range of 130yards is quite handy at times. Yes, I know, some of you do not shoot
at animals over 50 or 60 yards. That's nice. :)
Title: Re: hunting, effectiveness vs velocity
Post by: OldMtnMan on August 13, 2019, 09:00:48 PM
If you can't smell the elk. You're too far away.  :)
Title: Re: hunting, effectiveness vs velocity
Post by: bob in the woods on August 14, 2019, 12:36:51 AM
Hi Daryl ..thank you for the reply. I'm wondering if you or Taylor would  elaborate on performance re the moose taken with Taylor's brown bess ?  If I recall correctly, was that not a 100 gr FFg load ?     
Title: Re: hunting, effectiveness vs velocity
Post by: stikshooter on August 14, 2019, 02:55:41 AM
If you can't smell the elk. You're too far away.  :)
   OR maybe yer upwind  ::)
Title: Re: hunting, effectiveness vs velocity
Post by: Daryl on August 14, 2019, 04:16:04 AM
Hi Daryl ..thank you for the reply. I'm wondering if you or Taylor would  elaborate on performance re the moose taken with Taylor's brown bess ?  If I recall correctly, was that not a 100 gr FFG load ?     

Yes it was, Bob. 100yards and 100gr. 2F GOEX, .715" ball and likely .020" patch,  Bess. The ball ended up under the hide on the far side. That moose walked 20 yards. Seems to me, it took just a few steps, stopped, then dropped.
I have that load listed in my 1970 Lyman BP Handbook.
Just checked - only one I had chronographed from his (Lyman, I think) .75cal. Bess was 80gr. 2F at 1,080fps, 200fps faster than Lyman got in their gun.
If that ratio held true, he was getting about 1,150 to 1,200fps with 100gr. 2F GOEX.
Title: Re: hunting, effectiveness vs velocity
Post by: hanshi on August 14, 2019, 09:58:30 PM
Just a few thoughts on what I've seen in the field.  Just an opinion, but I do think that as a rule of thumb, the smaller the ball the higher the velocity needed.  A large ball - a .600" ball from a smoothbore for instance - hits harder at relatively low velocity than a .45 prb.  I killed lots of deer with a .440" ball and 80 grains of 3F.  But I also killed deer efficiently with a .440" ball and 65 grains of 3F.  60 grains seems, to me, to be a good balance point.  I use 70 grains in the .50 and wouldn't increase that any for the .54. 

Unlike what is normally reported, the entrance wounds on deer (killed) have been larger than the exit wounds.  If there is any difference it is usually than both entrance and exit are about the same size.  The last deer I shot was a buck, probably less than 25 yards, with a quartering shot was taken with my .45 flintlock.  He staggered running away and I heard him crash in seconds.  The blood trail was gruesome with bushes/trees at waist height so soaked I had to be careful to avoid them.  The entrance wound was spectacular and there was no exit wound.  The flattened ball was just under the skin on the off side.  The only thing that comes to mind is that the ball flattens out and loses so much velocity that it barely has enough left to break through the hide, hence, the small exit slit.

There have been exceptions.  One buck shot with a .50 appeared to have "exploded" on exit.  Small blood trail but a huge amount of tissue had blasted out and stuck on a tree next to the exit.  Otherwise it's the same as the .45.  Pass throughs much past 60-70 yards had small entrance and exit wounds but distance traveled was never any farther.

Conclusions:  1. If you hear them when they crash, it's all over.  2. Pass through shots aren't necessarily required for good trailing.  3. You can push them and make it harder on yourself.  4. Deer are not difficult to kill.
Title: Re: hunting, effectiveness vs velocity
Post by: Daryl on August 15, 2019, 08:57:45 AM
Neither are moose, as long as you don't push them. Elk I've seen shot, were tough - all of them, except the ones I shot - just lucky, I guess.
Title: Re: hunting, effectiveness vs velocity
Post by: bob in the woods on August 15, 2019, 03:12:46 PM
Thank you very much Daryl. One thing I know for certain . Size does matter.  Nothing I have shot with the 10 bore has ever gone more than 20 yards, most 10 yards or even less.  And I've never had to shoot twice .   I like it when hunting on my property because other hunters often hug the fence lines .
Title: Re: hunting, effectiveness vs velocity
Post by: shifty on August 15, 2019, 03:43:18 PM
    I hae been shooting a little 50cal. Leman fantasy rifle with 24" barrel at 1-48 twist that i just finnished a couple months ago , i have settled at the moment on 65 grns of FFg Goex. I have been getting  3/4" grps at 25yds to 1 1/2"grps at 75yds 3 shots using the same POA,  but at 100yds it goes to 4"grps and 6"s low.So i am going to stick to 75 yds or closer for hunting ,my shots on deer are usually 10 to 40 yds anyway.
Title: Re: hunting, effectiveness vs velocity
Post by: Daryl on August 15, 2019, 08:22:04 PM
Most .50's do their best shooting with 85 to 100gr. of 2F powder, accuracy wise, for me.
When I was shooting a 48" twist .50 commercial rifle, it was best with around 85 to 90gr. 2F GOEX- in it's 28" long bl.
The .50 Bauska barrel I had with 48" twist was only 26" long (Canoe Gun ;) ) and it preferred 85gr. 3F GOEX for best
accuracy.

