Mickc01
45 Cal.
Mine may not be the best in terms of accuracy but I do like that satisfying "crack" when it does go supersonic. Besides, my guns are much more accurate than the guy shootin em anyway.... Mick 
-
This community needs YOUR help today. We rely 100% on Supporting Memberships to fund our efforts. With the ever increasing fees of everything, we need help. We need more Supporting Members, today. Please invest back into this community. I will ship a few decals too in addition to all the account perks you get.
Sign up here: https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/account/upgrades -
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
Does keeping the ball subsonic help with accuracy?
- Thread starter Bo T
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
I have heard from quite a few sources that guns have two sweet spots. Low and high.
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2004
- Messages
- 14,767
- Reaction score
- 313
Mooman76 said:
Me too, and I've seen it in quite a few of my guns. Or perhaps I'm seeing three in mine- as in super low, low and high.
I'm just wondering if the sound barrier issues play a role in causing that inaccurate gap between low and high.
Dunno. Idle pondering, maybe even speculation. :grin:
zimmerstutzen
70 Cal.
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2009
- Messages
- 5,845
- Reaction score
- 1,198
I remember reading somewhere that a subsonic ball is less likely to bounce when encountering a thermocline, The chances of encountering a thermocline on the range are not that great. And might be down right near impossible. However, I do remember one warm autumn day having a mirage between the firing line and the 50 yd backstop. There was a noticeable cold draft coming off the hillside to the right of the range and a bright warm sun hitting the range. Probably a thermocline existed then.
Bo T said:
For a smoothbore shooting targets out to 60 yards it likely will be more accurate. There is a shock/buffeting associated with a round object being passed by its own sonic boundary layer as it slows.
I don't have much call or need for paper punching loads in my fowler so I tend to work around hunting loads . . . seeing what I can to to improve groups or patterns with moderate loads. I do note a definite tendency to "knuckle" out past 60 yards with round lead balls. My Bess and 12 bore New Englander did the same. None of these having rear sights also doesn't help much. ;-)
For a rifle with a slow twist at 100 yards . . . maybe not so much. They often do better with faster loads.
I think the problem comes from transition from super to sub. At least that's the case for bullets, don't know about balls.
At ML round ball ranges, it shouldn't be a problem to keep the balls supersonic unless you start out sub.
At ML round ball ranges, it shouldn't be a problem to keep the balls supersonic unless you start out sub.
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2005
- Messages
- 7,970
- Reaction score
- 964
you may want to check out Dutch Schoultz' method. here's a link:
http://www.blackpowderrifleaccuracy.com/
http://www.blackpowderrifleaccuracy.com/
Last edited by a moderator:
Billnpatti
Cannon
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2008
- Messages
- 7,340
- Reaction score
- 40
I agree with fleener :metoo: those .40, .36 and .32 cal. rifles have a recoil about like a .22 rf when loaded with a target load. I have one of each and they are sweet calibers.
I load my .32 with 20 gr. of ammo, my .36 with 40. They both are supersonic and give off a nice crack. And accurate.
I've got Dutch's method.
I've got Dutch's method.
Billnpatti
Cannon
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2008
- Messages
- 7,340
- Reaction score
- 40
Gene L said:
You've done a good thing! :thumbsup:
When you haven't been able to see well enough to do any shooting you tend not to pick up your rifles very often. Meanwhile YOU personally began to get weaker. I learned this today when getting my rifles ready to give to my grandson. Wow those things are heavy. I remember them as being as light as batons..
You know that you are coming to the end of the road when you give your guns away.
Apparently I'm not about to pass on but change a few colors. It is getting harder to read the Puter screen, all three , so am hoping to make the transfer shortly.
Take care of your eyes both Macular degeneration and/or glaucoma.
I hope to butt in with my thoughts from time to time but its a fading thing.
Dutch
You know that you are coming to the end of the road when you give your guns away.
Apparently I'm not about to pass on but change a few colors. It is getting harder to read the Puter screen, all three , so am hoping to make the transfer shortly.
Take care of your eyes both Macular degeneration and/or glaucoma.
I hope to butt in with my thoughts from time to time but its a fading thing.
Dutch
dick rankin
32 Cal.
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2006
- Messages
- 36
- Reaction score
- 7
How do you measure 1/2 grain of powder? Would there be a noticeable difference in accuracy if you shot 42 or 43 grains? Thank you.
- Joined
- May 6, 2014
- Messages
- 16,892
- Reaction score
- 15,309
Ye Archer said:
I first did it on a reloading scale, along with other powder charges, and that's where I found it made a difference in that rifle. So then I did a whole bunch of fiddling with an adjustable powder scale until I found a way to get as close as possible to that amount of powder. This involved scribing at least two lines on the adjustable portion of the measure, until I got it right. It also needed a powder measure where the swinging top evenly cut off the powder charge, like the one in the link below. http://media.midwayusa.com/productimages/880x660/Primary/431/431413.jpg
Now a 1/2 grain up or down would make no difference when shooting something the size of a vital area of a deer at a 10" circle. It can mean a difference when trying to head shoot a squirrel at shorter distances, though. It DID make a difference on groups fired on paper target shooting for that rifle. Other rifles I have used did not need that fine of a measurement of powder, though.
Gus
Last edited by a moderator:
If you can throw within 1/2-grain by volume by any method using any kind of measure, then, as they say, you are a better man than I am, Charlie Brown. Do you think it's possible that something else is at work? I would be amazed if the trajectory was changed in any noticeable way by a difference of half a grain, so it could be that because you see no change you assume you are actually throwing 1/2 grain... :hmm:
Spence
Spence
- Joined
- May 6, 2014
- Messages
- 16,892
- Reaction score
- 15,309
Spence,
My first rifle that was larger than a .22 caliber was a .50 caliber TC Hawken. I purchased it while I was home on Boot Camp leave in January of 1972, after some of the most intense rifle training I could then imagine. I purchased the accessories kit with it and used the recommended 60 grain charge of powder, their patch, there lube, RWS caps and we cast balls from their mold. On a 10 degree day above zero, I brushed snow off the ground as best I could and took up the best sitting position possible, to test the rifle at 100 yards. This because it was so cold and because there were no bench rests anywhere close to where I grew up. I was shocked to find a 3 shot group that measured around 1 5/8 from center to center of the two most distant shots. That got me hooked on muzzleloaders, in part because so many modern gun mag articles and reports were talking about how shooting at or less than 1 1/2" three shot group at 100 yards was so difficult with a modern scoped rifle and from a bench rest. (Yes, that turned out to be pure bunk, but that was what was commonly written in the mid to late 60's and very early 70's.) That TC Hawken shot even better when I did more load development on it, though I only shot under a 1", 3 shot group a couple of times with it before I traded it off to get a more authentic gun.
Two years later I was already immersed in the world of long range NM shooting and in my case, building guns for it. I also had access to some extremely good benchrest shooters and I learned things about shooting and reloading from them all. For example, the really serious benchrest folks loaded each cartridge on the line before they shot. They had a powder measure and powder scales right at their bench and a press to load the cartridge just before they shot it. There are some things I learned from those benchrest folks that apply to muzzle loaders.
Now, I had not yet been exposed to International Muzzle Loading competition, but when I was, I found many of those competitors weighed EVERY charge they shot on a reloading scale, the night before they shot, and put the charges in little glass vials to use the next day. That's about as close with muzzle loaders as we get to what the expert benchrest crowd does with their modern rifles.
I had first tested that rifle with different charges of 5 grains difference per charge, but was not satisfied with the groups. Then I started with a couple grain differences and then to one grain differences. Yes, I wound up weighing each charge with a balance scale during the testing just as I had seen the most expert benchrest folks do. Out of curiosity, I tried the 1/2 grain difference and found it made a difference in group size and was the smallest group size I shot. I further tested it a few more times to ensure it was not a fluke.
Now, it was far from easy to come up with a way to get that precise of a charge with a powder measure that would be acceptable on the Primitive Range at Friendship or at other Primitive Matches. After a lot of trial and error trying to get as close as possible to that 42 1/2 grain charge, I wound up epoxying the adjustable arm in place where it threw as close as possible to that charge and always filling the powder above the top of the measure and then "cutting it off" with the swing arm. That was how I got the most precise loads I could on the primitive range.
Now, of course that did not throw exactly 42 1/2 grains as exactly as when I had been using a balance scale for each charge, but it was very close. Even so, that did not change the fact the rifle did shoot the best with 42 1/2 grains, when I actually weighed each charge on the scale.
Gus
My first rifle that was larger than a .22 caliber was a .50 caliber TC Hawken. I purchased it while I was home on Boot Camp leave in January of 1972, after some of the most intense rifle training I could then imagine. I purchased the accessories kit with it and used the recommended 60 grain charge of powder, their patch, there lube, RWS caps and we cast balls from their mold. On a 10 degree day above zero, I brushed snow off the ground as best I could and took up the best sitting position possible, to test the rifle at 100 yards. This because it was so cold and because there were no bench rests anywhere close to where I grew up. I was shocked to find a 3 shot group that measured around 1 5/8 from center to center of the two most distant shots. That got me hooked on muzzleloaders, in part because so many modern gun mag articles and reports were talking about how shooting at or less than 1 1/2" three shot group at 100 yards was so difficult with a modern scoped rifle and from a bench rest. (Yes, that turned out to be pure bunk, but that was what was commonly written in the mid to late 60's and very early 70's.) That TC Hawken shot even better when I did more load development on it, though I only shot under a 1", 3 shot group a couple of times with it before I traded it off to get a more authentic gun.
Two years later I was already immersed in the world of long range NM shooting and in my case, building guns for it. I also had access to some extremely good benchrest shooters and I learned things about shooting and reloading from them all. For example, the really serious benchrest folks loaded each cartridge on the line before they shot. They had a powder measure and powder scales right at their bench and a press to load the cartridge just before they shot it. There are some things I learned from those benchrest folks that apply to muzzle loaders.
Now, I had not yet been exposed to International Muzzle Loading competition, but when I was, I found many of those competitors weighed EVERY charge they shot on a reloading scale, the night before they shot, and put the charges in little glass vials to use the next day. That's about as close with muzzle loaders as we get to what the expert benchrest crowd does with their modern rifles.
I had first tested that rifle with different charges of 5 grains difference per charge, but was not satisfied with the groups. Then I started with a couple grain differences and then to one grain differences. Yes, I wound up weighing each charge with a balance scale during the testing just as I had seen the most expert benchrest folks do. Out of curiosity, I tried the 1/2 grain difference and found it made a difference in group size and was the smallest group size I shot. I further tested it a few more times to ensure it was not a fluke.
Now, it was far from easy to come up with a way to get that precise of a charge with a powder measure that would be acceptable on the Primitive Range at Friendship or at other Primitive Matches. After a lot of trial and error trying to get as close as possible to that 42 1/2 grain charge, I wound up epoxying the adjustable arm in place where it threw as close as possible to that charge and always filling the powder above the top of the measure and then "cutting it off" with the swing arm. That was how I got the most precise loads I could on the primitive range.
Now, of course that did not throw exactly 42 1/2 grains as exactly as when I had been using a balance scale for each charge, but it was very close. Even so, that did not change the fact the rifle did shoot the best with 42 1/2 grains, when I actually weighed each charge on the scale.
Gus
- Joined
- May 6, 2014
- Messages
- 16,892
- Reaction score
- 15,309
Everyone has their own thoughts, needs or desires about accuracy; depending on what they want to do with the gun in question and of course depending on their own level of marksmanship capability.
My personal desires have always been centered around getting the most accuracy possible out of a rifle, or smoothbore or pistol. That way I have the greatest confidence when shooting at paper or while hunting. After that, it is up to me on whether or not I shoot well with that gun.
Gus
My personal desires have always been centered around getting the most accuracy possible out of a rifle, or smoothbore or pistol. That way I have the greatest confidence when shooting at paper or while hunting. After that, it is up to me on whether or not I shoot well with that gun.
Gus
