Post by: mark davidson on March 05, 2009, 02:07:43 PM
Post by: Two Steps on March 05, 2009, 02:18:40 PM
What load are you shooting?
Al
Post by: Mitch on March 05, 2009, 02:19:46 PM
Post by: FG1 on March 05, 2009, 02:28:14 PM
Post by: mark davidson on March 05, 2009, 03:11:19 PM
Post by: R.M. on March 05, 2009, 03:15:07 PM
Post by: Voyageur on March 05, 2009, 03:33:58 PM
Post by: FG1 on March 05, 2009, 04:02:52 PM
Post by: Mitch on March 05, 2009, 04:07:39 PM
Post by: Longhunter on March 05, 2009, 04:43:21 PM
Post by: Indiana on March 05, 2009, 05:09:25 PM
Post by: Gordon H.Kemp on March 05, 2009, 05:35:22 PM
Post by: Bruce Bogart on March 05, 2009, 05:36:26 PM
Bruce
Post by: jbullard1 on March 05, 2009, 05:50:42 PM
Post by: cb on March 05, 2009, 06:26:09 PM
First of course let the bruising go away.........then lower that 180 grain load to 140 or so at most - IMO there's just no need for that much powder for any game on this continent and FWIW I've hunted moose, bear, and elk for about 40 years with a .54 or .58 and have taken shoulder shots a lot especially on bear.......
Post by: Gordon H.Kemp on March 05, 2009, 07:16:46 PM
Post by: Three Hawks on March 05, 2009, 08:27:30 PM
Assuming a .610 RB at 340 grains that's 520 grains of mass exiting the muzzle at what? 1800-2000 fps? No bloody wonder you hurt. Shorten your loads to about 1000-1100 fps and hurt the target, not your self.
If you insist on heavy loads such as that, consider a Jeager with a shotgun style buttplate.
I was taught to shoot by my insane uncle, a WWII era Marine DI. If he had ever seen my right elbow fall below shoulder level while shooting off hand, he'd have knocked me half silly. Same if he saw my left elbow anywhere but directly below the fore end. (He was kind of like R. Lee Ermy except not so wussy.)
Just sayin' is all.
Three Hawks
Post by: Captchee on March 05, 2009, 09:05:52 PM
what that means is what CB said . IE in the mit of the arm and outside of the bone of your shoulder . some also are smaller . these are ment to be shot alittle firther down the arm .
I am also courious as to why the heavy load ?
Post by: tg on March 05, 2009, 09:45:59 PM
Post by: swampman on March 06, 2009, 04:42:07 AM
Quote
I am shooting 180 grains of 2F in .62 cal.
There's your problem. Try 1/2 that much of 3F. You're using way too much powder.
Post by: Longhunter on March 06, 2009, 06:55:34 AM
Quote
Quote:
I am shooting 180 grains of 2F in .62 cal.
There's your problem. Try 1/2 that much of 3F. You're using way too much powder.
_________________
I shot 200gr's of 2FG in my .62 Jaeger when hunting moose. That heavy of a load of coarse wasn't needed to kill a moose but at the time I wanted to increase my range. As it turned out it may have helped because the ball penetrated full length of the bull.
It gave me a pretty good "push" but the wide flat butt on my Jaeger is pretty comfortable.
Post by: Stryker on March 06, 2009, 08:09:57 AM
I hunt with a .54 now and I use 55-60grains as a dear hunting load and I've never had a deer run more than 50 yards after being hit.
If you want to shoot 180 grains, it's your shoulder. but IMHO, it's too much powder for anything east or west of the Mississippi. I might consider a heavy load like that if I was in Alaska and had a chance of running into a grizzly, but not in the lower 48. but that's my two cents.
good shooting!
Post by: Bigsmoke on March 06, 2009, 08:24:51 AM
Possibly I missed it, but what is the rate of twist on your rifle? And how did you decide to start at 180 grains? I think if we have some basics here, we can figure this out.
Post by: mark davidson on March 06, 2009, 10:21:40 AM
I respect all of you and appreciate your opinions. Ron LeClair in particular has been an inspiration to me and has my real attention as a credible source who has killed LOTS of game with big bores and heavy charges. Many of you others may have done so as well; I just do not know it yet. I managed to whack fifteen or so whitetails in the last two seasons with a .54 with very "mediocre" results in terms of penetration and "put down and stay down." Personally, I like big bores and I am not opposed to recoil; I like performance. I figure if Ron's 200 grain load in .62 worked that great on moose then something similar has got to be good on whitetail deer and about anything else I want to shoot. I got a lot to learn but I am trying so be patient and thanks for helping.
Post by: Stryker on March 06, 2009, 10:22:47 AM
Quote from: "Wyosmith"
I use 140 gr of 3F Goex in my 62. I have killed deer, antelope, elk and moose with it. I use that charge because it shoots best. I worked up and down between 100 and 170 grains and the load of 140 shoot the tightest group.
