proper load for BP revolvers?


PDA






Clark2
October 20, 2006, 11:03 PM
Hi all-

I have a question that seems extremely basic, but despite hours reading back posts / other sites I have yet to find a satisfactory answer to. The question is what is the proper amount of BP to use? I own a new army reproduction (the cheapo 44's from Cabelas). No brass on the firearm except around the trigger (i.e., not structural). I've read all manner of load types, such as:

(1) "no more than 30 grains of FFFg." Note that this load + ball does not even come close to filling the chamber.

(2) "fill the chamber full, and squash the ball down onto it." I expect this would be far greater than 30 grains, perhaps close to 100, but not really sure [never tried it].

(3) "ensure that after the ball is loaded, it sits ~ 1mm below the surface of the cylinder." I don't know how many grains this would be, but I expect it would be near 80-90 [again, never tried it].

So given this, what is the proper load? Personally, I shoot it in the 20-30 grain range [depending upon on the mood], however, it's never sat well with me. In particular, I'm tempted to load it up to (3) above. However, before I "go there", I thought I'd ask what people's thoughts were on this?

thanks,

-Clark

If you enjoyed reading about "proper load for BP revolvers?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
pohill
October 20, 2006, 11:17 PM
30 grs of black powder FFFG is plenty for a .44 caliber. You won't gain anything going too much higher than 30 grs. I've experimented with putting Cream of Wheat or cornmeal over the powder to raise the ball, but gave that extra step up after seeing no advantage. I've put Crisco and/or Bore Butter over the ball, lube pills over and under the balls; I like a lube pill made of beeswax and paraffin over the ball. Just make sure there's no dead air space between the powder and the ball.

ribbonstone
October 21, 2006, 12:43 AM
30gr. of FFg and a fully seated round ball (one below level) would be a fair load. That's a bit more than the bare minimum but less than the maximum the chamber will hold.

That chamber probably wouldn't hold much more than 45-50gr. WITH NO BALL AT ALL. With a ball, fair compression of powder, and the ball seated a bit below flush, something close to 40gr. would be a max-max. Anything less than 20-24gr. and the rammer won't seat the ball deep enough to correctly compress the powder. So call it 26gr. to 33gr. as an easy to load standard load (and 30gr. is pretty well in the middle of that range).

Tommygunn
October 21, 2006, 12:48 AM
I doubt you will ever get 80-90 grains of BP in a Remington .44. As Pohill said 30 grains is a good load. I suspect it might top off at 35 grains. If you can't seat the ball below the front edge of the cylinder it's absolutly too full.
You won't be able to crush the powder down a lot. Blackpowder works well when it's compacted a little, and also keep in mind as Pohill said, there should be NO AIR between the powder and the ball.
Did you buy the gun new? It should have instructions. I've purchased Cabela's and they even print their own instructions for it, and as well include a manufacturers' version (usually Pietta.) There's a lot of good info there and you should read them; they'll tell you the basic loads.
You generally can't overload the revolvers, unless you overfill it like I said earlier and then the cylinder will jam as it rotates. However, if you underload it then you acquire a problem with airspaces. THAT shouldn't happen.

Plink
October 21, 2006, 07:22 AM
The best load for your gun is whatever is most accurate in it. That's never the max load. My 1858 .44's get 22-25 grains 3F with a wad over the powder. Also, you don't benefit much from really heavy loads in a short handgun barrel either. The barrel can only burn so much. The rest just burns outside the barrel where it contributes nothing to velocity, nor accuracy. It just causes more fouling.

Clark2
October 21, 2006, 01:54 PM
Thanks all for the replies thus far. By the way, for the record, yes, I read the Cabelas documentation closely. My question is more "academic" than practical. I'm trying to reconcile statements (that exist even in the manufactures documentation) about loading enough BP such that the ball rests just below the surface of the chamber, and load no more than 30-35gr. When I load 30gr of powder into the chamber, the ball rests perhaps 1cm below the surface, not 1mm.

Note also, that if you read threads on this board (such as the "use BP as a self defense gun?"), you'll see people mention loading the chambers completely full of BP and then smashing the ball onto that. This is going to be much more than 35gr of BP, and before I attempted it (even if it's pointless, as it wont add to the velocity of the lead), I thought I'd query everyones thoughts on the matter.

Oh, and personally, I find my 5 1/2" barrel BP pistol is most accurate with an even lower load (about 20gr). I have another pistol with a 7 1/2" barrel and that one shoots straighter with a higher load (30). This generally matches up with what you all have been saying about load enough BP such that weapon is accurate, and no more.

thanks for your replies,

-C

mec
October 21, 2006, 01:59 PM
Most commercial flasks for the .44s have spouts that throw 28 grains of Goex fffg. this probably comes to 30 grains of swiss fffg as it is denser. Its a good, usable charge with black powder or pyrodex and generally very accurate. It will allow use of an over powder wad if you want to use one.

gmatov
October 22, 2006, 03:33 AM
The rest just burns outside the barrel where it contributes nothing to velocity, nor accuracy. It just causes more fouling.

Plink,

If it burns outside the barrell how does it increase the fouling?

35 and even 40 grs will fit into the Rem, and be compressed to clear the ball.35 will shoot flatter, so you won't cry that my front sight is too high, too low, whatever.

I would like to see anyone here who owns a 22 rifle buy a box of "Standard Speed" 22s, or 22 shorts and go shoot them. They ain't, anyway, gonna hit at the same vertical point with the Hi-vels. Velocity is king, BP OR smokeless.

Same goes for low powder BP loads, except, with BP, you are STILL pushing the same load, in 44 cal, 142 grs, and a little powder, which counts as ejecta, at say 600 FPS. The ball will shoot high, as the recoil, though less than with a higher powder load, is actually higher in elevation, as the ball is still in the barrell for a longer period of time. The pistol is pointed higher when the ball leaves the barrell.

40 grs, you touch off, CRACK, the ball is gone before the pistol has recoiled much, the barrell risen to the stars. It ain't nuclear physics.

Cheers,

George

pohill
October 22, 2006, 10:52 AM
Not so sure about that one, George. You're saying that the ignition time of say, 30 grs, is is the same as 40 grs? It seems reasonable that 30 grs total or the FIRST 30 grs of 40 grs total would burn at the same speed, which means that if there were 10 more grains to go after the initial 30 grs in a total of 40, the barrel would be in the same elevation, with 10 grs more ignition to follow to raise it even more.

drdirk
October 22, 2006, 12:06 PM
If you are a new shooter, your time should be spend to having FUN at first and worrying about the best load for accuracy later. I would start with "a sprout full" of powder. As somebody pointed out, that is about 26 gr. In my opinon a very good starting load. So, use that load and experiement more with your loading procedure, wad, no wad, crisco, borebutter, round ball sizes, conicals etc. Eventually you will get good at it and THEN you can change the load. Remember, in order to get the most accuracy, you have to have to do everything exactly the same way. Most important, develop a good loading procedure that works for you and in your climate. For example, using borebutter in the Texas summer is pretty much IMPOSSIBLE! Way too hot, the stuff just runs all over the place! So, go out there, have a cup of coffee with you and have FUN!

Plink
October 22, 2006, 07:10 PM
George, it all lights inside the barrel, and most burns there too. But the barrel can only efficiently burn so much before the ball is clear. The rest finishes burning outside the barrel and hasn't really contributed much to the shot besides increased fouling.

Heavier loads do produce more velocity until they get to the point where it's blowing a lot of unburned powder out, but they're usually not nearly as accurate. If I was using the gun for self defense, I'd be using maximum or nearly maximum loads, but for target shooting and hunting, the most accurate load would be my choice, hence the lighter loads.

gmatov
October 22, 2006, 11:04 PM
Pohill,

The pistol starts to recoil when the ball starts to move. Simple law of physics, action/reaction.

Yes, I guess I am saying the ignition time is almost exactly the same for both weights, of the same powder.

To go to Mec's book, his table on the New Army shows 28 grs of Swiss 3f at 959 fps, 35 grs at 1089 fps.

If you want to say only half the powder burns inside the chamber and barrell, you still have more powder burning with the heavier load, so you have higher velocity, AND, yes, the load IS burning at about the same speed. The ball exits the barrell at near 15% faster for the larger load. If it leaves the barrell faster, the barrell would have risen less, the ball would be traveling to the target from a lower angle of exit, as well as flying faster and, hence, with a flatter trajectory.

http://thunder-ridge-muzzleloading.com/Bill%20Knight.htm

Excellent article by Bill Knight.

Here's a snippet about diminishing returns, where you up the charge to the point that the extra powder does not increase the velocity equally to the increase in powder charge ( As to Plink's claim that you would get more fouling with the higher charge.)

"Using the same TVM test rifle another round of testing was set up. The 2000 production Elephant showed a point of diminishing returns at 60 grains in the .45 caliber. That means that when the charge is increased over 60 grains the gain in velocity is less than with the charge increases below 60 grains. The testing was done with an adjustable powder measure that throws 100 grains weight of water at the 100 setting. So the setting will indicate grains charged thought that would not be the exact weight of powder charged. The exact weight was taken from a graph prepared by graphing the setting verus actual weight of powder. The actual weight charged then being used in the calculations.

Measure Recovered
setting bore fouling

40 2.5% of the original charge weight as recovered bore fouling.
50 2.6% of the original charge weight as recovered bore fouling.
60 2.4% of the original charge weight as recovered bore fouling.
70 2.3% of the original charge weight as recovered bore fouling.
80 2.3% of the original charge weight as recovered bore fouling.
90 2.5% of the original charge weight as recovered bore fouling.
With 2.43% being the average. (Compared to 2.5% on another day.)

The data shows that above 60 grains (the point of diminishing returns) there was no marked increase in bore fouling. At least not by weight. But what then did the old information indicate or refer to?"

I don't know, would you agree that you get no more fouling with a larger charge than with a smaller charge? After all, the larger charge has greater velocity of the ball AND the propelling gases.

Read the rest of the link and you will see that the gases leave the barrell so quickly that a vaccuum is formed that immediately sucks air, and moisture back into the barrell.

Plink,

Actually, "overbore" applies to smokeless more than to BP. BP burns almost instantaneously, deflagrates, is actually considered an explosive. A fast burning smokeless powder is hazardous. You HAVE to stay near published max. A slow burning smokeless, you can go "overbore", stay within the pressure limits and spew unburnt powder out the muzzle.

BP, you ain't gonna do that. It's all gonna burn, detonate. Back to the chart above, 50% higher charge, the same amount of bore fouling as the original charge, nay, 125% of the original 40 gr charge.

It's all academic. Still, the OP could try as high as 40 grs of powder, if he would like to. It is generally regarded as a safe load in the new BP Rems.

If you can ram it to clear the forcing cone, it is shootable. Although it is true that a gentler load MAY be more accurate, depending on your OWN pistol.

Cheers,

George

pohill
October 23, 2006, 12:49 AM
"The pistol starts to recoil when the ball starts to move. Simple law of physics, action/reaction."

Considering action/reaction, why would a barrel rise and not just go straight back in the opposite direction of the exiting bullet/ball, in proportion to the amount of the charge? I'm thinking of the cannons on old sailing ships - didn't they jump backwards when fired?

Tommygunn
October 23, 2006, 01:03 AM
Considering action/reaction, why would a barrel rise and not just go straight back in the opposite direction of the exiting bullet/ball, in proportion to the amount of the charge? I'm thinking of the cannons on old sailing ships - didn't they jump backwards when fired?

Handgun barrels rise because the axis of the barrel is above the hand. The cannons on those old ships were on wheels and basically the only way the recoil force could take them would be back. I believe they usually chocked the wheels to prevent this, though, but I may be wrong.

gmatov
October 23, 2006, 01:44 AM
Tommygun is partially correct, the pistol barrell is above the center line of the pistol, so it WILL kick upward.

As to the cannon on ships, yes, they also kicked upwards, they were also tied to the gunnels, whatever you call the side of the ship, by block and tackle. If the ropes broke, the guns would recoil and flip over backwards, crushing the crew.
The only firearms I can recall seeing with a straight axis of the bore to the stock is the "handgonne" from Ulricht Breschler's site. A barrell socketed to a lance, straight back thrust.

IF you tied it to a lance, a staff, and the barrell was above the staff, recoil would be upwards. If you had the barrell below the staff, the recoil would be downwards.

I would imagine the "squeeze pistol" and "palm pistols" also kicked straight back.

Cheers,

George

Plink
October 23, 2006, 08:40 AM
40 2.5% of the original charge weight as recovered bore fouling.
50 2.6% of the original charge weight as recovered bore fouling.
60 2.4% of the original charge weight as recovered bore fouling.
70 2.3% of the original charge weight as recovered bore fouling.
80 2.3% of the original charge weight as recovered bore fouling.
90 2.5% of the original charge weight as recovered bore fouling.
With 2.43% being the average. (Compared to 2.5% on another day.)

Just as 90 grains is more than twice the weight of 40 grains, 2.5% of the original charge weight of 90 grains is more than twice as much as 2.5% of the original charge weight of 40 grains. This is about the same as my results also. My comments come from my own personal observations with muzzleloading rifles and pistols, along with a few revolvers, rather than anybody's reports or charts, so YMMV.