Shifty, you did not mention how you had the rifle sighted - range- ie: 0'd at 25 also 0'd (to 1/2" high)
at 50 and 3" low at 75yards would be about normal then 6 to 7" low at 100.  Group size, not drop
should dictate what charge you use.

While heavier charges develop higher velocities & flatter trajectories, they also develop higher pressures
 which mandate the use of tighter ball and patch combinations - normally. Water based :target shooting"
lubes, normally do not shoot to the same POI at oil and grease type hunting lubes. They also usually require
heavier charges to shoot equally well. If all you use are oils or greases, then there is no testing of changes
needed, except for powder charge.
Good luck and keep us posted. :)
Title: Re: hunting, effectiveness vs velocity
Post by: hanshi on August 15, 2019, 11:21:47 PM
I killed quite a few deer with a 42" .50 and 100 grains of 3F.  Velocity was, IIRC, 2100 fps.  That load could really shoot!  Later I decided it was far too much powder.  Now I rely on around 1700 fps from 70 grains of 3F.
Title: Re: hunting, effectiveness vs velocity
Post by: shifty on August 16, 2019, 03:03:04 AM
  Daryl, I have this rifle O'd dead on at 50 yds  then it  groups  just slightly low at 25 yds not really enuff for me to tell the difference and then at 75 yds it groups about  1 1/2"  below the 50 yd group using the same POA  then at 100 yds it groups about 6" below the 50 yd group but it is about a 4" group at that range. At the 100 yds distance i'm having trouble with seeing the target also it has been so hot humid that i have to remove my glasses let them clear up then hurry up and get on target and fire. What is odd but it is working real well for me is that i made a full buck horn sight for the rear and am using it like a peep sight.

    Load is 65grns  FFg  Goex, pillow ticking .015 patch, .490 Speer balls and mink Oil lube.
Title: Re: hunting, effectiveness vs velocity
Post by: bob in the woods on August 16, 2019, 04:57:18 AM
Thanks for posting, Shifty.  I'm not aware of what barrel you have , but most I know of have a rifling groove depth of .012 to .016 in 50 cal .  With a .490 ball, I'd suggest using your patch thickness to .018 , and going with at least an 80 gr charge of FFg .   That said it's hard to argue with a 4 in group at 100 yards . Still,  I think you'll get better results with the heavier patch and charge.
Title: Re: hunting, effectiveness vs velocity
Post by: alacran on August 16, 2019, 02:30:41 PM
My hunting loads are always based on what powder charge and ball patch combo gives me the best accuracy. Since most of my hunting is done out West, I look for an upper end load, eg. 80 to 85gr of 2f in a .50, 95 to 110 grs in a .54 a 100 to 120 gr in a .58 etc.
Once a load is determined I sight the rifle with that load at 100 yards. That gives me a point blank range load. Usually close to dead on at 25 yards, 4 to 5.5 inches high at fifty, and dead on again at 100 yards.
Title: Re: hunting, effectiveness vs velocity
Post by: Dphariss on August 16, 2019, 04:20:56 PM
A pure lead round ball on deer will give about 30" of penetration at rifle velocities and no heavy bones are struck. On elk and larger game striking a large bone with a 54 cal will reduce penetration but should will still reach the vitals. Though lage moose have HUGE bones and I would shoot my 16 bore and a hard ball if hunting AK/Yukon variety. I hunt both forest and plains and use the same charge for everything. Calibers? I think 54 is minimum for animals like elk. Mostly due to bone thing since its possible to encounter the humerus when doing a chest shot. 50 cal is a great killer on Mule and WT deer even at 140-150 yards with lung shots. But they seldom drop at the shot no matter what is used unless the electrical system is disrupted.
Elk can pack off a lot of lead but Sir William Drummond Stewart thought they were easier the stop with his 20 bore than Mule Deer? I have had both Mule and WT run as much as 200 yards when perfectly hit with a 50-54 RB even when the range was under 50 yards. I destroyed the heart of a MD doe at <50 with a .662 ball +- 1600 fps at the muzzle and she still ran 55 long steps. It was a "raking shot" from the front and it was a "heavy hit" that turned the top 2/3 of the heart to jello. Hardened balls will greatly increase penetration and a 50-69 caliber hole is  still big enough. I like pass through on lung shots. It improves the blood trail. Too much penetration is better than not enough. AND reducing the velocity may not greatly reduce the penetration. a 50 caliber RB at 800 fps will shoot through a deer or antelope chest so don't expect a light load to keep the ball in a deer on broadside shots. This based on a 6" 50 cal pistol I used to have. However, striking the humerus WILL reduce penetration, in this case a 54 cal pistol with a heavy charge at about 30 yards shattered that upper leg bone, took the arteries over the heart and lodged under the far side hide. Deer made about 30 yards or so.
I have recovered few RBs from animals over the years, the vast majority pass through since I shoot for the heart/lungs. Even a shoulder shot that misses the big bone will likely pass through with a 54 rifle. This encompasses maybe 80 or more deer and an elk or two shot with RBs. I quit counting at 70 or so and have hunted with other arms as well. Can't hunt with open sights till the VA approves changing the lens in my right eye. Might be done for hunting season.
The photo is of the front leg and shoulder of a Bull Moose shot in central AK by a friend. 54 RB is not compatible with that leg bone.
Dan

(https://i.ibb.co/crDPZRH/UNADJUSTEDNONRAW-thumb-a89f.jpg) (https://ibb.co/MCMbtK4)
Title: Re: hunting, effectiveness vs velocity
Post by: Daryl on August 16, 2019, 06:57:50 PM
Good post and picture, Dan.
This is a calf moose I shot about 8 years back. His front leg bones were 2" in diameter
and he was only 6 months old. Just over 200pounds dressed out in quarters.
Their bones get big - early on. Best eating moose I've ever had.


(https://i.ibb.co/VSMR2Kj/moose017.jpg) (https://ibb.co/cF20Dmg)
Title: Re: hunting, effectiveness vs velocity
Post by: hanshi on August 16, 2019, 10:10:14 PM
The way my .50 is sighted in the ball is "maybe" 1" low at 25 yards.  At 50 yards around 2" high and some 4" low at 100.  This is with a load that gives about 1700 fps.  This is, for my shooting, point blank to 100 yards.  100 yard shots are very unlikely but still doable.  The ball hits the heavy 12" 100 yd gong hard causing it to swing impressively.
Title: Re: hunting, effectiveness vs velocity
Post by: MuskratMike on August 16, 2019, 10:30:49 PM
Once again: it is not how much "thump" you hit them with it is where you hit them that counts!
Go to the range more learn to hit what you aim at and you will spend much less time following blood trails or wounded game.
Title: Re: hunting, effectiveness vs velocity
Post by: Jerry on August 16, 2019, 10:37:16 PM
Heavy powder charges can never replace a well placed shot.
Title: Re: hunting, effectiveness vs velocity
Post by: shifty on August 17, 2019, 02:15:54 AM
    bob in the woods, my barrel has .011 deep rifling at 1-48" twist . I don't lube my patch's heavy just a light amount of mink oil( almost dry) on one side that touches the barrel with this combo it loads fairly snug  .  I am happy with the accuracy and i should be getting around 930 fps at 100 yds ,but i am going to try 70 and 75 grns of powder the next time at the range. I just wanted a light weight light recoiling short handy rifle,i think it is.
Title: Re: hunting, effectiveness vs velocity
Post by: Daryl on August 17, 2019, 06:44:07 PM
Heavy powder charges can never replace a well placed shot.

You are absolutely right Jerry. What I find in my rifles is that with greased or oiled patches, heavier powder charges shoot much more
accurately than light charges, which allows me to hit exactly where I want. Much of this is due to the rather low trajectory they provide
 over normal hunting ranges. 
Here, many shots  have to be taken at longer than bush ranges as in 100 & even to 150yards or so. That is why I use a rifle that has the
carrying power to kill at longer ranges if necessary. I also practice with it at those ranges & out to 200 meters. It is easy to hit the 200 meter
plate, which is much smaller than the kill zone on an elk or moose, and hit it form the offhand position. The 16" x 14" plates are quite easy to smack,
 especially with express sights on the rifle.  Do not listen to people who tell you they are close range dangerous game sights only. Those people lack the
experience of shooting this wonderful sight design. I found the little 1861 Musketoon I had and sold to a new and young BP shooter, was also easy to hit
to 200 meters. When demonstrating/coaching him on loading, holding and shooting this delightful little military 'piece', I told him to watch the 20 meter plate
through my spotting scope. He did and exclaimed "I could see the ball over the last 50 meters, arcing in and hitting the plate." Out to 300 meters, the issue
sights appeared to be smack on, yet I was using patched round balls and 85gr. 2F.  85gr. is the issue load marked on the gun. As that load was hard on his
bony little shoulder, dropping the load to 50gr. was much more pleasant for him to shoot. One other shooter we have, uses 50gr. 3F GOEX in his Musketoon and is
exceptionally accurate with it. Neil is very hard to beat on the trail walk when he's shooting that short little gun. He's 75yrs. old, I think & still an exceptional shot.
The closely spaced military sights just seem to work for him much better than either of his long rifle's sights.
Use whatever works, for YOU.
Title: Re: hunting, effectiveness vs velocity
Post by: dave951 on August 21, 2019, 03:59:21 PM
Most of the guys I know in the North South Skirmish Association who hunt with muzzle loaders, do so with their competition muskets. Typical load is 400+gr 58cal minie, 45gr 3fg. Obviously not tons of powder, but neither is it needed. The load is very accurate and the minie is 400+gr making for ballistics similar to a 44mag and nobody would think that as underpowered at under 50yds on whitetail. On paper kinetic energy numbers don't tell the tale of momentum and impulse and how that relates to the caliber of the bullet in energy transfer. That bullet put a lot of folks into the ground in the 1860s and it's more than capable of putting bambi in the freezer today.
Title: Re: hunting, effectiveness vs velocity
Post by: longcruise on August 22, 2019, 05:54:45 AM
What I have found regarding penetration is that fast loads tend to penetrate less  at close ranges probably due to deformation of the ball.  Especially if a bone is hit.  The only ball I have recovered was from an elk hit broadside with a .54 over 110 grains of  goex 2f at 30 yards. The ball hit a rib going in and stopped under the skin after passing between the ribs on the other side.  It was flattened out and had bone embedded in the impact side.

A deer hit with a slower. 50 caliber ball at 80 yards that had a muzzle velocity of only 1325 fps passed through with a similar broadside hit that didn't involve bone.
Title: Re: hunting, effectiveness vs velocity
Post by: Dphariss on August 22, 2019, 06:18:02 AM
The advantage of higher velocity is trajectory By 100 yard a RB has lost a lot of velocity but starting a 50-54 at 1900 or so cam make the trajectory such that a center hold will be on a deer's kill zone to a 120-130 yards. Where I live its best to have the rifle zeroed for 110-120 yards.
This will allow kills over unknown ranges. Its pretty easy to misjudge distance by more than one might think even when experienced, when hunting in open spaces. Even the light can make things seem closer than they are.
Penetration is not usually a problem unless as stated previously and by some others.>
About 400 yards from where the old IH is parked I shot 3 shots and a MD buck with a 54 FL (loading while prone) and never touched him. He was about 50-60 yards farther than I thought.

Dan
(https://i.ibb.co/89Z56ct/IMGP0053.jpg) (https://ibb.co/M70VM6Q)
Title: Re: hunting, effectiveness vs velocity
Post by: shifty on August 22, 2019, 04:47:59 PM
  Dphariss, Are you using some where around 130 grns of powder to get those velocities in your 54cal is your twist 1-66 or 1-72,by the way  that is a beautiful  site where you pickup is parked there. My little short Leman 50cal will most likely never be shot at over 75yds on game and more like 5-45 yds i have never shot a deer with a ml past 45yds here in the woods so i think i will be ok but i may try upping to 70-75 grns and check for groups  Sure would like to hunt there where you are Dphariss,i do have a longer range 50 cal. Wish i had a chrony to play with,so i would know my velocities.
Title: Re: hunting, effectiveness vs velocity
Post by: Dphariss on August 23, 2019, 07:27:02 AM
90 gr FFF Swiss, cupped breech face.
Takes 100 or so of Goex FFF.
Barrel is a Douglas. Don't get shot much any more.
Dan