:shock: But then again I live east of the Mississippi. The biggest dear I ever shot field dressed at 235 and the load I was using was more than enough to bring him down.
Post by: mark davidson on March 06, 2009, 02:11:33 PM
Post by: Uncle Russ on March 06, 2009, 05:33:47 PM
The lowly wheel weight is a God send for casters, and shooters.
The average BHN on WW will run an honest 11 or 12+ while pure lead "supposedly" will only yield 6...........a BIG difference.
Just my thoughts.
Uncle Russ...
Post by: jbullard1 on March 06, 2009, 05:37:25 PM
Quote from: "RussB"
I agree 100% with what Steve has said about cast round ball.
The lowly wheel weight is a God send for casters, and shooters.
The average BHN on WW will run an honest 11 or 12+ while pure lead "supposedly" will only yield 6...........a BIG difference.
Just my thoughts.
Uncle Russ...
:applaud :horse
And I can get all them I want for FREE
Just have ti clean them up and start casting
Post by: Indiana on March 06, 2009, 06:02:53 PM
Post by: Indiana on March 06, 2009, 06:04:11 PM
(http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/szihn/German%20guns/000_0189.jpg)
That's a beautiful design! I may incorporate some of that into my new 54.
Post by: tg on March 06, 2009, 06:12:38 PM
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v475/ttttg/lanc5.jpg)
Post by: Gordon H.Kemp on March 07, 2009, 12:13:12 AM
It appears we wound up talking about the killing effect of 100% pure lead projectiles to those containing alloy that keeps the expantion to a much lessor degree. I know many here also do now or have in the past been high-power cartridge rifle shooters. Before the high speed camera became a factor in external ballistics. The experimenting was on water jugs,jello blocks ,phone books, pine boards and animal flesh. Some of the pioneers in this field were Jack o'conners Col. atkins Elmer Kieth and a few other old guys. Both the goverment and ammunition producers paid close attention to what theres old guys were doing. They would have an idea about penetration and expansion and roll their own bulletsn and put it to the test ( sort of like were doing here).
Most here i'm sure know why "ball' or full copper jacket prjectiles were agreed on by the Geneva convention. The ballammo would put a soldier out of action but still do a minimum of bone flesh trama. and up untill Korea it took at least two other soliders to stabalize and remove the wounded person to an aid station. This thery didn't hold true when the n.koreans charged , they just left the dead and wounded on the field and usrd them for traction.
Sorry, I got wandering. The point I'm trying to make is , many here have different theory s as to what is the best kind of wound to inflict to put an animal down as close to the point of impact as possible.Like all subjects in black powder muzzloading we all have our own pet theroys. We are restricted more by bore capasity and the law of dimminishing returns in muzzleloadding than in modern cartridge guns This being the case we should be able to work up what suitsa us as an individual with less experimenting.
There are those of us that feel rapid expansin of the projectile will impart the greatest trama to the animal and tthis is a desireable trait. there are those who feel deep penetration is the way to go. Its my opinion that a combination of the two is best. As with the "ball" ammo used by the military the wound channel is basically the same dia. and the projectile nearly alwas exits near the same dia. as it entered. This would be the case with projectiles cast from ww or lintype. We must also take in consideration that in general we are limited in the largerbore muzzloaders to velocitys UNDER 2500 PSI. Now if we were to look up the tests done by Ed Yard and a few other researchers we will find that to try to drive a large bore muzzleloading projectile beyond this will end up destroying accy. and getting severe punishment on the butt end of the weapon. This is where balance comes into beeing a factor.We need to cast a projectie that we fell will give some expansion and deep or complete through penetration with acceptable accy.
Say we settle on stright ww lead and cast with it. the projectiles will be just slightly lighter than pure lead. We patch and lube with our favorite materials and set up our target at 25 yds. put in a moderate powder load of ,say 130grs. 2f and fire a five round group. if it looks to be good up the charge to 135grs. etc.etc. untill the groupstarts to expand. in the 62cal this may take place at 150 to 160grs. at this point drop back 5grs. and now we are going to check for penetration and expantion. Gather up all the phone books and pack them ia box back to back and fire your new accurate load into the ohone books. measure the number of books or part books it cut through. This test can also be done with pine boards but phone books are cheap. Now if you feel that the penetration is less than what you desire .Cast some more adding lintyp yo the mix and try the penetration test again.
This sounds like a lot of time and work but if you are seeking the ultimate load projectile combination than this is how its done. Remember no matter how much powder you stuff in the bore you reach a point of bore capacity or diminishing returns. Personally I like pure lead and moderate loads. If I;m looking to have a bruised body I'll get kicked by a mule.
Post by: Sir Michael on March 07, 2009, 02:12:57 AM
Anyone know where that is?
Somehow 200 gr loads in a .62 cal just seems like a waste to me. E. Baker in in the 1820's said that as a rule of thumb, 1/3 the weight of the bullet was the appropriate weight of powder. .610 ball=342 gr. (today) which leads to 110+/- grs. Also, going in one side and out the other does not equate to killing power. Consider the .45 vs 9mm handguns today, a 9mm goes in one side and out the other due to velocity but the lowly .45 goes in one side and stops transferring all of its energy to the target. (it has to get up to do anything else after being hit)
Post by: Gordon H.Kemp on March 07, 2009, 04:06:24 AM
I also have some articles by Ed yard on chamber/breech preasures in relationship to black powder loads. The preasure test barrels were made by TC. I am a beleiver in pure lead balls. lead by its very nature tends to stay together.when we start to harden it up with alloys it can shatter even on a rib bone pure lead will deflect as a unit and continue to transfer its energy as a unit. Most balls recovered lose only about 10% or less of their starting weight. In most cases the pure lead ball will travel through to the other side of the animal and be found lodged under tth skin onthe far side.This ,to me, would indicate that ALL the available energy was transfered to the wound channel
Post by: tg on March 07, 2009, 02:33:32 PM
Post by: Uncle Russ on March 07, 2009, 02:53:38 PM
Quote from: "tg"
I have always liked the 1 1/2 times the cal. for a powder charge .50 cal 75 gr powder .62 cal 90+ gr powder not heavy loads but more than enough for N.American game. at sensable ranges.
This is also something I heard many years ago when I was spending time in Texas with the Paso Del Norte Muzzleloaders.
I recall one gentlemen in particular took it on his own to take the "newer" shooters under his wing, and this 1.5 measurement was preached until they had it coming out their ears!
I think as a starter, the old rule has merit.
Uncle Russ...
Post by: Ohio Joe on March 07, 2009, 03:43:56 PM
Quote from: "RussB"
Quote from: "tg"I have always liked the 1 1/2 times the cal. for a powder charge .50 cal 75 gr powder .62 cal 90+ gr powder not heavy loads but more than enough for N.American game. at sensable ranges.
This is also something I heard many years ago when I was spending time in Texas with the Paso Del Norte Muzzleloaders.
I recall one gentlemen in particular took it on his own to take the "newer" shooters under his wing, and this 1.5 measurement was preached until they had it coming out their ears!
I think as a starter, the old rule has merit.
Uncle Russ...
I agree completely. It has always worked best for me with all my rifles. I've tinkered around with other loads but always come back to the 1 1/2 times the caliber. This might just be an old addage that was lost to history except for a few that it was passed on to and they as well passed it on.
Post by: tg on March 07, 2009, 03:58:34 PM
Post by: jtwodogs on March 07, 2009, 05:16:57 PM
Is those types of butt pads acceptable on a Hawkin. Cause me thinks thats what I want on a .62.
Post by: mario on March 07, 2009, 05:59:33 PM
I loaded my 20bore NW gun with 70gr of 3f and feared nothing in Alaska.
It is a ML .62 rifle, not a bolt action .338 Ultra Mag...
Mario
Post by: Gambia on March 07, 2009, 08:28:26 PM
Post by: Uncle Russ on March 07, 2009, 08:54:31 PM
And I gotta agree with ya ....the writing is on the wall. And has been for some time now.
The more I read of the "reasoning" behind much of this, the more I wonder how this person, or that person ever got elected if they actually believe the nonsense they're spouting off....and there in lies the root of the problem.
It's not that they actually believe a lot of this garbage, but they know that by passing this law, or that law they are getting closer to their ultimate goal, and that is to totally disarm every law abiding citizen, or fix it to where they have nothing to shoot in the guns they were unable to take away from ya.
Yep, grab what wheel weights and lead you can while the grabbing is still good.
Uncle Russ...
Post by: Sir Michael on March 07, 2009, 11:58:22 PM
Post by: jtwodogs on March 08, 2009, 01:46:40 PM
1. It will flatten out and make a total mess.
2. You will not get the penetration you would with something along the lines of wheel weight.
If you do have a source of pure lead you can make it harder by adding antimony.
I do not have it handy, but there are some good sources on the Internet for exact recipe's.
Post by: mark davidson on March 09, 2009, 10:14:06 AM
Post by: tg on March 09, 2009, 05:19:37 PM
Post by: Uncle Russ on March 09, 2009, 05:50:52 PM
Uncle Russ...
Post by: tg on March 09, 2009, 09:39:52 PM
No 'pology needed Russ, ya done 'splained it 'bout as good as it could be 'splained.
Post by: cb on March 09, 2009, 11:44:39 PM
If you purchase $99.00 + for most items shipping is free......
Post by: mark davidson on March 10, 2009, 10:20:16 AM
Post by: Uncle Russ on March 10, 2009, 10:58:16 AM
Quote from: "mark davidson"
The Hornady round balls I have been shooting flatten out like pancakes. I have only had about three in 20 come out of a deer. When I find them the ball is flat and big around as a quarter or more. I have some linotype and a bunch of Hornady lead balls. I wonder if I were to mix the Hornady balls and linotype about half and half, how do you think the new balls would perform? I think they would expand a little but be much harder and likely crush bone and still exit. Any of you got any experience with a similar mix??