Just in my own non scientific shooting, I've found that by doubling charge weight, you get about half as many shots before cleaning. In handguns, shooting across a chrono shows that increasing charge weight 50%, say from 30 grains to 45, the increase in velocity is in the neighborhood of 10% or so, depending on gun, barrel length, projectile, etc. At the same time, you get about 1/3 less shots before needing to clean.

Again, this all depends on too many variables to count and only represents my own results. For more feedback on this, I suggest exploring some of the larger muzzleloading forums where such data is compared by many members. Your own results are the best indicator though.

Deflagrate: to burn rapidly with intense heat and sparks being given off.

Detonate: to explode with sudden violence.

Black powder does indeed deflagrate. It burns at approximately the same speed in open air as it does in the barrel. Pressure doesn't have the same effect on it that it does on smokeless powder. Black powder is considered an explosive because it does burn so fast in open air. It doesn't need compression or a shock wave for it to burn fast enough to cause damage by overpressure. It doesn't detonate in open air unless extremely large amounts are involved. Even some of the largest black powder plant "explosions" weren't true detonations, rather than a large amount of powder deflagerating.

Smokeless powder burns much slower in open air, and is considered "flammable", as it's not likely to do anything but burn quickly if ignited. Under pressure inside a cartridge it burns faster and generates higher pressures. Neither "detonate" under proper operating conditions.

If smokeless powder is subjected to an overpressure situation in a cartridge, it can possibly detonate. When it does, destruction of the gun and possibly injury to the shooter is the result. Oddly enough, faster powders, such as used in handgun cartridges, have a detonation pressure far above what could normally be achieved, even with a stout overload. When a handgun blows because of an overcharge, it's usually caused by a simple overpressure condition in excess of the gun's design limits, rather than a detonation.

The slower powder of a magnum rifle, has a much lower threshhold of detonation though. Considering magnum rifle rounds operate at much higher pressures than handgun rounds, they operate closer to the detonation threshold. An overcharge of only a few grains is sometimes enough to get into those dangerous pressure areas. It's not uncommon to have a magnum load operating in the 60,000 PSI range on powder that has a detonation pressure of 70,000 PSI.

Actually, a simple test that has been used for a very long time is to shoot over snow, or a sheet. When you start exceeding the ability of the barrel to burn all the black powder, you start finding it on the snow/sheet. The more you exceed it, the more unburned powder you find. I don't understand why it doesn't light in the firestorm of the bore, but you can collect it and light it and it will ignite, so it's not fouling.

It's all academic. Still, the OP could try as high as 40 grs of powder, if he would like to. It is generally regarded as a safe load in the new BP Rems.

If you can ram it to clear the forcing cone, it is shootable. Although it is true that a gentler load MAY be more accurate, depending on your OWN pistol.

If you can fit the powder into the chambers on a revolver, you can shoot it. It's hard, if not impossible, to overload modern repro revolvers and perhaps even originals. The Big Iron Barrels folks offer chamber deepening to increase the space for more powder. Each gun has it's own preference for loads. My own revolvers don't like charges near maximum, but all of my rifles have two sweet spots. A very accurate spot at about half maximum, and another, somewhat less accurate spot at about 80% or so. Makes for nice versatility. An accurate target load, and a suitable hunting load.

mec
October 23, 2006, 09:32 AM
The really noticeable changes in point of impact come when you switch between bullets and ball. The bullets weigh more and generally hit several inches higher on target even though they are usually going slower. Balls of the same weight hit fairly close to the same point of impact across a range of velocities. One writer summed it up by saying that you wouldn't notice any increase in elevation using the same bullet until you increased velocity by about 50 fps. even then, the difference isn't great. I usually find that switching from goex fffg to pyrodex p doesn't really alter the point of impact even though the pyrodex loads are usually about 100 fps faster.

pohill
October 23, 2006, 10:11 AM
I might be getting into a very technical area, but ballistics intrigues me. Mec, does the extra weight of the bullet compared to the roundball cause more recoil with the same powder charge? Why else would they hit higher? (the implication being that the barrel rises more). Or am I way off?

arcticap
October 23, 2006, 01:01 PM
The heavier bullets, burning the same powder charge as the lighter balls, would create more pressure (but not necessarily more velocity) since they wouldn't initially move as easily from their resting place, thus more felt recoil.
However, I wouldn't think that the additional recoil is the only reason for the higher impact on the target. Theoretically IMO, if the gun was put in a machine rest and fired, the trajectory would still be [slightly] higher with additional powder and the conical. Although in reality, the recoil might also be a contributing factor. An increased powder charge may cause the conical (with a longer bearing surface) to spin that much faster and increase it's RPM's traveling through the rifling and cause the trajectory to rise without recoil [muzzle rise] being an issue.
Another contributing factor may be the "head spacing" of the projectile in the cylinder, the distance it must jump to engage the rifling. I personally believe that how close a fired bullet is located to the rifling when it begins its journey down the barrel can sometimes affect whether identical bullets will impact slightly higher or lower on a target at a given distance, or will shoot into a more or less accurate group.

Low Key
October 23, 2006, 01:19 PM
Here’s a physics fact that will screw with your mind. :D Vertical velocity as induced by acceleration due to gravity is entirely independent of horizontal velocity. Now to explain that.

Lets say that you fired a 140 grain round ball from a revolver at, lets be ridiculous and say 3000fps, exactly horizontal, and at the exact same moment that the ball left the barrel…you drop a 140 grain round ball from the exact same height. Which one hits the ground first? Both! They both start with 0 vertical velocity and gravity pulls both downward at the same rate. How fast either is moving in the horizontal plane doesn’t matter at all. Think on that awhile…:confused:

:D

mec
October 23, 2006, 01:55 PM
"Mec, does the extra weight of the bullet compared to the roundball cause more recoil with the...."

I've heard it explained as longer barrel dwell time for the heavier/slower bullets making the bullet exit higher in the recoil curve. I really don't know for sure. I have seen it in action though. A 180 grain 30-06 will hit a couple of inches higher than a 150 grain at 100 yards respective velocities being 2700+/ 2900+.

On the other hand, a couple of remington load in a Smith 27 eight shot hit to the same poi with identical sight(scope) settings at 25 yards. These were a 158 grain load at mid 1300s and a 125 grain load at 1500. I seem to remember my ballistics calculator gave them the same recoil impulse and velocity. Not sure about that but I do know the recoil felt the same from both loads.

pohill
October 23, 2006, 01:56 PM
That's a good one, Low Key, and once I wrapped my mind around it, it makes sense. Gravity doesn't give a crap about how fast you're going. Yo goin' down, sucker.

MEC: so the recoil curve for a given charge is the same no matter what ball/bullet size you use...interesting.

