Roundball Velocity Potential

[9.3X62AL]

This question involves my T/C Hawken 54 caliber M/L rifle, with Green Mountain 1-66" twist barrel. Yeah, patched roundballs. Some months back, I interrupted a project I began to "reverse-engineer" this caplock back to a better semblance of an 1840's rifle than the box-stock rifle is. That multi-phase pursuit aside.......I'd like to know before re-joining this project what sort of velocities can be produced with 54 caliber PRBs.

To date, I've run loads to 100 grains of 2F behind the .530 PRB and .015" pillow-ticking patches. This combo loads smoothly and snugly, and accuracy has remained constant from 60-100 grains of powder (Goex). From these results, I gather that there is room to expand the powder weights (I'm going in 5 grain steps) until accuracy falls off--or the recoil makes my eyes cross, whichever comes first.

I saw via search in another thread here that a "rule of thumb" concerning powder weights was 'half the RB's weight' in grains. The .530" RB scales ~272 grains, so let's call 135 grains of 2F the potential "max" charge. I've not seen anyone pour more than 120 grains of 2F into a 54 caliber rifle--there might be good reasons for that remaining undiscovered by yours truly, likely recoil-related. 100 grains of the Goex 2F lets ya know the cap went off, for sure. One old hand that kinda helped me along when I got into front-stuffing mentioned a "start load" of 2F of 55 grains in a 54 rifle, and to use no more than 110 grains of same powder in the 54--one grain to two grains of The Holy Black per .01" of caliber diameter.

For a time, I had a Traditions Cherokee half-stock in 32 caliber, and it was a fun little rifle. Its max recommended load from the literature included with it indicated 30 grains of 3F as its top-end loading. This shot very well, actually--and produced a nice hyper-sonic crack with the 48 grain ratwhackers I ran through it. From this, I gathered that RB rifles can produce respectable velocities.

With all this in mind--what sort of velocities can/do 54 caliber RB rifles produce with powder weights ranging from 55 to 120 grains x 2F?

[Maven]

Al, I found some chrono. and load data for a .54cal. Tryon half stock rifle (32"bbl., 1:63" twist) which Sam Fadala published long ago in his "Black Powder Loading Manual" (DBI Books, 1982). He used .010" patches, .53cal., 225gr. RB's, and GOEX FFg to get the following muzzle velocities:

50gr. 1,181 fps
70gr. 1,414
90gr. 1,562
100gr. 1,649
120gr. 1,815 fps

Btw, Fadala's load of 60gr. FFFg -> 1,470 fps, but as you can see from the above data, he didn't test 60gr. FFg. Although I don't have a .54cal. rifle, I have have four very different .50cals.* and I can tell you they are quite accurate with very light loads (30gr. - 40gr. FFFg or FFg) from 25 yds. to 50 yds. with .490" and .495" RB's. Hope this helps!



*One is an inline with a 1:28" Green Mtn. bbl., but it is accurate only with FFg or Pyrodex RS. The other 3 are traditional rifles (1 is a flintlock) and aren't so particular about powder granulation.

[Lead Fred]

Im sure glad I have a 45 cal. Gotta love 3f

55gr = 1630fps

75gr = 2012fps

Find the Davenport formula, and find the max burn rate for your barrel, and work backwards. Im betting your wasting powder

[hamour]

I got the Davenport formula over at Muzzleloading forum, I highly recommend any one to that site if they want to know about Roundball shooting.

Here are the coefficients I came up with per bore size.

.54 = 2.63

.58 = 3.038

.62 = 3.472

So if your barrel is .54 in bore and 33" in length you take the coefficient of 2.63 and multiply it by 33

.54 = 2.63 x 33 = 86.79 grs

This only means that according to this formula, the most efficient load for a .54 x 33" bbl is 85 to 90 grs of 2f powder.

It does not mean you are wasting powder at 100grs, only that your fps gain per grain of increase is going down, according to this formula.

I use it as a good measure of a moderate to powerful load and work up from there.

I have also noticed that charges produced by this formula in my .54-.58-.62 guns give velocity between 1500 to 1600 fps when shooting roundballs.

.54 = 2.63 x 32" = 84.16grs (Rounded to 85grs)

.58 = 3.038 x 32 = 97.26grs (Rounded to 100grs)

.62 = 3.472 x 32 = 111.42grs (Rounded to 110grs)

All three of these loads produce 1500 to 1600 fps using Roundballs.

The exception is my Early Virginia flintlock with a 42" bbl.

.58 = 3.038 x 42 = 127.6grs (rounded to 130grs)

This load is pushing 1850fps and is quite stout with the 270gr RB. The early guns all had very long barrels and I am sure it was to make a small amount of powder give maximum velocity.

[HWooldridge]

I settled on 90gr of FFFg a long time ago out of my .54 Santa Fe Hawken. With patched roundball, it will one-hole at 50 yds and easily stay under an inch at 100 yds. I tried lighter and heavier loads up to 120 grs but the very best general use combination in my rifle is 90gr.

[JeffinNZ]

RE MAVEN'S 70gr and 1400fps. It is hard to imagine that is not enough for deer.

Just remember that the faster you push a ball the faster it slows down. An extra 300fps at muzzle can be virtually gone at 80 yards.

[northmn]

I have done some chronographing of a 54 with a 42 inch barrel. A flintlock. whether a percussion would be better? With 90 grains of 3f I got 1800 fps, with 110 2f I got 1821. Recently using Swiss 2f I got about 1700 at 90 grains. But I also had enlarged the touchhole to get a little better reliability. 80 grains of 3f gave about 1680. My results are fairly close to those in Lyman's book. One of the things I noticed when chronographing was that the 3f may give higher velocities per powder charge but the 2f gave less deviation. Sometimes as much as one third. The 3f can still be quite accurate, but I do like the 2f Swiss. A muzzle velocity difference of 200 fps can be as little as 70 fps at 100 yards in a 54. But you still may want to have a bit of an edge in trajectory if you hunt in open areas. An old rule of thumb about round ball is that if you push them above 1800 fps muzzle velocity you are wasting powder as deceleration increases with increased velocity.

Northmn

[Potsy]

If I get through building my .40 I'm gonna have to build a .54.
.54 seems to be the jumping off point of good B.C. and weight (for a roundball) and not having to dump a pound of powder down the barrel for a fairly flat shooting load.

[northmn]

The 54 is really the about the best caliber for someone that does not like to get the H--l kicked out of him. It delivers about the best power for powder lead use. The bigger ones are more powerful but can belt you especially in traditional guns. However, using some practical design considerations the bigger ones can be tamed, and the designs also work on the 54. About the worst designs for recoil are the plains rifles, Tennesse rifles and late "Kentuckys". they use slim stocks and narrow curved buttplates. Some of the plains rifles had buttplates that were designed to be shot off the upper arm not the shoulder. One of the best designed guns per weight and caliber is the English sportin rifle which used a 2" wide butplate and had a stock designed to recoil away from the face. Other good designs include the early Revolutionary flintlocks. I believe the Hawkens, in later years, could be had with "shotgun" buttplates. I recently built a 12 ga on the English design that weighs about 6 pounds, but is not all that unpleasant to shoot. One advantage of the bigger bores is taht they will retain velocity much better. A 50 going 100 fps slower at the muzzle will hit about the same velocity at 100 yards as a 45, and a 54 will do the same over a 50, etc. There is something to be said for using a big bore with a modest powder charge.

Northmn

[Archer]

My TC Hawken 54cal shoots the best with
80gr's of fff. I don't know the fps, but it shoots
right on out to 100 yards with that load.

[Rattus58]

The 54 is really the about the best caliber for someone that does not like to get the H--l kicked out of him. It delivers about the best power for powder lead use. The bigger ones are more powerful but can belt you especially in traditional guns. However, using some practical design considerations the bigger ones can be tamed, and the designs also work on the 54. About the worst designs for recoil are the plains rifles, Tennesse rifles and late "Kentuckys". they use slim stocks and narrow curved buttplates. Some of the plains rifles had buttplates that were designed to be shot off the upper arm not the shoulder. One of the best designed guns per weight and caliber is the English sportin rifle which used a 2" wide butplate and had a stock designed to recoil away from the face. Other good designs include the early Revolutionary flintlocks. I believe the Hawkens, in later years, could be had with "shotgun" buttplates. I recently built a 12 ga on the English design that weighs about 6 pounds, but is not all that unpleasant to shoot. One advantage of the bigger bores is taht they will retain velocity much better. A 50 going 100 fps slower at the muzzle will hit about the same velocity at 100 yards as a 45, and a 54 will do the same over a 50, etc. There is something to be said for using a big bore with a modest powder charge. Northmn

Not to arguin or nothing, but there is nothing that beats boresize for hunting.

54's can be made to go faster, fly flatter, and still kill at distance, but a big round ball is still king. I shoot 58's but bigger is still better, especially if rifled.

Aloha... :cool:

[piwo]

I saw via search in another thread here that a "rule of thumb" concerning powder weights was 'half the RB's weight' in grains. The .530" RB scales ~272 grains, so let's call 135 grains of 2F

Ever hear the one about the guy who left his brass measuring device at home one day at the range, and used a shotgun shell cut to what he thought was 75 grains of 3F, so he double charged it, only to find out that it was really the 130 grain shell. Ha ha, I about laughed my.. no wait, that was me.:oops:

Yeah, if you think 130 is a bit much, I don't recommend 260! [smilie=b:
ON the bright side, my home made rifle stayed together just fine, I kept all my teeth, and I fumigated for mosquito's with all the smoke that came out! :killingpc

[Lead Fred]

Math is not my long suite. That is why I became a lawyer. But, the Davenport formula is worked by using some of that darn math they tried to teach me back in HS.

The Cubic area of the bore would be done this way:

Take the bore diameter( or groove diameter and then calculate both cubic areas. Then subtract the area created by the lands, to get the actual true Cubic area of a rifled barrel. Generally, the difference is measured in a couple of grains, and is not worth the extra brain power used.) and divide it by 2 to get the Radius of the bore. (r)

Area of a circle is determined by the formula A= PiR Squared. Pi= 3.1416. So, Multiply the Radius by itself(to square it) and then multiply that number by Pi to find the area of the circle the diameter of the Bore of your gun.

Now Multiply that number( area) times the 11.5 to get the amount of powder in one inch of your bore. Multiply that number by the length of your barrel to get the total capacity for your whole barrel.


Example:


( .50 cal. divided by 2 = .25; times .25 = .0625; times 3.1416= .19635; times 11.5 =2.2580; times 28(barrel length)=63.22 grains of powder.)


If you want to know the cubic space inside one inch of a .50 caliber rifle, you can use .50 as the diameter, or measure the actual land to land dimension, and then the groove diameter, and then the groove depth, to work out EXACT the cubic area of that particular bore.


Here is how to calculate the Davenport Formula:


.50 divided by 2 = .25


.25 x .25 = .0625


.0625 times Pi( 3.1416)= 0.19635


.19635 x 11.5 = 2.2580


2.2580 x 28 inches( barrel length)= 63.22 grains of powder.


___________________


Assume you are shooting a 28 inch .50 caliber rifle barrel. The cubic area of that bore will be 28 x .19635 = 5.4978 cubic inches.


Now, because you do have grooves in that barrel, you can refine that a bit more.

Assume that the actual groove diameter of your gun is .501" ( my .50 caliber rifle's actual bore diameter)

Run the Davenport formula and you get:


.501 divided by 2 = .2505


.2505 x .2505 = .0627502


.0627502 x 3.1416 = 0.197136


0.197136 x 11.5 = 2.267064


2.267064 x 28 = 63.477792 grains of powder.


A cube of anything is determined by multiply the height times the width, times the depth, of the object. When you need to compute the cubic area of a cylinder, or other non-square object, it gets a bit more involved.


Now assume that the bore diameter is actually .490, and groove depth is .0055"( .501 minus .490 divided by 2 = .0055")( again, my gun's actual bore diameter)


Now assume that there are 6 lands and grooves, of equal width. The circumference of that bore( .490) is .769692" Divide that by 12( 6 grooves and 6 lands) and you get the width of the lands and grooves to be .064141".


To adjust the cubic area to correct for these "obstructions", you need to subtract from 5.519808 the area occupied by those 6 lands, that are .064141" wide, and .0055" deep.

So, multiply 6 time times .064141 times .0055 = .0003527"

5.519808 - .0003527 = 5.5194553 Cubic Inches


______________________________

If we ran the davenport formula using the Land to land diameter( bore diameter) of .490, we get:


.490 divided by 2 - ..245


.245 x .245 = .060025


.060025 x 3.1416 =.1885745 square inches. ( for a circle that is .490 in diameter.)


.1885745 x 11.5 = 2.1686067 grains per inch


2.168067 x 28 = 60.720987 grains of powder.


So, if you use the smaller diameter of the bore( land to land[.490]) The Davenport formula will give you only

60.72 grains of powder in that 28 inch barrel.

If you use the nominal .50 caliber, the formula gives you

63.22 grains of powder in that 28 inch barrel.

And, if you do all the math needed to actually get the ACTUAL cubic area of that barrel, you get a figure in between those two, 60.7, vs. 63.2! That is a difference of 2.5 grains, and half( assume that the lands and grooves are of equal width) that is only 1.25 grains!( Approx. 61.95 Grains!) Not enough to bother about, NO?

[buckweet]

Math is not my long suite. That is why I became a lawyer. But, the Davenport formula is worked by using some of that darn math they tried to teach me back in HS.

The Cubic area of the bore would be done this way:

Take the bore diameter( or groove diameter and then calculate both cubic areas. Then subtract the area created by the lands, to get the actual true Cubic area of a rifled barrel. Generally, the difference is measured in a couple of grains, and is not worth the extra brain power used.) and divide it by 2 to get the Radius of the bore. (r)

Area of a circle is determined by the formula A= PiR Squared. Pi= 3.1416. So, Multiply the Radius by itself(to square it) and then multiply that number by Pi to find the area of the circle the diameter of the Bore of your gun.

Now Multiply that number( area) times the 11.5 to get the amount of powder in one inch of your bore. Multiply that number by the length of your barrel to get the total capacity for your whole barrel.


Example:


( .50 cal. divided by 2 = .25; times .25 = .0625; times 3.1416= .19635; times 11.5 =2.2580; times 28(barrel length)=63.22 grains of powder.)


If you want to know the cubic space inside one inch of a .50 caliber rifle, you can use .50 as the diameter, or measure the actual land to land dimension, and then the groove diameter, and then the groove depth, to work out EXACT the cubic area of that particular bore.


Here is how to calculate the Davenport Formula:


.50 divided by 2 = .25


.25 x .25 = .0625


.0625 times Pi( 3.1416)= 0.19635


.19635 x 11.5 = 2.2580


2.2580 x 28 inches( barrel length)= 63.22 grains of powder.


___________________


Assume you are shooting a 28 inch .50 caliber rifle barrel. The cubic area of that bore will be 28 x .19635 = 5.4978 cubic inches.


Now, because you do have grooves in that barrel, you can refine that a bit more.

Assume that the actual groove diameter of your gun is .501" ( my .50 caliber rifle's actual bore diameter)

Run the Davenport formula and you get:


.501 divided by 2 = .2505


.2505 x .2505 = .0627502


.0627502 x 3.1416 = 0.197136


0.197136 x 11.5 = 2.267064


2.267064 x 28 = 63.477792 grains of powder.


A cube of anything is determined by multiply the height times the width, times the depth, of the object. When you need to compute the cubic area of a cylinder, or other non-square object, it gets a bit more involved.


Now assume that the bore diameter is actually .490, and groove depth is .0055"( .501 minus .490 divided by 2 = .0055")( again, my gun's actual bore diameter)


Now assume that there are 6 lands and grooves, of equal width. The circumference of that bore( .490) is .769692" Divide that by 12( 6 grooves and 6 lands) and you get the width of the lands and grooves to be .064141".


To adjust the cubic area to correct for these "obstructions", you need to subtract from 5.519808 the area occupied by those 6 lands, that are .064141" wide, and .0055" deep.

So, multiply 6 time times .064141 times .0055 = .0003527"

5.519808 - .0003527 = 5.5194553 Cubic Inches


______________________________

If we ran the davenport formula using the Land to land diameter( bore diameter) of .490, we get:


.490 divided by 2 - ..245


.245 x .245 = .060025


.060025 x 3.1416 =.1885745 square inches. ( for a circle that is .490 in diameter.)


.1885745 x 11.5 = 2.1686067 grains per inch


2.168067 x 28 = 60.720987 grains of powder.


So, if you use the smaller diameter of the bore( land to land[.490]) The Davenport formula will give you only

60.72 grains of powder in that 28 inch barrel.

If you use the nominal .50 caliber, the formula gives you

63.22 grains of powder in that 28 inch barrel.

And, if you do all the math needed to actually get the ACTUAL cubic area of that barrel, you get a figure in between those two, 60.7, vs. 63.2! That is a difference of 2.5 grains, and half( assume that the lands and grooves are of equal width) that is only 1.25 grains!( Approx. 61.95 Grains!) Not enough to bother about, NO?






umm ? could you please repete that ?

[northmn]

I am always fascinated by these math formulas since I had a degree in math. You have so many variables that they are at best a complicated "best guess". Thats why I bought a chronograph. By the way a 530 ball wieghs about 220 grains not 272 whcih is closer to a 575. Also you have the scaler effect which means that a large ball has less surface area to volume, whcih means you have less surface area for the powder to push against per grain of weight. Bigger bores do not give the same velocities with 1/2 the powder charge as do those under 50 cal. They also retain velocity much better and will hit harder downrange. It ahs been stated that anything over 1800 fps mv is at a level of diminishing returns as the ball start to lose velocity a little faster at high speeds and do not hit that much harder downrange.

Northmn

[ihunts2much]

I think the use of the Davenport formula to come up with the ideal load is misleading. I would think if diminishing returns are yeilded above this ideal load, those diminishing returns could dampen inconsistencies in powder charge, not necessarily a bad thing, right? How many benchrest shooters use loads at or below what this formula suggests?

[FL-Flinter]

How do you keep a lawyer busy for hours? Give him the Davenport formula! :killingpc [smilie=l:

That's all fine and dandy to use as a theoretical exercise but it doesn't hold water in the real world because the resistance created by the combined mass and friction factor of the projectile play a huge roll in burn time and the amount of powder one can burn in a given bore diameter & length is proportional to what the projectile is and does.

Anyone who follows the modern shotgun forums will recall some years ago when the "turkey guns" were being pushed by the gun rag prostitutes as some great modern marvel. In the mix of sales hype, someone made the ballistically ignorant statement (paraphrase), "All the powder is burned in the first 16" of barrel length so a longer barrel has no appreciable effect on velocity." Well, with that, the internet was buzzing with this, that and the other thing to point where people were having their shotgun barrels shortened based on the ignorant babbling of some gun rag prostitute who got paid to write a feature-length advertisement. Isn't it funny though how the ammo mfg's selling "turkey loads" for "special turkey shotguns" with 20-24" barrels still use 28-36" test barrels for which to obtain their advertised velocity data ... hummmm, do ya think there could be some reason they feel the need to have as much as 26" more barrel length on the test rack? :takinWiz:

If you believe in Davenport, then please explain why the .50-140, .45-120 and other such cartridges have worked so well for far more than a century and continue to work well long into the next one ... or even why the muzzleloader data published by powder & bullet mfg's after having been collected by measurements in the real world consistently shows the Davenport formula is a waste of time.

Just for giggles, let's put some numbers to this...

36" long 50cal ~ 0.500" bore ~ 0.520" groove depth ~ powder charge 90gr 2F

0.495" ball ~ 0.018" patch
1:48 twist MV 1710 fps
1:66 twist MV 1880 fps

0.490" ball ~ 0.010" patch
1:48 twist MV 1510 fps
1:66 twist MV 1595 fps

There we can see the example of variation between two like barrels with the only difference being twist and how tight the patch/ball combination was and not a thing to do with powder charge.

If Fred's 65.5gr max-load calculation is correct, why did both the above barrels running the 0.495/0.018 combo show a proportional velocity increase up to the 90gr charge? (BTW Fred, it's just discussion, I'm not busting on you)

The whole point I'm making here is that while y'all can entertain yourselves with the juggling of calculated numbers to make the winter pass quicker, please understand the one point I have stressed for longer than I can remember - Numbers on paper don't put meat on the table, accurate placement of hot lead does. I can't help but laugh when I see the continuous shift 180° out of phase with reality, folks giving up velocity on shotgun loads so they can throw massive shot charges that in reality produce a far lower PPD than the lighter and faster charges that are incredible more effective. Then, you look at rifles where the shift to lighter & faster continues to be made without a single consideration for the most important factors of terminal ballistics, permanent wound channel and momentum.

[John Taylor]

Many years ago a test was run on the 22 LR for barrel length verses velocity. Started test with a 28" barrel and cut an inch off checking velocity each time. velocity went up and down a few FPS until they got below 16" of barrel. Seems the velocity for a 22LR at 16" is as good as it gets. Now this is a cartridge with a very small powder charge. When the powder charge goes up it makes a big difference how long the barrel is. Even if all the powder burns in 16" the pressure is still high enough to increase velocity as long as the bullet/ball is still in the barrel up to a point. If you were talking magnum cartridges it could mean 50 FPS for every inch of barrel. A lot of the old muzzle loaders had 42-48" barrels to get the highest velocity with the least amount of powder. Some think it was to burn all the powder but with the cost of powder when there wasn't much money they didn't waist it. The shorter fatter Hawkin barrels with bigger bore were designed to be carried on a horse and have enough knockdown power for larger animals.
Now for a few more things to think about. While testing muzzle brakes it was found that half the recoil on a 308 with a 22" barrel was caused by the muzzle blast. There is still quite a bit of pressure when the bullet leaves the barrel and it acts like a rocket engine. A muzzle brake had less effect on a longer barrel because the pressure was lower. The longer barrel gave much higher velocity with the same powder charge and less recoil even if the barrel were turned down to give the same over all gun weight.
To get back to muzzle loaders, if you want high velocity with less recoil then use a longer barrel. A chronograph may be a nice toy but you can get just as much info with wet magazines or blocks of wood to see how much penetration there is. As stated before, bigger is better for large game. A large ball has a better chance of going through bone where a small ball may ricochet. Better to hit it with a freight train than a sports car.

[FL-Flinter]

Good addition John T, I was going there but rambled on to other things. As long as the pressure in the bore behind the projo is higher than the combined resistance of the projo, velocity will continue to increase.

If y'all want to get into it, we can get into the discussion on pressure/time ramps, burn time and it's relationship to the pressure/time ramp and of course the proportional or inverse proportional relationship between pressure level and compressed gas volume. [smilie=l:

[buckweet]

Good addition John T, I was going there but rambled on to other things. As long as the pressure in the bore behind the projo is higher than the combined resistance of the projo, velocity will continue to increase.

If y'all want to get into it, we can get into the discussion on pressure/time ramps, burn time and it's relationship to the pressure/time ramp and of course the proportional or inverse proportional relationship between pressure level and compressed gas volume. [smilie=l:





:killingpc ok... mark, you first !!

and, ya... the eggwhite work's.;)

[FL-Flinter]

:killingpc ok... mark, you first !!

and, ya... the eggwhite work's.;)

Told ya so. [smilie=w: :drinks:

[9.3X62AL]

OK, got the scale out and I stand corrected--220 grains for the .530" RBs. I don't recall perzactly where the "272 grain" figure came from, probably the 58 RB (I have one of those rifles, too).

I set this project aside not long after my original post, due to eyesight going south with a cataract. That has been resolved, so I'll be back at it soon with chronography to assist.

The rifle is capable of decent hunting accuracy with the 55-60 grain loads--cloverleaves at 50 yards, and under 2" CTC at 100, before my eye played out. The objective remains to obtain as much velocity at tolerable recoil levels as possible, as long as accuracy remains reasonable. Once that is accomplished, I'll replace the 20th Century sighting equipment with something more period-correct, using the sight heights from the existing set as best possible. MANY THANKS for all the commentary and guidance!

[John Taylor]

:killingpc ok... mark, you first !!

and, ya... the eggwhite work's.;)

That would make my head hurt. I work for a living and don't have time to sit and think of numbers all the time. Just be practical and go out and shoot a few elk and see what works best. If you can't find any elk then try bear. Length wise on a griz would be a good place to see about penetration.

[buckweet]

That would make my head hurt. I work for a living and don't have time to sit and think of numbers all the time. Just be practical and go out and shoot a few elk and see what works best. If you can't find any elk then try bear. Length wise on a griz would be a good place to see about penetration.



ha. your right john... makes my head hurt.:drinks:

shooting a grizz lengthwise....lol !!!!!

[475BH]

Ever hear the one about the guy who left his brass measuring device at home one day at the range, and used a shotgun shell cut to what he thought was 75 grains of 3F, so he double charged it, only to find out that it was really the 130 grain shell. Ha ha, I about laughed my.. no wait, that was me.:oops:

Yeah, if you think 130 is a bit much, I don't recommend 260! [smilie=b:
ON the bright side, my home made rifle stayed together just fine, I kept all my teeth, and I fumigated for mosquito's with all the smoke that came out! :killingpc

That's good humor.[smilie=l:
I use a 45-70 case, they hold 90 grs. of FFFg
Works a lil better than that big adjustable thing.
BTW reminds me of last year after deer huntin, couldn't get the deer load out (after 2 months). So went rabbit huntin (.54, 90g. FFg) I must of had some lube soaked up by the powder and when I spyed a rabbit, leveled on it at 50-70 yds. There was so much smoke I had to lay down in the snow to see if I hit the rab., all I saw was a rab. running back and forth about 20' then took off and ran into the brush about 50 yds. to the left. I think he was scared from all the smoke that just showed up in his beloved swamp. And instead of the normal boom, there was just a light pow.

[bearside]

Greetings, I'm a first time user of this site so bare with me.
I was looking into information in regards to a correct powder charge for my
newly finished .62 cal. Jaeger that I intend on using for black bear.

I found several great answers on prevousily posted threads dating back to
2005 ( 9.3x62AL) and more from 2009, all of which I wish to thank.

I've been involved with blackpowder guns, both shooting/hunting and making
of said guns but have never put them against a chronograph. I've taken deer
with .45 cal, .50 cal ( patched round balls ) and also with my N.W. Trade gun
of 28 ga. ( .54 cal. ball ) All are flinters by the way.

However I am now facing a different critter in a black bear. I've started with
the " OLde rule of thumb " 1 gm per cal. but felt that that was too little and
have worked up to 85 grs of 2FF of GOEX pushing a .610 round ball with
a .015 patch greased with bear grease.

In applying the Davenport formula ( found on this site, thanks be to those )
I find that the suggested grms should be around 104 grs of 2FF. The barrel
is a Getz barrel and has a length of 31" but only 30" of usable bore because
of the plug, etc.

My range for this hunt will be between 25 to 34 yds and from elevated tree
stands over two bait locations. I don't have access to a chronograph or a
means to check foot lbs. However at 34 yds the .62 cal ball neatly past all
the way thru a 6" x 6" piece of free stand block of wood and continued on
into my backstop.

The gun and/or me shoots consistant using the 85 grs both at the 25 and
34 yds range.

So my question is this, is the 85 grs good enough to bring down mister
bear ( this implys that we are placing the shot in the vital zone and hope-
fully taking a leg bone out also ) or do I need to increase to the 104 grms
as per Davenport formula. The present load is comfortable to shoot and
is pretty consistant as mentioned. ( p.s. I also shoot an orginal .500 PBE
using 136 grs of 2FF with a very large/heavy projectial so I know recoil
and are not afraid by big recoils )

I plan to start this Friday ( 9/10/2010 ) to hunt so I don't have alot of time
to make adjustments.....any advice????

Thanks ahead,

John Drescher

[waksupi]

I shoot 95 gr. 3F Schutzen in my .62. I live in griz country, and don't feel under gunned at all with this. At the ranges you shoot black bear, you have plenty. Find your most accurate load, and use it.


Greetings, I'm a first time user of this site so bare with me.
I was looking into information in regards to a correct powder charge for my
newly finished .62 cal. Jaeger that I intend on using for black bear.

I found several great answers on prevousily posted threads dating back to
2005 ( 9.3x62AL) and more from 2009, all of which I wish to thank.

I've been involved with blackpowder guns, both shooting/hunting and making
of said guns but have never put them against a chronograph. I've taken deer
with .45 cal, .50 cal ( patched round balls ) and also with my N.W. Trade gun
of 28 ga. ( .54 cal. ball ) All are flinters by the way.

However I am now facing a different critter in a black bear. I've started with
the " OLde rule of thumb " 1 gm per cal. but felt that that was too little and
have worked up to 85 grs of 2FF of GOEX pushing a .610 round ball with
a .015 patch greased with bear grease.

In applying the Davenport formula ( found on this site, thanks be to those )
I find that the suggested grms should be around 104 grs of 2FF. The barrel
is a Getz barrel and has a length of 31" but only 30" of usable bore because
of the plug, etc.

My range for this hunt will be between 25 to 34 yds and from elevated tree
stands over two bait locations. I don't have access to a chronograph or a
means to check foot lbs. However at 34 yds the .62 cal ball neatly past all
the way thru a 6" x 6" piece of free stand block of wood and continued on
into my backstop.

The gun and/or me shoots consistant using the 85 grs both at the 25 and
34 yds range.

So my question is this, is the 85 grs good enough to bring down mister
bear ( this implys that we are placing the shot in the vital zone and hope-
fully taking a leg bone out also ) or do I need to increase to the 104 grms
as per Davenport formula. The present load is comfortable to shoot and
is pretty consistant as mentioned. ( p.s. I also shoot an orginal .500 PBE
using 136 grs of 2FF with a very large/heavy projectial so I know recoil
and are not afraid by big recoils )

I plan to start this Friday ( 9/10/2010 ) to hunt so I don't have alot of time
to make adjustments.....any advice????

Thanks ahead,

John Drescher

[northmn]

Two things on your 62 Jaeger. The English had the Baker rifle which made its name in the Napoleanic wars and used about 110 grains of whatever. 2f would work. Several Black bears in my neck of the woods have been shot with 20 ga Northwest Trade Gun Replicas, whcih are about 62 cal. They usually used about 90 grains of 2f. I built a 62 for an individual who used it (I think before the finsih was dry) to sh0ot a large 200 pound plus 8 point buck with about 70 grains of 3f. As to loads for a 62, 1/2 the ball weight is often recommended for a hunting load which would put you in the 160 grain charge range and which few use. I use about 90 grains in my 20 bore which is quite accurate and about 90-100 in my 58. If I were worried about enough punch in a 62 I would try the English Baker load of 110 grains of 2f. They made some very long shots with that rifle. I would also bet that 85 grains will put down any black bear you are likely to see.

Northmn

[fishhawk]

HEY! that you Wet john? standing on the rock in the peshtigo river? steve k

[bearside]

Thanks for your quick responce. Your info has eased my mind some as to my load. being
that my range is rather short I now believe that this combination will do the job. All I know
is that I don't want to be on the receiving end of that load/ball at 34 yds....right!

[bearside]

Ya thats me, " Wet John " nice seeing your reply. have sort of fell away from the N.W.
Company and the rendevous stuff but still making and shooting those firesticks. Perhaps
see you down the trail one of these days. Keep your powder dry and your hair on.

[bearside]

Thanks for reply and easying my mind as to my load. Blacks are not as tough as Griz so if
you feel safe with 95 grains I'm sure the 85 grains will lay down a black bear just fine. If
the range was greater than the 25-35 yds I would probably increase grains but since it
shoots point of aim now, I'll just rest my mind with the 85 grains and my practicing shots.
Again thanks for your advice.

[SamTexas49]

Ok, reading all this is kinda interesting!

But with out this "equipment and calculators" I recall an Old gent way back in the 70's tellin me that when you see them "red beads" at the end of your barrel after a shot then you got the "right load" for busting critters!

As for "ball size" arent we alwasy told "bigger is better?"

I had for a while a semi-kit gun (cant recall the manufacturer) full stock Hawkin in .62 cal !!
320gr RB !! Never got to take any game ( I did hunt with it cow Wapiti) but loved shooting steel targets!!! There was never any question when I hit then things! Best shot was on the 25yd squirrels, had hit 4 out of 5 ( had to nearly go to 50yd line to retrieve them) took my last shot and "Missed" but the ball traveled so close to it that the air turbulance turned the squirrel on its plate!!! ( used 60 gr 2F at 25yr )

[9.3X62AL]

Again, thanks to all who posted and assisted with my original question, and helped to chase it down a few rabbit holes as well. I am not one step closer to getting that Hawken field-ready for hunting, largely due to California's condor-cuddling bullsquat taking a deep and comprehensive DUMP on lead-bullet game-taking. And it is getting worse, with measures before the granola-based legislature to force ALL hunting venues to use non-toxic projectiles. Between the bullet bullsquat and the coastal fishing closures, this Kabuki Theater of excremental excess might drive me out of this Worker's Paradise. I am genuinely starting to loathe what my home state is becoming.

[Nobade]

Just in case you didn't know it, BPI products has bismuth round balls in various sizes. At least I think that's where I saw them. Might be useful for you. I also have seen folks getting good results with 58cal. ball guns using 9/16" brass balls and a thick patch. Make a box to recover them and keep using them over and over. And yes, CA is somewhere I would lo longer want to be. Sure was fun back in the 1980's though. The Frontstuffer shop in Fontana holds good memories for me.

-Nobade

[crossxsticks]

Fred, thanks for your reply, a 50 is my cal. to shoot I was hopeing some one would do the math for me LOL



Math is not my long suite. That is why I became a lawyer. But, the Davenport formula is worked by using some of that darn math they tried to teach me back in HS.

The Cubic area of the bore would be done this way:

Take the bore diameter( or groove diameter and then calculate both cubic areas. Then subtract the area created by the lands, to get the actual true Cubic area of a rifled barrel. Generally, the difference is measured in a couple of grains, and is not worth the extra brain power used.) and divide it by 2 to get the Radius of the bore. (r)

Area of a circle is determined by the formula A= PiR Squared. Pi= 3.1416. So, Multiply the Radius by itself(to square it) and then multiply that number by Pi to find the area of the circle the diameter of the Bore of your gun.

Now Multiply that number( area) times the 11.5 to get the amount of powder in one inch of your bore. Multiply that number by the length of your barrel to get the total capacity for your whole barrel.


Example:


( .50 cal. divided by 2 = .25; times .25 = .0625; times 3.1416= .19635; times 11.5 =2.2580; times 28(barrel length)=63.22 grains of powder.)


If you want to know the cubic space inside one inch of a .50 caliber rifle, you can use .50 as the diameter, or measure the actual land to land dimension, and then the groove diameter, and then the groove depth, to work out EXACT the cubic area of that particular bore.


Here is how to calculate the Davenport Formula:


.50 divided by 2 = .25


.25 x .25 = .0625


.0625 times Pi( 3.1416)= 0.19635


.19635 x 11.5 = 2.2580


2.2580 x 28 inches( barrel length)= 63.22 grains of powder.


___________________


Assume you are shooting a 28 inch .50 caliber rifle barrel. The cubic area of that bore will be 28 x .19635 = 5.4978 cubic inches.


Now, because you do have grooves in that barrel, you can refine that a bit more.

Assume that the actual groove diameter of your gun is .501" ( my .50 caliber rifle's actual bore diameter)

Run the Davenport formula and you get:


.501 divided by 2 = .2505


.2505 x .2505 = .0627502


.0627502 x 3.1416 = 0.197136


0.197136 x 11.5 = 2.267064


2.267064 x 28 = 63.477792 grains of powder.


A cube of anything is determined by multiply the height times the width, times the depth, of the object. When you need to compute the cubic area of a cylinder, or other non-square object, it gets a bit more involved.


Now assume that the bore diameter is actually .490, and groove depth is .0055"( .501 minus .490 divided by 2 = .0055")( again, my gun's actual bore diameter)


Now assume that there are 6 lands and grooves, of equal width. The circumference of that bore( .490) is .769692" Divide that by 12( 6 grooves and 6 lands) and you get the width of the lands and grooves to be .064141".


To adjust the cubic area to correct for these "obstructions", you need to subtract from 5.519808 the area occupied by those 6 lands, that are .064141" wide, and .0055" deep.

So, multiply 6 time times .064141 times .0055 = .0003527"

5.519808 - .0003527 = 5.5194553 Cubic Inches


______________________________

If we ran the davenport formula using the Land to land diameter( bore diameter) of .490, we get:


.490 divided by 2 - ..245


.245 x .245 = .060025


.060025 x 3.1416 =.1885745 square inches. ( for a circle that is .490 in diameter.)


.1885745 x 11.5 = 2.1686067 grains per inch


2.168067 x 28 = 60.720987 grains of powder.


So, if you use the smaller diameter of the bore( land to land[.490]) The Davenport formula will give you only

60.72 grains of powder in that 28 inch barrel.

If you use the nominal .50 caliber, the formula gives you

63.22 grains of powder in that 28 inch barrel.

And, if you do all the math needed to actually get the ACTUAL cubic area of that barrel, you get a figure in between those two, 60.7, vs. 63.2! That is a difference of 2.5 grains, and half( assume that the lands and grooves are of equal width) that is only 1.25 grains!( Approx. 61.95 Grains!) Not enough to bother about, NO?

[Hanshi]

In the old country jaegers were often very large caliber. Their powder charges weren't heavy since a large ball doesn't need that much velocity for power and penetration. Their hunting distances were normally quite close. This practice continued in America until most large game was shot out. The need soon became economy; smaller ball but at higher velocity for distance. The last deer I killed was with a .62 smoothbore and 70 grains of 3F. Judging from the results, I'd have done just as well with 60 grains.

[9.3X62AL]

They are known as "ITX Roundballs", TomBob Enterprises markets them and BPI shows them as being available. Not cheap, about $1 each--but they will keep me hunting with THB! Many thanks, Nobade! Damn the condor cuddlers, too!

The Frontstuffer was a great shop, indeed. So too was "Muskets to Magnums" in Moreno Valley.

[Green Lizzard]

that davenport thing made my hair hurt

[GARD72977]

Reading this has me thinking. Since SWISS is a hotter powder, will it have as much FPS increase as the barrel length increases as a powder like GOEX?

[KCSO]

Now I will give you the county boy max load data I got many years ago. Go out and fire the gun over snow and when you see unburned grains of powder on the snow THAT is all the powder you can burn. The T/C has a retavily short barrel by M/L standards and IIRR the most powder I could really burn without pushing some out the barrel was about 90 grians of FFG. In actual practice a load of just 70 grains of FFG will push a round ball through both sides of a buffalo and kill him dead. Worry about accuracy and forget about maximum velocity. Long ago I got over the idea that I needed a lot of powder to kill something my hunting load for my rifle is just 85 grains of FFG.

[Hanshi]

Doesn't take much powder/velocity to take large game with a prb; need more power then just go to a bigger gun. The stuff you see on the snow from firing the charge is not unburned powder; just fouling. BP burns with 50% of its weight being particulate fouling. You will have long passed any reasonable burn before anything unburned comes out that muzzle.

[9.3X62AL]

No pun intended here, but the knowledge concerning the existence of the bismuth RBs has re-ignited my enthusiasm for this project with the Hawken 54. It will get bifurcated--into lead PRB and bismuth PRB testing and accuracy trials, to see what (if any) significant trajectory differences exist to 100 yards. As before, the goal will be to install primitive sights and tune them to the most accurate load(s). Ideally, the lead and bismuth balls won't hit very far apart, and if so an "averaged" sight setting for both might answer.