Black Powder Question: "Faster than a speeding bullet..."

[AlHazred]

I recently purchased a book called the The Illustrated Book of Guns, primarily for its visual value. It's got something like a thousand different guns, with pictures, a few statistics and a paragraph on each one. I figured I could let players of a more modern game look through the book when choosing firearms.

 

Anyway, I was working up the game statistics for the weapons in a spreadsheet and ran into an interesting little foible; the black powder pistols in the book seem to have extremely low muzzle velocities. I noted all of them as being in the range of 350 fps to 550 fps, a considerable sight lower than modern handguns, which are typically in the 900 to 1400 fps range. Since I'm working up the Hero damage in a spreadsheet, these numbers are really cooking the results.

 

Now, I know ball bullets shed velocity much slower than cased rounds because of aerodynamics, but I'd thought to model this as Reduced by Range. But if the muzzle velocities are that low, the damage will be 1/2d6 at most anyway. Can anyone tell me a good source for statistics on black powder weapons?

[nblade]

Well I'd suggest you get a book on Black Powder Loading. The FPS varies by the actual grain of powder you use. As a side note, I think you are falling in the the trap of trying to equate FPS to DCs. To be truthful, in the firearm community, there is much debate about what really causes damage from a bullet. Is it the damages caused by the cavity that the bullet makes? Does a bullet that stop cause the most damages because all its energy is deposited in the target? Do you use gelatin test to measure the Cavity? Do hollow points really work? Is it the shock that kills you? (As a note, I'd rather be shoot than stabbed, going into system shock from the gunshot can save your life) Trust me you can spend hours trying to decide.

[SirViss]

Bullet Weight

 

I am no expert in Black Powder weapons (or ballistics for that matter ) , but a low velocity doesn't necessarily mean low damage. You also have to factor in the weight of the bullet.

 

Also, realism is nice, but if you find that it would ruin your idea for a campaign, than a little exageration might be in order...

[Xandarr]

You might want to consider using momentum instead of muzzle velocity for the damage potential. Momentum = mass x velocity. Therefore, larger bullets (or balls) with low velocity will do about the same damage as smaller ones with higher velocity.

 

Just a thought,

Steve

[AlHazred]

Just asking for a few references...

 

I'm actually using a formula to determine DCs of damage. I'm toying with the formula given in Guns, Guns, Guns by BTRC, which involves Muzzle Energy and the Caliber, and with a formula called Taylor's KO Scale.

 

I was more interested in getting a definite hit as far as books I should be looking for, websites I should visit, etc. as far as ballistic statistics on black powder weapons. Any help would be appreciated.

[Toadmaster]

I use muzzle energy myself and have found I get results very close to those in the earlier published HERO products. IIRC my table goes something like this

 

109J > DC1

110-219 DC2

220-439 DC3 etc

 

Momentium is also an option as mentioned above, I don't like it as much as ME because I find it favors pistols compared to rifles. Momentium favors heavy bullets, which in turn favors pistols over rifles as pistols tend to have heavier bullets. However this is argued with real guns as well so it is a matter of finding which formula gives you the results you prefer.

[Toadmaster]

Re: Just asking for a few references...

 

Originally posted by AlHazred

I'm actually using a formula to determine DCs of damage. I'm toying with the formula given in Guns, Guns, Guns by BTRC, which involves Muzzle Energy and the Caliber, and with a formula called Taylor's KO Scale.

 

I was more interested in getting a definite hit as far as books I should be looking for, websites I should visit, etc. as far as ballistic statistics on black powder weapons. Any help would be appreciated.

 

I've used Guns, guns, guns, overall I like it but one thing I found is the formula is based on penetration, works great for non-living things as the formula assumes a smaller caliber of equal power will penetrate better, but as far as living targets however it takes no consideration of the fact that a larger hole in a living body will cause more damage than a smaller hole.

 

As far as books there is a very good book called Understanding Ballistics, it assumes a low knowledge base but gets into lots of detail on accuracy, range, terminal effects etc. Here is a link to a review

 

http://www.realguns.com/books/review8.htm

 

I have found it quite useful for gun rules in RPG's, it gets into alot of the whys and has a number of formulas for finding energy, momentium and some theoretical formulas for estimating effectiveness.

[AlHazred]

Re: Re: Just asking for a few references...

 

Originally posted by Toadmaster

I use muzzle energy myself and have found I get results very close to those in the earlier published HERO products.

 

I remember the threads from the old HERO Boards regarding this topic, and I have no desire to rehash those discussions; I'm not averse to it, mind, I just want to play around with my formulas, and I'm getting the impression a coffee-table book on collectable guns is not a reliable source on ballistic statistics, for some reason.

 

Originally posted by Toadmaster

I've used Guns, guns, guns, overall I like it but one thing I found is the formula is based on penetration, works great for non-living things as the formula assumes a smaller caliber of equal power will penetrate better, but as far as living targets however it takes no consideration of the fact that a larger hole in a living body will cause more damage than a smaller hole.

 

I was given the book by a couple of friends of mine, so I have to at least give it a once over. Personally, I'm sort of taken with the Taylor KO factor; it seems to take into account bullet size, powder charge, and muzzle energy, which are the three things that always come up in the "Converting Real World Statistics into HERO Damage" threads.

 

Originally posted by Toadmaster

As far as books there is a very good book called Understanding Ballistics, it assumes a low knowledge base but gets into lots of detail on accuracy, range, terminal effects etc. Here is a link to a review

 

http://www.realguns.com/books/review8.htm

 

I have found it quite useful for gun rules in RPG's, it gets into alot of the whys and has a number of formulas for finding energy, momentium and some theoretical formulas for estimating effectiveness.

 

Thanks! That looks like one I need to track down. Does it have lots of RW examples?

[ultrium]

I have read several books on guns. None of them agree of what the formula should be. Some says it should be momentum, while others say it should be energy. Some say the momentum or area should be divided by area because it will go in deeper. However, others say it should be multiply by area, because the bullet will make a wider hole.

There is no agreement it real life either. For example, some people say that the M16 is a better gun than the AK-47, while other people say that the opposite is true. The debate can go on and on. Another example is the fact there is a new bullet for pistols called the 10mm. It was made because some people think that the 9mm is not wide enough. The argument is that it will make a wider hole.

 

So what does this all means? You should pick a formula that is easy because it is only a game.

 

As for which formula, I totally agree with Toadmaster

I use muzzle energy myself and have found I get results very close to those in the earlier published HERO products. IIRC my table goes something like this

 

109J > DC1

110-219 DC2

220-439 DC3 etc

 

Momentium is also an option as mentioned above, I don't like it as much as ME because I find it favors pistols compared to rifles. Momentium favors heavy bullets, which in turn favors pistols over rifles as pistols tend to have heavier bullets. However this is argued with real guns as well so it is a matter of finding which formula gives you the results you prefer.

 

Another point I want to make is that you should use energy instead of momentium because energy is conserve. It is neither created or destroyed.

[Aroooo]

10mm

 

Just to chime in for a sec... The 10mm round is not new. Its been around for a long time. Its becoming a popular handgun round (again?) because the 'experts' say it is a good comprimise between the 9mm's (armor) penetration (read muzzle velocity) and the .45 ACP's stopping power (read mass of round). This reminds me of the early days of the military's change over from .45 to 9mm. Oh, were there some arguments

[Toadmaster]

While I would gladly get into a debate on just about any gun topic, I will refrain, I was just trying to point out there is little agreement among real world gun nuts so there is little likelyhood of finding it among make believe gun nuts. I was very into the idea of using momentium based formulas for gaming at one point but found I had more issues with them compared to energy based ones (pistols tended to be more efficient than rifles), that doesn't mean the momentium ones are wrong, its just they don't fit my view of "reality". HERO actually works better for guns than many games since it has stun, I equate damage to penetration and stun for mass (or knockdown power) which seems to keep me happy.

 

Understanding ballistics is the best book I've found to understand how bullets work, and I have enough gun books to choke an Arracian sand worm. It has lots of examples, covers a number of popular "effectiveness" formulas used over the years and talks about some of the statistical studies that have been done such as the one the FBI used to pick the 10mm. If you have any complaints it will be that there is too much information, but it is divided up into handy chapters so it is easy to take what you like and ignore the rest.

 

Guns, Guns, Guns is a really good resource, like I said my only complaint was it favors small caliber bullets because I don't think they considered that a bigger hole in a living object should be factored in. If it had factored in Stun (it doesn't do anything with Stun) It probably would have satisfied me. More guns ( a sequel) has quite a bit more about building weapons in HERO and is also worth checking out.

 

TKO is a reasonable formula to use, in fact any formula is better than just tossing out stats with no rhyme or reason.

[BasilDrag]

Re: Just asking for a few references...

 

Originally posted by AlHazred

I'm actually using a formula to determine DCs of damage. I'm toying with the formula given in Guns, Guns, Guns by BTRC, which involves Muzzle Energy and the Caliber, and with a formula called Taylor's KO Scale.

 

I was more interested in getting a definite hit as far as books I should be looking for, websites I should visit, etc. as far as ballistic statistics on black powder weapons. Any help would be appreciated.

 

A few notes:

First, black powder has less expansion than modern powder, so it should give projectiles less velocity (all other things being equal).

 

Second, Greg Porter made an error in the formula for muzzle energy. It should be:

energy in Joules = projectile mass in grams x (muzzle velocity in m/s)^2 / 2000

 

Third, if you really want to increase the damage from black powder weapons, in the formula for Damage Value (DV), drop the division by projectile diameter (in More Guns, Porter goes into this, referring to it as the Energy Damamge Value, or EDV).

 

Or, follow the conversion (to Hero System) for melee weapons: add 5 DV before converting.

[AlHazred]

Originally posted by BasilDrag

A few notes:

First, black powder has less expansion than modern powder, so it should give projectiles less velocity (all other things being equal).

 

I agree. I will just note that the 3G3 formula combined with the questionable statistics in the Illustrated Book of Guns produced a large number of black powder weapons that did 1 pip RKA. I don't expect either HERO or 3G3 to be a perfect model of reality, but I tend to disagree with the 1 pip figure...

 

Originally posted by BasilDrag Second, Greg Porter made an error in the formula for muzzle energy. It should be:

energy in Joules = projectile mass in grams x (muzzle velocity in m/s)^2 / 2000[/b]

 

I'll have to make that change in my spreadsheet. Thanks!

 

Originally posted by BasilDrag Third, if you really want to increase the damage from black powder weapons, in the formula for Damage Value (DV), drop the division by projectile diameter (in More Guns, Porter goes into this, referring to it as the Energy Damamge Value, or EDV). Or, follow the conversion (to Hero System) for melee weapons: add 5 DV before converting. [/b]

 

I'll consider this. I'll post again when I have some revised numbers.

[BasilDrag]

BTW, anyone who wants a chart for converting 3G3 DVs to Hero System average damage, take a look at my work at http://users.aol.com/basildrag.

 

It's a rather large table, but it should help my fellow 3G3 users.

[Toadmaster]

Ran across this site today, looks like it might be what you are looking for, it includes several methods of "measuring" cartridge effectiveness and the pros and cons of using them. Be warned it is mostly showing the problems of many including the TKO but it explains why and offers some solutions.

 

http://www.mindspring.com/~ulfhere/ballistics/wounding.html

 

Hope you find it useful.

[nblade]

Originally posted by Toadmaster

Ran across this site today, looks like it might be what you are looking for, it includes several methods of "measuring" cartridge effectiveness and the pros and cons of using them. Be warned it is mostly showing the problems of many including the TKO but it explains why and offers some solutions.

 

http://www.mindspring.com/~ulfhere/ballistics/wounding.html

 

Hope you find it useful.

 

Well it is a least an interesting read and it does point out some of the major ballistic myths.

[AlHazred]

All the sites and books everyone has suggested are very interesting, and I appreciate them very much. However, none of them answers my initial, original question:

 

Originally posted by AlHazred:

Can anyone tell me a good source for statistics on black powder weapons?

 

I'm looking for ballistic statistics on black powder weapons. I've found some websites with anecdotal information, but nothing with concrete numbers. Any help is appreciated.

[AlHazred]

FWIW, I may have answered my own question.

 

My initial question came about because I doubted a "reference" I have which lists no bibliographic material, but lists all black powder Muzzle Velocities as "ca." As I had said, I've seen a number of sites with anecdotal numbers that may or may not be right that refute this book. Anyway, today I came across this post. It lists a number of black powder loads:

 

Cartridge          Muzzle Energy  Muzzle Velocity  Bullet Weight
                  (foot-lbs.)    (feet/second)     (grains)
-----------------  -------------  ---------------  -------------

.31 Black Powder Revolver   70           795            50   $
.36 Black Powder Revolver  216          1097            81   $
.44 Black Powder Revolver  326          1032           138   $
.45 Colt Black Powder      368           814           250   H
.44 Colt Black Powder      523          1281           144   +
.58 SSK black powder      2201          1150           750   G6

 

But more importantly, it has references:

 

$   Lyman Black Powder Handbook (1985)
H   Handguns '91
+   Other assorted publications
G6  Gun Digest, 1986

 

The "Lyman Black Powder Handbook (1985)" is actually The Lyman Black Powder Handbook. Middlefield, CT: Lyman Products for Shooters, 1975 (Ed., C. Kenneth Ramage). I found it on Abebooks and have placed an order. More later.

[Toadmaster]

Surprisingly there is not really that much out there on BP ballistics. I have a couple of out of print books which I have used, but they give estimates (ratio of powder to bullet weight should give this velocity). Depending on what period you are looking for I might be able to help from what I've got (civil war through 1900), I did find these two sites, poking about the links may help you.

 

http://www.emf-company.com/default.htm

 

http://pages.sssnet.com/go2erie/muzzle.htm

[AlHazred]

Those were two really good links. Especially helpful are the links from the EMF site. I like "Gunhoo!"

 

I've finally digested the article mentioned above. It's a good overview of several theories of ballistics, and debunks them all. I have to agree with the author's assessment, that, essentially, the size of the hole is the best estimate of lethality in a round. It seems intuitively obvious now, but it's good to have something to back it up.

 

Unfortunately, as the author himself states, "round-nosed bullets may vary considerably in performance and I [the author] have been unable thus far to correlate this performance to any consistent feature of geometry..." Since all ball bullets used in black powder weapons and most rounds used in modern small arms are rounded or pointed, his formulas aren't much use.

[AlHazred]

I found a firearms hobbyist's page which includes some actual statistics from his experience with some early firearms, namely a Pedersoli LePage Percussion Single Shot Pistol, a Hege Manton .44 Flintlock Single Shot Pistol, a Euroarms .44 Rodgers & Spencer Revolver, and a Sharps Long Range Rifle.

 

The numbers pretty much confirm my impression, namely that the low Muzzle Velocity estimates given to black powder firearms in some books are based on unwarranted assumptions. Sure, ball rounds shed velocity much faster than jacketed ammo. Sure, the velocity will be dependent on how much powder you put in the weapon. But you can still do some significant damage with one. I mean, these are the secret weapons that brought about the demise of armor. Assuming lower lethality than modern ammo is a little weird; dead is dead...

[Klytus]

And just to complicate matters, I've heard of so-called hyper-velocity weapons that fire bullets so fast, they can kill the target even if they get hit in the arm. In theory, the velocity of the round when it hits sends a shock-wave through an artery until it reaches the heart, where either the heart itself or the aorta will rupture.

 

Of course, this is simply what I have heard. I have no idea if its real, but it does make for a scary uber-weapon for a sniper to use against the heoes.

[Earthson]

My 2 Cents on blackpowder

 

Here's another case where a lot more lead is being sent the way of the target and its the mass of the ball that is doing the damage not the speed at which its traveling. Round ball firearms do have a huge drop in accuracy as range increases, however there were civil war era weapons that did enjoy accuracy nearly par with early smokeless powder cartridge guns, a ball is easier to load and less likely to jam in the barrel. Hence making a .223, 50 or so grains going really fast, and the damage of a "slow" (try to outrun it) musket ball going at 400 or so grains, comparable.