Low Key
October 23, 2006, 02:18 PM
The way I understand it, a gun doesn't actually start its recoil until the bullet actually leaves the barrel, :confused:. It has to do with inertia, the bullet has a certain amount of inertia that has to be overcome to get it moving down the barrel. The inertia of the bullet is inconsequential compared to the inertia of the gun itself. What are the hot expanding gasses of the burning powder pushing against?

Only the bullet until it leaves the barrel, then the hot gasses release all that built up pressure out the muzzle like a jet engine and you get the recoil. Heavier bullets recoil more because it takes them a fraction of a second longer to exit the barrel and that allows the internal pressure to build to a higher level so that you get a stronger "jet" as the bullet passes the muzzle.

confused yet???

:)

Steve499
October 23, 2006, 07:20 PM
So, how many angels are line-dancing around on the head of this pin, anyhow? I can't see well enough to say for sure. All I know is if I'm shooting a fixed sight handgun and it shoots low, a heavier bullet ALWAYS hits higher at pistol ranges for me with no sight modifications. I had higher impacts from 148 grain target wadcutters than 125 grain .357 silvertips from the same pistol. I don't know for sure but the .357 loads were not too far from being twice the velocity of the wadcutters and still impacted lower. Maybe that's not the norm but it has held true for me in every case I've tried. But then, of course, there's that shifting of the earth's magnetic field which happens frequently when I'm shooting. Makes me miss!

Steve

mec
October 23, 2006, 07:45 PM
not to mention the rifling twist struggle with or against the coriolis effect depending on which hemisphere you are in.

Plink
October 23, 2006, 08:14 PM
I might be getting into a very technical area, but ballistics intrigues me. Mec, does the extra weight of the bullet compared to the roundball cause more recoil with the same powder charge? Why else would they hit higher? (the implication being that the barrel rises more). Or am I way off?

Pohill, you're correct. There's also the issue of increase dwell time in the barrel as the heavier bullet takes a little longer to exit. Mostly it's due to increased recoil though. Recoil begins the instant the bullet begins to accelerate down the barrel. A heavier bullet imparts more recoil to the gun as it travels down the barrel, making the bore slightly higher when it exits, than a lighter bullet does, even if the lighter bullet is driven faster. Kinda interesting when you consider the faster bullet generally has less drop, yet shoots to a lower point of impact.

Low Key
October 23, 2006, 09:17 PM
Here's something else to confuse you, :) at what point in the ballistic arc is the bullet traveling when it hits the target? Is it on the rising portion of the arc, at the top, or in the falling portion of the arc?

:rolleyes:

Dang! Ask a simple question! :evil:

Smokin_Gun
October 24, 2006, 01:22 AM
Variables would be caliberweight, distance, gun, andshooter. As a BP sidelock .50 with 60gr of ffg Goex hits the same point of aim and of impact at 25 yds. going up as at 100yds commin' down. Other statistics may very. Calulating, and practice come into play with each shooter and gun. That's why it is said shoot what load works best for you.
In my opinion...

pohill
October 24, 2006, 01:35 AM
"at what point in the ballistic arc is the bullet traveling when it hits the target?"
Well, if the gun is perfectly level when fired, and the bullet leaves the barrel traveling on what would be a straight line if it kept going, then, due to gravity, the bullet would be dropping as it hit the target because it could not rise above the straight line of fire...it starts to drop as soon as it leaves the gun.
So, where does the idea of an "arc" come into play?

Tommygunn
October 24, 2006, 02:17 AM
Assuming the line of sight is horizontal to the pull of gravity, the bullet will (IMHO) rise above the line of sight, and then descend again through it. I believe the point(s) where it intersects the line of sight is "point blank" -- atleast the first one is, IIRC. As the bullet describes this trajectory, it is also describing an arc, due to the laws of ballistics.
It therefor does not drop as soon as it leaves the barrel (in my scenario above). It's describing an arc, as it's actually being shot at a small upard angle.
If the barrel of the weapon IS exactly horizontal, THEN the bullet will begin to fall as soon as it leaves the barrel.

Plink
October 24, 2006, 08:12 AM
"at what point in the ballistic arc is the bullet traveling when it hits the target?"
Well, if the gun is perfectly level when fired, and the bullet leaves the barrel traveling on what would be a straight line if it kept going, then, due to gravity, the bullet would be dropping as it hit the target because it could not rise above the straight line of fire...it starts to drop as soon as it leaves the gun.
So, where does the idea of an "arc" come into play?

The bullet never rises above the bore line, but it does rise above the sighting plane. If we didn't set up sights that way, the bullet would drop constantly from the muzzle out and we couldn't hit anything. The "arc" is the trajectory of the bullet in relation to the sight plane.

That's the fun part of shooting. Determining point blank range, and impact at a distance. :)

Low Key
October 24, 2006, 10:16 AM
AHA!! Now I’ve got you thinking about what is going on when you fire that shot and why do heavier bullets hit in a different spot on the target. And you’re on the right track and close to the answer.

You are actually coordinating a complex series of variables when you fire a shot. The weight of the bullet, powder charge, angle of the muzzle at the instant the bullet leaves, all of these things figure into where your shot is going to hit the target.

So lets say that the barrel is exactly parallel to the horizontal when the bullet leaves the muzzle. Does the bullet travel in a straight line? No, it falls in an arc towards the ground as it is pulled downward by gravity. This is why our sights are oriented such that the muzzle is pointed slightly upwards…so the bullet follows an upward arc, then tops out and finally falls downward.

Most handguns have the sights set in such a way that your bullet is still on the rising portion of its arc of travel when it impacts your target. Lighter bullets move faster than heavier ones (with the same powder charge) so the lighter bullet reaches the target quicker and has not risen as far into its arc of travel…the heavier bullet moving slower takes longer to reach the target and has risen farther into it’s arc of travel so it hits higher on the same target than the lighter bullet.

;)

sundance44s
October 24, 2006, 10:26 AM
Being a reloader it didn`t take me long to think it out ..i sighted my remmies in with cap and ball and when i use a 45lc drop in conversion cylinder i load my cases with the 200 gr bullets to get the same POA . The heavyer bullets like the 250 gr will change things ..Probally wouldn`t matter much in a SASS type shoot .. but i shoot small targets at much further ranges .

Shawnee
October 24, 2006, 10:36 AM
Right on, MEC! That happened to me last week and practically broke my azimuth! Limp't roun hyar fo two day !!!

gmatov
October 24, 2006, 11:13 PM
Low Key,

"Lighter bullets move faster than heavier ones (with the same powder charge) so the lighter bullet reaches the target quicker and has not risen as far into its arc of travel…the heavier bullet moving slower takes longer to reach the target and has risen farther into it’s arc of travel so it hits higher on the same target than the lighter bullet."

