Author Topic: Firearm Effectiveness  (Read 32158 times)

northmn

  • Guest
Re: Firearm Effectiveness
« Reply #50 on: July 23, 2008, 01:07:29 PM »
Sorry Acer, I only mentioned the studies because I know of nothing else available.
And felt they do under certain parameters relate, but it is not my site and I will honor its wishes with no complaints and understand the reasoning.
The pure lead ML bullet whether roundball or  minnie has the softness to deform at lower velocities, but also the blessing of almost perfect malleability which gives it almost perfect weight retention.  Where alloys (especially that containing antimony) shatters lead flattens.  About the only place one see fragmented pure lead is by a gong.  The big bores like the 12 gauge, do not shatter as much. 
I described the graph of performance very poorly.  It was a classic efficiency graph in what they call a stairstep.  At the lower levels of energy performance was relatively flat, a stair step, then at a "threshold" level it started to rise fairly dramatically kind of like the riser and then it leveled after another threshold in which the added energy did not seem to make much difference.  It clearly explains the observations made by many that it seems like deer run a certain distance regardless of the caliber or gauge they are hit with if not broken down.  Hunters going after dangerous game used to "break down" the critter, IE smash its shoulders to avoid that problem.  Breaking a big bear down, would I assume, require considerable energy and a fairly massive ball to resist that would resist the energy and hang together and break bones. High speed small bores loaded to say 2100 like Daryl's 40 would not do this. 
My experiences on deer with small bores is somewhat limited as I do not believe in using them.  On one occasion when I shot a deer at very close range with a 36 pistol I was surprised at the damage the round ball did.  It likely hit at around 900 fps or a little better.  But tracking it was a B---h.  Also it was a perfectly place shot, which at the range I took it,  about 10 feet, was almost guaranteed.  Liver shot deer on the other hand tend to run quite a ways and lay Down if not pushed.  With a smaller bore they can take longer to expire.  This is why I think that the smaller bores tend to perform about the same.  With very well place broadside hits they tend to work fairly well, with marginal hits they can become a problem.  On a large buck will they break enough bone to penetrate to the vitals on a shoulder shot?

DP

Offline Dan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 356
Re: Firearm Effectiveness
« Reply #51 on: July 23, 2008, 07:54:12 PM »
I too think this is over thought for the most part.  The essence of success is found not in caliber, FPE and other such stuff.  When you can put a bullet of virtually any description in the proper place such that it disrupts CNS or CPS you have a winner.  Even with - cough - cartridge guns.  It's pretty simple for the most part. 

If one persists in the substitution of bore diameter and power for field craft and shooting skill, plans will go astray.

I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

northmn

  • Guest
Re: Firearm Effectiveness
« Reply #52 on: July 23, 2008, 10:01:26 PM »
Dan I admit a lot of it is either overthought or a painful elucidation of the obvious.
That what eggheads like myself do.  You are quite correct in statements about shot placement, but after hunting 40+ years with Murphy setting on my shoulder in some instances I can say again, I do not care how good you are, sometime you are going to screw up.  Thats why a little bigger bore is nice.

DP

Daryl

  • Guest
Re: Firearm Effectiveness
« Reply #53 on: July 23, 2008, 11:16:58 PM »
Spot-on, Northumn - Murphy usually places a ball on the shoudler, as my first moose showed.  Anything lighter than about 400gr. probably wouldn't have broken the bone at all  after going through what sounded like dozens of willows before striking him and I'd have lost the moose.  When I took the shot, I didn't even see the willows. Light was getting a bit dim.

Offline Dan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 356
Re: Firearm Effectiveness
« Reply #54 on: July 24, 2008, 04:26:09 AM »
Mr. Murphy is a sloppy sort who is easily fooled as he often mistakes diligence for a slow mind.  Not unlike the Devil down in Georgia.  Usually a brief dissertation on the subject of tricyclic precession will render him unto tears and he will leave you alone thereafter.

For the record I do not believe round balls suffer such perturbations and certainly do not beset themselves with much of the hysteria associated with cylindrical  forms.  A gentleman by the name of Robert McCoy was known for inquiries into the characteristics of different forms in flight to include mortars (a muzzle loader) and round balls.  He noted that the 1" diameter round ball has a curiously low drag coefficient in the range of velocity slightly below Mach 1, or about 1160 fps. So low it was that it was not far removed from a perpetual motion projectile. He attributed this to a quirk in Reynolds Numbers.  One of you may be inclined to try that bore size as a result of my words; please do give us a field report. ;D  I'm not making that up by the way, it was documented at Aberdeen. 

I have seen 1/4" round balls traverse a 250# boar's boiler room, side to side, with exit, at a range of about 25 yards and MV of about 1200 fps. Most of them will, most of the time. I know this happens because the hogs die when it happens and I get to inspect them. - CSI Dan

Well, as I suspected, Murphy wails as he runs down the street, his mind anguished and confused.

Plain  Ol' Dan

northmn

  • Guest
Re: Firearm Effectiveness
« Reply #55 on: July 24, 2008, 01:25:15 PM »
Dan, there was a gentleman named Bell who used a 1" diameter rifle.  It is a 4 gauge.  Very few were in used due to recoil problems.  As to using a single #4 or #3 buckshot out of a rifle to hunt hogs.  Go ahead, but you will be disappointed.  I have seen deer shot with all manner of guns and have shot one $#*! of a lot of them in my deer hunting.  The quickest way to kill an animal is to shut doen the CNS but if you shoot for the head you will on occaison blow off a jaw and not get the deer.  Shutting down the cardiovascular system is our usual goal and the ball has to reach the lungs and arteries and do enough significant damage to quickly put them down and in heavy cover areas leave s atrail to find them.  A liver shot will bleed out a game animal but one of your buckshot pellets may take awhile.  I have seen deer liver shot with an arrow take several hours. I have only done it once but helped others. 
As to diligence, someday everyone is going to screw up.

DP

Offline Dan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 356
Re: Firearm Effectiveness
« Reply #56 on: July 24, 2008, 03:03:16 PM »
I would understand that caution and eschew such delicate application with a rifle. However, it has been my observation that a smooth bore of .6" or greater will dispatch an ounce or so of 1/4" balls in a swarm that provides a contexts for my earlier comments about "most".  Said comments were directed at the terminal performance of a single ball, in reference to penetration potential.  I have seen but one of over 70 hogs so doctored that did not fall over dead on the spot.  The exception squealed briefly...then fell dead. I have not seen a deer or coyote do anything but fall over dead.  This is of course a different scenario that envisioned in the initial post on this thread, I bring it up only because of the significance of ball alloy and so forth in the terminal phase of the ballistic analysis.

Mr. Bell was obviously a pioneer ahead of his time. ;D  I read some time ago, a tale of comparison between the 8 and 4 bore, written by Mr. R. Seyfried.  He found the 4 bore a marvelous and effective tool for use on water buffalo.  He seldom describes recoil in any other term than a soft shove, even if the shove relocated one to Omaha

That is all.

Daryl

  • Guest
Re: Firearm Effectiveness
« Reply #57 on: July 24, 2008, 03:37:09 PM »
Full charge 4 bore load develops more than 200 pounds of recoil. Mind you, the recoil velocity is fairly slow, but that soft shove broke the recoil machine made by WW Greener.  It's maximum reading was 200 pounds and the 4 was enough over that, that it broke.  To put this incontext, my little .458 does about 58 pounds, a .460 Weatherby has some 86 pounds of recoil and a .577 Nitro Express driving a 750 gr. slug at 2,050fps makes 150 pounds.  Francis Selous noted that he wished he'd never shot the 4's, as they developed a flinch in him so badly, he couldn't get rid of the flinch, no matter what he shot. He said they ruined his shooting for all time. His time ran short in WW1.
: Steve is making a fellow a 2 bore :o - what fun! -  ???

Leatherbelly

  • Guest
Re: Firearm Effectiveness
« Reply #58 on: July 24, 2008, 04:36:42 PM »
Sounds like your kinda gun,Daryls,hehehe.

Daryl

  • Guest
Re: Firearm Effectiveness
« Reply #59 on: July 24, 2008, 05:56:08 PM »
Yeah- did I tell you about the torn cartilage in my shoulder?  For that reason, I  can't do any more right hand shooting with centrefires.  I think Cody's Sharps finished it off. Bloody curved steel butt plates!

northmn

  • Guest
Re: Firearm Effectiveness
« Reply #60 on: July 24, 2008, 07:58:21 PM »
Daryl.  I believe it was Bob Brister that suffered neck and shoulder damage after years of competitive shotgun shooting.  He wrote an article on extra light loads stating that they may have saved him form that had they been available.  The 20-20 of hindsight is wonderful isn't it?
The issue of buckshot use got me thinking, which is admittedly can be bothersome ot others.  Buckshot and shot use is its own science in that you deal with the KE of the whole load vs the KE of individual pellets.  Most like to pattern on a two dimensional sheet of paper, which makes #9's look fabulous and buckshot look poor.  I put to you that if the bigs were hit with a loads of 9's they would possibly die but would not quickly unless very close.  Shotgun effectiveness really needs to be measured based on the volume of a cylinder and the distribution inside that cylinder.  for instance lets say a deer has an 8 inch vital area and is 10 inches deep.  The effectiveness of a shot load is now based on how many pellets penetrate that 8 inch cone.  If one tried to base it on the amount of energy that hit the bird or game animal 9's would be as effective as BB shot on geese.  F shot is not recommended for geese as there are not enough pellets in the pattern to have a high probability of hitting vital organs.  The locals like BBB as they get better pattern disbursements and adequate penetration.  Again you have the energy issue in this as to big of pellets exit and spend energy in blue sky. 
I played with #4 buckshot when I was younger out of suppository guns and have seen one deer shot with it (I was there but didn't do it)  The stuff kills like lightening up close as it saturates the vitals better than bigger shot.  Another trick that is fun with buckshot is to slit it and hang it on monofiliment line.  I blew a hole in an old refridgerator about 5 inches across doing this at 30 yards.  Thats energy transfer.  Some old timers used to make slugs by pouring wax in the birdshot.  It would hold toghether until impact.  Worked kind of like the Glaser Safety Slug.  others would shoot it at long range at a raft of ducks and watch it then open up.  Going as a mass it retained velocity better than individual pellets would have.
Ideally on a shotgun the test would be to count the holes in the pattern on the far side of some cylinder rated at appropriate resistance to the game hunted.  I ahve always been very fussy about shot size and paid a premium price for a 25 pound bag of 7's (no typo not 7 1/2's) for grouse hunting.  Thats all I use it for.

DP

Daryl

  • Guest
Re: Firearm Effectiveness
« Reply #61 on: July 24, 2008, 11:57:54 PM »
For ducks over decoys, a load of lead 6's to 7 1/2's is perfect from a muzzleloading shotgun.  Heads and necks take a beating with dead ducks, no crips. Course, now a days, it's steel - that's when I stopped hunting ducks. That's about the time my bird dog was getting too old for hunting anyway.

Offline bob in the woods

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4548
Re: Firearm Effectiveness
« Reply #62 on: July 25, 2008, 03:51:21 AM »
Well now, if we are talking about ducks, I can again sing the praises of Bess. 80 gr of FFG with a card wad, wasp nest wad, 1 1/2 oz or 1 3/4 oz [ I don't have exact measure- it's a volume thing] with a post it note shot cup, 3 slits in the side. Shot is home made from lead free solder, I'm guessing size 4 to 2
Anyway, out back over the beaver pond; one shot= 2 ducks....best wing shot I've ever made!

northmn

  • Guest
Re: Firearm Effectiveness
« Reply #63 on: July 25, 2008, 04:19:46 PM »
Getting closer to getting my 12 GA MN Meat Gun finished.  Will experiment with steel.  I knew a few that used steel successfully.  As soon as lead rose in price so did some of the Subs.  Kent makes a poly tungsten load that is claimed not to harm barrels called Matrix.  Cannot get it in shot for reloading and the cartridges jumped from about a dollar per shell to over three.  Bismuth worked OK but is dead at least for a while.  I have hunted for years with steel and it really isn't all that bad.  Some of the best retrieves I remember my Chesapekes making were cripples from lead.  Now have a Golden retriever pup I bought to retrieve pheasants that is in his own way begging to retrieve ducks even if he don't know it yet. 
There is a theory about two shot sizes for steel that holds for a small range of shot.  Actually steel 6's weigh about the same as 7's, 5's are only slightly lighter than lead 6's and are one of my favorites, 4's slightly lighter than 5's.  3's,2's and 1's are about the closest to the 2 size rule of using 2 sizes larger in steel.  I have had excellent results with steel where I would use 4's.
On crossing shots, like decoying ducks, smaller sizes work very well.  Jump shooting and pheasants over dogs sometimes give angled and straight aways where I like the heavier stuff like lead 5 or 4 or steel 2's.

DP

Offline Dphariss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9834
  • Kill a Commie for your Mommy
Re: Firearm Effectiveness
« Reply #64 on: July 26, 2008, 08:06:52 AM »
Full charge 4 bore load develops more than 200 pounds of recoil.
<snip>
: Steve is making a fellow a 2 bore :o - what fun! -  ???

I wonder if the guy ordering it is going to order a Hahn's Device to keep his head from moving too much?

Dan
He who dares not offend cannot be honest. Thomas Paine

Offline Dan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 356
Re: Firearm Effectiveness
« Reply #65 on: July 26, 2008, 03:34:23 PM »
I sincerely hope it is not a shoulder fired gun.   :D