Round Ball vs Bullets

[northmn]

We got off on an interesting tangent on my 25 cal thread concerning tests of the little 25 against the 22 LR.  I used sopping wet newsprint (I cannot afford a ballistic gelatin setup) and noticed that the 25 seemed to expand upon impact in the newsprint where the 22 bullets took a while.  There did not seem to be much difference between the HP and solid 22, but in the first half inch they showed little expansion.  The 25 blew a respectable hole. 
OK so what.  Many have been quite satisfied with RB on big game and I think there may be some parallels to my limited findings.  I have had satisfactory success with a 30-30 and a 303 Brit using cast bullets on deer.  So much so I do not use jacketed.  They do perform similar to the wet pack, in that they blow a pretty nice off side hole.  I would suggest that a 50 or 54 would possibly do a similar job only the damage would be at the entrance and the energy would dissipate toward the off side??  Or compare Dpharsis' 16 ga to a 45-70.  On a deer, with pure lead,  it may be more effective than a 45-70 due to its ability to deliver its energy at entrance.  On a larger animal the 45-70 may do so in an opposite manner.  Just conjecture.


DP

[hanshi]

You're right.  Example: A .458 Win Mag is great for buffalo (Cape), but not so great on deer which have little comparative resistance, body wise.

[FL-Flintlock]

There's a lot more to this as the design of the projo makes a huge difference in how it will or will not perform.  The standard .22LR RN/RNHP is one of the worst designs and if you'll note the similarity between the .22LR and the standard 9x19, it's easy to understand why both suck at producing a suitable wound channel despite the diameter difference.  Changing just the nose shape of the standard .22LR RN makes the world of difference in how the projo performs as is seen in the pic below where the projo on the left is OEM and the one on the right is the same OEM projo with a modified nose shape, both fired into water.



The same applies to all projo diameters when it comes to how they perform after impact and despite what the gun rag prostitutes write, higher velocity lower mass sexy looking so-called "premium" bullets often do not perform in the real world as the pretty pictures in the gun rag show.



While Hanshi's statement about the .458 win mag is true to point, one must point out that the assumption is based on using projo's designed solely for deep penetration as opposed to a projo designed to produce an acceptable balance between creating a suitable wound channel in soft tissue while maintaining sufficient mass and momentum to produce deep penetration.
 
.45cal 490gr from muzzleloader:


To compare a PRB to a conical, one must account for the physical differences in design.  While a PRB of the same diameter as a conical projo has the potential to produce similar size/shape wound channel in soft tissue, the PRB is severely mass-limited thus severely limiting its penetration potential.  If you think I'm slamming PRB's, I'm not, I'm simply pointing out the obvious so keep reading to the end.  Pure and simple, a 133gr 0.445" PRB has a relative penetration index of 9.6 while a 450gr conical of the same diameter has a relative penetration index of 32.5 - just the facts of life that with mass comes momentum.  Now, getting to my point, if one were to suggest comparing the performance of a 16ga PRB to a 0.458" conical, the PRB has an unfair advantage on something like a whitetail deer.  At roughly 414gr, there isn't a lot of difference in mass to the 450gr 0.458" conical but the PRB has the absolute advantage of starting out at 0.650" as opposed to 0.458" in diameter and the 0.192" advantage of the PRB makes for a helluva difference in the starting size of the wound channel.   I can save you the trouble of testing and tell you flat-out that within it's range limitation and with proper shot placement, the 16ga PRB is going to knock the fire out of a whitetail faster than any 0.458" conical.  Where the advantage goes to the conical is greatly increased effective range and increased penetration potential when the situation dictates the need.  Such is why I argue the point of these gun rag followers who have gotten sucked into the sales hype where the discussions about personal defense against dangerous critters like griz/mt lion more often than not focus on the low-mass high-velocity sabot rounds for a 12ga instead the far more effective and reliable 0.710" PRB.

To compare like items such as a .45cal bore being used on whitetails at 50 yards taking nothing but broadside boiler shots, it's highly doubtful that one would see much of difference between hits made with a PRB as opposed to a 450gr conical.  On the other hand, with all else remaining the same, on a bad quartering shot hitting the shoulder, one will definitely see a marked difference between the PRB and conical.  Likewise, if the range of a boiler shot is increased to say 250yds, the PRB is far more susceptible to wind drift and will shed a whole lot of velocity simply because it lacks the mass of a conical to maintain momentum.  The same applies to like conicals of various mass where a 500gr at considerably lower velocity will consistently produce reliable accuracy and after-impact performance across the range spectrum as opposed to a much lower mass but higher velocity 250-300gr conical of the same diameter.  With low-mass conicals in larger diameter bores also comes the issues of the conical being able to maintain on its intended flight path after impact - the same issue applies to heavy conicals when the upper velocity limit is exceeded such as with the .458 Lott and .460 Wtby mag where a 500gr monolithic solid impacting at velocities over 1850 fps begin to lose overall penetration potential and at higher velocities will fail to maintain a straight wound channel.  

[Dphariss]

Thanks to Roundball for taking the time to do the wet pack tests.
But the RB vs Bullet discussion always gets lengthy.

The importance of penetration will depend on the situation and the animal be shot.
Since we do not often shoot African Elephant or other heavy game in NA we will limit or discussion to what is likely to be encountered in on this side of the ocean. For example based on historical writings, it takes a 2 or 4 OUNCE RB at 1400 fps or a little more to really equal a 458 or 470 as a "stopper" for African Elephant.
As soon as someone mentions penetration and the RB  the poor penetration/sectional density comments begin.
We need to understand that the Rb need not shoot though an Elk's shoulders at 300 yards as a friend did with a 420 grain 45-70 bullet. Or through Bison at 600 as even a heavy bulleted 40-70 will do, I think this is in "Getting a Stand". There is a an account of a 1:20 (about factory standard for the time) alloy 330 grain from a 40-70 SS shooting through a gbear from end to end in one of the hunts that the western photographer LA Huffman participated in. I think its in "Before Barbed Wire".
But shooting elk at 300 yards or Bison at 600 is not relevant its beyond the scope of hunting with the traditional ML hunting rifle. Shooting a Gbear is not something most people here are ever going to be faced with. If so they need a large diameter RB. Or one could set up on a trail someplace with 54 to 69 caliber ML slug gun shooting a bullet weighing 2-4 ounces. One of these will shoot through almost and any land animal from any angle.

A 45 caliber RB with a reasonable charge of powder, say 1/2 ball weight or so, will shoot though an "average" deer's chest cavity  on broadside shots to 120 yards or so. A 50 caliber RB will shoot through a Mule deer at 140. *Probably* to 200.
A 350 gr 45-70 will do the same thing with higher exit velocity. A 400 at BP velocities 1250-1350 FPS will probably shoot through a deer endways. I have done this with a 50-70 Gov't with a bullet that closely approximates the "issue" bullet and a 54 percussion Sharps with the "Christmas Tree" bullet.
I have accounts that I consider to be beyond question concerning RB penetration on Canadian moose. If a 54 RB will penetrate to the far side hide of an moose at 175 yards I hardly consider it to be greatly hampered by its lack of section density.
With a soft lead ball the 16 bore rifle will only penetrate 30 odd inches into a deer (after penetrating one of the hardest spots on the animal, the brisket to one side of the windpipe.

I have gotten similar results with a 54 with a head on shot but in this case the deer started to turn as I broke the trigger and the ball struck behind the shoulder at a pretty shallow angle, cut off 2 ribs and was lodged at the far end of the deer. The deer required some followup to bring it to bag but I doubt shooting through another 1/4 or 1/2" at the butt end with a bullet would change this.

This ball weighs about what a medium heavy 45 caliber cartridge bullet does. BUT when IT REACHED THE VITALS it was making a FAR LARGER wound channel that I have EVER seen made with a 40-44-45 or 50 caliber cartridge rifle  REGARDLESS of bullet Meplat or alloy or powder charge at the same distance 40-50 yards.
It is a fact, according to all accounts that the 22LR will kill deer with chest shots.
It is a fact the regardless of bullet diameter or shape or impact velocity, within reason for BP, that the deer will run after being shot if its electrical system is not interrupted.
It is a fact that deeper penetration will not necessarily produce a more rapid kill since once it passes from the animal the it does no more harm.
It is a fact that penetration only be ADEQUATE.
It is a fact that a RB if sized properly for the game at hand and of the proper alloy has in the past and still will penetrate adequately to kill any animal on the planet.

A hunting rifle must do several things. It must have sufficient accuracy to place the shot, it must have a flat trajectory to give it the longest possible point blank range, it must penetrate adequately to reach and damage the vital internal organs of the animal being hunted WITH A PROPERLY PLACED SHOT.
Ahh yes shot placement. Now if we expect to shoot a buffalo in the a@@ and want the bullet to penetrate to the chest cavity or beyond we might want to use a 45-100-500 or a 375 H&H with a 300 grain. But shots of this sort are desperation shots and are not recommended.
It is OBVIOUS from both NUMEROUS current and historical accounts that a 1/2 ounce ball will kill almost anything in NA. Do I consider it the best choice to animals over the size of Mule Deer? No. But I don't think a 270 is adequate for Elk either, but don't tell anyone who has killed elk with one this. There is an excellent account of a plains rifle, probably using 1/2 ounce balls killed 2 buffalo in 2 shots at 175 yards in "The Oregon Trail" by Francis Parkman. The buffalo ran off, but they simply rode down the trail they made and found then dead. A little work with a knife and dinner is served.

Comparing the 25 RB with a 22LR is interesting. I KNOW the 22 LR will penetrate to beat the band. My dad carries a 22 LR bullet up near his hip that entered just above the knee penetrated about 20" plus.  Had be been alone he would have been found dead. 6" barreled Browning Nomad 22 LR "solid". One shot stop one might say. The 25 RB will not do this. So what? Its meant to shoot small game. It need not penetrate more than 2-4" to do this.
Had I written a comment on the outcome of the 22-25 I would have postulated the exact outcome that Roundball proved in the tests.
A soft lead ball at high velocity will deform and produce a lot of shock. More than a bullet of the same or similar weight will at velocities obtainable with the RB.
Using the heavy bullets true potential and only real advantage over the round ball, range, requires a considerable amount of shooting, a range finder and a table of sight settings for an adjustable sight, the ability to judge the wind and its likely effect of the bullet is desirable as well.

One more thought on "quartering shots" It is possible to kill deer with quartering shots but its a VERY poor idea with anything. If I cannot see to heavily damage the heart, the major arteries or BOTH LUNGS with the shot offered I WILL NOT TAKE IT. Hitting only one lung on a deer or any other animal is INVARIABLY bad. They live a long time and can travel far. Bullet or ball makes no difference. One of the hardest tacking jobs I ever had was a Mulie Buck a client shot through and through at a 45 degree angle but only got 1 lung range under 100, 308 win with a 160-180 gr SP. I doubt it would have been worse with 50-54 RB.
The deer ended up with a running shot from a 45-70 with a 400 Speer as he ran though some trees and a coup de gras before he was anchored.
So unless you have a shot at a something you KNOW is going Boone and Crocket, forget the quartering shot unless you are really good at it and the bullet will track to exactly where you want it.
In guiding people for hire and fun and in some of my own experiences I have been involved in some pretty sorry hunting "experiences". These are ALWAYS the result of poor shot placement so BE VERY CAREFUL of SHOT PLACEMENT. Its FAR more important than the bullet being used.
If you want to of do Texas heart shots don't use a RB, use something with a LONG bullet and a fast twist like a 375 H&H with a 300 gr Core-lokt.

Dan
 

[Daryl]

Good post, Dan - well thought out. & presented.

[northmn]

There is no doubt that a bullet will penetrate deeper than a round ball, an I agree with what has been said in general.  I think what I found in wet pack, and I plan to do a little more, also explains why the small game bores are so nasty on small game.  Where the 22 may take a bit to open up, the pue lead ball does so almost on impact.  Most bullets penetrate a ways before reaching reasonable expansion.  I would suggest that the wound channels might be to a point reversed.  That the round ball may have the most energy transfer if "you will" such that the trumpet shaped channel is reversed as the RB quickly loses energy.  On smaller animals, or relativley smaller animals, including deer sized ones, this may be an advantage.  CF bullets that open up quickly tend to fragment which causes other issues.  I know that more experienced hunters claim round ball are often more effective than the saboted bullets and maxie ball type bullets for ML's.  It's possible some of them perform like I saw in the wet pack for the LR

DP

[Daryl]

Generally and at normal game ranges, round balls stike at higher speeds, and due to being larger in diameter, with their hemispherical shape, disrupt tissue out of proportion to thier weight.
A .350" round ball, striking a snowshoe hare's head at 50 yards, with an impact speed of 1,400 to 1,500fps, will decapitate said bunny.  A .22 RL won't do that with any bullet, nor will a .22 mag. with normal 40gr. HP's, even though it's impact speed is higher yet, with a very frangible bullet. Diameter and striking surface shape comes into the RB equation - along with it's speed at normal ranges.

This is why they kill better than slower moving conicals.

[B. Hey]

Very interesting indeed. Thanks for sharing your knowledge, Dan. Take care .. Bill Hey

[FL-Flintlock]

Dan P: As soon as someone mentions penetration and the RB  the poor penetration/sectional density comments begin.

That thanks largely in part to the prostitute writers like Toby Bridges who while calling other people "liars" is himself spouting nothing more than the talking points supplied by whoever is handing him money at the time.

Dan P: But shooting elk at 300 yards or Bison at 600 is not relevant its beyond the scope of hunting with the traditional ML hunting rifle. ... We need to understand that the Rb need not shoot though an Elk's shoulders at 300 yards ... A 45 caliber RB with a reasonable charge of powder, say 1/2 ball weight or so, will shoot though an "average" deer's chest cavity  on broadside shots to 120 yards or so.  A 50 caliber RB will shoot through a Mule deer at 140. *Probably* to 200.

Starting with the first statement of range and traditional ML's, what of the Rigby, Metford, Sharps, Underhammer and other traditional muzzleloaders that were purpose-built to accurately deliver conical bullets at ranges to 1000 yards and such traditional rifles were in fact used for long range hunting long before the advent of BPCR?  A half-ball-weight powder charge in a .45 is just 64gr for a 0.440" ball - back when I hunted with a .45, a 90gr charge showed around 10" penetration in wet newsprint at 75yds - marginal at best to reasonably assume a pass-through at longer ranges especially with less powder and definitely not if there's heavy meat or bone contact factored in.  I'm not saying the .45 PRB is impotent but the little 128gr ball, just like everything else, has its limitations.  Don't read this as me being "anti-PRB" because I'm far from that but I do stress that one must know the limitation of ANY given load/gun combo no matter if it's traditional or the latest loudenboomer mega magnum.

Let's consider that 140yd shot with the .50 PRB while noting that the same sudden crosswind that will easily push that .50 PRB better than 12" off the intended POI will only be able to move a 500gr 45cal conical just 2.5" - plenty enough to mean the difference between making a boiler room hit and a gut shot with the PRB.  Not saying the .50 PRB can't do the job but one must always consider the "Murphy factor" and whether or not the combination being used at the time has the ability to overcome the Murphy factor before any consideration is given to tripping the trigger.

Dan P: ... but in this case the deer started to turn as I broke the trigger ...

Ahhh, one of the most important things I stress about hunting, critters are not a stationary paper target on the range, they can and will move when you don't want them to.  To reinforce my point, had the above happened with the minimal charge under the .45 PRB as opposed to the .54, how much further would that critter have gone or would it have likely been lost completely?  Agreed, another 1/4-1/2" penetration at the butt wouldn't have mattered but another 5-6" penetration and a shattered hip would have greatly increased blood loss and capability of locomotion.

Dan P: This ball {16 bore} weighs about what a medium heavy 45 caliber cartridge bullet does. BUT when IT REACHED THE VITALS it was making a FAR LARGER wound channel that I have EVER seen made with a 40-44-45 or 50 caliber cartridge rifle  REGARDLESS of bullet Meplat or alloy or powder charge at the same distance 40-50 yards.

Geeze Dan, did you ever consider that the 0.650" ball is already starting out 0.192" bigger in diameter than a .45 bullet?  Not to be rude Dan but that's like saying "My .75" hole punch makes bigger holes in gasket material than my 0.50" punch."  No kidding ... really?  What's your point?

Dan P:  It is a fact, according to all accounts that the 22LR will kill deer with chest shots.

The .22LR, or any other projectile for that matter, has the potential to inflict a terminal wound.  Again, what's your point?

Dan P:  It is a fact the regardless of bullet diameter or shape or impact velocity, within reason for BP, that the deer will run after being shot if its electrical system is not interrupted.

I've seen WT's take hits from .300 Win Mag, 7mm Rem Mag, the '06 and others and continue to go, one over 400yds despite three boiler room hits from the 7mm Rem Mag - again, what's your point?  Proven fact though, if you bust both shoulders or a shoulder and a hip, it's not leaving the spot.

Dan P:  It is a fact that deeper penetration will not necessarily produce a more rapid kill since once it passes from the animal the it does no more harm.

Agreed, however, one must also account for the chest shot a friend made with his .54 PRB that managed to miss all the vitals and come to rest at the diaphragm - same shot, same angle made with an alloy PRB or a deep penetrating bullet would surely have taken out the spine dropping the deer on the spot instead of having to track it for six hours before getting another chance to make the shot that put it down.

Dan P:  It is a fact that penetration only be ADEQUATE.

What's "adequate" when the critter turns/moves or a gust of wind hits just as the trigger breaks?

I'll relate something that gained me a new client.  Fellow paid big dollars to go on a ML moose hunt so he bought a Knight and the $3.50 per shot consumables with the alleged "PREMIUM" branding.  This guy is no idiot, he's quite an accomplished "hunter" not the typical season-extender type.  He got a shot and despite the rifle's capability to put the bullet where it was intended to go, that didn't stop the moose from moving a little as the trigger broke putting the bullet into the meat of the shoulder instead of the boiler room where it was intended to go.  The alleged "premium" 300gr sabot bullet fragmented in the shoulder never making it to the vitals.  Luckily the moose was put down shortly after by another member of the hunting party.  By all rights, the "typical" performance of said in-line load should have, and probably would have, been "adequate" to make the optimum boiler room shot but when things didn't quite go as planned, said "adequate" load became utterly worthless.

Some of the "old timers" I grew up around in PA considered such rounds as the .25-20 and .22 Hornet "adequate" for hunting WT's and while that's true to the point only if one can guarantee pinpoint accurate shot placement, such rounds are totally impotent in cases where things don't quite go as planned - such is why having a combination of any type that has more than "adequate" reserve to counter the "Murphy factor" becomes extremely important and should not be discounted.  How many people consider a load of 0.33" diameter 48.3gr pellets launched at a mere 1250 fps "adequate" for taking deer?  We're talking modern hunting here, not survival.  In a survival situation one will use whatever means is available but in our modern hunting situation where one can easily pick up dinner at Winn Dixie on the way home from hunting, it's a whole different game and there's no excuse for one not accepting the limits of the chosen gun/load combination for what they are.

Personally, I tend to prefer hunting with PRB's and flintlocks but I also consider the limitations associated with any gun/load combo I choose to hunt with be it a .45 PRB from a flinter or a .375 H&H pushing a 350gr RN - everything has its limitations.  You want to talk about the effectiveness of big-bore round balls, let me be the first to lead that charge.  Nothing, and I mean nothing, has proven as terminally effective as the 0.710" WW alloy 12ga round ball loads - caveat: "within their range limitation."  Granted I didn't load any with BP, the propulsion was provided courtesy of Blue Dot but there was no denying the terminal performance.  There is no other combination I would choose to have in an up-close and personal situation when one round may be all that stands between me and the promise land.

Compared to the majority of conical bullets, a PRB of the same given diameter will produce a much larger wound channel beginning at the point of entry simply because the majority of conical bullets must encounter enough resistance in order to cause disruption of its shape and/or they just flat-out suck at producing a reliable wound no matter what.  When comparing a WW alloy PRB to a conical with the same spherical nose shape cast from soft lead, the wound channel diameter of the softer conical will be larger than that of the PRB and the difference in penetration depth depends upon the mass of the conical.  When comparing a soft PRB to an alloy conical, the PRB will produce a much larger wound channel but with a considerable reduction in penetration depth from that produced by the WW alloy ball driven at the same velocity.  Pitting Walker C&B with WW-alloy balls against 240gr JHP's from a .44mag quickly showed that in wet newsprint, the PRB's consistently produced a larger continuous diameter wound channel and only slightly less penetration depth at 20yds - when the range was increased to 50yds the PRB still had the advantage in wound channel diameter but the heavier 240gr bullet had a definite advantage in penetration depth.  Going to a soft-cast ball in the Walker gave up a lot of penetration depth but the .44mag could not match the wound channel diameter even with a higher velocity 180gr JPH.

I will however call you on the statements as above where you're making an apples to oranges comparison such as the 0.650" PRB to a 0.458" conical.  That particular example you used would be akin to me making the same comparison of performance and accuracy at 300yds where the 16 bore PRB would never be able to produce repeatable reliability even under optimum conditions.  That goes along the same lines as if one tried to compare the reliability and performance of a 0.610" PRB driven with a 75gr charge from a smoothbore to the same PRB driven with a 160gr charge from a slow-twist rifle - where the smoothie is going to be range-limited for both power and accuracy to somewhere around the 80yd mark, the rifle is more than capable of easily producing repeated reliability at well over twice that range.  Also along the same apples to oranges comparison lines is making broad-based statements about the performance of "any" 45cal conicals when likely that statement is based only on the poorly designed commercially available bullets & molds.  Look at the pic's I posted, first one is common .22 LR and the same exact .22 LR from the same box with the only exception being a slight modification to the bullet nose yet quite an obvious difference in performance.  Like I said, I prefer flintlock and PRB for most hunting because it's what I enjoy but on the same note I'm willing to accept my choices for what they are in that I'm not about to take a 100+yd shot with a .45 PRB just the same as I'm not about to take a 175+yd shot with a .30-30 because no matter how "optimum" the conditions may appear, there are physical limits one must accept for ANY given gun/projo combination.

Another thing to consider is the condition in which one is hunting.  I've hunted thick brush & swamps in the southern states where if one does make a locomotion stopping shot, more than likely the critter is not going to be found even if it only makes 40yds from the point of impact.  I hunted areas in northern states where the terrain could mean the difference of making the recovery from a non-locomotion stopping shot a matter of hours and miles of hiking instead of minutes - and, of course, those areas where a critter making it across a property line means the difference between recovery and loss thus there's more factors to consider when evaluating what is considered "adequate".  I may have gotten a lot of flak for hunting with a "cannon" (.45-70, .58/.62 flint) but using both, I have never lost a critter nor had to throw half of the meat away because of it being all bloodshot and/or shredded.

[Dphariss]

Dan P: As soon as someone mentions penetration and the RB  the poor penetration/sectional density comments begin.

That thanks largely in part to the prostitute writers like Toby Bridges who while calling other people "liars" is himself spouting nothing more than the talking points supplied by whoever is handing him money at the time.

Dan P: But shooting elk at 300 yards or Bison at 600 is not relevant its beyond the scope of hunting with the traditional ML hunting rifle. ... We need to understand that the Rb need not shoot though an Elk's shoulders at 300 yards ... A 45 caliber RB with a reasonable charge of powder, say 1/2 ball weight or so, will shoot though an "average" deer's chest cavity  on broadside shots to 120 yards or so.  A 50 caliber RB will shoot through a Mule deer at 140. *Probably* to 200.

Starting with the first statement of range and traditional ML's, what of the Rigby, Metford, Sharps, Underhammer and other traditional muzzleloaders that were purpose-built to accurately deliver conical bullets at ranges to 1000 yards and such traditional rifles were in fact used for long range hunting long before the advent of BPCR?  A half-ball-weight powder charge in a .45 is just 64gr for a 0.440" ball - back when I hunted with a .45, a 90gr charge showed around 10" penetration in wet newsprint at 75yds - marginal at best to reasonably assume a pass-through at longer ranges especially with less powder and definitely not if there's heavy meat or bone contact factored in.  I'm not saying the .45 PRB is impotent but the little 128gr ball, just like everything else, has its limitations.  Don't read this as me being "anti-PRB" because I'm far from that but I do stress that one must know the limitation of ANY given load/gun combo no matter if it's traditional or the latest loudenboomer mega magnum.

Let's consider that 140yd shot with the .50 PRB while noting that the same sudden crosswind that will easily push that .50 PRB better than 12" off the intended POI will only be able to move a 500gr 45cal conical just 2.5" - plenty enough to mean the difference between making a boiler room hit and a gut shot with the PRB.  Not saying the .50 PRB can't do the job but one must always consider the "Murphy factor" and whether or not the combination being used at the time has the ability to overcome the Murphy factor before any consideration is given to tripping the trigger.

Dan P: ... but in this case the deer started to turn as I broke the trigger ...

Ahhh, one of the most important things I stress about hunting, critters are not a stationary paper target on the range, they can and will move when you don't want them to.  To reinforce my point, had the above happened with the minimal charge under the .45 PRB as opposed to the .54, how much further would that critter have gone or would it have likely been lost completely?  Agreed, another 1/4-1/2" penetration at the butt wouldn't have mattered but another 5-6" penetration and a shattered hip would have greatly increased blood loss and capability of locomotion.

Dan P: This ball {16 bore} weighs about what a medium heavy 45 caliber cartridge bullet does. BUT when IT REACHED THE VITALS it was making a FAR LARGER wound channel that I have EVER seen made with a 40-44-45 or 50 caliber cartridge rifle  REGARDLESS of bullet Meplat or alloy or powder charge at the same distance 40-50 yards.

Geeze Dan, did you ever consider that the 0.650" ball is already starting out 0.192" bigger in diameter than a .45 bullet?  Not to be rude Dan but that's like saying "My .75" hole punch makes bigger holes in gasket material than my 0.50" punch."  No kidding ... really?  What's your point?

Dan P:  It is a fact, according to all accounts that the 22LR will kill deer with chest shots.

The .22LR, or any other projectile for that matter, has the potential to inflict a terminal wound.  Again, what's your point?

Dan P:  It is a fact the regardless of bullet diameter or shape or impact velocity, within reason for BP, that the deer will run after being shot if its electrical system is not interrupted.

I've seen WT's take hits from .300 Win Mag, 7mm Rem Mag, the '06 and others and continue to go, one over 400yds despite three boiler room hits from the 7mm Rem Mag - again, what's your point?  Proven fact though, if you bust both shoulders or a shoulder and a hip, it's not leaving the spot.

Dan P:  It is a fact that deeper penetration will not necessarily produce a more rapid kill since once it passes from the animal the it does no more harm.

Agreed, however, one must also account for the chest shot a friend made with his .54 PRB that managed to miss all the vitals and come to rest at the diaphragm - same shot, same angle made with an alloy PRB or a deep penetrating bullet would surely have taken out the spine dropping the deer on the spot instead of having to track it for six hours before getting another chance to make the shot that put it down.

Dan P:  It is a fact that penetration only be ADEQUATE.

What's "adequate" when the critter turns/moves or a gust of wind hits just as the trigger breaks?

I'll relate something that gained me a new client.  Fellow paid big dollars to go on a ML moose hunt so he bought a Knight and the $3.50 per shot consumables with the alleged "PREMIUM" branding.  This guy is no idiot, he's quite an accomplished "hunter" not the typical season-extender type.  He got a shot and despite the rifle's capability to put the bullet where it was intended to go, that didn't stop the moose from moving a little as the trigger broke putting the bullet into the meat of the shoulder instead of the boiler room where it was intended to go.  The alleged "premium" 300gr sabot bullet fragmented in the shoulder never making it to the vitals.  Luckily the moose was put down shortly after by another member of the hunting party.  By all rights, the "typical" performance of said in-line load should have, and probably would have, been "adequate" to make the optimum boiler room shot but when things didn't quite go as planned, said "adequate" load became utterly worthless.

Some of the "old timers" I grew up around in PA considered such rounds as the .25-20 and .22 Hornet "adequate" for hunting WT's and while that's true to the point only if one can guarantee pinpoint accurate shot placement, such rounds are totally impotent in cases where things don't quite go as planned - such is why having a combination of any type that has more than "adequate" reserve to counter the "Murphy factor" becomes extremely important and should not be discounted.  How many people consider a load of 0.33" diameter 48.3gr pellets launched at a mere 1250 fps "adequate" for taking deer?  We're talking modern hunting here, not survival.  In a survival situation one will use whatever means is available but in our modern hunting situation where one can easily pick up dinner at Winn Dixie on the way home from hunting, it's a whole different game and there's no excuse for one not accepting the limits of the chosen gun/load combination for what they are.

Personally, I tend to prefer hunting with PRB's and flintlocks but I also consider the limitations associated with any gun/load combo I choose to hunt with be it a .45 PRB from a flinter or a .375 H&H pushing a 350gr RN - everything has its limitations.  You want to talk about the effectiveness of big-bore round balls, let me be the first to lead that charge.  Nothing, and I mean nothing, has proven as terminally effective as the 0.710" WW alloy 12ga round ball loads - caveat: "within their range limitation."  Granted I didn't load any with BP, the propulsion was provided courtesy of Blue Dot but there was no denying the terminal performance.  There is no other combination I would choose to have in an up-close and personal situation when one round may be all that stands between me and the promise land.

Compared to the majority of conical bullets, a PRB of the same given diameter will produce a much larger wound channel beginning at the point of entry simply because the majority of conical bullets must encounter enough resistance in order to cause disruption of its shape and/or they just flat-out suck at producing a reliable wound no matter what.  When comparing a WW alloy PRB to a conical with the same spherical nose shape cast from soft lead, the wound channel diameter of the softer conical will be larger than that of the PRB and the difference in penetration depth depends upon the mass of the conical.  When comparing a soft PRB to an alloy conical, the PRB will produce a much larger wound channel but with a considerable reduction in penetration depth from that produced by the WW alloy ball driven at the same velocity.  Pitting Walker C&B with WW-alloy balls against 240gr JHP's from a .44mag quickly showed that in wet newsprint, the PRB's consistently produced a larger continuous diameter wound channel and only slightly less penetration depth at 20yds - when the range was increased to 50yds the PRB still had the advantage in wound channel diameter but the heavier 240gr bullet had a definite advantage in penetration depth.  Going to a soft-cast ball in the Walker gave up a lot of penetration depth but the .44mag could not match the wound channel diameter even with a higher velocity 180gr JPH.

