Badenpowell, in truth, I have no idea what muzzle velocity I'm getting. I typically use .440 patched ball, and my two favorite .45 rifles are each about 42" barrel length.
What muzzle velocity (ballpark) am I looking at for 60 grain 3Fg? Or perhaps 80 or 90 grain? (I ask this assuming some of you may have similar barrels and have actually chronographed your shots).
I found this page: http://www.mapleleafmarksmen.ca/wp-content/uploads/Ballistics.pdf
This implies 80 grain of 3Fg (zeroed at 50 yards) only drops about 4" at 100 yards, and has a muzzle velocity of 1975 fps. Does this sound right? It doesn't say anything about barrel length in the link, though....
I have worked up loads, using the chronograph in both .45 and .40's with 42" bls.
In testing, I also found out, the tightness of the load (patch thickness and ball size) makes about a much difference as powder charge.
With a slippery lube, like LHV or Mr. Flintlock's lube, the velocities were much higher than when a water based lube was used. This, DPhar has noted as well, in that the water based lube
is not a slippery lube and creates more friction in the bore, than-do the slippery lubes. The powder charges necessary for each lube becomes important was well and in these small bores,
.50 and under, the difference in loads can be as much as 10 to 20gr., each giving identical accuracy, but much different velocities.
In my .45 bl. for instance, a charge of 65gr. of 3F GOEX was the accuracy load using a water based lube and produced a velocity of 1,740fps.
To get the same accuracy with a slippery lube, required 75gr. 3F, but that load generated, with the same .022" patch, 2,240fps.
In further testing, I found with the slippery lube, I got identical accuracy at 50yards using 85gr. 2F GOEX, producing the same velocity as 75gr. 3F, 2,240fps.
These velocities are higher than most any data I have seen, but then MUCH depends on the tightness of the load and if there is blow-by of the burning powder which reduces velocity.
Sam Fadala found this out when he experimented putting wasp nest between his powder and patched ball. When he shot his patched ball & later looked at a slow motion photograph
of the "charge" coming out the muzzle, he saw a lot of flame preceding the patched ball and surmised, correctly that he was getting blow-by. He then tried putting the wasp nest between his patched ball and powder. He found velocities 200fps higher if using this "barrier" to blow-by. He rightly surmised that the wasp nest prevented pressure blow-by- and indeed, claimed the patched ball did not seal and that a barrier was needed to cause a seal and he could prove it with his chronograph. This was not correct. I also had my own chronograph since 1975 & had done my own experiments along that same line, however I followed Ned Robert's writings of 1934, and developed loads that sealed the burning powder behind the ball, producing the higher speeds.
He then chronographed one of the Buckskin Report's members who actually used a tight ball and patch combination with and without the wasp nest. The results were identical and he wrote he did not understand why. I thought that was obvious - someone was blowing smoke about ball and patch combinations not sealing.
His weren't without the barrier and of that, he was correct.
This is/was narrated just to show that MUCH depends on the load, ie: ball and patch combination. If you load with a thin combo that shreds patches and you have to clean often, that is likely
due to a too thin patch. In that situation, your velocity, cleanliness of shooting & your accuracy, might benefit from you using a barrier between the powder and patched ball. Or you could just
use a tighter fitting ball and patch combination. That brings up the muzzle crown condition, which can make loading a tight combination without cutting the patch much easier.
4" is a common drop for a patched round ball, from a 50yard zero, to a 100yards point of impact. This is evident for a fairly wide variety of calibres, using "normal" powder charges.
