Great American Sporting Rifle - Discussion Roundball vs. Bullet

[bigsmoke]

Yep, whole rifle looks slick. Would love that in a bullet gun!

Some time ago, we took an order for one in .72 caliber.  1:28, IIRC.  We sourced a mini ball design mold from a maker in Montana, I believe.  Cannot recall their name but it produced a real nice bullet.  I think it was around 1,200 grains.  Anyway, I took it out to sight it in and frankly, it was not fun.  Shooting off a bench, I gotta say that I never got hit by a man that hard,  it really rang my chimes.  Oofda!!

I used a .72 with a round ball on a 1,700 + pound bison, and at a genuine 100 yards it rolled that old boy from standing flat footed to being on his back, looking up at the sky.  On a bull elk, doing a shoulder shot, the ball picked that critter up and tossed him back about 4 - 5 feet.

On an eland, at 125 yards, the critter dropped so fast it was difficult to see what happened.

All this is to say that a round ball, starting out at around 1,800 fps, why the heck would anyone need a bullet?  No need at all.

John

[Squirrel pizza]

Why a bullet? In a word, range. I have round ball guns that will stop any critter in North America. One in .54 I have confidence in the shot placement to make a humane kill at 250-300 yds depending on conditions. If I'm going to shoot a .68 cal with 200 grs of powder I'd like to gain something for the abuse my shoulder will take. Dead is dead. I don't need an elk to fly four feet through the air if I got the chance to shoot one. But if a rb does that, reckon what a bullet of the same caliber with 3 times the weight would do? And I'd gain, or should gain, a few hundred more yards of range.
  But John its a fine looking rifle, and i believe you that its a shooter with plenty of punch. It was just a personal preference that for me, personally, would like that as a bullet gun. My best to you! Good luck.

[Jerry V Lape]

Squirrel Pizza your logic on the much heavier bullet doing more doesn't usually work out that way.  The heavier bullet will have a much lower velocity.  And since energy delivered is more dependent on velocity than on projectile weight  (1/2 mass x Velocity squared - remember?)  the return on performance probably  won't be that much better. 

[Squirrel pizza]

Jerry my biggest arguement for a bullet was the increase in range, usually, given the twist of the barrel, and still have enough kinetic energy to get the job done. Hard to picture any projectile of the caliber of the rifle for sale, with 200grs of powder not killing most critters smaller than a T-rex. As with anything else there are usually trade offs involved. And once again, in this style rifle, my Personal Preferance would be a fast twist bullet gun. Regardless, its a fine looking rifle, and I'm sure it' effective. The one thing I feel surest of is that BigSmoke would probably prefer us to discuss this elsewhere.

[Daryl]

Throughout history - specifically written history of the 19th century, elongated bullets, that is, conicals, did not become more effective on large and dangerous game until the advent of the breech loader which allowed hardened bullets.  Due to the elongated bullets having to be of soft lead to obturate into the rifling when fired, if muzzle loaded, the use of hardened bullets was not possible.
  
Within normal game ranges, round balls could give excellent accuracy whether soft or hardened and indeed hardened round balls of the 1860's out-penetrated the necessary soft bullets in all guns up to 8 bore in dangerous game as well as other game of the forest.

Round balls also are the only projectile to give a large bore muzzleloader a point blank range of up to 130yards. (within 3" above or below the line of sight)

[bob in the woods]

As far as actual lethality is concerned, your bullet design will play a big part. You want a nice large me plat or a round nose bullet to get the best effect for hunting, which is not necessarily the best long range bullet.
I lost a deer that I shot with my PP .45 bullet since it drilled through without much or any expansion. I have never lost a game animal when using a round ball. If we are talking realistic hunting ranges, a round ball will do all you need.

[WadePatton]

And because you'll likely be able to push RB faster without loosening your teeth, it will have a flatter trajectory which could vastly contribute to accurately hitting the target zone on your hunted critters.

It's still a rainbow trajectory compared to high-speed stuff of repeaters, but it's flatter than lead bullets.  

Get what you want, but don't think for a second that RB's won't getter done.  

[Squirrel pizza]

Since I seem to be having difficulties conveying my thoughts, I too went back to a book for help. It is the Merriam-Webster's Learners Dictionary. The word is "Range". In this book "Range" is defined several ways.
  1) A series of mountains or hills in a line.
  2) The area in which animals and plants naturaly live.
  3) A series of numbers that include the highest and lowest possible amounts.
         And others. But for my purposes, "Range" is defined as:
  4) A specified distance, and,
  4b) The distance over which someone or something can see,hear, or reach someone or something else.
 
 I never once used the word "penetration". I never broached the subject of energy transfer or offered an equation as to a fast twist bullet gun vs a round ball. I said "Range". (Ibid). I enjoy long "Range" target shooting. From a mid-"Range" of 500yds to long "Range" of 1000+ yards a round ball is useless, but can be done with a bullet, fired from a rifle with a fast twist.
  I also recall using the phrases "personal preferance", and "I like".
  Thanks for the imput but I know what "I" like. And that's all I have to say about that.  Mike

[snapper]

Daryl

I know that the softer bullets are normally considered to be more accurate in the older guns and ML.

What do you consider to be hard?

My current load with my original Rigby LRML uses 86 grains of 2 F swiss and bullets that are 16/1 ratio lead/tin.  Very hard for the ML crowd.  The reason for the harder bullet is that with such a pointed nose I dont want the nose to slump.  I have no evidence that it would or does slump with less tin or that it does not slump with 1/16.

The picture shows 3 bullets, the one on the left is the standard government style, middle what is called a creedmore and the right one is a custom design that a friend designed.  The PP bullet has a really pointed nose for ML shooters as well.

I have been shooting the PP in the Rigby for the 2 years that I have owned it. 

Last year at the world matches at 900 yards with the harder bullet and 75 grains of 2 f swiss I set a new world record with 67 3V the old record for an original rifle was I think 63.  I also beat the world record score for a reproduction rifle that score is 67 2V.  Course of fire is 15 shots, 5 points down to 1 point for bullets score.

The next day at 1,000 yards I had a bad relay.  You could not catch the changes that were going on down range and I had 2 shots that scored zero.  In hindsight I think that my load of 75 grains was not giving me enough velocity downrange and my bullets were to unstable to push through the small changes that were happening that we could not see.  The thought is that you should be at or above 1300 fps as the bullet leaves the rifle.

Larger charges with this gun gave me terrible groups at 100 yards of around 2.5".  The rifle really liked 70 grains and that is what I shot at the shorter ranges, and my accuracy was worse with 75 grains.  But I needed the speed for 900 and 1,000  yards.

So, this year I had several sessions at the range to try and figure out how to get this rifle to shoot more accurately with a larger charge.  I use 86 grains of 2 f swiss in my other LRML and wanted to stick with that charge if possible.  Keeps things easier for me.  I pre weight each powder charge at home before matches and being able to have the same charge for several rifles is great.

What I found is that with the right wad combination I was able to get my 100 yard groups to one inch or better using the 86 grains of powder, and that my bullets are right at 1300 fps.  I dont remember my standard deviation but it was very low.  This load is more accurate than the 70 grain load.

Since I dont have any ranges to shoot past 300 yards my final proving of a load is going to a match and seeing what it can do.

This year at Oak Ridge TN I shot the Rigby with the new load.   Coarse of fire is 200, 300, 600 and 1,000 yards.  At 1,000 I won the match.  I also won 2nd in the agg.  My friend that designed the bullet was 5 points better than me for the agg and I think 3rd place was around 12 or 13 points behind me. 

My friend shoots a reproduction rifle and also shoots the same hard bullet.

Fleener

[WadePatton]

Loud and clear Mike.

Stretch 'em out there.  

I heard of a local private range of 500 yards recently.  I have an "in" and can't wait to show up with rocklocks and rb's to launch there.  I hope no one has spilled the beans that I'm "backwoods backwards" like that.  

[heinz]

Wade,  pushing a round ball faster at the muzzle does not guarantee a flatter trajectory compared to a different shaped projectile. The ballistic coefficient of the bullet shape comes into play along with the added momentum of the heavier bullet. The only thing ballistically inferior to a round ball is a cube.
The round ball is my projectile of choice for traditional rifles only because it is traditional

[WadePatton]

Wade,  pushing a round ball faster at the muzzle does not guarantee a flatter trajectory compared to a different shaped projectile. The ballistic coefficient of the bullet shape comes into play along with the added momentum of the heavier bullet. The only thing ballistically inferior to a round ball is a cube.
The round ball is my projectile of choice for traditional rifles only because it is traditional

Yes.  But I don't hunt at any range long enough for the heavier bullet to catch up to the ball.  I used to fret over external ballistics and shapes and all for hours on end.  Just doesn't matter for me and I've moved on.  Thanks for keeping it "straight".  Others may be guided by our discussions, so I hate putting down anything that could mis-lead them.  A longer heavier projectile will catch the ball (started faster) IF they stay in the air long enough.  

Personally doubt I'll ever wish for anything more than PRB in the field now that I've "safe queened" everything but rocklocks for hunting. 

Well then I'd like a cold PBR along with my tow and water.  

[Daryl]

Out to 150yards, the round ball - driven by a hunting charge of powder, will be found to shoot flatter than a conical from the same (or similar) rifle- which is what Wade was saying, I assume.

Yes snapper, long range target shooting demands conicals - as do military weapons meant for shooting other men at longer ranges - most assuredly.  They are less effected by the elements and range as well as having the ability to carry further with accuracy.

What makes the best long range or military bullet, does not necessarily make the best hunting bullet - which is the 'stand' from hunters. Those have found the round ball of decent size to be a much better killer than conicals of any size - until the advent as described above, of breech loaders.

Can good work be done on game with conicals - yes, of course.  Is a .50 conical 'better' than a .45 round ball - quite possibly if driven fast enough. Is a .36 or .45 conical 'better' on big game than  a .50 or .54 round ball? - not a chance!

The human torso is tall and thin - whereas an animal is longer and has a thin body shape, in comparison to human torso. Thus, the greater vertical drop over normal game ranges, makes the conical less usable for hunting as it is more difficult to get the elevation correct, however it is still usable and preferred for military and target.  Sights can be raised for longer ranges, and a foot of 2' in error in drop estimation will still giver a torso and therefore disabling hit on a man, even if not a deadly one.  The round ball fails miserably due to it's poor BC and SD in long range shooting, but does do better at closer, game ranges.

Good shooting Fleener.

I am surprised you were able to get 16:1 to work as it is quite hard compared to the alloys commonly used for match shooting to 1,000 yards, 130 or more years ago. Most of the guys around here are using 20:1 to 30:1 for their BP long range guns. Ratios as soft as 40:1 were also commonly used- back then.

Too, back THEN (1880's), many guns also used 2 part bullets, soft base to ensure obturation into the rifling, along with a hard nose to resist slumping.

A rifle I had many years ago, used 40:1, paper patched, with 122gr. 2f and shot almost MOA out to three hundred yards, but that was as far as I went with it due to range limitations at the in-town range.  It was a 580gr. conical with small flat nose, a mould we re-bored, patched, just barerly over bore size to scrub the rifling, but obturate when fired.

We now have 1,100 meters out of town, and scaring the 1000 meter steel buffalo (4'x8') in an impromptu shoot with light 368gr. .50 cal. bullets was a lot of fun.

[snapper]

Daryl

I will be the first to admit I dont know a lot about shooting and ballistics.  If I did I would not of tried a hard bullet in my rigby and with a really pointed bullet.  The Rigby as I understand it was made a year or so before Rigby switched is a more shallow rifling.

What I am shooting is very much different than than the rest of the crowd. 

I am not convinced that my 520 grain 45 cal hollow point, pure lead that I use for hunting is not a superior bullet vs a .54 cal RB.  I have shot a lot of deer with both.  My 45 cal hollow point will simply anchor a deer where they stand.

I agree that the conical is much heavier and you do need to know more as a shooter.  But if you are shooting at a 100 yards or less the point of aim for a deer sized animal is not an issue.  MOA deer is much larger than MOA on a piece of paper.

Soft blunt nosed  bullets are still very much the norm for LRML.  But like I said I was not hindered by knowing what I did not know.


Fleener

[bob in the woods]

Fleener, I have done a lot of long range target shooting with my 1 in 18 twist .45 and a Ballard nose pour PP 535 gr bullet.  My best long range loads shoot donuts at 100 yards, so I don't bother testing at less than 200 any more.  My 200 yard groups are 1/2 the size of the 100 yard.  My bullets are on the harder side, much like yours. I believe the PP is what allows this, whereas I need a softer 1:20 mix if shooting Grooved/lubed bullets
Nice shooting BTW.   I'm using 85 gr powder with my PP bullet

[snapper]

Bob in the woods:

so how do you explain that your accuracy is bad at 100 yards but much better at 200 yards?

Fleener

[little joe]

Why a bullet? In a word, range. I have round ball guns that will stop any critter in North America. One in .54 I have confidence in the shot placement to make a humane kill at 250-300 yds depending on conditions. If I'm going to shoot a .68 cal with 200 grs of powder I'd like to gain something for the abuse my shoulder will take. Dead is dead. I don't need an elk to fly four feet through the air if I got the chance to shoot one. But if a rb does that, reckon what a bullet of the same caliber with 3 times the weight would do? And I'd gain, or should gain, a few hundred more yards of range.
  But John its a fine looking rifle, and i believe you that its a shooter with plenty of punch. It was just a personal preference that for me, personally, would like that as a bullet gun. My best to you! Good luck.

I was at one time a fare shooter, however those days are long gone. Have kept them all in the black on the NMLRA 100 yd target at 100 yds offhand.  My question is how much does a .54 ball  drop at 250-300 yds? I never attempted a shot at those ranges.

[Squirrel pizza]

These Results May Not Be Typical! Please Note These Results Are Me Shooting My Rifle!!!
  My .54 has a Douglas 1 1/4 x 32" barrel. 1-66 twist. The rifle is fitted with the Browning 1885 Soule Vernier rear sight with a Merit #3 Master Disc. I usually have it on the smallest aperture size of about .21. The front sight is a Lee Shaver 17 Spirit Level.
  If I have it sighted at 100 yards, where I can routinely hit a golf ball, and without adjusting sights shoot at 300yds I see a drop of about 36", depending on the weather.
  This is using a .535 rb. .022 ticking lubed with wonder lube or bore butter. 70grs FF. I stress that conditions play a large factor in that 3' number. On the calmest day it was closer to 30", but I seldom shoot at a known range without adjusting my sights.

[bob in the woods]

Hi Fleener. I don't believe that the bullet has stabilized at 100 yards. If I back off on the powder, the group at 100 tightens right up. I've shot loads that were great at 100 but didn't work out at longer ranges, so have settled on 200 yards for testing.  I had a 38 cal years ago that was much the same. Shooting a 300 gr bullet, it shot 2 to 2 1/2in groups at 100 yards, but on a calm day put 10 shots into 1 and 11/16ths inches at 200