Powder Loads and Velocities

[tg]

I have never bought into the "shoot over snow" idea, but have wondered what all the flame really is and its relationship to the amount of powder burned and pressure, if any exists.I have never been much concerned about velocity as I limit my range to where what I have in the bore is plenty, and prefer even a bit more accuracy over velocity and recoil, my .58 Fusil is bored in the same barrel that the .62 is I could likely shoot a plenty bigum charge in it, but 80-90 gr 3f is sufficient for a kill and comfortable to shoot, a newcommer to working up hunting loads could really get blindsidee by some of the posts that have been tossed around here in the past, these charts will be a good reference and tool to seperate some of the wheat from the chaff.

 

[longcruise]

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.

Paul, go back and take another look at your own citation of TC data from their shooting manual.

They do give barrel lengths.

They do provide more load examples than the three you cited.

You could graph the TC data and it would look pretty much like Zonie's.

The data on 32 and 36 gets a bit schitzy just like the 32 and 36 data Zonie graphed.

You can graph these in Excel.

You can graph them on paper and take a photo.

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. )

Zonie, that's scary! :shocked2: It comes close to exceeding the SAAMI pressurs for 45-70 ammo (not talking trap door cause that data stops at 18,000 psi).

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.

TG, I think you have a handle on this pressure thing and the powder providing some of the resistance. That resistance probably contributes to the initial resistance to motion that allows a more efficient burn of powder.

Bill Knight (the "Mad Monk") has documented 45% to 55% residual ash from black powder (hey, maybe that's where all that fouling comes from?? :shocked2: :haha: ). It should show up handily on snow or a bed sheet.

I'm sure that any powder that may for any reason not end up burned inside the bore will for certain be burned in the muzzle flash.

It's my opinion, FWIW, that muzzle flash does not necessarily mean powder is being burned outside the bore. If you prime a 30/06 case and fire it without powder or bullet in a dark room, you will amazed at the length of the flame that comes out the bore just from the priming compound! You probably wonder how I know that. I'll just say that the experiment ended when my wife shouted "what are you doing down there?" :haha:

 

[roundball]

If you prime a 30/06 case and fire it without powder or bullet in a dark room, you will amazed at the length of the flame that comes out the bore just from the priming compound!

Absolutely...an example of knowledge from hands on experience.

 

[longcruise]

Here is my last comment on this subject.

I graphed the TC data looking for any differences from Zonie's data and here is how it looks.

And, yes, that goofy spike from 60 to 70 grains in the .50 cal. does match their data

That formatted kinda strange. Might look better if you just follow this link
http://mikealee.home.mindspring.com/images/MLStuff/TC_data.gif

and, if that does not work just go here and scroll to the bottom;
http://mikealee.home.mindspring.com/trad_arms.htm

 

[roundball]

Those trend lines show powder continuing to burn above 85 grains.

 

[BrownBear]

Well shoot. All this time we were supposed to think that efficiency fell off past 60 or 70 grains.

If there's any change in the slope right there, it actually looks like it jumps up.

I guess the new recommendation will be never to shoot less than 70 grains because efficiency is too low? What a rip. :rotf:

 

[Zonie]

Roundball. No one has ever said that powder above 85 grains will not burn in a muzzleloading barrel.

Now, I will admit that Lymans Black Powder Handbook does show a few rifles where they stopped testing above a certain amount of powder.

Although they show powder loads of 110 and 120 grains of Goex 2fg and 3Fg for the .45 caliber 28 inch barrel 1:48 twist barrel shooting a 200 grain Buffalo bullet they stopped their testing for Pyrodex RS at 100 grains.
Why? Because the chamber pressure was a whopping 29,800 PSI with the 100 grain load. :shocked2:

 

Zonie,

I'm a slight built fellow. No wonder 90grns of RS in my 50 cal. T.C. was making me feel rather beat up after a days shootin'.

Jay

 

[mykeal]

Zonie, I replied to your post simply because it was the last in line. This question is for anyone:

All this smoke and fire, including some very ungentlemanly conduct, for what purpose? I've only been shooting bp for a little over 30 years and I've never felt the need to know what the velocity of the ball was. All that ever really mattered to me was accuracy, expressed as group size. It's very clear to me from my own experience, and apparently from many others, that ACCURACY (see above definition) DECREASES with increasing velocity (or powder charge) above a certain amount, that amount varying with many different factors. Now, if that's really true, why would I give a rat's tail about those higher velocities? Why would anyone shoot them? Isn't that really the point?

Frankly, I think posting any velocity information at all is misleading the newbies into thinking it matters, when what we really should be doing is helping them find the most accurate load for their situation.

Or am I just inhaling too much smoke?

 

[roundball]

"...no one has ever said that powder above 85 grains will not burn in a muzzleloading barrel..."

