Max loads for 54 cal. with prb

[Zonie]

While there is no doubt that increasing the powder load in a muzzleloading rifle increases the muzzle velocity some folks feel there is a point of diminishing returns.

The formulas which some folks choose to use are based on this idea of diminishing returns as much as anything.

For instance, using the Lyman Blackpowder Handbook as reference and their .54 caliber 28 inch 1:48 twist barrel with a .535 roundball data for Goex 3Fg powder the muzzle velocity increases from 1590 FPS (80 gr) to 1773 FPS(120 gr) for a 12 percent gain although the powder load has been increased 50 percent.

These ball velocities decrease to 1013 FPS (80 gr) and 1081 FPS (120 gr) at 100 yards which shows a gain of 68 FPS for a 7 percent gain.

Only the individual shooter can say if an increase of 50 percent in powder is worth a 7 percent gain at 100 yards.

 

[bigbadben]

Thanks Zonie,

That's a good point. For the guy 200 years ago trekking across the west it probably wasn't worth burning that extra powder. Who knows when he would get a chance to get more. But for me, the guy who can stash an extra can of 2f back in the truck, that extra 7% is probably worth it.

After all, if I shoot all I've got Graf and Sons will be happy to ship me more.

Ben

 

[roundball]

Zonie, your reply does not address what my post was about...and my post was not about a law of diminishing returns.

My post was about the claim that in spite of all the well established BP companies load data charts out there, and hands on experience to the contrary, some individual is pushing some secret "formula" that dictates powder over 85grns in a .54cal x 32" barrel will not be burned...and that's simply pure hogwash.

 

[laufer]

11.5 grains of ffg blackpowder/ 1" of brl lnght.
.54 cal => 2.6338 gr per inch
32" => 84.28 grains of fully burned powder.
this is not "my" formula, this have been established by the military long time ago, long time before "well established" manufacturers came arround.
what is hogwash in this?

 

[laufer]

Zonie, your reply does not address what my post was about...and my post was not about a law of diminishing returns.

My post was about the claim that in spite of all the well established BP companies load data charts out there, and hands on experience to the contrary, some individual is pushing some secret "formula" that dictates powder over 85grns in a .54cal x 32" barrel will not be burned...and that's simply pure hogwash.

this "individual" was just sharing his own experience, nothing else. this "individual" also used to burn 110 up tp 130 grains of powder in order to find the best match for the rifle and the game, and ended up with 90grains for everything except for bull elk (i use 100gr on bulls.)
one would think that after all the posts you have posted here there is still some patience for the young, green shooters and knowledge to share on your part, too bad you are not that kind of guy.

 

[laufer]

"...there is a formula (not by manufacturers) to calcualte how much powder burns ionside the brl..."

In my opinion if you're using a "formula" that somebody gave to you, it should be stored right where it belongs...in a trash can. I use max or near max loads all the time and never have problems with unburned powder or having excessive fouling, and always realize ever increasing velocity increases through the chronograph with each increase in powder.

All of the well established muzzleloading manufacturers collectively have hundreds of years of professional knowledge and experience in their design/engineering departments...and anyone who claims to have some sort of "special formula" either got it out of a cracker jax box or has so much hot air in their head its putting pressure on their brain and they can't think straight.

Companies that know what they're talking about...Thompson Center, Lyman, Hodgdon, Knight, White, Goex, Swiss, Wano, etc, etc...and shooters who have a lot of actual hands on experience, are who you need to listen to.

:thumbsup:

:applause:

 

[Zonie]

Roundball
My post addresses what your post was all about or at least part of it.
The first line states,
"While there is no doubt that increasing the powder load in a muzzleloading rifle increases the muzzle velocity..."

I think that statement does agree with your ideas that there is a gain from adding more powder to a charge.

No, my post doesn't exactly address your opinion that any formula that attempts to find the maximum load that uses the power in that load to its best advantage and anyone who believes these formulas , "either got it out of a cracker jax box or has so much hot air in their head its putting pressure on their brain."
The reason it doesn't address this is because the statement is demeaning our fellow members.

On a positive note, I ran the velocities given by the Lyman book thru my little ballistics program to see what other effects might be gained by using the maximum 120 grain powder load.

Because of the higher initial velocity of the 120 grain load, the trajectory is as we would expect, flatter.

Using an aim point of 100 yards, the program gives the following heights of the ball above the line of sight for 50, 70 and 90 yards.
The first number represents the value for the 80 grain 1590 FPS load and the second number represents the same value for the 120 grain 1773 FPS load.

