What is the best ballistic coefficient round ball for the 32 caliber ???

[2lookindown]

I was just wondering if anyone knows what the best ballistic coefficient round ball is for the 32 caliber muzzle loader ? I shoot a lot of long guns and we use the best bullet for the caliber of gun... Just wondering what the 32 caliber muzzle loader shot best....

[Frizzen]

I shoot .323 Hornady

[2lookindown]

I shoot .323 Hornady

Does that require a thin patch and a hammer to load it and what powder charge shoots best and what twist rate & length is your barrel ?

[trentOH]

What's the best turtle for racing in the Kentucky Derby? The difference in BC in 32 caliber roundballs is so small as to be irrelevant. What matters is accuracy. Find a load that shoots minute-of-squirrel-skull, and practice with it. Then practice some more.

[Hungry Horse]

 That question is like the age old question "whats the difference between a duck?" It doesn't make much sense. A usable round ball for a given caliber is only going to vary about .020 plus or minus. The BC is going to be negligible. BC is something you have to consider for long rang shooting. A .32 cal. is a short range gun, if you're shooting round balls. JMO.

                      Hungry Horse


                     

[Don Getz]

The ballistic Coeffiecient of a round ball is probably the worst one you will find, regardless of the calibre.   If you said you had
trouble with them key-holing, then you would need thicker patching.............Don

[2lookindown]

Guys, I knew when I made this post was that we couldn't use the bc of the bullet... This is why I wanted to know what the best twist rate foe the 32 was on the other forums... All I can get is get in the middle of the road and see how it shoots.... If it don't work try something else.... I guess nobody really knows .... I do appreciate the input... I realize the weight of the round ball and the weight of the charge and the thickness of the patch and weather you use hornet nest and how clean the gun is... I guess they will all shoot if you work up the correct load for the barrel Sorry I just get my panties in a wad... but something has got to be the best...

[shifty]

  Well in my experience there is not a real best load for any cal as such,and as far as twist most any resonable twist will work ,when I say resonable I mean like for a PRB no real fast twist like faster than a 1=48" ,this is for a Rifle,you have to work up a ball-patch-lube-powder granulation-powder charge,for each individual rifle. The only 32cal. Rifle I have is a Traditions Crockett and my best combo is Hornady .320 RB,blue strip pillow tick material for the patchs, mink oil lube,15 grns FFFg Goex Black Powder for a\the most accuarcy I can go up to 30grns before accuracy becomes unaceptible,butt take another rifle just like it and this combo may not work,I think the Crockett Rifle has a 1=48" twist.The fun in shooting a ML is finding what works best for each gun.If I was having a 32 cal barrel made I would call several barrel makers and ask them what twist they would recomend,and they may say well for a 32 cal probly about a 1=48",is about the answer you would get. why not call Robert Hoyt-Ed Rayl-Rice-Jim McClemore-etc.

[bob in the woods]

Paper, pencil, and lots of shooting of different charges, patches balls etc will tell you what is best.
I just don't believe that there are too many short cuts. My main target rifle has thousands of rounds through it, and the load it shoots best with now is not the same one that I started out with.
Started with a .535 ball , now shoot a .540    Started with a charge of 80 gr FFg, now likes 90 gr
Depth, twist, round bottom or square type rifling, all have an effect on what load will work best.
For starters, I usually go with a ball 5 thou under ie .445 in a .45 ,  .495 in a .50
Start with a patch that will fully compress and fill the grooves.  In my .32 I started with a charge of 20 gr FFFg.  It really likes 35 gr  of FFg....go figure !

[Stan]

WHAT DON SAID!

[T*O*F]

To quote a famous line from the movie Heartbreak Ridge, "I just come over from supply."

Many of your questions so far seem to indicate you are trying to apply cartridge gun information to round ball guns.  This is a source of frustration to many trying to make the jump.  Most of it just doesn't apply.

[SleepyHillBarrels]

You mite try one of you looking up.As to the best ballistic coefficient for 32 just cull the
square ones
  unleaded

[SCLoyalist]

All I can get is get in the middle of the road and see how it shoots.... If it don't work try something else.... I guess nobody really knows ....

I don't think you're hearing what's being said to you.    There are too many variables that are going to be unique to your particular gun, especially since you've said you're getting a barrel custom made up.  Your barrel is going to be a nominal 32 cal, but the bore diameter could vary a few thousandths of an inch compared to any of the respondents' .32 cal guns.   Your groove depth may be different than others' barrels which may require you to use a thicker or thinner patch just to seal the grooves.   Barrel length and twist ditto, and the list of variables goes on.  

Even in the cartridge gun world,  there isn't a recognized absolutely 'best' load for a given caliber.   If there was, there would only be one weight bullet for 38 special cal available for reloading because everybody would only buy the 'best' bullet.  Different guns, different intended uses =>different bullets (and primers, and powder charge, and powder type, and lube).

As to best ballistic coefficient for .32 roundball:    To get it down the barrel wrapped in a patch, it's going to have to be somewhere around .300 to .325 inches in diameter.  It's a sphere of lead, and the ballistic coefficient for a .310"diameter lead sphere is going to be somewhere around .043 plus or minus not much.  I'd expect your choice of patching material and lube and powder charge will quite possibly have more effect on group size than the ' ballistic coefficient'.

While waiting on your barrel to arrive, you might  try to lay hands on an old (ca. 1985)  copy of Fadala's Black Powder Handbook or the Lyman BP Handbook or Dutch Schoultz's info packet.   The discussions therein are not infallible gospel, but do help bring the interactions of load component selection into focus.

[2lookindown]

SCLoyalist, got my packet from Schoultz today... I just started reading it... It has some interesting info that I was needing to see.... I understand that each gun has its own load and corks.... I knew there wasn't really a ballistic coefficient for the system.... I just wanted to here some of the guys opinions on how they worked up the loads on there guns.... I got Dutch's packet and now I just need to study his system and try to get it to work....

Guys thanks really you have been helpful really....

[SCLoyalist]

Of Dutch's system,  it's not magic, but it does describe a systematic and methodical approach to working up a load.    Some like it, some don't.  The 'dry lube' part is worth a try - on one (but not all) of my rifles, I saw a dramatic shrinkage of group size when I made a minor change to the patch lube.    I came to the conclusion that patch lube may be more important than often thought.     And, many folks get very good results with water or spit without having to mix oil or grease concoctions.

YMMV.   Is usually translated these days as "Your Mileage May Vary."    However, it originated with the Honorable David Crockett of Tennessee when he said "Your Muzzleloading may vary" when asked his recommended load for Old Betsy.

[huntinguy]

I was just wondering if anyone knows what the best ballistic coefficient round ball is for the 32 caliber muzzle loader ? I shoot a lot of long guns and we use the best bullet for the caliber of gun... Just wondering what the 32 caliber muzzle loader shot best....

doesn't BC have to do with the shape of the nose of the projectile? The configuration of the ogive.... That would imply a round ball is a round ball. Save for imperfections... shouldn't they all have the same BC?

[SCLoyalist]

doesn't BC have to do with the shape of the nose of the projectile? The configuration of the ogive.... That would imply a round ball is a round ball. Save for imperfections... shouldn't they all have the same BC?

No, the BC takes in the geometry (especially frontal area) and the mass of the projectile.   A .310 diameter lead roundball will have a BC about .044,   while a .575 diameter lead rb has a BC of .075 and a .620 rb would have a BC around .088.   For two spheres of the same diameter, the only way to change the BC would be to make them out of a less dense material, like brass or glass, to lower the coefficient, or something denser than lead (gold, depleted uranium?) to raise it.

There's a good discussion of ballistic coefficient in the Lyman Black Powder Handbook (1975 edition) explaining the ballistic coefficient and calculation of ballistics tables.   Also, a shorter discussion at
            http://home.insightbb.com/~bspen/math.html   

[huntinguy]

No, the BC takes in the geometry (especially frontal area) and the mass of the projectile.   A .310 diameter lead roundball will have a BC about .044,   while a .575 diameter lead rb has a BC of .075 and a .620 rb would have a BC around .088.   For two spheres of the same diameter, the only way to change the BC would be to make them out of a less dense material, like brass or glass, to lower the coefficient, or something denser than lead (gold, depleted uranium?) to raise it.

Thank you for the link. I should have been more clear, re the round ball, I thought all balls of the same diameter had the same BC.  I may have not clearly understood the OP question. I admit, I never considered the material the ball is made of, other than the impact on the Sectional Desity.

Off to do some reading. Thanks again.

[2lookindown]

HMMM... Makes um do some thinkin.... I think the best BC for the RB would be the heaviest one you could get... The dia. shouldn't give it any help and the lenth will stay the same so all that is left is the weight of 99.9 lead.... You will change the rest of the coefficient with the charge and twist....

[SCLoyalist]

The BC is useful in doing trajectory calculations to compute drop, bullet path and kinetic energy.  In the muzzleloading world of lead patched roundball, BC is  not a factor you can manipulate to shrink your group size.   If you're working up a load, finding the right powder charge,  roundball diameter & patch thickness combo, & patch lube is where the payoff is.   These parameters, along with barrel twist, determine stability and shot to shot uniformity of muzzle velocity.

FWIW, forum member Roundball did some experiments using a .562 brass roundball in his .58 rifle.   Brass, being less dense than lead, would make a roundball with lower BC.  I recall his summary of results being generally positive,  so obviously a lower than theoretically 'best' ballistic coefficient can work.   

[Dphariss]

HMMM... Makes um do some thinkin.... I think the best BC for the RB would be the heaviest one you could get... The dia. shouldn't give it any help and the lenth will stay the same so all that is left is the weight of 99.9 lead.... You will change the rest of the coefficient with the charge and twist....

Compared to a 140 gr .264 caliber match bullet, no the RB does not gain much by increasing the diameter. A blunt modern rifle bullet of a given weight my have a BC that is 1/2 what a VLD match bullet of the same diameter and weight weighs.
But we are not talking about bullets that need a 7-9" twist.
The BC goes up with the diameter. But it takes a very heavy RB to make it to .1 BC.
My .662 is likely about a .08 I figure a 50 cal at .07.
Remember the weight increases much faster than the diameter.
A .315 ball weighs  about 47 gr., double the diameter to .630 and the weight increases to 377.  .690 ball weighs almost exactly 10 times what a .315 ball does.

Beartooth bullets site has a RB weight calculator
http://www.beartoothbullets.com/rescources/calculators/php/roundball.htm?v1=.690&v2=2876.1

There are other calculators as well but some are not functional
http://www.beartoothbullets.com/rescources/index.htm
Dan