• 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

proper powder load for 54 cal?

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

thorman944

32 Cal.
Joined
Nov 19, 2006
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I'm new to this forum. I was reading some posts and the folks here seem pretty knowlegable so I thought I would give this a try.

I have been using 70 grains of pyrodex behind a round ball in my thompson renegade .54 cal. Accuracy has been pretty good, but I'm looking for a little more accuracy and a little more knockdown power for hunting. I bought some of those Hornady XRP 250 grain sabots. I was wondering if anybody on this forum has tried them in 54 cal and how big of a charge they were using. I would guess about 90 to 100 grains would be a good compromise between power and accuracy.
 
the renegade has a 1:48 twist. That's way to slow for sabots. Mine likes Maxi-balls and 100gr of 2f Goex

Josh
 
Never used those. I used in my TC hawken 110grs 2ff goex(the real powder) and a max-ball. For RB I used 45grs 2ff. My buddy has a early rengade(70's) mine was a 82 model, he used 110grs in his with max-ball, these gun were real shooters. These guns were made to shoot max-balls. That is why they don't have deep rifing, so max-ball will seal in groves when the lead is upset when powder goes[url] off.In[/url] my TC hawken 50 I use 90grs 2ff and the Max-hunter. The hunter bullet is a litte lighter then the max-ball . If you shoot RB don't over charge as mine would not shoot good with 70 or 80 grs. it was deadly with the 45 grs. I killed a ground hog 70yrds and ball went right through him. I could shoot a groundhog in hole or long distance with the same sight plane. Put 110 grs in and max-ball and never miss a bottom of bleach jug at 115 big steps. With same sight plane. My grandson has it now, it is alittle big for him yet as he is 12, but he is growing fast, won't be long before he can use it. Maybe this season. Dilly
 
Last edited by a moderator:
the way to find the top load is first start with about 65 gr. firs it over either new snow or white paper or tarp. increase charge 5 gr. at a time. keep track of how good the groups are. then when you get unbruned pewder on the tarp or snow. back off 5 gr. that will be your max load. no sense in putting in more powder you will not gaine anything. then you will have both you max. load and your aucurite load.
 
Each rifle is going to be a little different, but there will be overall trends. I agree with the others that you won't get best accuracy from sabots using that 1:48 twist, but might do very well with lead conicals. I've tested TC Maxis and Maxi Hunters, Hornady's Great Plains, Lyman's Shockers, and several I cast myself. There are small differences between them among my 54's, but one thing comes through: All shoot better with a lubed felt wad between them and the powder charge.

I find that accuracy with conicals also drops off when powder charges drop below 60 or 70 grains- probably due to failure to obturate and fit the bore due to reduced pressure. If I had to pick a "standard" hunting charge for lead conicals in my guns it would be 90 grains of FF or Pyro RS.

With PRB my usual loads (using FF or RS) between guns are 90 grains for deer, 110 for elk or moose, 70 grains for target and plinking. With FFF or Pyro P I use 80 grains for deer, 50 grains for target and plinking and 25-30 for small game.

None of those loads are max, and all give you a little wiggle room to adjust up or down for max accuracy in your own gun. All you gotta do is get out and try them.
 
Hi Thorman , I live in Balto. too (Middle River) . I also have a .54 Renegade and tried some saboted rounds a few years back . I got my best results from some 310 grn. lead bullets made by Knight with 90 grns. pyrodex RS , the only drawback (besides the plastic fouling) was the price , $9.99 for a pack of 20 , back in 1995 :shocked2: . I also tried some saboted 200 grn. HP/XTP .45 cal. pistol bullets and they were terrible , no matter what charge I used . My Renegade never shot roundballs very well , although others here on this forum say thier 1:48 twist barrels do shoot roundballs well . I must say that when I was shooting roundballs I was only using different charges with a .530 ball with a .015 patch . I never got around to trying different ball and patch combos because it never occured to me to do so . I thought misfires and paper plate accuarcy at 50 yards was about as good as I was going to get with my muzzle loader , then about three years ago I found this forum . I've learned a whole lot about muzzleloading here and so will you if you stick around . Send me a PM (private message) if you want to go shooting , I have some bullets you can try and see how they shoot in your rifle . Since I like to shoot roundballs , I replaced my T/C barrel with a Green Mountian drop in replacement barrel that has a 1:70 twist and it's an awesome roundball shooter . I also switched back to using real black powder , no more misfires now and faster ignition :thumbsup: .
 
Sabots, despite all the advertising hype, are really not a step up in knockdown power. If your gun will shoot round balls or lead conicals accurately, I'd stick with them. The 1:48 twist was designed as a compromise so it will shoot a ball or conical well. Sabots require a faster twist with deeper rifling. I'm not sure it's going to do so well with them, but it won't hurt to try. :)
 
Thanks for the input folks. I think I might try the sabots and if they don't shoot well, may go with a conical instead. If all else fails, there is always the round ball.
 
If you want to try sabots but save abunchabucks, buy the empty sabots and add your own bullets. Bags of 50 in a variety of brands and sizes are available from Midsouth Shooters Supply for around $5. Basically with the purchase of the right pistol bullets you can get 50 for what 10 or 20 already assembed cost.
 
Plink said:
...The 1:48 twist was designed as a compromise so it will shoot a ball or conical well. S...

That explains why my old 50 cal TC Hawken shot so well. It seemed to be very accurate with both ball & maxis, I could hit a railroad catenary pole (abandoned, not active, folks) 300-400 yards out without much effort. That was in the very early 80s, I suspect my eyes might not be up to the task anymore. I have a 54 cal TC Renegade I'm hoping will perform as well.

Are you the same "Plink" on rec.guns?
 
In my 4 digit T/C .54Cal. Renegade I shoot .530 RB with .010 cotton patch & 100gr 2f Black Powder. This works remarkably well for me.
 
Thorman: My first question is what are you going to hunt? If you are only hunting whitetail deer, then a round ball will do all that can be done with that rifle. Start with about 60 grains of FFg powder, and work your way up in 5 grain increments. Many people seem to find 80 grains works great in their TCs. A 54.cal. 32 " barrel will only burn about 85 grains in it, and more than that, its going on the ground, using a PRB. Now if you increase the weight by using a conical, or use a faster burning powder like FFFg powder, you can probably burn more, but a chronograph will tell you that you have reached the point of declining benefits when you stuff the gun with more powder, and that is usually around 80-90 grains. Again, it can depend on the length of the barrel you use. Declining benefit means, simply, that for each increment of additional powder( say 10 grains) you get proportionally less velocity, than from the last increment of that same powder. So you compare the increase in velocity from 60-70 grains, from 70 to 80 grains, and so on. to the prior increase in velocity. When the increment begins to drop precipitously, you are beyond the gun's ability to burn more powder efficiently. That means more residue, and unburned powder falling out the muzzle to the ground. It also means that about all that you get from adding more powder is MORE RECOIL, since you have to take into account the weight of the powder charge along with the weight of the projectile, and any wads in front of the powder in determining recoil forces.

A 230 grain round ball will expand to about the size of a quarter in a deer on a broadside hit, and usually exits if the shot is taken at less than 125 yds. You don't need a lot of powder in the barrel to get that result. Certainly not 100 grains, or more! Once you get that huge ball moving, it does not slow dowm easily, and certainly not in the soft tissue and bones of a whitetail.

Now, if you are going to hunt Elk, Bear, Caribou, Moose, or similar big boned animals, then one of the short conicals, like the REAL slug, is going to deliver more punch. If you cast your own balls, you can always cast a round ball from an alloy of lead and tin, say 1:20 mix, and that will toughen the ball up to allow it to penetrate deeply on heavy boned animals. Balls with Tin in them will be slightly lighter, so you should expect them to hit at a different POI, from where a pure lead round ball will hit. So, sight your gun in for these harder balls. Wheel weight, if you can find them, are about 30:70, and will produce very hard balls. But they also will stay together on impact, except where a pure lead ball will flow as it expands, the harder balls will develope cracks, and may loose weight as they travel through bone and tissue. You learn those things by examining recovered balls from carcasses, and comparing them. I don't know too many members here who feel undergunned in hunting Elk with a Round Ball, in a .54 cal. rifle.
 
Had my 54Cal. set up for 425gr. Great Plains Bullets.Thought why the heck am I doing this?? :confused: Went back to Patch and Ball.Pushed by 90gr. Pyrodex.

Shot a Small Buck the other day at 120 yards.Didn't go nowhere.

oneshot
 
Oneshot: Can you tell us how the ball performed at that distance? Did it penetrate both sides of the animal, or stay inside? If you recovered the ball, how much does it weigh? How large did it get? What organs were affected by the ball's path?

Normally, a deer that drops has been hit in the spinal cord, or the brain. But there are deer reported every year who take balls or even arrows through their lungs and heart, that continue to eat until they slowly drop to the ground.
 
I'm not oneshot and I've never shot a deer at 120 yards with PRB, but I can speak up on terminal effects.

I've never recovered a 54 cal PRB from deer on broadside lung shots inside 100 yards. Simple and true through-and-through penetration, with the exit hole maybe a little bigger, but hard to tell. I've never had a deer go more than 15 feet, and most drop right away or only after a step or two. Makes them sick right away and there's no doubt you hit them. I've also taken 4 elk and one moose with the same gun and broadise lung shots, an none went 30 feet. The only PRB I recovered from them was about as big around as a quarter and about 1/4" thick, weighing 219 grains.

I recovered a PRB from a good sized deer a couple of weeks ago and wrote about it somewhere- maybe even earlier in this thread. Sorry if that's the case, but here goes again. It was a good sized buck about 30 yards sharply uphill from me. Entered low in the shoulder, clipped two ribs, one lung, the liver and about 3" of spine before stopping under the hide. Dropped him like he was electrocuted, as you would guess, and came to rest under the hide. Weight was 203 grains and it looked about identical to the one I got back from the elk.
 
Thanks, Brown Bear. That was what I am expecting to hear from ONeShot, if he replies. I have always thought its kind of silly for people to be talking about using conicals in those .54s. I have seen what a .54 roundball does, and have the same respect that the early explorers and mountain men had for the caliber. That huge round ball goes through a lot of tissue and just keeps going, all the while expanding by 50% or more, but retaining 85 % or more of its original weight. What do people want in a projectile for hunting? What more would do any good? Any energy that is not released in the animal is wasted energy.

I asked Oneshot to tell us about his wound information because he says the shot was at 120 yds, admittedly a long shot for most hunters.
 
Powder must grow on trees, sure is a lot of wasted powder in this thread.

Here is how to calculate the Davenport Formula:

.50 divided by 2 = .25
.25 x .25 = .0625
.0625 times Pi( 3.1416)= 0.19635
.19635 x 11.5 = 2.2580
2.2580 x 28 inches( barrel length)= 63.22 grains of powder.

The maximum this barrel can fire and get a full burn. Work backwards to find the most accurate load.
 
Thanks for the input folks. I think I might try the sabots and if they don't shoot well, may go with a conical instead. If all else fails, there is always the round ball.
Why bother with a 54 and down size what your shooting? The were meant to wack stuff and passing thru and they do ! And cast are cheaper (almost) and always available !/Ed
 
Powder must grow on trees, sure is a lot of wasted powder in this thread.

Here is how to calculate the Davenport Formula:

.50 divided by 2 = .25
.25 x .25 = .0625
.0625 times Pi( 3.1416)= 0.19635
.19635 x 11.5 = 2.2580
2.2580 x 28 inches( barrel length)= 63.22 grains of powder.

The maximum this barrel can fire and get a full burn. Work backwards to find the most accurate load.
Often quoted and just as often still WRONG some 17 years later.

If the DF was right, then any additional powder after 63.22 grains in a 50 cal wouldn't result in additional velocity nor pressure because it wouldn't burn. Yet magically, velocity increases as does pressure when powder is added well over the 63.22 grain mark. The DF is inappropriately used in the case of small bore weapons when it was developed for large bore cannons to find the point, more or less, of diminishing returns with additional powder.

But it isn't magic. It is flawed application of a formula for something it wasn't developed for. Here is a quote from Brown Bear...couldn't have said it better myself, so I just copied it. And because this is a seriously old necro thread from 2006, I felt that a necro response from Brown Bear dated 2010 was in order.

@BrownBear in 2010 said:

Science and engineering are rife with examples of "traditional" formulas that don't respond well to the effects of scaling, material changes and such.

The Davenport formula is one. It evolved around large bores such as artillery, but fails to survive the test when applied to small bores suitable for shoulder fire.

Another good example, one with which I'm well acquainted, is in the field of boat or vessel stability. The "traditional" formulas were derived for designing ships and other large vessels to help keep them upright on the water. But they begin to implode when applied to vessels under about 30 meters, and get worse and worse as you go smaller from there. Sure, you can use the formulas to design smaller boats, but the resulting boats are virtually useless for people and no less prone to capsizing. Kinda like the Davenport formula and shoulder-fired muzzleloaders.

A suitable formula might be developed someday, but the Davenport formula ain't it. That particular boat isn't going to float right side up either!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top