Optimal Load Redux: Real World Ballistics?

[Rasch Chronicles]

I read the optimal load thread with interest, even going so far as to do a little excell spreadsheet to do the calculations. I was pretty excited as now I had a concrete starting point to work from.

But the further I read into it, the more I got confused, or better said the more uncertain I was as to whether the formula was good for anything at all.

I was working out the details for a 36 caliber rifle with a 42" barrel and it worked out to 53.5 grains. Now that does sound like a max load for the 36?

I suppose the real question is how do you develop a huntable, tack driving load? Squirrel heads are awful small at fifty meters... and furthermore, I am hard pressed to understand why a .358 roundball through the boiler room at a reasonable distance (again 50 meters) at an apropriate velocity wouldn't be effective on deer.

Where do you start, assuming that the rifle is accurate?

Best regards,
Albert “Afghanus” Rasch
The Rasch Outdoor Chronicles™ Albert Rasch in Afghanistan: She had Beautiful Green Eyes

[BrownBear]

Where do you start, assuming that the rifle is accurate?

I start with the caliber, expecting to go up for big game loads and down for edible small game.  If there's such a thing as a trend, I often find what I'm looking for in small game loads at around half that number or less and for larger game at least 1.5x the caliber and usually more.  But it's so variable from gun to gun, and certainly from hunter to hunter, that there are no clear definitions beyond accuracy and trajectory.  I'm using 10 grains in my 30 cal, 15 grains in my 32, and 20 grains in my 36 (all 3f).  No 40's or 45's in my racks, but my usual load in 50 is 80 grains of 3f or 90 grains of 2f, same for 54 caliber (six of them) but with a couple of rifles that prefer 110.  My 58's (five of them) select loads anywhere from 80 to 140 with 3f dominating the lower end of that range and 2f the top.  In my 62's the range is much the same.  I use my larger bores a lot with light loads for head-shooting snowshoe hare, and those range from 30-35 grains of 3f up to 60 grains of the same. 

Next guy to the plate likely will have very different loads.  His answers are good too.

[Greyfeather]

I started hunting squirrels with my Uncle many years ago at about 12 years old. I was using a 1800's rifle of his and learned very quickly, if you put one in the boiler room, the squirrel is automatically cleaned, generously, and there often wasn't much left for breakfast. Head shots, closer to the nose than the shoulders worked and left something to eat. For .36's I start at 40 grains of 3f and adjust up or down to find the accuracy load for the rifle. Working with a new to me .36 caliber Vincent half stock now that is working well with .351 PRB, .020 patching wet with Hoppe's Black powder solvent and lube.

John

[zimmerstutzen]

Per Lyman’s Black Powder handbook, page 89
For a .36 cal 43 inch barrel

Grns      velo.(ft/sec)      increase from previous
25      1521            n/a
30      1652            131
35      1783            131
40      1913            130
45      2043            130
50      2172            129
55      2232             60
60      2291             59

So what do we see after a load surpasses the formula result?    

Diminished velocity increases!  the formula result comes to right about the point of diminishing returns.

ie, the velocity increase per grain of powder continues right up to the the formula result.  then drops off, ie Optimal load.
(How's that for verification)

[hanshi]

I have no idea how this might figure in but my usual .36 load is 30 grains and it's accurate.  I found that 55 grains was very uniform - chronographed only & have yet to test for accuracy.  My final velocities were considerably lower for charges over 35 grains.  My barrel is 38" but that would not account for the considerable speed discrepancies which in some cases amounted to almost 300fps for the top load.  I use a .350 ball but a larger one may be needed. 

[ironwolf]

  Rate of twist makes a big difference.  A slower twist can be driven faster without opening groups.  My .54 is twisted at  1:72 and takes at least 100 gr. of 2f to group good.  Same load at 1:56 is over kill for groups but the trajectory suffers.  Slower twist barrels can be shot with the same load at all ranges.  It cracks me up to see a shooter spend all day developing a group at 25yds. and then start bumping up the charge at the longer ranges.
 In the old days, the rule of thumb was half the ball weight for your powder charge.  In the Bevel bros. article that pointed out the 5 most common things shooters do to kill accuracy one was this: too light of charge, two others were too small of ball and too thin of patch.

  My tupence,   KW

[zimmerstutzen]

Despite the clear statistical proof that in the 36 and a 42/43 inch barrel, the formula results in the largest charge with the maximum oomph per grain of powder.
  
While I agree that optimum is capable of various twisted definitions for hunters and others, as pointed out in the other thread, the formula applies to max oomph per grain of powder for paper punching.  Whether you want a single charge that can skin an elephant and carve the ivories into a chess set is irrelevent.   Whether you want to sacrifice powder efficiency for a flatter trajectory is likewise irrelevent.  It is for precision paper punching.  Interesting how the nay sayers keep trying to turn it into something it was never intended to be.

