Powder Loads and Velocities

[longcruise]

the breaking point

Simply addressing that one singular phenomenom that you seem to see in Zonie's graphs; I don't see any "breaking points"

I see a linear progression in every one of the graphs he put together. Sure, there are some bumps that are not perfectly linear, but all in all it seems to show that while there may be a very minor loss of return in velocity in some cases, it is so very minor that it would seem to show that the linear progresssion is far more prominent than any diminishing return.

These graphs surprised me. I expected to see a pronounced reduction in velocity gain as powder charges approached the upper limits. It just isn't there! :shocked2: While I have chronographed many ml guns and done a number of experiments involving velocity, I've never done any measurements of velocity gain over a wide range of charges. I just accepted the "conventional wisdom" that returns diminished rapidly. Kinda embarassing given that I take pride in debunking conventional wisdom at every opportunity. :redface:

I wonder how many shots were fired at each charge level by the original tester who gathered the data? For myself, there would have to be at least ten shots averaged per charge before any deviation from linear could be considered an actual measurement. OTOH, shooting as many as 20 shots at each charge level probably would not make much difference in the resulting graph, IMO.

So what does that tell us about *efficient* powder burn? Seems to me that it says there is no such thing regardless of how you define "efficiency" when the measurements are taken using reasonable maximum charges (such as those recommended by the rifle maker).

You, I or any other shooter will have our own desired end effect each time we pull the trigger. Paper shooters need a hole in the paper target. Moose hunters need a hole through the moose.

A person who hunts deer from a treestand in heavy cover and shoots at 25 or 30 yards needs what it takes to put a hole through the deer. If that hunter sees that his .50 ball does the job just fine with 50 or 60 grains of powder, then that probably seems perfectly efficient from that hunters perspective. If it's accurate enough to do the job, voila; "efficiency" is obtained.

 

[BrownBear]

Yeah, those little changes in direction on the plot lines might be breaking points, but if so, they're all over the map for different powders and calibers without any relevance to the formulas.

Puts the fancy formulas and efficiency theories to the mythbuster test.

BUSTED!!!!!!! :rotf:
:bull:

 

[paulvallandigham]

Wrong: Compare Jim's chart, based on a ballistics Computer program, ot the actual data provided by T/C, as I have, and you see that the computer program is wrong.
http://www.tcarms.com/assets/manuals/current/Shooting_TC_Side_Lock_Black_Powder_Guns.pdf

(Scroll down to about page 74 to find the beginning of the loading data.)

There is an old saying about computers, from computer nerds: " Garbage in, Garbage out".

Way too many people take such programs on faith, and never check them out. Some people are afraid of computers; some are afraid of math; some are just lazy, and some are a little bit of each.

And, of course, as always, take your own gun out and do your own testing over a Chronograph. When you find that Max. efficient load, per Davenport's formula, for your gun, then load charges above it. Put the sheet on the ground if you want to learn about that, too. That is what we did before we had chronographs. Its a friendly way to verify the darn machines. :rotf: :hatsoff:

 

[mykeal]

Interesting data. However, there's something missing.

As an engineer I made a career out of measuring and understanding the performance of my and other's designs. When I see a set of empirical data my first question is, "What are the error terms?" Empirical, or test, data inherently contains errors; that cannot be prevented, and to truly understand the data one needs to understand the effects of those errors.

I do not have Lyman's book, so I don't know how they did their testing and reduced the data. Did Lyman provide any information on the statistics of the data that might help to characterize it?

I ask this because chronograph data is notoriously sensitive to test conditions, and any, repeat ANY, presentation of chronograph data needs to include the error statistics that the machines provide.

In this case the error data should be included on the charts as bands of uncertainty along side each line. That would fully characterize the data and validate the conclusions that many are drawing from the presentation. At present, some can see an inflection point in some of the data and others see no such break. Including the error functions might explain that phenomenon.

It's very interesting data in any case, and I greatly appreciate your presenting it. I do wish some had heeded your request to keep the discussion civil and avoided injecting laughing smileys as an attempt to poke fun at others.

One final comment: velocity is a useful parameter but not the right one to use in evaluating load data. Unfortunately, the proper parameter is accuracy, and velocity gives no real insight into that elusive metric. Marmotslayer's final paragraph perhaps says it best:

A person who hunts deer from a treestand in heavy cover and shoots at 25 or 30 yards needs what it takes to put a hole through the deer. If that hunter sees that his .50 ball does the job just fine with 50 or 60 grains of powder, then that probably seems perfectly efficient from that hunters perspective. If it's accurate enough to do the job, voila; "efficiency" is obtained

 

[roundball]

Puts the fancy formulas and efficiency theories to the mythbuster test.

BUSTED!!!!!!! :rotf:

:rotf:
But it won't matter...there are obviously issus at work which cannot be influenced by truth, logic, and facts...no matter how many people set the record straight, both in text and now in professional graphic illustrations that anyone can understand.

Its obvious that powder charge increases continue to be very efficient right on up the line, like everyone with actual hands on experience have been saying.

Unfortunately, some are simply unwilling or incapable of accepting and acknowledging that facts have proven arm chair theories to be totally false...again.

 

[roundball]

I'm sorry mac, nothing personal at all, just the timing of your post...reminds me of the old forum joke where a thread gets started and goes something like this:

1 makes a post
25 agree
2 challenge the source
1 challenges the testing
3 say it should be in a different category
1 says it should be locked
etc
etc
etc

:grin:

 

[longcruise]

Wrong: Compare Jim's chart, based on a ballistics Computer program, ot the actual data provided by T/C, as I have, and you see that the computer program is wrong.

Paul, Zonies graphs are based on "actual data". I see you citing tc data whereas Zonie cited a different source. It's just graph of existing data which presents it in a very visual format that is easier to digest than simple columns of numbers.

Your data from TC is limited to only three charge weights and for the life of me I can't see your data supporting the Davenport theory. If you were put the TC data into graphs as Zonie did that would make an apples to apples comparison. Both sets of data would derived from a, hopefully, reliable source.

Can't figure out the "garbage in, garbage out" statement. Are you saying that Zonie's data source is garbage? Are you saying that his presentation of the data is garbage?

 

[paulvallandigham]

The presentation is wonderful. I question the data. I did not understand that this data comes from actual fired rounds. I understood his data is based on a computer ballistic's program.

I do not have the capability of creating a chart, and don't have an importer to do one on paper, and copy it here. I have more data on .50 caliber than other rounds, because that is what I have. I have the Hodgdon Data Manual Number 23, published in 1977, as my primary source. I have looked at the data on T/C, and on the Pedersoli site, and while the actual published numbers differ, as you would expect with different sources, those relating to changes in velocity when the Maximum Efficient powder charge is exceed per the Davenport Formula, are consistent. The real problem with all these sources is figuring out what barrel length they used for the data source. That information is not given. Based on the Davenport Formula, and the data, I am making a best educated " guess " as to how long a barrel was used, taking into account, also, the length of barrels on guns then manufactured by the company involved. Obviously, since Hodgdon is a powder manufacturer, and not a gunmaker, I have no idea what they used. The manual simply does not give that information. My guess varies with caliber. I was working with their data on the .36 caliber, and it seems they were using a 42 or 44 inch barrel. They list no data for the .32. For the .45 cal. data, I believe, again reading their data, that the barrel was 42 inches long. Hodgdon was not offering data to show overloads: rather, they were listing loads well within safe parameters, for people to try in whatever gun, new replica, or original in whatever condition it might be, to try out. YOu can imagine, I hope, the concern their lawyers had about exposing the company to Product Liability suits.

 

[BrownBear]

Formulas are only a best guess at deriving a mathematical description of an observed phenomenon. You gin up the math and test it against observed results. If it doesn't work, you modify the formula and try again, or you dump it.

That's called the Scientific Method. It usually works over time and lots of testing and modification. I'd say the existing formula is observably faulty and needs another crack at modification. No harm, no foul. Just get on with it and keep working at it.

The only flaw in that process happens when you decide the formula is sacred and above question. You start trying to bend the facts to fit the formula.

Formulas are developed all the time in social sciences and economics. And rather than keep working on the formula to make it better, they start trying to bend people to fit the formula.


In that case they call it politics. Seen any of that recently?

 

[roundball]

The only flaw in that process happens when you decide the formula is sacred and above question. You start trying to bend the facts to fit the formula.

Formulas are developed all the time in social sciences and economics. And rather than keep working on the formula to make it better, they start trying to bend people to fit the formula.

Brother Bear, you are right on the money!
:hatsoff:

And we should be selling popcorn while we're watching all the squirming and tap-dancing and back-peddling that's going on...and just think, this entertainment is all free!
:rotf:

 

[roundball]

Can't figure out the "garbage in, garbage out" statement.
Are you saying that Zonie's data source is garbage?
Are you saying that his presentation of the data is garbage?

Its all simple...its what people say when they cannot refute the facts. And the "garbage" is definitely not coming from Zonie's direction...
:grin:

 

[Zonie]

Quoting Lyman's book:

"CCI #11 percussion caps were used in most of our testing. CCI # 11 Magnums were used with Pyrodex Pellets as they are more difficult to ignite than black powder. RWS Musket caps wee used in some .58 caliber testing..." (none of my graphs include loads which used Pyrodex Pellets).

"The velocity and pressure data shows was produced using five shot strings. The test barrels were cleaned between each five shot strings. We felt that this would best duplicate "real world" shooting conditions..."

The book does not give the Standard Deviation however in my opinion the fact that these numbers represent the average of 5 shots does give some creditability to their values.

The barrels used were "test barrels" instrumented with piezo electronic pressure sensors and the pressures listed in the book are in Pounds per Square Inch. These pressures ranged all the way up to 25,600 PSI in the 70 grain load of Pyrodex P in the .32 caliber barrel. (That's higher than many modern pistols loaded with smokeless powder. :shocked2: )

As for a "breaking point" yes, some of the powders don't show a great change as the loads increase however I think that even someone unfamiliar with charts can see that Pyrodex P makes a very noticeable change at the 50 grain load in the .36 caliber barrel.

 

[ohio ramrod]

I find it interesting that you appear to have used charts and graphs from books to create your charts. It is a useful set of charts for those that lack a chronograph to do their own velocity charts. My self I bought a chrony years back and still have it some where in the gun closet. Why is it in the closet? Because I soon realised that minimum group size was far more important to me than velocity. As long as you are near grain/caliber you will have effective killing energy and as long as you are below manufacters recommendation you whould be safe.So for me the question is which charge gives the smallest group. velocity be @#$%ed. And this is done on the range. (just for the record after over three thousand rounds with at least two hundred charted) my target rifle shoots best with fourty grains in a fourty five caliber douglas barrel 1/66 twist 43 inches long. The first charge I tried! velocity- Who knows! maybe some day I'll get out the chrony and test it! As for my deer rifle I use 75 grains in a fourty five with a civil war style mini. Effective out to 145 yds. again- velocity who knows!

 

[roundball]

I think most have a similar view...other than for the curiosity of knowing, I don't think many pursue velocity for the sake of velocity.
The main point of this thread was to once again disprove the false information being preached:
"a .58cal barrel will not burn more than 85grns of powder"

 

[paulvallandigham]

The data on the .58 in a 28 inch barrel indicates that 85 grains is the maximum Efficient Powder charge that barrel will shoot.

I don't have much problems with this Lyman data. I just believe that it does not match data that has been shown from shooting real barrels in real rifles. These are test barrels, of unknown length. I was accused of provided too limited information with what I have listed here, but I was using data from two sources, and the 3 loads, and velocities were all that the company provided. I have purposely avoided using data I have produced myself so I don't have to listen to attacks.

 

[Zonie]

Gentlemen, and I use the term with reservation.

I have edited one post here because it violates Forum rules, to wit, NO PERSONAL ATTACKS.
I do not want to have to do this again so please keep the posts within the Forum guidelines.

Now, roundball, the purpose of this Topic was not "to once again disprove the false information "being preached".

