Conical vs Ball

[JCKelly]

A while back someone asked about using some modern pointed bullet vs round ball for hunting, might have been in Pennsylvania.

Although I incline to round ball, my own experience is so limited as not to be worth discussing. However, you might want to read what a serious British hunter of large game had to say mid-19th century:

Having expressed my opinion respecting the bore of the rifle, I will now touch upon the shape of the bullets. As I before stated, I do not approve of the sharp pointed cone; it does not produce sufficient concussion, but enters the animal more like the thrust of a sword than the blow of a bullet; there is not sufficient shock; there is as much difference between the blow of a hammer and the thrust of a dagger, as in the shock of the blunt bullet and the perforation of the sharp one. Thus, should the sharp point strike in the wrong place, it produces no immediate effect - it is scarcely felt; but the stunning b low of the blunt bullet, even when wrongly placed, will generally disable the animal

The author goes on to note that shortly after the Crimean war, a surgeon in charge of a large number of wounded men reported - That he "also observed that these bullets (the Minie) made holes as if they had been drilled, and that they travelled over or through the body in the most eccentric directions. . .  The conclusion drawn is that, after all, conical balls produce less dangerous gunshot wounds than the ordinary spherical ones, since, whenever they first meet an obstacle, unless they strike with the apex, they deviate from their course instead of smashing the bone, and make their way through the fleshy part of the body."

This is from the Sorting Rifle and its Projectiles, by Lieut. James Forsyth, M.A. 1863. Reprinted by the late John Baird, 1978

[Dphariss]

The original Maxi-Ball was apparently noted for exactly what Forsythe mentions here.
In the 48" twist it would deviate from the intended track when striking and animal. I have read reports of the front driving band collapsing into the front lube groove so the bullet, rather than expanding became more pointed and produced poor wound tracks even if they tracked straight.
In my experience in guiding hunters, hunting on my own, watching friends and family shoot game with a variety of projectiles and propellants/velocities I can say with complete confidence that SHOT PLACEMENT trumps projectile design in ALL CASES. UNLESS the bullet expands explosively (like the 300 Weatherby bullet did on an elk I caped) OR the bullet fails to track straight as  did two "new and improved" 45-70 bullets I tried a few years back. On 2 deer in a row. Something I have never seen with the RB or with any of the blunt bullets normally used in 45-70 class cartridges.
Modern small bore (30 +- caliber) spitzer bullets ALSO can deflect significantly if they nick a rib on an animal the size of a moose or elk.
All around the RB if its sized reasonably for the game is a very effective and efficient hunting projectile and the need for elongated bullets is the result of people simply believing the RB can't work since it has a poor BC and low section density.
Heavy game in Africa and India was invariably killed with hardened RBs until the advent of brass suppository guns where the conical/cylindrical bullet is a practical projectile for heavy game. Hardened conicals were not usable in MLs in the hunting context and other than the cloth patched picket conicals do not stay on the powder well unless the muzzle is always pointed up. So for hunting they are actually dangerous both due to ineffectiveness (see Sir Samuel Baker's writings or read the quotes in Forsythe's) and due to forming bore obstructions. A problem the Minie was known for as well in military service.

Dan

[Hungry Horse]

 One shot, with a heavy hunting charge, under a conical bullet, in a muzzleloader, leaves the bore filthy. This make a second shot hard to load. Which at times leads to the bullet not being properly seated on the powder. I have seen several production muzzleloaders with bulged barrels from this scenario.
  A round ball, with a properly lubed patch, doesn't have this problem, unless you are one of those guys, that think you have to load with a steel rod, and a hammer, to make your gun shoot true. JMO.

                    Hungry Horse

[JPK]

For deer it's been my experience that round ball has plenty of energy as well as penetration. I've seen a 50 calibre ball go from brisket to rump driven by 70 grains of powder. That deer was at 50 yards and at up to a hundred yards a heavier gun rarely leaves a ball in the body. For ease of loading, accuracy, economy, and effectiveness the round ball is hard to beat.  The point of a conical bullet is to increase penetration and I don't believe that is necessary for game we deal with in the U.S. 

[PPatch]

As Dan says shot placement trumps bullet shape in every case. Aim true and KNOW where to place the bullet. A dead animal (or human) every time. If the .45 caliber pistol round proves anything in over a hundred years of use a relatively slow moving roundish slug does more damage and produces more knock down power than any round out there. A muzzleloader round ball demonstrates approximately the same damage quotient but in larger caliber packs a heavier impact and will flat out knock a animal down if you did your part by placing the ball in its vitals.

dp

[Mike R]

I use round balls exclusivley and have since ~ 1971, when I had a .36 underhammer that I experimented with home-cast conicals.  Two advantages I found with conicals: (1) they were very accurate in my .36 and (2) they increase bullet weight per caliber.  The .36 rd ball is a light projectile, but if larger than squirrel/varmint-sized game is hunted, the .36 conical gave added mass and therefore added energy.  Conicals were used in the flint period experimentally and in the percussion period more extensively.  I have little experience with conicals in larger bores except for my Civil War type rifles and minnie balls.  Their effect in war is well documented.

[bigsmoke]

Also remember that Forsythe favored a 14 bore rifle (.69 caliber) and Baker did seem to prefer manly calibers (read that as 4 bores).  So they were getting the advantage of both large frontal area for maximum striking power and also heavier bullet weight.  Even when Baker finally converted over to cartridge rifles, his go to was a .577 cal.  if I remember right he even used that on his North American hunts.
Having seen what a 12 bore will do to an elk at 50 yards - pick it up and throw it sideways- and a bison - roll it from standing to on its back at 100 yards-there is no doubt in my mind to effectiveness of big round ball.
I can visualize those fellows dropping the African Big Five with their 4 and 8 bores.  Those guns are just devastating.
Love 'em.
John

[Dphariss]

Baker was instrumental in the development of the 577 once of the really great express rifles. He also used a 10 bore breech loader.
He used a 2 ounce and 3 ounce rifle in Ceylon. I think his "devil stopper" shot a "three ounce ball" making it about a 5 bore. it also weighed 21 pounds.

Dan