Double Ball Load .50 T/C Hawken

[Geraldo]

Edited by Stumpkiller on 12-08-11 03:47 PM. Reason for edit: Bzzzzz - foul - we don't allow links to other m/l forums.

Apparently members believe that Roundball has lied or manufactured this data. The archive I linked to merely showed that others had knowledge of the data and had discussed it.

 

[roundball]

Some people view their level of knowledge as all the knowledge there is on a subject and if something new comes along its automatically rejected as not possible...I don't waste my valuable time with those kinds of attitudes.

As your archive search example just proved, this subject has been clarified / verified not only here, but on many Internet forums by many T/C owners over at least the past 8-10 years that I'm aware of. Even the Lyman BP manual shows high speed close-up photography of a double ball load using two .560" balls with 120grns of 2F.
So putting aside any reference to T/Cs part in this completely, the notion of double ball loads is not a new one, its an old one...centuries old.

Lastly, as I've posted on multiple occasions, along with others who have also personally tested and/or used them, my results testing double balls at the range using .440s and .490s found them to work exactly as advertised in the manual.
So for me, my own hands-on experience trumps anything that might be printed, might have been printed, is in print, is out of print, or has been planned for printing. Double ball loads are a reality, plain and simple.

People should get out from behind their keyboards and go do actual work in researching things before challenging them...this way their body of knowledge would be expanded and enriched.

 

[dc7x64]

Didnt mean to start a doozy here! I still plan on hunting with (1)EA. .490 roundball. As it stands now I dont think the dual ball set up is very versatile. My rifle is set up to shoot point of aim with said single ball. I am already at my max at 100yds! I may hunt in a green patch where I may push that limit or in a swamp where a 10-20 yd is a long shot. The single ball will do in both situations. Dont want to change out loads or adjust sights every time I step out of the cabin! Just thought it was cool to experiment!...Hey you guys made me do it :surrender:

 

[123.DieselBenz]

and 08: http://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/fusionbb/showtopic.php?tid/220679/tp/1/

 

[necchi]

Well I never said nuthin bad about a double ball load.
It's not legal for me to use in my state,
I simply want to see where the data came from. I guess it's some data that's been lost from publication, very likely by Lawyers.
I wish everyone that want's or need's to double ball all the best of luck. I've seen enough guy's playing around with double ball to know it causes little too no harm

I still haven't seen it. Maybe someday I'll run across the book.

 

[Joel/Calgary]

As Herb has pointed out, there has been considerable discussion of double-ball loads on this forum, including by some of the participants in this discussion who may be experiencing, ummm.... data-retrieval failure. One such discussion included some excellent chronograph data that Herb provided: http://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/fusionbb/showtopic.php?tid/246644/ To cut to the analysis:

It's actually a little better than that, as powder-use efficiency seems to improve with projectile load. When I read Herb's figures, I calculated the change in muzzle energy for each example (easier to calculate than actual energy 'cause it only involves the velocities and I didn't have to look up ball weights and the various constants involved). For the four sets of single-ball vs. double-ball velocities, the individual double-ball energies were 58%, 64%, 62%, and 62% of the single ball. The total energy of the pair of balls compared to the single was 17%, 29%, 25% and 23% greater, respectively. Given that the higher the velocity, the faster the rate of slowing, I'd expect that the percentage of difference in energy would be increasing somewhat downrange compared to at the muzzle. Ain't a lot, but it is something to consider.

Regards,
Joel

 

[Stumpkiller]

People should get out from behind their keyboards and go do actual work in researching things before challenging them...this way their body of knowledge would be expanded and enriched.

:surrender:

I don't own a chronograph. Can't use a double ball on deer in regular or m/l season (the only way to truly prove the concept) and am not going to close down deer hunting to shoot now anyway (my "range" backstop is within 100 ft of my ground blind). What looking at two holes in a sheet of paper would tell me is nothing useful as regards to hunting except where they eventually strike in relation to one another. I was curious (and concerned), but not that curious.

Kind of the whole reason the forum is at all is related to communicating via keyboard. If we could and would all go off on our own we wouldn't need this place (except the Photos section).

If someone comes along and asks whether licking their knife before gutting a deer makes it cut easier I feel obligated to hop in whether I have tried it first or not. :idunno:

 

[roundball]

If someone comes along and asks whether licking their knife before gutting a deer makes it cut easier I feel obligated to hop in whether I have tried it first or not. :idunno:

The difference for you though is you don't hop in challenging that its not so...
:wink:

 

[Rat Trapper]

"...It's cause I think some do more shooting with the key board, than at the range..."

No question about it...

I don't really see what shooting at the range has to do with discussion of the effectiveness of a double ball load for hunting. But I guess you guys do.

Because its obvious from some comments that some individuals really have no or very little experience killing big game under a variety of hunting conditions and distances. Or maybe you could explain your statement further?

"...it matters most if the ball or balls stop in the animal..."

Actually that doesn't matter at all...a ball slowing down and stopping inside the animal simply means it didn't have enough energy to maintain a good head of steam and create a full body width wound channel and maximum trauma.
In addition, a marginal/weak load has nothing left to accommodate a deer starting to turn and suddenly putting a large bone/shoulder in the way before the ball gets there.
And you make no allowance for distance...your general comment means a ball would slow down and stop inside at animal at 25yds the same as it would at 100yds for example.

"...If you get complete penetration the ball carries some portion of its energy through the deer and into the woods beyond..."

So what? And at what range? 25yds? 100yds?
It doesn't "take away" from the energy that was dumped inside the animal...it simply means that the ball had more than enough energy to create a full body width wound channel with maximum trauma across the full width of the animal, compared to one slowing down and stopping partway through.

Once again "Roundball" rules the day with common sense and actual field experience.

 

[rafterob]

This post has excited me to give it a try (just for hoots!)I have come up with a patch design that will hold both balls, to eliminate the second patch between the balls.Oh heck, now I'll have to make a double thick ball board to hold the loads, and an extra long short starter, and a bigger range box,buy more balls and powder,a new pick-up truck, maybe trade in the old wife for a new one and I've always wanted to go to China :shocked2: See how quickly things get outta control when you type too much :surrender:

 

[Stumpkiller]

If someone comes along and asks whether licking their knife before gutting a deer makes it cut easier I feel obligated to hop in whether I have tried it first or not. :idunno:

The difference for you though is you don't hop in challenging that its not so...
:wink:

Heck, I learn something new here almost every day. As Albert Einstein said: "The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education."

 

[Rat Trapper]

Darn, Wisconsin hunting regs state single ball/bullet. Can't use the double ball load here.
However it has been an interesting post.

 

[Stumpkiller]

Certainly has been. He should have saved it for February when we're all cabin fevered and cranky.

Poor DC7x64! Don't worry - no one blames you. :thumbsup:

Other forums can have FAQ - "Frequently Asked Questions" We should start a FEIYFQ "Frequently Explode-In-Your-Face Questions"

 

[Geraldo]

We should start a FEIYFQ "Frequently Explode-In-Your-Face Questions"

Don't try to sugar coat it. It's not the questions that are the problem, it's the attitude of some who respond.

 

[flintriflesmith]

"...It's cause I think some do more shooting with the key board, than at the range..."

No question about it...

I don't really see what shooting at the range has to do with discussion of the effectiveness of a double ball load for hunting. But I guess you guys do.

Because its obvious from some comments that some individuals really have no or very little experience killing big game under a variety of hunting conditions and distances. Or maybe you could explain your statement further?


Once again "Roundball" rules the day with common sense and actual field experience.

Roundball, I am happy to "explain my statement further." You and Rat Trapper both stated that you suspected that many of the posters did their shooting with the key board instead of at the range. My point was simply that, in my opinion, shooting at the range has very little to do with acquiring knowledge about the performance of loads on game in the field. I have killed my share of paper targets and hung out with some very serious target shooters but neither of those experiences at the range helped me understand the effect of a two ball load on a real deer. I guess you two, by referring in the negative to posters you felt were not going to the range, stimulated me to say that I didn't see how shooting paper targets at the range had a lot to do with the understanding how various loads worked in the WOODS on flesh and bone targets!
Thousands upon thousands of deer were killed in the 18th century by men who rarely, if ever, went to a range. My point? Well I guess you could sum it up by saying that my friends refer to shooters who spend all their time at the range and very little in the woods as "paper punchers." It isn't a term we would use in a negative way but it doesn't describe someone I'd necessarily want in my hunting party.
Gary

 

[Rat Trapper]

stimulated me to say that I didn't see how shooting paper targets at the range had a lot to do with the understanding how various loads worked in the WOODS on flesh and bone targets!
Thousands upon thousands of deer were killed in the 18th century by men who rarely, if ever, went to a range. My point? Well I guess you could sum it up by saying that my friends refer to shooters who spend all their time at the range and very little in the woods as "paper punchers." It isn't a term we would use in a negative way but it doesn't describe someone I'd necessarily want in my hunting party.
Gary[/quote]


Maybe I should have said instead of "range" may be spending more time on the key board than doing any shooting and lacked field experience shooting game. This statement was not aimed at anyone, just at the general comments so often seen on this site.

 

[flintriflesmith]

Thanks for your reply. I do agree completely that there is no substitue for hands on experience -- not just in hunting but in any field that involves learning.
Gary

 

[paulvallandigham]

My knowledge of projectile performance was greatly enhanced, long before I was able to hunt myself, by working as a " Deer Checker" at a Deer Check Station for two consecutive seasons. I examined hundreds of deer carcasses, and counted "bullet" holes, , both entrance, and exits, had a detailed list of questions to ask the hunters as to how many shots fire, how many hit, how many deer shot at, distance from shooter to game, gauge, or caliber of gun used, etc.

I did NOT expect this "knowledge" to be of such use to me, UNTIL I shot my own deer, and helped field dress other deer for other hunters. Then, it became obvious to me that my ability to understand where a deer was struck from the descriptions of the shot from the shooter, and how the deer reacted was greatly enhanced by this past information I had gathered, one deer at a time.

I have shown other hunters the path of their bullets/balls thru the internal organs of their deer, pulling apart lungs, and cutting other organs to show them the wound channels, so that they understand HOW a ball or bullet kills. I have also recovered balls and bullets from internal organs for hunters who would not get their hands "bloody" or handle the organs to find the slugs. --"Icky-Poo" Syndrome-- for some men who seem to have never grown up. :shake:

I only point this out because there are many other ways for people to learn the information they need to understand how balls and bullets perform on game, than to go out in the field and try to kill one.

I am constantly reminded of the spotted fawn that was brought into the check station in 1968, that weighed in at 35 lbs dressed, with 17 different holes in her body- 13 entrance wounds. She was killed by accident, by a family of hunter lined along a ravine, shooting at the fawn's mother, as she ran past them. They were using shotguns, with slugs, and shooting downhill. None saw the fawn running with the doe on the offside of the doe. The fawn dropped dead in front of the grandfather of the hunters after he also fired at the doe, and missed. None of the guns had rear sights- no one had attempted to sight in the guns for the slugs they were shooting-- the shooter actually told me he didn't know there was a different in the performance of different brands of slugs! The Doe left no blood trail, and no obvious sign of being struck. The poor little fawn took all the hits, and kept by her mother's side until the end.

The man who tagged the deer and brought her in to the check station gained my admiration because he took responsibility for the dear fawn, rather than leaving her out there, and waiting for a " bigger deer".

After examining all the hits, I "learned" just how tenacious wild life is, and better understand why some deer don't react at all to being hit by an arrow, or bullet. I suppose that is one "Fact" that you have to learn in the field. :thumbsup:

 

[grndhntr]

Getting back to the original thread, I'm very interested in trying this for big game. According to my T/C manual for a .50 cal, 100 gr. of powder should get a 350 gr. projectile to roughly 1600 fps.(I would think 2 175 gr. balls should shoot about the same speed as 1- 350 gr. conical). That would give you 2 projectiles with roughly 1000 foot pounds of energy each, giving you 2000# of energy hitting an animal at once. Now, for a tight-wad like me: 2 .50 round balls are much cheaper than buying 1 conical...and it seems more traditional...I might just talk myself into trying this :wink:

 

[nkbj]

Can't help but wonder about performance in a smooth rifle.