AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Black Powder Shooting => Topic started by: bones92 on January 03, 2022, 04:36:16 PM
-
I did a search of archived posts here, but I didn't see anything that discusses the ballistics of patched round ball trajectories. I do have the sight that has a ballistics calculator, but it implies that one knows the muzzle velocity (which I do not, and I don't have a way of measuring, really).
http://www.ctmuzzleloaders.com/ctml_experiments/rbballistics/web_apps/rb_ballistics.html
I assumed 1100 fps, and a .440 round ball zeroed at 25 yards would have around a 15" drop at 100 yards. This generally aligns with my experience. I usually crank up the load on my .45 rifles to about 80 or 90 grains of 3Fg, whereas at 50 yards and lower it shoots quite well with 60 grains 3Fg. At 100 yards I have to hold on the top center of the target sheet in order to loft it into the general area of the bullseye. The trouble is that this makes it hard to center, given that the front sight obscures much of the target paper, and the surrounding backer board (dark cardboard) does not lend itself well to a clear sight-picture.
So I have been thinking about options for 100 yard ranges (our club matches for rifle all include shots at 25, 50 and 100 yards). I believe we have to use original-style (fixed) sights on our rifles, and as you all know, most traditional style sights on flintlocks tend to be low-profile, with the front sight blade and rear sight being no more than half an inch above the barrel.
I've played around with changing my sight picture (for example, aligning the flat base of the front sight with the top of the rear sight notch) but thus far I haven't found anything that is consistent.
Anyway, I'm curious as to the tips and techniques that more experienced shooters use to compensate for longer range shooting.
-
The hoary old Lyman Black Powder Handbook shows that a .445 round ball going 1100 and zeroed at 50 yards will drop 10 inches at 100.
My question would be -- assuming you have a rifle and not a handgun -- why would anyone load such a round ball to a muzzle velocity of 1100?
Loaded to 1800, which is more like it, that ball zeroed at 50 yards only drops 4 inches at 100.
-
I simply change my amount of powder. I keep a book with various guns with load information in it. I also write down point of aim at yardages as well. Some guns have a picture of the sight picture I use for a particular yardage. The front sight might be buried in the rear, or it might be very visible and proud.
I dont seem to have accuracy issues with changing the amount of powder like some people.
For my hawken .54 cal. I know my book shows how much powder and point of aim for shooting the sil. targets starting at 50 yards and ending at the bear targets at 200 yards.
Fleener
-
Badenpowell, in truth, I have no idea what muzzle velocity I'm getting. I typically use .440 patched ball, and my two favorite .45 rifles are each about 42" barrel length.
What muzzle velocity (ballpark) am I looking at for 60 grain 3Fg? Or perhaps 80 or 90 grain? (I ask this assuming some of you may have similar barrels and have actually chronographed your shots).
I found this page: http://www.mapleleafmarksmen.ca/wp-content/uploads/Ballistics.pdf
This implies 80 grain of 3Fg (zeroed at 50 yards) only drops about 4" at 100 yards, and has a muzzle velocity of 1975 fps. Does this sound right? It doesn't say anything about barrel length in the link, though....
-
In a previous thread in this forum, I spoke of my method of sighting in my rifles. However, I am intrigued by information recently published by Bob Woodfill in his new book on Hawken Rifles, in which he discusses how he has sighted in several of his reproduction Hawken rifles using only one powder measure for each.
To re-cap his thoughts and experience, he sights in his rifles with a hunting charge, as an example, a 50 cal rifle gets 120 gr. powder and a ball, for a point blank range of 125 yds. For ranges to 50 yards, he simply halves the charge down to 60 gr. and finds that his rifles zero at 50 yards. For 200 yards, he finds that the drop of the ball requires only a slight adjustment to be on again at 200. Thus, for his .50 cal rifle, he needs only a 60 gr. charger which he doubles for 100 - 125 yards and beyond. This system may not be as modern as we might imagine, for old rifles that have been found with their powder measures often have what we would consider to be a very light charge, easily doubled where the need arose.
I have paraphrased Bob's words but hopefully have captured the concept of the thing. And I hope I have not committed a faux pas by referring to his published work. It is my recommendation that anyone interested in rifles of the muzzleloading period, not just Hawken rifles, purchase a copy of Bob' new book...it's a keeper!
