Best group ever!

txhunter58 · Jun 29, 2014

LAST EDITED ON Jun-29-14 AT 02:00PM (MST)[p]
Took out my White this morning to try an new combo hoping to find my fall elk hunting load.

White mod 97 whitetail .504 with 75 gr of 3fg 777 and a 460 grain bullshop 0.504 bullet. Fiber wad under the bullet. Rear Williams peep and front fiberoptic bead. 6 0'Clock hold.

My first target was at 50 yards. First two bullets touching but way high. 3rd shot: over adjusted low. 4th bullet adjusted up but not enough. 5th,6th, and 7th touching on my aimpoint!

Backed the target up to 100 yards and shot two more shots. Couldn't bring myself to shoot a third as I knew I would screw it up and flinch! Anyway, think I found my elk load!

In addition to the accuracy was that fact that this bullet was not dropping at 100 yards. Lots of momentum on this bullet and it seems to be fairly flat shooting with this load. Will shoot it out the 150 (my max distance for a muzzy shot) before the fall and see where it hits there, but looks like I have a winner

FYI: We were also shooting a 243 which explains the other smaller holes. I was outshooting the person shooting the 243 with a scope!

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)

mevertsen · Jun 29, 2014

LAST EDITED ON Jun-29-14 AT 04:46PM (MST)[p]That is some good shooting!

I don't shoot groups with my ml. I mostly just make sure I am near bull at 100, and then shoot jugs from there. I can mess myself up pretty easily with the open sights, and its almost more instinctive for me rather than precise, if that makes any sense. I also do this for rifle, but I shoot a simple 3 shot group at 100 to confirm zero, and then shoot steel, jugs, or paper archery life replicated targets from there.

I say the person shooting .243 needs to work on that a bit if they plan to hunt this fall at all.

Edit to add - I am shooting the same sight as you - Williams peep with fiber optic front - orange. Works well.

txhunter58 · Jun 29, 2014

LAST EDITED ON Jun-29-14 AT 07:51PM (MST)[p]

All I can say is the rifle perfomed flawlessly, and somehow I kept up!

The 50 yard target was sight in for the 243, but she did pull a few shots at 100

But I have to say, she also shoots a pistol and I would not want to be the guy coming at her with her shooting at me. She was a great shot with a pistol (has her concealed carry)

I hear what you are saying about shooting at objects instead of targets to practice for the real thing. Only the 3rd time I have shot this gun and was using a different powder and bullet. As you can see, it needed some adjusting to get it hitting where I need it to. My next goal is to sight it in using my shooting stix. Always seems to have a different POI than bench shooting. Then I like to mix it up by shooting at different distances every shot.

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)

Doubless · Jun 29, 2014

Yep, those Whites just tend to do that... I have about a dozen of them, and with the exception of the couple that are either NIB or I have chosen not to shoot, they all do that. I have yet to see one that won't challenge a centerfire in the hands of a guy that can shoot irons or peeps!

diablo · Jul 10, 2014

Sweet! But...did you chrony that load - you're probably below 1300 fps with it. Never hurts to have extra energy on an elk. If you're only thinking of shooting to 150, I'd sacrifice some accuracy for a little more speed.

If my math is correct, in rough numbers, your bullet's energy would be about 1725 ftlbs at the muzzle. Compared to a 300 gr bullet at 2000 fps (120 gr Blackhorn 209 behind a 300 gr TC bonded shockwave) would give me 2664 ftlbs at the muzzle.

If you could bump up that up, say 200 fps, you'd get another 500 + ftlbs of energy out of it at the muzzle!

__________________________________
There are two kinds of people without
beards - boys and women. I am neither.

txhunter58 · Jul 10, 2014

LAST EDITED ON Jul-10-14 AT 06:49PM (MST)[p]I hear what you are saying, but I do believe adage "Big slow bullets kill" Foot lbs don't give enough credit to slower bullets because the formula squares the velocity. The ft/lbs is just a mathematical equation. You really don't get a good idea of the comparison between a 300 gr bullet and a 460 gr bullet with foot/lbs.

And you may know exactly what you are talking about with velocity, but of course the 3fg 777 is probably 20% stronger than black powder or pyrodex of the same volume. So that puts us at around 90 gr of black powder equivalent or possibly slightly more.

And the final factor is that 460 gr bullets produce a lot of recoil, and my neck can't take big recoil any more. I have already had injections twice and hope I don't have to go through that again. And I guarantee you I could never shoot 120 gr of BH 209. My current elk load with 209 is 95 gr and a 350 gr bullet. I may experiment up to 85 grains with the 460, but doubt I will go higher and feel the 75 with the 3fg powder is more than adequate.

Also, my max range for elk is around 120 yards. Where I hunt the is a long shot. So if I wanted to stretch my range out to 200 yards, I might agree with you. Of course, remember that Marley killed one with 90 gr of Pyrodex P at over 250 yards.

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)

txhunter58 · Jul 10, 2014

LAST EDITED ON Jul-10-14 AT 08:54PM (MST)[p]For bigger slower bullets I use the Taylor index to compare:

http://www.n4lcd.com/calc/

To use your comparison comparing the 300 gr bullet at 2000 to mine, if you use the Taylor index, they both come out "42" even though the ft/lbs gives a big advantage to the faster, smaller bullet. And 120 gr of BH 209 kicks a LOT more than my load

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)

diablo · Jul 11, 2014

Tx, You've obviously given it a lot of thought - I think we mostly agree.

I don't doubt that the load will work - but I do think you could make it better by increasing your velocity. My point, I guess, was that all else being equal, more velocity (within reason) is better. I base that opinion on having hunted almost exclusively with a muzzleloader for nearly 35 years and having killed over 100 animals. I've used everything from light sabot loads to super heavy conicals (600 gr Whites).

BTW - my velocity estimate was based on a Hodgdon chart (440 gr Parker Hydra-con with 80 gr 3F 777 = 1309 fps)

Of course, there are a number of factors to consider - recoil is one. If you are at your recoil limit, then stay with that charge.

I'm not a believer in the antiquated Taylor Knockout Formula (Even Taylor stated that it was only designed to compare the shocking power of bullets striking an elephant's head), the Thornily Stopping Power formula or any of the other formulas invented by non-ballisticians to prove pre-conceived notions.

But pure "real" science doesn't provide a complete picture either. There is a lot more to efficiently killing animals than science. I agree with muzzleloading guru Randy D. Smith that a "good" load should be "balanced" - "Accuracy + Knock-down Power + Rifle Management. What is the most accurate load you can shoot in your rifle? Are there enough pounds of energy in that load to kill the animal efficiently? Can you and your rifle comfortably manage the recoil generated by this load?"

My goal is an accurate, solidly-constructed, fast, bullet placed in the vitals at as close a range as possible. But we can all agree on that, I think.

For deer-sized game, I think nearly anything will work. For elk, I think most 250 + gr bullets, at reasonable speeds will work under 150 yards and in the vitals) most of the time. But I want as much room for error as possible. There's also a big difference in a two year old "legal" bull and an eight to ten year old bull.

____________________________
There are two kinds of people without
beards - boys and women. I am neither.

txhunter58 · Jul 11, 2014

LAST EDITED ON Jul-11-14 AT 09:01PM (MST)[p]
Great post! Some good thoughts that get me to thinking.

Here is the link you got your data for velocity:

http://www.hodgdon.com/PDF/muzzleloading_manual_2008.pdf?CHECKBOX_1=on

I think it is interesting that he got less velocity for 80 gr of 3f than he did for 2f on the 440. Something had to be up with that.

I also think it is interesting to note that you don't get much of a bump in velocity going from 2f to 3f. Had heard there would be more, but doesn't seem to be.

However, 80 gr of loose 777 compares pretty favorably to 100 gr of pyrodex. Example: 348 gr powerbelt with 100 gr pyrodex = 1493 fps. 348 powerbelt with 80 gr of 3f 777 = 1500 fps

But I still say that foot lbs is not a great tool to compare "knock down" when comparing big bullets. The faster bullet will always shine because you square the velocity. Just ones math equation that is useful, but not necessarily the end all

Here is another interesting link:

http://handloads.com/calc/quick.asp

The two loads both have an equavalent "momentum" of 85.

To be honest, this was the first time shooting these bullets with my White, and 75 gr was only my starting point, but was just blown away by the accuracy! I will continue to tinker, because as you say, faster is better, but I am still pretty comfortable with this load out to 120 yards for any elk walking.

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)

txhunter58 · Jul 13, 2014

Another interesting ballistics chart. I have heard that 75 gr of 3f 777 is pretty close to 80 gr of pyrodex P:

http://whitemuzzleloading.com/myweb2/images/whiterifles/Ballistic Tables.htm

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)

marley · Jul 13, 2014

I shoot a white super 91 with 95 grains of pyrodex P pushing a 460 grain No Excuses bullet. It chronos just under 1400 fps. Real life performance on a mature bull at 286 yards just behind the shoulder gave me this.

This bullet went through a rib going in, through both lungs, in between two ribs and was found just under the hide on the far side. It mushroomed well and still weighed in at 456 grains. I shot the bull again at 210 yards as he was still on his feet. It hit him 3 inches higher and also found the bullet just under the hide breaking a rib going in and between two ribs on the other side. He staggered towards me and I shot him again at 100 yards in the same spot which passed through. I have no doubt the first shot did him in.

My friend shot his bull last year with the same ML with the same load at 200 yards. It was slightly quartered towards him. He hit him just in front of the shoulder about collar bone area. It came out just in front of his hind leg on the far side. He staggered 100 yards and died.

The penetration with these loads in phenomenal. Good shooting TX

diablo · Jul 16, 2014

Keep us updated on what you settle on and how it works. I'll (with any luck) be testing my 300 gr bonded on a big UT bull. Should have details late Sept...

__________________________________
There are two kinds of people without
beards - boys and women. I am neither.

diablo · Jul 16, 2014

More food for thought - "U.S. Department of Justice Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness":

http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf

Granted, this paper was written about handgun effectiveness in humans (that makes it an interesting read for those of us who carry), but I think much of it can be applied to hunting.

Here is the conclusion:

"Kinetic energy does not wound. Temporary cavity does not wound. The much discussed "shock" of bullet impact is a fable and "knock down" power is a myth. The critical element is penetration. The bullet must pass through the large, blood bearing organs and be of sufficient diameter to promote rapid bleeding. Penetration less than 12 inches is too little, and, in the words of two of the participants in the 1987 Wound Ballistics Workshop, "too little penetration will get you killed." Given desirable and reliable penetration, the only way to increase bullet effectiveness is to increase the severity of the wound by increasing the size of hole made by the bullet. Any bullet which will not penetrate through vital organs from less than optimal angles is not acceptable. Of those that will penetrate, the edge is always with the bigger bullet."

One interesting point that stood out to me was that (human) skin has a penetration resistance equivalent to approximately 4 inches of flesh. Imagine the resistance of an elk hide - certainly explains why many bullets end up under the hide on the exit side.

Sorry to hijack the thread.
__________________________________
There are two kinds of people without
beards - boys and women. I am neither.

txhunter58 · Jul 19, 2014

LAST EDITED ON Jul-19-14 AT 09:48AM (MST)[p]Update.........

Went out today and shot 90 gr of 3fg 777. Accuracy was great as well! About 1" group at 50 yards and 3" at 100. For open sights, I can't do better. And my neck did pretty well (although will have to see how it feels tomorrow).

So, all things considered, I will probably use 90 grs. Flies pretty flat as well. about 1.5" high at 50 yards, 1" low at 100 and 3 inches low at 120 (my max range).

And for comparison, since 90 gr of 3fg 777 is aprox equal to 105 gr black powder, I have no doubt that it will be more than adequate for any elk in my range with a 460 Bullshop NEx bullet!

Will probably tinker slightly more with it before September, but I should be good to go with this load.

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)

fallguy · Jul 21, 2014

TX:

How much difference does the fiber wad under the bullet make?

txhunter58 · Jul 21, 2014

Not sure. Since I am using big hunks of pure lead, I wanted to protect them from the blast as much as possible (and maybe reduce leading of the barrel). So with the bullshop bullets, I haven't shot it without wads.

I did try some No Excuses without wads last year but only a few. Didn't get near the accuracy. However, those were 0.503 and the bullshops are 0.504.

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)

COLOelkman · Aug 6, 2014

TX - good shooting indeed. Have you tried any Pyrodex P in your White? Just curious as I bought a few Whites this past year and have yet to do much shooting. I have both 777 and the Pyrodex P and a boatload of Bullshop .504 bullets. I'll probably just take 2 of the Whites out at a time and see which ones shoot the best. Also curious as to your current limit of 120 yds. Is it because of the front bead or just the overall eyes or ??? I am going to put a steel front triangle on the front and see how well I can see it also using the 6 o'clock hold. I'm hoping to get out to 200 but we shall see. Just got to set a time to shoot the muzzy as I'm doing archery early but hope to use a White for the rifle season!

txhunter58 · Aug 6, 2014

No, haven't tried pyrodex P. I know Marley swears by it. However lots of guys using 3fg 777 in whites with good success. And it is working pretty well in my gun. It is also easier to come by in my area and I feel a little bit better if I don't clean the gun immediately after the shooting session or hunt on a fouled barrel.

Couple of reasons I limit myself to 120. My eyes mainly but unless I just have ideal shooting conditions in the field, that is the max range I feel real comfortable. Under ideal conditions: prone with a good rest and a standing broadside shot, I might extend that to 150. But beyond that, when I have glasses that allow me to see the front sight, I just can't make out the target well enough.

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)

COLOelkman · Aug 7, 2014

OK thanks. I hear ya on the eyes. I'm planning to try contacts to see whether it is better or worse for shooting.
On the powder, so what your saying is the Pyro P is more corrosive than the 777 so that would make sense. I also leave the gun fouled for the period while I'm hunting and wasn't sure how long you can keep the barrel fouled without starting damage. I hope to soon find out the difference in the 2 powders with my guns as I have also seen others that like the 777 in a White.

txhunter58 · Aug 7, 2014

LAST EDITED ON Aug-07-14 AT 05:44PM (MST)[p]The only thing that has gotten me "in the ballpark" sight wise is that I special ordered 0.25 reading glasses. That makes the front sight pretty clear and the target not too bad

I would have tried the seeallsight if it had been declared legal, but don't have that option since it was ruled not legal for CO.

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)

Cow Tag · Aug 7, 2014

Texas Hunter, need a question answered here. I see where you plan on using Bull Shop bullets during your 2014 black powder elk hunt. Are these manufactured by the No Excuses Bullet maker? Are they the same thing? You sort of abbreviated the No Excuses word in your post so I am not clear on which is which. Tell us more about the Bull Shop bullets. I will type this word into a search engine in a minute to learn more about them. I received a box of the No Excuses 535 grain bullets a day or two ago in the big .54 caliber. Hopefully, my old Remington 700 ML rifle will like them and Black Horn powder. Trying something different this time around. As always, thanks for your input. Cow Tag

txhunter58 · Aug 7, 2014

Bullshops are not No Excuses. No excuses only come in 0.503 width. Bullshops can be made to order in 0.503, 0.504, 0.5045. Bullshop bullets are made by a family in Montana. They don't have a website any more and don't take credit. You have to email them or call to make an order, then you have to send them a check or money order first to get them to make your bullets. Here is their contact info:

[email protected]

The Bullshop
PO box 240030
Dell, MT 59724

If no excuses work in your rifle, I would stick with them because they are much easier to order. But with my White muzzy, the 0.504s are a tighter fit and seem to be more accurate.

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)

Cow Tag · Aug 8, 2014

Thanks for the information. Cow Tag

txhunter58 · Aug 9, 2014

Went out today and shot again. Pretty happy with how it is shooting.

Final load: 90 gr of 3fg 777 with a 460 gr NEx bullshop. Last 5 shot group at 50 yards (open sights) was 1.5 inches. Will practice further out in the next few weeks, but that is pretty good for me.

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)