Muzzleloading Forum .....


Contact - Can't Login?
 Page 5 of 7 « First<4567
Login Name Post: load limits        (Topic#270209)
VTdeerhunter 
40 Cal.
Posts: 390
VTdeerhunter
06-25-12 02:36 PM - Post#1160389    

    In response to ebiggs

WOW...just getting caught up on this thread....my have we wandered the long way around the barn , had to write down notes just to keep track of the topics…lol

To start, Pguy was asking for some opinions on if his .50 cal with 60gr of FFF would kill a deer??? To throw my two cents in the pot, the answer is yes Pguy, that load will kill a deer....I personally live on the other end of the spectrum and use 100 gr FFF, .490 prb in my .50cal flinter…. but that just works for me and where I hunt deer (Maine, VT, Canada, CT, NY, CO, NM and NH)…

Then y’all moved into the arguments of; magnum loads, added charts and graphs (a nice touch), touched on the debate of the actual killing of animals vs clay banks and such, wood lots vs open areas, then to take or not take their picture after the aforementioned deed is done, followed by sling shot hunting in the buff…all very interesting and fun to read…

However, now that the talk has moved over to turning someone’s personal opinion into a law that further degrades my constitutional rights……I call……

Sorry guys if that sounds a bit snotty, nothing personal meant at all, but I take my hunting rights very seriously and IMHO….adding more laws and restrictions to our sport is just playing into the hands of the anti’s who want all of this to stop….one stone at a time is how this building gets taken down….

I shot my first ML deer with a .45 cal long rifle that I inherited from my dad when I was 14…I used that gun to take over a dozen more deer (including several very large bucks), with one shot and none of them went more than 25 yards….before I semi-retired it and moved on to carry other ML’s…It was my choice to change guns, and only because I love to build and own guns, not because that .45 cal. couldn’t do the job….that is absolutely absurd…

32 years later I am still hunting hard and successfully with a ML, I have managed to bring many new people into this wonderful sport because of my passion and it all started with a gun that in your opinion we now need a law to keep anyone from ever using????….

I guess if I could go back in time I would have to tell that 14 year old that he should just sit down and watch some more TV instead of going out hunting, because the only gun that he could afford to use isn’t good enough for you….I again call….


 
hanshi 
Cannon
Posts: 8001
hanshi
06-25-12 03:28 PM - Post#1160402    

    In response to VTdeerhunter

Good post. I've also killed most of my deer with a .45 with loads ranging from 65 grns up to 80 grns; no complaints from the deer. As an aside, I now use around 70 grns in one .45 and 60 grns in the other.

IMHO posting pics of harvested game is NOT in the least "creepy". It's a tribute to good hunting/shooting skills and to fine, magnificent game animals. I'm not casting aspersions; I can't even pick one of those critter up (bad back).

The whole idea - isn't it? - is to put a ball on the other side of a deer without going around it?
Young guys should hang out with old guys; old guys know stuff.


 
fire-n-brimstone 
40 Cal.
Posts: 247
fire-n-brimstone
06-25-12 03:30 PM - Post#1160403    

    In response to hanshi

I have never took pics of any deer i have shot. I just don't see the need to maybe i am missing out on something.


Andy
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government


 
tg 
Cannon
Posts: 10776
06-25-12 06:27 PM - Post#1160459    

    In response to Roundball



"that attitude also increases my interest in seeing the game that is killed is done correctly...not by some body that thinks marginal equipment is OK..."



Therein is another one of the problems, who is to say that 60 gr in a .50 is marginal? it all deoends on the situation and ot arbitrarily flame such a load as being marginal is of little use or validity not knowing the details involved many put the term marginal on any load less than what THEY think is good for them, as usuall, way to much BS and to little reallity and understanding of the whole picture as it applies to individual needs/requirements,heavy loads are fine as are not so heavy to pooh pooh either without a complete understanding of the individual circumstances is ignorant and uncalled for.

 
ApprenticeBuilder 
58 Cal.
Posts: 2363
06-25-12 06:38 PM - Post#1160465    

    In response to Roundball

  • Quote:
Such ideas indicates to me someone who's not cut out for hunting and wouldn't make it as a hunter, as such an individual would probably have a stroke if ever a mounted / stuffed head of game was encountered.
So the obvious conclusion to hunters is that individuals who have these ideas are not hunters...and we can be sure the statement is not just a case of someone putting up a smoke screen defending a lack of hunting photos.



It is easy to lash out at others when you insulate your self from the responses that come from your ridicule, it is also very obvious where your true nature is in regards to the many individuals that frequent this site.
Tom

Nil Magnum Nise Bonum


 
tg 
Cannon
Posts: 10776
06-25-12 07:24 PM - Post#1160479    

    In response to ApprenticeBuilder

I cannot see any connection between having photos of game taken and the act of taking game, I was out of the photography game for 25 years before getting back into it I did not even have anything more than an instamatic camera but my hunting/sucess rate did not change any during the no pic period in my life. I guess I could get a bunch of signed noterized affidavids to verify the number and size of the animals I took, but really do not feel I have anything to prove to anyone... quite a few in particular. It is just silly to think/say that if one does not take/have photos of game that they do not hunt, that has to be one of the most ridiculis things I have heard yet and I thought I had pretty much ran the gauntlet of garbage on all things ML hunting wise here. I think this is another one I will step aside and let others argue/discuss/embarass themselves over.. it has gone beyound the point of being remotely reasonable IMHO..

 
Sperit de bois 
45 Cal.
Posts: 909
06-25-12 07:28 PM - Post#1160481    

    In response to Pguy

Pguy First know your limitations,and those of the rifle/weapon you are shooting..you can kill a deer with a 36 cal within it's limitation
Will the load you discribe kill a deer yes,within the limitations of you and the rifle. Will it kill at 150 yrds NO, at 50 yrds yes.
Dont get all balled up with charts and blow hards who know everything,you will be disapointed.
Shoot what you develope and are comfortable with,know your limits.If you want too shoot a "light" load realize it might not be capable at longer yardages,if you like the snot flying out your nose and the pain of "man" loads go for it. Me I work up a load that carries well, gets good penatration and kills cleanly and I can shoot with confidance.
I kill deer with my 45 PRB/65 grs of FFF Pyrodex.I also kill deer with my 50cal,PRB/90 grs FFF pyrodex.Differance 50 is heaver,take up the energy developed from the 90 grns.
Id almost go out on a limb and state my 45 with 45 grs FFF will kill a deer at 10 yds,in the side of the head,it's all about "limitations" and shot placement, skull is thicker head on than just behind the eye.
My father always trained us,'You learn to shoot,then you learn to hunt,you owe that much to what ever you harvest".
Short answer "Yes" within limitations.

 
tg 
Cannon
Posts: 10776
06-25-12 07:44 PM - Post#1160488    

    In response to Sperit de bois

"Short answer "Yes" within limitations"

As with a few other post which will likely be ignored, that was very well put with no personal agenda showing around the edges, well stated .

 
ApprenticeBuilder 
58 Cal.
Posts: 2363
06-25-12 08:02 PM - Post#1160493    

    In response to Sperit de bois

  • Sperit de bois Said:
Pguy First know your limitations,and those of the rifle/weapon you are shooting..you can kill a deer with a 36 cal within it's limitation
Will the load you discribe kill a deer yes,within the limitations of you and the rifle. Will it kill at 150 yrds NO, at 50 yrds yes.
Dont get all balled up with charts and blow hards who know everything,you will be disapointed.
Shoot what you develope and are comfortable with,know your limits.If you want too shoot a "light" load realize it might not be capable at longer yardages,if you like the snot flying out your nose and the pain of "man" loads go for it. Me I work up a load that carries well, gets good penatration and kills cleanly and I can shoot with confidance.
I kill deer with my 45 PRB/65 grs of FFF Pyrodex.I also kill deer with my 50cal,PRB/90 grs FFF pyrodex.Differance 50 is heaver,take up the energy developed from the 90 grns.
Id almost go out on a limb and state my 45 with 45 grs FFF will kill a deer at 10 yds,in the side of the head,it's all about "limitations" and shot placement, skull is thicker head on than just behind the eye.
My father always trained us,'You learn to shoot,then you learn to hunt,you owe that much to what ever you harvest".
Short answer "Yes" within limitations.



