.

CVA Kentucky Pistol

mackcranemackcrane Member Posts: 1,869 ✭✭✭✭✭
Anybody got load data for a CVA Kentucky Pistol in 45 caliber? Thanks.

Comments

  • andrewsw16andrewsw16 Member Posts: 11,311
    edited November -1
    I have the same pistol. Try 30 - 50 grains of BP or the same (in volume, not weight) of 777 or Pyrodex. Start low and work up a few grains at a time until you are satisfied with the power/accuracy tradeoff.
  • bambambambambambam Member Posts: 4,797 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I have one in .50 that I shoot 50gr in.
  • andrewsw16andrewsw16 Member Posts: 11,311
    edited November -1
    True. I once heard an old rule of thumb for the front stuffers was one grain of black powder for each .01 of caliber. .50 cal = 50 grains of powder, etc. It's a rough estimate, but it is pretty safe. I have never been able to over powder a good muzzle loader. Long before any barrel failure could happen, lots of unburnt powder was being blown out the muzzle and being wasted. [:D]
  • slumlord44slumlord44 Member Posts: 3,693 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    As I recall, start with 30 grains. 50 would be max. Gun is deadly with most any load and mine is as accurate as any hand gun I own at 7 yards.
  • bambambambambambam Member Posts: 4,797 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    How true. I was told when first starting by a old timmer that a white sheet was a good tool to check max loads.

    He told me that any unburnt powder would show up on the white sheet letting you know if your over charged.

    You can theoreticly fill the entire barrel with powder and the gun will only burn what it can. DON'T DO IT THOUGH[B)]

    When I was about 15 I filled my dad's T/C Hawkin .50 clear full to the end. It kicked the balls off me[:0] He never could figure out why the nipple threads where stripped out. He had to drill and tap a set screw from the side to lock the nipple in[:D]

    quote:Originally posted by andrewsw16
    True. I once heard an old rule of thumb for the front stuffers was one grain of black powder for each .01 of caliber. .50 cal = 50 grains of powder, etc. It's a rough estimate, but it is pretty safe. I have never been able to over powder a good muzzle loader. Long before any barrel failure could happen, lots of unburnt powder was being blown out the muzzle and being wasted. [:D]
  • firstharmonicfirstharmonic Member Posts: 883 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    These older CVA pistols have a weak point - the way the barrel is held to the stock. There are no under barrel stock wedges or pins; the barrel is held by the tang bolt and the rather thin piece of wood sandwiched between the nosecap and the barrel. And the stock wood is kind of soft.

    For this reason, I've always limited myself to 35 grains in those .45 caliber pistols. I have two - a percussion and a flinter. Both were packaged and sold as CVA pistols but one says "Jukar"; pretty common for thirty years or so ago when I got them. The CVA has nice deep rifling, the Jukar has shallow, almost just scratches for rifling.

    Both are gangs of fun.
  • mackcranemackcrane Member Posts: 1,869 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Thanks everybody. I'll start out with about 30 grains and see what happens.
  • bull300wsmbull300wsm Member Posts: 3,289
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by andrewsw16
    I have the same pistol. Try 30 - 50 grains of BP or the same (in volume, not weight) of 777 or Pyrodex. Start low and work up a few grains at a time until you are satisfied with the power/accuracy tradeoff.


    Not true according to this statement...

    Unmasking the Blackpowder "Volumetric Grain" of Doom

    By Randy Wakeman


    Gun manufacturers and powder sellers have been generally ignorant, lackadaisical, and sloppy about referring to "volumetric grains" and volumetric equivalents of blackpowder and blackpowder synthetic replica powders for decades. It is not what you might think, and not only not are there no "universal standards" for volumetric grains, there never were. Yet, some manufacturers dodder on, suggesting that blackpowder is supposed to be measured by volume, or was designed to be. This is absolute rubbish.

    You won't find any definition of a blackpowder volumetric grain from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), or any other source that I know of. The reason is simple; there is none. Blackpowder has always been measured by weight, not by volume; just like breakfast cereal. You buy blackpowder by the pound, and that is weight, not a "volumetric pound."

    The avoirdupois dram is the unit of weight used to measure black powder. There are 256 drams in a pound avoirdupois, 16 drams in an ounce, and 7000 grains in a pound. 1 gram = 15.432 grains = 0.564 drams. These are all weight measurements, and always have been. Volumetric measuring of blackpowder has never been accurate, and it isn't today.

    A closer look at this mess makes it obvious why volume is not precise. The geometry of blackpowder itself varies by its own granulation size; Fg, FFFg, FFFFg, and so forth. Trying to measure blackpowder (or anything else) by its bulk is tricky. Blackpowder varies all over the place by geometry, moisture content, and even composition percentages. Ian McMurchy published actual weight of 100 gr. volumetric Goex FFg as 101.3 grains, 100 gr. volumetric Goex FFFg as 101.6 grains. (Page 81, Modern Muzzleloading For Today's Whitetails.) Mr. McMurchy didn't stop there; Pyrodex Select (which is a very large granulation size) weighs in at 63.9 grains, Pyrodex RS at 72.5, Pryrodex P at 73.0, Pyrodex pellets at 74.2, Arco at 94.7, Clean Shot at 85.1, and Quick Shots at 65.5 grains of actual weight. The "Arco" cited is the old "Black Mag 2."

    Not only does volumetric grain have no exact correlation to weight, it has no precise correlation to performance. Ian McMurchy (in the very same book) chronographed 100 volumetric grains of various blackpowders and substitutes through his Oeher 35P pushing a 300 grain bullet, recording 5 shot average velocities from 1233 fps up to 1594 fps all with "100 grains of powder."

    When muzzleloader manufacturers say "100 grains by volume max load" they really are saying nothing that can be accurately quantified. As far as I'm concerned, it is a pretty darn stupid statement-considering that the pressure a powder charge develops has a lot to do with projectile type and weight. A "maximum load" is not a logical thing to proclaim without inclusion of precise projectile weight and type. This starts out dumb, and just gets dumber.

    Not only does "by volume" vary all over the place by propellant, the volumetric blackpowder measures themselves are hooked to no particular standard. You cannot buy an SAE, ANSI, CIP, or SAAMI calibrated black powder measure-no such animal exists. The 10 grain (or 5 grain) hash marks on various blackpowder measures (whether made from brass in Red China, India, or in the US from clear plastic) themselves do not agree on what 100 grains by volume is.

    The shotgun industry has also has its problems with "drams equivalent." Many shotgun shells sold today still have "drams equivalent" of blackpowder printed right on their boxes. Somebody, somewhere, decided that a weighed charge of three drams of some brand and some granulation of blackpowder in some 12 gauge shotgun with some type of hull, some type of wad, and an unspecified barrel length, bore size, and choke constriction just happened to propel 1-1/8 ounces of shot at exactly 1200 fps on the nose in front of the muzzle. The scattergun sports industry has been stuck promulgating black powder dram equivalents ever since; an amazing shame.

    Nevertheless, the volumetric grain of true blackpowder was "close enough" to the actual weight (within 10% as a generalization); considered more than close enough for field use with such a very inefficient, low yield propellant. It was and is, with true blackpowder.

    It is of little help to today's muzzleloading hunter, who ponders how such crudely made propellants such as American Pioneer / Shockey's Gold with all the consistency of gravel can be accurately volumetrically measured, and how pellets and sticks can be considered volumetric equivalents to powder when they suck moisture and have clearly visible chunks missing out of them. There must be some type of perpetual motion or circular logic at play here: pellets and substitutes are touted as "volumetric equivalents" to "blackpowder volumetric measures" which are inaccurate, imprecise, and comport to no recognized standards in the first place.

    It is currently a triumph of how accurately one can reproduce inaccuracy in measurement. I hope we all wake up soon and decide that words means things, including the word "equivalent" that means "equal to," not "it just might go bang."
  • bambambambambambam Member Posts: 4,797 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I don't know who the author of that article is but he is in obvious contradition to gun manufactor's and powder manufactor's instructions!
    Untill he starts making either, and assumes the responsibility I will continue loading blackpowder and pyrodex and 777 by VOLUMEas we all have for about 100yrs

    When they tell me 100gr volume, I get my little powder measure out and slid it to the 100gr mark. There, I just measured it!

    What an aass bag[V]
  • He DogHe Dog Member Posts: 48,418 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I had always understood that the substitutes were vulumetric equivilents of the black powder loads which were which were volumetricly measured from weighed volumes. Either way, actual shooters have been measuring black powder volumetrically since at least 1840 or before. Same with Pyrodex and the others.
Sign In or Register to comment.