Minimum .50 cal load for whitetails

[ironsights1]

Back in the early '70s when I first got into black powder, my one and only muzzleloader was a T/C .50 Hawken. I used 50 grains of 2F for everything from targets to squirrels to deer. I took many deer with the 50 grains of 2f while shooting from a deer stand at ranges from 10-70 yards. Many shots left the roundball inbedded in the hide on the far side. I don't recall ever loosing a deer with that load. Since those early days, I've upped my .50 T/C load to 65 grains of 3F and have used this load for the rare shot (I hunt in the woods) out to 100 yards. Some may still find this too light, but there's a lot of deer that would beg to differ with you.

[Eric Krewson]

I have been hunting with with a 44cal a friend gave me for the last 4 years. I have killed 5 or 6 deer with a .445 RB and 70 grains of 3F. No telling how many times this gun has been shot in the last 40 years and needs a slightly larger ball than than it was new. Unless I hit a large bone all were pass throughs from 30 to 65 yds. All deer shot at went to the freezer after traveling no more than 100yds, most much less, after the shot.

[Bob Mac]

Just another thought on how much powder. Is it possible to over charge to the point that you would just be pushing unburned powder out the end of the barrel? Thought I remembered reading years back about shooting over a sheet or snow and see if there is unused powder laying in front of the shooter after the shot. Meaning there was more powder than the rifle could burn and thus "overcharged". Not sure about my memory but thought I would put it out there and see if we could get some opinions.
Bob

[northmn]

If you chronograph there seems to be a point of diminishing returns where extra powder does not give you much more velocity.  My 50, with its 36 inch barrel seemed to do little more with 90 grains of 3f than with 80 grains so I cut back to 80 grains.  There is also the issue that at a point, increases in muzzle velocity do not give a reasonable increase down range.  One ballistic manual I read, I believe published by the NMLRA, mentioned that after you attain about 1800 fps with a round ball you gain little by increasing the load.  While that is a "rule of thumb" it may not be a bad one.

DP

[Daryl]

Just another thought on how much powder. Is it possible to over charge to the point that you would just be pushing unburned powder out the end of the barrel? Thought I remembered reading years back about shooting over a sheet or snow and see if there is unused powder laying in front of the shooter after the shot. Meaning there was more powder than the rifle could burn and thus "overcharged". Not sure about my memory but thought I would put it out there and see if we could get some opinions.
Bob

You gun will always increase speed with more powder, but as DP says, the increase per grain will diminish after a point. That point seems to be in the 1,800fps range - as he says - in his rifle, 80gr. 3F gives only a little less speed than 90gr. With BP and a .45 or .50, every increase of 10gr. seems to increase the speed about 100fps.  After a point, this might drop to 60 to 75fps. Depending on the range one shoots, increasing speed further becomes an accuracy situation more than a power situation.  One should load his rifle for accuracy within an effective velocity range.

With all my rifles, I develop an accuracy load that produces a flat trajectory.  In effect, they are accuracy/hunting loads that get used for all shooting no matter the range.  I know people who add powder as the range increases.  The have a powder charger or powder charge they use for 25 yards, 50 yards and 100 yards.  I find the "One" load produces the flattest trajectory and the best accuracy at all ranges, where on merely drops int he charge, loads the patched ball and out to 75 yards, takes a 'flat' sighting for a centre hit, or a hit within 1" of where the sights are aimed.  For 100 yard shooting one merely raises the front sight about 1/8" and 'takes' that shot for a centre hit.  Every year at Rendezvous BC, I hear, "Oh Rats"(or words to that effect) I've got my 25 yard charge and that looks like 60. They don't know where to hold. Having a single charge eliminates all problems such as this and makes it easier to 'learn' where the gun shoots.

Most rifles, if placed dead on at 25 yards, will be about 1/2"high at 50yds. on again at 70 yards and about 3.5" to 4" low at 100.  Pretty simple with one charge for all ranges, isn't it.

The larger calibres- ie; "bore" rifles generally kick too much to use one charge for all ranges when 'plinking' but the normal run of guns to .54, do well with a 'standard' hunting/accuracy load.

If the gun looses accuracy with an increase in powder to a hunting charge, the culprit is usually to thin a patch for the pressure generated.  For a given speed, 3F produces more pressure than 2F, although one must use more 2F.  Therefore, 3f usually demands a tighter combination than 2F.

[eagle24]

If the gun looses accuracy with an increase in powder to a hunting charge, the culprit is usually to thin a patch for the pressure generated.  For a given speed, 3F produces more pressure than 2F, although one must use more 2F.  Therefore, 3f usually demands a tighter combination than 2F.

This may very well be the problem for me with this rifle.  In all honesty, I just have not had time to test enough load variables to really know, but I could definitely shoot a tighter patch.  I will try a tighter patch when I get back to the range with it.

[Dan]

Florida makes .40 caliber minimum for deer, but not powder charge is specified so far as I know.

As to the question.....   .50-70   

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.50-70_Government

Adequate?  Sure.

[northmn]

"Adequate or minimum" are interesting terms.  To me minimum means the smallest caliber that is still capable of harvesting a deer cleanly at a reasonable range.  After 40 years, deer and seeing them shot with several calibers in pistol and rifle as well as with arrows I have developed a few opinions on what constitutes a deer rifle.  Perfect shots made under perfect conditions are not a real indicator.  I can remember a couple of deer that took a step forward in between the time the brain said shoot and the gun went off resulting in a liver hit.  Mostly, with an adequate caliber, they run a little farther, pile up and are too weak to get up.  With smaller bores or hits at longer range they make run further and take longer to weaken.  I had an arrow hit deer that I had to leave overnight as it got up twice on a liver hit, even though I waited an hour before tracking.  It ran about 200 yards before laying down.  Bullets tend to be more effective but lighter calibers can also have a similar effect.  While I do not advocate magnums or extra large bores I find that a certain level of extra power does not hurt.  One reason I prefer a 50-54 over a 40.  I do not believe that under field conditions, over the years I have hunted that sooner or later Murphy's Law won't kick in and a poorer hit won't happen.


DP

[Dan]

DP, in the main I agree from a the simple litmus of ballistic comparison.  There's another element however that requires recognition and that is the hunter.  I know a lot of folks that hunt with little or no discipline and we know where that leads.  There others I've hunted with that are not constrained by caliber or ballistics because they are skilled and extremely disciplined.  When I see discussions about minimums I'm inclined to say such a thing doesn't exist so far as guns and calibers etc.  "Adequate" is subjective also, for the opinions of any two people are likely miles apart on that subject.

One of my "peers" has hunted deer for decades with a SS break action 16 ga and buckshot and NEVER leaves meat in the woods.  I've a break action .22 RF chambered for shorts that has taken over 60 hogs in the last 3 years, a second shot required in one case, not to immobilize, just to settle the issue.

My opinion only, there are "reasonable" thresholds that are better left to experts, but adjudication of "minimum" and "adequate" is a sheet of thin ice.  I know what I'd recommend to a beginner, but barring that admission I'm not so sure where to set my anchor on that anymore.  Time was when I held flintlocks and round balls in some contempt.  I got over that a few years back and caliber is not the reason.

[northmn]

I hunt with discipline and rest the rifle whenever possible.  I have left darn few deer in the woods and have retrieved so close to all of them not to have any regrets, but a few times Murphy has stepped in and screwed up a good shot.  Yes you can kill a deer with a 22 LR, but only a d--n fool would hunt with one.  Unless you are hunting tame deer sooner or later you are going to make a marginal shot where a "deer rifle" makes a difference.  Using an adequate combination is the difference between a stunt and hunting.  Almost all of my many deer were hit very well and killed cleanly, but there were a couple of unlucky instances where things did not go as well as they should have. 

Northmn

[Dan]

Not suggesting folks hunt deer with a .22 rf, didn't say that.  To put what I said in different context, the hunter and his rifle are a system....I think it's a difficult system to analyze based solely on exterior ballistics.  It is, to say the least, a very complex subject.

[Dphariss]

I am absolutely positive a 40 cal will kill deer at ranges of 40-60 yards.
The 45 will kill deer much farther.
The 54 will kill deer to 150+.

But I don't really consider a 40 "adequate" and would not use one except as a last ditch type weapon to save on powder/lead/noise and then I would likely use a 22RF.

I think the 50 is an ideal deer caliber. But its light for elk (IMO) though it works OK and the 54 is marginal as well if heavy bones are encountered.
If I lived in the east and only shot deer sized critters I would use a 50 *maybe* a 45.
In the west the 54 is better. And a 20 bore would be better still.

Dan

[Daryl]

Not suggesting folks hunt deer with a .22 rf, didn't say that.  To put what I said in different context, the hunter and his rifle are a system....I think it's a difficult system to analyze based solely on exterior ballistics.  It is, to say the least, a very complex subject.

In the line of the above post by Dan, being able to shoot a rifle well is an absolutely imperative aspect or part of hunting.  Killing a big game animal places a lot of pressure on a person, pressure that is bolstered by the responsibility to make the best possible shot, to limit suffering, making a clean kill.

 You must be absolutely sure of your shot and to do that requires practise. One is more likely to practise with a .45 or .50 over one of the 'bore' rifles, even though the smaller calibres are less effective killers.  They'll all kill deer within their repective ranges and of the calibres listed, to include the .40, .54, and .58, one should use the rifle he can shoot accurately, without having to even think about it.

 

[eagle24]

I'm happy to report that I now have a .50 cal load with 75 grains of FFF that shoots well and I am comfortable with.  I am shooting 2" high at 25 yards and 4" high at 50.  I have no doubt that it is plenty for whitetails with a well placed shot at 50 yards and in.  On the flip side, I missed a doe yesterday afternoon at 50 yards.  I have no clue what happened other than I missed.  I thought I made a good shot, but evidently I didn't.  One good note is that I'm almost 100% sure it was a clean miss.  I doubt it mattered too much how fast the ball was traveling when it whizzed past her.  A couple things I learned from the miss.  First, zero your hunting rifle with the lube you will use when you hunt.  Mink Oil lube shoots different in my rifle than my Moose Milk range lube.  Second, the flash and smoke is much more evident in the woods near sundown than it is on the range.

[northmn]

75 grains of 3f is a good load for a 50, especially up close.  What is nice is to have a decent trail after you shoot if you hit one, although I do admit finding most of my deer without a lot of trailing.  BP smoke in a still humid situation can be amusing.  I shot at a flock of ducks this year and could not see for the second shot.  One of the things I have found with open sights is that you have a tendency to shoot high with them, or I did last year.  What we see on the shooting range and what we see out in the woods can be different, especially if they are the fine target type sights.  I was putting my front bead above the rear sight.  Since then I have changed to a very large bead and a very large U in the rear sight, even for my squirrel rifle.  My flintlock 54 is jinxed anyway but I have tried to get some of the jinxes out of it. (Have parts for a 58 which may dejinx it good) while marksmanship is usually better with a smaller bore I agree with Dan that a 50 is about the best deer rifle, but for my country would use a 45.  Big guns are harder to shoot, but no muzzle loader does damage like a modern HV center fire.  Had I shot the small deer I shot this year with my old 270 I would have had to throw away a shoulder, instead the cast bullet did its job without a lot of extra damage.  ML's of adequate size do that too.


DP

[Daryl]

I'm happy to report that I now have a .50 cal load with 75 grains of FFF that shoots well and I am comfortable with.  I am shooting 2" high at 25 yards and 4" high at 50.  I have no doubt that it is plenty for whitetails with a well placed shot at 50 yards and in.  On the flip side, I missed a doe yesterday afternoon at 50 yards.  I have no clue what happened other than I missed.  I thought I made a good shot, but evidently I didn't.  One good note is that I'm almost 100% sure it was a clean miss.  I doubt it mattered too much how fast the ball was traveling when it whizzed past her.  A couple things I learned from the miss.  First, zero your hunting rifle with the lube you will use when you hunt.  Mink Oil lube shoots different in my rifle than my Moose Milk range lube.  Second, the flash and smoke is much more evident in the woods near sundown than it is on the range.

Absolutely have to check the zero with any grease lubed patch.  My small bores used to have about a 3" to 4" difference at 50 yards between spit and bear grease.  the larger .58 and .69 are less effected to almost no change.  Every gun has it's own mind in this regard.  Most or at least many guns require more powder with greases patches to produce the same group sizes as developed with a water-based lube.

3" high at 50 yards is a pretty good zero for a 1,800fps load in a .50 for open country shooting but not in the bush for close shots.  4" is worse for bush, or better for open shooting, giving a zero a round 135 yards, beyond most shooters ability to hit within a pie plate sized area when hunting.  Using .070 for the BC of it's ball, a 3" high ball at 50 yards will give a 120 yard zero, with the ball about 3 1/3" high at 75. I prefer the ball to be closer to the line of sight as if all you have to shoot at is a head or high neck shot, trying to remember and actually holding 3" low can be tricky in the bush.  The .50 works well with a 1 1/2" high at 50 yard zero.  That will give a zero at about 90yards with that 1 1/2" being the highest the ball will travel. I used a sight height of 3/4" above the centreline of the bore(roughly a 1/4" high front sight).  Setting the sights to print about 1/2" high at 25 should give this zero.  Now, that's for 1,800fps - about 100gr. 2f should do that, or 85gr. 3F.
Without chronographing the rifle this is pretty much guestimation.  At the low MV of 1,500fps, 4" high at 50 yards gives a zero of about 120 yards, with the ball 4 1/2" high at 80 or so.  You wouldn't have to accidently pull the shot very high to put the ball over a smaller sized of deer between 50  and 85 yards, where most deer at shot I'd guess.

4" with a water based could put it 6" with a grease.  That really tacks on elevation at 80 to 90 yards, as in 7" high and a high miss without too much trouble and it's still 6 1/2" high at 100.

[Dphariss]

If you hunt in areas where the range is short 1" at 25 is near perfect. Ball will be close enough to line of sight for any big game hunting to 100 or so. 2-3" high at 25 will put a 50 caliber far to high at 75 for easy use on big game.
Now that I got new corrective lenses I need to shoot my 50 again. Its too high and needs about .030 added to the front sight or the rear sight lowered.

Dan

[Daryl]

Same as my .40 - it's 2" high at 50 right now and makes for shooting small targets at 60 to 80 difficult.

[littlefat]

I've killed deer and black bear with my 50 with 60 grs. of ffg. my flint shoots best with this load. all shots are usually under 75 yds. My brother has hunted with the same flint for 26 yrs. he use's 50gr's of fffg in his 45. he's killed alot of deer but he can shoot. we both only use roundballs

[roundball]

I like stout powder charges for flat trajectory and strong energy at distance when hunting big game...my .50cal Flintlock deer load in a 33" barrel is:

90grns Goex 3F
Oxyoke lubed wool wad
.018" pillow ticking
Hornady .490

A 50 yard zero gives me point blank POA at least to 75-80 yards...which encompasses 99.9% of all deer I've killed with sidelocks...and if I ever take a 100 yard shot I know from range work that I just need to tweak up the POA to the top of his heart.

[hanshi]

Since I've never been faced with a "long" shot in the woods, my experiences lead me to the conclusion that 1-1/2" to 2" max at 50 yards is about right.  The only long shots I've ever taken were while hunting in fields.  It that situation it worked out fine for as far as I care to take a shot with open sights.  That was with a load of 100 grains 3f.  I chronographed that load once and found I was getting well over 2000fps.  I have since come to doubt that I need such speed in a .50 and now favor 75 grains.

With smaller calibers meant for small game I like to hit dead on at 50 yards.  This puts the prb just about right at 25 yards, too.  I don't like to worry about hold-over or hold-under.  I prefer to hit where my sights align.

[Daryl]

Exactly, however I do prefer a bit more powder for the lattest possible trajectory, within the relm of accuracy.  Having the ball hit within 2" of the sights all the way to 120 yards is a good thing for a hunting rifle. That way, if one does need to check the range, the animal is far enough away that there's plenty of time to take a reading and hold accordingly.

[Dan]

Hope I can put this forth in such fashion it will be understood as intended.  Having much higher regard for placement that horsepower drives my thoughts. Most reference in this discussion appears oriented to what the effective range is for various calibers or what animals they apply to.  I do not dispute that in the main.  However, those standards are largely irrelevant to the manner in which I hunt.  I still hunt.  Period.  The distance of the shot is very short with very rare exception.  5,10,15 yards....

My conclusion after these years it is not the weapon that makes the hunter, quite the contrary. 

[northmn]

It isn't so much the weapon that makes the hunter as much as the choice of one from many reliable sources.  As one who has hunted with longbows and recurves in a compound bow world, I can concur that one can get carried away on firepower, etc.  I merely have noticed that those rifles called "deer rifles" have over time established themselves as deer rifles.  In ML's they fall into the range that Dpharsis mentioned, 45-54 cals, depending on region and range.  It seems like you will hear reports from those using smaller bores that maybe it was not a good idea to go that light.  My guess is for still hunting design of the weapon might play as much part as caliber.  I am finding long rifles to be something of a pain and am looking at an English styled short rifle.

DP 

[Dan]

My eyes require the long rifle for iron sights, else it is a peep or scope, none of which belong on flintlocks in my opinion.  I could use a shotgun and have in the past for they are totally effective at close range and eliminate the necessity of tracking skills. 

The gospel I preach is very fundamental.  Get close.  Have the patience to wait for things to come together then take the shot in such circumstance there is no doubt about the outcome.  Such methods go long in eliminating variables and securing success.

The long shot is a remarkable feat, yet I've found nothing so intense as still hunting, or so productive in bottom country or swamp edges. Had it both ways in my life. Might not be the cat's meow in the plains country, dunno about that.  It would become a game of pure stalking skill I suspect.