Author Topic: hunting, effectiveness vs velocity  (Read 4913 times)

Offline bob in the woods

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4555
hunting, effectiveness vs velocity
« on: August 12, 2019, 12:15:29 AM »
I have been thinking  ,  [ dangerous, but it does sometimes happen ! ]    Almost all the deer I've shot with my flintlocks , have been at distances of less than 50 yards, with most being at 25 or less .  I've been in the habit of using rather heavy loads for hunting. As an example, my 10 bore with 140 gr of FFg will pass right through a black bear.  120 or even 100 will go through a deer. In all my years, I've only ever found 2 balls in game . One , a .54 in a deer after going lengthwise through the animal, and the other a .735 ball on the off side of a black bear just under the hide.  I'm wondering if a lower velocity would be even more effective , especially for deer.  I like the flatter trajectory the higher velocity gives, especially for moose hunting, but that's not an issue at 25 yards.   Perhaps 80 gr FFg for the .54 and 100 for the smoothbore would transfer more energy to the deer ?    Thoughts, opinions and experience appreciated.

Offline Fyrstyk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 236
  • "All I ask of living is to have no chains on me."
Re: hunting, effectiveness vs velocity
« Reply #1 on: August 12, 2019, 01:10:38 AM »
I have used 85 grains of 2f in my .54's for years for deer hunting.  I still haven't recovered a ball, but I only take shots inside of 60 yards, and only at the chest cavity. 

Offline Jerry

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 559
Re: hunting, effectiveness vs velocity
« Reply #2 on: August 12, 2019, 02:12:37 AM »
I understand the thinking behind heavier charges flatter trajectories, but if you are shooting deer at 60 yards or less why be concerned about shooting through an animal. I shoot 20 ga smoothbore and never shoot above 62 grs 2fg for shot or round ball. I ‘m not criticizing your choice of loads for game at close distances, I was only wondering, why? Thanks, Jerry

Anonymous

  • Guest
Re: hunting, effectiveness vs velocity
« Reply #3 on: August 12, 2019, 03:43:18 AM »
I have been thinking  ,  [ dangerous, but it does sometimes happen ! ]    Almost all the deer I've shot with my flintlocks , have been at distances of less than 50 yards, with most being at 25 or less .  I've been in the habit of using rather heavy loads for hunting. As an example, my 10 bore with 140 gr of FFg will pass right through a black bear.  120 or even 100 will go through a deer. In all my years, I've only ever found 2 balls in game . One , a .54 in a deer after going lengthwise through the animal, and the other a .735 ball on the off side of a black bear just under the hide.  I'm wondering if a lower velocity would be even more effective , especially for deer.  I like the flatter trajectory the higher velocity gives, especially for moose hunting, but that's not an issue at 25 yards.   Perhaps 80 gr FFg for the .54 and 100 for the smoothbore would transfer more energy to the deer ?    Thoughts, opinions and experience appreciated.
Don’t know why you would change something that’s working for you.  Faster moving ball will expand more. Damage is more important than mythical ‘energy transfer’ with ball just under the hide on the far side.

Hope for the best circumstances, but plan and be prepared for the worst. A pass though resulting in two holes from any angle has got you covered. In my opinion. 

Offline Darkhorse

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1665
Re: hunting, effectiveness vs velocity
« Reply #4 on: August 12, 2019, 08:48:13 AM »
I've been hunting with a .530 PRB since 1976. I've shot deer with 120 grs. of 2fg down to 65 grs. of 3fg. Never recovered a ball, all were pass throughs. The trend I noticed was they all took about the same time to die making me think expansion was minimal.
I mainly hunt with 85 grains of 3fg now because there are some very big hogs where I hunt, and I always want a pass through if possible. More blood is vented from 2 holes than from 1.
If recoil is a factor contributing to poor accuracy I would not hesitate to recommend a 60 gr. charge of 3fg.
American horses of Arabian descent.

Offline OldMtnMan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2648
  • Colorado
    • Finest Сasual Dating - Verified Women
Re: hunting, effectiveness vs velocity
« Reply #5 on: August 12, 2019, 04:08:56 PM »
I used 80gr of Swiss 2F for elk and it would pass through at 50 yds. It shot flat close enough at 50yds to not notice a drop. Aim center kill zone for a double lung shot and get out the skinning knife.

