TC Hawken

[Chilidog]

Wait till he tries flintlocks if he thinks caps are addictive!

Ain't that the truth :haha:

 

[sidelock]

My TC 50 likes 35gr at 35 yd for squirrels etc.( one hole 6 shots) For larger game it likes 90 gr for 2 1/2" grps at 90 yd. I think thats pretty good. You may have to try other loads but I'll bet your's will do just as well. Good luck

 

[Mr Hawken]

just wondering where do you find info on how much powder is burnt effiently and how much is waste?

 

[Big Iron]

T/C Hawken's are great shooters. I bought one new when I was young back in 1975! I still have it. For three years, some friends and I used to shoot them each Sunday when we weren't working. It was great times and I really learned to hit what I shot at in those days. We always shot .490 RB, T/C patches lubed with "Spit Ball" grease. The load was 70 grs. of FFG since the T/C manual said it was a good load.

Enjoy! :grin:

 

[roundball]

just wondering where do you find info on how much powder is burnt effiently and how much is waste?

Mr Hawken, let me suggest that you don't waste your time being drawn into what are often referred to as arm chair theories...called that due to a lack of actual hands on experience.
For example, to claim that 71 grains of powder is a max load in a T/C barrel is completely incorrect with no basis in fact...and certainly not based upon any hands on experience.

The actual facts are...speaking from hands on experience personally chronographing .40/.45/.50/.54/.58/.62cal T/C and GM barrels in T/C Hawken Flintlocks...that there is always a substantial increase in velocity for every 10 grain increment in the powder charges all the way up to 120grns...similar to T/C's published load data charts for the past 40 years.

Welcome to a great hobby...
:thumbsup:

 

[Billnpatti]

There is an equation called the Davenport Formula which states that for every cubic inch of barrel volume. you will efficiently burn 11.5 grains of powder. This is just an approximation because the actual amount that your barrel will burn efficiently will depend upon the burning rate of the powder and that will vary between different granulations and different brands of powder. It will not give you an exact number but it will get you in the ballpark.

By "efficiently" it means that you will get an almost linear relationship between the number of grains you increase the powder charge and the muzzle velocity. Once the maximum efficinet load is reached, each incremental increase in powder will yield a lesser and lesser increase in muzzle velocity. In other words, once the maximum efficient load is reached, you will begin wasting unburned powder out the muzzle of your rifle. You will get an increase in MV with each increase in powder but it will no longer be a linear relationship.

You can read more about the Davenport Formula in Robert A. Rinker's book "Understanding Firearm Ballistics".

 

[ebiggs1]

Lacking the lifetime experience of some of you lifetimes, I read and try quite a bit of the suggestions I read on this board. With the two sons I have developed a pretty good “testing” condition. I have found, to some extent, that some do not either work or make little difference. But more importantly, reading Larry Pletcher’s work debunks many of the “myths” that abound. This is especially true on the flintlock side.
I haven’t done the testing you have but I can tell you 120 grs kicks a lot harder than 71 grs! If it weren’t burning, it why would it kick harder? In my SCCA racing days there was a saying going around, “that it takes 90% of the engine’s HP to produce the last 10% of the cars speed,” This is probably true in BP shooting, also!?!?

 

[paulvallandigham]

I sent you a PT.

Mr. " Roundball" Is the ONLY person here who seems to have the blessing of the owner to slander people- mostly me-- with his cracks about "arm chair theories", and his assertion that I lack actual hands-on experience with these loading issues. He also engages in Argumentative Fallacies by talking about Maximum Loads, when I am talking about Maximum Efficient loads.[Its called Straw- manning, where you purposely Misstate someone assertion and then attack your version.] I explain how to determine the max. efficient load in my PT to you.

I was hoping to avoid another go-around with Mr. "Roundball", on this subject, by sending you that PT. But, like any predator, or bully, he can't wait a Millisecond before he pounces on one of his usual tirades. He doesn't dare say these things to me in person.

Judge his remarks accordingly.

