New Member here, great site. Question. I have a 54 cal TC Black Mountain Magnum which I used to shoot 375 grain buckslayers with 100 grains pyrodex. I am going to shoot 435 grain TC Maxi-hunters this year, does nayone have experience with this bullet and what loads do you use>

The maxi hunters are great bullets, especially for traditional MLs. I shoot 50 cal maxi's and use 90gr FFFG.

To be completely honest, I am pretty ignorant about this weapon. I've shot one elk with it (cow) at aprox 70 yards with the 375 grain buckslayer, did a right nice job too. I do not know the barrel twist but plan on calling the company to ask. I gather from reading some of the posts that barrel twist is important regards conical bullets, sabbots or patched round ball. Any opinions?

The slower, 1:48 twist provides excellent accuracy for patched RBs. Conicals generally work best in 1:28 twist in 'newer' traditional rifles.

Thats exactly what I was looking for rem, thanx

Thats exactly what I was looking for rem, thanx
Maxi balls are more accurate than the maxi hunter. A flatter meplat seems to be better at "whackin" the game too and the maxi ball has an edge that isn't rounded like the maxi hunter and that edge makes a better wound channel. Rounded(like the maxi hunter) isn't the best fer huntin. Of course the "rounded" lead round ball is an exception. It's round but is a good hunter. It creates a very leathal wound channel different than a rounded nose conical.
Some rifles with the 1-48 twist will fire a conical very well while it's factory clone may not. 1-48 twist was a strange one. A rifle with that may or may not fire round balls well. May or may not fire conicals well. May fire both well. May fire none well. I have an Investarms Hawken(Cabelas took over the market with them and call them the "Traditional Hawken") and it fires both the ball and the conical well. It will fire any of the lead slugs I've tried into a group about the size of a medium size grapefruit out at two hundred yards and shoot the balls well too. Of course it's a fifty but the 54's are about the same way. I don't base my opinion on just one or two rifles. It was an accepted fact back "in the day" that the 1-48 twist was pre-tickular. I've sold what has to be hundreds of the 1-48 rifles and helped customers sight them in. Helped people sight them in even if I didn't sell em too. I had a small shop years ago. What is important with those 1-48's or any rifle shooting conicals(even sabots) is getting the bullet loaded straight.

I have a Tompson Contender Rennegade in 54 caliber,, left handed I got as a kit. I have fired the Maxi-balls with great accuracy at times. Off a bench of course. I used 90 Grs of ffg as opposed to "synethic powder" for the best accuracy in mine. I have used Pyrodex as well and the accuracy is just "slightly" less than the true black powder for some reason. I have only take 2 deer with it but they went down right quick and the bullets went completly through them with broadside shots. I have experimented with every load from 60 grs up to over 100, but I got the best accuracy with between 85 and 90 grs in my gun. You just have to play with them and see what your gun likes.

I have a Tompson Contender Rennegade in 54 caliber,, left handed I got as a kit. I have fired the Maxi-balls with great accuracy at times. Off a bench of course. I used 90 Grs of ffg as opposed to "synethic powder" for the best accuracy in mine. I have used Pyrodex as well and the accuracy is just "slightly" less than the true black powder for some reason. I have only take 2 deer with it but they went down right quick and the bullets went completly through them with broadside shots. I have experimented with every load from 60 grs up to over 100, but I got the best accuracy with between 85 and 90 grs in my gun. You just have to play with them and see what your gun likes.
Ruger4570, yer right. Gotta play with the loads to find the best one. I think the best fer Elk would be the big diameter heavy conicals. Just not rounded on the nose too much. The flatter the meplate the better. I don't know if I stated this earlier but there are "best rifle barrel twists" fer balls and conicals. The balls in the "big" range like 50cal and larger like the slower twist so the heavy balls with the "less" friction bearing surfaces don't strip thru the rifling with heavy hunting loads. The twist of 1-48 isn't the best one for balls. Getting slower like with the 1-66 twist and even slower for the really big balls is best. The bigger the ball the slower the twist so the ball ,which resists the centrifical spin, can't resist enough to strip thru the rifling grooves. Way ,"back in the day". when people experimented with rifle barrel twists the 1-32 was accepted as the best fer a 50cal. conical bullet. I'm not positively remembering maybe but the 1-48 twist was accepted to be a good one for the 54cal. conical. Slower than the 50cal. because of the weight of the 54cal. Slower so the weight of the 54cal. wouldn't strip thru the rifling. That would mean that the rifles with the 54cal. and the 1-48 twist may be better in the accuracy dept. than the 50cal. and the 1-48 rifling twist(50cal. liking the 1-32 twist ). I guess if a guy was to hunt elk the heavier 54cal. would be better than the 50cal. and if the guy was going to use a rifle with 1-48 twist it would have a good chance at being accurate enough to ethically kill elk. Personally I would experiment with the Lyman "Hunter" rifle(Great Plains Rifle) since it happens to engage the conicals with the "1-32 twist" for the rifling. It may be better in the accuracy dept and be better consistantly because of the accepted truth that the 50cal. likes the 1-32 twist the best. It may be found that the 54cal. with certain conicals would do better with the 1-32 twist also. Gotta play with the loads like Ruger 4570 portrayed. There is another fact that someone with a "Hawken" from T/C or Investarms(Cabelas) would like to know. There are beautiful interchangable rifle barrels for those guns and guns similar that are of the fast twist(1-32 or maybe 1-28) shallow grooved rifling twist for the use of conicals and/or saboted conicals. If a rifle with the 1-48 twist doesn't hold consistant accuracy with that rifling twist a barrel made by Green Mountain Barrels can be had to interchange onto the rifles. Kewl! :D

If you're going on a guided hunt, be sure to check and see what is acceptable, in recent years a number of guides have banned the use of the T/C style maxiball's, Lee REAL's and others with a similar nose shape. This is because of their unpredictable performance after impact. I've talked with two outfitters who relayed first hand reports of these angled nose projectiles turning on impact even with rib bones. I had private people tell me this same thing happened to them which lead me to do some testing a few years ago. Catching a 3/8" wood dowel even slightly off center caused these types of conicals to change course as much as 80°. Sharply pointed conicals like the Power Belt's faired better but still did not hold a true strait line. Conicals with round & round/flat nose shaped gave the least amount of deflection and produced far larger wound channels.

When it comes to rate of twist, there are many variables. First is the combination of both bullet length and velocity. A given bullet length will require X amount of twist according to the Greenhill formula but this does not take into account the velocity of said bullet since the RPM's will vary proportionally with its velocity. The Greenhill formula was designed for the average BPCR loading producing velocities between 1100 and 1300 fps and for bullets with round or flat nose and a flat base. For the same style bullets operating above or below the "accepted velocity range", adjustments are required to the rate of twist calculations to obtain maximum performance. Additionally, bullets with a longer nose and less bearing surface also need to be calculated differently.

Roundballs are a creature unto themselves and formulas like Greenhill and similar are totally useless for calculating the twist rate for spherical projectiles. In reality, a flawless sphere does not require any spin at all to shoot accurately. Since flawless balls are a theory and not an absolute, some spin is required to correct for their imperfections and deformation when being jammed into the bore.

RB's (roundballs) are easily over spun, not "over stabilized" as some say because it is impossible to make something "too stabile". What happens is, as velocity increases, so does the RPM's. At some point, the RPM's will exceed that which is needed to correct for the flaws and the flaws become amplified and accuracy is reduced. This is why you will find that at some point in the velocity scale, a given twist rate will become less accurate. There are a whole lot of variables that go into a muzzleloader which change everything. Compression factor on the powder, touchole/nipple diameter, seal to the bore, friction factor of the bore, ect... Any one of these things can have a huge affect on the results because each and every one of them changes the velocity of the RB.

So let's say in theory you eliminate all the variables except for velocity and twist rate. For the sake of discussion only, not hard numbers used here, just an example of maximum accuracy: In a 1:28 twist bore, you may top out with a velocity of 1200 fps. A 1:32 maybe 1300 fps; 1:48 @ 1600 fps; 1:56 @ 1900 fps; 1:72 @ 2100 fps ect... The myth of "best roundball twist" is instantly dispelled because the best twist has nothing to do with caliber because velocity is the absolute most important determining factor. This is why you will hear some people gripe that their 1:48 won't shoot with more than 85gr of powder and someone with a 1:72 griping because he needs to run at least 120gr of powder to get any accuracy.

Here's an example. I load PRB's in 12ga centerfire hulls and shoot them through smoothbores (no choke). I tuned the load specifically to an old single shot break open I had and it would give 3" average size groups anytime at 100yds. No spin at all applied to them. Run them through a new 12ga rifled bore and they won't group for sh%t yet the elongated conicals in the same gun will shoot very good groups. However, if the PRB's are downloaded considerably in velocity, they will group as well as the conicals in the same gun.

So where did the 1:48 twist come from? Quite likely a number someone pulled out of hat one day and the rest simply followed along blindly. The twist rate is going to determine how fast you can drive a PRB before you cause them to amplify the flaws and become inaccurate. If you want to shoot mild target loads, then by all means a 1:48 or faster will likely do very well as has been proven time and again. If you want to shoot high velocity with heavy loads, slower twists are going to be in order. If you read some of the stuff on Foresythe, you will see he used twists in the .62 of 1:144 and such that are considered to be "way to slow" yet the fact he was burning 200+ grains of powder was the reason. Big thing to remember when dealing with PRB's is that range is not proportional to velocity. Considerable increases in velocity are required to gain small effective range gains. PRB's loose velocity quickly and the only way to gain considerable effective range is have a combination of more mass (bigger caliber) and more velocity. Thus, if you go from say a tiny little .50 ball to a moderate size .62 ball but don't allow for considerable velocity gains by using a much slower twist, you are not going to gain very much for effective range.

Another myth is "stripping". In all the years I've been hearing this BS, not one person has been able to produce a recovered "stripped" bullet. I've bullets that were gas cut and bullets that were way too small for the bore but to this day, no one has been able to produce a true stripped bullet.

Any projectile is going to take the patch of least resistance and if you engaged the rifling sufficiently when seating a proper size projectile, PRB or conical, and there are no mechanical problems with the bore, the path of least resistance is going to be along the path it went in on following the rifling. In order for a properly sized projectile to "strip", you would need a sufficient pressure spike behind the projo to far exceed the shear strength of the projo material over its entire bearing surface. This is where I get the argument, "well my rifling is only .004" deep and I can shave that much off a soft lead bullet real easy with my lubrisizer." Yes, you can. However, in the bore, you have .004" deep rifling on both sides which makes the total bullet engagement .008" And ... this is over the entire length of the bullet, not just at one point as when running through a sizing die.

Now, if the projo is too small, the gas from the burning powder is going to blow past it cutting material off it's diameter making it even smaller. This is a mechanical size problem and is NOT stripping. I often here guys saying things like, "well, I get over 100gr and the balls strip the rifling." Yet, when you get them to shoot a couple with 120gr charges, you recover the patches and they look fine. No tears, no rips and perfect mirror image of the rifling yet they are not accurate. This is not stripping, it's over spinning the ball to the point where the flaws become amplified. Yet another case of myth takes the place of fact. Same like the guy who swore the maxiballs "stripped out" yet he was trying to shoot these conicals sized at .498" in a .502" bore with a groove depth of .517" Yep, they loaded easy because the only thing keep them from falling to the bottom on their own was the fouling.

Markkw, are you actually a hunter? Shoot anything besides 3/8's dowell rods? Angled nose bullets deflect more than rounded/rounded flat nose? Funny, all them angled or rounded flat nose or whatever they are all still angled nose projectiles. The ogive of practically any bullet is "angled" as you referr to maxi's ect. In that respect their nose configuration are all angled so how can you say bullets with "like" nose configuration can be different than the others. Like I said all those bullets you mentioned are angled nose so they would all respond accordingly. Hunters know any bullet can deflect off small branches and even rib bones. I'd sure like to see a 385gr. 50cal. or a 400+ 54cal. within it's ethical range deflect 80% off an elks ribs if hit properly without too much quartering away or into the hunters line of sight. hee hee A 50cal. maxi bullet with it's weight hits with at least 1000ft.lbs. of energy out at the 100yard line if propelled by 100gr. of FFg blackpowder. That 100 yard line is the ethical range limit for that projectile shooting elk. Elmer Kieth(know of him?) invented the semi-wadcutter to have those edges on the meplat and the first driving band fer a reason. He shot lots of animals out west there. I've done some tests that affirm to me what Elmer Kieth seemed to relay in his books about projectiles. I've tested the idea about edges on the bullets. 45cal. muzzleloader 75gr.FFg powder, 1-22rifling twist ect. ect. Using the Lyman 45cal. Govt. bullet mould 457125(pretty sure) and the 500 gr. bullet with the round nose on game such as deer. When the nose is left rounded the game can be shot in the kill zone and still go aways and cause me to have to track them a relatively short range. Find them. When that same bullet has a "flat" with the edges put on the nose causing a near "wadcutter" configuration the bullet does remarkably good work bringing the game down. Usually darn near drop them in their tracks where hit. The flat on the bullet creates a pronounced "whack" sound when it hits the game. They just go down much better using the "flat" on the bullet nose than when leaving the nose round. As far as edges are concerned on these "angled" nose bullets ,as you term them , the edge helps create a more devastating wound channel and help reduce deflection greatly. Mechanical aptitude would help anyone deduce that rounded deflects more than a sharper edge. The sharper edge of a "flat" on the nose grabs and helps bullets deflect less and pulls them toward the deflection object instead of deflect away as a rounded nose does. The edges cut. The rounded nose bullets open a channel in the games tissue that lets the tissue stretch and snap back behind it. That lets the wound channel close a good bit behind the bullet. That's why I recommend the maxi over the hunter bullet. The edges. The maxi-hunter has edges that are too round and also isn't a inherently accurate as the maxi. Anywhooo....if you try to differentiate and call some of these bullets "angled" and round/round flat that is an error since as far as deflection is concerned the noses of the bullets you are trying to say are different are actually very similar where deflection is concerned. The edges are what count when the bullets hit. Imagine a bullet with as extreme an edge as can be made on a bullet. The WADCUTTER. It has the edges. Not the rouned as the maxi-hunter. A hunter would do well to pick a bullet as much like the wadcutter with those edges as possible. In my opinion. I've seen deflection test using multiple wood dowel rods for a bullet to hit.(with corresponding pictures). None of the bullets no matter what the nose design deflected 80%. All the projectiles stayed on their initial path enough to stay in the dowells and break most of them. 80% is a really big deflection angle. It can happen I guess but would not be common. Not even with the round ball that I've seen has deflected on ribs at almost an 80% angle. That would be a rare happening though. Especially with a heavy lead conical traveling fast enough to build 1000ft.lbs at 100 yards with 100gr. of powder. That may deflect on elk ribs but not enough to miss the kill zone so close on the other side of those ribs. I guess the hunter should be aware of deflection possibilities though(as most would be) with the projectile chosen and shoot at a respectable angle at the game. Good thing to know that deflection is possible with a lead projectile. A hunter can pick the ethical shot with that knowledge.
Round balls? Flaws are exaggerated with too much velosity because of too much spin? I always thought that the spin is what stabilized the ball against wind deflection and imperfections in the ball? hmmmmm Can a ball spin too fast and exaggerate imperfections? Sure. If a ball spun too fast the centrifical forces could pull it apart. Just like a jacketed bullet pushed too fast can disintegrate from centrifical forces.Disintegrate into dust. The ball couldn't be pushed fast enough into centrifical forces to de-shape it too easily. It would strip the rifling first probably because of the lack of bearing surface engaging the rifling. You see with the 50cal. patched ball as an example the land diameter is most often .500. The ball used most often would be the .490 or the .495. That size ball with out the patch engraves the rifle none at all. Dropped into it's corresponding rifle barrel bore it would simply drop to the breech plug without the patch. The patch has to firmly grasp the ball optimally imprinting the fabric of the cotton patch into the relatively soft lead. When the ball is propelled with too much velosity(you are right to imput velosity into the dicussion) it resists the centrifical forces emmitted on it by the rifling and the patch gripping it and refuses to spin enough or properly. The patch would still be riding in the rifling grooves but the ball that isn't actually engraved by the lands because it's diameter is smaller than the land diameter(at least ot much at all) can refuse to spin, or refuse to spin enough to stabilize it in flight. It's all about the ball not spinning fast enough because it can resist the centrifical forces the rifling trys to put on it because the weight and mass of the ball is enough to resist the centrifical forces. You see the "path of least resistance" as you put it is actually the path the ball takes when it refuses to take the spin the rifling trys to put on it. The path of least resistance is to not spin and it's incorrect to state that the path of least resistance is to take on the centrifical forces the rifling trys to impart on the weight and mass of the ball. The rifling twist being too fast for the ball means that that path of "the most resistance" gets to be too much for the weight and mass of the lead ball to take onto itself so it takes the path of least resistance which is to "not spin". You have that backwards when you state the path of least resistance is to take on the centrifical forces the rifling imparts onto the projectile.The laws of physics on the planet earth are such that an object with weight and mass resists the centrifical forces.If a ball spinning from a rifle went far enough the spin on it that the ball still resists even in the air would eventually stop. The spinning gets slower and slower as the ball travels through the air. The "BS" about balls stripping,as you put it, and no one ever recovering a striped ball as you state as evidence is ludicrous. There would be no sign on the ball of stripping since it doesn't engrave the rifling lands, The patch does. "Research" the size of the balls used for the corresponding bore diameters. You'll see the evidence there. There are no signs of stripping on a ball because all it does is not spin in the patch that spins with the grooves. Sure there can incidences where the patch is torn by it stipping the rifling with the ball. An experienced eye could see it especially if that ball and patch combination in a bore the same size with a slower twist doesn't tear the patch but that same corresponding patch and ball combination in a bore the same size but with the faster twist does show signs of rifling lands tearing it. Anywhooo...you have to realize there are two different incidences where the ball can be monkeyed into inaccuracy. One is the overly fast centrifical forces you say can exxagerate the imperfections(actually creates more imperfections by mis-shaping the lead ball by the centrifical forces trying to pull it apart) and cause inaccuracy. Then there is the case of the balls weight and mass resisting centrical forces that the rifling twist that is too fast for the ball and it's engagement surfaces trys to impart on the ball and fails to do so because of certain laws of physics.The ball strips the rifling because it's weight and mass want to take the path of least resistance which is the path with no spin. It resists and succeeds to do so. And velosity does play a major role in that scenario the same as when the ball would spin so fast the centrifical forces try to pull it apart. Even jacketed bullets can be turned to dust by too much velosity and the corresponding centrifical forces imparted on them. Well, the myth of "stripping" and the BS of it may take on a new light now that you may realize there are two scenarios to contend with. Centrifical forces imparting(exaggerating as you say) deformation on the lead ball(hard to get enough velosity) caused by too much spin from too much velosity "and" the ball being able to easily resist the centrifical forces from the rifling due to a rifling twist that is too fast for the balls weight and mass and bearing surface to accept.That causing the ball to follow the laws of physicas and resist the centrifical forces the rifling trys to impart to the ball. Stripping does happen. It may be difficult to prove by looking at balls and patches but the mechanics of it are substantiated by a reduction in velosity or the reduction of rifling spin in a rifle barrel. I guess if you wanted, or I wanted, to prove whether or not the ball stipped or was deformed by centrifical forces it would have to be determined how much centrifical force it actually takes to deform a lead ball enough to be inaccurate while spinning and see if that force is even imparted to the ball at the velosities it is pushed to in a muzzleloading rifle. The tensile strength of a lead ball would have to be determined and the force it would take to resist that tensile strength and deform the lead would also have to be determined. I don't have the time to find the figures and appy them to the lead ball and the centrifical forces caused by the rifling. Do you? If the centrifical forces imparted to the ball by certain velosity and rifling in a barrel were not enough to deform the ball you would be proven incorrect in this instance with lead balls in muzzleloading rifles. If there were enough forces imparted to the ball to deform it you would be considered correct to a degree about the deformation causing inaccuracy but......that would only add to the scenario about the ball stripping and not disprove it. It would only prove there is one instance where the ball can be deformed by centrifical forces and the "myth and BS" about balls stripping would still stand as "not disproved". Maybe you understand more now. This is all food for thought anywhooo..... See ya Bud. Take care now.

Let's not get carried away, Gents.

Bye
Jack

Remember our Golden Rule here - be courteous and respectful to the opinlons of others. We can disagree, but do it in a pleasant way.

**NOTE: This reply is in responce to Rifle's personal attacks on me within the confines of this forum. I very much respect Kdub & Jack for trying to quell this and I refrained the last time from making open public comment on these actions. I offer my sincere apologies to all the other fine people on this site in advance for my responce to these attacks as seen below. This is the last time I will respond to directly to Rifle in this forum, it is not the place for this and I will not fall prey to it. My comments are in responce only to Rifle's personal attacks on me and my replies to such will end with this posting as I have much better things to do with my time. Once again, I apologize to all the fine people on this forum I consider to be brothers in arms but I cannot allow this to continue without a direct responce but this will be the last time I will make comment on the subject. Thank You for your understanding in this matter. ** end of note.

Rifle,

I was trying to be courteous but this is the thrid time you have jumped on me personally within your 20 postings and I am not going to let it slide this time.

I have offered advice and relayed information based on facts obtained through testing and definitive proof yet you are offering nothing more than conflict.

In one post you say to "offer positive info" yet it is you who offers nothing but insult and disinformation.

I've had enough of this crap. People come here looking for good information and that's what I try to provide and have done so for how many years now. I was letting this crap somewhat slide because there is no point in arguing with an idiot. I'm not even going to respond to the completely stupid comments made by you, obviously you know as much about ballistics as Arlen Spector.

You wanted to make this personal Rifle, not me. I tried to respectfully disagree with your BS and offer the correct information but you choose to be confrontational. You're a new guy and I've been here for years and it's never come to this with anyone else, even the debates over how much the AR's suck, we disagree but things are civil, it never becomes personal and even though I disagree with other's choices in weapons, it's all in poking good natured fun and not meant to insult anyone or degrade them publicly as you are clearly trying to do. You're making this personal yet you offer nothing but flawed information and have no basis of fact to back up your statements like the one about "elastic lead" and the other about how well your lube pills work that you have to go back and re-clean multiple times days after shooting.

You want to make this a personal battle and I've wasted enough time trying to be polite and counter your disinformation with facts instead of just ripping your postings to shreds and making you look like the fool you are. If you want to be confrontational, why don't you go find a democrap political forum to hang out in and annoy like minded people as yourself who have nothing to offer but BS and fabrications?

This is the first and last time I will respond your BS. You are not going to come on here and attack me personally in a public forum with out cause and not expect me to defend myself. What you don't you understand???? This is a "public forum" and not your own personal blogging site. If you have a personal problem with me, why don't you have the balls to email me directly or are you just looking for the public recognition by inciting an argument for your own personal satisfaction?

Of your 23 posts, 3 of them are personal attacks on me. What is your problem????? There are hundreds of good people visiting this forum every day and none of them act like you.

Are you jealous because I have put 17 years into real scientific ballistics testing. Does it annoy you that I have invested multiple thousands of dollars of my own money testing new lubes and new bullet designs trying to find things that work better rather than relying on what someone decided was best? Does it further annoy you that I have spent countless hours doing research on not only on ballistics but also on the engineering properties concerning the functions of gases, heat and the mechanical responce of materials?

I don't buy into hype or myth, I want pure scientific fact backed up with real world testing data. I don't believe the gun writers' because 99.9% of them do nothing but push the hype of their sponsors and the myths passed on through the years which are worth less than the paper they are written on.

I have followed this same routine throughout my life. I have spent my lifetime to date doing things that the multitudes, including a large number of well respected engineers, said couldn't be done. I don't have to prove my worth, my record speaks for itself as my accomplishments speak for themselves despite the fact that most didn't even result in a "thank you". None of it really matters, I and those who were around me at the time know the truth. There are a lot of pilots and ground crews serving in our military right now who have no clue but are thankful that the design change I came up with years ago is what keeps their antenna panels from falling off. Anyone who sees a NYC ESU truck has no idea that design was copied from a useless mini-pumper I converted into a medium rescue truck for a little volunteer fire department in PA.

Yep, I got bragging rights and that's about it because I never had the money to afford getting a patent on anything. I can brag because I paid my dues and I invested my own time and my own money to learn what I know. You wanted the recipe for my lubes, ain't gonna happen! I put the time and money into it and now they are going to be my own line of products. This time around things are going to be different because for all my accomplishments of years past, all I got was poor and now half cripled up wondering if I'll be able to walk when I wake up in the morning or if I can pay the bills at the end of the month. I'll sell my products for myself because I am not going to let a major company corrupt them by letting the bean counters screw them up so they can make more money.

I've had quite enough of giving away for free what I have put my heart and soul into accomplishing and I have had quite enough time dealing with people like you. END OF DISCUSSION!!!

Markkw,If you were sitting right here and talking to me about the subjects in this post I would be saying the same things the same way. You could learn something and I could learn something. I guess if you disagreed with most of what I say ,as you have whenever I print something here,I would respond accordingly,to you, to define or defend my opinions. That's what a discussion is. The exchange of ideas and the explanation of the reasoning that leads one to believe the way they do about a subject. Well, I've enjoyed the exchange of knowledge you put forth whether I agree with it or not. I may think about something you stated and that may formulate a new awakening about some aspect of a subject for me. I can handle the truth about an idea and am not threatened by being mistaken or misguided in my thoughts about a subject. I enjoy learning the truth. I can handle the truth. In my opinion,"you can't handle the truth". I guess if I read past the point of your last post where you call me an,"idiot", I could get aggravated but.....I ain't. hee hee Too bad you aren't going to respond to my post anymore. I enjoyed our communication. hee hee Others may have enjoyed it too even if only from learning from our mistakes. I was hoping to go on to explaining the relationship between velocity,the limitations of blackpowder in relation to it and any given rifle barrel twist involved. I figured discussing that may clear up some things. Oh well. As the famous "Outlaw Josey Wales" said in the Movie,"I reckon so". hee hee Maybe you'll change your mind about posting directly to me and you can go back to contradicting me. Seemed like you enjoyed that. I'd hate to ruin yer fun.hee hee I didn't take your responses as,"jumping on me". I thought you were wanting to discuss the topic. Guess I'll go now and wait for your apology to appear somewhere. hee hee

Side note....I don't use lube pills in my muzzleloading rifles. I use them in my cap&ball revolvers. They work wonderfully in that application. Grease cookies(lube pills) put on the powder in the chamber and under the the lead ball work well.
The pills under the powder keep the chambers and the barrel very clean for even over 200 balls fired. The pills improve accuracy by acting like gas checks too.
The lube reciepe is bees wax,parraffin wax, and mutton tallow(or olive oil) mixed in equal amounts. Soy wax ,which is cheaper than bees wax, can be substituted for the bees wax.

I figured someone would get the inference that some blend of the lube pills may work well when "put on the powder" in a muzleloading rifle. It can work well in some rifles when coupled with the same lube on the patches. I've tried it and with extra lube mixed in the reciepe for the "patches" and the pills made of equal amounts of the ingredients ,as usual ,the rifle barrels stay well lubed. The length of the barrels can be a determining factor and the pills shouldn't be too thick and should be relatively thin.
Anywhooo... the secret is to get lots of lube on the barrel walls in front of the powder blast. Lots of lube. In the web sight for "big Lube Bullets" mentioned below there is an explanation about the lube there on that sight that adds insight. Anyhow if anyone was interested in the procedure for making "lube pills" I will be happy to explain to them.

A shooter on another forum makes, sells, and gives the recipe for a lube used in CASS shooting that is said to work very well. It's called "Pearl Lube".
It is made of a recipe blended with toilet seal wax(hardware store) soy wax,paraffine wax and any cheapy vegetable oil. Crisco is in the Pearl Lube. They say it keeps the rifles and revolvers going all day in the CASS shoots when the shooter uses "blackpowder".. The muzzles show a good "lube star" when the lube is used on the "Big Lube Bullets". www.biglube.com :D

This has gone on away too long. Locked.

Bye
Jack