Author Topic: Conicals for .54 calibers??  (Read 5896 times)

Offline Hungry Horse

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5354
Re: Conicals for .54 calibers??
« Reply #25 on: September 07, 2022, 08:14:58 PM »
 I find that the biggest problem with conicals is loading a second shot. We all want to believe we only need one shot, but that isn’t always so.
 Out here on the West Coast we also have the issue with lead free projectiles, which when cast tend to be larger than those cast from pure lead.
 For me conicals just add too many degrees of difficulty.

Hungry Horse

Offline john bohan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 312
Re: Conicals for .54 calibers??
« Reply #26 on: September 08, 2022, 12:12:39 AM »
Look for Idaho Lewis on youtube ,he shoots 54 conicals very well out to 1200 yards.

Offline MuskratMike

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2162
Re: Conicals for .54 calibers??
« Reply #27 on: September 08, 2022, 12:52:05 AM »
Not all the west coast, just those who live in California. As to the hard loading of a second shot, I load my rifle with a patched round ball, for the second shot I have a premeasured load and a greased conical in a ball board hanging around my neck. I can be reloaded in under 30 seconds.
"Muskrat" Mike McGuire
Keep your eyes on the skyline, your flint sharp and powder dry.

Offline Steeltrap

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
Re: Conicals for .54 calibers??
« Reply #28 on: September 08, 2022, 06:18:44 PM »
WWWF is not a hunting lube. with or without oil added.

This comment made me pause......if you use WWWF as a lube.....what difference would it make if you're shooting at a target or a whitetail? In other words, why is it not "a hunting lube." I doubt the whitetail is going to know the difference.

Offline martin9

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 283
Re: Conicals for .54 calibers??
« Reply #29 on: September 10, 2022, 10:43:01 PM »
Because of the water in it. Fine for trail walks but you wouldn't want it sitting there a long time as the powder will absorb the moisture. You want a grease....no water...lube for hunting because a hunting gun might stay loaded for days at a time.

Offline Steeltrap

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
Re: Conicals for .54 calibers??
« Reply #30 on: September 11, 2022, 12:48:39 AM »
Because of the water in it. Fine for trail walks but you wouldn't want it sitting there a long time as the powder will absorb the moisture. You want a grease....no water...lube for hunting because a hunting gun might stay loaded for days at a time.

Ok...that makes sense. Well...actually....I knew that....I was posting for a friend.   ;)

Offline Steeltrap

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
Re: Conicals for .54 calibers??
« Reply #31 on: September 11, 2022, 05:40:24 PM »
I received my order from TOTW for the .54 Cal "Minnie" Conicals. It's tough to apply that SPG lube with a fork.  :(

All kidding aside, I've lubed up a batch to try.

In addition, I still have some 300gr. Lee's left and I'll lube those up with SPG and see how they do with a different lube.

Range report will come.

Offline Steeltrap

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
Re: Conicals for .54 calibers??
« Reply #32 on: September 12, 2022, 07:01:02 PM »
Ok....so I lubed both the remaining .54cal Lee Real 300gr (after removing the Lee lube) and these .54cal Mini conicals with SPG.

I decided to measure the diameters of both of these projectiles and found it interesting. Now, the Lee has a flat base and the Mini has a deeper hollow base (to expand when fired).

But here's the measurements:

Lee: Weight-300gr, Diameter at top .551. Diameter at base .540
Mini: Weight-435gr, Diameter at top .532-.533. Diameter at base .534

Now, it's interesting to note that the Lee's "top" diameter is .011 more than the base of the conical\bullet. The Mini is backwards...with the "top" being .010 less than the base of the conical.

I realize the Mini is suppose to (with the hollow base) expand upon the firing and get "bumped out" to engage the rifling....and for the most part so is the Lee. Since the Lee does not have a hollow base I'm guessing that's the reason for a larger diameter base.

What's somewhat perplexing is the Mini has a smaller top diameter. I haven't rammed a Mini down the barrel yet.....but just from the measurements it appears it will almost "drop" down the barrel.

Welp.....I'll provide the range report after I shoot it.

Online taterbug

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 144
Re: Conicals for .54 calibers??
« Reply #33 on: September 14, 2022, 08:21:36 PM »
thought I'd reply to this to get it to the top of the stack.

I think that Track (and a lot of other sellers) gets their balls and bullets from various 'vendors', don't think they make them themselves.  So they can only sell what they get in the door. 

Next, I think the 'hollow base' Minie moulds use a steel plug to create the hollow base in the main portion of an aluminum mould block.  Very different rates of expansion in the two metals, and then you have a third rate of expansion (and contraction) in the molten lead. 

To add to the variables, different lead alloys will have different expansion and contraction rates than pure lead.  The cooling of all this (molten lead, aluminum, and steel) is also affected by the way and the direction that the lead enters the mould.  Some pour in from the nose, some pour in from the base.  I believe these hollow base have to pour in from the nose because of the steel plug in the bottom of the mould. 

All these things 'can be' figured out and accounted for (its all known and available info), but unlikely that all the details would be taken to the last percentage point for a consumer product at this price point. 

considering all this, really not surprising that there are some odd dimensions on the final product.  To be honest, I'd be more surprised if either of these bullets were 'perfect'.  You would probably also see minor differences 'at the seam' versus 90 degrees from the seam.


Offline Steeltrap

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
Re: Conicals for .54 calibers??
« Reply #34 on: September 14, 2022, 10:37:28 PM »
Ok, so here's the range report. Both the Lee Real 300gr and the Mini 435gr were lubed with SPG and these target pics are all at 100 yards, from a bench of course.

In this pic the hole to the far right was shot using 100gr FF. The second shot of 100gr FF was a million miles away. So, scratch the 100gr load. I then used 110gr GOEX FF on the three remaining Lee Real bullets I had and got the 4-3/4" three shot spread. For 100 yards it's "deer kill" accurate.




Then I went to the 435gr Mini lubed with SPG. While the 300gr Lee's grouped a bit to the right, these Mini's hit more POA. Using 100gr GOEX FF as a charge these came in at the 4.25" respectable "deer kill" at 100 yards as well. Now, the odd\interesting\maybe slightly scary thing about these Mini's is the fact (as my previous post stated) that they darn near "drop" down the barrel with very little force. Of course being that these Mini's have that "hollow base" provides them with rifle engagement once the "boom" enlarges the base.



Now, my experiment was not quite yet done with the Mini's. I have a Lee Universal Expander die that came with two expander "Plugs". So, what I did was took three Mini's, placed the base over the free-standing expander plug and gave the Mini a "hit" to drive the base into the expander....and thus enlarging the diameter of the base. It isn't a hard hit to accomplish this and the Mini's then had friction when ramming them down the tube.

I used the same 100gr FF GOEX for these....but the results were quite different. As the picture shows, a three shot group spread to a unimpressive 7.5" group at 100 yards. Now, being that my "hammer" taps were not consistent on each Mini may account for the larger spread. Or it may be the Mini's just don't like being smacked. I'm thinking when I hit 'em it may have caused a non-concentric base to form, and the bullet left the barrel a bit off or lopsided. I dunno.

I am concerned with just how easy these Mini's drop and of course, my concern is the Mini will work away from the seated charge when the rifle is bounced around in hunting season. And we all know the negatives of how that works.   In any event, that's the range report. Well....that and I'm darn near outta FF powder!!



Offline Stoner creek

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2686
Re: Conicals for .54 calibers??
« Reply #35 on: September 14, 2022, 11:24:48 PM »
This is very interesting. I’m currently making a 50 cal bullet barrel flint gun. My goal is for the group pictured at 250 yards. No optics, just a peep sight and hooded lollipop front sight. Might be a pipe dream, I don’t know.
I can get 9 ring accuracy at 100 yards right now with fixed iron sights on my daily shooter.
 I’m sure that this is an ongoing adventure for you. Keep us posted. Good luck 🍀.
W
Remember what got us here.

Offline ScottNE

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 187
Re: Conicals for .54 calibers??
« Reply #36 on: September 14, 2022, 11:28:30 PM »
What's somewhat perplexing is the Mini has a smaller top diameter. I haven't rammed a Mini down the barrel yet.....but just from the measurements it appears it will almost "drop" down the barrel.

Welp.....I'll provide the range report after I shoot it.

I’m not sure what the make or age or what bullets he uses (I know he’s played around with a number of different ones), but my brother’s Springfield loads pretty much that way when the barrel is clean — thumb the minie into the muzzle, and it slides down on its own with just the weight of the ramrod balanced on top of it. He gets “combat accuracy” at 100 yards. I always assumed that was the point of a minie ball, but Ive never delved too much into anything besides roundball since all my muzzleloaders are flintlocks and I prefer to be as historically accurate as I can, although if I ever have the time to start hunting I’ll likely experiment with conicals.

Online Dphariss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9685
  • Kill a Commie for your Mommy
Re: Conicals for .54 calibers??
« Reply #37 on: September 15, 2022, 12:15:07 AM »
I find that the biggest problem with conicals is loading a second shot. We all want to believe we only need one shot, but that isn’t always so.
 Out here on the West Coast we also have the issue with lead free projectiles, which when cast tend to be larger than those cast from pure lead.
 For me conicals just add too many degrees of difficulty.

Hungry Horse

There are a number of issues. While various bullets were in use from circa 1830 onward they never caught on for hunting as far as I can tell. For one thing if carried muzzle down on a horse they might simply unload if “naked” as the ML cavalry carbines did. If patched as with the picket bullet a guide starter is needed or accuracy is intolerable. And these are heavy and easily damaged.
There are other issues as well. Since a 50 cal or larger RB always penetrates adequately I can’t see the reason for the increased recoil, higher trajectory, increased pressure and potential bore obstruction issues with the “naked conical”.
He who dares not offend cannot be honest. Thomas Paine

Offline Steeltrap

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
Re: Conicals for .54 calibers??
« Reply #38 on: September 15, 2022, 02:44:21 AM »

There are other issues as well. Since a 50 cal or larger RB always penetrates adequately I can’t see the reason for the increased recoil, higher trajectory, increased pressure and potential bore obstruction issues with the “naked conical”.

While I agree with your comment on the PRB doing the job (as I stated in an earlier post on this thread) the part you likely missed by not reading through the entire post is that my disability prevents an "easy" loading of a PRB. Hence, the conical loading without the necessity to center the patch and keep it there when the initial "hit" into the barrel is required is a very real plus for someone like me. It's not that I can't load a PRB, but if I can find an easier way, I will do just that.

Offline Steeltrap

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
Re: Conicals for .54 calibers??
« Reply #39 on: September 15, 2022, 02:50:20 AM »
I was giving some thought as to how could I consistently make every Mini base "expand" just enough to cause it to be pushed down the barrel and not simply "drop" down the barrel.

So, I have a Lee sizing die that I purchased sometime back for resizing some .431 lead 44 mag bullets down to .429. I got a good deal on the .431's.

This sizing die is used on a regular single stage reloading press and it has a simple flat top stem that snaps into the shell holder. I could then put the Lee expander mandrel in the Lee expander die, and with careful adjustments of the die, place the Mini (flat nose) onto the stem, and just "press" the Mini up into the expander to allow the base of the Mini to be pushed out to a concentric, consistent diameter.

Worth a try. 

Online Dphariss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9685
  • Kill a Commie for your Mommy
Re: Conicals for .54 calibers??
« Reply #40 on: September 15, 2022, 06:48:34 AM »
I was giving some thought as to how could I consistently make every Mini base "expand" just enough to cause it to be pushed down the barrel and not simply "drop" down the barrel.

So, I have a Lee sizing die that I purchased sometime back for resizing some .431 lead 44 mag bullets down to .429. I got a good deal on the .431's.

This sizing die is used on a regular single stage reloading press and it has a simple flat top stem that snaps into the shell holder. I could then put the Lee expander mandrel in the Lee expander die, and with careful adjustments of the die, place the Mini (flat nose) onto the stem, and just "press" the Mini up into the expander to allow the base of the Mini to be pushed out to a concentric, consistent diameter.

Worth a try.
It will be a slip fit by the time its at the powder. Nobody thought they needed conical until TC started making Maxi-balls because “roundballs won’t kill anything cause they are old fashioned and have such a low BC”. At least thats what TC had the gun writers parroting. You will get far more killing power by simply going to the round ball the same weight as the conical and it will operate at far less pressure. The was found to be the truth over 170 years ago. And Greener writes of this in “The Gun and It’s Developement”. As does James Forsythe who hunted in India and wrote extensively on the shortcomings of bullets for big game and hunting in general.  But we have to keep reinventing the wheel.  Sir Samuel Baker, for example, tried a  conical in his 6 bore stopping rifle. Which with a ball (actually it was a 2 groove with a belted ball) he stated that “..it never failed to floor a charging elephant). He was going to make it better so he had a conical mould made. He stated that “ ..it got me into such scrapes” that he abandoned the idea. Getting into “scrapes” with elephant can easily be fatal. The big game hunters of the world used the round ball into the cartridge era. Selous (IIRC) who hunted with 4 bore percussion smooth bores stated that he wished he had never used the light weight guns (about 1/2 what they should have weighed) due to the effect their recoil had on his shooting for the rest of his life. But also stated that nothing he ever used “drove” (penetrated) better. But they also used hardened lead exclusively in Africa and India. Forsythe’s 14 bore (69 caliber) rifle using a hardened 15 bore ball would shoot completely through an Indian Elephants head from side to side. The best hunting rifle in the Western US was the typical “mountian rifle” in 50-58 caliber using a patched round ball. Until the Sharps and Remingtons in 44-77 came on the scene it was the best meat getter. Far better than any of the early breech loaders.
He who dares not offend cannot be honest. Thomas Paine

Offline Steeltrap

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
Re: Conicals for .54 calibers??
« Reply #41 on: September 15, 2022, 04:23:00 PM »
I was giving some thought as to how could I consistently make every Mini base "expand" just enough to cause it to be pushed down the barrel and not simply "drop" down the barrel.

So, I have a Lee sizing die that I purchased sometime back for resizing some .431 lead 44 mag bullets down to .429. I got a good deal on the .431's.

This sizing die is used on a regular single stage reloading press and it has a simple flat top stem that snaps into the shell holder. I could then put the Lee expander mandrel in the Lee expander die, and with careful adjustments of the die, place the Mini (flat nose) onto the stem, and just "press" the Mini up into the expander to allow the base of the Mini to be pushed out to a concentric, consistent diameter.

Worth a try.
It will be a slip fit by the time its at the powder. Nobody thought they needed conical until TC started making Maxi-balls because “roundballs won’t kill anything cause they are old fashioned and have such a low BC”. At least thats what TC had the gun writers parroting. You will get far more killing power by simply going to the round ball the same weight as the conical and it will operate at far less pressure. The was found to be the truth over 170 years ago. And Greener writes of this in “The Gun and It’s Developement”. As does James Forsythe who hunted in India and wrote extensively on the shortcomings of bullets for big game and hunting in general.  But we have to keep reinventing the wheel.  Sir Samuel Baker, for example, tried a  conical in his 6 bore stopping rifle. Which with a ball (actually it was a 2 groove with a belted ball) he stated that “..it never failed to floor a charging elephant). He was going to make it better so he had a conical mould made. He stated that “ ..it got me into such scrapes” that he abandoned the idea. Getting into “scrapes” with elephant can easily be fatal. The big game hunters of the world used the round ball into the cartridge era. Selous (IIRC) who hunted with 4 bore percussion smooth bores stated that he wished he had never used the light weight guns (about 1/2 what they should have weighed) due to the effect their recoil had on his shooting for the rest of his life. But also stated that nothing he ever used “drove” (penetrated) better. But they also used hardened lead exclusively in Africa and India. Forsythe’s 14 bore (69 caliber) rifle using a hardened 15 bore ball would shoot completely through an Indian Elephants head from side to side. The best hunting rifle in the Western US was the typical “mountian rifle” in 50-58 caliber using a patched round ball. Until the Sharps and Remingtons in 44-77 came on the scene it was the best meat getter. Far better than any of the early breech loaders.

It's quite obvious to me that you can't comprehend the word DISABILITY. You've either never known someone who has a physical shortcoming, or you have chosen to ignore those who do.

You can rant all you want about the killing power of the PRB. I've personally killed many whitetail using my 50 Cal Flintlock and the Hornady Pa. Conical or the Buffalo (now out of business) Conical. One shot, all done.

The post isn't about killing elephants, Kudu, or field mice. It's about getting accuracy from loading Conicals.....and having said Conicals get a "Whitetail killing group" at 100 yards. A PRB and a 435gr. Conical will both make a clean kill on a whitetail....and the deer will not discern the difference.

If you cannot contribute any information or assistance to my thread concerning Conicals, then please stop with the PRB "advertisements". I know PRB kill whitetail. I've done it many times. That was back in the days when walking up a mountain was common and easy. That was then, this is now.

To reiterate: Comments concerning CONICALS would be appreciated.

Online Dphariss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9685
  • Kill a Commie for your Mommy
Re: Conicals for .54 calibers??
« Reply #42 on: September 15, 2022, 07:21:02 PM »

There are other issues as well. Since a 50 cal or larger RB always penetrates adequately I can’t see the reason for the increased recoil, higher trajectory, increased pressure and potential bore obstruction issues with the “naked conical”.

While I agree with your comment on the PRB doing the job (as I stated in an earlier post on this thread) the part you likely missed by not reading through the entire post is that my disability prevents an "easy" loading of a PRB. Hence, the conical loading without the necessity to center the patch and keep it there when the initial "hit" into the barrel is required is a very real plus for someone like me. It's not that I can't load a PRB, but if I can find an easier way, I will do just that.

That is what I get for not reading everything and/or skimming. One of my many failings. Now I understand. My apologies are in order. 

Back in the day (IIRC) the British used to “sew” the patches on the balls for some ammunition for the Baker rifles. I suspect it was just a 2-3 stitches with light thread. But at the moment I cannot find the exact citation. Don’t have time to read two chapters.
They used tallow  or “wax” as a lubricant. But I have no idea what the wax was. And apparently they used paper cartridges extensively. Especially in the later years of the Baker’s service. And they used 2 ball sizes 22 to the pound for rapid fire and 20 to the pound. The latter for the “forced” loading for better accuracy.
I have used paper cartridges in rifles, a 50 and a 67 caliber. I have confidence they are in the group with cloth patches at 50 yards in limited testing. But with the dry paper, which I used. 2-3 shots are all that can be fired without wiping. I carried a couple for backup shots when hunting. These balls were unpatched and used the paper (20 pound printer paper) to grip the rifling. I was actually pretty impressed with the rifling marks on the recovered paper. But Montanas rules for the new ML season ban paper or other “cartridges”. Which is a pain in an area with Gbears.
And a slight funneling at the muzzle might be a great aid. In doing some reading on the Baker this AM I find that they were not “relieved” at the muzzle but that the 1776 British Army rifles were.
Back the conicals.
I would suspect that the idea of accurately expanding the bullet would improve accuracy and I would think that a stickier lube might reduce the chances of the bullet moving off the powder. Remembering that the Minie Ball rifle musket barrels were proved with 200 gr of musket powder and a minie spaced 2” off the powder. They knew they did not stay put.  But they were also very loose fit. You might test the load’s stability by loading the rifle and then doing a couple of 1” drops muzzle down on a pine board.  If you hunt from a stand load movement may not be an issue.

He who dares not offend cannot be honest. Thomas Paine

Offline Steeltrap

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
Re: Conicals for .54 calibers??
« Reply #43 on: September 15, 2022, 07:22:36 PM »
Ok, so I set up my "Conical sizing" die again using the Lee Universal Neck Expansion Die https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1011184394?pid=140461 and using what Lee calls a "bullet punch" from this Lee item https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1018523537 I set up the die to just "bump" the hollow base of the Mini out a bit.

Here's the diameter of before and after.....along with a pic of before and after. Frankly, I don't see a difference other than when I mic the bands on the conical, they are a larger diameter. I think I'm just helping the initial expansion part of the shot.....and now the conical's will have enough purchase to stay put.

It's interesting to note that the inside diameter of the Lee Neck Expansion Die is .550. It's also interesting to note that resizing the Mini's with no lube does require a "tap" on the side of the press to get the Mini to drop enough to grab it with your fingers. Now, I also resized two that were already lubed.....those required removing the die, taking the top off, removing the sizer and a light tap with a brass punch removes the Mini.  In other words....that was a PITA. If these shoot well I think I've found my hunting projectile.

Mini Band size:

Bottom band: Before .535, After .547
1St band up from bottom: Before .530, After .545
2nd band up from bottom: Before .530, After .536

And for the side view pic...I took the pic, got distracted and frankly I can't remember if the one on the left is after sizing or not. But I didn't see any "structural" differences other than with the micrometer.






Offline Steeltrap

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
Re: Conicals for .54 calibers??
« Reply #44 on: September 15, 2022, 07:26:41 PM »
If you hunt from a stand load movement may not be an issue.

Thank you Dphariss. No harm, no foul.

And FWIW....this is what I've been hunting from for the last 15 years or so. Highly modified, 48V electric.


Online Dphariss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9685
  • Kill a Commie for your Mommy
Re: Conicals for .54 calibers??
« Reply #45 on: September 15, 2022, 08:58:58 PM »
If you hunt from a stand load movement may not be an issue.

Thank you Dphariss. No harm, no foul.

And FWIW....this is what I've been hunting from for the last 15 years or so. Highly modified, 48V electric.



Cool! And quite too. My primary concern with the bullet/conical is safety. As I previously stated how a person hunts can make a difference. A long time friend of mine, who I never met in person. Met a guy while hunting with a Maxi-ball protruding part way from the muzzle. I don’t care what someone shoots for a projectile. I even built a bullet gun years ago with a then available underhammer action to shoot a 520 gr 45 caliber bullet. But it was a match rifle. Ron Long cut a barrel with a .456” (irrc) bore so we could simply push a cast .457-.458 bullet in. It desperately needed a platinum lined nipple.  I used to write for John Baird’s “Buckskin/Blackpowder Report” . He would routinely post of blown up guns (there were more than you think) and safety issues. Some stuff coming from Japan in the 70s really was frightening, one has a two piece barrel with the round section screwed into the octagonal breech section and the bores often did not align. But this eventually caused the magazine to fold. He POed advertisers by telling the truth. And ads are a magazines life blood.  His son Dave had taken it over, had mended fences and was two issues from being back in the black when the bank stepped in. Actual honesty is something one very seldom sees in a firearms related magazine. The “injured party” groundlessly sues the magazine (it only costs a few bucks to file) but the defendant has to prepare like its real and then the “injured party” can drop the suit a few days before the court date leaving the real victim, the magazine, with lawyers fees. It was surprising how many failures there were, especially before what was then a major maker of factory mades changed barrel steels (this was never admitted of course but we were sure this was the reason the blowups stopped. But of course such things will still make a person a persona non-grata if pointed out too often. I will just say this. At matches I never stand on the lock side of a drum and nipple gun and worry about nipples blowing out of patent breech guns. There is a reason I an really careful about nipple thread fits on “patent breech” percussion guns I might build. TOW sells .005” oversize nipples and they fit most patent breeches perfectly. I have not made many percussion rifles/pistols due experiences from 55 odd years ago.
I would also point out the the flatpoint is the best design and if you can find a mould maker who will make one a solid base bullet will work fine. Though I would use a card wad under it and maybe a lube wad from something like SPG Bullet lube.  I have shot quite a few critters with cast or swaged bullets just not from MLs.
But MLs are my first love and since cataract surgery I can hunt with iron sights again. Shot the first deer in some years with a FL last year.
This is from back when I was the custom shop at Shiloh.



He who dares not offend cannot be honest. Thomas Paine

Offline Clowdis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 426
Re: Conicals for .54 calibers??
« Reply #46 on: September 16, 2022, 04:07:41 PM »
Just another thing for you to consider. The minie balls weren't designed to shoot with the powder charges that you are using. It may be possible that you are blowing the skirt on the bullet when you use that much powder. Just for your own information drop the charge to around 60 grains and see if accuracy improves any. There will still be enough "killing" power there for deer hunting.

Offline Steeltrap

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
Re: Conicals for .54 calibers??
« Reply #47 on: September 16, 2022, 08:13:40 PM »
Just another thing for you to consider. The minie balls weren't designed to shoot with the powder charges that you are using. It may be possible that you are blowing the skirt on the bullet when you use that much powder. Just for your own information drop the charge to around 60 grains and see if accuracy improves any. There will still be enough "killing" power there for deer hunting.

A 4.125" group at 100 yards is perfectly acceptable to me for whitetail. I agree a powder charge drop may help in the recoil department (as right now those 100gr loads make marks on my shoulder!)

Now that I've found some 2F powder I'll have some powder to fool with different load charges. Should I get the same or better groupings at 100 yards, I'll see where it hits at 50 and 25. Then I can make a final decision as to what powder charge will be the best.

However, the first matter for these Mini's is to get them to "grab" the bore and stay there....and also provide minuet of whitetail groups.

Offline 45-110

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 489
Re: Conicals for .54 calibers??
« Reply #48 on: September 16, 2022, 10:39:56 PM »
You can shoot heavy (heavier) charges with minie balls, but a new base pin is called for that allows for a thicker skirt. Easy to remove metal from base pin if you have a lathe.
kw
« Last Edit: September 23, 2022, 05:09:54 AM by 45-110 »

Offline Steeltrap

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
Re: Conicals for .54 calibers??
« Reply #49 on: September 25, 2022, 09:23:28 PM »
I finally got a chance to get back to the range and shoot these "resized" Mini's to see what kind of grouping I would get.

I had a box of which half were resized, and the other half not. SO, just as a test I dropped an unsized Mini down the tube and it went about 90% of the way all by itself with no ramrod help.  :o  Then, I pointed the rifle, muzzle down, and shook it a few times. I then took the RR to see if the Mini had moved from the base of the barrel.....the Mini worked half way up the barrel!! Not at all good!

So, I then loaded 100gr FF down the tube and seated the Mini that I had expanded the base. I felt enough resistance on the Mini when I pushed it down the tube (first time as well...clean tube) and seated it against the powder. I then did the same "test" via shaking the rifle with the muzzle down. The Mini did not move. So, I then held the rifle, muzzle down, and took 3-4 "bumps" of the muzzle against the bench wooden seat to see if that would move the seated Mini. That test passed as the Mini stayed put. This from a clean barrel as after a shot the ability of the Mini to hold would increase some.

So, being satisfied that the Mini would stay put under hunting conditions (or if the rifle took a good jarring in the field I'd check the seating anyway) I proceeded to take the shots. The first pic shows the first three shot groupings at 100 yards. The second pic shows the impact after I bumped the rear sight to get POI to the POA.

I have found my hunting load for sure.   ;D ;D 8)