Maximum loads in 1:48 twist with patched round ball.

[flynth]

Hi,

I'm currently reading "The sporting rifle and its projectiles" written by James Forsyth in 1860-s and he talks at length how people choose smoothbores over rifles (given the same caliber) because manufacturers make rifling with twists too fast to shoot PRB with heavy hunting load accurately at distances around 60-70m. As an example of twist he considers too fast he gives 1:42 in a 13 bore (.71 cal) rifle. He talks how when loaded with 48 grains (1 and 3/4ths of a dram) of powder it was accurate, but with even a little more it would strip the patch. That sounds to me like an extraordinary claim.

Perhaps the powders they used back then were measured by volume and they were much denser than what we have now. He talks elsewhere about a great rifle with a twist rate of 1:104,. 69 cal (14 bore) which he loaded with 137 grains (5 drams) getting muzzle velocity of 1600ft (calculated from ball drop he gives). With a modern powder I get same speed from a. 58 cal with a ball almost half his weight with 120 grains. So we can probably assume they had powders from a third to double the energy of ours.

Still, even if we take that doubling into account his claim is that using today's powder one should expect to not be able to use more than 90 grains in a. 71cal with a 1:42 twist before PRB would strip the rifling and be "no more accurate than a smoothbore". He also claims tight fitting balls and patches that have to be "hammered in" the barrels don't improve this.

I'm reluctant to dismiss authors experience of many months of shooting in India, and at the same time it sounds wrong.

I would very much like to find out what is the maximum radial acceleration a patched round ball combo can take before slipping. Modern mechanics tells us the tighter the ball-patch interface is the higher the friction and the higher the force it can impart on the ball before slippage.

Personally I haven't observed any deterioration in accuracy that can't be explained by my handling of the recoil with my. 58 cal even with 150 grains. It would be very interesting to find out what other people observed. If you found what your rifles maximum accurate PRB load is please reply with the caliber, twist rate, barrel length, ball size, patch thickness, lube type, load and powder type. Also muzzle velocity if known.

If I have few answers(ideally from people with different caliber rifles) I'll try to find out if one can calculate when this slippage will occur based on caliber, velocity, patch thickness and twist. I think having an equation like this would be very useful to many people.

[charlie b]

The twist and load will depend on caliber. Larger dia ball is more mass, so takes more effort to spin up.

Typically round ball twist rates are very slow, 1:60 kind of thing for 50cal. It does not take much movement to stabilize a ball so slower is the key for higher power loads.

If you do have a faster twist then yes you are limited to the load you can use. I have fired patched ball loads from my .50 cal Lyman Great Plains Hunter with 1:32 twist. It seems to like low charges and shorter ranges (30gn powder, 50yds). When I tried 80gn of powder the groups opened up quite a bit (paper plate size at 100yd). Never got to 100gn.

So, yes, his comments about a 1:42 twist being too fast for a .71 at higher charge weights would seem correct.

[Outpost75]

I have a T/C .45 cal. with 1:48" twist, but for heavy loads I don't shoot patched balls, but load an oversized ball bare, using a mallet and short starter to engrave it and get it into the muzzle. Once engraved you can ram it down easily enough. I load a .457" ball cast 1:30 tin-lead, with an Ox Yoke Originals lubricated wad under the ball with 80 grains of Goex 3Fg. Accurate and powerful.

Spit patch between shots.

[rodwha]

I have a T/C .45 cal. with 1:48" twist, but for heavy loads I don't shoot patched balls, but load an oversized ball bare, using a mallet and short starter to engrave it and get it into the muzzle. Once engraved you can ram it down easily enough. I load a .457" ball cast 1:30 tin-lead, with an Ox Yoke Originals lubricated wad under the ball with 80 grains of Goex 3Fg. Accurate and powerful.

Spit patch between shots.

Very interesting. I’ve read of using an oversized ball without a patch but have never come across anyone who did it.

Do you notice an accuracy difference between patched and bare?

[Outpost75]

Very interesting. I’ve read of using an oversized ball without a patch but have never come across anyone who did it.