I will however call you on the statements as above where you're making an apples to oranges comparison such as the 0.650" PRB to a 0.458" conical.  That particular example you used would be akin to me making the same comparison of performance and accuracy at 300yds where the 16 bore PRB would never be able to produce repeatable reliability even under optimum conditions.  That goes along the same lines as if one tried to compare the reliability and performance of a 0.610" PRB driven with a 75gr charge from a smoothbore to the same PRB driven with a 160gr charge from a slow-twist rifle - where the smoothie is going to be range-limited for both power and accuracy to somewhere around the 80yd mark, the rifle is more than capable of easily producing repeated reliability at well over twice that range.  Also along the same apples to oranges comparison lines is making broad-based statements about the performance of "any" 45cal conicals when likely that statement is based only on the poorly designed commercially available bullets & molds.  Look at the pic's I posted, first one is common .22 LR and the same exact .22 LR from the same box with the only exception being a slight modification to the bullet nose yet quite an obvious difference in performance.  Like I said, I prefer flintlock and PRB for most hunting because it's what I enjoy but on the same note I'm willing to accept my choices for what they are in that I'm not about to take a 100+yd shot with a .45 PRB just the same as I'm not about to take a 175+yd shot with a .30-30 because no matter how "optimum" the conditions may appear, there are physical limits one must accept for ANY given gun/projo combination.

Another thing to consider is the condition in which one is hunting.  I've hunted thick brush & swamps in the southern states where if one does make a locomotion stopping shot, more than likely the critter is not going to be found even if it only makes 40yds from the point of impact.  I hunted areas in northern states where the terrain could mean the difference of making the recovery from a non-locomotion stopping shot a matter of hours and miles of hiking instead of minutes - and, of course, those areas where a critter making it across a property line means the difference between recovery and loss thus there's more factors to consider when evaluating what is considered "adequate".  I may have gotten a lot of flak for hunting with a "cannon" (.45-70, .58/.62 flint) but using both, I have never lost a critter nor had to throw half of the meat away because of it being all bloodshot and/or shredded.

The wound channel is going to depend on the density of the material encountered.
For example, a 400gr, .446 caliber bullet, lead or 1:40 tin:lead with a large flat point .300 or so, propelled by 92 gr of FFG, will produce a pretty massive wound channel in the heavy muscles of the Mule Deer Bucks neck. It will, in my experience literally blow all the meat from the tendons and such over an area of several inches even if it misses the bone. The deer will not get up. The 54 RB should do about the same.

Shooting a Mule Deer through the LUNGS with the exact bullet/load at a similar distance produces a much smaller wound channel. No bigger than a 220 gr RB with a similar powder charge.
The lungs are mostly air and do little to upset a bullet. Generally speaking at 40 yards or so the 54 RB will make a larger wound all the way through. I have not shot a deer in the neck, missing the bone with a 54 RB that I can recall.
Then we have relevance of the wound channel. At the velocities obtained with BP the wound channel produced is largely irrelevant. While I have not personally shot a deer in this manner with a 22 lr I am told the results are similar to everything else I have used or seen used which encompasses just about any thing normally used for this game in the US.
38-40-180 BP load, a 40-70-270 to 350 FP, a 40-90-380FP, a 45-70-350 (and others) FP, the couple of long case 45s including a 450 BPE with various bullet weights and 120 of powder, a 50-70-450, a 45-50-54-58-66 rb, a 218 Bee, a 22-250, a 30-30,  6.5x55, a 7mm mag, a 30-06, .375 Win Big Bore, a 45-70 with various jacketed bullets at 1600-2000 fps. etc etc etc.
ALL kill deer in about the same length of time. It takes the deer that long to run out of oxygen it seems.
I.E. the deer travels about the same distance on average shot though the lungs. From the rather massive wounds sometimes inflicted by the faster modern stuff to the pencil sized wounds of the 38-40. The critter dies about the same.
Since the .458 bullet weighs about the same as the 16 bore ball and carries the same approximate energy if loaded in one of the larger capacity cartridges, like the 45-2 7/8" or 450 BPE why is it not valid to compare it with a 350-450 gr RB. Is it "more fair" to compare the 350-450 gr slug to a 180 to 220 gr RB? If you cannot compare the bullet used on the same animal how DO you compare them? In such a way the conical looks best perhaps?
There is NO WAY TO "FAIRLY" COMPARE ANY OF THESE. Common bullet weight would be about the only way. The one ounce bullet of any shape will produce about the same recoil (as Forsythe points out) but the bullet (as Forstyhe points out) will have a higher trajectory over the ranges used for hunting with open sights and will not cause the same effect on the animal.  It  will also produce higher breech pressure. Based on both his writings and the experience of myself and others in ACTUAL USE this is simply not refutable. Forsythe claims the RB of equal weight is BETTER at transfering energy (the "E" word ) than the bullet. Chances are at BP velocities a 45-54 caliber ball may transmit the same energy to a deer as a higher energy bullet since the bullet carries more out the off side just as it starts with more. This bullet energy is a poor way to judge killing power.

In my experience at BLACKPOWDER VELOCITIES the 54 RB at 50 yards will produce a larger wound channel than all but the highest velocity soft lead bullet in 44-45 caliber when fired through the lungs. The 450 BPE MIGHT do better.
At 150-200 the conical will make larger and always longer wounds. But it will not likely kill any faster. I have not shot deer past about 150 with a PRB but the killing power is about the same from 40 to 150 yards and pass through is complete.

The primary difference in the calibers above is in the range at which they can be used.
If the shooter has the skill a 44 or 45 caliber 400 gr slug backed by 70-100 grs of BP will kill anything in NA at 300-400 yards IF THE SHOT CAN BE PROPERLY PLACED. But at 50 yards its inferior (usually) IN WOUND CHANNEL to the RB of similar weight AT BP VELOCITIES. In fact it probably as you point out, inferior to the 54 RB.
I honestly don't see what your point is.
A 180 gr FP bullet from a 38-40 striking at a velocity similar to or even  more than a 180 gr RB at 100 yards will produce smaller wounds through the lungs but the deer still fall over in about 50 yards. Is this an unfair comparison?
The 38-40 and I am told the 44-40 as well as VERY poor hunting arms. Far inferior to the 50-54 caliber RB rifle.
I have a 40 caliber picket bullet at about 150 gr I use in matches and I suppose I should kill a deer with it to see how it works.
But it requires 80 grains of powder and thus operates at much higher pressure than is desirable in a flint or percussion arm. Its also a PITA to use needing a false muzzle or guide starter. Probably why it was not used much off the target ranges where it worked very well to 200 yards or even farther.
As Forsythe pointed out 150 years ago within its range the RB is probably the best hunting projectile so long as its sized properly for the game. In the world of ML rifles this has not changed and all the hoopla and advertising to the contrary will not make it so. It is possible to "prove" almost anything with a one shot experiment. Had I only shot one deer with a 50 and 54 RB and it was the 1 (of each caliber) that ran 200 yards or more and then picked  the one I shot with a 40-70 Sharps with a 270 gr fp swaged from 1:40 that dropped to the shot (with a quartering frontal shot) I would say the 50-54 RB was useless and the 40-70 a real killer.
In reality with a larger "sample" they work the same. The 54 will also drop a deer in its tracks with a quartering frontal shot for example and lung shot with the 40-70 they run off too. What is proved? Nothing. Both are perfectly adequate and acceptable if PROPERLY USED.


I gotta take my wife out to eat. Hope this is readable.

Dan

[BrownBear]

As a long-confirmed neck shooter, I agree whole heartedly about the comparative performance of a 54 cal RB within it's effective range. 

Heck, I think I agree with everything you said.  Best summary is that long bullets carry better for longer ranges than I'll shoot with RB's.  But within their range RBs make a lot bigger wound channels, starting into the animal at diameters larger than conicals usually develop anywhere along their lengthy wound channels. 

I've only managed to recover one RB from game, a .530 ball launched by 90 grains of 3f into the white patch on the neck of a deer at a little over 50 yards.  Completely severed the spine and most of the meat around it and came to rest under the hide on the back side, expanded to .977 and flat as a quarter while still retaining over 90% of it's weight.  Dozens of neck shots with lead conicals have never been as thorough in disrupting flesh and bone on the same shot.  Move out to 150 yards and it's a different story.  I'll use conicals there, but I won't use RBs.

[Daryl]

Conicals were developed for the sole reason to extend the Military's rifle range of killing or wounding.  The round ball held the field as the preferred hunting arm, due to it's greater killing power on normal and dangerous game & it's ability to shoot alloyed balls, whereas the conicals for muzzlelaoders had to be of pure lead and thus lacked penetration.  It wasn't until ctg. guns of sufficient strength to allow heavy loading, that the conical replaced the round ball as the preferred projectile.

[FL-Flintlock]

Dan P:  Since the .458 bullet weighs about the same as the 16 bore ball and carries the same approximate energy if loaded in one of the larger capacity cartridges, like the 45-2 7/8" or 450 BPE why is it not valid to compare it with a 350-450 gr RB. Is it "more fair" to compare the 350-450 gr slug to a 180 to 220 gr RB? If you cannot compare the bullet used on the same animal how DO you compare them? In such a way the conical looks best perhaps?

Because you're trying to compare apples and oranges.  There's more to wound channel than weight, one must also consider bullet shape & design including mass distribution, hardness of the alloy and so forth.  If you want to do an apples to apples comparison, it is nearly impossible going purely by mass but something close is the 50cal 210gr HB mini to the 180gr 50cal PRB with both being soft cast.  In my own testing, the additional 30gr of mass in the mini doesn't make much difference in penetration depth, at least not enough to be noteworthy.  At closer ranges the mini does produce a slightly larger diameter but short length cavity starting about 2-3" into the wet newsprint where the point is flattening out but then it doesn't produce a wound channel any larger than the PRB while at deeper depths the PRB tends to maintain a better wound channel.  The mini will rarely run a straight path after impact and the amount of displacement from the intended penetration path can be as much as 70° if bone is encounterd - the PRB penetration path will have some wander but nowhere near that of low-mass conicals.

Dan P:  This bullet energy is a poor way to judge killing power.

Absolutely agree with you on that statement and is something I've been railing on for years just like the "seasoning" thing and many of the other fairytales still being presented as fact.  1950 fpe delivered by a 0.224" diameter 55gr spitzer is not the same as delivering 1469 fpe with a 0.458" diameter 500gr.  On the same note, a 500gr PRB is not going to perform the same after-impact as a 500gr elongated conical bullet - despite the mass and velocity being the same for both and even if the bullet nose is a true radius, the mechanism is completely different because of the cross sectional area is vastly different resulting in a vastly different mechanism of injury.  Thus is why making an apples to apples comparison of the same diameter ball & bullet of roughly the same mass, the ball is proven to be more effective at wound channel creation.

Dan P: A 180 gr FP bullet from a 38-40 striking at a velocity similar to or even  more than a 180 gr RB at 100 yards will produce smaller wounds through the lungs but the deer still fall over in about 50 yards. Is this an unfair comparison?

No.  As I alluded to previously, the difference in diameter makes a world of difference in the after-impact performance.  If said 180gr bullet was designed via a hollow point, to expand more rapidly and thus achieving the starting diameter of the ball quicker, penetration depth of the bullet is greatly reduced because it has given up a lot of energy to displacement of itself.

Dan P: The 38-40 and I am told the 44-40 as well as VERY poor hunting arms. Far inferior to the 50-54 caliber RB rifle.

Absolutely correct and it's easy to understand why when one can see that not only were the bullet designs not conducive to producing an acceptable wound channel even at rifle velocities but they were driven with impotent loads and making things even worse was their lack of mass.  If you're into modern cartridges, look at the utter failure of the .357win big bore - Win's attempt to reinvent the wheel failed because everything learned a century earlier was totally dismissed just as the same hard-learned facts have been dismissed throughout history even long before the advent of the gun rag prostitutes.  Just look at the transition of bullet shape and mass within the .45-70 line, the very early rounds were loaded with a true raduis nose bullet having a mass of 500gr.  Why this was is because it is what worked best, the bullet that created a wound channel as good as a similar diameter PRB on impact while being able to maintain that same wound channel diameter or better while providing exceptionally deep penetration especially at longer ranges.  One must also consider that most of the development of the .45-xx and .50-xx bullets was for military and repeater use where feeding the rifle was often the primary concern - such was alluded to in the report written by an Army general stating something to the effect of how the new bullet design greatly improved the ability of soldiers to load their rifles faster.  One must also consider that the military was looking at nothing more than penetrating a human having a thin cross section and knocking any 0.45" or bigger hole in a human pretty much takes the fight and life out no matter if the bullet expanded or not.  Repeating arms suffered from feed issues associated with bullet length and mass where stuffing a 500gr bullet into a .45-70 cartridge case meant creating an extremely long and nose-heavy round - compound that with a wide meplat FN and it's a recipe for continuous feed failure as well as having required an exceptionally long action.  Perfect example of failure is the .375win where the impotent too-pointed and too-light bullet was loaded into a round that lacked the velocity needed for such a poor bullet design.  Had Winchester simply looked at history instead of trying to fudge the velocity numbers, using smokeless powder they could have created the round that would have saved the company rather than the one that wrote the preamble to their demise.

Look at the pic of the 40gr .22LR in my first post, note that it's the same bullet, same load, same gun with the only change being the bullet nose shape yet the after-impact results are vastly different as the fired OEM bullet on the left is still in good enough condition to be used again.  When it comes to wound channel, the bullet on the right produces a wound channel 5-6 times the diameter of the one on the left and the difference in terminal performance of both are at opposite ends of the spectrum.  A typical 30 pound coon will suck up 3-4 of the OEM RN's and still make 20-40 yds if bone or spine is not hit while coons lunged with a single modified bullet on the right rarely will make more than 20 feet before dropping and most times a lot of material is drug out of the exit hole as opposed to barely a few drops of blood as seen with the OEM RN's.  Similarly, the 0.458" diameter 480-535gr Postell, Matthews, Schimittzer and similar style pointy bullets show extremely poor after-impact performance as compared to the orginal 500gr true-radius RN.  Likewise, the after-impact performance of the original 500gr RN is considered, at best, "marginal", when compared to 500gr wide meplat FN.

In an apples to apples comparison, provided you wish to talk "wound channel diameter only", a properly designed conical will produce the same, if not larger, diameter wound channel at the same range and at considerably longer ranges far beyond the capability of any round ball.  Once you add penetration ability into the mix such as when a shot doesn't place exactly as planned, the conical will always produce far greater penetration depth.

Dan P: All kill  in about the same length of time.

Totally disagree and it's proven fact time and again and if we're making apples to apples in comparing only lung hits, the bullet/ball that creates the most internal and external damage will produce the quickest kill.  While all those cartridges you listed may perform similarly with the pisspoor bullet designs, a properly designed bullet for the task of the same diameter will produce vastly different results with all else being equal.  Velocity has nothing to do with the bullet's ability to create an effective wound channel, bullet design is what matters!  I don't care if you're pushing a 300gr projo from a .338 Lapua or a .38-55, the killing power of both with a lung hit at 100yds can be exactly the same provided the bullet used in each has been properly designed for the application.  Change any factor such as using a tungsten core penetrator in the .338 Lapua verses a soft lead FN in the .38-55 will surely make the .38-55 a far better performer than the Lapua yet that is apples to oranges not apples to apples.  The same apples to oranges non-comparison applies when you try to compare a lung shot with a 0.660" PRB to a poorly designed 0.458" bullet, that's like showing up at the bowling alley with a ping pong ball and expecting to get the same performance.  I've run alloy PBR's against soft PRB's and soft bullets.  While the alloy PRB can produce greatly improved penetration depth over a soft cast PRB, it does so at giving up wound channel diameter.  

I'm not trying to jerk your chain Dan but you're trying to spin this in favor of the PRB when I'm offering a fair comparison between the benefits of the PRB and the benefits of the heavy conical.  I think I've gone out of my way to explain that the conical often has severe limitations and especially those that are poorly designed.  I'm a PRB shooter too but in the manner of fairness, while the PRB is sometimes better than a conical, the PRB has its limitations as well.  I've been in the game of after-impact testing too long to make "assumptions" and not to know that 99% of the conical designs on the market SUCK for hunting and that includes those so-called "premium" plastic-wrapped/tipped things.  I don't have a "position" on this subject other than stating fact.  I build PRB guns and conical guns, it makes no difference to me which the client prefers, what matters to me is making sure the client is properly informed about the differences and one cannot present factual information if he allows bias or assumption get in the way.  Thus, I really don't understand your constant reference to "at black powder velocities" because velocity means nothing when it comes to terminal performance.

[Daryl]

I see no reason for restricting calibres in this discussion - an appropriate calibre for the game being shot.  What is the restricting factor is usually recoil in a hunting weight gun.  When Dan compares a 16 bore ball to a same weight .45 or .50 cal. slug, he is comparring apples to apples not only due to both guns being deisgned for the same size of game, but that the recoil in a normal hunting weight gun is also about qhat the average hunter would be capable of bearing ina 9 to 9 1/2 pound rifle.  Why compare a 128gr. round ball to a 400 or 50gr. slug? They were designed for different game entirely - that's apples to oranges. One is for light deer, the other for buffalo.

[northmn]

Comparing the 16 bore 1oz slug to a 45-70 is about like what I was doing comparing the 25 to a 22.  Personally I feel the 16  would work very quickly on game up to maybe elk, possibly more efficiently than a 45-70 405 grain (usually the 193 mold casts about 425).  One of the big factors may be the alloy in which a RB can function out of pure lead, which is about as malleable as you can get.  Even adding a little tin can harden a bullet up considerably.   A standard bullet for a 45 cal BP CF is 1-20, some may use 1-30.  Dan is totally correct in his penetration issue.  You cannot do better than shooting through the critter.  Actually as long as you cut through the vitals you have done enough.  My guess is that the old "hardened" round ball used for dangerous game may have been hardened with tin, which still keeps them alleable.  Antimony is what can make a bullet brittle and cause fragmentation.  A linotype bullet is pretty hard but tend to fragment, especially at the higher velocities they can drive them. 

DP

[bob in the woods]

Years ago, bright new Sharps in hand, I went hunting and shot a really nice white tail deer in the back 40 with a 350 PP bullet from a 40-70  Shot through both lungs, he just stood there while I reloaded and shot him again, { I thought I missed , even though was only about 30 yards} My reloading commotion after that, got him moving, and he ran off. I found hair, and tracked him for almost 1/2 mile before I lost him.
I couldn't believe it!!  I started filing a .30 meplat on the bullets and performance was better.
Bottomline is that I ended up with a 50-70 and that worked well. Thick bush and neighbouring properties etc mean that I want game to run as little as possible. Since 1996 or so I have switched to flintlocks for hunting almost exclusively, and performance with round balls is better than any of the blackpowder cartridge rifles I used. Most of my shots are 25 to 30 yards, or even less, and round balls are awesome performers. I've shot deer with .50 to .75 cal balls and bear with a .62   Honestly, I feel better arming myself with a patched RB gun than anything else , for the type of hunting I do.

[Dphariss]

Years ago, bright new Sharps in hand, I went hunting and shot a really nice white tail deer in the back 40 with a 350 PP bullet from a 40-70  Shot through both lungs, he just stood there while I reloaded and shot him again, { I thought I missed , even though was only about 30 yards} My reloading commotion after that, got him moving, and he ran off. I found hair, and tracked him for almost 1/2 mile before I lost him.
I couldn't believe it!!  I started filing a .30 meplat on the bullets and performance was better.
Bottomline is that I ended up with a 50-70 and that worked well. Thick bush and neighbouring properties etc mean that I want game to run as little as possible. Since 1996 or so I have switched to flintlocks for hunting almost exclusively, and performance with round balls is better than any of the blackpowder cartridge rifles I used. Most of my shots are 25 to 30 yards, or even less, and round balls are awesome performers. I've shot deer with .50 to .75 cal balls and bear with a .62   Honestly, I feel better arming myself with a patched RB gun than anything else , for the type of hunting I do.

The 40-70 is a VERY good game gun. IF the bullet is soft and has a .22 or larger flat point. If the bullets are 1:20 and RN they are pretty bad.
a 40-90 with a 380 gr 1:40 FP will make 50 caliber exits in the hide of Elk at 175 yards.
Shoot a deer though the neck under the bone but above the windpipe, nick the bone and the deer will pile up then leave. 330 gr RN 1:20 (1:20 give best accuracy). Tracked it for 2+ miles then finally shot it running at about 80 yards.
Bullet track was pencil sized and had broken one of the projections off one of the vertebrae. Soft it would likely have kept the deer down.
With the right bullet the 40-70 is a very effective hunting round. Wrong bullet its pretty dismal. 50-70/50-90 it does not seem to matter much.

Dan

[Daryl]

We seem to be relearning lessons taught by Forsyth in 1862, where he compares the small bore conicals to the large bore round balls.
  Due to weight restrictions on what a normal hunter could carry himself, a large bore conical rifle developed too much recoil if driven fast enough to give hitting acuracy at unknown rages. The smaller bore conicals of the day, the .45 and .58's made too neat a wound and lacked the smack-down power of the same weight projectiles from round ball guns.
 
Tin as well as murcury was used to harden balls in the mid 1800's.
  
Antimony (as well as tin) is used today for much the same purpose, and does indeed make the projecile more brittle (less ductile) than pure lead - if the antimony quantity is over about 5% or 6%. At that level, penetration on game and bones is similar to a hard jacketed solid, not fragmenting like the harder alloys do.  Lino is a poor alloy for  hunting bullet due to such fragmentation.  A hardened WW alloy will still remain somewhat ductile, although capable of being much harder than linotype - up to 50% harder.

I know for a fact that straight, as-cast WW is all the alloy needed for hard RB's that penetrate exceptionally well without any expansion whatsoever, even after smashing through heavy leg, shoulder or blade bones (barely a mark), yet will make 3" to 4" diameter holes through that moose's lungs at 100 yards range, the velocity being only barely sonic at that range, about 1,075fps.  Speed isn't necesary if you've got the diameter.  We drive them faster for a longer point blank range, not for added power. Slugs of similar weight can not be driven fast enough to give the flatteness of trajectory over normal hunting ranges. Their only advantage comes at ranges beyond which we should be shooting at game with open sights.  As noted before - slugs were invented to extend the rifle's wounding and/or killing capability on men, not animals.  Their early use in muzzleloaders showed how poorly they handled game.

We are still leaning this.

[FL-Flintlock]

Let's try this again ...

Daryl:  The smaller bore conicals of the day, the .45 and .58's made too neat a wound and lacked the smack-down power of the same weight projectiles from round ball guns.

One can NOT compare the wound channel of a poorly designed bullet to that of a pure lead ball in the same media let alone a ball that is much larger in diameter than the crappy bullet.  As I said before, that's like comparing a tungsten core armor penetrator to a soft point, it's apples to oranges and has no relevance in a side by side comparison.  Since everyone is so big on pulling up the "past writings" let's also take into account that the common meplat on a 0.458" bullet was just 0.100" and on a 0.515" bullet the meplat was just 0.110" and that alone makes a HUGE difference in its after-impact performance without even factoring in the excessive tangical ogive length for the diameter.  Go one further and compare the 0.800" diameter alloy bullets with a tangical ogive and no meplat ... is it any wonder they sucked at creating a suitable wound channel?

Bob Miller: I started filing a .30 meplat on the bullets and performance was better.

Proof positive of the point I've been trying to make - poorly designed bullets SUCK! 

Even when comparing the relative wound channel created by a NON-expanding FN conical, using a reasonable minimum meplat diameter of 0.366" on a 0.458" bullet increases the RWC from 0.25" for a RN or 0.30" for the 0.100" meplat FN to 1.10" for the 0.366" meplat and 1.27" using a 0.420" meplat.  Again, that is for a NON-expanding hard alloy bullet.  It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out that the wider the meplat, the more effective the bullet becomes even if it does not expand.  Furthermore, the above RWC's are based on a bullet with a standard nose length and tangical ogive, reducing the nose length and going to a truncated style increases the RWC without even factoring in using a softer alloy that will allow for expansion and thus a much larger wound channel.

Daryl:  Due to weight restrictions on what a normal hunter could carry himself, a large bore conical rifle developed too much recoil if driven fast enough to give hitting acuracy at unknown rages.   When Dan compares a 16 bore ball to a same weight .45 or .50 cal. slug, he is comparring apples to apples not only due to both guns being deisgned for the same size of game, but that the recoil in a normal hunting weight gun is also about qhat the average hunter would be capable of bearing ina 9 to 9 1/2 pound rifle.

I can only speak for what I have experience with and the 525gr PRB loads driven from my 8.5# 12ga smoothbore cartridge gun at 1380 fps generate about 38 ft lbs of recoil and have about a 6.5" trajectory over 100yds.  At 1200 fps my 490gr conicals in an 8.5# rifle generate about 24 ft lbs of recoil and have a 3.25" trajectory at 100yds.  As for wound channel diameter, the PRB's have a slight advantage, about 0.10", to about 75yds, at 100yds there isn't a enough difference in diameter to notice but the much deeper penetration of the conical is easy to see.  Keep in mind the PRB's are also starting out 180 fps faster than the conicals and still loosing more than double the amount velocity of the conical does over 100yds.

What I don't understand is why the discussion needs to keep jumping from one point to another?  Are we going to discuss overall performance for NA hunting or instant stopping of critters on the Big Five list?  If y'all with to discuss stopping a B5 critter, consider that one would be sucking up 72 ft lbs of recoil in a 9.5# gun to get a 2oz ball up to 1400 at the muzzle - likewise one can throw a field proven 600gr conical at 1800 fps from a 9.5 gun and only put up with 65 ft lbs of recoil with the difference being that the conical is capable of smashing heavy bone on entry and still producing about double the penetration depth not mention having a 100yd trajectory that's about three times better than the 2oz ball - apples to apples comparing guns designed for B5 hunting.  I mean c'mon folks, we all know the PRB is extremely effective within its limitations but trying to sugar coat things by comparing a big bore PRB to a suckass conical is no worse than pulling the same $#@* that the likes of Toby Bridges & Randy Wakeman do. 

[Daryl]

Yes - you are right - in context that we were talking about a .22 LR slug and .25cal. RB and the difference in effect.

 The slightly larger round ball will always have greater effect on animals inside the normal RB ranges than a slow moving conical will.

[crispy]

O M G !!!! I would love to have the chance to be just listening while you bunch sit around a campfire discussing balls , bullets and ballistics .

[Dphariss]

Dan P:  Since the .458 bullet weighs about the same as the 16 bore ball and carries the same approximate energy if loaded in one of the larger capacity cartridges, like the 45-2 7/8" or 450 BPE why is it not valid to compare it with a 350-450 gr RB. Is it "more fair" to compare the 350-450 gr slug to a 180 to 220 gr RB? If you cannot compare the bullet used on the same animal how DO you compare them? In such a way the conical looks best perhaps?

Because you're trying to compare apples and oranges.  There's more to wound channel than weight, one must also consider bullet shape & design including mass distribution, hardness of the alloy and so forth.  If you want to do an apples to apples comparison, it is nearly impossible going purely by mass but something close is the 50cal 210gr HB mini to the 180gr 50cal PRB with both being soft cast.  In my own testing, the additional 30gr of mass in the mini doesn't make much difference in penetration depth, at least not enough to be noteworthy.  At closer ranges the mini does produce a slightly larger diameter but short length cavity starting about 2-3" into the wet newsprint where the point is flattening out but then it doesn't produce a wound channel any larger than the PRB while at deeper depths the PRB tends to maintain a better wound channel.  The mini will rarely run a straight path after impact and the amount of displacement from the intended penetration path can be as much as 70° if bone is encounterd - the PRB penetration path will have some wander but nowhere near that of low-mass conicals.

Dan P:  This bullet energy is a poor way to judge killing power.

Absolutely agree with you on that statement and is something I've been railing on for years just like the "seasoning" thing and many of the other fairytales still being presented as fact.  1950 fpe delivered by a 0.224" diameter 55gr spitzer is not the same as delivering 1469 fpe with a 0.458" diameter 500gr.  On the same note, a 500gr PRB is not going to perform the same after-impact as a 500gr elongated conical bullet - despite the mass and velocity being the same for both and even if the bullet nose is a true radius, the mechanism is completely different because of the cross sectional area is vastly different resulting in a vastly different mechanism of injury.  Thus is why making an apples to apples comparison of the same diameter ball & bullet of roughly the same mass, the ball is proven to be more effective at wound channel creation.

Dan P: A 180 gr FP bullet from a 38-40 striking at a velocity similar to or even  more than a 180 gr RB at 100 yards will produce smaller wounds through the lungs but the deer still fall over in about 50 yards. Is this an unfair comparison?

No.  As I alluded to previously, the difference in diameter makes a world of difference in the after-impact performance.  If said 180gr bullet was designed via a hollow point, to expand more rapidly and thus achieving the starting diameter of the ball quicker, penetration depth of the bullet is greatly reduced because it has given up a lot of energy to displacement of itself.

Dan P: The 38-40 and I am told the 44-40 as well as VERY poor hunting arms. Far inferior to the 50-54 caliber RB rifle.

Absolutely correct and it's easy to understand why when one can see that not only were the bullet designs not conducive to producing an acceptable wound channel even at rifle velocities but they were driven with impotent loads and making things even worse was their lack of mass.  If you're into modern cartridges, look at the utter failure of the .357win big bore - Win's attempt to reinvent the wheel failed because everything learned a century earlier was totally dismissed just as the same hard-learned facts have been dismissed throughout history even long before the advent of the gun rag prostitutes.  Just look at the transition of bullet shape and mass within the .45-70 line, the very early rounds were loaded with a true raduis nose bullet having a mass of 500gr.  Why this was is because it is what worked best, the bullet that created a wound channel as good as a similar diameter PRB on impact while being able to maintain that same wound channel diameter or better while providing exceptionally deep penetration especially at longer ranges.  One must also consider that most of the development of the .45-xx and .50-xx bullets was for military and repeater use where feeding the rifle was often the primary concern - such was alluded to in the report written by an Army general stating something to the effect of how the new bullet design greatly improved the ability of soldiers to load their rifles faster.  One must also consider that the military was looking at nothing more than penetrating a human having a thin cross section and knocking any 0.45" or bigger hole in a human pretty much takes the fight and life out no matter if the bullet expanded or not.  Repeating arms suffered from feed issues associated with bullet length and mass where stuffing a 500gr bullet into a .45-70 cartridge case meant creating an extremely long and nose-heavy round - compound that with a wide meplat FN and it's a recipe for continuous feed failure as well as having required an exceptionally long action.  Perfect example of failure is the .375win where the impotent too-pointed and too-light bullet was loaded into a round that lacked the velocity needed for such a poor bullet design.  Had Winchester simply looked at history instead of trying to fudge the velocity numbers, using smokeless powder they could have created the round that would have saved the company rather than the one that wrote the preamble to their demise.

Look at the pic of the 40gr .22LR in my first post, note that it's the same bullet, same load, same gun with the only change being the bullet nose shape yet the after-impact results are vastly different as the fired OEM bullet on the left is still in good enough condition to be used again.  When it comes to wound channel, the bullet on the right produces a wound channel 5-6 times the diameter of the one on the left and the difference in terminal performance of both are at opposite ends of the spectrum.  A typical 30 pound coon will suck up 3-4 of the OEM RN's and still make 20-40 yds if bone or spine is not hit while coons lunged with a single modified bullet on the right rarely will make more than 20 feet before dropping and most times a lot of material is drug out of the exit hole as opposed to barely a few drops of blood as seen with the OEM RN's.  Similarly, the 0.458" diameter 480-535gr Postell, Matthews, Schimittzer and similar style pointy bullets show extremely poor after-impact performance as compared to the orginal 500gr true-radius RN.  Likewise, the after-impact performance of the original 500gr RN is considered, at best, "marginal", when compared to 500gr wide meplat FN.

In an apples to apples comparison, provided you wish to talk "wound channel diameter only", a properly designed conical will produce the same, if not larger, diameter wound channel at the same range and at considerably longer ranges far beyond the capability of any round ball.  Once you add penetration ability into the mix such as when a shot doesn't place exactly as planned, the conical will always produce far greater penetration depth.

Dan P: All kill  in about the same length of time.

Totally disagree and it's proven fact time and again and if we're making apples to apples in comparing only lung hits, the bullet/ball that creates the most internal and external damage will produce the quickest kill.  While all those cartridges you listed may perform similarly with the pisspoor bullet designs, a properly designed bullet for the task of the same diameter will produce vastly different results with all else being equal.  Velocity has nothing to do with the bullet's ability to create an effective wound channel, bullet design is what matters!  I don't care if you're pushing a 300gr projo from a .338 Lapua or a .38-55, the killing power of both with a lung hit at 100yds can be exactly the same provided the bullet used in each has been properly designed for the application.  Change any factor such as using a tungsten core penetrator in the .338 Lapua verses a soft lead FN in the .38-55 will surely make the .38-55 a far better performer than the Lapua yet that is apples to oranges not apples to apples.  The same apples to oranges non-comparison applies when you try to compare a lung shot with a 0.660" PRB to a poorly designed 0.458" bullet, that's like showing up at the bowling alley with a ping pong ball and expecting to get the same performance.  I've run alloy PBR's against soft PRB's and soft bullets.  While the alloy PRB can produce greatly improved penetration depth over a soft cast PRB, it does so at giving up wound channel diameter.  

I'm not trying to jerk your chain Dan but you're trying to spin this in favor of the PRB when I'm offering a fair comparison between the benefits of the PRB and the benefits of the heavy conical.  I think I've gone out of my way to explain that the conical often has severe limitations and especially those that are poorly designed.  I'm a PRB shooter too but in the manner of fairness, while the PRB is sometimes better than a conical, the PRB has its limitations as well.  I've been in the game of after-impact testing too long to make "assumptions" and not to know that 99% of the conical designs on the market SUCK for hunting and that includes those so-called "premium" plastic-wrapped/tipped things.  I don't have a "position" on this subject other than stating fact.  I build PRB guns and conical guns, it makes no difference to me which the client prefers, what matters to me is making sure the client is properly informed about the differences and one cannot present factual information if he allows bias or assumption get in the way.  Thus, I really don't understand your constant reference to "at black powder velocities" because velocity means nothing when it comes to terminal performance.

I say again.
How do you compare the RB to the bullet if not by bullet weight? Do we compare the 45 conical to the 45 RB?  

I have probably seen 200 head of deer ( I really don't know counting was not important, 25 years ago at around 70 deer I quit counting so 200 is likely conservative), some elk and a couple of moose killed and the odd black bear, one with a 54 rb one with a percussion sharps.
Calibers and bullet designs are wide ranging.
I have friends with similar experience.
We all will tell you the same thing, since I actually ASKED them the last time this came up a few months back. If shot though the heart or lungs a deer will run about 40-50 yards and pile up. Its simply a given. If they fall sooner its a plus, if they don't its a longer walk. In most cases caliber/cartridge is not going to change this significantly. The 25-06 with a 87 grain generally drops them by at a cost in lost meat.
38-40 or 7mm mag all the same. I have seen them run 150 to 200 with chunks of lung hanging out the offside hole from a 7mm mag (mule deer buck), I have seen them run shorter distance (150 or so) shot with a 44-90 with a soft blunt FP (mule deer doe), I have seen them run 200 from a good broad side lung hit at 50 yards with a 50 caliber RB (WT doe).
I have seen  whitetail doe run 200 shot through the shoulders complete pass through at about 40 yards with a 54 RB. I have shot a MD buck at 140 yards with a 50 RB had him run 40 yards.
It takes a certain amount of time for the brain to run out of oxygen. If the animal has some adrenalin up BEFORE the shot they can cover a LOT of ground. A WT that hits the after burner will cover 200 yards in 10-11 "jumps" I COUNTED THEM across a hay field. Deer died mid-leap and slide about 20-25 feet on the snow when she landed on her side.
Now if the SPINE is shocked or any number of other factors this can change. I saw my kid shoot a WT doe at about 100 yards with a 6.5x55 one afternoon she never twitched after the bullet struck. I was sure he had spined her. Bullet passed just over the heart side to side. This is very uncommon with this rifle which has killed probaby 20 head of deer or more, I don't bother counting.
Caliber list that I have used or seen the results of (that I can recall off hand) 22-250,  223, 270, 6.5x55, 7mm mag, 30-40, 308, 30-06, 300 WM, 35 WCF, 375 Big Bore, 38-40, 40-70, 40-90, 44-77 (1 deer), 44-90-400 (including a B&C Antelope), 45-70 various bullets and powders, 45-100 (1 buffalo and some deer), 450 BPE, 50-70 (only a couple of deer too slow really), saw a buffalo shot with 50-90. 45-50-54(rifle and pistol)-58-66 RB. 54 caliber Sharps perc Carbine with the "Christmas Tree" bullet in pure lead. Yeah its pointed so gotta be useless, shot a B. Bear just over the heart at about 40 yards and it died in about 40 yards. A deer shot near endways, with pass through, made about 60.
There are cartridges I am sure that I have forgotten.

Usually, *USUALLY* with the same shot placement, lung shot from broadside, the animal will travel about the same distance.
Elk can be very tough. But William Drummond Stewart (20 bore rifle) thought they were easier to knock down than the Mule Deer. You shoot a critter with ANYTHING and only get one lung and there will almost invariably be a long chase.
Oh I shot a rag horn bull (elk) with a 180 gr 30-40 from an old 1895 Carbine with a rough bore, base of the throat, 35 yards probably, took the arteries, bullet only penetrated to the diaphragm, marginal expansion, elk made about 40 yards.
I knocked a large cow down with a 54 flinter once at longer range, holed the aorta, elk thrashed around with a broken front leg, got backup ran about 40-50 yards down hill and piled up. Might have made more had she not gone down at the shot.
Shot a deer at 25 with a 54 pistol with a RB, broke leg bone, took put the heart or arteries, deer crashed in about 40 yards. Did the same with the 6.5 x55 at 300 yards and the deer ran 100+ and needed a second shot after waiting several minutes and walking 300 yards or more. 140 gr Speer SP passed though the top of the heart sack and bruised the heart, pass though with good expansion.
A non-pass though just over the heart with a 45 RB atop 45 grains of FFFG caused a young MD buck deer to drop in about 1/2 the distance of one I mentioned shot with a 7mm with the lung chunks blown out. How does that larger wound channel work again?
Yes in THEORY the larger wound channel will produce a faster death and I like larger wound channels, but in actual practice its where the hole is not how big it is that matters. But since its impossible to kill the same animal with the same mind set with various guns we can't make accurate comparisons. Every critter is going to be different. So in theory one might shoot a deer with a 50 caliber RB and another with a 6.5x55 within a minute of each other and one would drop at the shot and the other run off. Do the same thing the next day the the results might well be reversed. The gun that "failed" the previous day might drop the deer and the deer shot with the other would run off.
I am not trying to make the RB look better than it is. I am telling you that within its range it works just as well as anything else if sized to the game and the shot is properly placed.
It is often more effective with less PRESSURE, less recoil and less lead shot at the critter than the bullet REGARDLESS of design and I have used just about all the basic lead bullet designs. Some of which stink and some work very well. A 330 gr soft FP PP from a 40-70 BN Sharps will make a very nice wound channel in an Antelope buck with a slightly angled chest shot that exits though the heavy muscles of the offside shoulder. Will make an exit that is pretty darned big actually probably 60 caliber or more based on memory. But the antelope still ran 40 yards or  a little less and then fell dead.  The last one I shot with a 6.5x55 ran farther and faster, but still died.
The problem with ANY projectile over about 450-480 grains is  that its VERY difficult to move it to good velocity with reasonable recoil. A 1200 fps conical will not shoot as flat to 120 yards as a round ball of 50-66 caliber moved at 1900-1600 respectively.  The 50 Rb is a near perfect deer killer to 120-130 yards. The 66 is far more powerful and can be moved to 1700 or more but boy it kicks in a 10 pound rifle. But if hunting in areas with large bad tempered predators its comforting. At close range it will do things the 45 caliber bullet would be hard pressed to do.
I would also ask that you read on African hunting were jacketed RB (oops should read RN) solids are/were very commonly used on a great variety of animals. Its not the wound channel its where the wound channel is.

Dan

[northmn]

My son's friend put a video on You Tube 50 cal and deer or something like that.  I told him once that a deer hit as Dan described if in a field, will usually run to cover and then drop.  They hit one with a soft point out of a 50BMG which is far more powerful than anything described here.  It hunched up and ran typical of a deer hit with a 30-30.  When I brought this up it was mostly that of describing a difference I noted in possible wound channels, not neccessarily on the myth of "knockdown" or "killing power".  While there is a certain amount of reasonable levels, most is general BS.  Lately I have been using a 30-30 with cast bullets because it does not waste as much meat as the 270 used to and the deer drop as quick.  An old timer told me once that he did not like the "big" guns like the 06 because he does not need something that clean's the game he shoots.  Most game animals shot through the chest will probably act about the same as long as the pentration is there and a reasonable expansion occurs.  If its big and mean the pros used to "break them down" with shoulder shots.  At inside 50 yards I would bet that a deer would act about the same if shot by a 45 RB or a 45-70.  I have shot them with a 45-70 Gould bullet and they do run.

DP

[Dphariss]

My son's friend put a video on You Tube 50 cal and deer or something like that.  I told him once that a deer hit as Dan described if in a field, will usually run to cover and then drop.  They hit one with a soft point out of a 50BMG which is far more powerful than anything described here.  It hunched up and ran typical of a deer hit with a 30-30.  When I brought this up it was mostly that of describing a difference I noted in possible wound channels, not neccessarily on the myth of "knockdown" or "killing power".  While there is a certain amount of reasonable levels, most is general BS.  Lately I have been using a 30-30 with cast bullets because it does not waste as much meat as the 270 used to and the deer drop as quick.  An old timer told me once that he did not like the "big" guns like the 06 because he does not need something that clean's the game he shoots.  Most game animals shot through the chest will probably act about the same as long as the pentration is there and a reasonable expansion occurs.  If its big and mean the pros used to "break them down" with shoulder shots.  At inside 50 yards I would bet that a deer would act about the same if shot by a 45 RB or a 45-70.  I have shot them with a 45-70 Gould bullet and they do run.

DP

Heh, heh! I had not thought of the 50 BMG cartridge, but people do hunt with them in some states. To quote a passage in a book "Heap noise,..."
It makes +- 13000 ft lbs  ME (700gr at 2930) and will break granite boulders weighing 200 pounds or more (estimated) with the steel cored M2 ball ammo then in use.
Hitting large bones , shoulder blades etc, will often shock the spine and stop the animal or cripple past much activity. Sometimes even ribs will do it. A friend knocked a WT down at 120 yards with a 45 RB but had to shoot her as he approached. Broke a rib on both sides and he thinks it shocked the spine. This is one of those things I would have bet against but it happened. Its just not possible to call before hand

This is a Sambar, near as I can tell, dropped by one  M193  5.56 mm. But it *hit the spine*.



Thompson and LaGarde (of the Thompson-LaGarde tests circa 1910) stated that it was impossible to *reliably* stop a man with anything smaller than a 3" solid shot.

Dan

[FL-Flintlock]

Dan P:  I am not trying to make the RB look better than it is. I am telling you that within its range it works just as well as anything else if sized to the game and the shot is properly placed.

And I'm not arguing that point at all, as I stated several times now, I'm in full agreement.  If you read my last post, you'd see that.  Nothing has proven to whack the snot out of critters like the 525gr 0.710" PRB ... however ... it is "range limited".  While it has a definite and proven advantage at close ranges, before it gets to 100yds it's at a disadvantage.  Now don't go reading that as me saying it's not going to still whack the snot out of a critter, based upon your own comments you would have to agree.  First, it takes 38 ft lbs of recoil to get that 525gr ball moving to 1380 fps and while that 8.5# shotgun may "feel" heavy, it kicks like a mule to do that!  Based on your comments, pushing that ball to 1600 fps would increase the recoil to 47 ft lbs and 53 ft lbs for 1700 fps.

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.   

Dan P:  How do you compare the RB to the bullet if not by bullet weight? Do we compare the 45 conical to the 45 RB?

I did when I put the 50cal 210gr HB mini to the 180gr 50cal PRB (page 1, reply 13, 1st paragraph) and you'll note that in all fairness I stated that the PRB consistently performed far better than the mini.  See, I don't have any axe to grind, it either works or it don't.  I like the PRB and I like the conical, both have their strong points and both have their weaknesses, I just point out the facts.  And, with that in mind, the fact is that in repeated testing, the pointed and semi-pointed ML conicals are more likely than not to turn off their intended course after impact ... sometimes a little and sometimes a whole lot.  True round nose (those having a true half-sphere shape nose) and true FN's proved very reliable at maintaining course despite encountering changing media and/or obstructions like bone.  The typical short fat conicals were very inconsist - the more disproportional the length to diameter and the more pointed the nose, the more inconsistent they become.

Dan P:  Usually, *USUALLY* with the same shot placement, lung shot from broadside, the animal will travel about the same distance.

No argument there either.  You went into a lot of examples and to be honest, I have no love affair with high velocity.  I run 180gr Speer RN's from my '06 at roughly 2600 fps, well below what I "could" crank them up to but they don't work any better and I've lunged WT's with that bullet/load combo and every one dropped within 75yds while, like you, I have seen WT's lunged with lighter & faster bullets from the .300win & 7mm mag and watched them go 200+ yards before dropping.  On the same note, I got rid of my .375 big bore because it sucked to the point that the .30-30 consistently out performed it with cast 175gr FN's.  The .375win suffers from ignorance of design, short fat bullet with a nose design that sucks creating a combination that is utterly worthless compared to the smaller 0.308" cast FN bullets.

Dan P:  I would also ask that you read on African hunting were jacketed RB (oops should read RN) solids are/were very commonly used on a great variety of animals. Its not the wound channel its where the wound channel is.

Actually I have read quite a bit on B5 game and a lot of other big/dangerous game.  I've also done the research on testing that has been done on bullet designs and so forth related to the same.  The most interesting point is that nothing much changes, some bullets make better wound channels than others and the best performers are the true RN and FN's that are designed such as to create a balance between cavitation and penetration depth.  Those bullets (talking non-expanding solids) designed for excessively deep penetration via the use of supercavitation produce a rather small diameter wound channel as compared to a true RN although they excel at penetration depth.  The ogive RN's are well proven to off-track (change course) and the amount of off-tracking is proportional to velocity increases.  Ogive RN's also produce a smaller diameter wound channel than a true RN while their "effective" penetration depth is severely limited by the off-tracking.  Going from memory here but in such test, it was found that the average effective penetration depth of a particular ogive RN from the .460wtby was just 18" while the same bullet slowed to .458win velocity produced an effective penetration depth of 21".  Likewise, the steel jacketed version of a true RN driven at various velocities proved a lot of things.  When pushed into the 2500-2600 fps range, avg max penetration was something like 20" with a roughly 1/2" diameter wound channel.  Same bullet slowed to .458 Lott velocities in the 2200-2300 fps range, penetration was increased by about 3-4" and the wound channel diameter also increased slightly.  When slowed to the 2100 fps .458win mag velocity, both penetration depth and wound channel diameter again increased.  When slowed to the 1600-1700 fps range of the smokeless .45-70 loads, penetration increased to around 36" and the wound channel diameter was again larger, around 5/8".  Likewise, the optimum velocity for the supercavitation bullet was around 1850 fps where the max penetration was around 50".  It was quite interesting though to see the damage done to the test shooter's equipment when the high-speed ogive RN bullets from .460 wtby & .458 lott turned 55°+ and sometimes coming out the sides of the test media box.  Despite the facts that are contrary to the sales hype, companies are still producing ogive RN's and high velocity cartridges to push them and people keep buying them.

I really wish you'd read my posts in the context in which they're written before blowing a gasket.  The only point I've been trying to make is that one cannot lump all bullets into the same catagory nor can one claim the PRB is the optimum hunting projo because as you stated, once the velocity is increased to effective levels on a big PRB, the recoil far exceeds that of a comparable bullet and the range is still quite limited because of the higher velocity losses.  Sure, it's easy enough to crank up the velocity and get a 0.615" ball to shoot flatter than a 450-500gr bullet but the bullet is going to pack a whole lot more punch at longer ranges than the PRB that's giving up lot of velocity to air drag.  One must also consider the hunting condition and the "what if's" such as what will be the outcome of a shot taken at or near the maximum effective range of the PRB and it doesn't place as planned?  Is it worth letting a big critter run off with a shoulder wound or a wound of insufficient depth to ensure terminal results even if it's a little slower doing such?

How about the 300gr premium sabot bullet that fragmented on the moose shoulder or the .54 PRB that missed all the vitals on a frontal chest shot?  Had either of these shots been made with a heavy well designed conical, the outcomes would have been much different just as if the shot would have been placed a little a better but the latter didn't happen.  Change one factor in each situation such as if my friend was pushing a WW alloy ball from that .54, it likely would have broken the spine despite missing everything of terminal importance.  My client with his moose experience, had he been pushing one of my 490gr bullets or a big heavy PRB, he'd have tagged that moose instead of watching it run away with a non-terminal wound.  Like I said before, there is no "one-size-fits-all" answer to all the possibilities but in order for one to make good choices, the facts must be presented and that's all I'm doing is presenting facts.  I don't deal in the gun rag sales hype because when the bullet hits the bone, the BS is over and reality begins.  Just troll through the multitude of forums and see all the negative comments on the alleged "premium" bullets that make for pretty sales hype in ballistic gel yet aren't worth $#@* in flesh & bone.  One also has to make the choice as if an on-the-spot anchoring shot is required or not and how much meat one wishes to loose from that shot.  Sure, a soft 0.610" PRB will easily take the shoulders out from under a WT but at the cost of loosing about as much meat as if a Nosler Partition at 2700 fps had been used.  Likewise, that same 0.610" PRB in WW alloy reduces the amount of meat loss but it still considerably greater than the amount of loss seen with the slow heavy conical yet the end result of the critter dropping on the spot is remains the same.

Nice Sambar BTW & thanks for your service!