It was made because many times we get questions about what sort of velocity a given load will produce in a muzzleloading rifle.
Because the Lyman data is available and it was done by a company with a good reputation without trying to proove or sell anything I felt it would serve as a sound basis for these charts.
That was the ONLY reason for making them.

paulvallandigham: Your comment, "...These are test barrels, of unknown length..." is incorrect.
The lengths of the barrels in all cases is stated by Lyman in their book and these lengths are given in each of the charts I presented.
Whether these lengths coupled with the bore diameter creates a volume that is compatible with the predicted results of using a formula or not is a matter of interest I'm sure but assuming that Lyman published factual figures the charts "tell it like it is" or at least "as it was".

ohio ramrod: I did not use charts and graphs from printed data.
I made them with my computer using "Quattro Pro X3 Notebook". All of the data that was provided by the Lyman BLACK POWDER HANDBOOK & LOADING MANUAL" which they derived from extensive testing and it was entered and checked for correctness by yours truly before creating the charts.

As I mentioned, these charts are presented to help folks see what kind of velocity a load will produce in their gun.
I don't recommend that people use one of these loads in preference to another load because I agree with you. Accuracy is the prime thing to be considered when hunting or shooting targets.
As we old timers know, each gun will like one or two loads and using these loads in preference to a more powerful load is always the best plan of attack.

 

[tg]

I wonder if the missconception of point of diminishing returns in velocity judged by unburnt powder on the ground or powder burning after it leaves the barrel is just a matter of the larger charge becoming a resistance thus more pressure thus more velocity but not all the powder being consumed within the bore, it would be interesting to test this.at any rate these are some good charts for those interested in this type of data,I guess I am from the old school, a cal. and a half or so of powder and if that prints a good group and sub 50-75yd. shots I don't concern myself much about velocity.

"I have edited one post here because it violates Forum rules, to wit, NO PERSONAL ATTACKS."

Man sometimes that is like telling a trout not to bite that worm on the hook,

 

[roundball]

"...purpose of this Topic was not "to once again disprove the false information "being preached"..."

It was made because many times we get questions about what sort of velocity a given load will produce in a muzzleloading rifle.

:grin: whatever...the end result is the point.

I do hope you'll copy these charts into the articles section so the next time this issue of barrels not burning more than 85grns of powder based upon some formula from the battleship yorktown or something, it'll be a simple, more gentlemanly way to flatten it immediately and avoid the confusion for newcomers who may not yet know better. There has to be a better way of containing and shutting off that kind of information quickly so these marathon threads are no longer necessary.

Thanks again for going to the trouble...
:hatsoff:

 

[tg]

"it'll be a simple, more gentlemanly way to flatten it immediately and avoid the confusion for newcomers who may not yet know better."

Rotsa ruck around here :shake:

Any thoughts on all the fire that comes out of a barrel that you see when shooting in the dark, has all of the burning powder contributed to the movement of the ball or has some burned after all the push is over when using heavier loads or light loads for that matter, I have always wondered about whether all that fire has helped or is burning after the fact so to speak, not trying to diminish the facts the charts reveal just trying to look at the whole picture and all possibilities, I am not much for ballistics but this one I have pondered for many years.

 

[roundball]

Besides the thoroughly outstanding videos produced by Larry Pletch on various ignition sequences, I've seen a very interesting one on the history channel covering various elements of muzzleloaders in operation.

One in particular was a slow-mo of a muzzle showing flames forcefully coming out of the muzzle a foot or so, long before the projectile appeared and made its exit....and knowing that BP ignites from the mere heat pulse of a mere pan flash in a flintlock, if an unburned kernel of powder somehow DID happen to survive the bore burn and somehow exit the muzzle, it would then be enveloped by the instantaneously expanding fireball of the muzzleblast.

I believe the muzzle blast/flame we see from any firearm is mainly just the continued expansion of the burning gases as they try to expand and fill more space, which they do very briefly and rapidly when they hit the wide open unconfined space in front of the muzzle, in what we know as muzzleblast...ie: I do not not believe the 3 foot flame from my .30-06 is "unburned powder" only just then being consumed...I think its just the flaming expansion of the combustion that took place inside the bore.

As you know, we could shoot a .30-06 "over snow or a white sheet" and not find much, if anything, on them as smokeless powder leaves virtually no residue...by comparison a little BP combustion residue (fouling) would drop a little on them, occasionally confused as unburned blackpowder.