• Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.

    We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.

    Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103

Barrel Length vs. Wasted Powder?

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Skychief

69 Cal.
Joined
Dec 16, 2006
Messages
4,358
Reaction score
1,195
Location
The hills of Southern Indiana
Anybody have information regarding BP charges efficiencies per barrel length in different calibers? For example: What length barrel is needed to completely burn 80 grains of FFg in a 50 caliber rifle shooting PRB's? (and so on and so on...) It seems I found a table listing different calibers and charges and the corresponding barrel lengths needed to burn the whole charge, but can't find it now. Can anybody help me find a table like that or , better yet, post one here? Thanks a bunch for any help! Skychief. :hatsoff:
 
Yes - the standard is 11.5 grains of FFg per cubic inch of barrel volume. There is a formula to calculate the volume that has been posted here before. Do a search of the forum, you should be able to find it.
 
the only way i know is the way the old timers did it. start with a charge weight the same as the cal. shoot over fresh snow or paper. keep adding more powder till you get unbruned powder then you have reach the max the rifle will brun.

if more did that they would find they need less powder then they think they do.
 
IMHO, working up the most accurate load will also provide you with the most efficient load.
 
The only formula I recall being referenced around here on this "Traditional Muzzleloading Forum" was some sort of a modern military thing used for the 16" guns on WWII battleships...it was being advanced as a formula that we should use with our muzzleloading rifles.

Also, the notion of efficiency means different things to different people...to me, "hunting efficiency" might be the maximum amount of velocity I can squeeze out of a particular load in a particular caliber barrel and retain excellent hunting accuracy, no matter how much powder that might take.

Or, weekend "plinking efficiency" might be the least amount of powder I might have to use while maintaining sharp enough accuracy to consistently knock over empty .12ga hulls at 25yds.

I think its been established that black particles from a shot landing on white snow or paper is combustion residue (fouling)...the more powder used the more combustion residue there will be.
 
The 11.5 cubic inch formula does work in IMO. Paullandigham was the member that had wrote how to figure it out. Maybe someone can find it.
I have done the formula in my 45,54,and 58 cal.. My eyes are not good enough for shots over 75yds and I found it to be very helpful in working up a load for all my rifles. A few years ago in the winter I was shooting some pretty stout loads in my 54cal that were posted on this forum. I found a lot of unburnt powder on the snow. After reading about the formula I found that reducing the charge didn't effect the accuracy. My though is that a little less powder each shot means one or two more shots out of the can. And if I hit the spot that I'm aiming, it's not going to know if I shot it with 68grs or 90grs out of my 58cal. :2
 
Long barrels do gain a bit of speed over short barrels and heavier powder charges gain speed over lighter charges from either short or long barrels. Some examples here from the Lyman BP handbook show a .50 caliber with .498" ball and .015" patch with G/O 3f as follows.
50 grains, 26" barrel, 1348 fps
50 grains, 43" barrel, 1506 fps

100 grains, 26" barrel, 1882 fps
100 grains, 43" barrel, 2095 fps

130 grains, 26" barrel, 2124 fps
130 grains, 43" barrel, 2295 fps

You see here that both short and long barrels gained velocity right up to the heaviest charge tested, in fact, the short barrel seemed to gain a bit more than the long one from the heaviest charges. Whether or not the gain is worth the pain is a personal decision and I'm certainly not recommending anyone exceed the manufacturer's recommended maximum load. But don't let anyone tell you a 26" barrel can't burn a heavy charge or that there is no benefit to a long barrel even with light charges. :wink:
 
Shychief: The formula is: 11.5 grains per cubic Inch of bore. You need a 36 inch barrel in .50 caliber to burn 80 grains of powder efficiently.( Actually, 81.29 grains!)

If you, or others forgot all that math you were taught in school( as I had) you calculate the formula this way:

Using the caliber( .50) determine the radius, because you need to know the area of a circle that size before determining the cubic length and content of a cylinder that diameter. The formula that you(I) forgot for determining the area of a circle is " Pi R Squared". Pi is 3.1416 for our puposes. R is the Radius.

Now the radius is half the diameter, so use .25 as your radius. Now square the radius, by multiplying it times itself.

.25 x .25= .625. Now multiply that number times 3.1416, which equals .1963125.

Now, multiply that number times 11.5 = 2.2580.

Now, multiply that times your barrel length to get the volume of the cylinder that is your bore length and diameter. 36 x 2.2580 = 81.288, or 81.29 grains.

Charles Davenport did NOT Invent the formula. It was worked out centuries before him to use with all Black Powder firearms. Ordinance was concerned not only with how much powder needed to be shipped on warships to feed cannons, but also with how much powder was needed to feed muskets and later, rifles.

The King would not be very happy if he spent his money to send his army to a distant shore to battle foreign armies, only to be told his war was lost because the ordinance department didn't send along enough powder! So, bean counters were around a long time ago. The formula is NOT JUST FOR Cannons, as one member here keeps insisting( with absolutely NO evidence to back up his statements, I might add).

The formula does NOT say you can't PUT more powder in your barrel, or FIRE more powder in your barrel, or even GET MORE velocity by putting more powder in your barrel. It deals with getting the MOst Velocity from the barrel with the Least Amount of Powder- that is " Efficiency".

When you pass the Efficient formula amount, you venture into the "Law of Diminishing Returns", that is, you get less and less increase in velocity for each measured increment in increase of powder.( Caveat: Particularly with shooting PRBs, the coefficient of friction between the PRB and the bore is so small, that you can get fluctuations in these velocities as you increase powder charges beyond the "efficient " formula- recommended load. Only meticulous attention to cleaning the barrel between each shot, and shooting long shot strings, to average, is going to give you a better idea about how any " Over charge load " will shoot out of your gun, on a particular day, with particular temperature and humidity present.)

Before overcharging any gun, you should take into consideration that the Sound Barrier does bad things to any projectile, but does even nastier things to a RB. Pushing any RB over 1135 fps. requires that ball to come back down through both the Sound Barrier, and the Transonic Zone, where all kinds of forces hammer the ball in the air.

And you should also consider that the faster something leaves the barrel to fly through the air, the faster it will slow down. You can see this clearly if you look at the tables in the Lyman Shotshell Reloading Manual( any edition) that shows shot size, MVs, and then down range velocities at 20,40& 60 yards. The Chart makes it very easy to compare loss of velocity for the faster MVs vs. the Slower MVs. for any particular size shot you are interested in.

Since "bird shot " are simply smaller Round Balls, the principles of Aerodynamics that apply to shot also apply to shooting a single Round Ball from a rifle or smoothbore through air.

You do increase recoil, BTW, as half of the weight of the powder charge is going to move rearward, while the other moves forward. ( "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction". Newton's Third Law of Motion.)

Charles Davenport is reported to have walked the firing lines at Friendship each year talking to the shooters, asking the caliber of their rifles, and their barrel lengths, and then consulted his book to give them their maximum efficient load. Phil Quaglino relates that Davenport told shooters to reduce that max. efficient powder charge by 10% and then work up to find the most accurate load for their gun. The 10% factor helped to make adjustments for barrel harmonics, that are unique to each gun. Quaglino held several national records as a rifle shooter, and may still hold several pistol records. He was a barrel maker, first in New Hampshire, and later in Florida, and has been building guns for more than 50 years. Even though he is officially "retired", Phil is still making guns, mostly for himself.
 
While larger powder charges give slightly more velocity above a certain point, they will increase the pressure at the breach greatly after a certain point. This is why manufactures give a maximum charge. I myself have little concern for maximum velocity. I am interested in minimum group size. I have found the best groupings are below maximum velocity.
 
I agree compltetly with the formula but in your example I noticed that you were a decimal point off at the start.
.25x.25=.0625
When multipling decimal points the answer should have as many decimal places as the numbers being multiplied together. I found that this is very important when I am building engines at work. One decimal point can make a huge differance.
Like I said the rest of the formula works great.
 
I used to shoot 60-65 gr 3f in most of the .45's I have had for hunting deer as long as the accuracy was good, I had to drop to 50gr on one gun that had very shallow rifleing, the heavier loads did not shoot well, I assume it was due to the rifleing.I had a Cumberland ( Hatfield knock off) that did its best at 75 gr.3f, it had a 39" barrel all the others were in the 32"-36" length range
 
dukewellington said:
Is 50grains o.k for a 45cal, or am I using to much powder?

I use 50grns for a target / plinking load, and 90grns for a deer hunting load...you might want to simply consult the load data charts provided by the leading muzzleloading companies.

For example, TC lists their .45cal 2F load data from 50 to 110grns, with 50grns being the low end entry level powder charge...and of course even the top end of 100grns has a HUGE safety margin built into it.

I prefer Goex 3F for the main charge so I reduced the 2F load data, settling on 90grns Goex 3F for my .45cal PRB deer hunting load.

If you'll go to TCARMS.com...you can download the PDF file of their manual, which has the load data charts in the back.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree with tg. I also use 60 grs FFF in my 45cal. No more than 65 grs. I feel I get a great group and 75yds is my max range. If I don't hit the boiler room it won't make any difference.
 
Back
Top