Author Topic: 50 and 54 cal ballistics ?  (Read 36660 times)

dickert54cal

  • Guest
50 and 54 cal ballistics ?
« on: January 02, 2011, 03:40:50 AM »
I should have started here but I skimmed through my past issues of Muzzleloading Mag. for 2 days but cant locate the info I need.  Basically I was asked  "At what distance would the flintlock not make a kill on deer size game?" 

Now we know there are many variables to the not so clean cut question.  First, I am going to assume the most common flintlock calibers today being 50 and 54.  Second, the amount of either 2F or 3 F used.  Length of barrel. etc. I personally like 3F in my 54 cal.  I found an article some time in the last 3 years I think that compared these exact calibers and the winner was the 54 cal.  Not that this has anything to do with the question but I thought there was a good explanation there somewhere.  I tried unsuccessfully locating the Lyman list of velocities and ballistics at the barrel then at various yardages.  I know the kinetic energy at some point will deplete to the point of not penetrating the 'deer'.  Can someone here help? 

Offline hanshi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5335
  • My passion is longrifles!
    • martialartsusa.com
Re: 50 and 54 cal ballistics ?
« Reply #1 on: January 02, 2011, 04:02:03 AM »
I would say a large caliber flintlock is capable of inflicting a fatal wound at almost any distance the ball can travel.  This doesn't mean a humane kill, however.  Even lowly pistol bullets can kill at the end of their drop.
!Jozai Senjo! "always present on the battlefield"
Young guys should hang out with old guys; old guys know stuff.

Offline smylee grouch

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7907
Re: 50 and 54 cal ballistics ?
« Reply #2 on: January 02, 2011, 04:14:30 AM »
An actual 155 yds. with a 58 cal. (570) 110 gr. 2f Goex, complete pass through both sholder blades , adult Doe, 115 lbs. field dressed, GM 36" barrel, flinter. I know of others that might have been longer. It's not your 50-54 but might give you an idea.     Gary

northmn

  • Guest
Re: 50 and 54 cal ballistics ?
« Reply #3 on: January 02, 2011, 04:41:00 AM »
Ballistics in a round ball are fairly simple.  Bigger ball travel farther and hold their velocity better.  A 54 will, given the same MV hit harder at 100 yards than a 50.  Bsically what I found reading the charts is that the same striking velocity at 100 yards can be attained by a larger bore if it has a MV of about 100 fps less than the next common smaller bore.  In other words a 50 going at 1800 will ht with the same velocity as a 45 at 1900.  A 54 at 1700 the same as a 50 and a 58 at 1600 will have the same striking velocity as a 54.  At longer ranges the larger bores then will have an increased velocity.  All of them hit at 100 yards typically at about 1000 fps.  They slow down less at longer ranges.  I tested a 54 at a chronographed 500 fps give or take and shot into paper wet pack.  It would be lethal on a human as it penetrated about 5 inches.  Wet pack probably is more dense than soft tissue.  At 200 yards if one hit the deer properly on a broadside shot, you probably would eat venison as it si still traveling at over 700 fps if leaving the muzzle at over 1600 fps.  At those ranges due to air drag there is very litttle gain from higher Mv's.  You could probably reload the ball after it hit as it would not likely expand but it would surprise you how far a ball of that size would penertrate.  This is mostly an acedemic discussion because shots at that range with round ball are really not considered appropriate.  Also wind will blow them way off.  I would have probelms seeing well enough with open sights anymore to make the shot.  With a good peep sight I consider 150 yards a pretty fair distance with my 30-30.  Some one that may use a rifle more at longer distances would do better with iron sights than I owuld.

DP

Offline SCLoyalist

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 697
Re: 50 and 54 cal ballistics ?
« Reply #4 on: January 02, 2011, 04:43:55 AM »
I don't think your question has an answer that couldn't be argued against by example or counter-example.

As far as numbers go:

For a 54 roundball, my Lyman handbook gives the following numbers for muzzle velocity & retained energy at 100 yds:
mv 1639fps   506 ft-lbs @100yds  (100 gr powder in 34" barrel)
mv 2072fps   750 ft-lbs     "           (150 gr   "          )

As an aside, at 200 yds, that 2072 fps muzzle velocity round would have 365 ft-lbs kinetic energy left.