Mark, There is not enough room on this forum to get into all the details of alloys in casting, but suffice to say....The short answer is because barrels aren't perfect.
The long answer is because cast bullet obturation (or bump-up) is a good thing.
Obturation is the plastic like deformation of the bullet alloy as a result of the pressure applied to the base, (or bottom) by the burning powder.....the resistance to movement of a body at rest.
By making the bullet soft enough that it can deform slightly upon firing, it does a better job of sealing the gases off behind it and minimizing blow-by and the leading that results from it.
Antimony and arsenic are the products of choice when it comes to hardening....but now we are talking about taking a hardness beyond a BHN of 20+
Trust me on this wheel weight thing. Metallurgist all agree that ww are "most likely" the best choice because of malleability, bump-up qualities, and availability.
We all have a tendency to "over engineer" about anything associated with shooting, especially casting, or running round ball.
Uncle Russ...
Post by: mark davidson on March 10, 2009, 11:49:43 AM
Post by: R.M. on March 10, 2009, 01:53:14 PM
As far as a Lino mix, it can be whatever you want I guess. I have some lino that the tin must be depleted because it only goes to 12 air-cooled. It is lino because it's still in the print form, not ingots.
You'll just have to decide what hardness you want, then experiment until you get there.
Post by: mark davidson on March 11, 2009, 10:15:48 AM
Post by: Gordon H.Kemp on March 11, 2009, 10:25:43 AM
Post by: mark davidson on March 11, 2009, 12:20:52 PM
Post by: Bigsmoke on March 11, 2009, 01:03:42 PM
I know what you mean, I consider my .62 my plinking gun. The bigger bores are for the serious work.
Pretty impressive to see a 1,800 pound bison knocked completely off its feet and rolled onto its back with a 100 yard shot from the ol' .72. Friend of mine shot an elk from about 50 yards with his .72 and he said it just literally picked it up off all 4 feet and threw it sideways.
Once again, my analogy: You can get from home to the grocery store just as well in a Yugo as you can in a Corvette - but the Yugo is a lot less fun.
Post by: mark davidson on March 11, 2009, 02:23:39 PM
Wyo, I like your information about hardness. The first question my hunting partner and I asked when we got into this BP thing was, Why is nobody using hard bullets? Evidently they are; lots of folks are it seems. Big frontal area (meplat) is what makes big bore handguns effective. Would that not also be true with MLers. It seems to me that a BIG frontal area (i.e. caliber) ball that is ALSO plenty hard would be the ultimate combination for shooting critters. Wyo, Also, a great big WOW! from me on 140 grains of 3F!! That is not a trivial charge! In fact it seems to be awfuly close to the 180grain 2F load that I have been getting ribbed about here for a day or too. :-) I bet that power factor level will cure my ills on skinny whitetail deer!!! :-)
Post by: mark davidson on March 11, 2009, 03:27:06 PM
Now, Seriously I hope my above post did not imply that I was advocating the use of LBT bullets in a MLer. That is for sure not my intent. I have actually "converted" or "bought in" to this traditional MLer thing pretty deep. I have spent well over three grand in two years on custom guns which are flintlock and round ball only so I have no interest in shooting LBTs. I just meant to note that seemingly what a big flat meplat will do for a pistol bullet performance on game, a big diameter ball should accomplish with a MLer. A ball that is both big and pretty hard should possess massive potential for wound canal and should also exit reliably for the true best of both worlds. I guess I will just have to fire up the melting pot and then slam some critters next year to see how my experiment goes. Hunting like life is a journey.
Post by: Bigsmoke on March 11, 2009, 04:29:54 PM
Even Forsythe appreciated a hardened ball in his 14 bore double rifles. In his book, The Sporting Rifle and its Projectiles, he mentioned alloying and hardening them with mercury. It is my thought that he had one of his native porters/trackers/whatever do the bullet casting for him.
That is one thing that I don't know if I would advocate doing.
I do know that a .715 pure lead round ball will pass completely through a bison neck.
Post by: FG1 on March 11, 2009, 05:06:24 PM
Post by: jbullard1 on March 11, 2009, 05:45:39 PM
Quote from: "FG1"
Steve , do you add a little 50/50 solder to the mix to get the ww to fill out mould better ? Ive had to do that with pistol and 45 rifle bullets .
Frank
I'm not Steve but I will insert my response anyway.
I run my alloys HOT and do not have a problem with filling out.
I deal with the frost finish by putting the cast balls in my Lyman vibratory case cleaner with some small hunks of steel wool and running it
My problem is with pure lead and filling the mold
Post by: FG1 on March 11, 2009, 07:43:33 PM
Post by: FG1 on March 12, 2009, 02:18:25 AM
Post by: Captchee on March 12, 2009, 09:32:17 AM
i also cast hot and have no issue with shrinking . Now frosting yes .
This used to bother me . But then a gunsmith friend of mine turned me into tumbling .
