AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Black Powder Shooting => Topic started by: Naphtali on June 28, 2017, 08:08:45 PM
-
I have been been creating order in my home by reducing my library. A few days ago I found a 1974 Guns & Ammo Complete Guide to Black Powder. Gary White has two articles in the book, the articles pertaining to hunting larger game than whitetails or mule deer with round balls. Dr. White reports that personal experiments and discussions/testing by way of ballisticians demonstrates that while more black powder can be used, the largest or heaviest charge to use without having severe fouling force cleaning after two or three shots is: Powder charge is 71 percent of round ball's weight. He reports that such a loading will achieve 2000 fps.
Every bit of round ball loading and hunting information in these two articles is "new" news for me, for I have not loaded and shot round balls in a muzzleloader. My closest experience to muzzleloading round balls, is loading and shooting Ferguson rifles. Most information I have obtained mentions 43 percent - 3/7 - of round ball's weight. Is 71 percent some sort of generally accepted round ball heavy load?
My muzzleloading experience has been shooting my 775-grain custom conical. For conicals 1:5 (powder:conical) is a very heavy load, 1:4 being a killer at both ends from my now-sold Kodiak Safari .72-caliber muzzleloading double rifles.
-
That's a whopper load. I think that figures out to be 125 grains or so for a .490 round ball. Lewis and Clark figured 1/3 to 1/2 of ball weight for a powder charge. If I recall ball weights correctly off the top of my head this would be about 170 grains of powder behind a .530 round ball. I would not care about how much it fouled the barrel because I would not want to take a second shot anyway.
-
I'm interested in why you have gone with a conical in that size bore ? My 10 bore has dropped everything I've shot at with a round ball. One traversed a large black bear and I found it embedded in the ground . I did try a 775 grain bullet in my .50 cal Sharps, but it was unnecessary for either hunting or long range shooting. A 650 gr did as well or better. Any way, not judging...just wondering.
-
I wonder what Gary's ball size was for his theory of 71%?
71% load in my .69 does 1,780fps, not 2,000fps, 220fps short of his guess(I assume). Man- did THAT kick - 340gr.2F- AND with a .030" patch with .682" ball - ie: tight. .742- .710" = .032 compression in the bottoms of the grooves = .016 compression in every groove. Yes- I would like it to shoot with a thinner patch, ie: .022 or so - might have found it now, a close weave, thin canvas.
On the other hand, my .45, shooting a 132gr. round ball with 85gr. 2F, delivered 2,270fps, somewhat over Gary's formula and was still 8.72gr. short of 71%, although 270fps faster than 2,000fps.
Using 3F, this speed 2,270fps was duplicated with just 75gr., a full 18.72gr. under his load & still 270fps faster. How thick a patch did he use in relation to the ball also used. The smaller ball or
thinner patch will definitely produce less speed than a tight load. That in itself, is logical.
I sincerely wish these black powder digest writers had done more investigative work, than writing simply what came into their minds. Now, I fully suspect that Gary had a certain gun that developed
2,000fps with a 71%/ball weight load, but suggesting that that formula works for all calibres, especially the big ones, suggests he was merely looking to be paid by the word.
I am also sure that Sam got higher speeds when he put wasp-nest between the powder and his thinly leaky patched ball, mistakenly thinking EVERYONE loaded the same as he did.
-
Not sure if you consider an elk as a big animal? I only use 80gr of Swiss 2F in a .54 to kill them. Double lung....bang flop.
-
I'm always leery of "formulas" relating to powder charges. They simply DO NOT WORK for all ball weights; and they shouldn't. Mass to diameter (caliber) isn't a fixed figure and varies, as some have pointed out, to extreme. Much like the old, silly, claim that if an ant were the size of a human it could carry a horse. Same thing. An elephant is huge yet can't carry multiples of its own weight. These formulas can be potentially dangerous. Nothing surpasses simply working up an accurate load.
-
Sounds like pure BS to me. :P This guy somebody important or just a Dr. of BS...... ;)
-
Doc White was an active part of Green River Rifle Works I believe and wrote quite a fee articles on shooting and hunting with black powder back in the late 70s to 80s. He still builds guns and sells them on Track's website. At least I see guns by him there from time to time.
I was a newb and he was a decent writer and I looked forward to his articles.
-
The fellow that actually wrote that info was named Ben Gay....and he was figuring out how to get more sales for his company!! :)