Mods: if I have mis-spoken, pls. delete this post.
-
The half charge powder measure is one I use for several of my rifles. I have a cut off tip of cow horn that is wallowed out to hold 55 grs. and two charges holds 110 grs. which is my 4 dram hunting load for two- 58s and my 62. The 55 gr. charge is real close at 25 and 50 for offhand trail targets
-
I simply change my amount of powder. I keep a book with various guns with load information in it. I also write down point of aim at yardages as well. Some guns have a picture of the sight picture I use for a particular yardage. The front sight might be buried in the rear, or it might be very visible and proud.
I dont seem to have accuracy issues with changing the amount of powder like some people.
For my hawken .54 cal. I know my book shows how much powder and point of aim for shooting the sil. targets starting at 50 yards and ending at the bear targets at 200 yards.
Fleener
I'd love to peak at your book. How long is your barrel?
-
Badenpowell, in truth, I have no idea what muzzle velocity I'm getting. I typically use .440 patched ball, and my two favorite .45 rifles are each about 42" barrel length.
What muzzle velocity (ballpark) am I looking at for 60 grain 3Fg? Or perhaps 80 or 90 grain? (I ask this assuming some of you may have similar barrels and have actually chronographed your shots).
I found this page: http://www.mapleleafmarksmen.ca/wp-content/uploads/Ballistics.pdf
This implies 80 grain of 3Fg (zeroed at 50 yards) only drops about 4" at 100 yards, and has a muzzle velocity of 1975 fps. Does this sound right? It doesn't say anything about barrel length in the link, though....
I have worked up loads, using the chronograph in both .45 and .40's with 42" bls.
In testing, I also found out, the tightness of the load (patch thickness and ball size) makes about a much difference as powder charge.
With a slippery lube, like LHV or Mr. Flintlock's lube, the velocities were much higher than when a water based lube was used. This, DPhar has noted as well, in that the water based lube
is not a slippery lube and creates more friction in the bore, than-do the slippery lubes. The powder charges necessary for each lube becomes important was well and in these small bores,
.50 and under, the difference in loads can be as much as 10 to 20gr., each giving identical accuracy, but much different velocities.
In my .45 bl. for instance, a charge of 65gr. of 3F GOEX was the accuracy load using a water based lube and produced a velocity of 1,740fps.
To get the same accuracy with a slippery lube, required 75gr. 3F, but that load generated, with the same .022" patch, 2,240fps.
In further testing, I found with the slippery lube, I got identical accuracy at 50yards using 85gr. 2F GOEX, producing the same velocity as 75gr. 3F, 2,240fps.
These velocities are higher than most any data I have seen, but then MUCH depends on the tightness of the load and if there is blow-by of the burning powder which reduces velocity.
Sam Fadala found this out when he experimented putting wasp nest between his powder and patched ball. When he shot his patched ball & later looked at a slow motion photograph
of the "charge" coming out the muzzle, he saw a lot of flame preceding the patched ball and surmised, correctly that he was getting blow-by. He then tried putting the wasp nest between his patched ball and powder. He found velocities 200fps higher if using this "barrier" to blow-by. He rightly surmised that the wasp nest prevented pressure blow-by- and indeed, claimed the patched ball did not seal and that a barrier was needed to cause a seal and he could prove it with his chronograph. This was not correct. I also had my own chronograph since 1975 & had done my own experiments along that same line, however I followed Ned Robert's writings of 1934, and developed loads that sealed the burning powder behind the ball, producing the higher speeds.
He then chronographed one of the Buckskin Report's members who actually used a tight ball and patch combination with and without the wasp nest. The results were identical and he wrote he did not understand why. I thought that was obvious - someone was blowing smoke about ball and patch combinations not sealing. ::) His weren't without the barrier and of that, he was correct.
This is/was narrated just to show that MUCH depends on the load, ie: ball and patch combination. If you load with a thin combo that shreds patches and you have to clean often, that is likely
due to a too thin patch. In that situation, your velocity, cleanliness of shooting & your accuracy, might benefit from you using a barrier between the powder and patched ball. Or you could just
use a tighter fitting ball and patch combination. That brings up the muzzle crown condition, which can make loading a tight combination without cutting the patch much easier.