For a .50 cal RB,
mv 1690         397 ft-lbs @100        (80 gr in a 26" barrel)
mv 2041         532 ft-lbs      " yds    (120"          "            )

When you ask "at what range will a flintlock make a kill",  it calls for a statistical answer with variables like shot placement,  angle the deer is to you, thickness and weight of the deer, etc.  And, a wound may well be fatal even without an exit wound, in which case the deer may be harder to track and recover - he'd be a dead deer, just not a dead deer with your tag on him.

Rough rule of thumb is keep your shots to a range where you could keep your shots contained in a 6" diameter circle, 95 percent of the time.



Offline Dphariss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9920
  • Kill a Commie for your Mommy
Re: 50 and 54 cal ballistics ?
« Reply #5 on: January 02, 2011, 07:41:38 PM »
Probably 200+. I know a 50 caliber RB will produce sufficient penetration at 200 yards. Would likely kill a deer at 300 WITH PERFECT SHOT PLACEMENT
I have killed deer to 140-150 with both calibers.

Francis Parkman shot an Antelope at 200 and claims Chatillion (sic?) his guide killed 2 buffalo in 2 shots at 175.
Col. Hanger reported a horse killed at 400 yards by a ball that narrowly missed his CO and himself. Was it a 50 caliber? It was likely larger than that but we will never know.

I think our Canadian friends Daryl and Taylor have things to relate concerning Moose that I think parallels the buffalo killing.
HOWEVER.
Placing the shot is another matter entirely.  Shot placement trumps penetration (penetration need only be adequate) every time.
The problem is variables.
Unless the rifle has been shot extensively at ranges of 150-200 the shooter really has no idea what the difficulties are.  RBs at this distance can be very random in a slight breeze. Loads that shoot pretty darned good at 50 may be not so great a 200.
To actually place a shot on a deer, properly, the range needs to be limited to 150 for these 2 calibers and then the rifle needs to be loaded to 1800 fps plus and sighted dead on at 120 or so.
Shooting deer at ranges over 150 with the rifles this website addresses is irresponsible IMO.
People wanting to shoot deer at long range need   a 260 Remington or a 270.

Or perhaps a .90+ caliber FL wall rifle mounted like a swivel gun. One of these would be a hoot. But not much good for hunting unless you can drive to a place with a sturdy shooting bench or a stout wall ;D
48" barrel 1.75 -20" across the flats, maybe tapered barrel. Big flintlock. 250-300 grains of powder. HMMM.... I don't think Daryl would let me enter it in his 200 yard match though.... 8)

Dan
He who dares not offend cannot be honest. Thomas Paine

Online Herb

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1709
Re: 50 and 54 cal ballistics ?
« Reply #6 on: January 02, 2011, 09:41:45 PM »
There is probably no way to answer this question.  But here is another example.  This is Carl with a .50 flintlock I built him.  He killed this mule deer buck with an 80 grain Goex 2F load and a roundball.  He was sighted for 100 yards.  Saw this buck walking uphill away from him and kneeled down and aimed at the back of his head, thinking he was about 100 yards away.  Shot and the deer walked a few steps then laid down and died.  Carl showed me this spot afterwards and we lasered the spot he shot from to the gut pile at 165 yards.   The ball dropped "about 14 inches" below point of aim and struck beside the anus and penetrated 18 to 24" of deer, not exiting.  This load is about 1700 fps and at 165 yards would be going about 810 fps.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2020, 08:46:03 PM by Herb »
Herb

Offline doulos

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
Re: 50 and 54 cal ballistics ?
« Reply #7 on: January 02, 2011, 09:45:11 PM »
Gary----155 yards breaking both shoulders is impressive

That is good to hear.  When choosing a caliber for roundball hunting I chose a .54 or .58.  Ive killed many deer with conicals and pentration was never an issue. But I was concerned that it might be with a roundball if a shoulder was struck at the outer limits of my range (100 yards).  Ive only killed a few with a roundball. 2 with a .54 and 1 with a .58. I haven't struck a shoulder so  I don't know if my thinking is faulty.

I'm looking and talking to people about having a rifle built and still haven't decided on which of those 2 calibers is best. I m leaning toward the .58. I know people talk about trajectory being better with the .54. But i don't think its an issue within my self imposed distance limitations of 100 yards.
What do you think?
« Last Edit: January 02, 2011, 10:15:04 PM by doulos »

Offline hanshi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5335
  • My passion is longrifles!
    • martialartsusa.com
Re: 50 and 54 cal ballistics ?
« Reply #8 on: January 02, 2011, 09:50:38 PM »
Hunting ethics aside for a moment, think of what a .38spl will do at 50 yards, 100 yards and their realistic mv is around 800fps.  A larger, heavier projectile will be as lethal at a far, longer distance.  For most of us old codgers especially, open sight distances dictate some real consideration of our seeing abilities.
!Jozai Senjo! "always present on the battlefield"
Young guys should hang out with old guys; old guys know stuff.

Offline Dphariss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9920
  • Kill a Commie for your Mommy
Re: 50 and 54 cal ballistics ?
« Reply #9 on: January 02, 2011, 11:04:19 PM »
Gary----155 yards breaking both shoulders is impressive

That is good to hear.  When choosing a caliber for roundball hunting I chose a .54 or .58.  Ive killed many deer with conicals and pentration was never an issue. But I was concerned that it might be with a roundball if a shoulder was struck at the outer limits of my range (100 yards).  Ive only killed a few with a roundball. 2 with a .54 and 1 with a .58. I haven't struck a shoulder so  I don't know if my thinking is faulty.

I'm looking and talking to people about having a rifle built and still haven't decided on which of those 2 calibers is best. I m leaning toward the .58. I know people talk about trajectory being better with the .54. But i don't think its an issue within my self imposed distance limitations of 100 yards.
What do you think?

You have to ask "what am I using the rifle for and what is the preferred design of the rifle?"
If you are only hunting deer there is likely not a nickels worth of difference between a 50 and 58.
If shooting elk or other large animals I would prefer a .62, but not in a Kentucky.

Shooting deer at 100 or less. Why worry. You are far, far better off with a rifle you can shoot really well than one with more power.
This is a doe Mule Deer shot at 60 yards, by laser, with a 495 RB with 90 gr of FFF Swiss.



Ball struck the shoulder joint just behind the leg bone chipping the leg bone slightly



It broke the bones as noted in the photo.

Did this in the chest cavity.

Then exited  the far side of the deer.
I blew the shot placements for a silly reason but the ball did its job the deer was able to propel herself down slope about 30 yards with the hind legs. The front legs were not working.

Dan

He who dares not offend cannot be honest. Thomas Paine

Offline smylee grouch

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7907
Re: 50 and 54 cal ballistics ?
« Reply #10 on: January 02, 2011, 11:16:13 PM »
Dan: The 155 yd.shot was a rested shot at a standing broadside deer with a rifle that I have shot shiloutes (out to 200 meters) with. I normaly get 75-80 yd. shots. I was happy the way the shot turned out but wasnt suprised.  I have seen simmiler results as your photo from 50 cal loaded much the same. Some people dont know how effective a pure lead roundball can be.    Gary

Offline doulos

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
Re: 50 and 54 cal ballistics ?
« Reply #11 on: January 03, 2011, 01:21:10 AM »
thanks Dan
Not having that much roundball experience Ive been worried hearing stories about lack of penetration with roundballs especially at farther distances. I was concerned that if I hit the shoulder I would lose the deer.. Is not uncommon for whitetails where I hunt at to dress out at 200. Plus the fact my are is loaded with flooded timber making blood trails very important. So no matter what I have hunted with over the years I allways wanted to achieve total penetration for good blood trails.  With conicals total penetration was almost allways achieved.
I hunt now mainly with either a .54 Pedersoli Hawken or a Don Stith .58 S. Hawken or a .58 green mountain barrel in a TC stock.   I'm looking forward to my first flinter. I like both Hawkens but both are pretty heavy especially the Stith.
I'm leaning towards something like a Isaac Haines or a Virginia style.

dickert54cal

  • Guest
Re: 50 and 54 cal ballistics ?
« Reply #12 on: January 03, 2011, 02:17:04 AM »
On another web site here in PA there are some new guys to the sport and Im excited to say it seems to be a growing trend this year....That said, I try to give the best advise I can ---I have 11-12 years experience so I consider myself knowledgeable but compared to many  here I am in the infant stages.   I know my limitations due to many of those listed below.  My "Elisabeth" has a 44" swamped 54 cal Rice Barrel with a Delux Siler Lock built for me by Don Yerks in Turbotville PA.  Awesome friend.  My limits are 100 yards but I shoot for under 75 yards when hunting.  I never suggest any yardages to fellow hunters because that is for them to determine---hopefully ethical placements.

Here is Elisabeth and the newest flintlock hunter in the family---my son will carry no rifle other than a 54 cal flinter.  ;D


Dave W

  • Guest
Re: 50 and 54 cal ballistics ?
« Reply #13 on: January 03, 2011, 06:06:58 AM »
Another recent (12/29) example:  I killed doe at 127 steps with a 50 caliber Haines rifle using 60 grains of 3G.  I got lucky with a broadside offhand shot that took out her aorta just under the spine.  The roundball passed through and went 40 yards bleeding like crazy.  My rifle shoots that load the best, so that is what I use to hunt.
       

Offline Dphariss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9920
  • Kill a Commie for your Mommy
Re: 50 and 54 cal ballistics ?
« Reply #14 on: January 03, 2011, 07:19:28 AM »
thanks Dan
Not having that much roundball experience Ive been worried hearing stories about lack of penetration with roundballs especially at farther distances. I was concerned that if I hit the shoulder I would lose the deer.. Is not uncommon for whitetails where I hunt at to dress out at 200. Plus the fact my are is loaded with flooded timber making blood trails very important. So no matter what I have hunted with over the years I allways wanted to achieve total penetration for good blood trails.  With conicals total penetration was almost allways achieved.
I hunt now mainly with either a .54 Pedersoli Hawken or a Don Stith .58 S. Hawken or a .58 green mountain barrel in a TC stock.   I'm looking forward to my first flinter. I like both Hawkens but both are pretty heavy especially the Stith.
I'm leaning towards something like a Isaac Haines or a Virginia style.

I very seldom have a RB stay in deer. Its either when fired from a pistol or on shot from the the front.
My son's first deer was killed with a 45 caliber FL using 45 gr of powder and about 40 yards or so. MD buck made it about 40 yards, ball failed to exit making it to the off side hide but apparently the hide rebounded it into the chest cavity as it was not in the deer when skinned and I figure it went out with the hear and lungs.

A 50 caliber RB at 825+- fps penetrated all the heavy shoulder muscles on a MD buck passed through the lungs and stopped under the hide back by the diaphragm have passed through the chest  at about a 45 degree angle.
Shot through an Antelope side to side with the same load at about 25 yards and created a large plume of dirt in the sage brush beyond.
The friend who bought this pistol killed a cow elk with a head on head shot at close range, ball penetrated the forehead, passed through the brain, out through the back of the skull breaking a vertebrae and lodging under the skin. 5" barrel.
Lung shots on elk will be a pass through with a 54 rifle.

