Need infor about this pistol


PDA






zimmerstutzen
April 14, 2012, 08:39 PM
50 caliber, 1 in ATF, a drum and nipple hangs down under the barrel and a plunger moves backward against the nipple when the trigger is pulled. The plunger is cocked by pushing the knob forward. Trigger pull is about 2 lbs.
There are no marks whatever on it. No dovetails for sights, but the top flat is grooved for a scope or red dot.

http://i672.photobucket.com/albums/vv85/longcaribiner/IMAG0119.jpg

http://i672.photobucket.com/albums/vv85/longcaribiner/IMAG0121.jpg

http://i672.photobucket.com/albums/vv85/longcaribiner/IMAG0120.jpg

The seller said it was made by Fulton Arms in Fulton, Michigan, but I can't find any information about any such maker.

If you enjoyed reading about "Need infor about this pistol" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
BCRider
April 14, 2012, 11:29 PM
I can't help you on the history of your gun. But I gotta say that it's about as simple a design as anything I could ever dream up.

Seriously, it has the look of a very low production cottage industry specialty target shooting gun. That's not to say it's crude. THe craftsmanship is evident in the details. Just that it's a very simple design that suggests a sole craftsman making a few for himself and to sell.

72coupe
April 15, 2012, 01:11 PM
Nice looking gun. How does it shoot?

kwhi43@kc.rr.com
April 15, 2012, 01:55 PM
They have "Red Dot" pistol matches at Friendship, but I don't think anybody
would use a 50 caliber. Probably it is for a scope, or red dot for hunting.

J-Bar
April 15, 2012, 06:17 PM
Curious about that short a barrel versus powder charge...

What would you experts estimate would be the maximum powder charge that such a short barrel could burn completely?

arcticap
April 16, 2012, 01:56 AM
Traditions lists recommended target & maximum loads for .50 pistols with both round balls and conicals on page 5 of their sidelock manual.

http://www.traditionsfirearms.com/cmsAdmin/uploads/PercussionFlintlock_manual.pdf

arcticap
April 16, 2012, 02:32 AM
Curious about that short a barrel versus powder charge...

What would you experts estimate would be the maximum powder charge that such a short barrel could burn completely?

The following formula was posted by the Muzzle Loading Forum member named paulvallandigham.
I don't know if this formula was ever found to be accurate.
When I performed the calculations based on an ~11 inch barrel, the answer is 24.83 grains of powder.

The formula for determining the maximum amount of powder that will burn in your barrel using a PRB is 11.5 grains per cubic inch of bore. or Pi R Squared) times 11.5 times the length of the barrel in inches. R equals the radius, which is 1/2 the diameter of the bore. Use the caliber designation of the rifle for the bore diameter, and divide by two. Then multiply that number by itself to square it, then times 3.1416, then times 11.5 then times the length of your barrel in inches. That last figure is the maximum amount of powder that can be burned in that barrel length for that caliber. The larger the diameter of the bore, and the longer the barrel, the more powder can be burned.

This formula does not mean you can stuff more powder in the barrel. It only means that relative to the weight of the round ball, the amount of powder that can be burned inside that length of barrel is the figure indicated by the formula. Everything else is burning in front of the muzzle and adding little to the velocity of the ball. It does, however, add to the recoil forces in the gun, some of which are dissipated by the weight of the gun, and the shape of the stock, and the rest hits you in the arm or shoulder.

The maximum amount of powder a barrel will burn is based on a formula, which is 11.5 grains of powder per cubic inch of bore. To find that out, first divide the bore diameter( .54) by 2, to get the radius. ( .27) Then Square the radius( .27 x .27 =
.0729.) Now, multiply that number by " Pi "(3.1416 x .0729= .229.) Now Multiply that number times 11.5 grains( .229 x 11.5 = 2.634) Then multiply the number times the length of your barrel. ( example, 32 inch barrel is: 32 x 2.634 = 84.288 grains.((85 grains for our purposes.)).’’