The bottom line is that a lot of research has gone into coming up with the formula. When discussing ML Accuracy-and I EMPHASIZE we are talking about Accuracy- judged by shooting at 100 yds, or longer ranges-- Not shooting 50 rds. as fast you can every Saturday morning at 25 yds, over the back of a chair--- The formula that Charles Davenport came up with years ago does get you where you want to go.

Every gun, and every barrel is a creature unto itself. That is why we " Tweak" everything, to get the best load combination. Its really no different than all the work modern rifle target shooters do at their reloading benches to make the most accurate Ammunition for their particular rifle. When they establish a load, they can load up hundreds of cartridges all at one time. We can't do that. We have to do it one load at a time, down the barrel. :thumbsup:

Paul

 

[Dave Rosenthal]

In my experience, there is fact on both sides of this great issue. It appears to be somewhat of a conundrum in that the argument for efficiency and that for a flat-shooting 100 yard hunting load aren't close by any means.

If the "Goal" is to shoot the rifle all day long without using a patch for cleaning before you get the thing home, then the "efficient" charge is in order. If, on the other hand, the "Goal" is to have a flat-shooting high-speed 100 yard hunting shot, then you have the luxury of stoking the tube till just before the hammer blows back (if a cap lock). Only thing is since more fouling is left in the bore this way, you might want to think about adopting a cleaning drill of some sort (wiping after every couple of shots, for instance) so as to maintain both the ability to seat a PRB without trouble, and to maintain accuracy. Hunters tend to use "cold-bore" technique with a clean bore, so wiping between every shot while working-up a hunting load makes sense, since the bore will presumably be clean with that cold-bore hunting shot taken during the cold weather of deer season.......

I'm a middle-of-the-roader with a 72 grain charge of 3Fg Goex in my .50 cal 28" barreled Trade Rifle. A spit patch to clean with every half a dozen shots keeps me in the black at 100 yards, and the 72 grains is economical enough to get nearly 100 shots out of a pound of powder.

Doesn't kick all that bad either.

Your mileage may vary!

Dave

 

[roundball]

If it weren’t burning, it why would it kick harder?

Correct...each incremental step of powder continues to add to the amount of pressure generated...creating the equal & opposite reaction and all that.

And of course its why each progressive step in the powder charge / pressure increase is why there continues to be be marked increases in velocity.

It does not "flat line" at 71grns or whatever the claim was...that's barely above the entry level of published load data charts...ie: 50-120grns.

 

[ohio ramrod]

Just speaking from the old memory there was an article a few (or more ) years back in Muzzle Blasts that showed the pressures increased far faster than velocities after a certain point when increasing the powder charge. This is why the manufactures give a maximum charge for their guns. Safety first. But then I am writting from memory and can not document this little tid bit.

 

[mjones1579]

I don't care what anyone says, eventually the laws of diminished returns kick in. A finite barrel length of any caliber will only burn so much of a particular powder before the actual increase in powder fails to produce a linear increase in velocity. In other words, if you increase the powder load in ten gr, increments you will get a linear increase in velocity until you do one of two things, 1st you run out of barrel and the powder is burned in the air or you consume your patch and lose pressure around the ball. Either way, past a certian point the load is no longer efficient in accuracy or performance. Your job is to find that sweet spot for your rifle and load. :hmm:

 

[daven1834]

I have one of each, Cap and flint, have owned them for 20 years. 50 cal. I believe in both, have never had a problem. Shoot 65 grains of powder in ea. Have won lots of shoots. They are just a good all around gun. I hunt deer and elk with both. Have the filled tags to prove both. I have seen some negitive thoughts about TC but I think they are a great gun for the money.

 

[ebiggs1]

“Your T/C Hawken, with its 31 inch barrel, will only Efficiently burn about 71 grains of powder, so use that as your maximum load.”

There seems to be some general misunderstanding going on here. First all my TC Hawken rifles have 28” barrels, 29” if you include the breech plug not 31”. I don’t think anyone was claiming you should pound as much powder in as humanly possible in the barrel. But to claim 71 grs is all you should use because it’s the most that burns in a given length is questionable. As TC’s own table shows, up to 110 grs, produces more velocity, more energy and is safe. In my own testing, and lord knows I have done a bunch lately, 60, 70, 80 grs produces little variation in accuracy certainly not enough to effect the hunting side of things. Rarely is any piece off machinery at it’s best when used at either end of it’s operational range, minimum or maximum.

This is Thompson Center's table.

For Use With .50 Caliber Hawkenâ„¢
Patches Lubricated with Natural Lube
1000 Plus Bore Butterâ„¢#11 Cap or T/C
Flint with FFFFG (4F) Black Powder (Priming Powder)g Black Powder &
Pure Lead
Round Ball Loads
.490" Diameter 175 gr. Lead Ball

50 grs. FFG 1357 F.P.S. 716 Ft. Lbs.
60 grs. FFG 1434 F.P.S. 799 Ft. Lbs.
70 grs. FFG 1643 F.P.S. 1050 Ft. Lbs.
80 grs. FFG 1838 F.P.S. 1313 Ft. Lbs.
90 grs. FFG 1950 F.P.S. 1478 Ft. Lbs.
100 grs. FFG 2052 F.P.S. 1637 Ft. Lbs.
110 grs. FFG 2135 F.P.S. 1772 Ft. Lbs.

Almost an 800 F.P.S. gain from min to max.

If we compare a little further the TC manual lists;
110 grs. FFG 1588 F.P.S. 1795 Ft. Lbs. as max for their 320 gr. Maxi-ball as the maximum load for the Hawken rifle.
But my TC Firestorm manual lists;
150 grs. FFG 1723 F.P.S. 2109 Ft. Lbs.
Clearly a 135 F.P.S. velocity gain even though it took 40 grs. to get it, but this is from a 26” barrel!
I have no desire to find out where the velocity stops increasing with the addition of more powder because 150 grs is painful enough! Plus I am sure accuracy is in the tank by than.

I don’t know if this comes under the term “diminishing returns” or not. It is what it is.

 

[Little Wattsy]

“Your T/C Hawken, with its 31 inch barrel, will only Efficiently burn about 71 grains of powder, so use that as your maximum load.”

There seems to be some general misunderstanding going on here. First all my TC Hawken rifles have 28” barrels, 29” if you include the breech plug not 31”. I don’t think anyone was claiming you should pound as much powder in as humanly possible in the barrel. But to claim 71 grs is all you should use because it’s the most that burns in a given length is questionable. As TC’s own table shows, up to 110 grs, produces more velocity, more energy and is safe. In my own testing, and lord knows I have done a bunch lately, 60, 70, 80 grs produces little variation in accuracy certainly not enough to effect the hunting side of things. Rarely is any piece off machinery at it’s best when used at either end of it’s operational range, minimum or maximum.

This is Thompson Center's table.

For Use With .50 Caliber Hawkenâ„¢
Patches Lubricated with Natural Lube
1000 Plus Bore Butterâ„¢#11 Cap or T/C
Flint with FFFFG (4F) Black Powder (Priming Powder)g Black Powder &
Pure Lead
Round Ball Loads
.490" Diameter 175 gr. Lead Ball

50 grs. FFG 1357 F.P.S. 716 Ft. Lbs.
60 grs. FFG 1434 F.P.S. 799 Ft. Lbs.
70 grs. FFG 1643 F.P.S. 1050 Ft. Lbs.
80 grs. FFG 1838 F.P.S. 1313 Ft. Lbs.
90 grs. FFG 1950 F.P.S. 1478 Ft. Lbs.
100 grs. FFG 2052 F.P.S. 1637 Ft. Lbs.
110 grs. FFG 2135 F.P.S. 1772 Ft. Lbs.

Almost an 800 F.P.S. gain from min to max.

If we compare a little further the TC manual lists;
110 grs. FFG 1588 F.P.S. 1795 Ft. Lbs. as max for their 320 gr. Maxi-ball as the maximum load for the Hawken rifle.
But my TC Firestorm manual lists;
150 grs. FFG 1723 F.P.S. 2109 Ft. Lbs.
Clearly a 135 F.P.S. velocity gain even though it took 40 grs. to get it, but this is from a 26” barrel!
I have no desire to find out where the velocity stops increasing with the addition of more powder because 150 grs is painful enough! Plus I am sure accuracy is in the tank by than.

I don’t know if this comes under the term “diminishing returns” or not. It is what it is.

Well Said! I also KNOW that there is an accuracy differance, enough to measure, between 70 and 100 grains of 2f....All 3 of my "hunting ML's" tightened up to best group at 90 grains and then started spreading out again. Even IF the "extra" powder was simply blown out of the barrel it would be worth it for ME for the accuracy improvement.

 

[roundball]

And in case there are those who would discount T/Cs load data charts...here's a live example of real hands on experience actually shooting real muzzleloaders through a chronograph at a real range, not a manufacturers numbers or keyboad theory:

05/26/08
VELOCITY TESTS - .45cal Flintlock
T/C .45cal 15/16” x 31” Flint barrel
1:66” round ball twist
.018" T/C NL1000 pillow ticking
Hornady .440 balls
Wiped the bore after every shot
Pact Pro MK5 Chronograph at 15 feet
Goex 3F powder charges
Average velocity rounded off to nearest 5 fps

70grns = 1590 fps
80grns = 1720 fps
90grns = 1805 fps
100grns = 1870 fps

 

[paulvallandigham]

Here is what your TABLE produces for that 28" barrel in .50 caliber.

Your Maximum Efficient load, 11.5 grains per cubic inch or bore, is 60.72 GRAINS.

Now to understand efficiency, Calculate the velocity per grains of powder for each load in the table.

50 grains-----1357-fps----27.13 FPS per grain.
60 grains-----1434-fps----23.90 FPS per grain.
70 grains-----1643-fps----23.47 FPS per grain.
80 grains-----1838-fps----22.97 FPS per grain.
90 grains-----1950-fps----21.66 FPS per grain.
100grains-----2052-fps----20.52 FPS per grain.
110grains-----2135-fps----19.41 FPS per grain.

Notice that beginning with that 60 grains load, which just happens to be the Maximum efficient Load in that barrel and caliber, according to the Davenport formula, Every powder charge increase yields fewer Feet Per Second in velocity per grain of powder used.

Now, it is, what it is.

No one ever claimed that the Maximum efficient powder charge is also the Maximum Powder charge you can fire in the barrel. ( Except Roundball ). So, stop wasting your energy tilting at windmills! :shocked2: :idunno: :blah:

If you now go out on the range, you will find, over time, and shooting at long range, that your most accurate target load will be right around that Maximum Efficient Powder charge load.

Will you occasionally shoot a better group with a heavier charge? YEP. :shocked2:

Can you consistently shoot better groups with the heavier charge? You tell me. :hmm: I know I can't. :shocked2: :hmm: :thumbsup:

HINT: If you can, there is a spot for you on the International Muzzle Loading Rifle Team representing the USA in International competition.

 

[ebiggs1]

Actually I have no idea what you are talking about so it makes it difficult to carry on a discussion. I do know the 60 to 70 gr loads has NOT proved to be the most accurate load in the rifle I am testing right now, a TC 50 cal Hawken. How can you possibly say with any certainly 11.5 grs of whatever is max? Suppose I switch brands of powder, say Swiss for instance? I do have many years of reloading center fire guns and know there is more to an efficient load than powder.

“So, stop wasting your energy tilting at windmills!”

 

[ebiggs1]

One other thought, I have looked at several folks “favorite” load and it seems somewhere around 70 grs is a popular charge. Whether 3f or 2f but the barrel lengths are very much dissimilar. Them being anywhere from 26” to 44”. They must not be shooting the most accurate load, or are they? I have noticed people, in my center fire days, sometimes shoot better with reduced loads but it is because of reduced recoil not that the load is more accurate. Possibly a 60 to 70 gr load is less punishing than a 90 gr load and hits closer to where it was intended?

 

[roundball]

Ebiggs, just an FYI...you're fighting a losing proposition here...you're attempting to apply logic, facts, and common sense to smoke and mirrors...its like squeezing a balloon.

And what's really worse is that in spite of the armchair theories repeatedly being disproven year after year with facts from everybody, the same armchair theories keep being spewed as if they're gospel...

:shake: