Round Ball vs Bullets

[Daryl]

Flinter- "To make a reasonable comparison, as I did in my last post, by the time the much larger diameter 38 ft lbs of recoil PRB gets to 100yds, it's not producing a wound channel any bigger or deeper than the .45cal 490gr conical launched with just 24 ft lbs of recoil.  The faster starting PRB also has more than double the trajectory over the same 100yds, 6.5" vs. 3.25"  With that said, if the angry grizz was looking to whip me, or the moose looking to stomp my guts out, my first choice would be that big PRB but for a hunting situation where shots were expected to be over 100yds, no doubt my choice would be the conical if choosing between these two."

That just isn't true.  At 100 or even 150 yards, the big round ball produces a much larger permanent would channel than the conical.  One needs only to open up the critter and see that.

Yes, it slows down quickly, but still produces a larger wound channel and penetrates more deeply than needed. Buddy Keith had to drop his charge in his 11 bore moose rifle to 120gr. (sub 1,200fps) just to keep the ball inside a moose.  At from 140gr. to 200gr., they exited, even after breaking the shoulders and leg bones.  My .69, with it's little 14 1/2 bore ball does not kick excessively, rolls up in recoil, but isn't painful, yet will smash a shoulder on a moose, punch 3" to 5" holes through both lungs and be under the hide on the par side- at 100 yards.

The conical mentioned in your note, will do no such thing.  Small bore conicals have an advantage of trajectory - but that advantage is at longer range than we normally shoot game.

As to trajectories: I plugged in both the 490gr. .45cal at 1,300fps and the 490gr. round ball at 1,530fps into the ballistic program, each with their proper BC and sight heights of .75" above centre of the bore, and the figures for trajectory are almost identical, the slug being .02" flatter shooting than the round ball, which makes them equal in trajectory as far as I'm concerned.

Now, I think you're saying that's apples and oranges, maybe I read that post worng. OK, lets compare a 490gr. RB with a same caliber slug- which would weight at least 2 ounces for a short conical - OK - 875gr.  Now, to get that conical producing the same recoil as the round ball, it will have a velocity of perhaps 700fps to perhaps 750fps. That's apples to apples?

Now, let's look at the trajectories - or not?

[FL-Flintlock]

Daryl,

The comparison I made is between my 12ga PRB loads at 1380 fps MV and my 490gr .45 conicals.  Let me clarify, up to 100yds, the PRB does in fact have a wound channel diameter advantage but at 100yds, the conical is making the same diameter wound channel - bit smaller at the start but not by much and not for long.  Drop at 100yds on the PRB is 6.5" but the conical only drops 3.25"  That's side by side testing with the same newsprint for both PRB & conical.  I will further clarify, the conical is not from a store-bought mold, it is of my own design.  I can assure you, the PRB's kick a whole lot harder than the conicals even in my SxS that weighs more than my underhammers - they are about intolerable in the Moss 500 pump.  Sure, if you want chunk an 875gr PRB, it's gonna make a bigger hole but I ain't totin a howitzer around nor taking the beating it'll dish out.  I'll gladly stay at the 24 ft lbs level.

[Daryl]

I use a program that has no human error and gives precise trajectories.  Since your weight was 490gr., I used my own rifle, a .69, which shoots a 484gr. RB at 1,530fps.  I also used a .45 cal slug weighing 490gr. and a BC that is current with both projectiles.  Of course, due to your problem with us using different sizes, I then used the same size, RB or a .69, and similar type of slug as your .45 (actually smaller in ratio) in the same bore size, to give the apples and apples comparrison.  A .69 would be shooting a 2oz. slug - when you compare the performance on game, the RB still outclasses the slug, recoil-wise as well as wound channel - and in this enlarged comparrison, it also penetrates further as the slug cannot be started at a high enough speed in a 9 pound rifle due to enormous recoil. Apples and apples.

I can see your point, but point is, within normal hunting ranges, RB's do just fine and actually kill game faster than slower moving slugs. Always have, always will - unless some of Forsyth's explosive slugs are used - they appeared to work well but are not useable smaller than 14 bore, in his words. I has some success with explosive slugs in the 24 bore rifle, but that's a, "let's not go there topic".

[FL-Flintlock]

I can see your point, but point is, within normal hunting ranges, RB's do just fine and actually kill game faster than slower moving slugs.

Again, I don't disagree with that point totally, just the "faster" part because that's proportional to size.  I started out hunting WT's with .45 PRB's, went to a .50, then .54, then .62 (all flintlock), based on my actual field experience, there's no noticable difference in speed of kill between the .45 & .50.  There is a notable difference between the .50 & .54 especially when you look at the wound channel and penetration depth on the test range but the difference is noticable in the field too.  There's no denying the 12 bore PRB's hit like a freight train inside of 100yds but pushing them at just 1380 fps the recoil in punishing unless the gun mass is upped to at least 10.5#  IIRC, the PRB trajectory is around 28-30" @ 150yds while the conical trajectory is around 13" @ 150yds.  Yes, the PRB still packed plenty of punch at 150yds but as with the 100yd results, the wound channel was no larger in diameter than that produced by the conical but the penetration depth difference is considerable.  The caveat of "normal hunting range" is the variable because that all depends on what the individual considers "normal" which may be 50yds or 300yds.

[BrownBear]

Anyone who has ACTUALLY shot game with both finds it easy to agree with Daryl.  Holes in flesh very often speak a different language than theory.  Even a 54 caliber ball, much less a 58 or larger leaves a much more substantial wound than a 45 cal conical of the same weight. 

Been there. 

Done that. 

Got the T-shirt.

[Daryl]

In muzzleloading rifles, small bore conicals, and that included the .58 & under calibre, were deemed to be 'useless' for shooting/stopping game.  The reference was for Jungle or Forest hunting, where the animal's flight after impact had to be impeded or it was possibly lost. The large calibre round ball did this better than did a conical. I admit the conicals of the period lacked the flat noses we know today as being superior to round or pointy designs - but - on big game, the round ball was found to not only stop and kill the animals faster, it also penetrated more deeply than the necessary pure lead conical.  Small bore Conicals were only found superior or equal in penetration only after breechloaders were built strong enough to shoot heavy enough bullets that could be alloyed.

[Daryl]

This topic is one that has been argued for well over a century now, about 1 1/2 centuries to be exact, and will always be argued, I guess.  There are proponents of both 'schools'.  To actually see the difference in results of a healthy charge of powder and large round ball, ie: 14 or 12 bore on heavy game, in comparrison to the same weight in slug, it amazing. Moose shake and shudder and usually refuse to take a step after being hit with the big ball - at 100yards and further, but will run, sometimes like they were stung by a Wasp in the butt, when hit by the bullet.

It takes a big ball to make a 1,000 pound moose shudder under impact - with a .54 and smaller, the effect is much like the rifle bullet - no sign of a hit, just immediate flight.  I've not seen a moose shot with either a .58 nor .62, so cannot say where the dividing line (if there is one) is. I've been told by guys who have shot moose with a .62, they got the same results, easily visible reaction to the smack.  You really should hear it - it's amazing - similar a super fast snapping of a pine 2x4. I expect that's the leg bones.  Moose deserve hard balls or bullets, yet I know of one hunter who has success with an Enfield .45 Whitworth or Volunteer rifle shooting pure lead slugs.  They are usually well balled up on the off side, same as the smaller sizes in round ball.

[Dphariss]

I can see your point, but point is, within normal hunting ranges, RB's do just fine and actually kill game faster than slower moving slugs.

Again, I don't disagree with that point totally, just the "faster" part because that's proportional to size.  I started out hunting WT's with .45 PRB's, went to a .50, then .54, then .62 (all flintlock), based on my actual field experience, there's no noticable difference in speed of kill between the .45 & .50.  There is a notable difference between the .50 & .54 especially when you look at the wound channel and penetration depth on the test range but the difference is noticable in the field too.  There's no denying the 12 bore PRB's hit like a freight train inside of 100yds but pushing them at just 1380 fps the recoil in punishing unless the gun mass is upped to at least 10.5#  IIRC, the PRB trajectory is around 28-30" @ 150yds while the conical trajectory is around 13" @ 150yds.  Yes, the PRB still packed plenty of punch at 150yds but as with the 100yd results, the wound channel was no larger in diameter than that produced by the conical but the penetration depth difference is considerable.  The caveat of "normal hunting range" is the variable because that all depends on what the individual considers "normal" which may be 50yds or 300yds.

Yes, for the 300th time, the RB is range limited. SO ARE THE SIGHTS.
And SO IS THE BULLET AT BP VELOCITIES.
YES, the bullet, say a 360-380 gr 40 caliber, will kill an elk about as far as you can see to shoot at it. It will, from historical accounts, shoot through an American Bison at 600 yards. So what?
The trajectory is so steep at 1400 fps that hits at long range are VERY problematical even for VERY experienced shooters. Trust me, pre-laser range finder I and another long time elk guide and multiple nats. champion in BPCR silhouette repeatedly missed an almost surely Boone and Crockett bull at 425 yards since we could not get the range right. I think between the two of us we shot 6 shots at him.

YEARS of competition in BPCR many many wins, national records, championships. My companion shooting 4000-5000 rounds a year in competition and practice FROM ONE GUN ALONE, hunting with similar guns, unknown range "gong matches",  R&D etc etc.
If people of this experience level cannot HIT an elk at 425 yards with a "conical that penetrates better" what the $#*! business has a weekend warrior got trying it?

The light and the color and the size of the bull made him seem 125 yards closer (we both called it 300 yards) and even holding higher and higher for successive shotsdid not get the job done. One rifle was a 40-90 BN and the other a 44-90 BN. The 40 shoots about as flat as any BPCR you will find but it was not flat enough. The trajectory at 400+ is very very steep.

Look at the trajectory table for a 100 yard zero. Doing my known hold over for 300 note how low I was at 425 with the actual MV for the short barreled 40-90 I used and estimated BC for a swaged FP bullet. Its 105 inches low at 425, the paced distance to where the elk was standing.  This is 8.75 FEET.

Of course this bullet will greatly out penetrate a 380 gr RB at this distance making a deeper wound channel. But since I hit nothing but dirt it does not matter much. Note the low trajectory to its point blank range with 100 yard zero. But its has a far better BC than ML bullets used for hunting be about 3 calibers long and needing at least a 20" twist and better with a 16".

Then lets look at variations in velocity. A 40 caliber 380 bullet at 1425 FPS (my long barreled silhouette 40-70 BN would do this with a "naked" bullet) will shoot round groups at 300 yards with a standard deviation of velocity of 10 or less. HOWEVER, with a SD 40 it will produce THIRTY INCHES OF VERTICAL DISPERSION at 300. Same rifle, same bullet, same day, same EVERYTHING  just more or less care in loading the cartridges. 30" will put you WAY out of the kill zone of any animal in NA. So unless your conical loads are doing 10 SD or LESS then it is UNETHICAL to shoot at game past about 150 yards about the max range of the average American "big game" PRB.
I have shot at game animals with a presighted BPCR rifle with good loads at 500 yards or so and the SLIGHTEST bobble on the X-sticks will cause a miss. A rifle like even my 15 pound 45-100 produces enough recoil that SLIGHTEST error in how the gun is held will likely put the bullet completely off a elk sized animal at 300-400 yards. The error will not be known until the gun is fired and the shooter realizes that the real was a little different and the bullet strike was "off".
So. AGAIN. The increased range of the conical is an ILLUSION for the most part.
YES. IF you have a laser range finder and IF you have precision  adjustable tang sights and IF you have a table of sight settings or IF you have a area where you can see bullet strikes you MAY kill deer or elk or buffalo past 150-200 yards. BUT YOU WILL LIKELY MISS ANYWAY. ESPECIALLY if the SD of the load is over 10 fps.
I have already done all this YEARS AGO.
So if hunting with a fixed sight arm at ranges under 150 yards the conical in a MUZZLELOADER has far MORE disadvantages than advantages compared to the ball so long as the ball is PROPERLY SIZED FOR THE GAME.
A good bullet like a RCBS 300 GCFP, the Lyman 456192 or 457193 are WONDERFUL hunting bullets I have killed animals with ALL OF THEM. SO WHAT? They have a useful range for the average hunter, with a typical 18th-19th century hunting rifle, no longer than that of a 50 caliber PRB. A deer shot with a 456192 350 grain and 40 yards from a 45-70 will run about the same distance as one shot with a 54 RB from a PISTOL.

No, one should not try Texas heart shots with the typical RB but I don't do them unless shooting something that is already wounded. The last one I did was at 350+ yards with a 6.5x55 on a deer a guy I was hunting with shot the entire lower jaw off of after I told him DO NOT TRY HEAD SHOTS. And yes the 140 grain Speer went completely through the deer from right hip to left shoulder. The deer then ran, jumped a fence, I then approached, missed a head shot while peeking over the terrain at about 120 yards and then killed her running. Does this then mean the 30-06 and the 6.5x55 is inadequate? No it means you better shoot the animal in the right place the first shot PERIOD.

16 to the pound RB at 1650. 150 gr of swiss FF.


This is with the sight in range increased just 5 yards


Note that a center hold will kill a deer to 130+ yards. About as far as most people can make open sights work well.
Note that running a ballistics program to replicate Forsythe's trajectories we find that his 14 bore rifle was doing 1600 +- with 5 drams of powder, it had a very similar trajectory to my 16 bore with the same weight of powder.

While round balls hold their shape fairly well soft lead bullets tend the shorten and get blunter (effecting the BC) when shot with BP.  A soft .457125 520 gr for example shot in a .457 BORE will upset all the way to the ogive and will have significant rifling marks even on the bore riding nose that was .449 as cast.


Then we have from http://www.chuckhawks.com/bc_not_exist.htm
*********
Independent testing has confirmed that severely inflated muzzleloading ballistic coefficients exist, some beyond the realm of anything but fraudulent claims.

An inflated BC can get you into trouble, as you are severely misguided as to both trajectory, and terminal energy on target. A conservative BC cannot. It is not realistic to list all the "as tested" ballistic coefficients vs. the fantasy published by many bullet manufacturers. One would hope that it would be their job to "get honest," and offer some truth in advertising. That is unlikely to happen in smokepole city. Here are just a few eye-openers, though:

Actual 100 yard BC's as tested pushed by 100 grains T 7:

    * Precision Rifle QT 215 gr. = .174, PUBLISHED BC = .319
    * Precision Rifle Dead Center 200 gr. = .176, PUBLISHED BC = .300
    * Precision Rifle Dead Center 220 gr. = .192, PUBLISHED BC = .325
    * Precision Rifle Dead Center 240 gr. = .211, PUBLISHED BC = .351
    * Hornady 250 gr. SST = .184, PUBLISHED BC= .210 (by Hornady)
    * Hornady 250 gr. SST = .184, PUBLISHED BC= .240 (by T/C--same bullet!)
    * Hornady 300 gr. SST = .226, PUBLISHED BC = .250
***********

So lets run the 250 gr Hornady SST (pi$$ poor design BTW based on shooting 2 deer with their 325 gr "Leverevolution" 45-70 factory load) at 1650 through the same program.


How about Lyman's 575602 Minie. Its nice and blunt, 400 grains is near the 16 bore for weight, driven by Lyman with 150 gr of FF G-O. Lyman BC and velocity. Pretty good comparison to the 16 bore with the same powder charge.


Then the lowly 50 caliber RB, which I have killed deer with to 140 yards or so. Lyman BC



How about the 445 RB?


.445 Rb will kill deer to its "point blank range" too.

All from the same ballistics program (others may vary) all with either actual or realistic BP velocities.
All will surely kill deer dead to their point blank range, all the same zero etc etc.
Which is best? Which is *significantly* flatter? The pointed "modern bullet".
The 58 minie is actually unusable sighted to 120, its pointblank is +-5" (10 inch circle) too much. Lets find point blank range for it for a deer, how about striking within a 6.5" or so circle like the 16 bore table?


The problem with the Minie shown here is EXACTLY what Forsythe detailed in the 1850s-60s. Compare the 16 bore ball to the 58 Minie with the SAME POWDER CHARGE.

AND it is very difficult to calculate recoil of BP loads since ME as a factor alone will produce INACCURATE results. Looking at Cartridges of The World 5th edition pg 137 you will find that the smokeless version of the 50-110 Win Express makes 11.32 ft lbs of free recoil the BP loading with the same advertised ballistics makes 19.78.  Then compare the ME of this load to the ME and recoil of the 30-40 Krag with 220 gr bullet.
Then in SHOTGUNS (see the note at the bottom of the page) the 12 ga 3 1/4 dr, 1 1/4 oz BP load makes 31.5 the smokeless 28.0.
So the increased recoil produced by BP for a given ME must be factored in.

BTW if you miss the vitals with ANY bullet, you got a problem, using a conical is not going to make a lot of difference.
So missing the vitals of a deer is not a reflection on the bullet design, bullet design cannot overcome poor shooting. Assuming the exact same shot would magically work better because the elongated bullet is used is simply assumption.
Tired of typing and proof reading.

Dan

[Mike R]

back to .22s...lately I have picked off a few theiving squirrels with my little Stevens Favorite using .22CB shorts [MV~725fps]. Some of these were hit in the boiler works [bad shots] and that tiny, slow bullet blew the guts out the far side. Still a couple of them made 10 or 15 yds before dropping dead. I have long felt that most hunters are overgunned and overloaded. Folks actually use .40s on squirrels and load up their MLers to match the velocities of HP modern cartridges.... ...each to his own, as my pappy said...when I think about the damage I have seen from the lowly .22, I gain great respect for what a big rd ball will do with even just .22 velocities...

[northmn]

As to being overgunned for small game.  A 40 is classified as a squirrel rifle in some matches.  When loaded down it does not do any more damage tahn some of the small bores.   I ahve actually shot squirrels with a 45 and gotten by.  Mostly I prefer the small bores due to their limited extreme range should I shoot up in the air.   I have shot squirrels in the yard with CB caps.  I shot one in the ribs and it fell while I was relaoding the single shot as I thought I missed.  I gotten a few with a 17 pellet gun also.  My father used to tell me how they would buy 22 shorts in the depression as they were about 2 cents cheaper a box than long rifles.  They shot most anything a 22 was used for with them.  Now shorts cost more than long rifles.  On impact, and at ranges normally used for small game my 25 can do a bit of damage.  Probably more so than a short, but still in line with a small game gun.  The long rifle or short will possibly penetrate more but on small game only so much is needed anyway.  When I first started shooting ML's the 36 was "the squirrel rifle" and is really as overpowered as a 40.  A lot of small game is gotten with muzzle loaders in deer calibers loaded down, and is not all that bad a way to practice in the field with the deer gun.

DP 

[chuck-ia]

Wow, this is way too confusing for me. I think I will stick with my .36 using a ball and 30 gr. goex for small game, and my .50 using round ball and 65 gr. powder for deer. I will keep my shots at 50 yards or less for deer, a lot less for squirrels, can't see one from 50 yards anymore. But, I do find all this talk interesting. chuck

[northmn]

Due to its length I finally got around to reading Dan' s comments about BPC.  I have used a 45-70 loaded with black and can heartily agree.  While I can and have nailed deer with peep sights at about 150 yards, that is the limit I would put on that combo.  There has been a lot of romance concerning the old buffalo runners and the shots they made.  The claim has been made that they would get about 200 yards from the herd and then set up their stand.  They shot a lot of buffalo and knew what one looked like at 200 yards.  Also they could make minor adjustments after a couple of shots.  Today most of the BPC hunters that want to shoot longer use a laser rangefinder.  They need a good one as small difference in range after about 200 yards make quite a difference.  Buffalo are also much bigger than deer. 150 is a good max with 100 being better on deer.   
Another thing I have noticed through reading studies and hearing comments on this site is the issue of effectiveness.  My experiences, study and evaluation of comments lead me to believe that most people think that effectiveness is linear in nature.  If you use a 50 instead of a 45 a deer will run 40 yards instead of 45 or 50 yards.  John Taylors KO coefficient implies that kind of thought.  Actually I have seen and read studies that indicate things kind of increase in a stairstep fashion.  That there are levels of "power" that seem to make little difference until one steps up to a higher point.  One study done by Evan Marshall on "stopping power" of police bullets showed that.  The small one like the 32 auto or 380 were at the bottom, but surprisingly the 45 ACP hardball, 45 Colt and 44 special performed little better than the 9mm and 38 special.  The 357 mag with a125 grain HP bullets and later the 40SW did better as did the 45 with some HP's.   Also very hot loaded 115 9mm's were pretty good.

DP

[northmn]

Still have problems with too long of comments and my window.  My point of the other post is that we often get too excited about issues that may not matter.  Hot HPs in police loads worked better because a biped facing you presents a wide but shallow target.  The FBI tested their loads in pigs and started using 147 grain HPs in their 9mm's because they killed pigs better.  So if a FBI agent was attacked by an armed and dangerous pig he was better off.   To me a round ball shot into something like a deer or possibly an elk (depending on caliber) may produce a very effective would channel as it opens up almost on impact.  I had some indication in my wetpack that the wound would be less extreme to the other side due to energy loss.  If you want to break down a big bear then bullets would be better for breaking bones.  RB's in soft tissue and bullets for harder tissue      Also a RB may not be best for Texas heart shots.  One should probably not try fancy angling shots with  smallere caliber RB such as a 45 on deer even up close.
Another theory I am starting to develop is that some of the users of smaller calibers may be driving a pure lead RB a little fast.  If the shots are longer then it does not much matter.  But up close, flattening the RB like a 50 cent piece may not be as effective at times as a little more moderation.  Big bores like Daryl's 69 are not generally driven as fast as 45's or 50's.  54's maybe, but after that they slow down at the muzzle.  I shot a deer in the neck with a 50, which showed a chronographed velocity for that load of over 1900 fps.  The ball broke the neck but never exited.

DP

[Daryl]

Brings up hardened or pure lead balls.  A WW ball from a .69 or .75 will smash both shoulders of a moose.  One merely needs to 'Use Enough Gun" for the job at hand.  In my opinion, shooting deer with a .36 or maybe even a .40, would be like me using special loads in my Hornet for deer, moose or bear. I can do it, but I'd rather use something bigger - a lot bigger.

[FL-Flintlock]

Interesting to say the least, I mention comparison at 100-150yds suddenly it turns into bison at 600yds.  And I thought politicians were bad about twisting things.  Did I say anything about 600yds shots on bison?  No, I never said any such thing nor did I speak of anything other than stating that the actual after-impact performance between my 525gr PRB and my 490gr bullet beyond 100yds favors the conical - far from 400yd elk and 600yd bison.  And, while my eyes and body are nowhere near what they used to be, back when everything worked right I never had rifle with glass on it yet a lot of critters fell out to 200yds to my lowly iron sighted .30-30 pushing a 175gr cast bullet at just 1950 fps.  150 years ago, people were shooting a whole lot further than 125yds over iron and people still do but again, if trying to compare the majority of OEM iron sights that suck to iron sights that don't suck ... it's not an argument worth addressing.

Dan,  You focus on driving the 437gr PRB at 1650 fps - fine, want to kick the stats up, I can easily crank up the velocity on the 490gr conical and get a flatter trajectory but at the cost of getting snot beat out of me from the recoil.  1200 fps is perfectly fine for 150yd shooting and in an 8.5 pound rifle, I only have to suck up a mild 24 ft lbs of recoil - your 437gr @ 1650 fps from an 8.5# gun is cranking out a whopping 38 ft lbs of recoil.  To put that difference into perspective a 180gr 50cal PRB driven at 2000 fps from an 8.5# rifle generates 19 ft lbs of recoil.

Your own chart shows the heavy PRB load kicking with 38 ft lbs recoil and dropping 7.13" at 150yds at a velocity of 915 fps and delivering 812 ft lbs of energy.  If I wanted to crank the 490gr conical up to say 1400 fps, I'm still at just 32 ft lbs of recoil, have ±4.5" trajectory with the impact velocity at 1099 fps delivering 1315 ft lbs of energy.  If I bump the zero range up to 150yds, I'm still within ±6" to 175yds so even with fixed sights, what you claim to "if" is really not all that difficult, matter of fact, it's pretty easy.  So what is your point about lugging around a 10# gun, burning a massive amount of powder and not having any advantage to show for it at 150yds over an 8.5# gun that doesn't beat the $#@* out of you?

I stressed many times about how the majority of bullet designs SUCK and that I'm using my own custom bullets, not the store-bought that suck.  Sure, 150 years ago it was probably pretty hard to get a custom mold, today it's not so why keep going back to the same old arguments about 150 year old bullets?  It's old news, the folks back then knew they sucked, we know they suck - what's your point?  They Lyman 575602 is far from "blunt" ... part of the problem is too many have been too corrupted on just how much affect bullet shape has on the after-impact performance.  Every change, even small ones can have a profound affect on after-impact performance.  Shape also makes a huge difference in after-impact performance depending on the bullet hardness too.

One more thing, all the talk of "proper shot placement" - my comment to that is anyone who has never had a shot go bad because the critter moved or something else went "wrong" is either extremely lucky or a liar.  With that in mind, why is there such an aversion to having a little reserve just in case it's needed?  This whole discussion is going off on tangents one way or the other with no valid points being presented.  The arguments being made for 1650 fps on a 437gr PRB purely counter comments of a 0.490" PRB with minimal charge of powder in a 9" pistol for deer at 50+ yds ... are the comments purely for argument purposes or is there some point to it that's not being presented among the babble about bullets that we already know suck?

Take a look at what Mike R. said about the .22 CB shorts dragging guts out the exit wound.  A gut shot is a gut shot, we all know that but the point is, had the same shot been made with a high velocity .22 LR typical RN, there would be no gut dragging and the distance run could easily be double or more.  Makes my whole point that when the bullet has sufficient momentum and proper design, velocity is not a concern.  Changing any one variable changes how the entire system works or doesn't work whichever the case may be - I don't know how to make the point any clearer.

[northmn]

Brings up hardened or pure lead balls.  A WW ball from a .69 or .75 will smash both shoulders of a moose.  One merely needs to 'Use Enough Gun" for the job at hand.  In my opinion, shooting deer with a .36 or maybe even a .40, would be like me using special loads in my Hornet for deer, moose or bear. I can do it, but I'd rather use something bigger - a lot bigger.

Generally over time we have established what makes a "deer rifle" "moose rifle" or whatever.  As to hunting deer with a 36 or 40.  I might do so on antlerless permit deer that wiegh maybe 125 pounds, but I would feel kind of silly holding my 40 if a 220 pound nice buck showed.  It would probably do the job but I might have a bit of tracking.  Shot placement had better be pretty ideal also. 

DP

[Daryl]

FL- I used to be wound up on using slugs in a specifically made gun for hunting. I had one, a .50 with faster than normal twist that shot MOA at 100 and close to that at 200 yards.  Then I shot some game with round balls and never looked back. Slugs are fine for military who need a long wounding range, where-as within normal hunting ranges of 200yards (for the .69) the round balls do a better job - for me.
Stock design is very important - put a hooked butt on a big bore and you'll not want to shoot it often if ever, however felt recoil from a proper design using good big game loads is very light. Same goes for the slug-gun.  Buddy Keith has not shot a LOT of moose with his .75 with round balls. He used to hunt with all manner of modern guns from his small 6.5x68, perhaps 50 moose with .303's, then 8mm, on into the magnums, .338 and .375 & .45/70's with BP-type and smokeless loads.  His experience is this is way out of proportion to his age due to supplying moose for an incredibly large family and friends.  He is a moose's worse nightmare.  Nowadays, he's more likely to grab the .75 than any other rifle as he says it puts them down faster and harder than anything he's ever used.  He's now been supplying many people with moose meat for almost 50 years.

 Yes, he's also used slugs in muzzleloaders, from .45 cal through .58 & hated the tracking jobs through the snow so we got him to try round balls - within normal iron sight ranges, and he's never looked back at slugs.  The RB's worked better for him with faster kills, whether it was the little .45 with a 24" barrel, .50, .54 or the .58 double rifle, from .45 right through to his .75 Taylor built him in '86 or 87, the round balls worked better.  I must bow to his vast experience in this. Of course, no one else need to all long as you collect what you hit.

[Dphariss]

Interesting to say the least, I mention comparison at 100-150yds suddenly it turns into bison at 600yds.  And I thought politicians were bad about twisting things.  Did I say anything about 600yds shots on bison?  No, I never said any such thing nor did I speak of anything other than stating that the actual after-impact performance between my 525gr PRB and my 490gr bullet beyond 100yds favors the conical - far from 400yd elk and 600yd bison.  And, while my eyes and body are nowhere near what they used to be, back when everything worked right I never had rifle with glass on it yet a lot of critters fell out to 200yds to my lowly iron sighted .30-30 pushing a 175gr cast bullet at just 1950 fps.  150 years ago, people were shooting a whole lot further than 125yds over iron and people still do but again, if trying to compare the majority of OEM iron sights that suck to iron sights that don't suck ... it's not an argument worth addressing.

Dan,  You focus on driving the 437gr PRB at 1650 fps - fine, want to kick the stats up, I can easily crank up the velocity on the 490gr conical and get a flatter trajectory but at the cost of getting snot beat out of me from the recoil.  1200 fps is perfectly fine for 150yd shooting and in an 8.5 pound rifle, I only have to suck up a mild 24 ft lbs of recoil - your 437gr @ 1650 fps from an 8.5# gun is cranking out a whopping 38 ft lbs of recoil.  To put that difference into perspective a 180gr 50cal PRB driven at 2000 fps from an 8.5# rifle generates 19 ft lbs of recoil.

Your own chart shows the heavy PRB load kicking with 38 ft lbs recoil and dropping 7.13" at 150yds at a velocity of 915 fps and delivering 812 ft lbs of energy.  If I wanted to crank the 490gr conical up to say 1400 fps, I'm still at just 32 ft lbs of recoil, have ±4.5" trajectory with the impact velocity at 1099 fps delivering 1315 ft lbs of energy.  If I bump the zero range up to 150yds, I'm still within ±6" to 175yds so even with fixed sights, what you claim to "if" is really not all that difficult, matter of fact, it's pretty easy.  So what is your point about lugging around a 10# gun, burning a massive amount of powder and not having any advantage to show for it at 150yds over an 8.5# gun that doesn't beat the $#@* out of you?

I stressed many times about how the majority of bullet designs SUCK and that I'm using my own custom bullets, not the store-bought that suck.  Sure, 150 years ago it was probably pretty hard to get a custom mold, today it's not so why keep going back to the same old arguments about 150 year old bullets?  It's old news, the folks back then knew they sucked, we know they suck - what's your point?  They Lyman 575602 is far from "blunt" ... part of the problem is too many have been too corrupted on just how much affect bullet shape has on the after-impact performance.  Every change, even small ones can have a profound affect on after-impact performance.  Shape also makes a huge difference in after-impact performance depending on the bullet hardness too.

One more thing, all the talk of "proper shot placement" - my comment to that is anyone who has never had a shot go bad because the critter moved or something else went "wrong" is either extremely lucky or a liar.  With that in mind, why is there such an aversion to having a little reserve just in case it's needed?  This whole discussion is going off on tangents one way or the other with no valid points being presented.  The arguments being made for 1650 fps on a 437gr PRB purely counter comments of a 0.490" PRB with minimal charge of powder in a 9" pistol for deer at 50+ yds ... are the comments purely for argument purposes or is there some point to it that's not being presented among the babble about bullets that we already know suck?

Take a look at what Mike R. said about the .22 CB shorts dragging guts out the exit wound.  A gut shot is a gut shot, we all know that but the point is, had the same shot been made with a high velocity .22 LR typical RN, there would be no gut dragging and the distance run could easily be double or more.  Makes my whole point that when the bullet has sufficient momentum and proper design, velocity is not a concern.  Changing any one variable changes how the entire system works or doesn't work whichever the case may be - I don't know how to make the point any clearer.

My grandfather killed a whitetail buck with a likely a BP 22 short when he was a kid. Just trying to get it out of the garden in  circa 1900 Arkansas. But its meaningless to this discussion.
Your problem is you just gotta be the expert.
I have been making my own bullet swages for DECADES.  I KNOW what it needed for a good hunting bullet for BP velocities. I figured this out 20 odd years ago the hard way.
Store bought moulds, the various Lyman designs that are copies of the various Winchester and Marlin bullets of the 19th century are excellent if you have a bore size that will use them. The RCBS FPs are good too. The Lyman 456192, the 457193, the RCBS 300 GCFN are all so good that there is no point in having a custom made for this weight range of 320 to 420 gr. They have all worked well for me and people I know on most game typically encountered.
I mentioned the long range stuff because this is the only place the conical has an advantage. And then as pointed out the shooter better have his @#$%/!! is a group. I could shoot into about 10-12"  at 500 meters back when I was hunting with a BPCR and shot a lot. But in the FIELD without sighters the long rang capability is greatly overrated.
The experienced commercial shooters of the 19th century still needed sighters past 150-200 yards even with the large kill zone of the buffalo.
You can't seem to get around the fact that a bad shot with a conical is still a bad shot. Missing the vitals misses the vitals yeah I BTDT too. With a heavy lead slug at better velocity than you can get from a ML.
Now if you shoot a deer in the guts broadside with a 7mm mag at 100 150 yards the deer won't go far. But this is true for almost any caliber.
Part of hunting with a ML is PICKING YOUR SHOT.
When I was a kid hunting squirrels with a ML I never shot an squirrel unless I was SURE I had a good shot. I killed almost every one I shot at.
I watched quite a few simply fad away because they never gave me the shot I wanted.
I have only used a frontal chest shot on a deer about 3 times and once on an elk all were brought to bad though the one that turned required a followup. Of course the ball was under the hide at the back of the deer so I fail to see where some magical custom made conical would have changed this. THE BALL MISSED THE VITALS for the most part damaging only one lung. I have seen the same thing with modern CF hunting rifles when only one lung is hurt.
You don't like my 16 bore ball at 1600+. If I were trying to prove how wonderful the conical was I would not like this data either. A serious killer. I built it to shoot an AK Grizzly with but problems with the first barrel (junk) too many other commitments got in the way. I may never get to do this.
But with a WW ball and the ability to place the shot I have complete faith in it. For one shot I would rather have it than my Marlin 1895 in 45-70.
But it still will not drop deer in their tracks even with perfect shot placement. So how a 45 or 50 caliber conical is going to magically do this I could not say, especially since I have shot a number of deer with 40-44-45 & 50 caliber conicals from BPCR at the SAME VELOCITIES a ML will move the bullet. Yeah I have dropped a few deer with them, but I have done the same thing with LIGHTER RBs with similar shot placement, so what was proved, it was proved that with certain placements on certain deer a 40-70 or a 45-70 or a 54 RB or a 16 bore RB with drop certain deer in their tracks. The large diameter RB will produce a better blood trail than a conical of equal WEIGHT but smaller caliber UNLESS the conical is driven to velocities not obtainable with BP. If you move a 400 grain Speer SP to about 1800 with grey powderit will in the words of a customer at Shiloh "make a hole the size of my thermos" through a deer with its attendant meat loss.  But this has little to do with BP velocities.
You may if you want continue to believe the Toby Bridges school of MLing if you want. I have had discussions with him in the past too.
Here is the exit wound on a Pronghorn antelope shot with a 140 gr .264 diameter bullet. Note that it took out about 3 ribs. The buck was in a herd all eating grass or simply standing at rest. He was the buck with no does beyond so I shot him.
Did he drop at the shot from the massive wound channel no, he did the typical panic run for about 100 yards. So tell me about wound channels again and how important they are and how they will kill the critter quicker, remember most animals run about 40 yards.. Not this bullet passed fairly close to the spine too.
Now I shot one about 20 odd years ago with a 40-70 Sharps at 1/2 the velocity with a FAR smaller wound channel only made about 25-40 yards. Both chest shots but the 40-70 swaged FP of MY design since you seem to like that did exit through the shoulder but before digital cameras so I too less photos.
Sorry I don't have any conical in MLer  stories to relate. I started shooting MLs before the became the rage and never saw a use for them. The higher pressures and the fact they sometimes slide down the barrel to form bore obstructions kept me from anything but testing a few back about 1978. Besides I figure if Lewis & Clark could survive their trip with the RB, shooting most game in the rockies and plains and managing to not have anyone ate by bears and not starving to death I figured I could probably cripple through with the RB. If I want to shoot bullets, aside from experiments with Picket bullets for match shooting, I use a cartridge gun.
BTW a 30-30 loaded to 1950 shoots flat enough to 200 yards that range estimation is not important.

BTW the recoil figures are not accurate, as I explained. Its based on smokeless powder, energy and gun weight. If I put a rifle weight in it spews out a recoil level. I did that chart 3-4 years back when I started shooting the 16 bore. I suspect its close but low. All in all I would rather have the recoil that the breech pressure the conical makes. Unless stainless nipples, preferably hard ones or platinum lined nipples are used heavy bullets will eat nipples in 15-20 shots. Platinum nipples are about 80 bucks now I think.
 I had a bulleted ML years ago I shot in some matches. It ate nipples rapidly with 70 gr of black and a 525 gr 45 caliber.
Bed time in Montana
Dan

[Dphariss]

Oops forgot to post the Antelope exit wound mention in the last post.


Dan

[bob in the woods]

Looking back to my post { page 2 } I thought I'd add the following, considering the lengthy discussion this
has become. As I mentioned, my property is bordered by another, and the fenceline is usually posted with hunters . I know darn well that anything they see on my side will be theirs, and anything down that's close enough to drag over will be too.  I need something that allows for a minimum of running after being hit. I know shot placement is king....etc etc but I never liked neck or head shots, and I don't want to blow the darn meat up. Overthe years I've shot everything from 30-30, 7-30 waters, 38-55, .375big bore, 44-40, 45colt, 45-70 in lever actions. BPCR 38-56, 40-70 , 45-70, 45-100, 50-70,  50-90.
Honestly, the only one which approached the effectiveness of my patched ball flintlocks was the 50 cal.,
and the 50-70 was just as good as the 50-90. Nothing...even comes close to my New England fowler
and it's patched .735 ball.  My .54 works better than my 45-70. The 300 gr hollow points for the 45-70 worked OK but in factory or smokeless loads...not blackpowder.   The only 100 yd shot here would be across a beaver pond, so longer range is not an issue. I tried a .270 for a while, but even the 100 yd shots wasted too much meat.  If I have my .62 rifle or my smoothbore, I'm ready for anything from deer, to bear to moose. Why complicate things? The patched ball does everything I need it to do, better than anything else I've ever tried...and I have tried a whole lot!

[FL-Flintlock]

Dan P: Your problem is you just gotta be the expert.
...
You don't like my 16 bore ball at 1600+. If I were trying to prove how wonderful the conical was I would not like this data either.
...
The large diameter RB will produce a better blood trail than a conical of equal WEIGHT but smaller caliber UNLESS the conical is driven to velocities not obtainable with BP. If you move a 400 grain Speer SP to about 1800 with grey powderit will in the words of a customer at Shiloh "make a hole the size of my thermos" through a deer with its attendant meat loss.  But this has little to do with BP velocities.
You may if you want continue to believe the Toby Bridges school of MLing if you want. I have had discussions with him in the past too.

No Dan, I don't have to be the "expert", I simply tried to point out fact and if you'd have bothered to read my post before rambling on about things that don't have anything to do with the topic, perhaps you would have understood what I was saying.  You're being argumentive just for the sake of arguing and I don't understand your point for doing such.  Make up your mind Dan, in other posts you brag about shooting big game critters with a target load in a 9" .50 pistol, then, such as in this post, you claim to need a big bore and magnum loads.  So before you go flying off on a tangent without cause or making any valid points like you've done throughout this thread maybe you should take some time and read what I actually wrote rather than what you "think" I wrote.  And, leave the personal insults in your own thoughts, not on the forum.  I haven't attacked you personally, unless you consider my questioning of your pointless ramblings trying to assertain some clarity from total confusion a personal attack?

You're back to the "velocity" and pressure thing again ... You're the one with the Toby Bridges "magnumitis" afliction claiming you need 1650 fps on the 16 bore PRB in order for it to be effective.  I don't have magnumitis nor do I subscribe to the Toby Bridges/Randy Wakeman claims of needing high velocity - nor do I condone the writings of the previously mentioned keyboard prostitutes and others of the like making science fiction into gun rag fact solely because they're getting paid to write what someone else tells them to.  If you'd have bothered to read my posts, perhaps you'd have understood the fact that I compared a 45 cal 490gr at just 1200 fps to a 525gr PRB at 1380 fps and despite the much heavier recoil of the way larger diameter PRB, the actual wound channel diameter created at 100yds is no bigger than that produced by the 490gr conical - the only difference is that the lower mass, lower recoil and slower moving conical penetrates deeper.  You keep going back to high velocity bullets and bullets that suck which again, and still, have no bearing on anything.  If it sucks, it sucks and not only do I agree, I stated that right from the very start of the thread - what's your point?

Again you're back to apples and oranges with the statement about the Speer bullet - as I said right from the start, and repeated several times since, the majority of commercial bullets and molds SUCK - what's your point and why do you keep going back to the "pressure and black powder velocity" argument when it matters not at all to the discussion?  You're the one dumping 122+gr of powder under a 437gr ball to my 90gr under the heavier 490gr bullet.  Sure, the nipples/touch hole liners wash out after a while, 20-30 shots on the cheap ones, 30-50 on the better ones and while I haven't (and won't) shell out the $80+ for a platinum lined nipple/vent liner, feedback from very reliable sources report that the lined nipples/vents are good for 80-130 shots.  Thanks but no thanks, I can throw away twenty-six $3 nipples for the cost of one platinum and even if I only got 10 shots from the $3 nipples, that's still at least double the number of shots for the same money.  I don't see what your point is about breech pressures or flintlocks either, I've been pushing conicals from flintlocks, I started using an old 8x57 barrel for initial testing and progressed to using a variety of custom and take-off barrels that have covered the caliber range from 30 to 45 and the main charge doesn't seem to care if it's ignited by a cap, primer or flash pan ... so what is your point?

As for the bullets sliding off the powder - back to my original point that the majority of bullets SUCK!  Not fit right, not designed right, not loaded right, lack of sufficient bearing surface ..... those are all matters related to inattention, accident, ignorance or just plain stupidity which have no bearing in the discussion ... however ...  If you want to focus on such things, there are a whole lot more blown barrels resulting from PRB's than conicals - while it's a matter of fact, it has no bearing on this thread because it goes back to the top four causes being 1- inattention; 2- accident 3- ignorance; 4- just plain stupidity.  Those same three factors are the main causes of centerfire gun failures too ... someone shoves a 350 Rem Mag into a 300 Win Mag chamber and blows the thing up, is that fault of the 350 cartridge having a bullet that's too big for the bore or fault of the rifle for having a bore that's too small?  The fault lies with one of the top four reasons listed previously.  Someone loads 0.308" diameter bullets in a case designed for 0.312" diameter bullets and they slop around or fall out, is that fault of the bullets, the cartridge or the human who is using the wrong combination?  So what's your point?

I'm not new in this game Dan and I've seen plenty of WT's shot with .45-.58 PRB's that didn't loose a single drop of blood externally and plenty that ran well over 100yds before dropping and others that dropped on the spot - I could say the same for many smokeless centerfire rifles too yet none of it makes bit of difference to the topic at hand so it's all just pointless ramblings.  If you ever get beyond the pointless ramblings, perhaps you'd understand the proven fact that the only one positive way to stop any critter in its tracks is to smash enough bone to prevent locomotion, anything short of that is nothing more than iffy.  Sure, on most critters, knocking out the brain will do it but there are some that will keep going for a long time after the brain / spinal cord is wiped out.  If the spinal column is smashed, it takes out the support mechanism and thus the drop is attributed solely to broken bone.  The gun rag fiction about "shock" and "temporary wound channel" has been proven without a doubt to be nothing more than extremely unreliable - if you want the medical facts, read Dr. Fackler's writings, if you want field reports, read about the gun rag writer who punched a hole under the spine of a little WT with a Weatherby MAGNUM then spent weeks/months in the hospital getting put back together after the deer dang near killed him before running off to never be found.

[FL-Flintlock]

Daryl:  Stock design is very important - put a hooked butt on a big bore and you'll not want to shoot it often if ever, however felt recoil from a proper design using good big game loads is very light.

I'm not arguing that there is a considerable difference in "felt recoil" attributed to stock design but there is no difference in the actual amount of recoil for given load under a given projo in a gun of a given mass.  Thus, a particular combination that produces 35 ft lbs or recoil in gun "A" with a mass of 9 pounds, the same load used in gun "B" with a mass of 9 pounds will be exactly the same no matter of how the "felt recoil" difference between the two is perceived by the shooter.  None of it used to bother me other getting my cheekbone smashed by crappy stock designs until I started having problems with my spine.  Now, it doesn't matter how the recoil "feel" such as in the matter of comparing the same load in a 500 Mossberg to the same load in a Winchester model 12, despite the fact that the Winchester does not literally smack the snot out of the shooter like the Mossberg, the amount of force at velocity remains the same on the shoulder, neck & spine.  While "felt recoil" is the primary concern to the majority of shooters, for those like me, the "actual" recoil is also a very important factor.

Mark

[Daryl]

I take your meaning FL, but what I feel & the effect that recoil has on me is the most important.  As to recoil comparrisons, using muzzleloaing rifles with either projectile, (I'm not sure how ctg. guns got into this) a round ball has considerably less recoil from the same gun, than has any concial.  The conical reduces the flattness of trajectory & also creates a smaller wound channel in any game we shoot with THAT calibre.

That said, in very small calibres where the round ball lacks enough weight for penetration on specific game, I most heartedly concede that a concical on that calibre can elevate the size of gun to being satisfactory for that specific game, or even larger game depending on whether the twist is appropriate, however the fact remains in those calibres suitable for the game of chase, the conical displays reduced striking surface, elevated pressure and arched trajectory within recoil limitations of most shooters.

Personal attacks will not be allowed - keep it civil guys.

Bob - good post. A similar situation occurs in the Eastern States, I understand - that of a large number of hunters in a small area. Fortunately for us, Dan and I don't have that problem - rarely would there be another hunter or person within miles, and that one merely driving down a road.