SMOKELESS POWDER COMPARED TO BLACK POWDER?
02-28-2006, 10:10 AM
#1
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location:
Posts: 294
SMOKELESS POWDER COMPARED TO BLACK POWDER?
What are comparable loads between smokeless powder and black powder. I have read some reloading charts for a 45-70 gov. It shows smokeless charges that range from 42 gr. of smokeless to 61gr. smokeless. The average charge is 52.7gr. of gun powder for 46 different charges. Is it safe to assume that 70 gr. of black powder falls between a charge of lets say 45-55 gr. of smokeless?
The reason why im asking is, I would like to know how much an inline muzzleloader is equivalent to when loaded with 150 gr. I have seen a couple guys hunt cape buffalo with inline muzzleloaders loaded with 150gr.
Is this any comparison to a 458 win mag?
The reason why im asking is, I would like to know how much an inline muzzleloader is equivalent to when loaded with 150 gr. I have seen a couple guys hunt cape buffalo with inline muzzleloaders loaded with 150gr.
Is this any comparison to a 458 win mag?
02-28-2006, 10:14 AM
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
RE: SMOKELESS POWDER COMPARED TO BLACK POWDER?
You can't even compare the two. One reason, is blackpowder burn rate is totaly different loose and under pressure. Two, you have to pick out the smokeless powder. Some cowboy bulleye loads are like 10gr. My heavy hunting loads are 51gr of IMR4198. Its just impossible to compare the two. There are like 25 suitable powders or much more for a 45-70. different sizes, and burn rates.
02-28-2006, 10:22 AM
#3
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location:
Posts: 294
RE: SMOKELESS POWDER COMPARED TO BLACK POWDER?
big country,I totally understand the diffrent kinds, sizes and burn rates.
But what Im saying is, a 50 cal muzzleloader loaded with 150 gr. must be pretty powerfull if it can stop a cape buffalo. Maybe its impossible to determine what smokelesscalibera muzzleloader would be compared to loaded with 150gr. (you would think that it would have to fall in the category of cartidges suitable for taking dangerous game)
it would be interesting to know.
But what Im saying is, a 50 cal muzzleloader loaded with 150 gr. must be pretty powerfull if it can stop a cape buffalo. Maybe its impossible to determine what smokelesscalibera muzzleloader would be compared to loaded with 150gr. (you would think that it would have to fall in the category of cartidges suitable for taking dangerous game)
it would be interesting to know.
02-28-2006, 10:46 AM
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
RE: SMOKELESS POWDER COMPARED TO BLACK POWDER?
Probably the closest load you could come up with to match150gr of smokeless is IMR4198 with a load of 49gr with 300gr jacketed bullet.
But you can acheive the same thing with 60gr of IMR4895, or 38gr of 2400 or 54gr of RL7.
All these powders would show simular muzzle velocities with a 300gr bullet but pressure curve would look totaly different to acheive the same thing.
But you can acheive the same thing with 60gr of IMR4895, or 38gr of 2400 or 54gr of RL7.
All these powders would show simular muzzle velocities with a 300gr bullet but pressure curve would look totaly different to acheive the same thing.
02-28-2006, 11:34 AM
#5
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location:
Posts: 1,345
RE: SMOKELESS POWDER COMPARED TO BLACK POWDER?
If you look up what the type of velocities guys are getting out of 150gr loaded muzzleloaders you'll see that its nowhere near a .458WM. (There are alot of online calculators to find ft/lbs for a given weight projectile @ given a speed) I've heard of guys BOWHUNTING cape buffalo!!!! and this topic kinda goes back to the idea that even though you can deer hunt with a .22lr...all the rules change and its different game. We'll leave the wisdom of such actions alone because that dead horse as been beaten and re-beaten a thousand times.
02-28-2006, 11:41 AM
#6
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location:
Posts: 294
RE: SMOKELESS POWDER COMPARED TO BLACK POWDER?
big country, I just checked the muzzle energy of a 50 cal muzzleloader loaded with 150gr. of powder, shooting a 300 gr. bullet.
I can be honest when I say that I was actually suprized at how much lower the energy was than whatI expected. I found that it falls in the 2700 foot pound area. And I also found that a 444 marlin loaded with a 240 gr. softpoint has 2942 foot pounds of energy. and loaded with a 265 gr. has 3208 foot pounds.
Im actuallysuprized that hunters will even attempt to hunt cape buffalo with amuzzleloader (especially being only a one shot deal) Atleast the 444 would have more rounds to back it up. And today, most people wouldnt even consider the 444 sufficient enough for cape buffalo. Given the fact that a 458 win mag has energys listed between 4600 foot pounds and 5670 foot pounds of energy. looks like the 50 cal muzzleloader has a long way to go.. 2700 ft. pounds is a long ways away compared to5670 ft. pounds.
I always assumed that when I loaded up the muzzleloader with 3 pyrodexpellets that I had something powerfull in my hands. (this disappoints me.[&o]
I can be honest when I say that I was actually suprized at how much lower the energy was than whatI expected. I found that it falls in the 2700 foot pound area. And I also found that a 444 marlin loaded with a 240 gr. softpoint has 2942 foot pounds of energy. and loaded with a 265 gr. has 3208 foot pounds.
Im actuallysuprized that hunters will even attempt to hunt cape buffalo with amuzzleloader (especially being only a one shot deal) Atleast the 444 would have more rounds to back it up. And today, most people wouldnt even consider the 444 sufficient enough for cape buffalo. Given the fact that a 458 win mag has energys listed between 4600 foot pounds and 5670 foot pounds of energy. looks like the 50 cal muzzleloader has a long way to go.. 2700 ft. pounds is a long ways away compared to5670 ft. pounds.
I always assumed that when I loaded up the muzzleloader with 3 pyrodexpellets that I had something powerfull in my hands. (this disappoints me.[&o]
02-28-2006, 11:52 AM
#7
Boone & Crockett
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Wall SD USA & Jamestown ND
Posts: 11,474
RE: SMOKELESS POWDER COMPARED TO BLACK POWDER?
You could chronograph loads of each and compare by velocity. The question of bullets would come into play as well. For a Cape buffalo you would need penetration. Most muzzle loader projectiles are to soft for that kind of duty. With Sabots you could use properly constructed bullet but I don't know what kind of accuracy you would get. You don't need a lot of velocity to get super penetration as the 45-70 with modest velocity recently killed two Cape buffalo with one shot. With Non expanding bullets or even hard cast bullets, the best penetration takes place at velocities of 1600- 2000 fps. In tests by Corbon, the 45-70 out penetrated the 458 Win, the 458 Lott and the 460 Weatherby with the same bullet.
02-28-2006, 01:33 PM
#8
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Baileysville, WV
Posts: 2,925
RE: SMOKELESS POWDER COMPARED TO BLACK POWDER?
So does this mean i would end up looking like Elmer Fudd after Bugs sticks his finger in the barrel if I used 150grs. of H335 in my muzzleloader?? [:@]
02-28-2006, 02:21 PM
#9
Guest
Posts: n/a
RE: SMOKELESS POWDER COMPARED TO BLACK POWDER?
ORIGINAL: buckstalker1187
big country, I just checked the muzzle energy of a 50 cal muzzleloader loaded with 150gr. of powder, shooting a 300 gr. bullet.
I can be honest when I say that I was actually suprized at how much lower the energy was than whatI expected. I found that it falls in the 2700 foot pound area. And I also found that a 444 marlin loaded with a 240 gr. softpoint has 2942 foot pounds of energy. and loaded with a 265 gr. has 3208 foot pounds.
Im actuallysuprized that hunters will even attempt to hunt cape buffalo with amuzzleloader (especially being only a one shot deal) Atleast the 444 would have more rounds to back it up. And today, most people wouldnt even consider the 444 sufficient enough for cape buffalo. Given the fact that a 458 win mag has energys listed between 4600 foot pounds and 5670 foot pounds of energy. looks like the 50 cal muzzleloader has a long way to go.. 2700 ft. pounds is a long ways away compared to5670 ft. pounds.
I always assumed that when I loaded up the muzzleloader with 3 pyrodexpellets that I had something powerfull in my hands. (this disappoints me.[&o]
big country, I just checked the muzzle energy of a 50 cal muzzleloader loaded with 150gr. of powder, shooting a 300 gr. bullet.
I can be honest when I say that I was actually suprized at how much lower the energy was than whatI expected. I found that it falls in the 2700 foot pound area. And I also found that a 444 marlin loaded with a 240 gr. softpoint has 2942 foot pounds of energy. and loaded with a 265 gr. has 3208 foot pounds.
Im actuallysuprized that hunters will even attempt to hunt cape buffalo with amuzzleloader (especially being only a one shot deal) Atleast the 444 would have more rounds to back it up. And today, most people wouldnt even consider the 444 sufficient enough for cape buffalo. Given the fact that a 458 win mag has energys listed between 4600 foot pounds and 5670 foot pounds of energy. looks like the 50 cal muzzleloader has a long way to go.. 2700 ft. pounds is a long ways away compared to5670 ft. pounds.
I always assumed that when I loaded up the muzzleloader with 3 pyrodexpellets that I had something powerfull in my hands. (this disappoints me.[&o]
03-01-2006, 03:40 AM
#10
Boone & Crockett
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Wall SD USA & Jamestown ND
Posts: 11,474
RE: SMOKELESS POWDER COMPARED TO BLACK POWDER?
If I were going to try a Muzzle loader I would want a 450-535 grain bullet. You don't need a lot of velocity with bullets of that weight range. I believe Bryan Pierce shot through the two Cape buffalo with a 435 Grain Corbon. The shot went through a Bull first then went through a cow and was recoered under the hide on the far side of the cow. Thats penetration. Many Cape buffalo have been taken with the 45-70 and Muzzle loaders.
Vince Lupo took the African Big Six with the Marlin Lever gun and Garret Hammer Head ammuntion.
Vince Lupo took the African Big Six with the Marlin Lever gun and Garret Hammer Head ammuntion.