Sorry, that isn't so. With the same powder charge, the lighter bullet not only exits the barrell more quickly, going faster, but also recoils less, overall, and is gone from the barrell before the barrell has risen very much FROM that recoil.

Also, moving faster, period, it will have a flatter trajectory. As Smoke says above about his smokepole, if you have it sighted at 50 yards, it will cross the line of sight at maybe 15 yards, rise some more and cross the line of sight again at your 50 yard target. (I haven't run this through a ballistic calculator, yet. Just off the top of my head.)

Your heavier, slower ball will take longer to exit the barrell, but recoil starts at the moment pressure starts to build, MORE pressure, because of the inertia of the heavier ball, more recoil because of the greater resistance to moving, pushint the pistol, with the barrell above the center of the mass of the pistol, MORE rise in the muzzle before the ball leaves the barrell, hence, if the pistol was sighted in with the lighter load, the heavier ball would hit higher.

If both balls had the same trajectory, which they won't ( a light ball goes fast, but also slows down more from wind resistance, a heavy ball doesn't go as fast but will bull through the wind and wind up farther down range.)

Here's a simplistic calculator, 10 years old, but just click on the yellow box "Ballistic Trajectories", and click in some numbers in the fields. Try 300 metres per second for your "light ball", nearly 1,000 FPS, at 5 degrees, and 250 MPS, about 800 FPS at 10 degrees ( It doesn't allow 6 or 7 or 8 degrees) for the "heavy ball". Let's assume the 5 deg. is the barrel's angle for POA with the light ball, including recoil, and the 10 deg as the extra recoil from the heavy ball, even at lower velocity. Look at the graph.
This exercize is with cannon, and he does not say what weight ball, nor can you substitute ball weights, so it is not a true representation.

Oh, well, let me try my Barnes program and see what I can display.

The link" http://www.cs.utah.edu/~zachary/isp/applets/Cannon/Cannon.html

Cheers,

George

Low Key
October 25, 2006, 01:00 PM
Hey George, I hope you’re doing well.

18 years ago when the formulae were fresh in my mind, I would have run the math to see what is actually happening. I was an A student in high school and first year college physics, but honestly I’ve forgotten the math and don’t have time to re-learn it as I’m very busy with work and studying for a certification exam. I have a gut feeling that we are both right about this, but only conceptualizing it in different ways.

So let’s think about what is happening in the barrel before the ball exits. Powder charge is lighted and begins to burn creating hot expanding gasses, the ball in front of the powder charge doesn’t have enough friction against the chamber walls to contain those gasses so the ball begins to move forward as the pressure behind it increases. At this point, we have a moving ball with pressure building behind it. The gasses are pushing against the back of the cylinder and against the ball itself and the inertia of each one is in play with the ball weighing about 140 grains and the revolver weighing in the ballpark of 21000 grains. The revolver possesses much greater inertia than the ball, so there is a minimal effect on muzzle rise. Does it affect point of impact on the target at this point? I don’t know if the effect on muzzle rise is great enough to have any discernable effect…maybe it does, maybe not.

So the ball is moving down the barrel and the pressure of the gasses expanding behind it keep accelerating the ball. A 140 grain ball has less inertia than say a 200 grain conical so it will accelerate quicker than the 200 grain conical and will spend less time in the barrel. Keep in mind that pressure is still building behind the projectile until it exits the muzzle and it is this release of pressure that generates the major portion of the recoil. Heavier ball spends more time in the barrel so the pressure level rises higher, therefore there is more recoil. So maybe the initial push of starting the ball raises the muzzle some, is it enough to affect point of impact? I’ll say maybe, but I’ll still stand behind my earlier statements about ballistic trajectory after the ball leaves the barrel also. So maybe both factors cause the heavier projectile to hit higher on the target. I can’t say 100% sure, but this is my best guess.

Thanks for making me think about that in more detail George, It was fun!
Have a good one!
:D

pohill
October 25, 2006, 01:26 PM
Let me toss this out...
The ball in a BP revolver begins to move when the powder explodes, ignites, burns, etc...As it burns, ignites, etc further, more gasses are built up and the ball is pushed against with more force as it continues down the barrel...
Here's my question...
If that same charge of BP was contained in a cartridge, does the explosion (ignition, whatever) continue as the bullet travels down the barrel, or is the ignition all over by the time it (the bullet) leaves the cartridge?

sundance44s
October 25, 2006, 03:07 PM
All the way out the end of the barrel .. longer barrels will produce greater fps than shorter barrels in cartrage and cap and ball.. shoot some B/P cartrages at night and you`ll still see 3 ft of flame out of the barrel end .

pohill
October 25, 2006, 09:28 PM
So, a BP cartridge and a cap and ball with the same charge create the same force? I've never fired a BP cartridge, but I figured it would have a sharper recoil.

gmatov
October 26, 2006, 03:09 AM
Not only BP, but smokeless will make a big assed flash of fire. The first I can think of off the top of my head are the Smellies, the Short Magazine Lee Enfield, the .303 British, especially the Jungle Carbine. Flash supressor, the thing on the end with all the side ports.

Before that, a smokeless rifle still put out one hellacious ball'o fire. Take your own 22 out at night and see if it does not make a little ball o' fire. Take your '06 out and see if you don't get a big assed ball o' fire.

You heat air hot enough you will ALWAYS get incadescence. You have heated the air in and around the exit of that barrell to make a fireball. That means with BP or with Smokeless Powder..

Low Key,

The gases expanding AFTER the ball has left the barrell have nothing to do with the flight of the bullet. The barrell could, and sometimes do, point straight up in the air after you shoot a really powerful pistol. That is just the reaction from pushing a 300 gr ball out the barrell at say 1500 FPS. Just because the ball has left the barrell does not mean that the energy created moving that ball quits once the ball leaves the barrell.

You had 2 1/2 pounds or more of pistol moving in response to all that energy. The ball might be gone, but the pistol is still gonna keep moving. You can't stop 2 1/2 pounds of metal from moving just because the force has stopped.

It still has mass in motion, it's gonna keep rising till your arm muscles can control it and the force stops.

Ah, ****,

I just went to reread your reply.

No, what you are saying is like an opposed piston engine, both in the same plane, both confined, both balanced.

A pistol is different, as is a rifle. You don't say we measure grs of bullet, times velocity X time, and say we can make a recoiless rifle or pistol.

You CAN. You can either accept a very low velocity or vent the exhaust, as in "recoiless rifle", almost a rocket./Hell, even a .22 rifle has felt recoil, and if you watch your kid shoot one, you will see that the rifle DOES rise in recoil.

What's the ratio, weight of ball, velocity, weight of rifle, tell you there?

And if you tell me that that half inch rise in the barrell is not taken into consideration when sighting in a .22 rifle, hey, you better go shoot some more. It absolutely DOES.

Cheers,

George

gmatov
October 26, 2006, 03:14 AM
Pohill,

Watch that.

From what I have read, when Colt made the '73, they could not sell the standard load that a C&B took in the cartridges, They kicked too much. They cut down to 25 or 30 grains BP for the cartridge.
Which stands to reason, if you consider they had a smaller volume of cartridge case than chamber in a C&B.

Also, the cartridge was loaded with cartridge powder, which was not sold to BP, C&B shooters, too coarse for C&B.

Cheers,

George

Low Key
October 26, 2006, 08:55 AM
Hey George,
I think you misunderstood me. What I was saying is that the Major portion of recoil occurs when the ball leaves the barrel and the built up pressure inside the barrel is released. This is the actual "kick" that you feel that raises the muzzle straight up in a powerful gun. I wasn't going for recoil-less pistols or rifles, just saying that I think muzzle rise doesn't really begin to any appreciable degree until the instant that ball leaves the barrel.

:)

Plink
October 26, 2006, 07:46 PM
Low Key, most of the muzzle rise occurs after the bullet has left. I'd assume it's because of the mass of the gun taking more time to react to recoil forces, than it takes time for the bullet to leave. However, the gun does begin to move backwards and up at the moment the bullet begins to move. This is why a heavier bullet shoots higher. It doesn't move much alright, but enough to change point of impact. Luckily for us, that movement is consistent enough that we can adjust the sights or our point of aim and hit the same spot regularly. This is also why a consistent grip is important. A tighter or looser grip between shots effects this movement differently and affects accuracy.

gmatov
October 27, 2006, 03:47 AM
Mike,

Are you the former MEC?

You're right. It is not the "Rocket" effect of the bullet being gone, it is just that the ball IS gone, and force is still being applied, AND, you have 2 1/2 or 3 or 4 pounds of pistol that have been subjected to 8 to 30,000 PSi of pressure leaving the barrell.

Just because the main resistance, the ball, is gone, does not mean that the "kick" that the firing has initiated is going to stop that 2 1/2 or 3 or 4 pounds of steel is going to stop dead. It has momentum and will keep moving.

I would wager that if you put ANY pistol in a cradle, unrestrained, and sighted in to shoot a 50 yard bull, you would hit the bull, BUT, the pistol would flip out of the cradle. NO restraint.

Double the charge, double the weight of the ball, it would STILL hit the bull, though it would fly out of the cradle even more violently.

In either case, you would have to sight in with no restraint, no gripping the "handle", strictly a pistol laid down in a cradle. This is no greater difference than a limp wristed shooter and a weight lifter. The "free" pistol will shoot as closely as the one held by the weight lifter.

Cheers,

George

sundance44s
October 27, 2006, 08:33 AM
The reason the cartrages feel more powerful than the cap and ball is because the bullets fired from the cartrages are much heavyer than the balls fired cap and ball . If you load a .454 round ball on a brass cartrage ( which i have makes a good target load) the power is the same , and much less recoil than with 200 gr bullets .

Low Key
October 27, 2006, 10:12 AM
you have 2 1/2 or 3 or 4 pounds of pistol that have been subjected to 8 to 30,000 PSi of pressure leaving the barrell.

Yes, thats the force that I am saying is causing the major portion of recoil...the sudden release of the pressure that has been building behind the ball. Blow up a balloon and then turn it loose, you have gas under compression being suddenly released, the baloon goes flying...same concept as the recoil in a pistol or rifle. Shoot a powder charge with no ball and you get basically no recoil because the gasses of the burning powder charge have nothing there to restrain and compress them... ie no pressure build up to be released suddenly.

:D

mec
October 27, 2006, 10:42 AM
"Mike,

Are you the former MEC?"

Nope.

gmatov
October 28, 2006, 04:48 AM
Mec,
He kinda sounds like you, smarts, if you will. I haven't read much from you, recently so thought mebbe they cut you off for being too smart, with all us numbnuts, here.

Glad you're still here. You might have noticed I do refer to your book on occassion to try to prove a point.

When is the new book due?

Cheers,

George

Sundance,

I think you may be right. I DO know that the loads were reduced because all them rough tough cowboys complained that the cartridge pistol kicked way too much. I don't recall any burst guns to make them reduce the load. You have a smaller chamber, because of the case, a heavier ball and, what do you get?
Something like a 44 mag load, or a Walker load, which, when men were men, was the cat's meow.

Get to the 70s and the wimps cried that their wrists hurt when they shot them big bad loads.

Low Key,

No, again, I gotta tell you, when the ball has left the barrell, there is nothing but inertia, the pistol kicking from the reaction of pushing the ball out the barrell , and still moving, even after the resistance, the ball, has left the barrell.

IF you COULD fill up the chamber AND the barrell with powder, and cap that chamber, AND fire that chamber, you would have a BIG fireball, but you would have almost no recoil. You would have some. You could take your old highschool physics and calculate the recoil, 70, 80 90 grs of powder, 21,0000 grs of pistol, and get a 1/4 inch of muzzle rise.

If you could get a 300 gr ball into the chamber, you would get even more muzzle rise, and it would take even longer to leave the barrell and would hit even higher on the target, just because the pistol recoiled so much that by the time the ball left the muzzle you just might be pointing up at 30 degrees.

With the same powder charge it would not go as far as either the 140 or 200 gr balls, but would lob that ball to the target, if you shot it enough TO sight in with that ball.

Once again, there is little to NO "rocket" effect to a pistol OR a rifle shot.

IE, a 140 gr ball, 40 grs powder, total 180 grs ejecta, 200 gr bullet, 240 grs ejecta, 300 gr bullet, 340 grs ejecta, no ball, 40 grs ejecta.

Run this through your computer. No ball, 502.5 times the pistol mass compared the powder mass. Hard to move that.

140 ball and 40 grs powder, 180 grs ejecta, 116 times.

200 plus 40 powder, 240 grs ejecta, 87.5 times.

300 gr ball, 40 grs powder, 340 grs, 62 times.

The heavier the ball and the load is, the more it will recoil before the ball has left the barrell.

A big fat heavy moving ball will "lob" in, but, they will hit, and they will shrug off crosswinds.

Go shoot some of these heavy balls. You might be surprised that you can now hit things 100 yards away when you couldn't, before. Heavier balls are more stable, when put through a rifled barrell, than are light balls. Of course, to go to heavy balls, we are talking "bullets", as a ball can only be so heavy and still be round, be a "ball".

Buy a bullet mould, get into some longer range shooting with your short range C&B revolver. They AIN'T short range pistols, just we are handicapped by using round ball for longer range shooting.

Have fun at this stuff. Don't take everything you read as gospel. Everybody here seems to think 15 yards is an excellent range to shoot at, the more adventurous go to 25 and brag about 3 inch groups. You can shoot farther, as Wayner does, across the lake and hit pinecones. (Well, mebbe Wayner is shooting a flock of pinecones, but still...)

They ain't pieces of ****. Too many here and elsewhere have said they will shoot right along with their Glocks. (Mebbe Glocks, at 5 or 600 bucks are pieces of ****.)

Cheers,

George

mec
October 28, 2006, 08:33 AM
new book coming along. not sure when i'lll put it all together.

Low Key
October 28, 2006, 02:00 PM
Buy a bullet mould, get into some longer range shooting with your short range C&B revolver. They AIN'T short range pistols, just we are handicapped by using round ball for longer range shooting.

Have fun at this stuff. Don't take everything you read as gospel. Everybody here seems to think 15 yards is an excellent range to shoot at, the more adventurous go to 25 and brag about 3 inch groups. You can shoot farther, as Wayner does, across the lake and hit pinecones. (Well, mebbe Wayner is shooting a flock of pinecones, but still...)


I do cast my own roundballs and I recently bought a mold for a 220gr conical bullet. I'm getting into a little bit of longer range shooting. I do 15-25 yards in my backyard a coupel of times a week and when I go to the local range, I've lobbed a few shots out to 110 yards...still working on my accuracy at that range so I won't brag about my group size at 110! :rolleyes:

All this stuff is fun, the shooting, the figuring out how everything works or is supposed to work, and even the disagreements can be productive. Good info George, Have a good one and have fun shooting.

:)

gmatov
October 29, 2006, 01:17 AM
Low Key,

Hey, you have fun, too. There ain't much more fun that you can have that is still legal, and is so cheap to do.Problem is that up here in the NEast, it's gettin' cold, hard for an old man's fingers to cap a C&B nipple.

Gonna have to load and cap at home, have I think, 5 Rem cylinders, 6 you count the 36, and 3 Colts. 64 rounds is one thing when you are loading at the range, an afternoon, almost, if they are all loaded, mebbe half an hour, no fun, to me.
Last trip to my range, a fellow shooter says, y'know, this is the 22 rifle range? 25 yard.

I says, what the hell, this is the only set of butts in the club that has loading benches. What do 22 shooters need loading benches for?

The pistol range has a 4 inch hand rail around it. How'na hell do you load a C&B on a 4 inch hand rail? A shooting situation, OK, you could do that laying on your back under a bridge. Shooting to try for group, not body hits, you want to try for consistancy, same load chamber after chamber.

Ah, well,

Cheers,

George

Low Key
October 29, 2006, 07:36 AM
5 cylinders and cold weather, I say load em up at home the first round, shoot em dry and then go back to the front seat of the car for a reload session, then back on the line and shoot em dry again! :)

Did some shooting myself yesterday, we had cold wind blowing and that makes it hard on a young mans fingers when capping a nipple, lol! I did manage a 2 in group with 30gr pyrodex p/vol...thats the accuracy load my revolver likes best.

Stay warm up there George,

Clark2
October 30, 2006, 01:52 AM
Thanks everyone for their extensive replies.

But, let me simplify the question...

How many of you have ever loaded the chamber completely full with BP and ball, such that the ball rests ~ 1mm below the surface of the chamber? I think that pretty much sums up my question.

thanks,

-C

gmatov
October 30, 2006, 02:12 AM
Clark,

All it has to do is pass the forcing cone, no matter how much powder you can fit into the chamber.

If the cylinder rotates, you are within the load. Shoot it!!!

Low Key,A young man's fingers? You puppies still got circulation, should be warmer fingers than mine when it gets below 40 degrees F.

Less we get a warming spell, probably done till Spring.

Have fun, Bud. Think I will sleep in.

Cheers,

George

Low Key
October 30, 2006, 08:48 AM
Clark,

I've done that with my 1858 Remington, loaded the chamber full and then compress the ball down on top of the charge. As george says, all you have to do in seating the ball is clear the forceing cone so the cylinder will rotate and you're good to go. It will be easy to do with pyrodex p or H777 but you will have problems with real bp if you try this because pyrodex and 777 will compress easily and real bp will not. BP will compress only so much before it stops compressing and you can't force the ball down on it any further. 40gr is my max with real bp and I can do 45 gr with pyrodex p and still get the ball completely seated...this is with no wads or lube pills, only powder and ball. Have your gun checked over by a COMPETENT gunsmith before trying max loads like these...you need to be absolutely sure that your gun is sound.

mec
October 30, 2006, 09:09 AM
Results with two revolvers. Measure calibrated for Goex fffg. The swisss powder is denser and actually weighs more than indicated. 40 grains of goex/ball is a full chamber. Swiss is heavily compressed to make it fit and puts a strain on the loading lever.

velocity extreme spread
Remington
35 Grain Swiss FFFg 1089 33
40 Grains Swiss FFFg 1104 37
40 Grains Pyrodex P 1125 35
*35 Gr/Vol. H777 1061 28

Colt 60 Army
35 Grains Swiss Uberti 1031 48
Same Load Different Day 1020 34

40 Grains Goex FFFg 992 34
40 grains Goex FFFg with Wonder Wad 942 30
40 Grains Swiss FFFg 1042 49
40 Grains Swiss FFFg with Wonder Wad 1055 80

sundance44s
October 30, 2006, 10:02 AM
Mec thanks for the figures i don`t own a conograph .. and i like to see the numbers .. I`ve done a lot of testing shooting into old phone books ..cap and ball 44 ca. can be pretty impressive .

Low Key
October 30, 2006, 10:08 AM
http://www.firearmexpertwitness.com/customguns/calcnrg.html

Run the numbers through this calculator, you'll find some interesting results.
The fast pyrodex velocity and a 143 gr ball yeilds nearly 402 ft/lbs of kinetic energy...pretty impressive, nearly equals the .45 auto in ft/lbs if I remember correctly.

:)

gmatov
October 30, 2006, 09:26 PM
Mec,

I think we hit the wall, with "diminishing return" at the 35 to 40 gr loads.

Mebbe an abberation with the 40 GOEX no wad showing higher by 50 fps than 40 with wad.

1,000 fps is impressive by any standard for a BP pistol.

To what would you attribute the higher velocities with the Rem as to the Colt, tighter cylinder gap? I know mine have a smaller gap than my Colts do.

Cheers,

George

hildo
November 2, 2006, 04:39 PM
Interesting to view this topic.
I also think it is very plausible a heavier bullet will hit the target higher than a light bullet, with the identical load, because the muzzle has already started to rise before the bullet has actually left the barrel. Since the heavy bullet will cause the gun to recoil more, and is also slower than a light bullet, it seemes logical the heavy one hits higher.
At the moment the bullet starts moving, the barrel starts rising.

Now I have something about recoil based on my own, limited, experience.

@Gmatov
You said in your thread on 28th of october: "IF you COULD fill up the chamber AND the barrell with powder, and cap that chamber, AND fire that chamber, you would have a BIG fireball, but you would have almost no recoil. You would have some."
and
"Once again, there is little to NO "rocket" effect to a pistol OR a rifle shot."

I understand that you are saying that shooting without a bullet will have hardly any recoil.
Couple of months back I bought a .69 model 1777 charlesville flintlock musket.
I had no correct size bullets at that time but was eager to shoot it.
Loaded it with 100 grain ffg and a piece of toiletpaper (to keep the powder in the rear of the barrel)
Bang! Hardly any recoil.
Since there was hardly any pressure build-up (without the bullet) I loaded the musket with 230(!) grains and again with some toiletpaper.
Bang! Based on the experience of the previous shot I hardly expected any recoil but it pushed me actually a bit of balance.
There was very noticebly more recoil with the 230 grain than with the 100 grain bulletless loads.
My conclusion is there definately is a 'rocket effect' when shooting without bullets, so there should be some when you shoot with bullets as well. Although it may be minor when compared to the recoil that the bullet itself produces.
Am I correct, or do I overlook something?

Plink
November 2, 2006, 06:03 PM
There's definately a rocket effect. The effectiveness of muzzle brakes at reducing recoil by diverting gas pressure away from the bore line proves that.

It's a lot milder with a black powder gun than with higher pressure centerfires though. I've fired heavy black powder blanks and got a stout push too. You need to remember though, that the powder's weight is factored in to recoil. It adds to the total ejecta weight whether there's a bullet or not.

gmatov
November 2, 2006, 07:24 PM
Plink's right. It isn't so much a "rocket effect" as it is pushing over 1/2 an ounce of ejecta, the powder, out the barrell. The powder has less inertia, unrestrained as it is, without a ball.

If you loaded 80 grs powder, and a 150 gr ball, you'd have more felt recoil because the ball would be one piece as far as inertia goes. Still 230 grs of ejecta.

Blanks have an overpowder wad, I don't know how heavy, to help confine the pressure and allow a more complete burn within the barrell, or you'd have a pitiful bang. Try it with your C&B revolver, 1 chamber of powder, an overpowder wad, felt or fibre, and I'll bet you won't get much of a "push" or a "bang".

Cheers,

George

hildo
November 3, 2006, 08:30 PM
This really makes me think.

Pushing the weight of the powder out of the barrel (bulletless shot) would explain the recoil. Right?
But is it not so that the powder burns, maybe even most of the powder in a long barreled musket, so there is hardly weight left that comes out of the barrel?
Except ofcoarse the pressurized gasses that developed in the barrel from burning BP, but gas has not much mass.

My guess is the pressurized gasses come flying out of the barrel, hitting the air on the inside (and outside) of the barrel, which forces the gun to travel the other way. The recoil.

A a NASA rocket works simular since a rocket is basicly nothing else but a very long lasting controlled explosion where no unburned fuel is thrown out of the rocket. Maybe if you would shoot that bulletless blackpowder gun in outer space it would not recoil at all since there is no air. It seemes a NASA rocket works in outer space since it pushes itself along because the gasses flying out of the rocket push against molocules of the rocket's own exhaust gasses.

A toy rocket, the kind filled with blackpowder that is ignited by a fuse, will burn it's BP load slowly as well and it will fly upwards until the BP is all burned. This is also a controlled and slow 'explosion' (sort of recoil). I do not think it would push much unburned BP out of the rocket since such a rocket is designed to maximize it's flight and unburned fuel would not be efficient. When all of the BP load in a toyrocket would explode all fuel would probably not be burned (an inefficent rocket) and, say it would not blow up, it probably would not fly very high...

Therefore my guess is that there is more rocket effect in a gun with a long barrel than effect from the powder being pushed, unburned, out of the barrel.

Indeed. Shooting my Dragoon with 50 grain and a wad does mot make much recoil. Neither did my musket with 100 grain and toiletpaper. The musket shot with 230 grain / toiletpaper made a lot more recoil.
I think it made even more recoil than the maximum of 2.3 x that would be expected. Exponential increase it is called I believe?
Would this be logical as well?

What do you think?

Tommygunn
November 4, 2006, 12:35 AM
Maybe if you would shoot that bulletless blackpowder gun in outer space it would not recoil at all since there is no air. It seemes a NASA rocket works in outer space since it pushes itself along because the gasses flying out of the rocket push against molocules of the rocket's own exhaust gasses.

"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

That is how rockets work -- inside or outside an atmosphere.
If you fire a BP revolver in space, the same exact principle applies.

Plink
November 4, 2006, 07:14 PM
Hildo, matter doesn't just disappear. :)

The weight of powder, becomes the same weight in gasses. It doesn't matter if the fuel is burned or unburned, the weight of the ejecta is the same.

Also, gas velocity has a lot to do with it. The faster the gasses exit, the harder the push. That's the basis of "rocket effect" right there. It's also why centerfires are more powerful even with their smaller charge. The charge contains more energy, the gasses are hotter and expand faster, etc.

gmatov
November 5, 2006, 04:01 AM
Hildo,
I am not a "rocket scientist".

That said, if you fired that "blank" in space, yes, you would feel and see the recoil. Objects in a no gravity situation have no weight, but they do have mass.

If you were to eject 230 grs of BP from a barrell, you would definitely get a kick out of it. The same principle is used with the "rocket packs" the astronauts use for maneuvers outside the space craft. A few ounces of fuel burned to make a jet of force to move them to where they want to go.

The toy rockets with BP are not the same, they do not use the same burning rate powder. Not an instant burn, more a controlled burn, as to speed. If it all burned at once, or nearly so, as in a BP pistol or rifle, it would go so high, and no more. If it is a controlled burn, of long duration, ejecta is being reacted against till the powder, the propelling charge, is exhausted. It is pushing all the way.

Similarly, a fast burning smokeless powder has a sharp, short, pressure wave. It reaches maximum pressure in a short time. A slow burning powder is building up pressure the length of the bore.

That would be closer to the model rocketry. The more finely divided the powder, as in BP pistols, the quicker the burn rate. Compact it, as a solid, as in rocketry, and it will burn from the end up till it is all exhausted.

Read this link. Bill Knight. 45% of the powder is gases, 55% is unburnt solids, ejecta. http://thunder-ridge-muzzleloading.com/Bill%20Knight.htm

You actually have the equivalent of a 125 gr or so ball as the ejecta. AND, since the powder is not confined, as with an actual ball in the barrell, to allow a fuller burn, maybe evn more.

So, yes, you would have felt recoil.

Cheers,

George

If you enjoyed reading about "proper load for BP revolvers?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!