Do you notice an accuracy difference between patched and bare?

Bare ball with lubricated wad underneath and then spit-patched between shots was more accurate. Under 2 inches at 50 yards with iron sights. Got the idea from an old Gun Digest article by Ed Harris which had LOTS of data, as is his usual custom. Convinced me!

[bigted]

Outpost, do you experience leading with your bare ball? Wonder how pure lead would do loaded thusely.

[Outpost75]

Outpost, do you experience leading with your bare ball? Wonder how pure lead would do loaded thusely.

No leading using Ox Yoke Originals lubricated wad under ball. I did not use pure lead but only 1:30 which I already had for BP cartridge loading in .44-40 and .45 Colt. The slight tin addition is needed in order to achieve the required groove diameter ball. Using pure lead I would have needed to buy a larger mold, because pure lead casts about 0.003" smaller in diameter.

[KCSO]

The maximum load is the one that groups best! If 75 grains of FFG will shoot clear through a bison what more do you need? If hunting Grizzly in the alders go to a 58 or a 62.

[bigted]

I think I have a .457 or .458 ball mold, have to look and try this out.

Can you start the bare ball with the short leg on a short starter with your palm or does it require a hammer to start into the rifling?

[Outpost75]

I think I have a .457 or .458 ball mold, have to look and try this out.

Can you start the bare ball with the short leg on a short starter with your palm or does it require a hammer to start into the rifling?

I use the short leg AND a rawhide hammer. Then once engraved it can be driven down with long starter using the palm and finally with both hands having a firm grip on a fiberglass Wonder Rod.

I do the same thing in the .50 cal. using a .509" ball with 100 grains and in the .54 with a .545 ball and 120 grains, a manly load...

[hpdrifter]

I used to have a TC Hawken; 1:48 with shallow rifling, which I think needs to be part of the equation.

If I loaded more than 80 grains(volume--really 78 is what I decided on) the groups opened up. No science there, just observation.

[Outpost75]

I used to have a TC Hawken; 1:48 with shallow rifling, which I think needs to be part of the equation.

If I loaded more than 80 grains(volume--really 78 is what I decided on) the groups opened up. No science there, just observation.

So is mine. Bare groove diameter bullets are better!

[rodwha]

Bare ball with lubricated wad underneath and then spit-patched between shots was more accurate. Under 2 inches at 50 yards with iron sights. Got the idea from an old Gun Digest article by Ed Harris which had LOTS of data, as is his usual custom. Convinced me!

Does the ball have to be land diameter or does obturation fill minor gaps? Seems a custom ball mold would be needed as Lyman states the lands are ~.520”.

Have you tried shorter for caliber bullets like the Lee REAL or Hornady PA Conical? I’m curious how accuracy and range compares to a bare ball.

[flynth]

I used to have a TC Hawken; 1:48 with shallow rifling, which I think needs to be part of the equation.

If I loaded more than 80 grains(volume--really 78 is what I decided on) the groups opened up. No science there, just observation.

What ball size and patch thickness did you use? Also what kind of patch lube and do you know the bore diameter of the rifle?

Regarding my answer to the question I went to the range today and I took my 12 gauge side by side smoothbore with me to have a comparison. Shooting a .715 pure lead round ball from the cylinder bore the ball without a patch was basically finger tight in first 2 inches of the bore and it fell in by itself the rest of the way. I used a thick cork wad under the ball and a thin paper card on top. With 90 gr of powder I got 1050fps and about 8 inch group at 50m.

With a rifled 58 cal double using 575 ball both barrels shot well with a thin patch (0.008 inch) and 70 grains. When I increased to 90 grains I had to use a thicker patch (0.01 inch) in the right barrel to maintain the same accuracy. At 120 grains I had to use the thicker patch in both barrels. I didn't find a load that would strip the thicker patch. The rifle has 1:48 twist. Interestingly with a ball 5 thou smaller it shoots no better than a smoothbore with all loads I tested (70 to 120)..

[indian joe]

I am shooting a 1/48 twist 45 cal flinter (the last several years) well past my shooting prime but that rifle good enough to get me a few wins still.
Its a cheap belgian barrel with shallow rifling, and shoots fine with 55 grains FFFg goex with a ticking patch - 65 grains is enough to upset it and 70 is a total waste of time - have had a couple of 45 CVA barrels (66twist) that would handle about any powder load you fed them and still accurate - the CVA rifling is a little deeper than this Belgian barrel but not by much and rifling depth would be part of the theory here - I dont like deep rifled barrels no matter the twist - have found deep rifling more problematical to load for and the idea of having it (deep) to give the fouling someplace to lodge - just seems dumb to me. If you are shooting a load that clogs things up you only gonna get a few more shots - learn to handle the fouling!!!

A mallet is a tool to be used in the workshop for bashing things - has no place in the loading of a muzzle loader in my scheme of things - bare ball loading might work in some peculiar ciscumstances but the patched round ball was a major advancement in rifle shooting 300years ago - why smash a bare ball down with a hammer when a hollow based minie will get it done so much easier???
just opinions - we all got em!

[DIRT Farmer]

The round ball bench rest shooters have been through all of this and if you want to learn go sit with them with a note book. I knew a very sucessful one in the medal count, his 50 ran a 505 patched ball started thrugh the false muzzle with a starter designed just for it.He loaded 150 grains of Dupont fffg which he had several 25lb kegs of from the same lot just for this rifle. His twist rate for shooting out to 400 yards was 1 turn in 14 feet, and yes that is what I ment to write. If you want to shoot match call the barrel maker, depending on the bore the maker will tell you the best rate of twist for his barrel and the load range for the bullet or ball you intend to shoot. And yes the old CVA round ball barrels with 1/66 shot good.

[Outpost75]

Does the ball have to be land diameter or does obturation fill minor gaps? Seems a custom ball mold would be needed as Lyman states the lands are ~.520”.

Have you tried shorter for caliber bullets like the Lee REAL or Hornady PA Conical? I’m curious how accuracy and range compares to a bare ball.

My bare balls are GROOVE, not land diameter. Yes, custom mold. Old Walt Melander NEI, no longer in business. Smaller balls require patching. R.E.A.L. OK, but less accurate.

[indian joe]

The round ball bench rest shooters have been through all of this and if you want to learn go sit with them with a note book. I knew a very sucessful one in the medal count, his 50 ran a 505 patched ball started thrugh the false muzzle with a starter designed just for it.He loaded 150 grains of Dupont fffg which he had several 25lb kegs of from the same lot just for this rifle. His twist rate for shooting out to 400 yards was 1 turn in 14 feet, and yes that is what I ment to write. If you want to shoot match call the barrel maker, depending on the bore the maker will tell you the best rate of twist for his barrel and the load range for the bullet or ball you intend to shoot. And yes the old CVA round ball barrels with 1/66 shot good.

Curious -- how good do these RB bench guns shoot for all the extra trouble ? I had a CVA 50 cal pennsylvania flinter twenty years ago I always reckoned might have done MOA if someone other than me hadda benched it with a decent scope aboard - I did a couple of ten shot just on two inches at 100yards (unsupported sitting position, open barrel sights) - that was the limit of my eyesight and ability to hold on my best day then (can remember it - cant repeat it :D)

[pietro]

.

T/C used mostly 1:48' twist barrels, and their loading manual show their maximum suggested PRB load for different bore sizes with a MAXIMUM label.


https://i.imgur.com/tz1TKz0l.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/sw13tMDl.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/BciLkE3l.jpg



.

[DIRT Farmer]

The round ball bench guns shoot like bench rest guns should. I was watching a quater match one day, the target was x centerwith the x ring 1/2 inch. the shooter lost the bet because he left part of the line on the x ring. Most have bases to shoot open sights, peep sights and scopes. 40 pounds and up and they regulary shoot out to 200 yards with round ball. Even I could shoot round balls off the target frame.

[flynth]

The round ball bench rest shooters have been through all of this and if you want to learn go sit with them with a note book. I knew a very sucessful one in the medal count, his 50 ran a 505 patched ball started thrugh the false muzzle with a starter designed just for it.He loaded 150 grains of Dupont fffg which he had several 25lb kegs of from the same lot just for this rifle. His twist rate for shooting out to 400 yards was 1 turn in 14 feet, and yes that is what I ment to write. If you want to shoot match call the barrel maker, depending on the bore the maker will tell you the best rate of twist for his barrel and the load range for the bullet or ball you intend to shoot. And yes the old CVA round ball barrels with 1/66 shot good.

Wow, that's 1 turn in 168 inches. I wonder if any custom barrel maker would make a set of barrels for a double muzzleloader and how much would it cost. I would love to have a go at regulating and soldering them myself, but I would prefer someone else to bore, rifle and turn the outsides.

[indian joe]

.

T/C used mostly 1:48' twist barrels, and their loading manual show their maximum suggested PRB load for different bore sizes with a MAXIMUM label.


https://i.imgur.com/tz1TKz0l.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/sw13tMDl.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/BciLkE3l.jpg



.

Those loads are top end accurate loads for a 66 twist - would not work worth a squirt in the 48 twist guns I have had in my hands (or seen close up) - never owned a TC tho----
100 yard target tells the story in the end - if it works it works - thats about the only "rule".
Deeper rifling and a tight patch ........maybe?

[indian joe]

The round ball bench guns shoot like bench rest guns should. I was watching a quater match one day, the target was x centerwith the x ring 1/2 inch. the shooter lost the bet because he left part of the line on the x ring. Most have bases to shoot open sights, peep sights and scopes. 40 pounds and up and they regulary shoot out to 200 yards with round ball. Even I could shoot round balls off the target frame.

hmmm I have zero interest in doing 40 pound rail guns off a machine rest or whatever they do - but their result makes that MOA idea seem a bit less ridiculous. thanks for the answer.

[FrontierMuzzleloading]

110gr 3fg shoots excellent out of my 1:48 twist traditions barrels. I do not push them that fast however as its not needed. 70gr 3fg and shes perfect on everything from hogs to elk.

[charlie b]

I guess I would ask why try to make a round ball shoot like a bullet when you can use a bullet? I would think a Minie would be a good match at that caliber.

[megasupermagnum]

I guess I would ask why try to make a round ball shoot like a bullet when you can use a bullet? I would think a Minie would be a good match at that caliber.

I'm far from the expert on the subject, but what I've heard of minie ball accuracy ranges from good enough to hunt big game to outright horrible. What I gather is the minie ball was made to load quickly, and fly far. Accuracy was never a consideration.

Outpost75, how are unpatched balls for loading a dirty bore? Do you have to swab between shots? Can I get some numbers as far as accuracy? X" at 100 yards best patched combo vs X" at 100 yards full size ball please? That sounds like something interesting for me to try.

[flynth]

110gr 3fg shoots excellent out of my 1:48 twist traditions barrels. I do not push them that fast however as its not needed. 70gr 3fg and shes perfect on everything from hogs to elk.

What is your bore diameter, ball size and patch thickness?


I guess I would ask why try to make a round ball shoot like a bullet when you can use a bullet? I would think a Minie would be a good match at that caliber.
Just as megasupermagnum said:

I'm far from the expert on the subject, but what I've heard of minie ball accuracy ranges from good enough to hunt big game to outright horrible. What I gather is the minie ball was made to load quickly, and fly far. Accuracy was never a consideration.

Exactly. Also I would like to add that this is discussed in the book I mentioned at the beginning of the thread. Round ball (from the same bore)has three advantages over a bullet in a double rifle hunting environment where your longest shot is around 100m and most shots are under 70m.

First is that thanks to light weight the ball has much faster muzzle velocity therefore about 30-40% less drop ( it is a difference in the region of 2.5 inches vs 3.5 inches of raised trajectory at 50m for the same rifle zeroed at 100m - not much, but it is there and supposedly it makes it easier to hit what you aim for) and in the unlikely event of shooting at a moving target the projectile gets there 30-40% faster.

Second, a round ball hits with a much bigger area so there is higher probability of it dumping all of its destructive energy in the target rather than going through and carrying a good portion of its energy away. Also, the book mentions big bones deflect bullets easier - I have no idea if this is true.

Third, in a muzzleloader double rifle with loose fitting minie bullets if you shoot one barrel it is possible for recoil to move the projectile in the other barrel and cause a dangerous situation where there is a gap between powder and the projectile. Balls are held by their patches a lot tighter so this is a lot less of a possibility. Again, I personally have not observed this despite shooting a lot of minies, REALs etc from my double recently (I always check with my ramrod just in case), but I read few accounts of people saying it happened to them.

[charlie b]

Ok. And I missed the part about this being for a double rifle.

Terminal effects are a give and take. Yes, a round ball will probably dump energy well, but, a flat front bullet cuts a better hole which will bleed faster. A round ball of .50 cal has same frontal area as a .50cal bullet. A bullet has a larger sectional density, which means it will penetrate more.

Deflect from bone? All bullets either go through the bone or deflect. Which happens depends more on the bone and angles of impact than from bullet type. A bullet has more potential to penetrate the bone given the higher sectional density.

The big difference is you can drive a ball faster cause it is lighter. The trade off is the effective range is less cause they dump speed so fast.

For any of the above, if the odds were so much in favor of the round ball we would be shooting them in breech loaders.

I think the biggest choice for you is the double rifle and your confidence in the bullet staying on the powder.

[flynth]

I think the biggest choice for you is the double rifle and your confidence in the bullet staying on the powder.

I agree, the main factor behind using a round ball is as you said my confidence in it staying on powder.

I haven't got any personal experience regarding terminal effects with a large round ball so I may be mistaken with this, but the claims made by the book author seem logical to me so I'll attempt to defend them a bit.

Please bear in mind we're talking about fairly large bore ( .58 cal in my case) balls (at 1600-1700fps) and bullets at black powder velocities (1100-1200fps) so not a lot of expansion is assumed. If this assumption is wrong, it changes the conclusion in favour of bullets. Also, I think all those positives of round ball are really only applicable in calibers where it is impossible to drive a bullet to comparable speed with manageable level of recoil in a rifle not heavier than 9 pounds (4.5kg). So in my opinion .58 and up.



Terminal effects are a give and take. Yes, a round ball will probably dump energy well, but, a flat front bullet cuts a better hole which will bleed faster.
A round ball of .50 cal has same frontal area as a .50cal bullet. A bullet has a larger sectional density, which means it will penetrate more.

If by flat front you mean a wadcutter-like front then I agree, it will punch a nice hole, but most bullets used for things other than target shooting have some sort of a cone or ogive to improve their long distance performance. The same improvements that streamline them to lower air resistance also lower resistance and therefore energy transfer when they go through soft tissues. A round ball is fairly blunt compared with most minie designs. Therefore one could argue a hole punched with a blunter object (a ball) at faster speed will cause a bigger wound channel and consequently faster bleeding than similar hole made by a streamlined object that slices through more than it punches. I of course agree that the bullet will penetrate further, but once both projectiles penetrate fully what does it matter if one could penetrate more than is necessary. The book I mentioned gives an example of a 14 bore (.69) ball of soft lead driven with 5 drams of powder (137grain) being able to penetrate through an elephant's head or an Asian buffalo lengthwise. That sounds like a proper amount of over-penetration to me ;-)



Deflect from bone? All bullets either go through the bone or deflect. Which happens depends more on the bone and angles of impact than from bullet type. A bullet has more potential to penetrate the bone given the higher sectional density.

I can only speculate, but it would seem logical that a projectile with that streamlined cone or ogive on the front pretty much guarantees an unfavourable angle of impact unless it hits the bone right head on. A ball seems to have an advantage here by means of being blunter.



The big difference is you can drive a ball faster cause it is lighter. The trade off is the effective range is less cause they dump speed so fast.

Agreed. I wouldn't be comfortable with a range over 60-70m (although old books, and others claim 100m hunting range).



For any of the above, if the odds were so much in favor of the round ball we would be shooting them in breech loaders.

But we are, we just call them slugs. What else other than a slightly modified 12 bore round ball is a foster slug? We even use similar velocities to those used by black powder rifles with round balls (1200 to 1900fps depending on requirements). I can also imagine a short blunt bullet that would have all the same properties of a round ball, but I thought we're comparing typical minie bullets with round balls rather than bullets in general.

Also, regarding popularity of bullets today the major factor making them useful is smokeless powder and ability to achieve velocities that guarantee really good expansion in calibers that were called pea shooters 150 years ago ;-) This makes them perform as good as huge round balls at short range, while being significantly better at long range. However, if we revert to black powder velocities, and we want to limit recoil in a rifle one can carry a long time it is natural to take advantage of the best short distance projectile available - huge round ball.

[brewer12345]

At 50 caliber and up expansion is a nice to have rather than a must, imo. Given the expansion I got last fall with a 12ish bhn boolit that impacted a doe at 1600 or so fps, I have little doubt that a soft round ball, minie or conical would expand at black powder velocities. So I think the choice of projectile depends on your needs. Rounds balls stay firmly on the powder, minies load quickly, and conical have more energy downrange. I will be looking for elk next month and I chose a conical because a shot might be a bit longer and I want to ensure penetration on a 500 pound animal. For deer I would likely default to a ball for preference.

[charlie b]

^^^this.

Black powder velocities and bullets .577 Black Powder Express, 570gn at 1700fps. You can make black powder push bullets at speed.

And, yes, the bullets I shoot are good to at least 300yd and are semi-wadcutter design (.50cal). Big flat fronts. And round ball will deflect just like a bullet, maybe even more so.

Basically, a round ball is simply a really short bullet with the ONLY benefit being that it is a little faster at shorter ranges. Even a small 'skirt' on the ball will make it fly and penetrate better. Your reference to a Foster is a good example. When you add the skirt it is now a bullet ;) The Foster is more like a Minie than it is like a ball.

Will any of this make any difference on an elk or bear at 75yds....no. All will do the job.

[megasupermagnum]

I have zero experience with any real black powder cartridges, beyond loading modern cartridges with black powder for fun. From a muzzleloader perspective, the big problem I've always had with the conical is the fit has to be perfect. The Lee REAL doesn't fit tight in any of my guns. It should bump up during firing, but it sure doesn't seem to help. I never could get them to shoot as good as a round ball. My TC Renegade, which I've spent a lot of time with this year, does seem to really like the TC maxi ball. It is definitely better than the REAL, but I still do not trust 100% that it will stay seated. I've heard too many people say they will move up the barrel over time. As a hunter, this will not do. More time will tell if this is an actual problem for me. A patched round ball will stay seated in all conditions provide it is not a super loose fit.

There is no doubt the maxi ball will penetrate more than a round ball, and it should retain velocity better. Being as it starts out much slower, inside of 100 yards is a wash. If shooting out to 200 yards or more a round ball is at a disadvantage. From what I've seen, a maxiball does not cause that much damage to a deer compared to a round ball. A round ball will flatten out, and the maxi just plows through. The maxi hunter may be better, but the maxi ball doesn't even have a big flat on it. Most of my rifles are 54 caliber, and there is no source of maxi hunter 54 calibers. For my 54 caliber 1:48" twist guns my choices are the REAL or the maxiball, and I'm not convinced either is better than a round ball.

I've seen impressive things done on paper with both conical and round ball, I'll call the accuracy a wash. I load round balls in 12 gauge and 10 gauge shotguns too. While I have yet to match the accuracy of a factory rifled slug, round balls have proven to be more accurate than cast foster slugs. Range testing has shown that round balls are every bit as aerodynamic (or lack of) as a foster/rifled slug. Penetration of a round ball is better than a rifled or foster slug, and this is something I have tested myself. I have never tried a minie ball, and I don't intend to. I don't believe they are going to be more accurate than a ball, and the pointed shape is not at all what I want to be shooting for hunting. We had a stint of 3 deer shot with a Hornady FPB that did not expand (essentially a copper plated minie ball), and we will never use them again. Pin holes is about what they made. I don't expect the Minie ball to be much better. To make matters worse, most loads I see guys use are on the order of 40 grains of powder, any higher and the skirt may blow out. Not exactly a powerhouse.

A purpose built conical gun is one thing, but for the average gun, the choices to me are a ball, a REAL, or a Maxi ball. Between those three, the ball has distinct advantages. I do believe a better conical can be made, but so little development has been done since the sabot craze started.

[brewer12345]

A purpose built conical gun is one thing, but for the average gun, the choices to me are a ball, a REAL, or a Maxi ball. Between those three, the ball has distinct advantages. I do believe a better conical can be made, but so little development has been done since the sabot craze started.

Well, I will hopefully have a chance to gain some field experience this fall as I hunt for both elk and deer with a muzzleloader. I am planning to use the same load for both simply because it is accurate: 54 cal 380 grain REAL lubed with bore butter, over powder wad, and 120 grains of Black MZ. If the round ball had proven more accurate that is what I would have chosen, but the REAL was better. Inside 50 or 75 yards I would expect some expansion, out to 125 I expect complete pass through even on a cow elk.

[megasupermagnum]

Well, I will hopefully have a chance to gain some field experience this fall as I hunt for both elk and deer with a muzzleloader. I am planning to use the same load for both simply because it is accurate: 54 cal 380 grain REAL lubed with bore butter, over powder wad, and 120 grains of Black MZ. If the round ball had proven more accurate that is what I would have chosen, but the REAL was better. Inside 50 or 75 yards I would expect some expansion, out to 125 I expect complete pass through even on a cow elk.

I wouldn't worry about the REAL, or even the maxi ball for that matter as far as expansion. Both are blunt enough to cause plenty of damage.

[Edward]

Well, I will hopefully have a chance to gain some field experience this fall as I hunt for both elk and deer with a muzzleloader. I am planning to use the same load for both simply because it is accurate: 54 cal 380 grain REAL lubed with bore butter, over powder wad, and 120 grains of Black MZ. If the round ball had proven more accurate that is what I would have chosen, but the REAL was better. Inside 50 or 75 yards I would expect some expansion, out to 125 I expect complete pass through even on a cow elk.

Round balls have more load development required (size/patch/amount of powder/powder type)so expect more time invested but they can be capable of exceptional accuracy .Like anything else worthwhile it requires dedication (time). Ed

[flynth]

Talking about REAL's. In my fast twist (1:24) .50 cal Hawken Hunter the short two band Lee REAL is the most accurate projectile other than a modern sabot. The bore diameter is such that the lower band engages the rifling slightly. The bullet can be pushed half way in by hand, and the top band requires a proper blow with the wooden ball of the short starter to engrave. With 70gr of powder it flies at around 1400fps and makes 1.5 inch groups at 50m from bench.

Unfortunately REALs in 58 caliber I tried were very loose compared to the above. I used a three-band design in 58 with 1:48 twist. The lowest band could be wiggled in the bore, the middle band didn't even engrave in rifling and the top band could be engraved with a solid push on a short starter. As predictable accuracy was worse than shooting a .715 round ball from a 12ga smoothbore at 50m. I wish lee made the short version of the REAL in .58 cal and they made it few thou bigger.

[brewer12345]

Round balls have more load development required (size/patch/amount of powder/powder type)so expect more time invested but they can be capable of exceptional accuracy .Like anything else worthwhile it requires dedication (time). Ed

I think you are quite correct. My 54 seemed to yield decent accuracy round balls without a fuss. The 50 seems to be more finicky. I need to spend more time fooling with it and maybe try a thicker patch to see if I can get better accuracy at higher charges.