What are your thoughts.

[iloco]

Back in the early 70's I use to shoot a custom made 45 caliber Tennesse rifle built by Lew Sanchez.  I still have the rifle.

 My question to you people is it used to be said that the amout of powder to use was the same as the caliber of the rifle.  Like a 50 caliber = 50 grains of powder.

Now days everyone seems to shoot way over this amount.  What is the reason for it...?

 I know some guns shoot better with different loads.  Heck I shoot best with 15 grains of powder in my 32 caliber.  It will get a squirell in most the tallest trees.

[WadePatton]

Every gun has a charge weight/volume that it prefers.  ANY "rule of thumb" for an amount of powder to shoot is simply a starting point from which the shooter develops his loadings.  

Target loads can be anything that'll clear the muzzle, and game loads should be on the heavy end.  Some shooters use both a game load and a target load.  Some use heavier, most accurate developed loadings for all purposes.  This might vary by the size of the bore and how frugal one cares to be with powder.

The actual size and hardness of the balls, the thickness/toughness of your patching material, and the lube (water or oil-based) will affect rifle accuracy as well.  

The minute variations in actual bore size, rifling, rate, the fitment of the bbl to the stock, burn rate of powder- all play into exactly what the gun prefers for best performance.  Developing a load is required for optimum accuracy, there is no way around that.

Many shooters do not strive for optimum accuracy, and may be quite satisfied to hit targets modestly.  The rest of us are chasing X's and headshots...

---
Caliber to volume loading sounds like a target load starting point.  My 54 is happy with 60 for plinking, but a hunting load will be about 2x that for the fact of variable and unknown distances to be covered, as well as proper penetration.
 
Back in the 80's I shot about double the caliber for hunting.

[Bob Roller]

Old American rifles that survive with the original powder measure are rare but the Modena Hawken which was 58 caliber had a flask with it and the maximum it would drop was 85 grains.Behind a soft lead 58 caliber ball,that is a bone crushing load. My maternal grand father told me that he hunted with a muzzle loader until the early part of the 20th century and measured the load by putting a ball in the palm of his hand and pouring powder over it until it formed a cone/cover.That was his hunting load.
I think the heavy loads of today came in with new made muzzle loaders and inexperienced shooters that were trying to make a "Magnum"out of their new TC "Hawken". A friend kills deer every years with a 40 caliber flint lock loaded with 50 grains of 3fg,one shot kills and he's done it for years. Shot placement works every time.

Bob Roller

[EC121]

I agree with Bob.  It is "magnumitis".  I watched a hunting show today, and the man had a stainless steel "muzzleloader" with a $1000 scope on it.  He was shooting some sort of Cor-bon slug(probably jacketed and saboted).  Might as well have had a centerfire.  A round ball enters the animal at the expanded size of most centerfires and dumps most of its energy in the target instead of going off into the background.  Doesn't take a lot of powder to do that.  The ideal load just pops through the skin on the far side of the animal and falls to the ground.  That is 100% energy transfer.  Any more than that is wasted powder.

[galamb]

I don't shoot max loads or usually anywhere near them (I'm cheap and it costs me about 35 bucks a pound for powder - taxes in).

I consider my absolute maximum range to be 70 yards - just a personal thing, but that's my "outer edge".

So when I develop my load I'm looking for the amount of powder required to give me a sub-1" variance in the trajectory between muzzle and 70 yards (my point blank range) with out venturing into the land of "diminishing returns" (the point where you burn more powder but the increase in speed, in percent, drops quicker than the increase (in percent) of powder burned.

With my 40 cal that worked out to 60 grains/FFF and 80 grains/FFF with both my 45 and 50 cals - the 45 has a 42" barrel, the 50 has a 36".

(my powder charges are almost bang on the "most efficient" load for the caliber/barrel length that I shoot based on a rather controversial formula which gives the most efficient load for my 40=60 grains, 45=79 grains, 50=81 grains).

[David R. Pennington]

I usually start with my powder measure set around the caliber size and work up 5 grains at a time shooting 3 shot groups till I get the groups as tight as possible (hopefully one hole). When the group starts spreading I back up 5 grains. My .50 likes 75 grains 3f. If I go to 80 grains my group opens up at 100 yards. My .40 likes 55 grains.

[Virginiarifleman]

I do the same as DavidR, start with caliber and do 5 grain increments till I achieve that sweet spot.

[Dphariss]

Back in the early 70's I use to shoot a custom made 45 caliber Tennesse rifle built by Lew Sanchez.  I still have the rifle.

 My question to you people is it used to be said that the amout of powder to use was the same as the caliber of the rifle.  Like a 50 caliber = 50 grains of powder.

Now days everyone seems to shoot way over this amount.  What is the reason for it...?

 I know some guns shoot better with different loads.  Heck I shoot best with 15 grains of powder in my 32 caliber.  It will get a squirell in most the tallest trees.

This was not true even in Rev-War times. Hanger talks of using 1/2 ball weight of powder at the time of the American Revolution.
The one caliber per grain of caliber, like all these formulas only works on a limited range of calibers, the 1 per caliber  works for 30 maybe 36. Above that at least at 45 its more like 1/2 ball weight for BEST VELOCITY and often best or good accuracy. Then someplace around 54 this is starting to be too much and with some powders can result in serious fouling problems. My 67 caliber gives about all the velocity I need and all the recoil too at about 30% of the 437 gr ball weight.
I never used 15 in my 32 except for hunting setting rabbits once in the grove behind our house. Some rifles simply do not tolerate light loads others do (?). So its necessary to shoot different loads up to a pretty good velocity to see what works best. Another old rule was to load it till it cracks. 15 gr in my 32 did not make a crack. When I was hunting squirrels I wanted a load that shot flat so that a 6 oclock on the head would kill to 40 yards or so. They are not always in trees. But thats just me.

Dan

[Dphariss]

I don't shoot max loads or usually anywhere near them (I'm cheap and it costs me about 35 bucks a pound for powder - taxes in).

I consider my absolute maximum range to be 70 yards - just a personal thing, but that's my "outer edge".

So when I develop my load I'm looking for the amount of powder required to give me a sub-1" variance in the trajectory between muzzle and 70 yards (my point blank range) with out venturing into the land of "diminishing returns" (the point where you burn more powder but the increase in speed, in percent, drops quicker than the increase (in percent) of powder burned.

With my 40 cal that worked out to 60 grains/FFF and 80 grains/FFF with both my 45 and 50 cals - the 45 has a 42" barrel, the 50 has a 36".

(my powder charges are almost bang on the "most efficient" load for the caliber/barrel length that I shoot based on a rather controversial formula which gives the most efficient load for my 40=60 grains, 45=79 grains, 50=81 grains).

Have you actually chronoed the 60 gr 40 cal load? Starting with 35 grains a going up 5 at a time to 60? I bet you will find you are past diminishing returns (which to me is meaningless)  even though many 40s from reports shoot best with a load this heavy or more. I would like to see the test results just for my personal knowledge base, curiosity if you will.  Shooting a picket bullet (about 150 gr weight) my best load so far in the 40 is 80 of FF Swiss, have not shot a RB in it and its got a broken mainspring anyway. 60 in a 40 is heavy for a RB but the formula explained to me for RB vs Picket charges indicated that it will shoot with about 48 grains or 3/5 of the picket load. Also 79 gr is a stiff load for a 45. 80-90 is about right for a 50 being close to 1/2 ball weight. My 67 caliber rifle passes the point of diminishing returns at about 120 with a 30" barrel and a Nock breech. But 140 gives me the trajectory I want and it shoots good. My 54 with a cupped breech (worth about 80 fps according to actual tests in a 50) gives 1900 with 90 gr of FFF Swiss. 1900 is not a light load but it should be close to optimum for velocity gain but I never bothered to check it.

Dan

[galamb]

Dan, I didn't go up 5 grains at a time but 10 grains for 40, 50 and 60 grains (Goex FFF).

The barrel is 42" long, so better suited to "effectively" burning the 60 grains than a shorter barrel would.

Measured 10 feet from the muzzle the (averaged) velocities were:

40 grains - 1703 fps
50 grains - 1818 fps
60 grains - 1935 fps

So from 40 to 50 grains (25% powder increase), got 7% speed increase

Between 50 and 60 grains (20% powder increase) still got 6% speed increase (actually better mathematically than the jump between 40 and 50 grains)  but more important to me, kept the trajectory down to about 1" all the way out to 80 yards - past the furthest I want to be.

I had already calculated that 60 grains would have been the most efficient load, so just jumped up to it from 40 grains (picked 40 grains because it's a 40 cal and was looking for a hunting load - and I use it for Whitetails (without getting into the suitability for a 40 cal for deer)).

60 grains was flat and accurate (sub 2" groups at 50 - all I need), so I "called it good".

I don't horse around a lot with load development. I "hunt" my guns - don't care if they can cut a string at 25 yards etc (and "I" can't shoot that well anyhow) so my method/formula may have no relevance to other shooters.

(should have included - additionally, using 60 grains, the ball remains supersonic @ 50 yards (my effective max range), so I don't have to deal with the "small ball" coming back to sub-sonic before impact - it is supersonic for it's entire flight - at 50 grains it would be "iffy" at best)

[WadePatton]

Haven't even thought of dragging the old chronograph out since i got back to shooting, because at this point in my frame of mind-accuracy transcends speed/efficiency. 

IOW, it don't matter how fast if it misses.

[iloco]

I wonder how many old timers in the 17-1800's had a chronograph.....?
 I still believe we trying to use to much modern technology on what was a primitive type rifle compared to our now modern weapons.
 I am in the old school type of thinking like Bob Roller and a couple others.
Same with ball size.  If I have to beat it into the barrel to start it then I think it is a to big of a ball.  One should be able to start a ball with his thumb and then use a ram rod of hickory to seat it onto the powder.
   How many old timers had time for all this new technology.  Heck most of them could not read a chronograph if they had one.  My grandfater could only make an X for his name.

 Lot good reading on how others do their thing weather others do the same or not is ok also.

[Virginiarifleman]

Iloco, I think you hit the nail on the head. I agree.

[hanshi]

Having chronographed loads in most of my rifles, I can give my results, both accuracy and velocity.  For my .40 I get almost exactly the same velocities he posted with each charge.  The 40 grain load is my favorite all around shooter.  The 60 grain load would be what I would use on deer.  My barrel is 38".  At 100 yards the 60 grain load has shot 4" groups (ave) and that's about as good as I can do with any of my flintlocks. 

The 36" LL I hunted so much with killed it's deer with 80 grains of 3F.  Now I mostly use 60 grains (about 1650fps) or 70 sometimes for near 1800fps.  Again 4" is about as good as I can do at 100 with those primitive sights.

With the .50 x 38" EL 70 grains gives over 1700fps and is at least as accurate as the other two.  I'd be satisfied with 60 grns of 3F in both the .45 and .50.

[George Sutton]

I am not a big fan of tight patch/ball combinations nor am I a fan of heavy powder charges. I agree with Bob Roller and Iloco. This is not rocket science. We all have unique circumstances. Dan lives out west and has to in many cases, take long range shots. I live in Maine where If I shoot a deer at more than 50 yards it's unusual. My maximum hunting range is 125 yards, and I feel that's pushing it. So, loads are developed based on need and accuracy.

75 grains of 3f Goex in my .58 will kill anything on the continent with maybe the exception of a big grizzly bear but I'm not taking 300 yard shots either.

I started shooting these rifles in the early 60's. I have never shot through a chronograph with one nor do I ever intend to. Accuracy with round ball guns does not equate with the speed of the ball. That's why some round ball guns shoot better with light loads. This is not like shooting conical bullets where the bearing surface of the bullet and velocity come into play for stabilizing the bullet. In many cases long bearing surface heavy bullets do not stabilize until they get out past 200 yards. That's why many black powder cartridge shooters shoot different sized bullets at different yardages.

For years I shot a tight patch/ball combination. In most cases you don't need it. All you need, in my opinion, is a load that doesn't allow blow by. For years I used heavy cotton ticking for my patching, now I use pure linen. I think it holds up better than anything else. I can thumb press the ball into the muzzle.

I also believe that it's difficult to give advice without having all the information such as barrel length, twist, rifling depth, etc. You can actually develop a heavy load that will "jump the lands" in a fast twist barrel, and of all the calibers the .40's allow for the most variation in twist. (One of the barrel guys can jump in on that one.)

It's been stated here before that these guns are all different and require different loads to make them fit your application. This can only be achieved by experimentation. Wow I guess the caffeine is working this morning.

Centershot

[okawbow]

Back in the early 70's I use to shoot a custom made 45 caliber Tennesse rifle built by Lew Sanchez.  I still have the rifle.

 My question to you people is it used to be said that the amout of powder to use was the same as the caliber of the rifle.  Like a 50 caliber = 50 grains of powder.

Now days everyone seems to shoot way over this amount.  What is the reason for it...?

 I know some guns shoot better with different loads.  Heck I shoot best with 15 grains of powder in my 32 caliber.  It will get a squirell in most the tallest trees.

This was not true even in Rev-War times. Hanger talks of using 1/2 ball weight of powder at the time of the American Revolution.
The one caliber per grain of caliber, like all these formulas only works on a limited range of calibers, the 1 per caliber  works for 30 maybe 36. Above that at least at 45 its more like 1/2 ball weight for BEST VELOCITY and often best or good accuracy. Then someplace around 54 this is starting to be too much and with some powders can result in serious fouling problems. My 67 caliber gives about all the velocity I need and all the recoil too at about 30% of the 437 gr ball weight.
I never used 15 in my 32 except for hunting setting rabbits once in the grove behind our house. Some rifles simply do not tolerate light loads others do (?). So its necessary to shoot different loads up to a pretty good velocity to see what works best. Another old rule was to load it till it cracks. 15 gr in my 32 did not make a crack. When I was hunting squirrels I wanted a load that shot flat so that a 6 oclock on the head would kill to 40 yards or so. They are not always in trees. But thats just me.

Dan

Did they use 3f powder in the 1700's? I think the grain size and quality of powder we use today is different than back then. 60 grains of 18th century powder might produce about the same pressure as 40 grains Swiss 3f.

I have shot most of my rifles with a 1/2 power weight to ball weight of 2f goex. That was a very accurate long range load in all of the slow twist barrels, even the .62. It also caused the ball to completely flatten and expend all of it's energy in deer. For 3f, I drop the maximum load to a little over 1/3 of the ball weight, and get about the same results. For targets, I like to use just enough powder to get a "crack" from the rifle, and that is usually a fairly accurate load.

[hanshi]

A snug ball/patch fit goes a long way toward keeping the fouling down in a bore.  My only requirement is as tight a ball/patch fit as I can get that still allows seating with a wood ramrod.  I have proven to myself many times that is does make a major difference.  And it doesn't matter what your charge is; works as good with light as with heavy.   

[bgf]

One thing I always point out is that "antique" twist rates were almost always +/- 1:48, whereas modern twists are slower in calibers over .40.  And antique powder may have been finer/heavier.  So, grain=caliber is usually a starting point nowadays, but it is rarely the best.  For example, my 1:70 .50 Doesn't start shooting until 65gr. 2f goex, but 55 gr. 3f goes shoots just as well.  50 gr swiss 3f is great.  The amount of bark is about equal!  My .40 has only had from 40 to 70 gr. 3f goex.  40 gr. is fine, but I usually shoot 60 to get it downrange faster.  70 starts to suffer, but it may be I need better patching.  I almost think modern twist rates are too slow for target and woodland hunting, and require excessive powder.  On the other hand, the slower twists are helpful for longer range hunting out west and for special long range target shooting, to minimize wind drift.  Just my thoughts...

[Bob Roller]

Slow twists for long range? Since when? All of the really long range muzzle loaders I have seen and shot had a fast twist of 1:20 or 1:18.

Bob Roller

[Mike R]

Lots of different opinions on this...depends on several factors and conditions...most people try to find the most accurate load for their rifle by trial and error. Most of the 'advice' or rules of thumb are just starting points.  That said, there are several period to early 20th cent references to relativley crude ways of loading--e.g., pouring powder over a ball held in a [flat, not cupped] hand until it just covers it [then cupping and pouring into barrel].  Most BP rifles will tolerate a wide range of loads and still provide some degree of accuracy [if not best, so the old tales often "work".  My first good longrifle was a .45 I made with a GRRW barrel back in 78.  Instead of trying a variety of loads, I looked up tables in Lyman's BP manual and selected 65 gr fffg for "optimium" velocity/energy hunting load using a .445 ball--amazingly enough it grouped under 1" at 50 yds with that load. The .445 ball was tight and hard to load, so years later I entered an informal shooting match with that rifle and for the very 1st time tried a .440 ball and 50 gr fffg---I won the match!  Go figure.  Still my most accurate rifle out of the dozen or so I have or had.

[J Henry]

    Like was pointed out,"opinions" play a big part in what we do.If I try something and it works for me ,,my opinion is it is the way to/I do it and it works.. Not necessary going to work in another rifle or condition.Best thing I have done is to get my gear ,head for the range and enjoy a day of creating "opinions ha ha ha
  Just when I get it all figured out along comes another opinion and I get to try it,  whats not to love?
  Fast twist barrels are designed to shoot slugs ( cross sectional density) and require fast twist to stabilize the slug.PRB are not the best designed,spin them to fast and the curve,,like a fast ball pitched in baseball..
 My 45 likes 65 fff and .440 PRB then it likes 60 FFF and does just fine..
 I sometimes wonder if the fact the rifling was cut by hand  didn't play a part in the ROT  lots less time and mussel in 1-48  than a  1-22 and they were shooting PRB not slugs for the most part....
  Think of this,,Today is the tomorrow, you worried about yesterday.

[Daryl]

My .40, when 42" long - using LHV for lube and a .398" or .400" ball and .020" to .023" patch, liked 65gr. 3F GOEX for 2,260fps, or same ball, lube and patch with 75gr. 3f GOEX- vel. 2,240fps. With these loads, it would shoot into 1/2" at 50 yards for 5 shot groups in no wind conditions.  With 55gr. 3F GOEX, same ball and patch but WWWF + tich Neetsfoot oil, would make 1,880fps. Using the same amount of powder, but with 2F GOEX, the velocity dropped to 1,760fps but maintained the same accuracy.

Using these lighter charges with the WWWF+oil for lube, increased group sizes to 1 1/2" & even more with the 2F. The slippery lubes demanded more powder and thus higher speeds to shoot as well as the water based lubes.

[bgf]

Slow twists for long range? Since when? All of the really long range muzzle loaders I have seen and shot had a fast twist of 1:20 or 1:18.

Bob Roller

Relative long ranges for patched round ball.  Conicals are different.

[Hessian]

I use 60grs of 3F in my .48. Shoots like a laser. Works for me!
Hessian

[Candle Snuffer]

I remember one of the first organized shooting matches I went to 40 years ago with a .50 caliber CVA Mountain Rifle with 1 in 66 twist, and .008 depth rifling,,, the helpful and very friendly folks suggested - "50 grains for a 50 cal at 25 yards, 55 to 60 grains at 50 yards, and 60 to 70 grains at 100 yards. Take note of that first shot on target and adjust your hold from there." Back then I thought that was pretty good advise and of course I had no other knowledge to measure it by as I was rather new to the game of target shooting, so I lived with that advise for years, and still think it's a good bit of advise for the beginner until they venture out and start developing their "best load" with their smoke pole.