This is a very well put and articulate reply, good on ya.


The group that I run with has a lady that harvests deer every year that she draws a tag, shooting a .45 with 45gr fff.

We have never had to track it more'n 20 to 50 yds, she don't take pictures either.
Tom

Nil Magnum Nise Bonum


 
Dan Phariss 
70 Cal.
Posts: 4622
Dan Phariss
06-26-12 12:01 AM - Post#1160577    

    In response to Sperit de bois

  • Sperit de bois Said:

<snip>
Id almost go out on a limb and state my 45 with 45 grs FFF will kill a deer at 10 yds,in the side of the head,
<snip>




45 gr of FFF BP in a 45 will kill deer much farther than 10 yards with chest shots.

Dan

 
Dan Phariss 
70 Cal.
Posts: 4622
Dan Phariss
06-26-12 12:46 AM - Post#1160582    

    In response to ApprenticeBuilder

  • ApprenticeBuilder Said:
  • Quote:
If the hunter never shoots over 50-60 yards and the rifle is accurate with a lower velocity load then nothing more is needed. Impact velocity will be similar to a heavier load at longer distances.



On this I whole heartedly agree even out to a 100 yards the results are the same, streach it out past that and the rules change very quickly.


  • Quote:
But some here infer that people that shoot heavy charges do so as a di*k waving exercise or because they are too dumb to back the charge down. It's an insult in either case. It also shows that some people here are far less experienced than they think they are.

Dan



Which is no different than the individuals that advocate the use of heavier loads than is needed for every area and infers that all those that don't magnumize their loads are some how sissys and must be recoil sensitive. It's an insult in either case and shows that some people here are far less experienced than they think they are.



The loads are not magnumized.
1/2 ball weight loads are documented to the 1770s.
I understand everything you are saying about killing power and I understand the recoil thing.
The rifle in this video is hard to manage and can effect one's shooting. So I hunt more with my 50 caliber.
The load in the 16 bore rifle is equal to shooting 70+- grains in a 54 caliber in ball weight to powder ratio. So is it a magnum load?
Its a powerful RB rifle but I don't consider .32 ball weight to be excessive.
Click on this
http://s72.photobucket.com/albums/i199/DPhariss/Video%201/?a...

to go to a short video of recoil in slow motion. One is a 16 bore rifle (one ounce ball) with a 140 gr of FF Swiss. The other is a 54 caliber rifle of similar weight with 90 gr of FFF Swiss. This 90 gr load will shoot into about 6" for 5 shots at 200 yards with a peep sight and no wind. Swiss gives just over 1900 fps.

The 54 is more likely to mark me than the 16 bore with its English style buttstock and large nearly flat buttplate. But I have always been able to shoot the 54 very well, unless I reduce the powder charge.

I would also point out that MOST rifles (and many smoothbores), based on my experience and that of several others, shoot best with heavier loads about 1/2 ball weight in a 50 for example. Its not universal, no such thing is but it will average correct. The 50 caliber original Hoffman & Campbell "Hawken" that Baird and Dawson tested shot best with powder charges over 110 gr and it was 48" twist as all Hawkens were.
But if people are happy thats fine and for most purposes will cause them no problems if they only use the gun for shooting deer at near pistol ranges. But I also shoot against some pretty serious competitors and we shoot for MONEY. Not a lot but a good match can gross 80-90 bucks.
But its not going to happen unless the rifle will literally shoot though the same hole at 60 yards. Generally the person that reads the wind best does the best if the rifle is accurate.
It also takes a lot of experimentation sometimes. A "slick" lube, for example will often require 10-20 grains more powder in a 50 caliber, for example, than a drier less slick lube like I use for target work. So a lube change can require a powder charge change.
I could tell you the last charge I used in my 40 caliber experimental picket rifle, but it would probably make your eyes bug a little, but the more I put in the better it shoots.
But I would not shoot this load in most ML barrels on the market.
My question I guess is this. Have you proponents of lighter loads ever done any serious accuracy testing? Taking a 50 cal from maybe 60 grains to 110 just to look for an accuracy load?
There are folks out there that shoot what I would call heavy loads from 40 calibers, for example, because they are more accurate with these loads. I would not have thought of shooting 60-70 gr of powder with a RB in a 40 cal but some people get best accuracy at that point. I never shot this much in my 40, I think I used 35-40. But I was young and load development was not something I was into. This rifle was a Dixie Gun Works "Squirrel Rifle" made in Belgium bought about 1966 or 67, it was my second or third ML. Did some very good shots on squirrels but it caused me to convert to flint eventually.
I have a 50 that seems to like 75 grains and built a rifle with another GM 50 barrel that does too, its what I used in it and the present owner settled on the same. But a 50 SB GM barrel in the second rifle needed 110 gr of FF Goex for best accuracy, it was made with two barrels. It might have done better with more but it was pointless I thought so I stopped at 110. With that it would surely shoot 5 into 4-4.5" at 60 yards. With 75 gr FFF Swiss was pretty useless at 25.
The BARREL makes the choice, not some arbitary number. Though I have some arbitrary starting points I use that have proven to work in most guns. 100 in 54 and 90 in the 50. But its just a place to start.
When I was a kid I used to make fun of the hard core bench rest shooters at Friendship. But shooting matches from the bench will teach to shooter a LOT. Offhand shooting was considered to be a poor test of the rifle in some 18th c. American locales. Many matches were shot from either a prone rest or a "plank" rest in 18th and early 19th c America.

We are not as far apart as people might think.
If you ever get to the Montana Historical Gunmaker's Guild fair I will surely be there for the forseeable future.

Dan







 
Roundball 
Cannon
Posts: 22964
Roundball
06-26-12 07:05 AM - Post#1160602    

    In response to Dan Phariss

Yes, details and parameters are important...what contributes to many endless discussions about charges and loads for hunting are simplistic across the board statements that such and such a powder charge is the only powder charge needed...that such and such is all the energy that's needed.....with no parameters mentioned about types of game, distances, hunting conditions, etc.

By example, one of the reasons I'd never leave the house to go deer hunting with a tiny .40cal PRB is that its so limited in energy and the distance that it can responsibly be used at. On the other hand if someone is sitting over a creek crossing at only 20-25yds and won't mind having to pass up a B&C buck 115yds down an old loggers road, then a small caliber or even light powder charges in a larger caliber would suffice.
IE: a .22LR has killed deer...but as a rule, responsible hunters don't view the .22LR as acceptable for general purpose deer hunting.

Unless otherwise stipulated, the context of discussions about big game hunting presumes being prepared for / taking shots under a wide range of hunting conditions / distances.
The mantra of "rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it" bumps up the odds of a humane kill on big game under that wide range of conditions.
Roundball's ML Formula:
"Whompability...Across The Fields and In The Woods"


 
Roundball 
Cannon
Posts: 22964
Roundball
06-26-12 07:42 AM - Post#1160615    

    In response to Pguy

  • Pguy Said:
I am a newbie to this site and I have only shot my .50 cal flintlock on 3 occasions. I have discovered that my rifle seems to prefer 3f over 2f The last time I shot it I used 60 grains of 3f with a .490 ball and a pillow ticking patch lubed with Moose milk. Do you think that this load would be ok if I get a chance to shoot a deer with it this fall or should I continue upping the amount of powder until I start to loose accuracy?
Pguy



Food for thought about powder charges / energy / distance / penetration, etc...there are schools of thought that if a round ball stops inside a deer that means it's used up all its energy inside as if that's a good thing, while a projectile that passes all the way through the vitals and exits, 'wastes' energy.

One viewpoint on that is the only valid claim that can be made about a projectile that stopped somewhere inside an animal is that indeed, it stopped because it used up all the little bit of energy it had and stopped inside...it ran out of steam...couldn't make it through...resulting in a reduced effect on an animal, etc.

It made the initial hit and immediately began slowing down, stopping somewhere...25% of the way in...50% of the way...75%...creating a wound channel only 25% of the way through...only 50% of the way through, etc...AND...factor in longer and loner distances, the inadequate penetration & reduced wound channel becomes exponentially worse.

Conversely, a larger heavier projectile...doesn't even have to be a conical...driven with enough power to pass completely through the vitals of a head of game, means that it created an ever increasingly larger wound channel the full width of the internals...it created maximum internal damage and disruption to more vitals...it cut more blood vessels with its longer / larger would channel, etc.

AND, the more power applied to a projectile, the greater distance at which it will give max or near max penetration and performance. A light load that stops halfway through an animal at 40-50yds will barely make it in at 100yds.
Personally, I'm always disappointed if I DON'T get a complete pass-through and try to troubleshoot the reason why to correct it next time if a correction is needed.

Muzzleloader hunting with sidelocks is basically just an extended form of Bowhunting.
Hemorrhaging, not hydrostatic shock, is the mechanism...MLs simply do it at longer distances that the typical arrow/broadhead.

The longer / larger wound channel you have, the better off you always are...ask any bowhunter if he'd rather have his broadhead stop 3-4" inside an animal or have those razor blades pass completely through the full body width of vital organs and blood vessels.

If you'll consider your hunting conditions and the absolute maximum distance that you'll ever take a shot at a deer, you can better settle on the size powder charge needed for your caliber.

Good luck this fall...
Roundball's ML Formula:
"Whompability...Across The Fields and In The Woods"


 
VTdeerhunter 
40 Cal.
Posts: 390
VTdeerhunter
06-26-12 08:04 AM - Post#1160626    

    In response to fire-n-brimstone

Different strokes for different folks, I do take pictures of my animals, not for bragging rights, but to share with my old, current and future hunting partners. Life has a way of spreading people around and I don't always get to hunt with the one's I'd like to each year. But we do get to share the experiences with each other through phone calls, emails and pictures.

Like many of you, the walls on our deer camp have pictures of past hunts and great hunters who have gone to the great woods above.

One of my most prized possessions is a picture of my grandfather (rest his soul) when he was in his early 20's (~1931) after a successful deer hunt in Hazleton, PA...another one is of my son taking his first deer at the age of 12 on a very cold (-20) and rugged hunt in Canada, several adult "seasoned" hunters missed deer that day (blaming the cold and wind and such... ) but when he got the opportuity he made good, that picture is a reminder for him that if he works hard and never gives up, good things will happen....how can that be a bad thing????

Sorry...I know it's not a flintlock but he did take his first deer with the same exact gun that I took my first deer with (which makes the picture even more special to me!!)...and he has since converted over to using a flinter...



 
Roundball 
Cannon
Posts: 22964
Roundball
06-26-12 08:09 AM - Post#1160629    

    In response to VTdeerhunter

Roundball's ML Formula:
"Whompability...Across The Fields and In The Woods"


 
ApprenticeBuilder 
58 Cal.
Posts: 2363
06-26-12 08:11 AM - Post#1160631    

    In response to Dan Phariss

  • Quote:
We are not as far apart as people might think.




You are correct in this statement, as I read thru many of your posts I see alot of my beliefs reflected in your discussion, the devil they say is in the details and the details are about location and environment.

  • Quote:
If you ever get to the Montana Historical Gunmaker's Guild fair I will surely be there for the forseeable future.


Would love to get back over to them parts for a visit again, last time thru we spent 10 days just looking things over a bit, had a great time. Will have to schedual accordingly.
Tom

Nil Magnum Nise Bonum


 
ApprenticeBuilder 
58 Cal.
Posts: 2363
06-26-12 08:52 AM - Post#1160648    

    In response to Roundball

  • roundball Said:

Food for thought about powder charges / energy / distance / penetration, etc...there are schools of thought that if a round ball stops inside a deer that means it's used up all its energy inside as if that's a good thing, while a projectile that passes all the way through the vitals and exits, 'wastes' energy.

One viewpoint on that is the only valid claim that can be made about a projectile that stopped somewhere inside an animal is that indeed, it stopped because it used up all the little bit of energy it had and stopped inside...it ran out of steam...couldn't make it through...resulting in a reduced effect on an animal, etc.

It made the initial hit and immediately began slowing down, stopping somewhere...25% of the way in...50% of the way...75%...creating a wound channel only 25% of the way through...only 50% of the way through, etc...AND...factor in longer and loner distances, the inadequate penetration & reduced wound channel becomes exponentially worse.

Conversely, a larger heavier projectile...doesn't even have to be a conical...driven with enough power to pass completely through the vitals of a head of game, means that it created an ever increasingly larger wound channel the full width of the internals...it created maximum internal damage and disruption to more vitals...it cut more blood vessels with its longer / larger would channel, etc.

AND, the more power applied to a projectile, the greater distance at which it will give max or near max penetration and performance. A light load that stops halfway through an animal at 40-50yds will barely make it in at 100yds.
Personally, I'm always disappointed if I DON'T get a complete pass-through and try to troubleshoot the reason why to correct it next time if a correction is needed.

Muzzleloader hunting with sidelocks is basically just an extended form of Bowhunting.
Hemorrhaging, not hydrostatic shock, is the mechanism...MLs simply do it at longer distances that the typical arrow/broadhead.

The longer / larger wound channel you have, the better off you always are...ask any bowhunter if he'd rather have his broadhead stop 3-4" inside an animal or have those razor blades pass completely through the full body width of vital organs and blood vessels.

If you'll consider your hunting conditions and the absolute maximum distance that you'll ever take a shot at a deer, you can better settle on the size powder charge needed for your caliber.

Good luck this fall...



Tom

Nil Magnum Nise Bonum


 
Rifleman1776 
Cannon
Posts: 13206
Rifleman1776
06-26-12 09:13 AM - Post#1160657    

    In response to Dan Phariss

Years ago, before I had ever killed a deer, wife and I visited one of her relatives in Kansas. We had just arrived after a long days drive. Minutes later the husband came to the house. He had shot a deer and was going to call friends to help him track and recover it. (decades before cell phones). I got drafted for the job. For hours, way into the night time darkness we tracked tiny blood drop after tiny blood drip but finally found it and then had to drag it a (seemingly) hundred miles out to the truck.
It was then I decided it was better to drop them where they stood than to track into oblivion.
Might sound like braggin' but, I have never 'tracked' one more than about 20 yards. Including those my wife has shot.
I/we used .45 cal. prb and 65 gr. of real bp. I believe all, but one that hit bone, to be pass throughs.

 
Sperit de bois 
45 Cal.
Posts: 909
06-26-12 10:39 AM - Post#1160692    

    In response to Rifleman1776

So,in summary: Know your/rifle limitations
Shot placement is Vital,in "VITALS" (TIC)
Keep it simple and enjoy the time in the woods with some very special people in your life.
Remember" Life might not be the party we had hoped for,,,but while we're here we should dance.

 
Dan Phariss 
70 Cal.
Posts: 4622
Dan Phariss
06-26-12 11:15 AM - Post#1160709    

    In response to Pguy

  • Pguy Said:
I am a newbie to this site and I have only shot my .50 cal flintlock on 3 occasions. I have discovered that my rifle seems to prefer 3f over 2f The last time I shot it I used 60 grains of 3f with a .490 ball and a pillow ticking patch lubed with Moose milk. Do you think that this load would be ok if I get a chance to shoot a deer with it this fall or should I continue upping the amount of powder until I start to loose accuracy?

Pguy



As I stated below John Baird and T.K. Dawson in Baird's "Hawken Rifles the Mountian Man's Choice" tested an original rifle. It shot best with over 100 gr of FF. This rifle had a 48" twist BTW.
The rifle will make the decision on the powder charge.
Many modern factory mades and many current production swamped barreled rifles are actually TOO LIGHT.
Many original Kentucky's weigh over 8 pounds. The original swamps are often far less pronounced than what we see today.
A 37" "B" weight 50, for example, is just too light for practical use IMO. It will produce excess recoil and many original "American rifle" stock designs have poor recoil characteristics. This may result in the shooter being hurt to a greater or lesser extent during recoil.

The next thing is barrel steel, breeching etc.
This is another "bone of contention" that starts "spirited" discussions.
My opinions of acceptable powder charges only apply to MODERN barrels made of high quality hot rolled and heat treated/annealed steels, preferrably AISI 4140/4150 GB quality or better. 1137 GB quality is OK as well but 4150 is basically Mil-Spec barrel steel. Single patched round ball ONLY as projectiles.
This also assumes they are properly breeched with thread fits and lack of gaps around the breech breech face and threads, nipple seats as well.
Percussion guns should have properly designed breeches similar to this http://www.trackofthewolf.com/Categories/PartDetail.aspx/494...
to protect the shooters face. Internal design is beyond the time I want to spend. Direct drilled and checked for flaws by the maker is a good idea though. Drum and nipples are failure prone.
Flint guns should not have excessively large 5/16" or 3/8" vent liners, 1/4" is on the edge of being too large or is in small cross section barrels. No reason for large vent liners.
My comments also assume the barrel with all its attachments in place/screw holes and dovetails finished is properly proof tested with an over charge. I use the old English proof rules of the late 19th century as a guide here.

Here is a letter written to John Baird, then editor of the "Buckskin Report". November 1981 issue, pg 11.


It explains the steel thing pretty well. From a steel maker. So if you have a problem with my comments on barrel steels, flame LaSalle steel, I am only the messenger.
Do NOT assume that any American made ML, custom or otherwise has a barrel made of suitable steel.

Dan

Edited by Dan Phariss on 06-26-12 11:16 AM. Reason for edit: No reason given.

 
ApprenticeBuilder 
58 Cal.
Posts: 2363
06-26-12 11:44 AM - Post#1160717    

    In response to Dan Phariss

  • Quote:
It explains the steel thing pretty well. From a steel maker. So if you have a problem with my comments on barrel steels, flame LaSalle steel, I am only the messenger.
Do NOT assume that any American made ML, custom or otherwise has a barrel made of suitable steel.



Another point that many do not consider while throwing out powder charges in a flippant manner, if memory serves Green Mountain Barrels are mil spec along with Caywood and maybe one or two others, the balance of manufacturers are using leaded steel for the ease of machine-ability.

Some of the loads I have seen posted here I would never shoot thru a leaded steel barrel, kinda asking for trouble if'n you ask me.

Also, look at the respective barrel makers sites and you will notice that they have listed loads that they recommend for their product, just like the charts that were posted for Green Mountain Barrels.


This chart is from Rice

  • Quote:
The sample loads listed below are for suggested starting points.




STARTING...........................................MAX

•.32 cal.--15 gr----------------------40 gr 3F powder
•.36 cal.--20 gr----------------------45 gr 3F powder
•.40 cal.--30 gr----------------------50 gr 3F powder
•.45 cal.--40 gr----------------------70 gr 3F powder
•.50 cal.--50 gr----------------------80 gr 2F powder
•.54 cal.--60 gr----------------------90 gr 2F powder
•.58 cal.--70 gr---------------------100 gr 2F powder
•.62 cal.--70 gr---------------------100 gr 2F powder



Tom

Nil Magnum Nise Bonum


 
Dan Phariss 
70 Cal.
Posts: 4622
Dan Phariss
06-26-12 02:09 PM - Post#1160759    

    In response to ApprenticeBuilder

  • ApprenticeBuilder Said:
  • Quote:
It explains the steel thing pretty well. From a steel maker. So if you have a problem with my comments on barrel steels, flame LaSalle steel, I am only the messenger.
Do NOT assume that any American made ML, custom or otherwise has a barrel made of suitable steel.



Another point that many do not consider while throwing out powder charges in a flippant manner, if memory serves Green Mountain Barrels are mil spec along with Caywood and maybe one or two others, the balance of manufacturers are using leaded steel for the ease of machine-ability.

Some of the loads I have seen posted here I would never shoot thru a leaded steel barrel, kinda asking for trouble if'n you ask me.

Also, look at the respective barrel makers sites and you will notice that they have listed loads that they recommend for their product, just like the charts that were posted for Green Mountain Barrels.


This chart is from Rice

  • Quote:
The sample loads listed below are for suggested starting points.




STARTING...........................................MAX

•.32 cal.--15 gr----------------------40 gr 3F powder
•.36 cal.--20 gr----------------------45 gr 3F powder
•.40 cal.--30 gr----------------------50 gr 3F powder
•.45 cal.--40 gr----------------------70 gr 3F powder
•.50 cal.--50 gr----------------------80 gr 2F powder
•.54 cal.--60 gr----------------------90 gr 2F powder
•.58 cal.--70 gr---------------------100 gr 2F powder
•.62 cal.--70 gr---------------------100 gr 2F powder







GM ML barrels are 1137 GB. But I believe they were or are doing military contract work. This will/would preclude them from having anything but contract spec steel (a form of 4150) on the premises. If non-spec steel is found in the plant by inspectors the contract is instantly voided.


12L14?
Unsafe at any speed according to steel makers, metallurgists and barrel makers that don't use it.

Dan

 
Roundball 
Cannon
Posts: 22964
Roundball
06-26-12 02:29 PM - Post#1160767    

    In response to Dan Phariss

  • Dan Phariss Said:

GM ML barrels are 1137 GB.
Dan



And load data charts from manufacturers are understandably low balled due to liability concerns...the same reason I don't recommend to anybody that they should use such and such a powder charge because there's no way to know what condition their firearms are in, or if they know how to measure things correctly, etc. I'll state what "I" choose to use and that's it.

The assumption we all have to operate under here is that everyone's reading / comprehension skills are sharp enough to grasp the information in the manner it's presented...
Roundball's ML Formula:
"Whompability...Across The Fields and In The Woods"


 
ebiggs 
69 Cal.
Posts: 3893
ebiggs
06-26-12 05:17 PM - Post#1160819    

    In response to Roundball

  • Quote:
The assumption we all have to operate under here is that everyone's reading / comprehension skills are sharp enough to grasp the information in the manner it's presented...



You assume much, my friend. I have no such confidence and lost what I had after this thread.
I suppose we should just, let'm use whatever suits their fancy. The term “hunter” may have to be redefined, however. And where did hunting regulations become laws to attempt and take away our flintlocks? At least we got a lesson on barrels cleared up. That's a positive, I guess.


 
hanshi 
Cannon
Posts: 8001
hanshi
06-26-12 11:10 PM - Post#1160933    

    In response to Rifleman1776

Yep, always best to drop them DRT or at least close by. Rarely have I recovered a ball from a deer. I can recall off hand maybe five I've recovered and they were flattened. More importantly most were just under the off side skin and required only a small slit cut in the hide to retrieve it. One or maybe two were stopped by contact with the spine- which was broken by the impact. Except for the balls stopped by the spine, I consider the ones retrieved from under the skin to be pass-throughs just like the ones that skittered away in the dirt after going through.
Young guys should hang out with old guys; old guys know stuff.


 
 Page 5 of 7 « First<4567
Icon Legend Permissions Topic Options
Print Topic


5476 Views
Welcome Guest...
Enter your Login Name and password to login. If you do not have a username you can register one here

Login Name

Password

Remember me. Help



Login Not Working?...

Registered Members
Total: 31535
Todays
Birthdays
11-17Coalforge
11-17Bagman
11-17Sepiatone
Current Quote
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
~ Sigmund Freud

PRIVACY POLICY
FusionBB™ Version 3.0 FINAL | ©2003-2010 InteractivePHP, Inc.
Execution time: 0.217 seconds.   Total Queries: 100  
All times are (GMT-6.0). Current time is 05:16 PM
Top