fine tuning your loads

[Jim Curlee]

Gettin back into shootin, kind of quit in the mid 80s, thanks to the longbow.
When I quit with the smokers, I remember, that you didn't want alot of fire coming out of the end of your barrel. More fire, meant more powder being burned up outside of the barrel. In other words, wasting powder.
Now I'm reading about using 100-120 grains of powder for a 54 load.
I measured my old antler powder measurer, it would hold right at 75 grains, this was for my 54 Sharon.
So what I'm wonderin is why everybody is shooting those heavy powder charges?
Don't the same rules apply today, that we had back in the 80s?
The guns haven't gotten any newer. LOL
Jim

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

Your powder is all burning in the barrel - not on the outside.  The more powder you use, the more gases are produced in the burn, and this is what you're seeing at the muzzle.  More powder means higher velocities, to a point when the additional powder becomes additional projectile weight.  In this case, the ball cannot be made to go faster down the bore. 
You have to decide what it is that you want - flat trajectory at relative long range, absolute accuracy, or just a pop that makes the ball break a hole in the target, or rings the gong, from time to time.  Some shooters say, "I'm just doin' this for fun.  I don't care if I hit the mark every time.  I'm not really competitive."  And they use loads and combinations that are pretty ineffective, and often dangerous to the bush, with thin patches burning out in front of the line.  Personally, I don't understand this.  My advice, for what it's worth, (it's free and worth every penny), is to use the load that will put your ball on the target every time, at all the ranges that you want to shoot.  This is the only way to attain the maximum satisfaction from the exercise.  But it all boils down to "what do you want from your shooting?"

[roundball]

More fire, meant more powder being burned up outside of the barrel. In other words, wasting powder.

FWIW, I think DTS summed it up well...there are a couple of posters in the Internet community who routinely advocate some sort of WWII battleship formula to produce a theory alleging only 70% of a powder charge is actually consumed in a bore, and anything above that is wasted, unburned powder shows up on a white sheet, or on white snow, etc, etc, etc.

I've personally chronographed powder charges in 10grn increments right up to 120grns in various calibers, and got noticeable velocity increases at each step of the way...so IMO, forget the old wives tales, and like DTS said, decide what YOU want to do and enjoy. 

[northmn]

I also chronographed charges and like Roundball have found increases with velocity with increases in powder charges.  In a 54 I have gone up to 120 grains.  Lyman's old BP handbook shows chronographed loads that also increase in velocity.   One comparison I heard on this was that of comparing my Focus, which I drive sedately and get 30 miles + per gallon to a Vette hauling down the road at 70 which will not get near 30mpg.  Depends on the performance you want.  Ned Roberts claimed in his book that a ratio of 3 grains of powder to 7 grains of ball weight was often a good load which is about 95 grains in a 54.  There is nothing wrong with that load in my 54.  I ahd a 58 that did not like to group well with less than 140 grains of powder or a 1-2 ratio.  Some rifles are also more accurate with the heavier loads.

DP

[Dphariss]

Gettin back into shootin, kind of quit in the mid 80s, thanks to the longbow.
When I quit with the smokers, I remember, that you didn't want alot of fire coming out of the end of your barrel. More fire, meant more powder being burned up outside of the barrel. In other words, wasting powder.
Now I'm reading about using 100-120 grains of powder for a 54 load.
I measured my old antler powder measurer, it would hold right at 75 grains, this was for my 54 Sharon.
So what I'm wonderin is why everybody is shooting those heavy powder charges?
Don't the same rules apply today, that we had back in the 80s?
The guns haven't gotten any newer. LOL
Jim

The accuracy desired and the powder charge the barrel likes are the determining factors.
I had a Sharon Hawken years ago that would not shoot worth a @!*% with less than 120 gr of FFF.
I have a 50 caliber with GM barrels that shoots better by far with 90 gr of FFF swiss than 75.
The barrel decides how much powder it wants to use.
I always shot about 90 gr of FFF in 50s and 100 in 54s. My current 54 seems to do very well with the same charge as my 50 uses. There are two advantages. The rifles shoot well with them and shoot very flat to 120-140 yards. Important for hunting at least where I live. It is interesting that the one original plains rifle that I know of being fired shoots really high at todays "normal" ranges. I had mentioned to sight heights of the gun and s person I know piped up and stated that he had shot the rifle a few times and it did shoot very high and he thought it (a 54 cal) was likely zeroed for 160 yards or so.

A large percentage of the powder charge does not burn, it is converted in solids. Some of this material is ejected from the bore and forms the bits and chunks seen in photos etc.

Having shot 65 gr of FFF from a 32" barreled 32 over sheets from the prone position I can tell you it all burns in the barrel.
The only historical mention of all the powder not burning in the barrel comes from Ned Roberts interview with Norman Brockway and I am convinced that Brockway had a good time telling him this fairy tale and Roberts swallowed it.

In round ball guns lots of different theories exist for determining powder charge, some new some passed down from time. But 1/2 ball weight of powder (+- a few grains) will work well in the typical Kentucky of 45-50 caliber giving good accuracy and flat trajectorys. Smaller bores may need more larger bores less. Larger bores get more and more efficient as the ball size increases.

Dan

[hanshi]

Bp is right at 50% consumed and 50% ejected as solids. 

[Daryl]

The sparks and flames ejected from the muzzle are the expanding gasses & red-hot chunks of the solid waste, not unburnt powder. The black specks on snow or a sheet are not unburnt powder, but solid waste. The figures I've seen for the last 40 years, are 57% solid waste.  If you still have trouble with this, do the test, fire a number of loads over a sheet, gather up the 'unburnt powder', and use that for the next load and report on it's velocity.

Dan's note is not the first time I've heard of Norman Brockway pulling Ned's leg with the unburnt power deal.

Note that at some point, increased powder charges do not increase the speed at the same rate as lighter charges give. That means that at some level, the increase per grain of powder diminishes.  Some people use that as the 'stop' point, caling that a maximum load.  I choose to use the charge that shoots the best, gives the best accuracy with that ball/patch/ lube combination.

 I have never found a gun's accuracy load to be less than what many call a heavy hunting load - no matter what the rate of twist.  38 years ago, my TC .50, with it's button .004" deep rifling with it's fast 48" twist, preferred 110gr. 2F GOEX or GOX or C&H or Meteor or ICI or Dupont or whatever it was I used back then.  I used all of them, actually and all of them shot very well with that load in that gun. .022" denim patch and .490" ball - yes - very tight.  I used 2f because it was more accurate than an equivalent (same vel) charge of 3f and the 2f also fouled less - probably due to having lower pressure  which produces less demand on ball and patch combo - just a guess - my opinion.

Today, I use a larger ball - only .005" smaller than the bore, and the same thickness or thicker patches & I use the powder charge that shoots the best in that gun, not an arbitrarily chosen charge to save money, or it's what someone else uses, or it's probably good enough - I use that rifle's 'best' load & I use it at all ranges.  I do reduce the plinking charge in one gun only, due to it's impressive recoil and wear on the person - the .69's 165gr. accuracy charge is a bit much for plinking.  The lighter load doesn't shoot as accurately, but I am willing to put up with it, the little amount of plinking I do with the big bore, any more.  According to the recoil formula, it is producing some 69 ft. pounds of recoil. A modern .458 Mag puts out something like 58. albeit with a higher recoil speed, which also tells on the body.
Here's the little 14 bore, with an accuracy load.

[Roger Fisher]

Thanks Daryl, @!*% interesting and true, I suspect.   

My Getz .45 was 'on' at 100 yds years ago with just 65 3 F Goex and a .451 ball now all these shots later I had to go to a .454 (a while ago) and recently had to go to 85 3 f goex and .017 spit patch lieu of the .015.  From what I found out by shooting both the .015 and the .017 it was moving up the powder charge that brought her back in.   

[Standing Bear]

Was that in a flintlock, Roger?  Just wondering if the touch hole was erroding.
TC

[Roger Fisher]

Was that in a flintlock, Roger?  Just wondering if the touch hole was erroding.
TC

Nope, I admit to using a cussin gun and that's what she is.  I get razzed plenty about; but an ol guy can get away with alot (sometimes)

My trade gun did erode the touch hole and she made me aware of that when she started shooting low.  I believe it was a 3/32 that @!*% near fell in

[northmn]

Rogers experiences with guns changing impact over time and needing a different combination paralels mine to some extent.  I used to shoot the old Numrich barrels for a season and they would "shoot in" and want a heavier patch/ball combination  They would load smoother also.  Some claims that tthey get too "slick" If the gun is shot a bit, the fine tuning will not necessarily remain etched in stone. 

DP

[Daryl]

This also does not address the changes in powder compostion and components, which happens time to time as well.  Any change can nesessitate a change in the best load.

[Larry Pletcher]

This also does not address the changes in powder compostion and components, which happens time to time as well.  Any change can nesessitate a change in the best load.

I got into this late because of complications here but agree with Daryl's comments about BP components.  When trying to photograph at patch separating from a ball in flight, I ran into an issue of an extreme amount of sparks in my camera's field of view.  we were using Goex ffg.  As far as 7 ft away the sparks hid the ball long after the patch had separated.


(Goex ffg 7 feet from muzzle.  Ball is visible, but patch has already separated.  Keep in mind that the photo was taken in darkness, so every tiny spark is visible.)

I gave up for a while and then received advice from Bill Knight.  He explained that the sparks were likely burning charcoal granules.  He recommended changing to Swiss ffg.  Swiss, he said, ground their charcoal almost to dust while Goex charcoal granules were larger.  I tried Swiss and found a dramatic decrease in sparks.  That change allowed the shot I wanted.


(Swiss ffg taken 30 inches from muzzle.

You can feel the difference in granule sizes by dissolving samples of Goex and Swiss in water, stirring until only charcoal is left.  Rubbing the spoon on the bottom of the container of the Goex sample will leave grit you can feel.  In the Swiss sample you can't feel the grit.

Regards,
Pletch

[mjm46@bellsouth.net]

Very cool photos

[D. Bowman]

Pletch,
Here is a picture that was taken of me shooting the 200yd match last year. You can see the patch and ball about 2ft in front of the muzzle of my .62

[zimmerstutzen]

1.  Back in the day, enough folks where shooting originals or cheap suspect quality muzzleloaders that moderate loads were the norm. 
2.  more modern guns, especially in-lines have created the magnum fever that so many hunters have swallowed hook line and sinker.
3.   with the heavy loads some shoot, not all of the powder is burned in the bore.  If it was there wouldn't be those spectacular muzzle flashes, that some guys relish.
4.   Most folks shoot what is both comfortable and accurate for them.  A few bubbas would load their guns to match the recoil of a 577 Tyro if they could.  Not because it shoots better or because it has any resemblence of accuracy but because it makes them feel macho.
5.   There is a sweet spot where the charge results in better accuracy, confortable recoil and efficient use of powder. 
6.  Fouling, at least with holy black, seems far worse when the powder is still burning after the ball leaves the muzzle.   If you shoot for fine target accuracy, fouling is a big consideration in keeping the load consistent from shot to shot.
7.  Statistics from Lyman's Black Powder handbook indicate that even with those heavy charges you reference, once the ball exceeds the speed of sound, it actually decelerates faster than a subsonic bll.  While it is going faster down range, by the time it gets to 120 yards, the difference is not proportional to the difference in powder charge.  ie  double the powder may net only 15% more velocity at 125 yrds. 

[D. Bowman]

What you are seeing in Pletch's picture is not un burnt powder. it is solids being ejected from the barrel after the charge has been consumed.
If you gather up that"unburnt powder" and load your gun with it you will be sadly dissapointed. It anit gona burn.

[zimmerstutzen]

whther it is unburned powder or burned solids, or powder solids from powder still burning in the muzzle flash, makes no difference.   If the powder charge is still oxidizing after the ball leaves the muzzle, there is waste and additional fouling.  If there is flame in the muzzle flash, the powder is still burning.  Yes the orange bits of glowing can be red hot still glowing bits of solids. 

However, I have seen pictures of flames shooting for six or seven feet beyond the muzzle in night shots.  If the powder is all consumed in the barrel, as someone mistakenly asserted, there would never be such flame.

Just recently, I fired 60 grain charges from a 50 caliber 10 inch barrel.  The "solids" collected had no problem burning.  Maybe they just didn't know that they couldn't?

[Roger Fisher]

whther it is unburned powder or burned solids, or powder solids from powder still burning in the muzzle flash, makes no difference.   If the powder charge is still oxidizing after the ball leaves the muzzle, there is waste and additional fouling.  If there is flame in the muzzle flash, the powder is still burning.  Yes the orange bits of glowing can be red hot still glowing bits of solids. 

However, I have seen pictures of flames shooting for six or seven feet beyond the muzzle in night shots.  If the powder is all consumed in the barrel, as someone mistakenly asserted, there would never be such flame.

Just recently, I fired 60 grain charges from a 50 caliber 10 inch barrel.  The "solids" collected had no problem burning.  Maybe they just didn't know that they couldn't?

[D. Bowman]

Then how do you explain when I chronograph my 42in barreled 50 cal starting at 60 gr of powder and increasing the charge in 10 gr incriments to 140gr. I am still showing an increase in vel. If by your way of thinking i am pushing "unburnt powder " out the barrel  at some point velocity should stop increasing. Because if there is unburnt powder it is now not part of the charge it is projectile and should decrease velocity. Splain that one

[heinz]

Very few thing in real life are 100%  If you add 20 more grains of powder than that your rifle can efficiently burn, it will still burn some or most of that extra 20 grains.  Your velocity will go up.  Whether or not it burns all of almost all of the powder is a seperate question that your observed velocity increase does not answer.

[zimmerstutzen]

Well D bowman, you didn't have to waste the powder to arrive at that result.  Your findings merely parrot what is published in the Lyman Black Powder handbook.  50 cal barrel shooting 180 grain patched balls from a 43 inch barrel doesn't reach the velocity drop off until it exceeds 110 grains.  The substantial drop doesn't occur until 140 grains is exceeded. If your intent was to prove something by your statement, you fell short.  Here are the Lyman figures: (page 115)
100 grains - 2095 ft/sec   + 95 from prior        20.95 ft/sec/grain of powder   561 ft/lbs at 100 yds
110 grains - 2190 ft/sec   + 90                        19.90 ft/sec/grain                    621  + 60ft/lbs
120 grains - 2243 ft/sec   + 53                        18.69 ft/sec/grain                    657  + 36 ft/lbs
130 grains - 2295 ft/sec   + 53                        17.65 ft/sec/grain                    694  + 37 ft/lbs
140 grains - 2312 ft/sec   + 17                        16.51 ft/sec/grain                    706  + 12 ft/lbs
150 grains - 2329 ft/sec   + 17                        15.52 ft/sec/grain                    719  + 13 ft/lbs
160 grains - 2342 ft/sec   + 13                        14.63 ft/sec/grain                    729  + 10 ft/lbs
170 grains - 2354 ft/sec   + 12                        13.84 ft/sec/grain                    739  + 10 ft/lbs

While velocity continues to increas it does so at such a miniscule amount that the added risk of the extra powder is not worth it.     Now  Ironically, the hated Davenport formula would calculate an optimum load of 94.8 grains of powder.  That is a hefty load for target shooting.  My old rule of thumb for target would have been 70 grains.
So D, you stopped right about where the point of diminishing returns begins.

Had you bothered to try it with a shorter barrel, for instance a 26 inch barrel, you would have found that diminishing returns begins at 100 grains.   What could possibly make the difference?  Maybe because there was more powder that could be burned in a 42 inch barrel?  It would appear that a 140 grain charge would not all be consumed in a 26 inch barrel.  OMG  Some must burn outside the muzzle.

[D. Bowman]

So where is the velocity gain coming from if all that "unburnt powder" is going out the barrel even to 170 gr is showing a small increase You still havent answered that.

[zimmerstutzen]

Your question makes the assumption that most of the extra powder is expelled as unburnt.  That fails to consider that of that extra powder, some burns in the bore, some burns up as muzzle flash and perhaps some falls to the ground unburned.    It doesn't extinguish itself just because the ball left the muzzle and somebody declared Miller Time.    The velocity does continue to climb, but at a neglible rate considering the danger of barrel failure. 

The scary thing, is that breech pressure continues to climb even though the velocity nearly ceases it's increase.   In fact there are tables in the Lyman book for the 45 caliber, in which the point is reached that the additional 10 grains does not increase velocity.

From 100 grains to 170 grains is a 70% increase in powder.  So the velocity should increase by 70% right?  Nope the increase is only 259 ft/sec or a measily 12.36%  (a 70% increase would result in 3561 ft/sec.)  So all that extra powder amounted to pretty much of nothing.     If we look at the 100 yds ft/lbs, that 70% increase in powder yeilds only  a 118 ft/lbs  increase in 100 yd energy, or a 19% increase.    Hardly worth the risk.

   

[alsask]

If you are shooting a .54 with a 1 turn in 48" barrel you will get better accuracy with around 70-90 grains of powder with the patched ball.  The 1 in 48" twist barrels are a compromise twist.  Conicals in the same barrel like a heavy charge.