And Zonie, you're parsing words.
This is but one of many instances where such a claim has been made based upon some unrelated military formula.

09/07/08 07:40 AM - Post#609903
paulvallandigham Said:
In that 28 inch " carbine " length barrel, the maximum efficient powder charge will be only 85 grains.
I don't understand why you would want to shoot a short barreled gun using Black Powder.
Its difficult enough to get black powder projectiles up to velocity, considering how slow the powder burns, without shortening the barrel lenths.

 

[paulvallandigham]

And you, sir, won't admit it when you change words, even when you dare to print the two lines in the same post! It has nothing to do with " Parsing " words!

You are claiming one thing is said, when its quite clear that something quite different was stated. There is a difference between a " Maximum Efficient burning powder charge" and a Maximum charge that can be burned in the barrel. Just who do you think you are fooling, sir??? :youcrazy: :bull: :cursing:

 

[longcruise]

I've only been shooting bp for a little over 30 years

Hah, maybe you can come back and share your thoughts when you have adequate experience! :rotf: Just kidding, you know! :redface: Hope that does not fall too close to "ungentlemanly conduct".

All that you say are points well taken. I'm not sure they all apply universally but seem to be good general rules. I have one .54 barrel for example that is at it's most accurate with 120 grains of ff. I used to hunt with it at that charge but eventually backed off to 100 grains and once even to 80. Accuracy was still more than adequate and the 80 grains has proven effective on deer and elk.

Many of us are just plain curious and so it leads to experimenting with velocities,etc. just for the fun of doing it. And, you're right, newbies should beware of all this velocity stuff since in the end it does not really matter, but OTOH, talking about it and posting info on it should only help to show that in the end it is relatively unimportant.

One of the main cruxes of this thread (but not, I don't think, Zonie's reason for starting it) has been to examine the Davenport formula in terms of it's veracity. In that regard it has probably helped newbies since without that info they might be very easily led to believe that exceeding a certain "efficient" charge is pointless and that accuracy can be obtained simply by applying a formula.

Anyhoo, that's my view on it. It does not agree entirely with yours but I do see your POV and philosophy and feel it has considerable merit.

 

[Zonie]

[color= blue] to those who are interested: [/color]

v. parsed, pars·ing, pars·es

v. tr.

1. To break (a sentence) down into its component parts of speech with an explanation of the form, function, and syntactical relationship of each part.
2. To describe (a word) by stating its part of speech, form, and syntactical relationships in a sentence.

[color= blue] I don't believe I was breaking a sentence down into its component parts.
Actually I gave up parsing when I found out that a dangling participle wasn't what I thought it was.

The thing I repeatedly see in statements and comments about using excessive amounts of powder is the word "efficient", "efficiently", or "efficiency".
These words when used in a sentence dealing with large powder loads seem to be totally ignored by some people.

If anyone wishes to know the meaning of the word "efficient", please read on: [/color]

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
ef·fi·cient /ɪˈfɪʃənt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[i-fish-uhnt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
”“adjective
1. performing or functioning in the best possible manner with the least waste of time and effort; having and using requisite knowledge, skill, and industry; competent; capable: a reliable, efficient secretary.
2. satisfactory and economical to use: Our new air conditioner is more efficient than our old one.

[color= blue]My thanks to Dictionary.com [/color]

 

[mykeal]

Hah, maybe you can come back and share your thoughts when you have adequate experience! :rotf: Just kidding, you know! :redface: Hope that does not fall too close to "ungentlemanly conduct".

Nope. I usually (I hope) take such comments in jest and am not offended at all. A little good-natured ribbing is part of living well.

One of the main cruxes of this thread (but not, I don't think, Zonie's reason for starting it) has been to examine the Davenport formula in terms of it's veracity. In that regard it has probably helped newbies since without that info they might be very easily led to believe that exceeding a certain "efficient" charge is pointless and that accuracy can be obtained simply by applying a formula.

Leading newbies to believe that there is a certain load for each combination of gun, powder, patch, projectile and technique that is the most accurate is a good thing. It follows then that exceeding a certain load is pointless, so I don't see a problem with teaching them that. The point about that not being a simple matter of using a formula is valid. Posting the velocity data in chart form is, in my opinion, misleading as well, as it implies (as some here have concluded) that there is no such load.

The Davenport formula may well have an application. It may be that, rather than predicting a point of diminishing returns in terms of velocity, it predicts a point of diminishing returns in terms of accuracy (defined as group size), one of the components of which is velocity. That would be very hard to prove, but it could be done. I don't propose to pursue that, first because I don't really care, but also because it's value would be only theoretical and would only cover one variable in a complex problem that is probably best described by chaos theory.

So, shoot for accuracy, and let velocity be whatever it is.

 

[roundball]

Parsing

:hmm: almost sounds like you're trying to parse your previous post...:grin:...whatever you want to call it the claim about the powder level is clear to everyone... :thumbsup:

 

[longcruise]

Leading newbies to believe that there is a certain load for each combination of gun, powder, patch, projectile and technique that is the most accurate is a good thing.

We differ there in that I don't think one shooter's/rifle's ideal load is necessarily a good one for another rifle. In some cases it may not even start down the bore or OTOH may be so loose that it has no hope shooting accurately.

The promoter of the Davenport formula persistently used the term "efficiency" and "accuracy". He never gave his definition of accuracy though.

 

[Claude Mathis]

...All this smoke and fire, including some very ungentlemanly conduct, for what purpose?...

...All that ever really mattered to me was accuracy, expressed as group size...

...I think posting any velocity information at all is misleading the newbies into thinking it matters, when what we really should be doing is helping them find the most accurate load for their situation.

That's really all that matters, isn't it? :thumbsup:

The most accurate load for my 50 cal. will kill a deer. Velocity is irrelevant to me (and the deer), because accuracy is my goal, not speed.
:2

 

[roundball]

"...I think posting any velocity information at all is misleading the newbies into thinking it matters..."

"...Velocity is irrelevant to me[/b] (and the deer), because accuracy is my goal, not speed.

Just a couple thougthts...

First, I respect anyone's opinion of something that they deem is important to 'them'.
However, just because some individuals have certain personal beliefs and levels of satisfaction with something, it does not mean an issue should be of no importance to others, whether they are 'newbies' or not.

Indeed, a far greater disservice is done, particularly to newbies, if an erroneous post is allowed to stand uncorrected...and there's been a lot of powder charge misinformation posted based upon some military formula. Fortunately however, velocity results shown in charts speak volumes about what factually happens inside the bore of various MLs with various powder charges, real time, right now.

Furthermore, many other people do indeed see velocity as being important to them...and speaking only for myself and the hunting I do, I do not choose a powder charge "that is the most accurate" for big game hunting...I choose a powder charge which gives me the most combined power & accuracy required for the game being hunted.

For example, if a 50grn charge gave me my best accuracy of 2+1/4" at 100yds, but 90-100grns powder only opened the group up to 2+7/8", there's no question I'd choose the larger powder charge for big game hunting to get that extra velocity for a flatter trajectory, and to carry more energy & penetration at distance...and only sacrificing an irrelevant change in group size at that distance for the game being hunted while doing so. So while "the most accurate load" may be an individual's choice, it is not an across the board choice for everybody else and velocity can/does enter into load development.

In addition, simply wondering how a particular load performs in the world of firearms is just a natural curiosity that many people have, and its no different with muzzleloading...chronographs have a purpose and they've been around longer than any of us have been alive in one form or another.

This post is not taking issue with anyone's personal opinion who might think that "the most accurate" load is all that matters...this post is only to give legitimate balance to that claim, and clarifying that at least to hunters, velocity is indeed an important element in load development.

And the subject of velocity certainly should not be hidden from newbies or hidden from anyone...grownups can make up their own minds...otherwise they'd only see part of the picture if information was intentionally not posted...indeed not long ago we had a situation where a poster declared that he'd contact people privatly to explain "the correct way to do things"...and I just don't believe that thinking is a cornerstone of the MLF belief system.

Just my .02 cents on the matter of course...

:thumbsup:

 

[Zonie]

I agree with you roundball.

When hunting IMO a humane kill is paramount and accuracy alone will not assure that.

We talk a great deal about light powder loads usually shooting more accurately than heavy powder loads and in my 35 years of shooting muzzleloaders I've found that this generalization is correct.
While that is great for poking holes in a paper target IMO it is not the best for hunting animals.

Over the years I've also noted that most muzzleloaders have two different powder loads that produce acceptable group sizes.
The lighter powder load is often the most accurate but a heavy powder load will sometimes, depending on the gun, shoot almost as well.

In the guns that have this light/heavy powder accuracy trait the heavy (higher velocity) powder load should always be the one of choice for a humane kill.

 

[Claude Mathis]

In the guns that have this light/heavy powder accuracy trait the heavy (higher velocity) powder load should always be the one of choice for a humane kill.

I agree and don't think anyone has or would advocate using a light (inadequate) load for hunting.

I assumed everyone would understand that when I said "most accurate", it was with the understanding that it was an adequately powerful hunting load. I can see how someone with no experience could interpret that to mean an underpowered, inadequate target load. My mistake for not clarifying.

My statement that velocity doesn't matter, "to me", is based on the fact that until the invention of the chronograph, expert marksman and hunters didn't care how fast their ball was going, nor do I.

Just an opinion for the novice to compare to the other opinions. :wink: