The shooting of General Fraser

[Dphariss]

3 or 4 years ago I read a post by someone who had looked at a few hundred original guns that had data published about them and found the mean caliber to be .54   I don't remember the Date parameters, but it seemed that earlier guns and guns made/used in longer settled areas were smaller bore than those used on the frontiers.... 

This might be an intereesting research project for KRA.

In looking at the reported calibers of a couple of hundred guns from "Kentucky Rifles and Pistols 1750-1850"  and 'A true American Heritage in Picture" I found most were under 50 caliber. If graphed there were major spikes at 45 and 50. But this included only rifles originally built as flint and had full octagonal barrels. Bore sizes under 44 are rare as well and this sample includes later guns. About 21% were 50 caliber, just over 12% were 45. 9% were 52 and about 7.5% were 54, just over 6% were 48 caliber. 58 was another spike at 5% tied with 44 caliber. 47 caliber was just over 4%. 40 caliber was just over 3% everything else was less.  This was a 281 rifle sample. 86 were smooth bores.
32, 35, 36, 37, 43, 59,62 70 and 74 calibers were 3 rifles each or less. There were 60- 50 calibers and 37- 45 calibers.
Lewis found his 36 to be too small for most uses in the west and it lost accuracy and was recut during the expedition.
Kindig's book as a larger percentage of SB guns. I have listed the calibers but have not done the math on these yet and likely will not. Too many smooth bores.

Dan

[lew wetzel]

i feel guns evolved due to the region where migration took place and as peoples needs had to be met as well as protecting your family.with powder and lead being a hard item to replenish and the terrain which they made there lives being more rugged they had to find a happy medium.longer barrels,smaller caliber.more round balls per pound,rifling,longer shots,more accurate.wasnt a whole lot of room for waste and making due with what was available.

[Dr. Tim-Boone]

Dan, Appreciate your doing and reporting your findings.... now we just need to sort by region and date , eh?  

[Dphariss]

Dan, Appreciate your doing and reporting your findings.... now we just need to sort by region and date , eh?  

Given the percentages I don't think region is important. It took a certain size ball to do a certain job no matter where you were. The later guns were likely smaller but some early guns were not all that large in the bore.
In "Steel Canvas" by R.L. Wilson we find a near new condition Peter Resor circa 1770 that is 42 caliber and an A. Albrecht listed as 48.  If these rifles are funneled it is possible they are as small as 40 and 45.
This book is worth having since it is mostly in color and quite a few rifles, pistols, horns, tomahawks and knives are pictured. 70 pages or so most with at least one photo and many with full page photos. Not the best photography but its mostly color.
People who take the time will find that the few surviving Rev War guns that saw little use are not all that large in *most* cases.
There are guns of all calibers from about 60 down and some very large anomalous examples. But even the Schreit rifle, if it were a Rev War rifle taken to England in the 1780s had been in service long enough to have been recut at least once and could easily have been smaller when new.
This is a field of interest that always starts discussion. Then as now some people preferred a smaller ball about the size of a pea and some preferred a ball the size of a cranberry. A friend found this quote somewhere though I have no citation.
When I was a lot younger in the common wisdom was the the Rev War rifles were all 54 and up. This has proven to not be the case.
This first deer my son killed was with a 45 caliber rifle with 45 grains of powder. One shot kill deer ran 80-100 yards and piled up ball penetrated to the off side hide. The 50 caliber ball at 750+- fps will penetrate to the far side of a mule deers chest even at near a 45 degree angle. 50 calibers have been used on elk and buffalo. As with any firearm its not what you shoot so much as how accurately the shot is placed.
We tend to think of hunting and war but we must remember that rifle shooting was also a pastime and a sport. A heavy rifle can actually be a handicap for this. Both from the standpoint of recoil and how much powder it takes to shoot it. Lead was often recovered and reused.
Finally we must remember we can only judge by the rifles that have been examined and the caliber accurately determined (another problem). I am sure there are American Rifles in England that are unknown to students of the longrifle.
I better get to the shop and work at some corving. Or smooth the living room ceiling for painting or do some other honey do type thing.

Dan

[northmn]

We can only try to deduce from rifles that survived and possibly limited literature of the times what calibers they were.  Are the rifles that survived a normal representation of those that existed?  In the antiques thread I am seeing a few examples of less adorned originals than those shown in the books I have seen.  Kindig was a collecter but liked to collect the better or more elaborate examples of the types.  Also when you assume that every rifle was recut then you can argue that all started as small bores.  While a lot of rifles were recut. a lot of rifles do not exist for our study.  I really question how much history the more elaborate rifles have had to survive and how much use they saw.  The heavier plains rifles such as the Hawken were dismantled so that the barrels could be used for crow bars in the mining camps.  One individual claimed that a barrel signed Hawken was found as a fencepost.  When I look in my books at the later period rifles, such as the Bedford schools that they are smaller caliber such as 32 -38 as compared to the earlier rifles.  As stated Clark's 36 was not found to be adequate in their expedition and would not have been in the frontier areas of the East.  A 45 is adequate for deer and I would not hesitate using one, but for elk and moose they may be considered limited.  While I think today's standards may be a little extreme for what is needed, my 40 plus years experience in hunting deer and other critters has shown me that using an adequate caliber is also desirable.  You can take out about any critter with a 22 but the shot placement has to be very precise and you have to give up opportunities.  Same for the small bores.  The 50 to 54 calibers seem to have been found to handle a pretty wide variety of game.  While I think many of todays hunters have been contaminated by what is needed, the popularity among the local roundball hunters of the 50's and 54's cannot be denied and may have existed back then. 

DP

[Candle Snuffer]

Hello all!  Just got back from Chadron Fur Trade Days Rendezvous and have been catching up on a couple topics here.

While reading the new postings it occured to me that when the Colonies went to war with England its a given that many colonist bought their rifles with them and some were issued muskets, and perhaps as the war drug on some may have been issued rifles.

My thought is, as the war went on and materials to make war became less available,,, did the gun makers turn to smaller calibers to fill the hands of the Colonial Riflemen - stretching what raw materials they had available to them at the time, and perhaps ventured into the smaller calibers?

It has always been my understanding that the smaller calibers came about as America settled the lands and pretty much hunted off all the big game so a "small game" rifle was needed for rabbits & squirrels.

Now just to jump ahead a bit in history.  Sam Colt thought that a .31, .36, and .44 revolvers were all considered man stoppers for not only close range self defense, but the .36 and .44 for the attack as well.  His small caliber reasoning would have to have been rooted from somewheres in previous history that he knew of - of that time.

Was he drawing his ideas from rifle calibers known to be man stoppers/game getters?

Just a few things to think about.  This line of thought may have no bearing what-so-ever?

[northmn]

The 31 caliber Baby Dragoon was considered one of the most popular revolvers of the time.  Likely because most folks that carry a gun for self defense never needed to use one.  It was small, handy and easy to carry.  It had ballistics similar to a 25 auto and likely would have killed someone in those times by infection.  It would have made a good rabbit gun if you could hit one with it.  While the 36 was a very popular caliber during the war between the states and favored by Tennessee general Nathan Bedford Forest, there was an article claiming that a British officer was killed in India by a sword after emptying 6 rounds into the chest of his assailant.  The walker was invented because Mexican Lancers were perforating Rangers armed with Patersons.  Walker was killed later by a lancer.  A wise man onetime stated that only a fool would bring a pistol to a gun fight.   
One thing pointed out was that gusnsmiths did a lot of "barrel freshing".  Among the reasons for freshing a barrel is that they were shot out (which I think very few were) or had a rusted, pitted bore that needed redoing (very likely) and also very likely they made small bores into bigger bores which may have been done because of disenchantment with small bores.

DP

[Dphariss]

The 31 caliber Baby Dragoon was considered one of the most popular revolvers of the time.  Likely because most folks that carry a gun for self defense never needed to use one.  It was small, handy and easy to carry.  It had ballistics similar to a 25 auto and likely would have killed someone in those times by infection.  It would have made a good rabbit gun if you could hit one with it.  While the 36 was a very popular caliber during the war between the states and favored by Tennessee general Nathan Bedford Forest, there was an article claiming that a British officer was killed in India by a sword after emptying 6 rounds into the chest of his assailant.  The walker was invented because Mexican Lancers were perforating Rangers armed with Patersons.  Walker was killed later by a lancer.  A wise man onetime stated that only a fool would bring a pistol to a gun fight.   
One thing pointed out was that gusnsmiths did a lot of "barrel freshing".  Among the reasons for freshing a barrel is that they were shot out (which I think very few were) or had a rusted, pitted bore that needed redoing (very likely) and also very likely they made small bores into bigger bores which may have been done because of disenchantment with small bores.

DP

There are notable successes with the Paterson and the various Colt percussions.
There are various accounts of similar failure incidents. Reports from the Philippines and other shootings with the 38 Long Colt resulted in the adoption of the 45 ACP. However I read an account of a jeweler who was being robbed and knife point. In desperation he pulled his 25 auto and fired two shots and got 2 kills. Neither perp got out of the store. Shot placement.
Finally we must look at what LaGarde (of the Thompson/LaGarde tests) said about stopping power. He stated that nothing smaller than a 3" solid shot was sure to stop a man.

Barrels both rusted and were shot out. Iron barrels when subjected to high temp and pressure when firing BP actually absorb carbon resulting in very thin, near molecule thick, "casehardened" surface that then is washed off and renewed by blow by gas from subsequent shots. Or so I have been told by someone who has studied such things. Steel barrels tolerate this better.

Corrosion was also a factor since it was not always possible to detail clean the bore after firing and maintain personal security.

Dan

[Dphariss]

We can only try to deduce from rifles that survived and possibly limited literature of the times what calibers they were.  Are the rifles that survived a normal representation of those that existed?  In the antiques thread I am seeing a few examples of less adorned originals than those shown in the books I have seen.  Kindig was a collecter but liked to collect the better or more elaborate examples of the types.  Also when you assume that every rifle was recut then you can argue that all started as small bores.  While a lot of rifles were recut. a lot of rifles do not exist for our study.  I really question how much history the more elaborate rifles have had to survive and how much use they saw.  The heavier plains rifles such as the Hawken were dismantled so that the barrels could be used for crow bars in the mining camps.  One individual claimed that a barrel signed Hawken was found as a fencepost.  When I look in my books at the later period rifles, such as the Bedford schools that they are smaller caliber such as 32 -38 as compared to the earlier rifles.  As stated Clark's 36 was not found to be adequate in their expedition and would not have been in the frontier areas of the East.  A 45 is adequate for deer and I would not hesitate using one, but for elk and moose they may be considered limited.  While I think today's standards may be a little extreme for what is needed, my 40 plus years experience in hunting deer and other critters has shown me that using an adequate caliber is also desirable.  You can take out about any critter with a 22 but the shot placement has to be very precise and you have to give up opportunities.  Same for the small bores.  The 50 to 54 calibers seem to have been found to handle a pretty wide variety of game.  While I think many of todays hunters have been contaminated by what is needed, the popularity among the local roundball hunters of the 50's and 54's cannot be denied and may have existed back then. 

DP

Study of surviving guns is just that, a study of guns that were not used up or scrapped. I know of a man finding Sharps rifle barrel being driven into the ground for a barn door stop.
Another significant rifle in local history (another Sharps) was lost when a cabin burned it was this used as a fence tightener until it the wires were cut and it disappeared.
A man I knew who was in his 80s in the 1960s told me when he returned after WW-I all his  Kentuckys were gone but one stock "from one of the good guns" and one that was in very poor shape. Since only a stock was left I wonder if the barrels went for scrap. I never asked how many he had had. I was 16-17 at the time.
What we have left is just what someone stored away in some attic for generations or someone in the family hung on to grandpas old rifle etc.
Remember that after WW-1 some original flintlock rifles were still in use as primary hunting rifles. Think this is in Cline's book. Cline re-bored/rifled and freshed original rifles.

Dan

[northmn]

For those interested in such things, I ahe read more than one of Edward Marshal's studies of actual shootings and incidents in his research on "stopping power"  He made the comment that only a fool would purpously take a pistol to a gun fight.  His results are surprising on both ends of the spectrum.  Smaller pistols like the 32's were better than expected but not real great and the big ones were not as great as people thought, especially the 45 ACP.  The stories about replacement of the 38 colt in the by breaking out the old 45 Peacemakers in the Phillipines leaves us to believe that that cured all woes.  In fact the Moros were religous zealots somewhat like what we see in the Mideast today that wore a tight wrapping around their midsection that would act like MAST trousers and keep the blood pressure up in the upper torso.  In one case a British visiter wrote about one chasing him around in a boat taking all 10 rounds from a Lee Enfield.  Little known is the fact that the US troops filed the noses off their Krag ammo to make soft points AKA as in the Dum Dum arsenal in India.  The 45's really weren't all that great either.  The 303 British and the 30-40 Krag were abysmal failures in the Kinetic Energy theory as they replaced 45 caliber black powder rifles of 45-70 range that had less energy.  I know this is not really relevant to a muzzle loading forum except for the fact that it does point out that bigger bores have been found to be more effective that little bores of higher energy. 

DP

[ironwolf]

Bigger holes mean more blood loss.
K

[Dphariss]

For those interested in such things, I ahe read more than one of Edward Marshal's studies of actual shootings and incidents in his research on "stopping power"  He made the comment that only a fool would purpously take a pistol to a gun fight.  His results are surprising on both ends of the spectrum.  Smaller pistols like the 32's were better than expected but not real great and the big ones were not as great as people thought, especially the 45 ACP.  The stories about replacement of the 38 colt in the by breaking out the old 45 Peacemakers in the Phillipines leaves us to believe that that cured all woes.  In fact the Moros were religous zealots somewhat like what we see in the Mideast today that wore a tight wrapping around their midsection that would act like MAST trousers and keep the blood pressure up in the upper torso.  In one case a British visiter wrote about one chasing him around in a boat taking all 10 rounds from a Lee Enfield.  Little known is the fact that the US troops filed the noses off their Krag ammo to make soft points AKA as in the Dum Dum arsenal in India.  The 45's really weren't all that great either.  The 303 British and the 30-40 Krag were abysmal failures in the Kinetic Energy theory as they replaced 45 caliber black powder rifles of 45-70 range that had less energy.  I know this is not really relevant to a muzzle loading forum except for the fact that it does point out that bigger bores have been found to be more effective that little bores of higher energy. 

DP

If going to a gun fight bring a long gun and a friend with a long gun.
However, even a short barreled collapsable stock AR is hard to conceal. So my wife and I pack handguns.


Thompson and LaGarde found that while the HV loads with jacketed bullets would not drop a cow with a magazine full, they often would not even produce any real evidence the cow had been shot (30 Luger, 9mm Luger with a FP FMJ bullet and Colt 38 Auto). The 450 Ely, 476 and 45 Colt would put a cow down in 3-4 shots to the body. The 450/476 are both very anemic by modern standards but the common denominator was a relatively large lead bullet.
Soft lead RBs tend to expand rapidly and they strike the target and they grip hide, hair etc and push this along. It is believed that this increases effectiveness.
This coupled with a larger initial diameter is why the RB is more effective than it really should be based on "modern" wisdom using energy.
This is an extremely complex field since the mind set and physical state effect "stopping power". If anyone has read "Pondoro" By John Taylor you will find he killed quite a number of African Lion and 2-3 Elephant with a 577-450 Martini-Henry Carbine with BP ammunition. He thought it worked very well on lion. As soon as he had enough ivory he bought better elephant medicine, however.
I recently watched a TV show in which 2 gelatine blocks where shot (Battlefield Detectives or some such). One with a 58 Minie and one with a 69 RB both with service charges. The Minie zipped through and scarcely moved the block. The 69 RB launched it several feet. Both these projectiles are pretty good at stopping their intended target. Both weigh about the same, but the RB with it's larger diameter and better velocity produced a lot more effect on the target.
Dan

[Candle Snuffer]

I recall seeing that same test, Dan.  At least one very similar to it.  If I recall correctly the minie actually entered a second gelatin mould behind the first, giving rise to the effectiveness of the minie on the battlefield where it could actually take out two enemy soldiers in a rank and file attack.

The .69 was by no means a stand off.  It was devastating if hit by this caliber and if I also recall I think they showed the effects of buck & ball on those gelatin moulds as well?

I think the final conclussion was that the minie could keep on killing because of its ability to pass through the human body and maintain enough velocity and foot pounds to kill or seriously wound the next soldier in the ranks behind the first.  Even if it didn't kill him out right he would be subject to the bacteria from the first soldier hit and would most like die from infection.

This is not to say I don't believe the .69 couldn't pass through an enemy soldier and hit the next one, but I think the range would have to be much shorter for this to happen. 

[northmn]

Edward Marshall had read the FBI studies, Thompson and Lagarde and others.  His studies were shots fired agains human assailants.  The FBI proved that if attacked by a armed and dangerous pig you need heavier bullets than if attacked by a human.  The other study with cattle.  In one of Marshall's studys on the 45, two men got mad at each other, one with a 45 and one with a 22 and shot it out.  The one with the 45 scored 6 hits on the 22 user and died.  The guy hit 6 times with a 45 (military patch) took a bus and went to the hospital for treatment.  These are documented instances out of police files.  In muzzle loading, the round ball does not tend to shatter like a jacketed bullet.  I shot a deer with an 8mm mauser handload and found part of the bullet under the skin after it fragmented.  Had I hit that deer with a 45 round ball it would have likely run the same distance and folded up in the same place, but the round ball would have remained intact.  Big bore roundballs do the same thing.  As to your the research comparing a 69 to a 58 minnie, you have the center punch effect.  Hit a center punch and you dent steel to start a drill.  Hit a pin punch just as hard and not dent. The transfer of  Kinetic Energy is a complex combination of many things including the durability of the bullet.  Mathematics says that if I hit a 40 pound steel target with 400 foot pound of energy it goes 10 feet.  If hit by a bullet the bullet fragments and a lot of energy is used up on the bullet.  Hit it with a metal piercing bullet and a lot of energy is used up on the other side of the target. I doubt if any bullet foing at 400 ftlbs will move a target 10 feet.  Hit it with a big hammer that hard and you might. Energy is transferred over a larger area and little wasted on the hammer.  There is some as you would feel it in the handle.  Big bores hit with a durable bullet over a larger area.

DP

[Dphariss]

I recall seeing that same test, Dan.  At least one very similar to it.  If I recall correctly the minie actually entered a second gelatin mould behind the first, giving rise to the effectiveness of the minie on the battlefield where it could actually take out two enemy soldiers in a rank and file attack.

The .69 was by no means a stand off.  It was devastating if hit by this caliber and if I also recall I think they showed the effects of buck & ball on those gelatin moulds as well?

I think the final conclussion was that the minie could keep on killing because of its ability to pass through the human body and maintain enough velocity and foot pounds to kill or seriously wound the next soldier in the ranks behind the first.  Even if it didn't kill him out right he would be subject to the bacteria from the first soldier hit and would most like die from infection.

This is not to say I don't believe the .69 couldn't pass through an enemy soldier and hit the next one, but I think the range would have to be much shorter for this to happen. 

The large bore musket balls were meant to pass through the man in the first rank and wound or kill the man behind him.
The problem with the Minie in actual military use is that it often veers wildly off track due the the very slow twist used. This was first noted during the Crimean War IIRC. Thus it might not exit its first victim on a path that would have it striking the man behind him.
 My 16 bore rifle will penetrate about 30" of deer at 40 yards started at 1600 fps (about 1350 at 40+- yards). I suspect that it would do as well or better better at about 1000 since it would deform less.

Dan

[FL-Flintlock]

The one with the 45 scored 6 hits on the 22 user and died.  The guy hit 6 times with a 45 (military patch) took a bus and went to the hospital for treatment.  These are documented instances out of police files.

I find it odd that when you find such reports, more often than not, the points of impact are not identified nor is the exact ammunition and bullet.  Without knowing all the information, one cannot in any manner make any type of determination as to the results of the outcome and attempting to do such is pure foolishness.  Just because "hits" were made does not mean that any of them were effective.  Last time I was at the VA hospital, I sat next to a man who took 7 "hits" from a German with an 8x57JS machine gun before he sent the German on to the promise land his .45acp.  Granted, the fellow next to me had some chunks of skin & muscle missing and he clearly suffered a lot from the wounds but it was also quite clear that none of the 8x57JS hits were fatal - could one then say that the 8x57JS isn't an effective man-stopper?  Proven point that one cannot make a fair assumption of anything based on incomplete information.  One can also not make any judgment based on only limited and select incidents as I have seen common whitetail deer take solid boiler room hits with the 7mmRemMag and .300WinMag yet continue to run for 150+ yards - selecting only those examples, one could make the biased claim that neither of these cartridges are effective on deer-size game.  I seem to recall a well documented incident where a giant was killed dead by a stone from a simple hand sling - using just limited information, can we then make the claim that one hunting large dangerous game is best armed with a hand sling and a stone?

I am not trying to be rude here but when one applies logic and analysis to many of these arguments and claims, it quickly becomes apparent that the one making the claim or argument is either attempting to justify an ill conceived theory for some gain or they are showing little more than apathetic ignorance to the facts.

One of the fellows pushing modern in-line rifles with their sabot bullets makes the claim that round balls are ineffective and lack energy & velocity.  The motive is not based on fact but on deliberate ignorance of fact for the sole purpose of personal monetary gain.

The same arguments were made concerning the 5.56x45 cartridge where fact was deliberately ignored and hype was being sold to those who were not simply purchased by Fairchild.  The same willful and quite deliberate ignorance of fact remains in play yet today decades later every time some yahoo brings up "temporary cavity" and "hydrostatic shock".  Neither of these can be proven terminally effective and all attempts to do such have provided clear and concise proof that neither claim has any merit.  Proven fact, ballistics gel does in have the basic consistency of muscle but it does not replicate softer fat tissue and organs nor the harder ligaments and tendons let alone bone.  B-gel also does not respond to bullet impacts in the same manner as living flesh because once the gel is displaced, the majority of it remains displaced giving very much false indications of permanent would channel results as much of the "temporary cavity" remains when the action stops and this does not happen with living flesh.  Let's say every year 500 people die from blunt force trauma applied only to soft tissue yet in the same year there are 100 million incidents of soft tissue only blunt force trauma that do not result in death - using the complete information, one has no other alternative than to proclaim that blunt force trauma applied to soft tissue only has the potential to be fatal making it "possible" however the massive number of non-fatal incidents makes death from this type of injury much less "probable".

Thompson and LaGarde found that while the HV loads with jacketed bullets would not drop a cow with a magazine full, they often would not even produce any real evidence the cow had been shot (30 Luger, 9mm Luger with a FP FMJ bullet and Colt 38 Auto). The 450 Ely, 476 and 45 Colt would put a cow down in 3-4 shots to the body.

Again, no information on bullet type, load or where "in the body" the shots were placed as that can mean anywhere from the head to the tail.  Incomplete information just as the switch from .38 to .45 in the Philippines is incomplete information.  In every instance where this and similar incidents are brought up for discussion, the discussion lacks the critical information of projectile design.  Yes, the .45 was less effective in the Philippines but for no other reason than the bullet design change, the same problem the .38 suffered from ... poor bullet design.  This is clearly indicated where the 9x18 has much lower numbers on paper than the 9x19 yet the 9x18 is far more effective at producing terminal permanent wound channels than the 9x19 - no mystery to it, it's all in the bullet design that does not include the weight or velocity - The same is reason why the .303 British sucked so bad when it first came out, the problem was not with the cartridge but with the bullet design. 

Now, putting this all together, one can quickly understand that the probability of a .58 mini causing a terminal wound is quite high yet when compared to the .575 RB, the fatal probability quickly turns in favor of the RB.  Have you ever wondered why the original .45-70-500 bullets are built like they are and why that bullet shape carried over to the .30 Govt when it first came out yet the reasoning was quickly abandoned after 1900 only to result in serious terminal performance losses?  Have you ever wondered why there is such a focus on energy numbers that only apply to paper rather than to actual permanent wound channel creation?  Have you ever wondered why all the modern bullet mfg's completely ignore how much energy and wound channel depth and diameter is lost in the time it takes for their bullet noses to expand just to bore diameter?

Books are wonderful things and while the information they contain is valuable, more valuable is the amount of thought that is provoked by the information.  When one fails to question even his own answers, he has become blinded by ignorance and apathetic to discovery. 

[northmn]

You missed the point entirely. What Marshall was saying was that the 45 has been given a mystical quality of stopping power.  Yet in this instance the user was killed after hitting his adversary 6 times.  Most of the "hype" around the old 45 was that it would stop someone no matter where you hit them.  He found in his results that the standard lead or FMJ of 45 ACP, 44 special, 45 colt and the 38 special were all about the same  at 65% and were only effective by his criteria of one shot stops which were hits to the torso.  Over the years Marshall had received numerous accounts for a variety of calibers some over 200 instances.  The most effective ones were high speed HP's.  But humans are bipeds and studies on quadrupeds are not valid for this type of study, which is why Marshall and Sanow, both police officers, started their studies. 
Also, the differences in the one test was between a 58 minnie and a 69 roundball, not a 58 roundball.  When I had my 12 gauge and Brown Bess, I quit shooting at gongs at the clubs I went to as they would absolutely demolish the gongs.  Maxi ball and other smaller bore rifle projectiles would not even come close.  An individual that built a 69 rifle was doing the same thing.  These big projectiles retain a lot of mass even when hitting a steel plate and spread the energy over a larger area.  The Bess wrapped a gong on a chain three times where the lighter rifles could not do so.  They would up the powder charges, increase the speed of the bullets, which would increase the energy of the smaller bores and promptly vaporise the round ball and maxi ball with little effect on the gongs. 
Pistol shooters some time ago decided that KE did not explain the effect of pistol bullets so they started using momentum as a formula IE IPSC 175 "power factor".
All momentum states mathematically is say for example, is that if you shoot a round nose minnie at the same speed as a roundball the minnie will shoot further and in correlation retain its velocity better.
Taylor's formulas likely work as a predictor of KO power or what ever, but really have no sound basis in physics.  Projectile performance can be compared by KE if you for instance compare a 50 round ball to a 54 (apples to apples).  Some started a long discussion because some were getting higher KE's with a 54 over a 58 and therefore stating a 54 is better.  Only if the 58 is not loaded to a higher velocity.  The variables are the integrity of the bullet which includes design as well as the integrity of the target.    300 magnums perform like they do on deer, where you see a deer run a ways because most of their energy is wasted on the landscape on the other side.   Magnum rifles were not designed originally to be a better killer than their standard counterparts (300 mag vs 30 06) as they were to increase the range and hot with the same power at longer ranges.

DP