[Daryl]

I didn't work out what the formual says to use in that situration- .36 @ 43" -  so I'll take your word that it matched the Lyman chart.  The chart seemed to match the .36 cal with the 43" bl. in 1968", or was it with 1970 or 1972 powder? I bought my copy of that book in 1974, I think.

 In either event, that GOX powder they used is not available today - even the GOEX of 1980 isn't available today. Today's powders are somewhat better or different and therefore a formula that works with powder of 1970, will not be accurate with 2011 powder.  

I know from my own testing, the .40 and .58 data produced by Lyman back then, is way out to lunch in my rifles with today's powders. I didn't check the .45 data.

edited

[Rasch Chronicles]

Sooo,

I want to build a Tennesse style rifle in 36 cal.

It needs to be a tackdriver and needs to push a roundball (the lead one not the writer) through a deer's vitals.

Now Ironwolf's comment from the bevel brothers leads me to believe that much experimentation is neccesary to accomplish not only great accuracy, but the power requisite to take game ethically.

So I am going to have to study this much more...

Thanks fellows!

Best regards,
Albert “Afghanus” Rasch   
The Rasch Outdoor Chronicles Top Ten!

[zimmerstutzen]

as stated several times, the formula is for precision paper punching.  If you want to push a roundball with enough oomph to kill a deer, that is a trade off of extra powder burned with slightly less efficiency in exchange for a little extra velocity and flatter trajectory.  A 36 is so light and has so little inertia that a 36 roundball gun is considered many places as too anemic for deer and therefore illegal in some states.    Shot placement and range would both be a challenge.  Not impossible, but quite a challenge.   

The Ballistic handicap of a round ball causes the ball to slow down at a fast rate over the first hundred yards.   And as the ball approaches and exceeds the speed of sound, air piles up in front of the ball causing a larger area of resistance which in turn slows the ball down even faster than a subsonic ball.

The net effect is that you can end up burning double the powder and getting only a small percentage increase in range.  certainly an increase, but so small that the gain is questionable

[squire]

Evening gentlemen,

My first post here.  I was taught (about 1955 or so) to place the ball in my hand and pour powder until the bullet was covered in sort of a pyramid of powder and use that as a starting load.

 With that .36 caliber rifle I eventually settled on about 60 grains of powder but my real advancement in accuracy was finding the patching material that gave the right fit.

Regards,
Squire

[Rasch Chronicles]

Zim,

I guess I should explain just a touch more.

I really like the Tennessee style, and the idea of a mid sized bore. All my hunting is done at close range, many times very close range. So what I am concerned with is terminal performance at 50 meters maximum. That is why I was asking.

It will be primarily a small game gun, but I want to be certain that if I do my part, I can ethically take deer with it.

Otherwise I'll jus have to use the .50 cal Virginia rifle I am building next!

Best regards,
Albert “Afghanus” Rasch
The Rasch Outdoor Chronicles™   
Learn to Shoot, Break the Flinch!

[Leatherbelly]

 Albert, a .36 in my books is too small for deer. For me,the .45 would be marginal, but I live with big western slope Rocky Mtn. mulies. On the other hand, the forty five will be fine for whities. The .36 would be great for jackrabbits and snowshoe hares, squirrels too. If you're building a fifty anyways, use that! Use your .36 as a varminter.
 Lemme guess, charging pigs? if so, the .50, wheel weight balls(.490),18thou patch, 75 to 90gr.2f,...one very dead porky.

[Rasch Chronicles]

Leatherbelly,

It was bugging me so much that a proper 358 bullet is considered marginal, that I spent all morning trying to figure out why.

It wasn't until I read what the weight of a .358 roundball was that the light came on. (I used this calculator) It's only about 69 grains. No wonder.

Now I get it.

For them pigs, I got the ten bore under the bed...

Best regards,
Albert “Afghanus” Rasch   
The Rasch Outdoor Chronicles’ Top Ten!

[Larry Pletcher]

Albert,
I'm a great fan of the .40 for a varmint gun. I choreographed one load over 2000fps. BTW it's a 92gr ball.  That load would be over the optimum, but I will stay out of that discussion for now.

In Indiana, where I live, we have a .45 minimum for deer. While I think my .40 might do the job on deer at close range, I'd choose to use bigger.  It might be a little like using a .270 to hunt elk or moose-- probably do the job, but.......  (probably shouldn't have used a center fore example)

Regards,
Pletch

[Daryl]

Comparrisons are used to compare something we don't know, with something we do know.

Using a .50 for deer, would be closer to the comparrison of shooting deer with a .30/30, I'd guess- to about 100yards. Past 125, I'd think the .30/30 had a distinct advantage.

The .40 would be the 32/20, although at 50 yards, the .40 might have the power advantage and at 100yards, be closer to a 25/20 or maybe a 22 factory loaded Hornet.

Using a .36RB on deer, would be like using a .22WMR in my opinion, but perhaps with less penetration depending on what was hit.  On a 240 pound whitetail or muley, I doubt a .35" RB would go through the hide, 1/2" of fat, a rib, and make through one lung, let alone two. If it did, it might not cause a fatal wound due to low velcoity causing minimal trauma to the tissues - maybe it would work? At 25 yards on a little Texas whitetail, probably just fine to 50yards.

[Rasch Chronicles]

Pletch,

Thanks for the info. I've killed 189 wild/feral hogs over the last decade and a half, the vast majority of them with a 22 rimfire; it's all about placement. I can see that the ballistics in their entirety are against using the 36 for a broadside shot at a deer, much less something a little more difficult.

So now I have to decide if I should drop to a 32 and make it exclusively a squirrel and rabbit gun!

Thanks to all of you!

Albert

[BrownBear]

So now I have to decide if I should drop to a 32 and make it exclusively a squirrel and rabbit gun!

No need to change caliber at all to do so.  If you like the 36 for a little less wind drift or downrange energy, go for it.  I have 30, 32 and 36 rifles for dedicated small game guns.  No inclination to use any for bigger stuff, but there's a distinct improvement in performance in tough conditions as you go up the scale.  BTW- I keep working DOWN the powder scale in all of them rather than up.  Keeping in mind the ballistics and performance of a 22LR on small game, I just don't see the need for largish charges in these guns, and all mine seem to shoot even better with small charges.  And if the trajectory of a 22LR is sufficient for small game, reduced charges in small caliber muzzleloaders certainly qualify.

I've had problems with neck shots spoiling the front shoulders on snowshoe hares when velocities get too high.  Sure I intend to make head shots, but impact angles are really variable and you can't always keep a shot in the skull for the whole passage of a bullet.  And of course, I'm using small charges in my 50+ calibers on snowshoe hare too.  Talk about great field practice with my big game guns!

[Daryl]

A .36 will take the head clean off a snowshoe hare at 50yards. I suspect a .32 will too.

 I use my .32 for trail walk competition, with shots to 110yards, so a load that puts them all into less than a dime sized hole at 25 yards, but opens to 2" at 50, isn't good enough.  I shoot 35gr., which will make a 1" at 50 and 4" at 100 (only shot one group at 100 and it was offhand).  At 25yards, 35 still makes an oblong hole, smaller than a dime, so there's no need to ever change that load - one measure for all ranges.  40gr. opens up the group.  I need to buy the .319" mould for testing.

[BrownBear]

A .36 will take the head clean off a snowshoe hare at 50yards. I suspect a .32 will too.

And how!!! 

[hanshi]

The .36 is not a good deer caliber but it can certainly down them.  You have to be at least handgun close and place the ball very precisely.  I'd consider 50 yards not only maximum but absolute maximum.  If legal, I can't see why a very good hunter/shot wouldn't be successful.

I've used a .45 for years and all one shot kills even up to 75 yards.

[Leatherbelly]

  Hanshi, yes,I agree, but when talking absolutes, absolute perfect conditions also apply for a .36. It just don't happen that way(very seldom) so I'd go with a heavier caliber if deer was the quarry. Also, a bigger gun will save on the heartaches of a wounded one getting away.JMHO.

[Daryl]

I have a .32, a .40, .45 for plinking and pair of .58's along with a fantastic .69 for serious hunting.  I'm a firm believer in ball weights over 200gr. & over 400 for our largest game - if possible.

[bob in the woods]

My friend went out to check for bear, where he has been baiting. Almost stepped on one !  On his way in the other day, there was a cow moose on the trail, and she followed for a loooooong way.  I told him she probably had a calf near by.
Aside for small game hunting, I try and be prepared for what ever in season. The smallest I take out for deer is a .50, but bear and moose is usually .62 to 10bore smoothy. Best be ready. 

[Rasch Chronicles]

Fellows,

I sure am looking forward to getting home permanently and getting on with the business of putting my fowler together. I've got that Virginian in the works, and ultimately the Tennessee. There are a few too, but I don't want to get too far ahead of myself!

Best regards,
Albert “Afghanus” Rasch
The Rasch Outdoor Chronicles™ Hog Sticking Raj Style! Pt II