.54 hunting loads

Using the Davenport Equation, I calculated your maximum efficient charge to be 106 grains. This means that theoretically a charge greater than 106 grains will not consume all of the powder before the ball exits the muzzle. Any powder burned outside the barrel will have no effect on the velocity of the ball and is just wasted. Of course, this is not an exact science since it doesn't take into account the various granulations and brands of black powder but it does give you an idea that your best load will likely be somewhere below 106 grains of black powder. You will just have to do some experimenting at the range to see what load gives you the best accuracy. After all, the most important thing is being able to place your bullet where you want it. A very high velocity ball that misses its mark does you no good whereas a well placed ball will put meat on the table even if it is not moving as fast as is possible. If you are planning to use your rifle for deer hunting, a well placed .54 cal. ball within a reasonable distance (no more than 100 yards) will darned well down your deer,

I just realized you wanted a 100yd zero, suggesting to me that you probable have longer average distancs to deal with than I do with my thick woods hunting...and the load data I shared was 90grns Goex 3F zeroed at 50yds.

Better understanding your 100yd zero, if I was doing that I'd max it out with at least a 110-120grn powder charge.
Remember, keyboard theories don't bring down deer at distance...power and practice bring home the venison every time.

Interesting what you said, Billnpatti. I ended up with 105 grains of Goex 2f as my optimum load. I started chronographing loads a few years ago, and found with anything above 105 grains for a patched round ball, patches were burning through and the velocity gains were minimal. That was using a 36" Green Mountain barrel, 1/66 twist, .015 patches, and a .530 ball, though it's about the same for .535 balls. And at 100 yards my rifle will group 3-1/2" 10 shot groups consistently, better than good elk medicine. That said, my average shot has been in the 40-50 yard range, and my rifle is sighted in with a 75 yard zero. Only about 4" of drop at 100 yards.

I have a .54 Hawken with a 34" barrel, 1:70" twist in which I've always shot 110 gr. 3F Goex and .530" swaged Hornady balls, .018" ticking patch. That gives me 1750-1775 fps. Zeroed at 100 yards, MRT is 2" at 59 yards, point blank range is 115 yards. It's 4" low at 125 yards and 9" low at 150, I have never shot a deer at greater than 100 yards with it, but shot extensively at 125 and 150 in preparation for a hunt in the western mountains many years ago, and I was confident at those ranges at that time.

Spence

The two deer I got with my .54 flintlock were neck shots (90 grains 2f). One with my .54 caplock was high and took out the spine (120 grains 2f). I wasn't happy with that shot and had to finish the small buck with my knife. The deer I got with my .62 flintlock fowler was a double lung shot (90 grains 1f). This is the only blackpowder deer I shot that moved from the spot it was hit, about 20 yards. I'll have to say that shot placement is essential along with your load. I haven't always gotten good shot placement as you can see, so hopefully your load is a little forgiving.
You may loose accuracy with too big of a load, or it may get better. Depends on your gun. You will have to find the sweet spot that gives you good accuracy with a reasonable thumper load.

Billnpatti said:

Using the Davenport Equation, I calculated your maximum efficient charge to be 106 grains. This means that theoretically a charge greater than 106 grains will not consume all of the powder before the ball exits the muzzle. Any powder burned outside the barrel will have no effect on the velocity of the ball and is just wasted. Of course, this is not an exact science since it doesn't take into account the various granulations and brands of black powder but it does give you an idea that your best load will likely be somewhere below 106 grains of black powder. You will just have to do some experimenting at the range to see what load gives you the best accuracy. After all, the most important thing is being able to place your bullet where you want it. A very high velocity ball that misses its mark does you no good whereas a well placed ball will put meat on the table even if it is not moving as fast as is possible. If you are planning to use your rifle for deer hunting, a well placed .54 cal. ball within a reasonable distance (no more than 100 yards) will darned well down your deer,

Click to expand...

The Davenport formula is interesting and may give a point of diminishing returns. But so far as a barrel not burning all the powder of any reasonable charge?
I know that a 32 caliber 32" long will burn 65 grains of FFF with patched 0 Buckshot. I shot one over sheets once looking for unburned powder and never found any I stopped at 65 deciding it was silliness. This was 40 years before I heard of this formula.
The horrid C&H being imported back in the late 60s and 70s required huge charges to get velocity similar to what a 1/2 ball weight of GOI would produce. This is detailed in Lyman's original Blackpowder Handbook and other writing of the period when it was being imported. So even this very slow, low energy powder would still produce velocity gains in a 54, for example, at loads exceeding 150 grains. Some people were using as much as 200 grains of the stuff.
This means the Davenport formula is meaningless so far as finding how much powder a barrel will burn. Its something to discuss to dispel boredom.
Round ball rifles are extremely accurate and people who think that 2" groups or such at 50 yards is an accuracy load simply have not done enough experimentation.
I see a lot of misconceptions here.
For example:
Very often the high velocity load, about 1/2 ball weight or even more, is the most accurate. Sometimes its not. The BARREL decides this. I have it on good authority that some 40 calibers shoot best with charge weights many here are using in their 54s.
But if the heavier loads are never tested because the shooter thinks its excessive and/or all his friends shoot 1300-1500 fps loads he will never know.

Dan

What is the Davenport Equation?

I was already thinking the same thing- accuracy is more important, provided the load is at least sufficient.

I've only had two sessions with my new piece, one was just messing around in the woods to break in the barrel a bit, and the other was at the range. I got it cutting the same hole at 25 yards, filed the front sight a bit and backed up to 50yds. Using a .530 ball and .018" pillow ticking atop a 75 grain charge, I got a 2 1/2" group at 50 yds. I'm going to experiment with ball/patch at 50, then zero it at 50, back up to 100 and do the same thing, adding powder loads to the equation.

"Davenport" is what my Dad called a couch. And we all know nobody ever killed a deer while sitting on their Davenport. ;-) Seriously, it may give you the most efficient use of powder, but that will be neither the most accurate or most effective killer load unless by coincedence. In fact, if 106 gr is the "Davenport" number for a .54, then my load of 85 gr, which kills every deer I hit, is more efficient simply because it uses LESS than the amount called for.

My wife got a good chuckle out of reading this thread, and once I got over my embarrassment, I got a good chuckle out of her chuckle.

She shoots a 54 and is unbelievably accurate with 60 grains. The first deer season I ran the charges up to 90 grains of 3f for "more power," but she complained like crazy about the extra recoil.

Being nefarious and devious, I made her a new powder measure that was labeled 60, but actually threw 90 grains. And she proceeded to smack the snot out of deer for the next three years with perfect happiness.

Only now does she reveal that she was onto me and "lost" her new powder measure, going right back to shooting 60 grains. I don't recall that she has shot a deer past 70 yards, but I know full well that we've never recovered a ball from her deer or had to trail one more than about 10 feet.

Perty danged efficient load, if you ask her. And now me! :redface:

Stumpkiller said:

"Davenport"

Click to expand...

Good lord, who brought up this inappropriate modern theory stuff again ???
Some people need to get off their "davenports" and actually go learn to successfully shoot / hunt and begin building actual real life, hands on experiences.

Hmmmmm......have I cast a pearl before a North Carolinian?

Billnpatti said:

Using the Davenport Equation, I calculated your maximum efficient charge to be 106 grains.

Click to expand...

:shocked2: :nono:
Back on subject, in my 2 54's (38" & 44") 80 to 90 grns of FFFg, 535, 530 and .018 and/or .020 ticking works well for me..

In this thread I am reminded of the three co-workers who went hunting. The Salesman, The Production Manager and The Accountant.

As they were leaving camp the three were walking together and a big buck stepped out in the path ahead. The Production Manager fired first but he hit short. He was happy because he'd finished ahead of schedule and used less powder than required. The Salesman lined up and fired, but the shot was high. But he was happy because he knew he'd exceeded the target and would be rewarded. At that point The Accountant started cheering and high-fiving the other two because, on average, they'd killed the deer.

:hatsoff:

Wonder if these modern high tech formula / theory posts are posted here on the Traditional Muzzleloading Forum intentionally, or by mistake, instead being posted on modern high tech muzzleloader forums where I assume they must have originated :idunno:

here's a formula we can all agree on...

One ball + enough powder + correct placement on target = meat

Sorry, my math never was too guuud, but eve I can figure this one out. And I didn't even have to cheat and use my calcu, um, cal, um, math doohickey. :hatsoff:

No need to thank me, i just listened to some old geezers I know who've told me a couple things here and there. The credit goes to them... and many of you (you know who you are).

Long ago, now, I read a story about the famous Mountain man, and Explorer, Jim Bridger,and his gun. Its either a .54 or .53 cal. Hawken, depending on source, and possible typos. His hunting bag and gear are in a museum display, and the author was permitted to examine and test the antler Powder "measure" that was part of the gear. Using both an adjustable measure and a powder scale, he determined that the antler measure held 60 grains of FFFg powder.

In a biography of Bridger, he was quoted as saying that he used one measure of powder for deer, antelope, and cats, 2 measures for Elk, and Black Bear, and 3 measures for Buffalo and Grizzly bears. Bridger was known in his old age to tell bigger and bigger tales, and I took this information with a great deal of "salt".

Most hunters may PLAN to hunt one species, ( and you can therefore Load your gun accordingly). But, running to cougars, or Bears is usually a matter of chance happenings, and therefore you have no way to change the load in your rifle for the most part. For Buffalo, you can plan to hunt just them, and load the gun accordingly.

I just would not want to be firing that gun with 180 grains of any black powder. I am sure the gun can take the pressure, but I am not so sure about my shoulder. :shocked2: :nono: :idunno: :surrender: I can't imagine any need to load a .54 cal. rifle with more than 120 grains for any animal.

I think much of these discussions today about powder loads for a particular caliber or particular kind of hunt is a luxury that our ancestors rarely had. You made due with what you had.

They worked up an accurate load, tested it for penetration, and then went hunting. Powder was expensive, and hard to come by. Lead was even more difficult to find, the further you were away from "Civilization."

60 grains behind a PRB in any .54 sounds like a pretty weak charge. These men knew how to shoot, and wanted that ball to stay inside the carcass. They were accurate enough shooters, and even better trackers that they would be able to find wounded game where most of today's hunters can't. AND, They WOULD RECOVER THE BALL FROM THE ANIMAL so that it could be melted down, and re-cast to use again.

Today we are more concerned with pass-thru shots, and double blood trails to make it "easier" to follow the animals we shoot, since we have little to no training in seeing and reading tracks. We have tracking schools in this country, but few hunters now avail themselves of this education. :shocked2: :hmm:

paulvallandigham said:

Long ago, now, I read a story about the famous Mountain man, and Explorer, Jim Bridger,and his gun. Its either a .54 or .53 cal. Hawken, depending on source, and possible typos. His hunting bag and gear are in a museum display, and the author was permitted to examine and test the antler Powder "measure" that was part of the gear. Using both an adjustable measure and a powder scale, he determined that the antler measure held 60 grains of FFFg powder.

Click to expand...

Paul you are more or less quoting John Baird, but with two mistakes - Bridger's late period (1850's) Hawken mtn rifle, the one in the Montana Historical Society Collection and which he sold to Pierre Chien in 1865, is .52 caliber (I've actually held that gun in my hands and as for the caliber here is per Doc White - "I took Jim Bridger's last Hawken to Rendezvous at Fort Bridger in the 1970s and nobody thought a thing of it. It is a .52 caliber and a good shooter as well. It's now in the Montana State Historical Museum in Helena, MT. We had it at Green River Rifle Works for a few years while we made replicas for them." Carson's similar Hawken rifle of teh same period is 53 caliber). The bag and measure, which throws 51.4 grains of 3/fg not 60, is in the Fort Bridger Collection and was a gift to Grenville Dodge, his biographer.
The problem of using the matchup of that rifle as an example is that bag, horn, and measure may or may not have gone with that particular rifle - Jim did in fact own several other rifles over his lifetime, including a 40 caliber rifle which is in the Museum of the Mtn Man collection and was a gift to Bridger in 1853 from Louis Vasquez.
The rifle and bag were both acquired by the secondary parties in 1865 so one can only at this point make an assumption about whether they were originally a set or not.

LaBonte said:

The rifle and bag were both acquired by the secondary parties in 1865 so one can only at this point make an assumption about whether they were originally a set or not.

Click to expand...

That makes perfect sense to me, and reflects my own experience with guns and what's used to shoot them.

By choice I have a separate bag for each of my long guns, each with an attached powder measure. Lotta guns and a lotta bags, but I'm the only one in the whole wide world who knows which bag goes with which gun. Unless there were balls in a particular bag, no one would have a clue how they are being used.

I have powder measures ranging from 20 grains to 120 grains tied onto bags. Even finding a few balls rattling around in the bottom of the bag won't tell you much. My two 62 cal bags happen to contain the same size balls, but one has an 80 grain measure and the other has a 140 grain measure. Of course, use the 140 grain measure in the gun that's paired with the 80 grain measure and you'd get a clue in a hurry! :rotf:

If a guy only had one bag and several long guns, it would be even worse. Looking at the bag, the only things you'd see in it is what he put there for the last gun he carried.... Without regard for what he'd include if he switched to a different gun the next time out.

Thanks for the comments. I did not read John Baird's material- as I only was briefly acquainted with the Buckskin Report when it went out of publication. I know John was an expert on the Hawken rifles, and that is about all.

The biography I read was something I read years ago. It may have been by Dodge-- I simply don't have any reason to remember that long ago.

I was interested in learning how the Mountain Men "husbanded" their powder and lead to last through an entire year. The comment about using less powder to insure that the ball remained within the animal's body was what answered my question about lead, and the fact that they relied on their considerable abilities as trackers to locate the downed animals answered the rest of it.

The article about the powder measure appeared in Muzzle Blasts, and was written by an author who was studying old hunting pouches, and noted that bags he examined dated prior to the Am. Civil War show no indication of having been fitted with pockets to hold them, nor were any "short starters" found in or among the gear carried in these older bags.

His comment about the Bridger powder measure was an "aside" that he added to the article, when he thought it worth noting following his visit to the museum.

He also noted that it was one of the few museums where the curators actually allowed him to closely examine an exhibit, and actually allowed him to test the measure for the amount of powder it held. It was his writing. I remember the "60 grains" because it was such an "Even Amount". I was not expecting an old measure to be so exact. Now I think my skepticism was well warranted. Thanks. :thumbsup:

If you say it holds less powder than what was written, I believe YOU. If you have ever dealt with editors in getting an article or book published you will rarely blame the titled "author" for any mistakes that appear in the final print. :blah: :grin: :wink: :v :surrender: :hatsoff: :hatsoff:

Thanks again. :thumbsup: