Diminishing Returns?

[galamb]

But how do you take advantage of that extra range?

Mount telescopic optics on your rifle - bambi looks awful small in a semi-buckhorn sight at 145.

Use a laser range finder?

If you mis-estimate by 25 yards which is not difficult to do even at distances significantly under 100 yards and you are aiming for the center of a (barely) 8" kill zone - which is even more important that you get a near through and through in the vitals with the diminished retained energy at that range.

I'm not saying it's not possible, just think it's not the best advice to be putting out to 1) a novice who is still thinking "center fire" 2) the guy/gal who takes a couple test shots after taking the rifle out of the cabinet the day before opening day 3) those who don't practice much beyond 50 yards - outside of maybe shooting at 100 yard target, off a rest, on a nice sunny/calm summer day.

I have been shooting for a good number of years and wouldn't attempt a shot with a muzzle loader beyond 75 yards.

Why? because I don't practice them - and keep practicing them until I KNOW how the ball is going to react that far out under just about every conceivable condition - weather/wind/light etc and from numerous shooting positions.

If that's how you hunt and get proficient at it that is one thing. It's quite another if you are a 50 yard hunter but decide to take that 130 yard shot because "some guy on a forum" said it was totally doable..

 

[longcruise]

Yes, that is my 100 yard numbers extrapolated from measurements taken 15 feet from the muzzle.

I plead guilty to failure to read carefully and to any secondary charge of miscomprehension! :redface: :redface: :redface:

 

[zimmerstutzen]

" The difference in velocity at 100 yards between a .495 ball starting at 1200 and 2000 fps respectively is only 200 fps. However, the 1200 fps ball gives an 8" PBR out to 115 yards whereas the 2000 fps ball gives an 8" PBR out to 145 yards. An additional 30 yards of range is a lot with an ml gun and does make a big difference in the "wide open spaces". At 145 yards these balls give 741 and 900 fps respectively. Both adequate to kill deer size game but the 1200 fps ball has a PBR of 15"! "


How much additional powder does the average flintlock with a 32 inch barrel need to attain that extra 800 fps? at 100 yards what is the wind drift on that round ball? considering wide open space hunting is usually windier than east coast woodlands
Even folks experienced at gauging elevation are thrown off by wind drift.

Extrapolated how? Using what?

Frankly, I don't see why anyone hunting would use less than 50 grains of powder in a 32 inch 50 caliber gun. (approximately 1275 fps) A more reasonable load like 90 grains nets approx 1900 fps. 100 grains incidentally is just past the point of diminishing returns, but nets over 2,000 fps.

What would the Davenport formula give as an approximate most efficient load? 73 grains. Per Lyman's first book, that would net right around 1700 fps.

Not sure why you would even compare a pip squeak load that results in only 1200 fps, but it sure creates a very misleading statistical point when addressing the point of diminishing returns and more so about the issue of the trajectory.

 

[Billnpatti]

Perhaps I can explain what the point of diminishing returns is by using the following example. Lets assume that:

X = Y
2X = 2Y change of 1
3X = 3Y change of 1
4X = 4Y change of 1
5X = 4.75Y change 0.75
6X = 5.25 Y change of 0.5
7X = 5Y change of 0.25

As you see, after 4X, the change starts getting less and less with each increase of X. Thus, the point of diminishing returns is at 5X. So, if we assume that X is a specific powder charge and Y is the muzzle velocity, then when you have increased the powder charge to a certain point (X=4 in this example) the change in the increase in the muzzle velocity starts to drop off after 4X. Thus, the point of diminishing returns.

With each increase in powder charge, you will get an increase in muzzle velocity but after the point of diminishing returns, each increase in powder charge will give less and less of a resultant increase in MV.

Why is this point of diminishing returns important? Well, according to Mr. Davenport, an expert marksman with a muzzleloading rifle, this is the charge which will theoretically be the most accurate in your rifle. In actual practice, it is only an approximation around which you will have to work to develop the actual best load for your rifle. But, it will give you an idea of approximately where you will likely find your most accurate load. It really doesn't do much more than that. Oh, it does tell you where you will start wasting powder by blowing unburned powder out of the muzzle. Important to some but less so to others.

 

[Dphar]

But how do you take advantage of that extra range?

Mount telescopic optics on your rifle - bambi looks awful small in a semi-buckhorn sight at 145.

Use a laser range finder?

If you mis-estimate by 25 yards which is not difficult to do even at distances significantly under 100 yards and you are aiming for the center of a (barely) 8" kill zone - which is even more important that you get a near through and through in the vitals with the diminished retained energy at that range.

I'm not saying it's not possible, just think it's not the best advice to be putting out to 1) a novice who is still thinking "center fire" 2) the guy/gal who takes a couple test shots after taking the rifle out of the cabinet the day before opening day 3) those who don't practice much beyond 50 yards - outside of maybe shooting at 100 yard target, off a rest, on a nice sunny/calm summer day.

I have been shooting for a good number of years and wouldn't attempt a shot with a muzzle loader beyond 75 yards.

Why? because I don't practice them - and keep practicing them until I KNOW how the ball is going to react that far out under just about every conceivable condition - weather/wind/light etc and from numerous shooting positions.

If that's how you hunt and get proficient at it that is one thing. It's quite another if you are a 50 yard hunter but decide to take that 130 yard shot because "some guy on a forum" said it was totally doable..

Sigh...
The RB is range limited. HOWEVER, shooing a 1400 fps at the muzzle GREATLY reduces the EFFECTIVE RANGE by increasing trajectory.
A 50 caliber RB will reliably kill most American big game to 150-200 yards. However, it is best used at ranges UNDER 150. At 150 if the rifle is PROPERLY LOADED and PROPERLY sighted the ball will only by 6-8" low at 150. So a hold at the top of the back will kill most critters. PAST THIS range estimation becomes very critical. At 130, however, their is no need to do anything but hold center. THIS is the advantage of a load making 1800-1900 in 54.
But the majority of ML hunters shoot in the east where a pistol would almost work as well since the ranges from a tree stand are often similar to that bow hunters shoot at.
If one hunts where I often do one must have a flat shooting load.
One of the last deer I shot with my 54 was 105 yards offhand. Ball hit a little high but killed the deer.
I have killed a few past 130 yards back when my eyes were younger. I have also misjudged the range and undershot a few. So I bought a range finder.
But I still would not shoot past 150. 3-4 years ago I laid in wait for a deer thinking when they moved they would move in another 40 yards or so. Nice calm day, prone under a Cedar bush so I would have shot 150, but after about an hour the wind kicked up to about 30mph so I gave up in disgust. This after about a mile of hillsiding, finding the deer, taking a circuitous steep downhill stalk that would let me get as close as possible. I work pretty hard to get a shot sometimes. 4-5 mile walk or even run sometimes if I see something, to work out one of the sections of public land I hunt is not unusual, so I hate missing. So I bought a range finder.
If people are fool enough to not practice with their hunting rifle IN THE FIELD on odd targets then there is not much advice that is going to effect their hunting style or their shooting ability. Everyone should KNOW their limitations.

Dan

 

[Billnpatti]

No idea. I never had the opportunity to talk to Mr. Davenport to find out how he arrived at that number. But that is his number and my experimentation using my chronograph seems to agree somewhat with his findings. As you know, different brands of powder and different granulations will give different results. But, 11.5 grains per cubic inch of bore volume seems to be a reasonable approximation.

 

[George]

So, please explain why there should be any correlation between the point at which the maximum amount of powder which can be burned has been burned and accuracy.

Spence

 

[Billnpatti]

".... you increase the diameter of a circle by a factor of 4 every time you double the diameter... "

I think I understand the point you are making but your math is way off in this statement. I think you meant to say that you increase the radius of a circle by a factor of 4 every time you double the diameter. Am I correct or what did you actually mean to say?

 

[Billnpatti]

If I had all of the answers to the many questions that one could ask about Mr. Davenport's formula, it would have been called the Martin Formula rather than the Davenport Formula. Just as I can calculate the amount of energy contained in a given amount of mass using Mr. Einstein's formula Eneregy (E) = Mass (M) times the speed of light (C) squared, and I know it to be correct, I, like the vast majority of people cannot fully understand how he derived the formula. Some people accept these things and some people question them. Questioning is a good thing. If or when you have empirical evidence that either proves or disproves Mr. Davenport's formula, please share it for the benefit of all.

 

[George]

If or when you have empirical evidence that either proves or disproves Mr. Davenport's formula, please share it for the benefit of all.

I'll be expecting to hear from you. :haha:

Spence

 

[Billnpatti]

Ah, but as the person raising the question, the ball is in your court. I shall wait with baited breath for your findings. Now where did I put that breath bait? :haha:

 

[Claude Mathis]

So, please explain why there should be any correlation between the point at which the maximum amount of powder which can be burned has been burned and accuracy.

Exactly.

What is the point of shooting? Is it to be accurate or to burn the least amount of powder?

If I'm winning the race, I don't care how many miles to the gallon I'm getting. :wink:

 

[Dphar]

The Davenport theory does not tell one how much powder the barrel will burn. It DOES give an idea of the point of diminishing returns is. But this is of little use since the accuracy load is often well above that for some barrels. So its just a group of pointless numbers unless the point of diminishing returns is important. But of course this will be different for every granulation and in some brands every lot of powder made. So its pointless.
Experience over the years will show that a 32 will shoot good with about one grain per caliber. But once over 40 cal this is far less useful and some 40 shooters report getting best accuracy with near 2 grains per caliber. In a 69 caliber 1 grain per caliber is useless so its easier for most calibers from 45-54 to shoot about 1/2 ball weight of powder. This is mentioned by Col Hanger concerning one of the rifles he acquired during the American Revolution.
But once over 54 the ball weight starts to increase to the point that a 58 may be shooting a little too much at 1/2 ball weight. At 69 caliber 1/2 ball weight is far too much and 1/3 is better. Giving good velocity and keeps the recoil down to something tolerable.
So there is no one formula. None of them will work for all calibers.
Powder expelled from the barrel? I have shot a short barreled .32 (32" IRCC) PRB rifle over sheets in a BUILDING and never found any unburned powder. I stopped at something in the realm of 65 grains. This was in my teenage years when I tended to believe what I read. This "how much powder will it burn" seems to appear for the first time in Ned Roberts "The ML Caplock Rifle" where he swallowed a tale by Brockway about how to find a powder charge for a rifle. This simply will not work and SFAIK no slug gun shooter subscribes to it today.

One reason for the barrel burning a lot of powder with the round ball is that when the charge starts to take up significant space in the bore it becomes a part of the projectile mass and as a result the powder "sees" greater inertia and thus it will thus retard initial acceleration and give the powder more time to burn. Or so I believe.

Dan

 

[Billnpatti]

I am amazed at how heated a conversation can get over a simple thing like the Davenport formula. It is not as serious a question as whether or not God exists. Or what is the meaning and purpose of life? The Davenport formula is simply a tool. How you choose to use it determines its value or lack thereof to you. I find it to be a handy guide in selecting the starting range of charges I will use to determine the most accurate charge of a particular powder for my gun. I have never found the Davenport formula to be dead nuts on but it has provided me with enough information that I could know where to start looking for the actual most accurate load. Some folks, like me, like to use calculations. Other folks like to use rules of thumb. Still others just pour in the powder and blaze away. The Davenport formula is like any tool, if you don't know how to use it correctly or you find it of no use to you, just leave it in the drawer. Either way, God will still be in His Heaven and all will be right with the world. Or so I believe and you can believe as you choose to believe. :hatsoff:

 

[zimmerstutzen]

It is funny to see how many folks claim that the most accurate load is the one that hits the hardest. The same ones who ignore the fact that wind drift pushes their long range shots farther left or right than the bullet drops.

Some rail about formulas, and then print out all kinds of tables based upon formulas.

We have twits around Penn's Woods that think nothing of loading 130 grains in a TC hawken with it's 28 inch 45 caliber barrel.

A ball launched over 120 grains will drop exactly the same as the 90 grain launched ball once the faster one slows to the same velocity as the initial velocity of the slower ball. The advantage if any is only the distance between muzzle and that slow down to the same initial velocity of the slower ball.

 

[George]

Ah, but as the person raising the question, the ball is in your court.

Au contrare, my friend. The person making the claim brings the evidence with him, otherwise, for all we know, he is making it up as he goes along. It's a truism that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", as Carl Sagan said. The Davenport formula is an extraordinary claim. :grin:

Spence

 

[nkbj]

What's the big deal? Everybody knows that the more powder you use it diminishing the returns. Up over fifty grains I never had one ball come back. Not one.

 

[Billnpatti]

TOUCHÉ !!

 

[Billnpatti]

Uhhhh.........yeah........you've got a point......I think. Somehow it almost make sense. If you put powder in your rifle, put in a ball and fire your rifle, your ball bag will be diminished by the weight of the ball. Eureka!!! :haha:

 

[azmntman]

Me either but been smacked by a .45 derringer ball. Still wonder how t penetrated lncolns skull when it bouces off ponderosas bout 1/2 the tim?

In AZ one can hunt elk? with a .45 derringer (says any muzzloading pistol with a single barrel loading a single projectile). But I cannot use my ROA? Guess you could sneak up n scorch its tongue n wait fer it to starve to death? BAD