4" is a common drop for a patched round ball, from a 50yard zero, to a 100yards point of impact. This is evident for a fairly wide variety of calibres, using "normal" powder charges.
-
Daryl,
Thank you. Your input is great. I'm surprised (and a bit relieved) to know that a (circa) 4" drop at 100 using a 50-yd zero is common. It gives me some ideas on what to do next.
One shortfall of working full time, with a family and trying to carve out time to stay fit, is that my time at the range is limited. As in, REALLY limited. The irony is that I live less than 30 minutes from our ML club.
What I need to do is carve out time to go shoot when nobody is there, and using a bench rest, dial in my rifle(s) at 50 yards, then using a clean cardboard backer, shoot the same load at 100 yards and begin making adjustments. This takes time and uninterrupted concentration.
-
Indeed it does.
Best wishes.
-
Last time I took my .45 out I took the chronograph along...
42" barrel, .445 ball, .018 ticking patch lubed with mink tallow, 70 gr. Swiss 3f.
Took about 5 shots for velocities to settle in but they finally settled right around 2100 fps.
Mike
-
Mike, that’s impressive. Thank you for sharing that. I’m using .440 Hornady ball but not sure what my patches measure. It’s not hard to push down the bore after starting with a couple good whacks.
-
Bones, I was pretty surprised myself. I didn't expect velocity to be anywhere in the neighborhood of 2000, much less exceed it. But I really didn't know what to expect.
I didn't post it to brag though, I just wanted folks with a similar setup to know what their velocity might be.
Mike
-
Badenpowell, in truth, I have no idea what muzzle velocity I'm getting. I typically use .440 patched ball, and my two favorite .45 rifles are each about 42" barrel length.
What muzzle velocity (ballpark) am I looking at for 60 grain 3Fg? Or perhaps 80 or 90 grain? (I ask this assuming some of you may have similar barrels and have actually chronographed your shots).
I found this page: http://www.mapleleafmarksmen.ca/wp-content/uploads/Ballistics.pdf
This implies 80 grain of 3Fg (zeroed at 50 yards) only drops about 4" at 100 yards, and has a muzzle velocity of 1975 fps. Does this sound right? It doesn't say anything about barrel length in the link, though....
I have worked up loads, using the chronograph in both .45 and .40's with 42" bls.
In testing, I also found out, the tightness of the load (patch thickness and ball size) makes about a much difference as powder charge.
With a slippery lube, like LHV or Mr. Flintlock's lube, the velocities were much higher than when a water based lube was used. This, DPhar has noted as well, in that the water based lube
is not a slippery lube and creates more friction in the bore, than-do the slippery lubes. The powder charges necessary for each lube becomes important was well and in these small bores,
.50 and under, the difference in loads can be as much as 10 to 20gr., each giving identical accuracy, but much different velocities.
In my .45 bl. for instance, a charge of 65gr. of 3F GOEX was the accuracy load using a water based lube and produced a velocity of 1,740fps.
To get the same accuracy with a slippery lube, required 75gr. 3F, but that load generated, with the same .022" patch, 2,240fps.
In further testing, I found with the slippery lube, I got identical accuracy at 50yards using 85gr. 2F GOEX, producing the same velocity as 75gr. 3F, 2,240fps.
These velocities are higher than most any data I have seen, but then MUCH depends on the tightness of the load and if there is blow-by of the burning powder which reduces velocity.
Sam Fadala found this out when he experimented putting wasp nest between his powder and patched ball. When he shot his patched ball & later looked at a slow motion photograph
of the "charge" coming out the muzzle, he saw a lot of flame preceding the patched ball and surmised, correctly that he was getting blow-by. He then tried putting the wasp nest between his patched ball and powder. He found velocities 200fps higher if using this "barrier" to blow-by. He rightly surmised that the wasp nest prevented pressure blow-by- and indeed, claimed the patched ball did not seal and that a barrier was needed to cause a seal and he could prove it with his chronograph. This was not correct. I also had my own chronograph since 1975 & had done my own experiments along that same line, however I followed Ned Robert's writings of 1934, and developed loads that sealed the burning powder behind the ball, producing the higher speeds.
He then chronographed one of the Buckskin Report's members who actually used a tight ball and patch combination with and without the wasp nest. The results were identical and he wrote he did not understand why. I thought that was obvious - someone was blowing smoke about ball and patch combinations not sealing. ::) His weren't without the barrier and of that, he was correct.
This is/was narrated just to show that MUCH depends on the load, ie: ball and patch combination. If you load with a thin combo that shreds patches and you have to clean often, that is likely
due to a too thin patch. In that situation, your velocity, cleanliness of shooting & your accuracy, might benefit from you using a barrier between the powder and patched ball. Or you could just
use a tighter fitting ball and patch combination. That brings up the muzzle crown condition, which can make loading a tight combination without cutting the patch much easier.
4" is a common drop for a patched round ball, from a 50yard zero, to a 100yards point of impact. This is evident for a fairly wide variety of calibres, using "normal" powder charges.
If the patch tears, it must be because the fabric resists folding past the muzzle. Continuing to push the ball stretches the fabric, and the fabric fails in tension at the stress riser formed by the muzzle edge [correction, is cut by the rifling]
If the fabric fails in tension, that presumably means the fabric between the ball and the barrel wall stetches and becomes thinner before reaching failure.
If the above is correct, then fabric is probably becoming thinner even if it never tears. I.e. the fabric always becomes thinner, and the final dimension is determined partly by the amount of tension on the fabric during the loading process.
If all that is correct, then reducing fabric tension during loading would increase the likelihood of a good seal.
If that too is correct, then a slicker lube would reduce fabric tension and help preserve the fabric thickness during loading, reducing the liklihood of blow-by. Possibly coning would also.
I have made a great deal of speculation above. Also some educated guesswork. I have a trade background working with tension members.
I don't know the elasticity of pillow ticking. I don't have any available to test where I am right now. Otherwise I would stretch a strip of it using a comealong.
I'm sure you are correct that slick lube improves acceleration of the ball by reducing friction as the gas expands. But the seal I think is being established at the muzzle during loading. Possibly also the lube squeezed from the patch as the ball is pushed down the barrel accumulates around the groove where the outer diameter of the breech-side of the ball meets the rifling. If so, it might form a sort of compression-resistant r
ing.
I can't right now, but want to make a series of test-firings with different lubes. Using only a barrel fixed to a bracket, I would fire two or three fouling shots with a dry patch. Then remove the breech plug, and using a patch with the lube, ram a ball down the barrel, examining it especially at the barrel wall just before it clears the breech, to see how much fouling is being pushed ahead. Then examining the fouling on the patch after popping the ball out the breach.
The fouling pushed down the barrel by the patch during loading must be accumulating around the ball. Maybe the grease-and-fouling mush helps seal.
-
I have a chronograph. I have never used it to determine the velocity of my muzzleloaders. I really don't care what the actual velocity of my ML rifles is.
Mostly in ML competition you only shoot out to 100 yards. I
I have found that most rifles have a low load and a high load that shoots well. In general, a .45 will shoot well with about 50 grains of 3f, and this is adequate for ranges up to 50 yards. 70 grains of 3f in the .45 will work well out to 100 yards.
For hunting I always go with the upper load that works well with a given rifle. Also, I make sure that the upper load hits center at 100 yards. The upper load typically runs between 4 to 5 inches high at 50 yards.
So, I consider this my point-blank load. Which means I don' t have to do a lot of thinking when game is at hand.
If I aim at a deer where I am supposed to, a 5-inch-high shot at fifty yards will certainly kill it.
-
I have offered this idea up for grabs more than once, but I've not done it (yet), and am convinced it would work. Be just great if someone else would try it.
Want to know your trajectory over 100yds? On a flat range, put out two, three, four, pieces of light paper. spaced at whatever intervals suit you. Align those targets such that one shot punches them all.
Measure carefully your bore height and the height of each hole in those papers. Plot on paper. There's your trajectory. Repeat as necessary/desired. To eliminate the "drag" factor of punching those papers, remove all of them but one and remeasure. Play with this just a little bit and a fellow will have a FAR MORE accurate idea of what his actual trajectories are over any range he chooses with any gun or load. There is no ballistics charge going to give you more accurate numbers and your velocity could also be estimated quite accurately from these findings-but there wouldn't be much point in that would there?
Have fun. Note I probably stole that idea from some gun writer of the 70's or 80's. I can't recall or give credit. I used to read 'em all.
-
I have offered this idea up for grabs more than once, but I've not done it (yet), and am convinced it would work. Be just great if someone else would try it.
Want to know your trajectory over 100yds? On a flat range, put out two, three, four, pieces of light paper. spaced at whatever intervals suit you. Align those targets such that one shot punches them all.
Measure carefully your bore height and the height of each hole in those papers. Plot on paper. There's your trajectory. Repeat as necessary/desired. To eliminate the "drag" factor of punching those papers, remove all of them but one and remeasure. Play with this just a little bit and a fellow will have a FAR MORE accurate idea of what his actual trajectories are over any range he chooses with any gun or load. There is no ballistics charge going to give you more accurate numbers and your velocity could also be estimated quite accurately from these findings-but there wouldn't be much point in that would there?
Have fun. Note I probably stole that idea from some gun writer of the 70's or 80's. I can't recall or give credit. I used to read 'em all.
Wouldn't it be easier to just shoot at 25-50-75-100 yds and aim center bull. You'll have the trajectory.
-
Longer range shooting with any black powder gun means elongated projectiles.IF I were to hunt with a 45 caliber rifle it would be a 70 to 90 grain powder charge and a projectile with a minimum weight of 300 grains.A round ball loses velocity because it has no sectional density which is length plus diameter.It has diameter but nothing else.A 45 caliber long range bullet can easily be 1 and 3/8" long and it carreies well betond the 1000 yard tagets.
Bob Roller
-
Wade's idea might work but I'm thinking it would be a bear to line up all those papers at the right height. So Dan's idea of just shooting at each range would be how I would do it and have done it.
-
Or level the barrel and align the targets using a laser, no sighting variations from shot to shot...
-
Longer range shooting with any black powder gun means elongated projectiles.IF I were to hunt with a 45 caliber rifle it would be a 70 to 90 grain powder charge and a projectile with a minimum weight of 300 grains.A round ball loses velocity because it has no sectional density which is length plus diameter. It has diameter but nothing else.A 45 caliber long range bullet can easily be 1 and 3/8" long and it carries well beyond the 1000 yard targets.
Bob Roller
Bob, thank you for bringing this up. I didn't even think about using a different ball at 100 yards. I rummaged through my collection of molds, as I thought I might have something that would work. I always dig through the used molds for sale at gun shops, and sure enough, I had not just one, but two. I remember finding both of these at a shop in NC a few years back.
I'm leaning toward trying the one on the right. Both are .445, and assuming my bores are .450", will the skirt expand enough to provide a good seal? I would think so, given that these were surely made for a true .45 caliber bore.
(https://i.ibb.co/bPHnjFX/Lee-445-Minie-molds.jpg) (https://ibb.co/DtGnPYQ)
-
I'm leaning toward trying the one on the right. Both are .445, and assuming my bores are .450", will the skirt expand enough to provide a good seal? I would think so, given that these were surely made for a true .45 caliber bore.
Will they seal & will they be accurate? Depends on the rifling twist and depth of the rifling, I would suggest.
GM .45's have a 60" ROTwist. Even 48" is a round ball twist, however early ctg. rifles were made with 48" to 56", perhaps 60",
but they shot VERT short bullets and at that, did not give very good accuracy. A .45 cal. bullet weighed usually 200gr. to 260gr.
as well as not being hollow based. Since they were solid, they were very short. HP based bullets are MUCH longer.
If you MUST use an elongated bullet, the R.E.A.L. bullet in 200gr. by Lee would be the one to try. An older, long time resident up
here n PG, used his .45 for mule deer, year after year, with patched round balls. He tested then tried the Lee bullet, the 200gr. R.E.A.L.
and found it to be of no advantage in killing deer. The round balls exited or were under the hide on the off side, just the same as the
R.E.A.L. bullet. He saw no difference in killing power. They both killed deer.
My .45 GM barrel put the 200gr. REAL bullets into decent groups (slightly larger than round ball groups) at 50yards, using 75gr. 3F powder.
I used Lyman's Black Powder Gold lubricant and it worked well enough, I fired 10 shots with the bullets and went right back to shooting
my .445" balls and 10 ounce denim(.0225" at that time) without having to wipe the bore - loading with the rifle's 3/8" hickory rod.
As to "cutting" the patch at the muzzle - that is caused by too sharp a crown. A smoothly radiused crown does not cut or stretch-to-cutting
a denim patch - of any "weight". The patches picked up after firing are re-usable if re-lubed. I've done this "countless" times. I've done
this with .018/9" 8 ounce denim, .021" and .0225", 10 ounce denim as well as .030" 12 ounce denim and .034" 14 ounce denim, using balls
that measure .010" to .005" and in the .69, balls that run .015" to .008" smaller than the bore.
If the crown is smooth(ed), the ball and patch conform into the rifling, perfectly. Back in the .70's I had a .448" bored .45 cal. Bauska barrel that
had .028" deep rifling. I used a .457" ball and .022" denim as the patch. It shot fairly accurately. Here's a 5 shot offhand group at 25 yards, with
that barrel and combination.(I was in my 20's and could see & shoot a mite better than today). I think it was a 50 4X. From a rest, it shot identically
at 50yards.
(https://i.ibb.co/VHdyBnZ/25yd-45-Bauska.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Xy9BJ0g)
-
(https://i.ibb.co/bPHnjFX/Lee-445-Minie-molds.jpg) (https://ibb.co/DtGnPYQ)
Oh, BTW - the skirts of either of those Minnies will blow out from the muzzle blast with any load that approaches a hunting load.
They are TOO thin skirted.
A solid (short) bullet like the REAL will give much better results - accuracy and killing power.
-
Daryl, that's interesting... so then what are these molds meant for, if not for .45 caliber long rifles? :D
By hunting loads, do you mean 100gr or more (3Fg)? I would probably stick to 70 or 80 grains, if possible.
Also, my main motivation would be for accurate shooting at 100 yards in competition. For hunting, I doubt I would shoot beyond 60 yards, and I would use a PRB. I'm just interested in bringing up my scores at the 100 yard distances, as our rifle aggregates all include 25, 50 and 100 yards (5 shots at each distance).
-
The old Lyman Black Powder Handbook circa 1975 has velocities, drop. mid range, bullet path and wind deflection data for many calibers. It is a wealth of information that will give you a great starting point for load development. I have no idea what edition may be currently available. If other factors are consistent (ball diameter, patch, lube etc.,) I have found that there seems to be a velocity sweet spot that produces the best results in a given barrel setup. Changing powder and adjusting that load to produce the sweet spot velocity seems to deliver close to identical results. Years ago when GOEX was hard to get, I found that Elephant produced velocities that equaled about 85% of an equal volume of GOEX. By adjusting the volume of Elephant to produce the same velocity as the GOEX sweet spot load, the results were excellent with the same hold for fixed sights. Adjusting the load 10 - 15 grains by volume up or down still gave good results. The group size and standard deviation in velocity was just less consistent. (the rifle was a 50 caliber shooting 2F)
-
I see that Lee has a .45 REAL mold. Lee's website indicates these as:
Lee Double Cavity Mold produces a 45 Cal. diameter 200 grain bullet. The driving band diameters on the bullet are as follows starting from the base to the tip: .452, .457, .462, and .467.
Will I have trouble loading this in a .45 caliber rifle? One is my Cornell Kemper rifle with a Douglas barrel from the early 70s, the other is a Brooks rifle with unknown barrel make. Seems like groove diameter would be no more than .458, so the top two bands on the REAL bullet would be somewhat shaved or displaced.
-
As noted in the PM, REAL bullets load very easily. In my own tests with them, I filled (wiped) the grooves full of Lyman Black Powder Gold lubricant. SPG or 60:40 BW/Vas. works well, too.
Accuracy was not as good as with patched round balls, but was suitable for hunting. I bought the moulds, 200 AND the 220gr. REAL bullet moulds at a local store. I never did try the 220gr. bullet
as the slightly shorter one, the 200gr. did not give as good accuracy as patched round balls. I did not try them at further ranges, although did test them in the 18" twist .45 pistol barrel I
have for my pistol. Using 30gr. 3F GOEX, I made a 2 1/2" 5-shot group with them, at 30yards, from a rest. They were very easily loaded and can be seen (lubed) in the compartment on the
right, in the pistol's box. The 200gr. REAL is not much longer than a round ball, however, they are still a bit long to give as good accuracy as a patched round ball.
Your results might be different. They are easier loading than a "properly" patched round ball. Left click on the picture a couple times to enlarge it.
(https://i.ibb.co/tqbvV95/IMG-2619.jpg) (https://ibb.co/jyLQnSF)
-
Thanks, Daryl. I think you answered what should have been my question from the beginning, which would be: Can I expect to get decent groups with PRB at 100 yards? (decent being, say, 6" or thereabout)
In my case, it's purely for competition purposes... I hate dropping points at the 100 yard target. I would probably never take a 100 yard shot at a deer, anyway.
The knowledge that a 4" drop from 50 to 100 yards is reasonable gives me good expectations. At this point, I really just need to spend time at the range adjusting a good 50 yard load to keep 'em in the bullseye (about 10" I think) on the 100 yard course of fire.
-
Since you are specifying competition,[ as you hate dropping points at 100 yards ], I'm a wee bit confused as to what competitions you speak of. All ours that I know of are for patched round ball only.
-
Badenpowell, in truth, I have no idea what muzzle velocity I'm getting. I typically use .440 patched ball, and my two favorite .45 rifles are each about 42" barrel length.
What muzzle velocity (ballpark) am I looking at for 60 grain 3Fg? Or perhaps 80 or 90 grain? (I ask this assuming some of you may have similar barrels and have actually chronographed your shots).
I found this page: http://www.mapleleafmarksmen.ca/wp-content/uploads/Ballistics.pdf
This implies 80 grain of 3Fg (zeroed at 50 yards) only drops about 4" at 100 yards, and has a muzzle velocity of 1975 fps. Does this sound right? It doesn't say anything about barrel length in the link, though....
60 grains should give you all the velocity you need in a 45. I don’t zero at 50 yards for a HV load. Sight it on at 100. For a 50-54 hunting rifle I try for 1” high at 100. This gives a point blank for deer to about 120 with 1900 or so FPps. Usually this will translate into about 1” high at 25 for most rifles. As shown in this table from the App “Shooter” on my iPhone.
“Naked” bullets in MLs are something that is best forgotten. They were never used in the civilian world off the target range. But when the TC maxi-ball came out the gunwriters, in order to sell advertising starting telling everyone that these things were needed because a RB would not kill anything. Ignoring all the history and even modern experience. I always looked at them as something for people who could not figure out how to use a PRB.
The only elongated bullet that was used much was the cloth patched picket and it has its own requirements that also make it impractical for hunting.
(https://i.ibb.co/9rK8Js5/0-C0-C7-F9-A-D46-A-47-C0-B330-7-C177-B68-AED6.jpg) (https://ibb.co/NyDVXZB)
-
I have offered this idea up for grabs more than once, but I've not done it (yet), and am convinced it would work. Be just great if someone else would try it.
Want to know your trajectory over 100yds? On a flat range, put out two, three, four, pieces of light paper. spaced at whatever intervals suit you. Align those targets such that one shot punches them all.
Measure carefully your bore height and the height of each hole in those papers. Plot on paper. There's your trajectory. Repeat as necessary/desired. To eliminate the "drag" factor of punching those papers, remove all of them but one and remeasure. Play with this just a little bit and a fellow will have a FAR MORE accurate idea of what his actual trajectories are over any range he chooses with any gun or load. There is no ballistics charge going to give you more accurate numbers and your velocity could also be estimated quite accurately from these findings-but there wouldn't be much point in that would there?
Have fun. Note I probably stole that idea from some gun writer of the 70's or 80's. I can't recall or give credit. I used to read 'em all.
Wouldn't it be easier to just shoot at 25-50-75-100 yds and aim center bull. You'll have the trajectory.
Saves time and effort my way, Shoot single targets to verify, if desired. Sometimes we don't has all day.
-
Wade's idea might work but I'm thinking it would be a bear to line up all those papers at the right height. So Dan's idea of just shooting at each range would be how I would do it and have done it.
This getting the papers in the right place will embed the trajectory in your mind. Also I'd be using bigger paper or even cardboard to get started--or "on paper" for the full punch. What it eliminates is velocity variations between shots and also gives more data per shot. That's all.
-
Wade, Would a laser pointer taped to a heavy tripod allow you to better (perfectly?) align those targets?
All, On one of the trail/woods walks I used to attend, the last target was a ~6 ft. long oxygen cylinder suspended vertically @ 125 yd. to be fired upon off hand and with primitive sights. It was "do-able" offhand, but from a rest or prone, I think the success rate would have been >90%. Those in attendance didn't adjust their powder charges, but I did (90gr. FFg; .490" PRB; Lyman .50cal. GPR) and sometimes hit it. Trust me, when I missed, it wasn't the gun....
-
Wade's idea might work but I'm thinking it would be a bear to line up all those papers at the right height. So Dan's idea of just shooting at each range would be how I would do it and have done it.
This getting the papers in the right place will embed the trajectory in your mind. Also I'd be using bigger paper or even cardboard to get started--or "on paper" for the full punch. What it eliminates is velocity variations between shots and also gives more data per shot. That's all.
Wade, the main advantage to your method would be that it would largely account any variation caused by the shooter or otherwise. If one can shoot a really tight group at 50 yards and a really tight group at 100 using the same exact load, then perhaps it wouldn't be necessary. But otherwise, your method would accurately the track the trajectory regardless of the shooter variables, as long as the load was replicated consisentently, and the shooter marked each paper between shots to keep track of which holes correspond to one another.
The major fly in the ointment would be the effect on a round ball from going through paper, even the ultra light, thin paper. I would think that even a cheap off-brand Kleenex tissue would affect the velocity of the ball, thus causing more drop in trajectory in subsequent targets than normal.
One way to align targets accurately would be to cut a rectangle in each cardboard backer, with dark black hash marks at 12, 3, 6 and 9 o'clock positions, so each backer is identical. Then sight through the holes so the hash marks align perfectly. One would have to sight along the rifle sights using a bench rest, then be sure the rifle is in the exact same position when firing. Then apply the thin paper in identical manner on each. The result would show a true trajectory, except for the aforementioned effect on the ball from passing through layers of paper.
Fun to think about, but I will just stick with developing a good load and/or sight picture for 100 yards using PRB. The exact trajectory is not important if I have a load that works at 100 yards.
-
The problem I saw right away was you'd need to know the trajectory before setting up the papers/targets. Unless you use really big papers.
-
When Forsyth noted the trajectory target setting, to judge the trajectory, all of the page bottoms at the various ranges out to the target butt, cut the 100yard bullseye in 1/2. That is, when he
sighted at the bullseye, 1/2 of the bull was on the first paper and the bottom 1/2 was on the 100yard target page(sized accordingly).
Thus he was watching/cataloging the shot trajectories impacting above the point of aim. This was to show the advantage of a round ball as opposed to the "conical' ball from the same gun - both being sighted for 100yards. The trajectory of the round ball was much lower, thus easier to hit at the intermediate ranges - ie: the spherical ball had a lower trajectory & longer point blank trajectory than did the "conical" ball - at normal hunting ranges.
-
The problem I saw right away was you'd need to know the trajectory before setting up the papers/targets. Unless you use really big papers.
Yes, even if laser straight (yes a laser pointer could be super handy for setting targets), we'd be guessing about the actual trajectory, but then also could be straight off the published data or from someone else's chrono'd loads using similar components of same bore. So long as the wind is very light to calm, the left and right shouldn't be an issue assuming reasonable load accuracy.
Heck I'll let you know when I try it out. Since I've decided to open up my woodland to silvopasture/savannah, I should soon have lots of places to set up for longer shooting and might just try the multi-range targets thing. Could be tougher than I think. ;D
-
Have fun.
-
Well this really is interesting. But where I hunt, which is hardwood an swamp. I sight my 50 or 54 in with 75 grains of 2 f powder.
I sight it dead on at 50 yards
I also know that the lungs/heart area in a deer is about 11 inches on a average whitetail. That's where I shoot for. Has worked extremely well over the year's.
If their out around a hundred yards which is a rarity. I just aim level with the top of the back.
Works just fine.