What I did was buy a cheep rock tumbler from harbor freight. 15 bucks if I recall . This tumbler has a rubber canister and needs no medium to smooth the balls . . For my 54 , I put 50-75 bas in the canister and et them tumble for 1 hour again NO medium . The bals all come out as smooth as a babies hind end . A very bright high polished grey . Much better then anything you ever saw from hornady or lyman .
As to the isssue with hard balls . I agree with steve here .
I think to often people get confused wit comparing center fire with muzzleloading . They are 2 different animals . With center fire if you re load , you have the choice of many . Many different bullet designs . Each design has its own characteristics both in flight and after penetration.. As such folks IMO get caught up in expansion. They want a projectile that expands on contact . don’t get me wrong , this is good in most cases, as it transfers the energy of the projectile . But remember with center fire rifles , you have the velocity to to off set much of the friction / drag caused by that expansion as such , a higher velocity ,added to a smaller round will produce a lot more energy.
But we shoot slower and thus use a bigger projectile . So we have the same frontal area thought flight as that center fire projectile has after contact . Ever compared an expanded , say a 30.06 170 grain boattail to a 54 cal rb ?
So now imagine if you will that same 54 cal rb , expanding even ½ the amount that the boattail did . Then take into account that the RB is inherently travailing at a much lower speed . Exspantion of the soft RB will result in loss of penetration. Where a ball of the same size wich resists expansion, will have less drag and thus carry on through .
Butas I said before . This is a trade off . When a projectile, “any projectile “ travels all the way through a target it means that it has not transferred all its capable energy into that target . A perfect situation would be for the projectile to travel all the way through but simply fall out the off side of the target . Thus having no energy to continue traveling.
So when you see these modern muzzleloading projectile touting 2000 ft lbs at 100 yards , remember that if these travel all the way through the targets , they are not transferring 2000 ftlbs into the target . In fact they may be ony transferring ½ that in some cases .
That all being said . For myself , I want very little expansion. In other words I rely on the size of the ball and the ability of that ball to hold together , breaking bone and tearing its way through and then breaking bone on its way out .
The soft ball however also has it attributes in that when place in the boiler room , it doesn need to travil all the way through . All it has to do is tear up the hart , lungs . In wich case , shot placement is the key. Relay its they key for both projectiles IMO
As to powder charges . I see no need to use heavy charges other then IF that charge give the best accuracy in your rifle .
See at a give after a given charge , adding more powder , does little . Infact if we look at the lyman charts we can see that after about 110 grains , adding more powder produces little benefit in FTLBS or Velocities
Take a 32 inch 54 cal shooting 100 grains of 2F vs. 120 grains of 2F
We see that the added 20 grains has bumped our pressure by 1400PSI but it has only yielded 39 additional ftlbs at 100 . It also only adds another 37fps . To give you some idea ast to what that is . A hammer hitting your thumb has more energy then that added 20 grains gave you . that’s marginal at best and simply not worth the added use of powder . .
Simply put , you cannot get the same damage effect from traditional muzzleloading that you do from center fires , tell such time as you raise the velocities of the projectile into the center fire realm . While you may have a larger primary wound channel , you simple will not see the same secondary wound channel caused by a high velocity , high expansion projectile
Post by: mark davidson on March 12, 2009, 11:21:38 AM
Post by: Captchee on March 12, 2009, 02:24:18 PM
Post by: rollingb on March 12, 2009, 02:45:22 PM
Post by: mark davidson on March 12, 2009, 03:25:03 PM
Post by: rollingb on March 12, 2009, 03:56:58 PM
Post by: Captchee on March 12, 2009, 04:32:31 PM
if a hole is what you want then make a hole , no issue .
but if you want a hole , then bigger is better . so go with a 1 bore and dont worry about the issue . not only will you not have to worry about tracking but you wont really have to worry about shot placment or exspantion eather . just get her done .
as to conicals . lets make this real clear . i dont chose them for penetration , i use them for shear energy of their wieght . their shear knock down power and thump
i dont need a blood trail to track game . sure its nice but ha if there isnt one ok so be it .
Tracking is a very good skill to learn . Its in demand . There is always a need for trackers with mountain search an rescue , local police departments , even guides
see for me , call it to many years in the service , if you like . but i find nothing enjoyable about killing . now i do like to hunt and i dont have a problem with killing . but if i dont feel comfortable with a given shot ,,, i dont take it . i dont care how big the animal may be . there will be another time . myself i enjoy the hunt and the challenge. So you may very well be home, way before I am . But I submit that I will be still out there enjoying the hunt long after you are home .
now im not riding you here or trying to ridicule you at all . But it just seems to me that you are trying to simply disprove what everyone is telling you . So let me tell you something as fact .as a hunter and IMO a friend .
IF you hunt long enough , you will lose game . I don’t care what it is you are using . Bow , modern rifle , cross bow , muzzleloading or muzzleloader for that mater any size you can think of in the above weapons . You will lose game .
The only way to reduce that , is to have proper shot placement . Proper control . Learn when to just say ; ahhh not good and back away . Instead of taking the risk . You do that and any of the calibers will give you good results with a RB . Forget that and you will be relying on your skill as a tracker. .