The myth that the RB would not kill game was the result of companies making the bullets you have been shooting. The modern ML shooters buying TCs and such had a hard time figuring out the patch and ball, pretty complex I guess and it looked nothing like the bullets their 30-06s shot. So the Maxi-ball was born. Since it was new and improved and the makers bought advertising the gun writers immediately made the RB useless, in print anyway, (kinda like the 30-06 becoming useless with the advent of the 300 and 7mm Win mags back a few years). The public was grossly mislead.
I started shooting MLs before these things were "invented" and never even thought about anything but a PRB. Being something of a history fan I figured if folks like Lewis and Clark, Daniel Boone and a host of others managed to stumble along with the PRB and not starve I figured I could make it work too. L&C had to ORDER their men not to shoot any more Gbears. They thought hunting them was great sport and their rifles were likely 54 caliber, next option is 50 caliber.
The amazing deficiencies of the Maxi-ball were somewhat fixed by the "Maxi-Hunters", "REAL" bullets etc. I have read of pass through shoulder shots on deer with a 45 maxi and the hunters husband killing a deer the next year and in butchering found the healed wound channel.
These have their own list of problems. They make pressure to the point that the cheap locks on the mass produced MLs would 1/2 or full cock after shooting a few of them, they lacked the power to hold the hammer on the nipple and there was rapid gas erosion of the nipple. So we got the vented nipple ::). These vent enough gas to keep the gun from showing this SIGN OF EXCESS PRESSURE. So the pressure problem was neatly solved. But of course they blow gas and cap fragments around, some of which got stuck in peoples faces :o
There were other problems as well that do not inflict the PRB.
The BS associated with their marketing is a pet peeve of mine if you can't tell, has been for quite some time...
There is a book available for download on Google books, IIRC, called "The Sporting Rifle and Its Projectiles" by James Forsythe. Anyone hunting with a traditional ML should read it.

It has some 19th century science that is well, 19th century. But his trajectories, accuracy and effect on game is easily duplicated.

If you are worried about stopping power get a rifle in 62 to 69 caliber. This one shoots a .662 ball.


Its by far the best pure hunting rifle I own. But it does use a lot of powder and lead compared to the 50 and the 50 kills deer just fine to 140 yards or so.
Its all in where the ball is placed.

Most Hawken "mountain rifles" were in the 10 to 12 pound range some were heavier by a considerable margin. My 50 caliber swivel breech weighs 11 even.

Dan


He who dares not offend cannot be honest. Thomas Paine

Offline Dphariss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9920
  • Kill a Commie for your Mommy
Re: 50 and 54 cal ballistics ?
« Reply #15 on: January 03, 2011, 07:44:50 AM »
Dan: The 155 yd.shot was a rested shot at a standing broadside deer with a rifle that I have shot shiloutes (out to 200 meters) with. I normaly get 75-80 yd. shots. I was happy the way the shot turned out but wasnt suprised.  I have seen simmiler results as your photo from 50 cal loaded much the same. Some people dont know how effective a pure lead roundball can be.    Gary

Critters are not armor plated. Heh-Heh.
150 yards or so is doable if familiar with the rifle and the range known.
I shot at one at 140 with the 16 bore 3 years ago and knocked a clump of hair off his back. He was in his bed and I had a rest. Still have no idea why it went where I was holding. I should have dropped right in and killed him?? Not his day to die. Besides the buck I killed later on was only 20 yards from the road, that one was 1/2 a mile ;D

I dropped a shot out at Cody Saturday that resulted in my losing the string measure aggregate by .052", would not call it back either. IF I had put it in the group.. but do-do occurs. A guy I used to play poker with years ago had a saying about the word IF, something about the Queen and then not needing a King....

Dan
He who dares not offend cannot be honest. Thomas Paine

Offline doulos

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
Re: 50 and 54 cal ballistics ?
« Reply #16 on: January 03, 2011, 09:07:47 AM »
thanks to Dan and others
This and other forums have helped me tremendously. Being able to  hear hunting reports from you and others with a lot of roundball hunting experience helps.
I never used the maxi ball . Used the maxi hunter and conicals from Lyman and No excuses bullets. I started muzzleloading in our muzzleloading season when you had to use patched roundball and killed a nice buck my first time out. Didn't get a shot in the special season for 2 more seasons and then they loosened the laws allowing unscoped inlines with conicals and sabots. And yes I did use them. And then started using inlines all gun season. And took a lot of deer with them.  I preferred them over shotguns.
I know alot of people here don't approve of it ,but at the time my main goal was to use the best hunting tool available..and to harvest deer.  But my priorities changed over time and using those guns became very boring to me. So about 5 or 6 years ago I went back to shooting roundballs and now use roundball guns in all seasons. Ive only killed 2 deer with them though and both shots were fairly close. So I really didn't have much real world experience with only 3 roundball kills to say which caliber is best. So reading posts from experienced fellas intrigues me
« Last Edit: January 03, 2011, 09:12:11 AM by doulos »

northmn

  • Guest
Re: 50 and 54 cal ballistics ?
« Reply #17 on: January 03, 2011, 06:04:54 PM »
Dan's comment about if you want more, buy a larger gun is one I have always suggested.  The English subscribed to that theory with their sporting rifles in the 19th century.  We live in a time when for modern ML's the 50 cal is standardized and then marketers, much like Dan is talking about, have worked on "better" more powerful loads and "200 yard ammo".   None of it is really all that great.   These loads are 300 grain or less and spitzered.  A spitzer only makes much difference at higher velocities or extreme ranges.  Higher MV's are negated by the wieght of the bullets at longer range.  The English carried 62 calibers as a light "deer gun" .  While I consider a 50 about a perfect deer caliber in a round ball gun, I do admit that it does not hurt to use the bigger bores.  They do give a little more punch at longer range and do no blow up meat like a HV modern rifle.  The main thing is that when one goes out with a traditional muzzle loader one should accept their limitations.  It is that acceptance of limitations that make the accomplishment of using them so sweet.  My latest build is an English gun, similar to Dans 16 bore, only in a little 58.  I love the thing.

DP 

Daryl

  • Guest
Re: 50 and 54 cal ballistics ?
« Reply #18 on: January 03, 2011, 08:28:00 PM »
The moose Dan was referring to, was a shot made by a client about 6 years ago - using a TC .54, 100gr. 2F and a .535" RB with .018" ticking patch lubed with lube 1000 or bore butter - don't remember the flavour of the store-bought stuff.

The shot was made across a timber slash at a large bull - about 12 years old- almost but not quite past his prime - he was a satelite bull to the one were were dressing out at the time.  The guide, hunter and moose shot with that .54 were only about 300 yards from us when  the hunter shot the bull.

At the shot, the moose took off like a horse out of the gate - running for the bush-line. After a 40 ayrds bolt, he dropped dead, midstride.  Upon gutting the moose, we found the ball had hit perfectly, lower 1/3rd of chest, punching through a rib, then the on-side lung - centered the heart, then right lung, and stopped under the hide of the offside.  Total penetration was about 3' - however wide that moose was.

The range of the shot was 170 yards, taken on a laser range finder.  I figured the ball's foot pounds of energy at impact, for those who think those numbers actually mean something, was in the vicinity of 250 or 260.  When the writers of today say fpe IS meaningful and you need 1,000fpe for deer and 1,500fpe for moose or elk, I say, "don't eat that elmer that's bull --it".
« Last Edit: January 03, 2011, 08:28:48 PM by Daryl »

Offline Gene Carrell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 522
Re: 50 and 54 cal ballistics ?
« Reply #19 on: January 05, 2011, 11:52:01 AM »
Shot placement, not energy.
Gene

Offline hanshi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5335
  • My passion is longrifles!
    • martialartsusa.com
Re: 50 and 54 cal ballistics ?
« Reply #20 on: January 05, 2011, 08:12:36 PM »
A large ball can certainly kill at the far end of extreme trajectory.
!Jozai Senjo! "always present on the battlefield"
Young guys should hang out with old guys; old guys know stuff.

Daryl

  • Guest
Re: 50 and 54 cal ballistics ?
« Reply #21 on: January 05, 2011, 09:31:09 PM »
James Forsythe relates in his book as to shooting through both shoulders of a Sambar stag at a range of 250 yards with his favourite 14 bore - the charge was a mere 3 drams.  One must recognise most of these guns have multiple sight leaves, which makes sighting easier at range. A long shot for certain, and much lighter charge than normal for his guns, I'd imagine. Initial velcity would have been around 1,300fps. At 250 yards, the foot pounds of energy would be 610 fpe for the 15 bore ball he usually used.  According to the charts and gun writers, this load is not suitable for deer at 90 yards, where it drops below 1,000fpe.

dickert54cal

  • Guest
Re: 50 and 54 cal ballistics ?
« Reply #22 on: January 06, 2011, 03:21:09 AM »
I still have not found the article on the 50 and 54 comparisons? Darn it!  I do know the 54 won out but it was great reading. ???

northmn

  • Guest
Re: 50 and 54 cal ballistics ?
« Reply #23 on: January 06, 2011, 06:20:53 PM »
I had read a comparison of damage done to a wet pack at one time, between a 45, 50, 54 and 58.  Essentially the large bores blew abbout the same hole in the wet pack but penetrated much deeper than a 45.  This was at close range where expansion was expected.  Basically, when one compares round ball you get into what is called the scaler effect.  My 25 cal roundball weighs in at about 23 grains.  A 500 ball would weigh in at about 180+ grains.  If you double the diameter you get about 8X the weight.  The surface area only increase by 4X. Drive a larger caliber roundball at the same velocity and it is going to penetrate deeper because it has less surface are to its mass.  The 54 is justifiably popular because one can still get a reasonable velocity for trajectory with a reasonable powder charge with a fairly heavy ball and not get the snot kicked out of him.   As the ball diameter increases it takes quite a bit more powder to get the same or similar velocity.  Dan's 16 gauge would likely have to use about 240 grains of powder or so to get the same velocity as a 54 with 110 grains.  One good thing about large bores is that they also slow down at a slower rate because they have less surface area to mass so they do not have to be driven as fast.  That is what makes round ball use simple.  If you need more power you need a larger ball.

DP
« Last Edit: January 06, 2011, 06:24:27 PM by northmn »

Offline Dphariss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9920
  • Kill a Commie for your Mommy
Re: 50 and 54 cal ballistics ?
« Reply #24 on: January 06, 2011, 07:40:26 PM »
I had read a comparison of damage done to a wet pack at one time, between a 45, 50, 54 and 58.  Essentially the large bores blew abbout the same hole in the wet pack but penetrated much deeper than a 45.  This was at close range where expansion was expected.  Basically, when one compares round ball you get into what is called the scaler effect.  My 25 cal roundball weighs in at about 23 grains.  A 500 ball would weigh in at about 180+ grains.  If you double the diameter you get about 8X the weight.  The surface area only increase by 4X. Drive a larger caliber roundball at the same velocity and it is going to penetrate deeper because it has less surface are to its mass.  The 54 is justifiably popular because one can still get a reasonable velocity for trajectory with a reasonable powder charge with a fairly heavy ball and not get the snot kicked out of him.   As the ball diameter increases it takes quite a bit more powder to get the same or similar velocity.  Dan's 16 gauge would likely have to use about 240 grains of powder or so to get the same velocity as a 54 with 110 grains.  One good thing about large bores is that they also slow down at a slower rate because they have less surface area to mass so they do not have to be driven as fast.  That is what makes round ball use simple.  If you need more power you need a larger ball.

DP

The large diameter balls use the powder better, more inertia. But my 16 bore has a shorter barrel than my 54 and I use 140 gr of FF Swiss in it. 150 will give 1650 or so 140 about 1600. 437 times .32 give 139 grains. Use this ratio in a 32 and it likely will not work all that well since the powder charge will be 15+- grains and the velocity will be low.  Once 120 grains is reached in the 16 bore velocity gains begin to drop off, little gain for the increase in powder charge. The rifle shoots flat enough at 140gr for my purposes. Probably closer to a 54 with 90-115 (40-50%) than you might think to 140 yards or so. The ball being near twice a heavy. My 50 with 90 gr (.5 +- ball weight) of FFF (the same charge my 54 uses)  shoots really flat at normal hunting ranges but I have not checked the speed yet. I have thought of trying 100 gr of FF to see how it shoots.
The problem with the larger balls at velocities much over 1600-1650 is recoil. At 1750 the 16 bore gets pretty nasty if fired off the bench and it has pretty recoil friendly stock design. So increasing the powder charge past 140 is really not a good idea in a 9-10 pound gun. At least for me. 

Dan
He who dares not offend cannot be honest. Thomas Paine