Skinny 1950
April 16, 2012, 04:15 AM
It looks like a very rare gun.. possibly a one off project. I would doubt that the brass plate that contains the blast from the cap is original to the piece. The dovetail front barrel mount and rear nipple drum screw are a good idea because you would need to clear the passage to the breach often.

Ryden
April 16, 2012, 07:29 AM
That's an interesting formula Articap
It tells me I can increase my musket charge by 130 gr before I start wasting powder.

Do you have coefficients for other types of bullets as well?

J-Bar
April 16, 2012, 08:42 AM
Thanks, Articap, and thanks to Mr. Vallandigham, for sure.

24.83 grains, eh, ...now I gotta look for a way to measure blackpowder in hundredths of a grain!!

zimmerstutzen
April 16, 2012, 09:56 AM
I believe in that formula (The Davenport formula) as a way to estimate a place to start testing loads, but it has some limitations, It doesn't take into account, powder variations, projectile weights, and a few other things. It definititely skews off the mark for very large bore guns and very small bore guns. For the average gun between 40 and 50 caliber, it works pretty close to a good target load.

whosyrdaddy
April 16, 2012, 01:52 PM
Everything else is burning in front of the muzzle and adding little to the velocity of the ball.

The problem with theoretical formulas is that they don't always bear out in real life. According to this formula a .54 cal barrel 12" long should see little velocity increase with a charge greater than 32 grains.

The following info came from a table in the T/C Arms manual for the Scout Pistol and Carbine found on their website. This clearly indicates that charges over 32 grains continues to yield significant increases in velocity up to and including the max recommended load of more than three times the theoretical number.

For Use With .54 Caliber
Thompson/Center Scout Pistol
.015" Patches Lubricated with
Maxi-Lube or Natural Lube 1000 Plus.
Use No.11 Percussion Caps.
.54 Caliber Pistol
Black Powder &
Round Ball Loads
.530" Diameter
Lead Ball
Weight (Grains)
Black Powder
Charge (Grains)
Muzzle Velocity
(Feet Per Second)
Muzzle Energy
(Foot Pounds)
230 Grain
Lead Ball
60 grs. FFG 1137 F.P.S. 660 Ft. Lbs.
70 grs. FFG 1322 F.P.S. 893 Ft. Lbs.
*80 grs. FFG 1489 F.P.S. 1132 Ft. Lbs.
90 grs. FFG 1585 F.P.S. 1283 Ft. Lbs.
100 grs. FFG 1670 F.P.S. 1424 Ft. Lbs.
110 grs. FFG 1738 F.P.S. 1543 Ft. Lbs.
*This Load is Recommended For Optimum Accuracy & Performance

hang fire
April 16, 2012, 04:01 PM
Need infor about this pistol

Its the little brother to this rifle.

http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/attachments/powder-keg/24155d1248678128-54-bullpup-bullpup3.jpg

junkman_01
April 16, 2012, 04:08 PM
I don't think I would be wanting to lay my cheek directly on the chamber area of the barrel to shoot the thing! After the first shot it will be hot.

barstoolguru
April 16, 2012, 04:20 PM
looks like a modern black powder that uses nipple caps

junkman_01
April 16, 2012, 04:33 PM
There's no foolin' you! Duh!

zimmerstutzen
April 16, 2012, 08:10 PM
Whosyrdaddy: TC's figures for the Scout are the most optimistic ballistics figures I have ever seen. Some of their figures beat full length rifles. And swince they don't give figures for lower charges, we'll never know how it bears out.

And as said before, it isn't that more powder doesn't increase velocity. It is velocity per grain of powder. (if I screwed with a Toyota Prius and put nitro methane in it < I;ll bet I could reduce gas mileage.) The formula is not about the ridiculous efforts to achieve smokeless velocity with black powder. It is to calculate something close to a target loads for most guns.

It has nothing to do with hot loads for hunting etc,

Don't try to make it into something it is not. The Scout has a different ignition system as well, more akin to an underhammer with the fire from the nipple going directly into the powder unlike the convoluted twists and turns of the TC hawkens breech plug.