See , all , well most of us here have already been where you are now . But we were lucky enough to have someone grab hold of our ear and say LISTEN!!!
Trust me . If you do that , your going to be happy with the results you get . Be it shooting soft RB , hard lead RB or conicals .
Turn away from it and your going to find yourself floundering with the same quandrums for a very long time tell one day you find that what you were being told was true .
see no mater the weapon you chose , or the size of that weapon , it will not take the place of your skill . it cannot and will not suddenly give you knowlage that you have not learned . there is no majic bullet but for the one you use between your ears
that’s all im saying sir .
Im not bad mouthing you in any way . Just trying to give you sound advice that I learned the hard way , long ago
Post by: Mitch on March 12, 2009, 05:29:10 PM
Post by: mario on March 12, 2009, 08:33:48 PM
Mark, the thing I don't understand is that you want an exit wound, don't care about wasted enery, etc. Yet your original post was that all this energy was kicking the tar out of you.
You had a simple question and got the simple reply (use less powder).
In modern guns, I can shoot up to a .375 H&H fairly comfortably. After that, it begins to hurt. Can I shoot a .458 Mag? Yes. Can I shoot a .470 NE? Yes.
Does it hurt? Damn skippy! But if I have to use those calibers for the game I'm hunting, that's just the way it is. I don't complain about it and then complain when folks tell me to downgrade to a .338 or .375 Mag. that will get the job done without hurting.
The other thing that we haven't brought up is that the TN-style rifles weren't made in large calibers, so that buttplate is not designed to be comfotable with that kind of charge.
Just my 2 cents.
Mario
Post by: Sir Michael on March 12, 2009, 09:05:03 PM
http://www.traditionalmuzzleloadingassociation.org/forum/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=9689
80 grs of ffg and a .590 ball.
That's all I've got to say on the matter.
Post by: tg on March 12, 2009, 09:51:08 PM
Post by: Many Hats on March 12, 2009, 10:45:07 PM
From my own experance, I have taken a lot of deer in the last 45+ years with 45, 50,54,58cal. rifles and 12ga. smoothbore muzzelloading shotguns, both flintlock, and caplock. Most everyone of them went down quick. Some right where they stood, and others ran off a few yards before going down. Only one went 70 yards before dropping, and that was because I hit him a little higher then I planed to. I've used balls made from soft lead, med. hard lead, and hard lead, and didn't see a whole lot of differnce in how they went down.
Like they said above, It's where the shot is placed that counts. I don't take a shot unless I'm 99.9% sure I can put the ball where I want to put it. By doing it that way, I've saved myself a lot of tracking jobs
Just my two cents of how I do it, someone else may do things a whole other way, and come out with the same results.
How ever you do it, Good Luck with your shooting, and have fun with it.
Post by: mark davidson on March 13, 2009, 09:27:29 AM
Mario: The "energy" is not hurting me. It is the darn pointed Tennessee type buttplate that is the problem. I will follow the advice here and move it out on my arm a bit to solve that problem or I will simply round and smooth that top point so it won't dig into my shoulder as much.
I sense a tad of frustration here on both sides, mine and many of yours. Actually we are beating a dead horse and going in circles.
Captchee, I appreciate your post. I am not at all offended and would not be even if you were poking a little fun my way. I too feel a strange cyber friendship and I know all of you mean well for me and have actually helped me a lot.
I am not at all new to hunting; killed my first deer with black powder well over two decades ago. I'm well over a hundred kills and recoveries with traditional bows, recurve and longbow, so let's not question my tracking skills OK. Debunk #2- I am not an impatient newbie who is likely to take the Texas heart shot just to shoot a deer with a gun.
The "shot" I take and the "patience" issue I seem to be questioned about.....It's like this. With a real gun, and a MLer is a real gun, inside 100 yards with no obstruction I expect to take a quartering to or away or broadside shot. It is that simple. I want to place a ball in the front crease of the shoulder quartering to or behind the shoulder quartering away or dead through the shoulders on perfect broadside if I so choose and have the darn projectile come out!! Now is that too much to ask?? With soft Hornady balls I have simply not had that happen. I have stepped up in caliber to .62 with a little heavier ball and I am willing to up the powder charge to a perfectly acceptable and safe charge of 140 grains on up to 180 or more of 2F depending on what my gun shoots best. Now one more time, men, what exactly am I doing that is so "newbie" so "funny" or so "non-traditional" here that seems to put me on the opposite side of the table from you all's way of thinking?? We've questioned my shooting skills, my hunting skills, my tracking skills, my sense of ballistics...... Am I the only one on here shooting a .62 cal. gun? Am I the only one out there that really wants the bullet to come out?
Finally, can we respectfully drop the hyperbole of "why don't I just shoot a cannon with wheels on it or a nice black powder nuclear device" and just answer my question? :-)
Post by: Riley/MN on March 13, 2009, 10:48:03 AM
Quote from: "mark davidson"
Now one more time, men, what exactly am I doing that is so "newbie" so "funny" or so "non-traditional" here that seems to put me on the opposite side of the table from you all's way of thinking??
Okay to add more opinion (in case you haven't received enough) it is this:
Quote from: "mark davidson"
I expect to take a quartering to or away or broadside shot. It is that simple. I want to place a ball in the front crease of the shoulder quartering to or behind the shoulder quartering away or dead through the shoulders on perfect broadside if I so choose and have the darn projectile come out!!
I think the ML hunter should be shootin out the lights (heart/lung) and not trying to bust through shoulders. That being said, from what I have read you should be able to obtain your goal with a combination of harder balls and heavier charges...
Quote from: "mark davidson"
Am I the only one out there that really wants the bullet to come out?
Nope, and that is why I am trying to "magnumize" a b'ar load for my rifle. Don't want to lose another one...
Post by: mark davidson on March 13, 2009, 12:53:20 PM
Post by: cb on March 13, 2009, 04:46:17 PM
IMO if you still prefer a Flinter I'd set up yourself up with an Express Rifle (Steve should know how) in 16 bore (.69 caliber 1/70" twist for large powder loads??) and rather than a half-stock Hawken I would suggest building it as a late period English Flint Rifle - see pictures below for examples.....the top one is .75 caliber
(http://www.wrtcleather.com/1-ckd/firearms/english-rifle-4.jpg)
Flat buttplates for heavy loads, halfstocks, Nock patent breeches - IMO the ultimate in historically correct Big game rifles....
Post by: jtwodogs on March 14, 2009, 11:11:44 AM
Quote from: "Wyosmith"
Just and an addition here.This point was well illustrated on Myth busters were the took a collection of guns all the way up to an including a .50 bmg.
I used to hunt with an old man when I was a teenager. He shot an old original rifle. I flinter that was none too reliable. It didn't always fire as the lock as not too good. But he sent the barrel in to the shop and we re-cut the bore and the rifling, and it was quite accurate when it would fire. He and I hunted together 4 times. He killed 2 deer with it. Both good sized mulie bucks. It was cut to a 45 caliber with a 1-48 twist. He used a 45-70 shell as a measure and shot G-O 3F powder. He used WW metal for the balls and dropped them in a bucket of watter out of the mold. .440s I believe.
Now, the point of the post;
He killed two nice bucks when he was hunting with me and both buck fell within a very short distance of where then were hit. Both had through and through wounds! Both were hit in the lungs.
Now I have seen and even shot deer in the past with 50s 54, and 58 cal guns that didn't fall or die near as fast as old Doug's deer did when the balls didn't go through.
As I already said, Randy, Mike, Lon, Debbie and Brad all have had the same experience as I have . So have about 10-12 otehr men I have guided in the years past.
A flattened ball that doesn't go through is not NEAR as effective as round one that does. Also flat balls (disks) don't' always penetrate straight in the animal. I have also seem conicals veer off radically in game.
Getting the bullet through the INSIDE is the point. Getting to to hit them "where they live" is what it's all about.
In my experience (which is fairly considerable), and in the opinions of men that shot many thousands of animals in the last century, hard balls are far better then more powder.
It is an interesting fact (and it is a fact, not an opinion) that a 58 cal ball (.565') of pure lead will not penetrate as well in an elk or a deer if it's shot with 120 grains of powder as it will with 65 grains of powder. Why?
The load with 65 gr. doesn't deform the ball on impact, and the ball goes through and goes pretty straight along it's first path. It's not so fast that it flattens.
The one with 120 grains turns into a disk and makes a shallower wound and the wound channel is almost never straight, so sometime you hit hear and lungs, sometimes you get part of the vitals and sometims you get mostly meat and muscle, and you never know how it's going to go.
If you harden the lead you get a straighter wound, so you can know where it's going to go
Nuf said
Shooting them into a pool within 3ft. of water all projectiles including the .50 cal disintegrated into shrapnel, except for if I can remember correctly and old sharps 45.70 round someone correct me if they saw this and I am wrong. Which was traveling at a comparative slow velocity to the modern rounds, the .45 is the only one that did not get turned into "Shredded cheese". I may be off on the actual specifics of the guns, but it was obvious that the slower moving projectile penetrated a fluid medium more efficiently, then the faster ones, for whatever that is worth
Post by: flintlockmdj on April 09, 2009, 03:41:33 PM
Post by: mark davidson on April 14, 2009, 09:48:54 AM
Post by: flintlockmdj on April 14, 2009, 12:15:11 PM
Post by: mark davidson on April 14, 2009, 01:58:35 PM
Post by: Three Hawks on April 14, 2009, 03:22:08 PM
Quote from: "mark davidson"
This past weekend I put a new set of sights on the .62 I have and sighted it in. I used 140grains of 2F with PRB for every shot. Honestly the recoil was mild enough. My first impression was that it was not that different from 100grains in my old .54. I just as a newcomer to all this do not see all the "ooooohhh" and "aaaahhhh" over 140grains of powder. On up to and maybe above 200 grains is not uncommon. 80 grains in a .62 is a toy load, a plinking load and not something I would consider for confidently killing anything but paper. JMO :-)
I'm going to stir up a mess here, but from reading this thread, you are not looking for information, you're looking for confirmation.
