Is This Possible?

I found this old book yesterday...."Black Powder Hunting" by Sam Fadala.

I started to skim through it and came on something that got my attention.

He was shooting a Navy Arms .58 cal. He was using a 610gr conical with 180 gr of 3F.

Is that possible?

With Sam Fadala, anything was possible. Look at some of the photos of him loading directly from his horn etc.
Mark :idunno:

He didn't look big enough in his picture to handle that load.

Could the gun handle it?

The gun could handle it. Val Forgett took one to Africa in the early 70's and took all of the Big Five with that load. It performed well on all but elephant. It didn't have the power for a frontal brain shot but was adequate for side brain shots. The bullet was a minie design with a thick skirt and a hard alloy nose and was cast in two pieces. He also used a Buffalo Hunter which is/was a cut down Zouave with 120 grains of 3f for plains game and a hippo. There was a good write-up in one of the Guns & Ammo annuals in 73-74.

I've loaded as much as 120 grains of 2f behind 555 grain conicals in several of my 58 calibers.

Mmmmph. :hmm:

I'd want a fairly straight "English" stock if I was going to do a lot of it. Haven't shot the Zoave variants, but they look to be headed in the right direction in terms of drop and butt shape.

I will say too, that weight is a factor. My 12-pound GRRW Hawken is a lot "friendlier" with heavy loads even with its hooked butt than the 8-pound Big Boar with a "shotgun" butt.

Sure wish my new flinter 577 barrel would come down the road. :shake:

Lyman's BP Handbook, 1st. ed., ninth printing (1991), pages 20-25 also describes the load development and hunt including nine photos. Charges up to 200grns of 3F were tested.

It might kick a bit. :surrender:

.
. nov 18 / 02:05

the picture that shocked me is on p8 of his book 'the complete blackpowder handbook' (4th ed., 2001) with the following:

picture an adult buffalo rearing upright on its *tail* as the camera snaps the photo from behind the shooter with this caption: "...nick fadala was behind the camera when this bull charged the pair... fadala's first 54 caliber round ball took out the right hemisphere of the brain.. the bull reared back and over but got up, requiring a second shot.. it pays to use readyloads in the field." (that's an understatement !).. no mention of the powder charge or rifle.

i'm getting (several) speedloaders before i go huntin' with that guy.

~d~ :hatsoff:

You'd go hunting with him?


How much powder would it take to blow it up? Would it just all blow out the barrel unburned before that would happen?

Might be safer than hunting with Dick Cheney. :shake:

:rotf:

I'd go hunting with Dick Cheney any day- any time. :hatsoff:

Now, his hunting partner( Whittington) might not make me too pleased to hunt with, but I suspect he has changed his ways about following agreed upon "rules" in the field and won't do the kind of thing that got him shot by Mr. Cheney, again.

Its customary for the shooter to accept, and take full responsibility for any shooting accident, and Mr. Cheney followed that tradition. However, Mr.Whittington broke the agreed upon rules, chose to approach the Cheney group out of sight, and was the Only person who could have prevented the accidental shooting. Cheney was where he was supposed to be, according to the rules they agreed upon, and shooting at game within his zone of fire. It was Whittington who "popped up" from the ravine in line with the flushed bird, just as Cheney was slapping his trigger.

I don't find any difference than the situation where an animal( or person) darts out in front of a moving vehicle so close the driver cannot avoid hitting it. The driver always feels badly, but there was nothing he could have done to avoid the accident. Had Whittington stayed up on the level ground,where he would have been clearly seen, and walked back to the hostess who was controlling the pointers( dogs) for the Cheney group several yards in front of her, announcing his arrival verbally as he approached her, the accident would have never happened. :hmm:

Capper said:

How much powder would it take to blow it up?

Click to expand...

Fadala worked his way up to 500 gr. FFFg and 3 minis of 600 gr. each in a .58 and couldn't blow it up as long as the bullets were seated on the powder. He also tested 2 other guns, another .58 and a .50, and could not blow either of them up.

Spence

Paul- thanks for supplying the details (wherein lurk the inconvenient truths) of that much touted (at least, by the leftiemedia wonks) accident. To hear CBS tell it, Cheney was out to score more than some game birds, and the fellow was lucky to have escaped with his very life from the hands of the right wing, gun crazed, power mad (i'll leave you to complete the tirade...)

Now we find out that it was (as i had sort of suspected) a dart- out scenario.

thanks again

msw

Talk about going off topic.

Overloading a ML to Cheney? :slap:

Back on topic, it worries me when I see topics and posts talking about someone loading massive amounts of powder and/or lead into a muzzleloader and saying things like "it was fine", or "it didn't blow up" or, "I knew it was those lawyers covering the companies butts."

Yes, maybe it didn't blow up, but it only takes once to kill someone.

I realize that most if not all of you people already know about the best loads for your muzzleloaders and stick to them without using excessive powder loads but there are a number of people new to this sport who don't.
They read topics like this and think, "Well, those smart people are saying you can load 500 grain powder loads behind 600 grain bullets and it's been prooven to be totally safe so, what the hell, I'm going to try that in that muzzleloader I got last Christmas."

It only takes once.

Look at the bad press muzzleloaders got when that kid a few months ago blew up his muzzleloader.

Not only does blowing up a muzzleloader cause bad press but it brings out all of the busybodies who want to protect us from ourselves by banning our favorite firearms.

There are many good reasons for using sensible powder/lead loads ranging from safety and keeping costs down to getting the best accuracy.

I can think of no good reason for overloading a muzzleloader.

I read the same article and viewed the photos w/ the various animals and rifle which was a standard caplock, Navy Arms .58 cal. Hawken and the 610 gr. conical was special to gain greater penetration on the larger African game. No doubt
Val Forget, owner of Navy Arms sold a few of these rifles w/o any caveats, because of the publicity . Evidently Forget felt very confident w/ this rifle and load which poses the question.... are we too conservative w/ our loads after having been cautioned by manufacturers and bbl makers as to what constitutes max loads? Just wondering.....Fred

To be truthful I can not see any reason to over load a ML Period. The powder doesn't completely burn, excessive heat in the barrel leads to eventual barrel failure, stress cracks in the stock and other problems. So I'll stick to 65 gr of FFG main charge FFF grain prime in the flinters 20 gr FFF in my 44 Remington Police and 1861 Army (used as night stand home defence)

Zonie said:

I can think of no good reason for overloading a muzzleloader.

Click to expand...

But who gets to decide what an overload is, Zonie? And what info do they use to make that decision?

I recently started a thread asking the board about a load for a .54 double rifle which came with manufacturer's recommendation of a 500 grain conical over 140 gr. FFg. Yet when I said I wanted to shoot at least 80 grains of FFFg with a PRB the responders spent some considerable time dancing on my head to convince me I was shooting "magnum" loads and was going to be subjected to excess recoil, inaccuracy, unnecessary cost and the likelihood of blowing my head off. My study and experience has led me to believe that was a perfectly safe, reasonable load, but someone has decided it's not, so that I am an outlier.

I happen to believe it is a good thing that Fadala tried to test barrels to destruction and passed his results along. It helps me decide what is safe in my guns, even though that is frequently more than some agree with.

Guns are dangerous. If beginners don't have the common sense and intelligence to figure that out and protect themselves while they learn to use them, then I don't think anyone can protect them. Every man has to absorb a lot of information in learning to shoot, and some of it is scary stuff, but it's stuff they need to be aware of to become an educated shooter.

Spence