Why not point out something more similar to most pistols, like the figures given for the TC Patriot pistol. Oh that's right, it bears out the formula! Max load of 35 grains. Most efficient load as determined by ft/sec per grain of powder, 20 grains.

frontiergander
April 16, 2012, 09:14 PM
Just to add the big daddy to Zimmers pistol,

Heres my .50 Bullpup
http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm53/thepowerbeltforum/Bull%20Pup/DSCN3496.jpg

BCRider
April 16, 2012, 09:33 PM
Hang fire and frontiergander.... so these would be tactical percusion muzzle loaders then.... :D The only thing they don't have is the tacticool black paint and a set of quad rails around the forend.... :D

So come on you two. Let's have the info on who makes 'em and the other particulars. And how they shoulder and what it's like to shoot them.

Then I need one of you to send me their rifle so I can use it at the next Mountain Man Monthly at my club. The looks on the faces when something like THESE come out would be priceless.... :D

zimmerstutzen
April 16, 2012, 10:28 PM
Prairie River Arms, Ltd was incorporated in Princeton Ill. in 1996 and filed dissolution in May 2006. However, the name Prairie River Arms is still an active name owned by L.W. Schneider, Ltd, a firm that makes modern rifle parts.
It is likely that the guns were made between 1996 and 2006. Maybe a prototype or two before that.

I vaguely recall seeing pictures of these bizarre rifles in a Gun Digest, or muzzleloader yearbook of some kind.

All that being said, I remember years back at Tidewater Muzzleloaders in Davidsonville, MD, Ron Griffie and Pat Miller and some of the others would design some truly strange buck rodgers looking muzzle loaders. I have a rifle made in Philadelphia PA in the 1860's that has a similar striker that is hit by a box lock hammer which pushes the striker rod forward into the nipple which is located under the hollow barrel shell and is attached to a short 28 caliber barrel insert. There was a picture years ago of an underhammer using a bar striker which moved perpendicular to the barrel going up ward through the pistol grip of the gun. The knob to cock it was pulled downward from the bottom.

arcticap
April 16, 2012, 10:35 PM
The Bullpup was made by the defunct Prairie River Arms.
Check out post #15:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=285378&highlight=prairie

whosyrdaddy
April 17, 2012, 07:12 PM
Mr. Zimmerstutzen:

Whosyrdaddy: TC's figures for the Scout are the most optimistic ballistics figures I have ever seen. Some of their figures beat full length rifles. And swince they don't give figures for lower charges, we'll never know how it bears out.

I’m not sure that I understand your position here. Are you asserting that there may be an actual decrease in velocity between the indicated load of 32 grains and where T/C’s figures begin at 60 grains?

And as said before, it isn't that more powder doesn't increase velocity. It is velocity per grain of powder. (if I screwed with a Toyota Prius and put nitro methane in it < I;ll bet I could reduce gas mileage.) The formula is not about the ridiculous efforts to achieve smokeless velocity with black powder. It is to calculate something close to a target loads for most guns.
It has nothing to do with hot loads for hunting etc,

I must be missing something here as I have checked and rechecked Paul’s quoted statement, and I can’t find a single mention of velocity per grain, efficiency, or target vs. hunting loads, or even smokeless Toyotas. What I did find, however, is the claim that:

“It only means that relative to the weight of the round ball, the amount of powder that can be burned inside that length of barrel is the figure indicated by the formula. Everything else is burning in front of the muzzle and adding little to the velocity of the ball.”

Now, I am fairly confident that a successful attorney like Paul has the ability to adequately convey his actual thoughts and beliefs through simple words, so I will take them at face value and have made a good faith offer of proof to the contrary.

Don't try to make it into something it is not. The Scout has a different ignition system as well, more akin to an underhammer with the fire from the nipple going directly into the powder unlike the convoluted twists and turns of the TC hawkens breech plug.

That is a very interesting point.
Could you please elaborate further by giving us a quantified example of the effects of these different types of #11 percussion cap ignition systems, including the effects on the pressure curve and burn rate in relation to any changes in the propagation of the flame front caused by the relationship between the location, configuration, and dimensions of the flash channel(s) and it's/their position relative to the axis of the bore and or reduced chamber, anti chamber, or combination thereof as well as it's/their size, configuration, and position relative to the powder column itself?

I wont hold my breath.

Why not point out something more similar to most pistols, like the figures given for the TC Patriot pistol. Oh that's right, it bears out the formula! Max load of 35 grains. Most efficient load as determined by ft/sec per grain of powder, 20 grains.

My choice of examples was based solely on the immediate availability of data for the .54 caliber as used in Paul’s example.

But if it makes you feel better, we can go with your example of the Patriot which, according to Paul, should see little velocity increase with any more than 17 grains of powder. However, that incorrigible velocity continues to increase as much as 26% despite this fact.

http://www.tcarms.com/assets/manuals/noncurrent/Patriot_Supplement.pdf

For Use With .45 Caliber Patriot
.440" Diameter Pure Lead Round Ball
Patches Lubricated with Bore Butter
#11 Percussion Cap
.45 Caliber Patriot
Black Powder &
Round Ball Loads
.440" Diameter
Lead Ball
Weight (Grains)
Black Powder
Charge (Grains)
Muzzle Velocity
(Feet Per Second)
127 Grain
Lead Ball
20 grs. FFG 853 F.P.S.
25 grs. FFG 908 F.P.S.
30 grs. FFG 963 F.P.S.
35 grs. FFG 1071 F.P.S.

Now I know how you feel about those shady characters over at T/C and how they must be trying to pull one over on us, so here is some independent data from Sam Fadala as published HERE (http://books.google.com/books?id=SLlPI_UPdxUC&pg=PA251&lpg=PA251&dq=tc+patriot+barrel+length&source=bl&ots=ESmmSms3ZF&sig=ZfwFfk5c3hJm9yfylKsaSEu8Kss&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HMiMT9n7Gcjg2QXBg9iMDA&ved=0CGoQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=tc%20patriot%20barrel%20length&f=false) on page 251 of the Gun Digest Loading Manual. It shows a velocity increase of nearly 40% from 20 to 35 grains. Describing such an increase as “little” seems less than credible, and most certainly debunks the idea that all but the theoretical 17 grains must have burned outside of the barrel.

162903

Fadala, Sam. "Load Data." The Gun Digest Loading Manual. Krause Publications Craft, 2003. 251. Google Books. Web. 17 Apr. 2012.




So thank you Mr. Zimmerstutzen for supplying us with yet another example to contradict this pervasive myth, and in future responses please remember that arrogance and ignorance make poor bedfellows.

zimmerstutzen
April 17, 2012, 09:07 PM
I said compare the velocity per grain of powder. (which you refused to do for some reason) Using Mr. Fadals's figures, the jump from 20 grains to 30 grains should have resulted in a velocity of 1279 ft per sec,(1.5 x 853) the jump to 35 grains should result in a velocity of 1492,75 ft per sec. (1.75 x 853)

How is it that the velocity doesn't keep gaining at the same rate per grain of powder as when 20 grains are fired? Hmmm.

it is painfully clear that the increase in powder does NOT lead to a proportionate increase in velocity.

If computed according to velocity per grain of powder (as I suggested)

20 grains yields 853 or (853 divided by 20) = 42.65 FT/SEC per grain of powder
30 grains yields 963 or (963 divided by 30) = 32.1 ft/sec per grain of powder
35 grains yields 1071 or (1071 divided by 35) = 30.6 ft/sec per grain of powder

what possible explanation is there for the apparent lack of oomph in the increased loads? As Paul indicated a portion of the powder is still burning after the ball exits the muzzle. ie wasted.

hmmm. seems the best yield of oomph per grain is right about the load calculated with the formula. So it seems Mr. Fadala's figures very much support my interpretation of the formula.

Paul never said velocity doesn't increase. you are merely parsing hairs over the amount of the increase. Either way, the increase of velocity is significantly less than proportional to the increase in powder. The increase of 75% more powder leads to only a 25.5% higher velocity. That is a very poor exchange. (NOT 40% as you mistakenly indicated. A 40% increase would be 853 x 1.4 = 1194 ft /sec Since YOUR 40% is technically only mathematically a 25.5% you may want to rethink your position. 853 x 1.255 = 1070.515ft /sec)

Now if you still think you are correct, please explain the calculation of percentages.

Thank you for the opportunity to once again point out the fallacy of your position.

Jaymo
April 17, 2012, 09:56 PM
Zimmer, I'm confused. What does 1 in ATF mean?
Never mind. 1 inch across the flats. I get it, now.

That is about the coolest pistol I've seen.

zimmerstutzen
April 17, 2012, 11:24 PM
yep, not to be confused with the ATF used by slug gun shooters as bullet lube.

I have been collecting weird and unusual muzzle loader pistols. I'll post some pictures in a week or two in new thread.

I have a Yazel that looks like a dead ringer for a toz olympic free pistol.

I have been watching for a harmonica pistol. Might have to make one.

whosyrdaddy
April 18, 2012, 12:26 AM
I said compare the velocity per grain of powder. (which you refused to do for some reason)

Not just “some reason”, but a very good one. You see, try as you might, I simply will not allow you to reframe the argument. Show me where the quoted statement or my original reply make any mention of velocity per grain and stop throwing out red herrings.

Using Mr. Fadals's figures, the jump from 20 grains to 30 grains should have resulted in a velocity of 1279 ft per sec,(1.5 x 853) the jump to 35 grains should result in a velocity of 1492,75 ft per sec. (1.75 x 853)

Well in order to use Fadala’s figures you would have to actually look at them first. In any event, I am curious as to why you would assume a round ball should ignore the laws of physics that every other accelerating object must adhere to.

How is it that the velocity doesn't keep gaining at the same rate per grain of powder as when 20 grains are fired? Hmmm.

Well since you asked so nicely, simply put it is because the amount power needed to overcome drag will vary as the cube of velocity.


it is painfully clear that the increase in powder does NOT lead to a proportionate increase in velocity.

Now you’re getting it.

If computed according to velocity per grain of powder (as I suggested)

20 grains yields 853 or (853 divided by 20) = 42.65 FT/SEC per grain of powder
30 grains yields 963 or (963 divided by 30) = 32.1 ft/sec per grain of powder
35 grains yields 1071 or (1071 divided by 35) = 30.6 ft/sec per grain of powder

And hopefully now you understand why that could never happen.

what possible explanation is there for the apparent lack of oomph in the increased loads?

See the explanation above.

As Paul indicated a portion of the powder is still burning after the ball exits the muzzle. ie wasted.

What Paul actually indicated was that ALL of the powder exceeding that accounted for by the formula burned outside of the barrel, and it is THIS assertion that I am contesting.

hmmm. seems the best yield of oomph per grain is right about the load calculated with the formula. So it seems Mr. Fadala's figures very much support my interpretation of the formula.

No, the best yield of oomph per grain is actually much lower than that. Would you care to take a guess where that might be?

Paul never said velocity doesn't increase. you are merely parsing hairs over the amount of the increase.

Nor did I claim that he did. What he did claim is that this amount was “little”, and while that may be a relative term I believe it has to be viewed in a reasonable context. In my opinion, a NEARLY 40% increase simply does not meet that criteria. Considering the amount of force required to achieve such a large increase in velocity requires exponentially higher acceleration forces ( see above ), how would you explain this phenomena if ALL of the additional powder is burning outside of the barrel?

Either way, the increase of velocity is significantly less than proportional to the increase in powder. The increase of 75% more powder leads to only a 25.5% higher velocity. That is a very poor exchange. (NOT 40% as you mistakenly indicated. A 40% increase would be 853 x 1.4 = 1194 ft /sec Since YOUR 40% is technically only mathematically a 25.5% you may want to rethink your position. 853 x 1.255 = 1070.515ft /sec)

Well based on your figures using T/C’s data to verify my approximation of 26% , I can see that your basic math skills are adequate and the problem seems to reside with your reading comprehension skills.

Now if you still think you are correct, please explain the calculation of percentages.

In light of our latest revelation, I will attempt to type s l o w e r f o r y o u u s i n g
S a m F a d a l a ‘s d a t a.
3 5 g r. v e l. 9 8 7 f p s e q u a l s 2 7 5 f p s m o r e t h a n 2 0 g r. v e l o f 7 1 2 f p s . 2 7 5 i s 3 8 . 6 2 p e r c e n t o f 7 1 2, o r m o r e e x a c t l y , “nearly 40%” as I posted.

Please go back and carefully reread all of the posts to be sure you comprehend what is actually being said. This can be best accomplished by reading ONLY the EXACT words within the post and applying to each the definition that best fits the context of the sentences, or as you refer to it as “parsing hairs”.



Thank you for the opportunity to once again point out the fallacy of your position.

You are very welcome, glad I could be of service.

zimmerstutzen
April 18, 2012, 08:01 AM
You jumped at a false representation or intentionally misstated the "nearly 40%" (overstating the actual increase by an additional over half of the actual figure)

Since the figure for the velocity increase is actually 25.5% and you couldn't muddle through a simple percentage calculation, one must wonder where else your assertions made conclusions in spite of logic.

a 75% increase in powder for a 25.5% increase in velocity is indeed “little” as Paul termed it.

So what is the max velocity per grain charge??? A much more complicated calculation than a simple percentage. Dare you even attempt it?

The formula is all about the maximum velocity per grain charge and target shooting. It has no rational application to hunting charges, or trying to achieve smokeless velocities with black powder. If you suffer from the Popeye syndrome or have some psychological need to shoot "he man" loads just admit it and move on.

You can "cube drag" all you want. it doesn't change the fact that you misrepresented a calculation of percentage (in your favor) to prove a non-issue. Do us a favor and at least keep the discussion honest.

The fact that you typed it with a different style doesn't change the fact that you can't do the calculation, or intentionally misrepresented it. I challenged you to show us the calculation and you intentionally dodged that. Gotta wonder why.

whosyrdaddy
April 18, 2012, 10:56 AM
I suppose I am probably just a little too patient, but I will give this one last try.
Obviously slower did not work so here it is louder.

Using Fadala's figures that can be seen by clicking on the word that spells HERE (http://books.google.com/books?id=SLlPI_UPdxUC&pg=PA251&lpg=PA251&dq=tc+patriot+barrel+length&source=bl&ots=ESmmSms3ZF&sig=ZfwFfk5c3hJm9yfylKsaSEu8Kss&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HMiMT9n7Gcjg2QXBg9iMDA&ved=0CGoQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=tc%20patriot%20barrel%20length&f=false) and is green in color, or by simply clicking the word "attachment (http://books.google.com/books?id=SLlPI_UPdxUC&pg=PA251&lpg=PA251&dq=tc+patriot+barrel+length&source=bl&ots=ESmmSms3ZF&sig=ZfwFfk5c3hJm9yfylKsaSEu8Kss&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HMiMT9n7Gcjg2QXBg9iMDA&ved=0CGoQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=tc%20patriot%20barrel%20length&f=false)" in my post, you will see his vel achieved for
20 gr was 712 fps
as opposed to his vel for
35 gr which was 987 fps
987 - 712 = 275
275 / 712 = .3862

this means that by increasing the number 712 by 38.62% ( 712 x 1.3862 ) most of us get the resulting number of 987.

38.62% is "nearly 40%"


This isn't about how you interpret the formula, it is about how Paul represented the formula.

It is readily apparent that you are destined to fail in your endeavor to comprehend the concepts of physics, probably due in large part to struggle with reading comprehension, but recognizing the difference between fact and opinion is important when engaging in a debate on a public forum.

I have not nor do I intend to debate your opinion as it is yours and you are entitled to it. I will ,however, challenge inaccurate facts and misrepresentations whenever I find it appropriate to do so. I have supplied you with the evidence to support my contentions but your refusal to even look at it precludes you from ever seeing it.

Conversely, you have failed to present one single fact to discredit my statement, despite your attempts to rewrite both the laws of physics and mathematics.

zimmerstutzen
April 18, 2012, 01:03 PM
The inescapable truth is that once the charge amount calculated by using the formula is surpassed, the efficiency in velocity per grain of powder starts decreasing.

An increase in powder beyond that fails to produce a proportionate increase in MUZZLE VELOCITY. You may feel that almost doubling the powder charge to get 25 or 40 % velocity increase is huge. such a small percentage increase would satisfy most peoples definition of "little"

flipping the equation around. By increasing the powder by 75% you are getting cheated out of 60% to 75% of the velocity you paid for in powder. It is a lousy deal either way anybody looks at it.

junkman_01
April 18, 2012, 01:16 PM
You two are making my head hurt! :barf:

whosyrdaddy
April 19, 2012, 11:33 AM
The inescapable truth is that once the charge amount calculated by using the formula is surpassed, the efficiency in velocity per grain of powder starts decreasing.

Mr. Zimmerstutzen, please try to look at what I am about to say with an open mind, and if there is some part of it you just don't understand, please tell me and I will try to explain it another way.

Your statement above is absolutely true. It is also true for any amount of powder determined by any other formula or any other method determining any powder charge that is sufficient to get the ball out of the barrel.

It is also true for any of the amounts shown on T/C's and Fadala's charts as well as any amount above, below, or in between those numbers.

An increase in powder beyond that fails to produce a proportionate increase in MUZZLE VELOCITY.

This statement is also true of any increase in powder beyond that required to get the ball out of the barrel.

You may feel that almost doubling the powder charge to get 25 or 40 % velocity increase is huge. such a small percentage increase would satisfy most peoples definition of "little"

Let me ask you this. Forget about efficiency and rate of return or economics for a moment and look at this strictly from a common sense perspective.

According to Paul's assertion, no more than 17 grains of powder can possibly burn in that barrel. Therefore, any increase in velocity would be due to the powder burning outside of the barrel and he describes that increase as " little". Can we at least agree on this?

Now the question is that how much increase should we expect "little" to be.
Well, we can get a rough idea by putting an 18 grain (35-17=18) pile of powder on the floor next to a .440 round ball and see how fast it goes when we light it off.
Now how fast did the ball go? I know this isn't a very scientific experiment, nevertheless, it will give us a very good approximation of how much velocity gain we should see from an unconfined burn.

So, now we know that "little", as used in the context of what % of velocity increase we should see, is in the neighborhood of zero, zilch, nada, nothing, zip, I will stand by my previous position that a 25-40% does not fit that description.


flipping the equation around. By increasing the powder by 75% you are getting cheated out of 60% to 75% of the velocity you paid for in powder. It is a lousy deal either way anybody looks at it.

Mr. Zimmerstutzen, I have read many of your posts and I have noticed that you have some very nice and unusual muzzleloading handguns. And before I forget, I would like to offer you my sincerest thanks for posting the pics that I requested in another thread. I don't recall reading whether you own a chronograph or not, but if you have access to one you should try this simple experiment: check the velocity of one of those guns with five and ten grain loads and see what kind of return you get on your 100% increase in powder. It may make you want to give up shooting BP altogether.

Please answer this, and I promise to keep an open mind, what is it exactly that is so special about the figure that this formula is giving you and how exactly is it beneficial to you?

kwhi43@kc.rr.com
April 20, 2012, 12:07 PM
The more powder you put in, the faster the ball comes out. Haven't any of
you ever heard of a device called a chronograph?? Burn rate, and barrel
length have nothing to do with it. I shoot 40 grs of FFF in my 3 inch Philly
Derrg. Wonder how much powder is being burned in that barrel. Chrony shows
40 grs is faster than 20. :banghead:

Plastikosmd
April 20, 2012, 07:29 PM
Ya, the math is interesting. Both barrel length and charge play a role along with other variables. Which projectile would u guess is faster? (given a barrel that can handle the charge)
1. A barrel 1/2 full of powder and then a ball seated on it

2. A barrel with a charge nearly to the muzzle, ball seated flush at the muzzle

If you enjoyed reading about "Need infor about this pistol" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!