This is still a more or less free country, shoot the load you like.
Three Hawks
Post by: Sir Michael on April 14, 2009, 08:21:04 PM
http://www.traditionalmuzzleloadingassociation.org/forum/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=9689
Also early on you talked about getting good big exist wounds. I must have grown up in very different hunting community because I was taught to do as little damage to the animal as possible and take it down quickly. One shot one animal.
You kill it you pack it out. Just because you can see it doesn't mean you have to shoot at it.
(Every ounce of meat was valuable and if you didn't kill it you didn't eat it during the winter which lasted a full 9 months or more. Also adrenalin doesn't taste very good.)
Post by: Loyalist Dave on April 14, 2009, 10:38:26 PM
LD
Post by: mark davidson on April 15, 2009, 10:21:11 AM
Post by: Voyageur on April 15, 2009, 11:25:36 AM
Post by: mark davidson on April 15, 2009, 12:13:49 PM
Post by: rollingb on April 15, 2009, 12:43:24 PM
When working up a load, there is a point where an increase in the powder charge is out of proportion to any further increase in velocity, and that "point" is refered to as the "POINT OF DIMINISHED RETURNS".
,.... in order to find out where that point is,... one MUST use a chrony and "punch" some paper,... because accuracy often starts to suffer BEFORE a load's "PODR" is reached.
I've been a dedicated hunter my whole life, but I'd have a poor idea of what my load (and rifle) is actually doing, IF I didn't punch paper also.
Mark,.... tell me this,.... what "increases in velocities" are you getting from each additional 10 gr. of powder over and above 140 gr. in your .62?
If you're chronigraphing your loads, I'm sure you're seeing much less of an increase in velocity, as powder is still being increased.
I'm gonna guess (from the results I've personally seen with my .54 and .58 caliburs) that your increased velocity will probably be somewhere in the single digits before you reach a max load of 200 grs in your .62.
Personaly,... I consider any load that's past it's "PODR",.. to be less accurate and a waste of good powder.
Post by: Bigsmoke on April 15, 2009, 01:07:36 PM
As I recall my .62 was in the 1400 + fps range with 135 grains, which is my target load. For each 10 grain increment, there was a definite increase and it (I) maxed out at 200 grains at about 2,000 fps, depending on the powder used. Pyrodex Select gave me a slight edge (2004 fps) on GOEX Cartridge (1,994 fps). This is with true Forsythe style rifling of 1:104, .006 deep, narrow land, wide groove in a 32" barrel.
Again Mark, what is the rate of twist on your rifle?
Post by: rollingb on April 15, 2009, 01:17:07 PM
...., do you remember what your powder charge was when the velocity "increase" started to taper off (PODR) with your particular barrel?
If you settled on 135 grs. as your "target load",... is that because that was the "most accurate" charge for your particular barrel?
Post by: Bigsmoke on April 15, 2009, 02:43:34 PM
1. If I hadn't moved, I would just meander out to the shop and look up that info. However, I think it is stored securely in a storage locker in North Idaho, along with a whole bunch of other stuff. For some reason, the top end figures stayed in my mind, probably because I found it interesting that the Pyrodex would provide a slightly faster MV than the real thing. Even more amazing was the testing I did with my 8 bore rifle where it beat GOEX Ffg by 90 fps with the maximum charge I had settled on of 300 grains. This gave me cause to think that Pyrodex was more efficient, the larger the bore of the gun. I talked to the good folks at Hodgdon and they hadn't a clue, as no one there had tested anything that big. Just an interresting little side factoid.
2. See above, don't really recall, but it seems that I was getting somewhere in the neighborhood of 50-075 +/- fps increase with each additional 10 grains.
3. Yes, I did a whole afternoon shooting on the bench, testing various loads and lubes and patches and came up with a one hole group at 25 yards with 135 Grains Ffg, .610 round ball, OxYoke .015 dry patch lubed with Ol' Thunder and RWS musket caps. I have found that over 150 grains in any of my big bore guns, the patch starts to suffer severe burning and for the heavy charges, I use an OxYoke 20 ga lubed cushion wad between the powder and the PRB. Over 135 grains, it started to open up a bit, to the point where I think I was getting about a 1 1/2" group with 200 grains. That would still be minute of elk at ranges I would shoot, but not good enough for target work.
One of these days I will get back up to my storage locker and reclaim all my stuff. Will do some more testing when I get the chronograph back too. Until then, I just have to rely upon a faulty memory.
Post by: mark davidson on April 15, 2009, 02:44:08 PM
Post by: Uncle Russ on April 15, 2009, 07:30:56 PM
I have, over the years, found a few oddities me own self! :?
Uncle Russ..