3.4/2.9, 3.2/2.8, 1.5/1.3

In each case the higher velocity gives a flatter trajectory so at 50 yards the difference is 1/2 inch, at 70 yards the difference is .4 inches (a little less than 7/16 inch) and at 90 yards the difference is .2 inches or less than half of a .54 caliber ball.

This again raises the question, "Is burning 50 percent more powder worth the small gain?"

Again, only you the shooter can be the judge.

 

[roundball]

The reason it doesn't address this is because the statement is demeaning our fellow members.

There seems to be a misunderstanding...I wasn't commenting about the poster who mentioned having used a formula.
I assumed he acquired the formula, that it was given to him, etc...I was making an admittedly passionate comment about people who hand out such formulas (not the poster who used the formula) that run counter to all the information by the well established muzzleloading companies.

I have no idea what formula is being referred to, where it came from, what 'individual' it came from, etc...for you to assume it was a member and that my comments were directed at a member is wrong.

:v

 

[paulvallandigham]

Roundball,you have been itching to pick a fight with someone for the past 3 days. I don't know what is eating at you, but the insults tell me something is not right in the hills of N. Carolina. Deal with those problems, and stop taking it out on people here. Please.

You know darn well that I am the person on this forum that introduced the Davenport formula. Charlie Davenport was NOT some crackpot pencil pusher. He was the Chief of Ordinance during WWI, and WWII, for the U.S. Navy. He was quite familiar with how much powder can be burned " EFFICIENTLY ", in any barrel length and caliber.

The key to understanding the difference between what the factories put out, and what the EFFICIENT Load is for a particular barrel length IS NIGHT AND DAY. Factories are only concerned about Products Liability suits. They list a " maximum " load to use as a defense when someone blows up their gun using more than that recommended load of powder in their gun. They could care less how much powder you stuff in the gun, or what all that powder does to your shoulder, the stock, the components, or to the forest you set on fire! :blah: :shocked2:

Charlie Davenport, on the other hand, walked the firing line during the early days of the NMLRA, asking people what caliber, and what the barrel length of their guns were. He then consulted his notebook, and told them the maximum efficient load that would burn in their barrel, and then went on to recommend they try a load about 10% less than the max for the most accurate long range groups. Men followed his advice, because they didn't have chronographs, or even powder scales to check their volume-thrown loads. They found out that following Charlie's advice improved their scores.

The formula again is: 11.5 grains of Black Powder, per Cubic Inch of Bore.

A 54. caliber, 32 inch barrel will shoot 84.59, or 85 grains of powder efficiently, according to the formula. A 34 inch barrel in the same caliber will let you shoot 90 grains: 36= 95; 38=100; etc. For every additional two inches of barrel length, you can burn an additional 5 grains of BP efficiently. YOu would have to have a .54 caliber gun with a 46 inch barrel to burn 120 grains efficiently.

Now, If you don't want to use, or even consider Charlie's data, that is your right. But, don't insult and belittle others here because they are paying attention, and find that the formula works for them.

If you want to call me names, fine. What's new? You have been doing it to me for years! :youcrazy: :blah: :rotf: :surrender: :thumbsup: :grin: :hatsoff: After all the threats on my life I have endured, Nothing you have said to me or about me phases me at all.( I don't like it, and if we were to meet, I would knock your head off, but it doesn't phase me at all.)

YOu seem to think that if it wasn't carved on the stone tablets published on the Mount by Warren Center, that it isn't worth reading. Fine. You have a right to that opinion. I not only respect your right to hold those opinions, but will gladly and cheerfully defend your right to hold them.

But, just because you didn't think of something, or it isn't in the T/C manual, doesn't mean that its meaningless, or without value. It should not be consigned to the circular file unless it is proven to be wrong. Charlie Davenport has been in his grave almost as long as we have been alive, but he paid his dues. His " formula " has been tested in combat, and by the original founders of the NMLRA. I received the information from Phil Quaglino, a National Champion Shooter, who still holds some pistol records. He got it from the Late President, Merrill Deer, who got the formula from Charlie. PHil has been fighting this battle over " what I can stuff down the barrel" vs "what burns efficiently" for years. I decided to help carry tht torch by sharing the information with members here.

If you don't like that, I can't do much about that. I also have the right to pass on what I consider valid information. And other members have their right to rely on that information without being insulted here.

 

[roundball]

Ladies & Gentlemen”¦after a good nights sleep, and in the clear cool light of dawn without exasperation, here is a simple summary of the facts:

Fact 1
A claim was made that based upon some formula, no more than 85grns of powder could be consumed in a .54cal x 32” barrel muzzleloader barrel;

Fact 2
I’ve personally chronographed my flintlocks using 10 grain increments of Goex 3F, from 30 ”“ 120grns;

Fact 3
For every 10 grain increase in powder, a substantial velocity increase was the result;

Fact 4
Velocity increases at each step are the direct result of having pressure increases at each step;

Fact 5
Pressure increases at each step are the direct result of burning more powder at each step;

Fact 6
A .54cal x 32” barrel does indeed burn more powder past 85grns and at least to 120grns;

Fact 7
The use of a formula claiming this is not possible has been proven 100% incorrect;


That's as plain and unexasperated as I know how to state it.
I hope everyone has a great day...
:thumbsup:

 

[Bill/Ms.]

I don't have the slightest clue where & how Davenport came up with his formula. If he was chief of Naval ordinance, his findings were probably based on his experience with the only black powder weapons used by the Navy during both world wars, which would have been the heavy cannon used on ships of war.These guns did not shoot patched round balls nor did they use ffg or fffg powder.
I have been shooting a .54 caliber rifle for the past 28 years & probably have more than 10,000 rounds thru it. My hunting load is 105 grains ffg & I have shot it with as much as 200 grains ffg.( this rifle has a 1-1/8" X 34" GRRW barrel).
Even using the Davenport formula, I come up with a load of 93.6 grains,.276 x .276 x3.1416 x 34 x 11.5 =93.57 grains. This barrel measures .540 land to land and .552 groove to groove, the .276 is the radius of the average "caliber".
My point for even entering this discussion is that Roundball has approached this entire question in the proper manner, with lots of shooting and recorded results. I arrived at my load of 105 grains by shooting a lot, started at 60 gr. and went to 140 grains in 5 grain increments- the 105 grain lod was simply the most accurate at 100 yds.( the 200 grain load was playing at 300 meters, and yes, it was accurate with that load also.
Be Well,
Bill

 

[laufer]

love is in the air!!!! we have to love this way of arguing. :applause: :hatsoff:

again, i was just sharing my experience with 32" barrel and ffg (rs pyrodex) combo. i picked up "formula" somewhere else, and it's value was proved in field and at the range by me and others.
what works in books or on manufacturers' catalogues don't make much difference to me, my load works in field and at range and by no means it is the only good ratio of powder/ ball/ results, but it is a good one to start from.

ol' bridger used 2x52grains in his .52 rifle as a double load for big game, and single 52 grains for everyday load, and his life depended on it. he was lucky he could not read the labels, but lived to be an old man and a legend.

good day everybody, over and out!!
:v

 

[roundball]

"...i picked up "formula" somewhere else, and it's value was proved in field and at the range by me and others..."

I guess that's the only remaining unexplained piece of the puzzle...can you elaborate on the experiences and events that occurred that proved the formula's value to you an others...how was it demonstrated that no powder in excess of 85 grains was being consumed?
Thanks

 

[laufer]

open a new post for the technical advises and i may help you if you promise to behave and not to act like a supreme and only refereee. :wink:

 

[paulvallandigham]

Let me once again explain what " Efficient " burning means. Roundball insists on straw- manning the issue, and this is getting pretty boring.

The Davenport formula does NOT say you can't GET MORE velocity putting MORE Powder in the barrel. What the formula tells you that as you exceed the maximum EFFICENT load for that barrel, YOu get less velocity for the increment of powder increase used.

Here's a short example using some data that " FFG" posted here on the forum for his 62 Smoothbore on January 21, 2008:

70 grains 2 Fg = 1191 Fps MV.

80 grains 2 Fg = 1291 fps MV.

That represents a gain of 100 fps in velocity for 10 grains of powder. ( If you divide that 1191 fps. velocity you got with 70 grains, you were getting 170.14 fps. per 10 grains of powder.)

90 grains 2 Fg = 1348 fps. MV.

That represents only a 57 fps increase for 10 grains increase in powder.

100 grain 2 Fg = 1424 fps.MV

That represents a gain of 76 fps increase for 10 grains increase in powder.

110 Grains 2 Fg = 1475 fps MV.

That represents a gain of 51 fps increase for 10 grains increase in powder.

NOte that while there is an INCREASE in velocity, each ten grains more of powder tends to produce LESS of an increase in velocity as you exceed 80 grains. At 110 grains, you are down to a increase of only 51 fps. for the same 10 grains of powder used to gain 100 fps. when going from 70 to 80 grains in the same gun!

The 80 grain charge is the more "efficient-burning" powder charge.

Now, FFG did not post the length of his barrel. Just the velocity changes as he increased his powder charges . I didn't expect to see a linear increase in velocity, or decrease in velocity, but the radical change( drop) in increase in velocity for the 90 grain load was unexpected. Perhaps a typing error-- I make them all the time-- Or something different in the patch/lube combination used. I don't know. These kinds of anomalies are seen with data from other guns in other calibers, both smoothies, and rifles. ( Yes, and pistols or revolvers.) I have seen it in my own data, and it sometimes remain even after rechecking, and re-testing a particular powder charge, and repeating the testing over again. It happens to other shooters, so I know its not me. In fact, the very first time it did happen to me, I asked a very experienced shooter to load the gun with powder and PRB and shoot 5 shots over the chronograph. We even put in a new battery to eliminate that occasional problem. Same result. Even he was surprised, as he also figured that I had done something wrong to screw up the test results.

I say all this because I do not doubt for a minute the data that FFg posted here. I am sure its real, for better or worse.

When increases in powder loads produce erratic changes in velocity, you are usually past your most efficient burning powder charge. The Davenport Formula is there to help you find that Efficient load quickly, and then find the most accurate load( start at 90% of the most efficient load, for those long range shots. You don't need even that for good target work at shorter ranges.)

Use Charlie's formula if you wish, or don't use it. No one else here is going to lose any sleep worrying about what you do. I have a good friend who insists on loading his 8 gauge shotgun with 8 drams( 220 grains) of powder, and 3 oz. of shot, even for shooting clay targets at 20 yards. I have tried to convince him that he can save money, and his shoulder, by cutting that back to a very heavy 10 gauge load of 4 drams( 110 grains) of powder, and a mere 1 1/2 oz. of shot, but the closest he has been willing to do that is a 6 dram load( 165 grains), and 2 oz. of shot!

Why anyone would think they need 2 oz. of #8 shot to break a clay bird at 20 yards( muzzle to target) escapes me, personally, but its his gun, and his shoulder. He's about 70 years old, and I am concerned that he might hurt himself permanently. I guarantee he has the biggest " BOOMER" on the range! :shocked2: :wink: :bow: :hatsoff:

 

[laufer]

thank you sir for the elaborate presentation of facts and data.
like you said, using the formula as a starting point would be a good suggestion, and whatever load the shooter finds to work best for him and the occasion, then so be it. i use 5gr to 15 gr over the calcualted efficient load, can afford it and makes me feel good when i am after the game. god wills it, i guess.

shoot straight, have fun and god bless all of you!

 

[bigbadben]

This isn't in response to anyone in particular . . .

But I heard back from the good folks at TVM. They confirmed that I could load up to 120 grains of ffg if I wanted to. But they added what's been said here that my increases would be minor and I'd likely be pushing some unburnt powder out the muzzle.

But after much testing I seem to have settled on 95 grains of ffg as my kind of "standard load." With that, a .15 lubed patch and a .535 ball I gett all shots touching at 50 yards. That seems like it will be good enough for me. I haven't run it over my chrono yet, but I have to believe it's got sufficient gumpys to kill whatever I aim at.

Ben

 

[BrownBear]

But after much testing I seem to have settled on 95 grains of ffg as my kind of "standard load." With that, a .15 lubed patch and a .535 ball I gett all shots touching at 50 yards. That seems like it will be good enough for me. I haven't run it over my chrono yet, but I have to believe it's got sufficient gumpys to kill whatever I aim at.

Ben

End of story.

You found what shoots best in your gun, with power none of the theorists can claim is insufficient for your needs.

Maybe time for the theorists to start a new thread and let you get down to enjoying your new gun?

Keep us posted on how the new gun performs on game. Pic's are dandy, doncha know!!!!

 

[bigbadben]

Maybe time for the theorists to start a new thread and let you get down to enjoying your new gun?

Oh, I've been taking time to enjoy it. Don't worry about that! :grin:

I've had it since Friday and let's see, I made it to the range Saturday, Sunday and today. And I'm not even on vacation.

I'll try to get some pics this evening. I sucked it up and paid the extra $150 to get their extra fancy maple. It came through with a nice mixed burl/tiger maple pattern. Very nice. In fact the wood's so nice I kind of wish I hadn't had them put a patch box on it. But too late to change now I suppose.

Ben

 

[BrownBear]

Funny how a new gun will kick your shooting up a notch, isn't it! I've been shooting a new one lots, and noticed another couple of funny things. The gun just seems to get more accurate, the more I shoot it. And funny thing too, all my other guns are suddenly starting to shoot better.

I've always been a great shot, so it must be the guns finally getting broke in with all that shooting, huh? :bull: