.50 caliber modern mini

[HAWKEN]

I have a mold for a .50 caliber modern mini, but I haven't used it yet.  It casts a bullet that looks like a hollow base wad-cutter on steroids.  The wide flat nose ought to smack a deer or hog hard.  Does anyone shoot them and how do they work?  They would make perfect 1/2" holes in paper.........robin   

[longcruise]

Lee makes two modern style minies.  Think they call one a target minie.  My wife killed a mulie buck with a .58 target style and 60 grains of ff.  It was very effective.  I had a modern style in .50 but never hunted with it.  I'm sure it would be a good game bullet.

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

How dead do you need to make your deer.  The deer won't know the difference between a .495" round ball, and your new modern bullet.  The projectile that is the most accurate is the one to use.  Don't be caught up with modern magnumitis.

[Daryl]

Round balls proved more effective on moose and other large game than slugs when shot from the same guns.  This was mainly due to the round balls having flatter trajectories and maintaining their stability upon impact - that is, traveling in a straight line through the animal.  That is something the slugs were not able to do when shot from 48" or slower twist barrels.

The slugs would curve on impact, changing direction and bounce or glance off bones instead of breaking them.  As the Surgeon General said of wounds during the Crimean war where both round balls and minnie balls were used:  "They (minnies) would glance off the bones, shirking them and course through the soft parts of the body, making very neat wounds. On the contrary, the spherical balls would, upon striking a bone smash it asunder, coursing straight through the body making most grievous wounds".(or words to that effect) These same projectiles do much the same on 'other' animals. Blunt noses, vs. rounded noses or more pointy noses - not much difference when they are barely breaking the sound barrier. But - move a round ball out at 1,800fps and what a difference in smack.

A round ball, even just a .445" through both lungs of a moose would kill it within 100yards, the moose usually laying down within 50yards, then dying there quickly, if not pushed into an adrenaline rush.

Larger balls work even better, especially when there are willows and other brush in the way, although we ALWAYS attempt to have a clear shot.

[smylee grouch]

I and so many other people have said it here before, the round ball is so underrated as a game bullet. There are a lot of armchair experts out there who have never used a round ball so they proclaim them, the round ball to be inferior. Shot placement is key. The round ball will kill anything that walks if shot placement is right.

[Robby]

What taylor and Daryl said!
Also, I can't remember where I saw it, but for those that insist on shooting through brush, comparing a round ball with typical modern hi-powered cartridges like the 30-06 and even the .50 cal. BMG, the round ball proved far superior in 'actual' testing when comparing deflection. It tends to plow its way through in more of a straight line.
Robin

[oldtravler61]

Just a thought. But take a 45 or 50 or whatever caliber round ball. Fire it into a block of gelitian like the FBI uses for ballistic tests. Then do the same with a modern bullet. Might be surprised at the results. But remember dead is dead. An it's shot placement an skill that makes all the difference IMHO

[GANGGREEN]

Just a thought. But take a 45 or 50 or whatever caliber round ball. Fire it into a block of gelitian like the FBI uses for ballistic tests. Then do the same with a modern bullet. Might be surprised at the results. But remember dead is dead. An it's shot placement an skill that makes all the difference IMHO

Care to enlighten us?  I'd like to see those results side by side (or preferably results between a .50 roundball and .50 conical) but don't wish to rush off and purchase a block of gelatin and do my own tests.

[HAWKEN]

I didn't ask if the mini was better than a round ball, I have been shooting and hunting with PRB's for 40 years.  I asked whether anyone had actually shot them on paper or killed a deer or hog with one.  I find it hard to believe that a PRB would penetrate better than a mini that weighs twice as much.  Lets have some facts instead of opinions......robin   

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

Robin:  Daryl's description of the actual effect of both projectiles, on real animals, is not opinion.  And it has been recorded for us historically, so we don't have to reinvent the wheel, and is based on first hand experience in the field on heavy skinned, heavy boned animals - in this case, moose.  I know it's not what you expected, but that doesn't make it wrong.

Let's look at modern bullet design - talking cylindrical conoidal jacketed bullets, fired at high velocity.  In order to be effective, they must turn from their original shape into something much broader, like the surface of a round ball!  A .62 cal round ball, as it strikes a big game animal, is ALREADY about the same size as a 180 gr. jacketed bullet is, when it is finished.  And at 350 grains or so, has lots of penetration potential. I agree that a .50 cal round ball is minimal for large heavy game.  That's why, for the kind of game we hunt, we go bigger.

As far as accuracy is concerned, and I think that is a major aspect of your question, out of slow twist barrels, the Minnie or solid based slug is unstable and not nearly as accurate.  Nor is this an opinion...it's based on my own testing.  OMMV.

[bob in the woods]

Here is more fact...not opinion.  I have shot large game with both my Sharps [ 40-70 -350 & 45-100-535 ] and my .62 round ball rifle.  Within it's range limits, the .62 is better.

[oldtravler61]

Gang green. That is exactly my point. I would like to see the results. Only thing I know for my facts. Which means several deer shot with 45/50 cal round balls. The majority were underneath the skin on the far side. Not the best for blood trails. As a projectile that goes through both sides of the animal.  That's why when I teach 4 h to kids an Hunter safety. I spend considerable time on both shooting skills an tracking skills. Because as we all know. Sometimes the shot doesn't go as planned. But I sure would like to see that comparison done.

[Daryl]

Bob, when comparing his Sharps ctgs. to the .62 round ball, is comparing properly stabilized as well as slightly hardened bullets to a pure lead or hardened round balls, yet he found the .62's spherical balls to be superior within range.  When a person uses & compares an elongated bullet from a round ball twist barrel,  to a stabilized round ball, there really isn't an even test field.

The barely stabilized slug when in the air, contrary to a stabilized one, does not consistently go through the animal in a straight line. Upon impact, the barely stable bullet becomes unstable, tumbling or often turns on tough tissue, doesn't even have to be a bone, and tends to 'course"(travel) through the soft parts of the body. I am talking about how they worked on moose in Northern BC. This 'shirking of the bones' was even found to be the case on humans as per the Surgeon General's findings on the battle field in Crimea.

I didn't see where anyone said the round balls out penetrated the conicals, but they do penetrate in the line presented, not glancing off the bones.

A 466gr. WW ball from a paper ctg. from my .69, after hitting 1/2 dozen small willow twigs, hit a rib just under the hide & fat layer on the right side of a moose, just behind the elbow, middle of the lungs.  It broke off close to a 6" piece of rib bone (3/8" thick) which went through the right lung as it angled down, through the bottom centre of the left lung, sticking  into the meat between ribs on the off side. 

The round ball made a 3" diameter "hole" through both lungs (I assume by the shock wave), smashed the offside leg and came to rest against the hide.  The moose 'caved' at the shot, staggered sideways a step and down it went. Love that gun!

 I do have 2 minnie moulds for that rifle. The lighter bullet mould casts a 580 gr. hollow bases slug & this recoiled badly enough I only fired a few of them. I bored this mould to test bullets for a fast second shot. After that, I experimented with round balls loaded in paper ctgs. and found I got the same accuracy as a patched round ball at 100yards. This rifle and I were shooting 5 shot groups in the 1 1/2" vicinity at 100 meters off bags.  The paper ctgs. shot identically and I could fire up to 10 of them, without any trouble loading them. As I made them, the lands impressed slightly on the balls, and were fairly tight in the bore. The wadded up paper ctg. below the ball sealed off the gasses, thus they were very accurate.

A couple other fellows from this site tried these paper ctgs. as well, in16 bore and 12 bore rifles. Their findings and accuracy were the same or similar to mine.

With practice, I was able to shoot, then "reload, cap, aim and shoot again in 8 seconds".  Thus, with the use of paper ctgs. I ended up with a fast (for a ML) second shot and didn't need the slugs. I was concerned the slugs might damage/crack the stock (or my collar bone). The other Minnie mould I have but did not test other than casting a few bullets, was the .69 calibre original design, 730gr. bullet. I had no desire to try them, even with the original-type military load of 70gr.

James Forsyth's book, "The Sporting Rifle and it's Projectiles" will explain this in greater details and how HE as well as other hunters of the day, observed muzzle loaded slugs (necessarily pure lead) to work on heavy game compared to spherical balls that were hardened with tin or mercury. Yes- the round balls in these guns, penetrated better then the pure lead Minnie-type 'balls' fired from the same 'bore' guns.  That is comparing pure lead slugs, to hardened round balls.
 
Up until the invention of breech loading guns, hardened round balls not only out-penetrated pure lead conicals but killed the game more quickly and surely as well. With the invention of fixed ammo in breech loading guns, hardened bullets could finally be used on heavy game and thus the decline started in round ball use on heavy game. The conicals then showed better penetration than hardened balls and replaced spherical balls for use in Africa and India as well as in the Americas and Europe.

My own experiences on this and that of local friends + that experience of others long before our time is good enough evidence for me that round balls are superior to conicals for our heavy game.

[HAWKEN]

I thank everyone for their thoughtful replys, especially Daryl.  I have no plans to hunt moose, they are a little scarce here in Tennessee, and Elk are by draw and hard to score a tag for.  If I were able to hunt elk, I would likely use my .54 caliber GPR flint lock, loaded with 70 grains of FFFg and a PRB.  Still, I am curious about the modern mini so I guess I will have to cast up a few and see how they shoot and how they effect my shoulder...........robin   

[Daryl]

I bought the same mould, many years ago and tried them in my Sharps .50/70.  It did not like them - at all.

[Old Ford2]

Hi,
I have shot "trash Can" minies in my .58 cal. Zouave. They presented a very easy to see/score paper punch hole in a target.
I could only get them to shoot well if sized .001-.0005 under bore diameter.
Paper patched shot well also.
They were certain death on groundhogs.
That was the largest game I tried them on.
Fred

[Leatherbark]

If you can find the right load and lube without eventually leading up your barrel I can see them working. 

I killed a deer a week ago with a .445 round ball with a raking shot.  The ball entered behind the ribs at an angle from the rear.  Pulverized the liver and offside lung and broke a rib. The ball was flattened like it had been smashed with a hammer.  A 50 caliber ball would have done a lot more damage and probably exited.

But then again we are always experimenters with this hobby.  I hope that mini works out for you.  I can see them smashing a front shoulder nicely, but then again will the skirt stand up to the velocity of a hunting charge?

Bob

[Daryl]

The modern minnie Lee mould I tried in my Sharps, had a Very Thin Skirt. It would not take 'much' of a load to blow the skirt I would think. With the small loads needed for the minnie, I'd think standard patched round ball with a decent load and 100 to 130yard point blank range, would be much superior for hunting.