Offline Daryl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15825
Re: hunting, effectiveness vs velocity
« Reply #6 on: August 12, 2019, 07:28:44 PM »
I used 165gr. 2F GOEX in my .69 with a .682" ball of 482gr. weight for the first shot. The velocity was 1,550fps
and worked very well on moose. Would pen to the offside and smash a leg on either side then
end up under the hide.
The second shot, if needed (only once) was/is a 466gr. WW ball from the same mould
but held in a paper ctg., same powder charge. These shot right to the sights and into the same group size
at 100meters.
If I were hunting only deer, I know and have my zeros using 82gr. (3drams) of 2F GOEX and the .682"pure
lead ball. A .675" ball of pure or alloyed lead is easier loading with the 14 oz. denim the rifle likes. This is almost
as accurate as the larger ball and same patch & would certainly do for hunting.
My .50 also uses 82gr. 2F GOEX, but I would likely not take that rifle on a hunt.  I had Taylor make the .69 (14bore)
for my hunting. It is the best design I have seen for this purpose. My buddy has killed close to 40 moose (just a guess)
with his .75 that Taylor built him. Keith uses 140gr., seems to me, with a WW ball.
Daryl

"a gun without hammers is like a spaniel without ears" King George V

Offline Majorjoel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3138
Re: hunting, effectiveness vs velocity
« Reply #7 on: August 12, 2019, 08:45:03 PM »
I have been playing around with the idea of shooting my next deer with a new 60 caliber flinter I built last year.   My thinking is related to having to track wounded animals off my property, which I have had to do a few times.  I've had my best success using my 45 caliber flintlock Bucks County rifle in the past but the property lines are close to my hunting spot where there is a well worn deer trail.

I load the 45 with 80 grains 3F Goex with all the shooting within about a max range of about 40 yards.  I have never had a ball pass through a Michigan white tail, always find the ball on the backside of the hide.  Last season, the ball hit a shoulder bone and was found in several pieces inside the chest cavity. 

My problem has been while doing target work with my 60, I have zeroed it in at my backyard range shooting a target load of 60 grains 2F Goex at 33 yards and a patched .595 ball.  Have had two ricochets' off the target back board (3\4" plywood).  One ricochet hit my garage about 40 yards from the target. I found the flattened ball on the deck of the garage.  The 2nd ricochet hit a tree in the same direction to the garage but the ball was lost.

After these incidents I quickly removed the target backboard and now just shoot through cardboard!

I could not believe the 60 grain loads would not penetrate the plywood into the berm behind it at only 33 yards!!!   Big bore rifles are certainly a whole new ball game for me!  I will try again using heavier loads of perhaps at least 90 grains and see if I can keep the same accuracy going.   
Joel Hall

Offline Darkhorse

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1665
Re: hunting, effectiveness vs velocity
« Reply #8 on: August 12, 2019, 09:19:53 PM »
In the book "The Gunsmith of Grenville County", Peter Alexander tells of a friend with a .45 caliber rifle who was shooting .45 roundballs completely through 1/2 Tempered steel ploughshares. I assume by "Tempered" he means some heat was applied in order to toughen up the ploughshares? But I'm not sure as it's a term I haven't used much.
The distance was 60 yards. And he was shooting 60 grains of 3 fg in his .45, and getting complete pass throughs.
I personally find this doubtful but I admit that I wasn't there so I don't know for sure. But it's something I've often wondered about.
American horses of Arabian descent.

Offline OldMtnMan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2648
  • Colorado
    • Finest Сasual Dating - Verified Women
Re: hunting, effectiveness vs velocity
« Reply #9 on: August 12, 2019, 09:24:19 PM »
That's hard to believe. Round balls on steel flatten like pancakes.

Online rich pierce

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 19522
Re: hunting, effectiveness vs velocity
« Reply #10 on: August 12, 2019, 10:03:35 PM »
Maybe he was using tempered steel round balls on lead plowshares. I’m surprised any silhouette targets hold up to that guys rifle.

But back to topic, if the goal is pass through load more. If just looking for lethal cardiopulmonary damage then moderate loads are fine. Lewis and Clark planned a 1:3 ratio by weight of powder to lead for their .54 rifles. That worked except on some buffalo and any grizzly if I recall.
Andover, Vermont

Offline hanshi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5335
  • My passion is longrifles!
    • martialartsusa.com
Re: hunting, effectiveness vs velocity
« Reply #11 on: August 13, 2019, 01:03:53 AM »
My shots (with a few exceptions hunting in a hay field) are much like yours.  My last deer was 20 yards with a .62 smoothbore and patched ball over 70 grains of 3F.  It was a running shot and dropped DRT.  I'm looking to doing more testing with 2F; but 3" groups at 50 yards using 3F tells me a lot.  My .50 likes 70 grains of 3F for nearly 1700 fps; while the .45 gets over 1800 fps with that load.  Recently I've been feeding the .45s 60 grains for around 1700 fps.  It simply doesn't take great power to blast through a deer.
!Jozai Senjo! "always present on the battlefield"
Young guys should hang out with old guys; old guys know stuff.

Offline Leatherbark

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 376
Re: hunting, effectiveness vs velocity
« Reply #12 on: August 13, 2019, 01:38:59 AM »
 For what it's worth, my buddy and I both shot a deer each at 60 yards in a corn field on the count of 3.  Both .440 balls were propelled by 70 grains of 3f Goex.  His was a perfect shot through the lungs broadside.  Mine was a raking shot from behind the ribs. His deer expired within 20 yards.

 Mine went around a hundred yards bucking and humping while running. My ball slipped in under the rib cage from the rear and caught a good section of the offside lung.  While it was taking off like a greyhound blood was filling the body cavity and squirting out the entrance wound.  Ray Charles could have seen that blood trail.  In both deer the balls were found under the offside hide.  Both looked identical.  They looked like thick flattened nickels.  My friend has kill a bunch of deer with his 45 flintlock with .440 balls.  FWIW up close say around 30 yards the .440 balls exit and the deer dies quick.

Bob

Offline thelongrifle

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 113
Re: hunting, effectiveness vs velocity
« Reply #13 on: August 13, 2019, 03:35:28 AM »
I can't tell much difference between 70 and 90 grains of 3f in my 54. Both loads pass thru Tennessee deer at 50 yards. I usually use the 90 grain load as it shoots flatter in case of longer shots. I rarely shoot over 50 yards. I like exit wounds do easier tracking if they run.

Offline bob in the woods

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4555
Re: hunting, effectiveness vs velocity
« Reply #14 on: August 13, 2019, 05:13:27 AM »
I think I should have rephrased my question.  What I was thinking about was whether or not there is actually an optimum effective velocity for given ball size [ bore ] in terms of killing performance on deer. Overdoing the velocity doesn't get you a " deader" deer.  An example , dare I say it , is the .30 WCF or 30-30    It caught on because it had that combination that just seemed to perform beyond what you'd expect.  I'm sorry to mention a cartridge  :-[ , but as an example, in the ,54 cal I have a friend who shot deer with 55 gr of FFg and ended up losing some. With 80 gr that problem stopped. At 25 yards, I don't think 100 gr would be any more effective than the 80 ?   Hope this clarifies what I'm looking at.

Online rich pierce

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 19522
Re: hunting, effectiveness vs velocity
« Reply #15 on: August 13, 2019, 04:01:55 PM »
Nah it’s a perfect question. We all get to share our thoughts.

I think most deer that get away are poorly shot or pushed. I once nicked a jugular vein on a deer with a broad head. It was a 12 yard shot with only neck and head visible. We didn’t push it and it lay down twice and bled out within 80 yards. If we hadn’t waited, at the slow rate of bleeding that deer would have gone at least a quarter mile. And no, I would not take that shot again with a bow.

Certain loads require a near ideal shot placement. Heavier calibers and loads give a little more leeway but a really bad hit doesn’t work no matter what.

Andover, Vermont

Offline OldMtnMan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2648
  • Colorado
    • Finest Сasual Dating - Verified Women
Re: hunting, effectiveness vs velocity
« Reply #16 on: August 13, 2019, 04:07:52 PM »
We understood what you were asking. That's why we gave examples of what we use to get a pass through and were much less than what you use. I gave you an elk load that gave me a pass though and was still much less than what you use. I'd use way less for just hunting for deer.

Offline Daryl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15825
Re: hunting, effectiveness vs velocity
« Reply #17 on: August 13, 2019, 07:00:08 PM »
When shooting moose, there is a rule of thumb. Shoot, sit down right where you shot from, or back from there a ways and wait 1/2 hour. Walk up on his trail and find him laying dead within 50yards of where you shot it. Push him and it's amazing how far they can go with only one lung hit. If double lunged, usually less than 50yards down and dead. Moose are babies and want to lay down quickly if hurt. Give him time to stiffen up.
Push a single lung shot elk and you might not find him or get another shot. Elk can be very tough & run 500 or more yards if pushed.
Most lost animals are from poor hits - then pushed. I have never heard of a REAL double lung'd animal escaping. MI would about gaurantee "double lung'd" ungulates that are lost, were gut shot.
 Round balls make a poor entrance hole, most often a slit. The fat under the hide slips over the small cut and seals it. No blood.
If a pass-through(exit), there will be a blood trail.
Daryl

"a gun without hammers is like a spaniel without ears" King George V

Offline Daryl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15825
Re: hunting, effectiveness vs velocity
« Reply #18 on: August 13, 2019, 07:03:36 PM »
Higher velocity gives a much flatter trajectory. If hunting "in the West" where shots can be long & stalking is not easily accomplished,
the lowered trajectory helps. Having a point blank range of 130yards is quite handy at times. Yes, I know, some of you do not shoot
at animals over 50 or 60 yards. That's nice. :)
Daryl

"a gun without hammers is like a spaniel without ears" King George V

Offline OldMtnMan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2648
  • Colorado
    • Finest Сasual Dating - Verified Women
Re: hunting, effectiveness vs velocity
« Reply #19 on: August 13, 2019, 09:00:48 PM »
If you can't smell the elk. You're too far away.  :)

Offline bob in the woods

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4555
Re: hunting, effectiveness vs velocity
« Reply #20 on: August 14, 2019, 12:36:51 AM »
Hi Daryl ..thank you for the reply. I'm wondering if you or Taylor would  elaborate on performance re the moose taken with Taylor's brown bess ?  If I recall correctly, was that not a 100 gr FFg load ?     

Offline stikshooter

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 126
Re: hunting, effectiveness vs velocity
« Reply #21 on: August 14, 2019, 02:55:41 AM »
If you can't smell the elk. You're too far away.  :)
   OR maybe yer upwind  ::)

Offline Daryl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15825
Re: hunting, effectiveness vs velocity
« Reply #22 on: August 14, 2019, 04:16:04 AM »
Hi Daryl ..thank you for the reply. I'm wondering if you or Taylor would  elaborate on performance re the moose taken with Taylor's brown bess ?  If I recall correctly, was that not a 100 gr FFG load ?     

Yes it was, Bob. 100yards and 100gr. 2F GOEX, .715" ball and likely .020" patch,  Bess. The ball ended up under the hide on the far side. That moose walked 20 yards. Seems to me, it took just a few steps, stopped, then dropped.
I have that load listed in my 1970 Lyman BP Handbook.
Just checked - only one I had chronographed from his (Lyman, I think) .75cal. Bess was 80gr. 2F at 1,080fps, 200fps faster than Lyman got in their gun.
If that ratio held true, he was getting about 1,150 to 1,200fps with 100gr. 2F GOEX.
Daryl

"a gun without hammers is like a spaniel without ears" King George V

Offline hanshi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5335
  • My passion is longrifles!
    • martialartsusa.com
Re: hunting, effectiveness vs velocity
« Reply #23 on: August 14, 2019, 09:58:30 PM »
Just a few thoughts on what I've seen in the field.  Just an opinion, but I do think that as a rule of thumb, the smaller the ball the higher the velocity needed.  A large ball - a .600" ball from a smoothbore for instance - hits harder at relatively low velocity than a .45 prb.  I killed lots of deer with a .440" ball and 80 grains of 3F.  But I also killed deer efficiently with a .440" ball and 65 grains of 3F.  60 grains seems, to me, to be a good balance point.  I use 70 grains in the .50 and wouldn't increase that any for the .54. 

Unlike what is normally reported, the entrance wounds on deer (killed) have been larger than the exit wounds.  If there is any difference it is usually than both entrance and exit are about the same size.  The last deer I shot was a buck, probably less than 25 yards, with a quartering shot was taken with my .45 flintlock.  He staggered running away and I heard him crash in seconds.  The blood trail was gruesome with bushes/trees at waist height so soaked I had to be careful to avoid them.  The entrance wound was spectacular and there was no exit wound.  The flattened ball was just under the skin on the off side.  The only thing that comes to mind is that the ball flattens out and loses so much velocity that it barely has enough left to break through the hide, hence, the small exit slit.

There have been exceptions.  One buck shot with a .50 appeared to have "exploded" on exit.  Small blood trail but a huge amount of tissue had blasted out and stuck on a tree next to the exit.  Otherwise it's the same as the .45.  Pass throughs much past 60-70 yards had small entrance and exit wounds but distance traveled was never any farther.

Conclusions:  1. If you hear them when they crash, it's all over.  2. Pass through shots aren't necessarily required for good trailing.  3. You can push them and make it harder on yourself.  4. Deer are not difficult to kill.
!Jozai Senjo! "always present on the battlefield"
Young guys should hang out with old guys; old guys know stuff.

Offline Daryl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15825
Re: hunting, effectiveness vs velocity
« Reply #24 on: August 15, 2019, 08:57:45 AM »
Neither are moose, as long as you don't push them. Elk I've seen shot, were tough - all of them, except the ones I shot - just lucky, I guess.
Daryl

"a gun without hammers is like a spaniel without ears" King George V