Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 35 of 40

Thread: Gun question for Phillip Allen - anybody else wanna take a crack at it?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Hell
    Posts
    91,545

    Default Gun question for Phillip Allen - anybody else wanna take a crack at it?

    Which black powder cartridges are the most intrinsically accurate?
    Simpler is better, except when complicated looks really cool.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    central cal
    Posts
    16,837

    Default Re: Gun question for Phillip Allen - anybody else wanna take a crack at it?

    The ones where you stick cigarette papers onto the round balls and twist the end shut.

    Probably.

    Peace,
    Robert

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Hell
    Posts
    91,545

    Default Re: Gun question for Phillip Allen - anybody else wanna take a crack at it?

    Am I gonna have to edit my query to read, ‘black powder metallic cartridge’?
    Simpler is better, except when complicated looks really cool.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Concord, Massachusetts
    Posts
    2,383

    Default Re: Gun question for Phillip Allen - anybody else wanna take a crack at it?

    Yeah, I roll my own too.
    "Wherever there is a channel for water, there is a road for the canoe. " - Thoreau

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    42,763

    Default Re: Gun question for Phillip Allen - anybody else wanna take a crack at it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Pless View Post
    Which black powder cartridges are the most intrinsically accurate?
    Bit like asking which car tyre corners better.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Hell
    Posts
    91,545

    Default Re: Gun question for Phillip Allen - anybody else wanna take a crack at it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    Bit like asking which car tyre corners better.
    There are specific smokeless cartridges with well known greater accuracy potential than others. .308 Winchester for example. 38 spl for another.
    Simpler is better, except when complicated looks really cool.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    42,763

    Default Re: Gun question for Phillip Allen - anybody else wanna take a crack at it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Pless View Post
    There are specific smokeless cartridges with well known greater accuracy potential than others. .308 Winchester for example. 38 spl for another.
    As with car tyres, does that not also depend on the gun firing the cartrige, barrel length, rifled or smooth bore?
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    25,310

    Default Re: Gun question for Phillip Allen - anybody else wanna take a crack at it?

    I would bet on .45-70.

    Big, slow tack-driver.
    Rattling the teacups.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    northern Georgia, or Mississippi Delta USA
    Posts
    16,129

    Default Re: Gun question for Phillip Allen - anybody else wanna take a crack at it?

    The 45-70 does seem to be still pretty popular.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Bradford, VT
    Posts
    6,707

    Default Re: Gun question for Phillip Allen - anybody else wanna take a crack at it?

    Didn't the Sharps .50 have a reputation for accuracy?

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    S.W. Florida
    Posts
    4,849

    Default Re: Gun question for Phillip Allen - anybody else wanna take a crack at it?



    I reckon it's more the shooter than what he's shooting with; my two cents.

    Hope the voyage is a long one.
    May there be many a summer morning when,
    with what pleasure, what joy,
    you come into harbors seen for the first time...

    Ithaka, by Cavafy
    (Keeley - Sherrard translation)

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    central cal
    Posts
    16,837

    Default Re: Gun question for Phillip Allen - anybody else wanna take a crack at it?

    Quote Originally Posted by sharpiefan View Post


    I reckon it's more the shooter than what he's shooting with; my two cents.
    Nice shot, Roy.

    Peace,
    Robert

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Mississippi Gulf Coast
    Posts
    678

    Default Re: Gun question for Phillip Allen - anybody else wanna take a crack at it?

    I like the 35 Whelen. Similar ballistics to a 30-06
    Jack
    Nicotine free since 1 October 2009

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    28,880

    Default Re: Gun question for Phillip Allen - anybody else wanna take a crack at it?

    Stink bait!
    The best statement I've seen from this latest carnage came from a student who lived through it -

    "My generation will not allow this to continue!"

    Remember voting age is 18. Read it and weep reds.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Madison Wisconsin
    Posts
    9,130

    Default Re: Gun question for Phillip Allen - anybody else wanna take a crack at it?

    I always get a chuckle at the big mechanical clunk they dubbed in every time Quigley opens it up to load, sticks the bullet in and closes it. I own a C. Sharps model 1874 with the same 34" heavy barrel, except mine is 45-70 BP (home-rolled, but not paper-patched). In reality, when you load it, it makes a fairly subtle "click". It's when you pull the trigger that it makes an impressive noise.

    CS6.jpg

    sharps-shot.jpg

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Central Coast, Ca
    Posts
    22,047

    Default Re: Gun question for Phillip Allen - anybody else wanna take a crack at it?

    I guess you would have to specify the desired range. I fired a 50-110 Sharps at a 24" target at 1000 yards and actually hit it. Seemed pretty good to me. (We used a 1/2" steel plate cut in a circle, the "ring" was pretty rewarding.
    (The formula must involve a long bullet and a large powder load)

    What Trump said to the Army...

    "You know the gun is quite important. So I said what is this? Sir, this is our cartridge system. He said well, we’re going to this because we wanted to have better range on our weapons. I said you don’t use black powder anymore for gun? No sir. I said, “Ah, how is it working?” “Sir, not good. Not good. Doesn’t have the power. You know the blackpowder with grapeshot is just brutal. You see that sucker going and shrapnel going all over the place, there’s burning gases thrown up in the air, big, big explosion, very strong.”And it’s very complicated, you have to be Samuel Colt to figure it out. And I said–and now they want to buy more cartridge. New ones. That use cartridge. I said what system are you going to be–”Sir, we’re staying with cartridge.” I said no you’re not. You going to goddamned black powder, the cartridge costs hundreds of millions of dollars more money and it’s no good. Cartridge."
    https://www.duffelblog.com/2017/05/g...rch-new-rifle/

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Central Coast, Ca
    Posts
    22,047

    Default Re: Gun question for Phillip Allen - anybody else wanna take a crack at it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Pless View Post
    There are specific smokeless cartridges with well known greater accuracy potential than others. .308 Winchester for example. 38 spl for another.
    I think the .50 Browning may have them beat.
    (There were guys playing around with those in a single shot rifle and it had a reputation...)

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Hell
    Posts
    91,545

    Default Re: Gun question for Phillip Allen - anybody else wanna take a crack at it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Canoeyawl View Post
    I think the .50 Browning may have them beat.
    (There were guys playing around with those in a single shot rifle and it had a reputation...)
    i think it depends on some velocity factors

    some of the things that make the .308 win and the .22-250 very accurate are the cross sectional coefficient to length combined with the length of the projectile as it meets the rifling bearing surfaces. . .

    surely there are black powder cartridges that exhibit similar characteristics. . .
    Simpler is better, except when complicated looks really cool.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    42,763

    Default Re: Gun question for Phillip Allen - anybody else wanna take a crack at it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Pless View Post
    i think it depends on some velocity factors

    some of the things that make the .308 win and the .22-250 very accurate are the cross sectional coefficient to length combined with the length of the projectile as it meets the rifling bearing surfaces. . .

    surely there are black powder cartridges that exhibit similar characteristics. . .
    Doesn't black powder burn at a different rate? The difference in the build up of pressure may mean that you are comparing apples and oranges.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    25,939

    Default Re: Gun question for Phillip Allen - anybody else wanna take a crack at it?

    The only black powder I know is toner for the copier and it goes everywhere - not at all accurate.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Central Coast, Ca
    Posts
    22,047

    Default Re: Gun question for Phillip Allen - anybody else wanna take a crack at it?

    We need Phillip for this one...

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Madison Wisconsin
    Posts
    9,130

    Default Re: Gun question for Phillip Allen - anybody else wanna take a crack at it?

    I think it is supposed to burn slower and the larger the grains, the slower it burns. Most of the folks shooting rifles like the big Sharps with black powder cartridges these days are using slugs similar to these (500 grain) with grease grooves to keep the fouling down. You either dunk them in the melted waxy grease and let it cool, or pack them by hand before sticking the bullets in their cartridge cases, and you want to really get those grooves filled. I'll typically shoot around fifteen shots in a sitting, which can usually be done without cleaning between shots. By the end of it, my shoulder and ears are telling me that they've had enough and to switch to something else.

    DSCF0226.jpg

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sydney OZ.
    Posts
    13,107

    Default Re: Gun question for Phillip Allen - anybody else wanna take a crack at it?

    I shoot (amongst other pommy falling blocks) an Alexander Henry (a Scot) 1872 patent C1887 of 500/450 3 1/2" BPE running 440 gn pills. It's accurate as!. Patching and load density plus granularity are the keys. I think Gibbs were the preferred maker for long range in .461 calibre. Wal Winfer has much to say on the matter in his series (I am attributed in several volumes)
    Last edited by purri; 12-29-2018 at 08:36 PM.
    Xanthorrea

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Gulf Islands B.C.
    Posts
    256

    Default Re: Gun question for Phillip Allen - anybody else wanna take a crack at it?

    In pistol cartridge .44 Russian has a rep for accuracy
    in rifle, I'd be interested in trying out the original .303 enfield BP load.
    I use round ball stuffed down the wrong end with a stick. Accurate enough in my Lyman Deerstalker for the ranges I need.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Livin' in the Golden Triangle
    Posts
    56,932

    Default Re: Gun question for Phillip Allen - anybody else wanna take a crack at it?

    Slightly off topic... the day after I told my ex that I didn't want to renew my Aussie gun licence, I was given a Colt pistol (but not in Oz).

    Want accuracy in black powder, go long................

    "Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome and charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime" Mark Twain... so... Carpe the living sh!t out of the Diem

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sydney OZ.
    Posts
    13,107

    Default Re: Gun question for Phillip Allen - anybody else wanna take a crack at it?

    Now Oz breathes a collective sigh of relief..
    Xanthorrea

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Livin' in the Golden Triangle
    Posts
    56,932

    Default Re: Gun question for Phillip Allen - anybody else wanna take a crack at it?

    Damn, more grubs in the woodwork
    "Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome and charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime" Mark Twain... so... Carpe the living sh!t out of the Diem

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sydney OZ.
    Posts
    13,107

    Default Re: Gun question for Phillip Allen - anybody else wanna take a crack at it?

    nothing like projection...
    Xanthorrea

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Do you have a warrant?
    Posts
    4,357

    Default Re: Gun question for Phillip Allen - anybody else wanna take a crack at it?

    Let me take a crack at this, without a definitive answer.

    A bullet with a high ballistic coefficient will be more accurate vertically, less drop over distance and less variation on the smaller drop. That means a fairly long, streamlined bullet, but higher bullet mass also improves B.C. up to a point, that point being when it starts to overly affect the aerodynamics. However, to stabilize long bullets, you have to spin them faster to keep them from precessing and then tumbling. 6.5mm bullets are all the rage right now for competition, but you have to spin them with rifling at least 1 turn in 8", and that extra friction takes away a bit of energy. Contrast that with a short bullet like a .45 caliber fired from a 45-70 with a rifling twist of something like 1:50". However it also has the trajectory of a rainbow.

    For a given manufacturing tolerance, a larger bullet will have a smaller percentage error. Thus, a Browning .50 caliber cartridge, which is scaled up in every direction from the .30-'06 cartridge, is inherently more accurate.

    You want a small air volume in the case after filled with the correct volume of powder. This provides more consistent ignition conditions and also eliminates the chance of detonation where all the powder lights off at once like a diesel instead of progressive burn like a spark-ignition engine. Detonation of a cartridge can burst both cartridge and barrel. Smokeless gun powder is a "propellant" (and labeled as such), not an explosive.

    You want a cartridge that is inherently efficient in terms of bullet energy and momentum versus powder used. Most military cartridges are inherently efficient, that being one of the primary design parameters.

    You want a cartridge that headspaces on the cartridge shoulder for more consistent sealing, and cartridges fire-formed to that specific rifle and just neck-(re)sized to make it even better, rather than headspacing on the rim or belt of the cartridge.

    You don't want a cartridge that is "over-bore", that being the bullet being a bit too small for the cartridge. The aforementioned 6.5mm projectile works great on the new 6.5 Creedmore cartridge which is a bit smaller than .308 Winchester. When it was atop a magnum cartridge the size of the 7mm Remington Magnum and known as the .264 Winchester Magnum, it was too hot, and had a reputation of burning out barrels after a mere 100 rounds fired. Only with newer powders has the .264 WM been tamed. But in the early '60s, increasing the caliber a mere 0.5mm to 7mm on the same cartridge volume was all it took, the 7mm RM has a fine reputation.

    Less powerful loading for a given cartridge usually means better accuracy. However, each rifle is different, and I mean each rifle even when "identical"; The manufacturing tolerances are such that each barrel has its own natural frequencies, and you will need to adjust the powder load (and specific powder by burn speed) up and down to find the sweet spot for that rifle that produces the best accuracy. Conversely, Winchester and Browning (owned by the same parent company) used to offer their bolt guns with a threaded weight on the end of the barrel that would be screwed in and out to match the barrel to a load instead of vice-versa, which allowed better accuracy with store-bought loads instead of custom handloads.

    I think .33 Winchester, a necked-down .45-70 and designed for black powder, may have had decent accuracy, based on the proportions of the cartridge and the bullet caliber. I owned one for a time and sold it without ever firing it, someone had built up a magnificent vintage-looking rifle on a Marlin 1895 receiver with a heavy 25" Douglass barrel and highly figured wood, Neidner-style buttplate and grip cap, the works, and I picked it up for a song at a gun show. Dad thought I was nuts paying what I did for a Marlin until I showed it to him.
    Last edited by Bob (oh, THAT Bob); 12-30-2018 at 04:18 AM.
    When you can take the pebble from my hand, it will be time for you to leave.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Indian Land, SC, USA
    Posts
    1,066

    Default Re: Gun question for Phillip Allen - anybody else wanna take a crack at it?

    Bob, post # 29 is an excellent review of all the parameters which effect small arms projectile accuracy, written in a clear, concise manner. Thanks for taking the time to write and post this.


    ( US Navy Gunner's Mate circa 1967 -1979, very familiar with caliber .50 BMG )
    Last edited by hawkeye54; 12-30-2018 at 05:45 AM. Reason: Spell check put one over on me - again!

  31. #31
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Hell
    Posts
    91,545

    Default Re: Gun question for Phillip Allen - anybody else wanna take a crack at it?

    thank you bob
    Simpler is better, except when complicated looks really cool.

  32. #32
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,871

    Default Re: Gun question for Phillip Allen - anybody else wanna take a crack at it?

    How is Philip Allen?
    Long time no news.
    I hope he is doing well.
    Don't worry I'm happy

    "The law is what we have to live with.
    Justice is sometimes harder to achieve."

    Sherlock Holmes

  33. #33
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sydney OZ.
    Posts
    13,107

    Default Re: Gun question for Phillip Allen - anybody else wanna take a crack at it?

    Don't forget trans sonic variables.
    Xanthorrea

  34. #34
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Do you have a warrant?
    Posts
    4,357

    Default Re: Gun question for Phillip Allen - anybody else wanna take a crack at it?

    Quote Originally Posted by purri View Post
    Don't forget trans sonic variables.
    I don't think it applies much. Trans-sonic interference wave drag applies when there is a sharp change in cross sectional area, like with wings on a fuselage. You can compensate by sweeping the wings aft (or forward) and reducing fuselage cross section to compensate ("wasp waist"). Putting a wasp waist on a .50 caliber bullet does nothing.
    When you can take the pebble from my hand, it will be time for you to leave.

  35. #35
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sydney OZ.
    Posts
    13,107

    Default Re: Gun question for Phillip Allen - anybody else wanna take a crack at it?

    Now read up on the pommy stuff.
    Xanthorrea

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •