Author Topic: Caliber question  (Read 7133 times)

Offline Pukka Bundook

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3465
Re: Caliber question
« Reply #25 on: December 31, 2019, 07:30:26 AM »
As we know, the rifle musket will shoot well and do damage at long range, but as said above, hunting is different and we need to use ethics.
The old Whitworth .450" can  keep it's shots in 15" at 1,000 yards, but I wouldn't push it past 200 yards if hunting.

Offline varsity07840

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 310
Re: Caliber question
« Reply #26 on: December 31, 2019, 05:00:27 PM »
I hate to mention it here but a rifled musket with a minie ball was designed to kill at long range.
True enough, but given the tactics of the day, there wasn't many one on one confrontations or aiming at one particular man. Volley fire was still the norm. Plus, in my opinion, a man who is shot reacts differently than an animal does. A man who's hit knows it and stays down. When an elk is hit and not put down, instinct takes over and it usually runs until it drops or lies down exhausted.

Offline Bob Roller

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9687
Re: Caliber question
« Reply #27 on: December 31, 2019, 05:09:18 PM »
The .450-451 Whitworth types with decent sights are capable of duplicating the
legendary "Sharps Buffalo Guns" and other  single shot breech loaders of that time.
The buffalo/Bison was nearly blasted to extinction by this type of rifle.Years ago I
read an article I think was written by Col.Charles Askins titled Good hunters don't ;D ;D
make long shots. He preferred to be close enough so that he had to step back to
get the rifle to his shoulder.IF a muzzle loading 45 bullet gun is used,test it to see
if the bullet will migrate a few inches or MORE if the gun is carried muzzle down.
I have read of extreme shots with these long range guns but I tend to think the
distances were "Hunters Yards" of 18 inches each ;D.

Bob Roller
« Last Edit: December 31, 2019, 11:24:00 PM by Bob Roller »

Offline Daryl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15825
Re: Caliber question
« Reply #28 on: December 31, 2019, 09:44:15 PM »
You will require a very large bore rifle.  Balls slow down very fast and loose the energy needed to get the job done.  Trajectory will be rainbow.  You will need a laser range finder.  It will be impossible to judge range accurately enough by eye, in the field.  You will need an excellent adjustable peep sight. 

https://www.ctmuzzleloaders.com/ctml_experiments/rbballistics/web_apps/rb_ballistics.html

A 75 caliber ball starting at 1450 fps and zeroed at 50 yards, will be 836 fps, 982 FP, and dropped 53" at 200 yards. 

Or....just get closer.

Exactly, which is why a laser range finder was mentioned, as well as express sights regulated for longer range shooting.
Daryl

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

Offline Bob Roller

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9687
Re: Caliber question
« Reply #29 on: December 31, 2019, 11:31:18 PM »
Tests done at Friendship in the late 1960's by Tom Dawson and by myself here in WV
showed a 13"drop in a 54 caliber round ball with 150 grains of DuPont 3fg.That round ball
is the same weight as a modern 44 or 45 caliber pistol bullet and it will shed velocity quickly.
Throw a golf ball and then one of the same size of tightly compacted aluminum foil and the
answer is,"Round balls are not long range projectiles and simple luck will not guarantee a
kill shot on any game animal."Col.Askins was right,get close and powder burn the critter.

Bob Roller

Offline alacran

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2258
Re: Caliber question
« Reply #30 on: January 01, 2020, 05:01:30 PM »
The biggest problem with shooting past 100 yards with round ball and any kind of sights, is not knowing how much the ball drops at say 200 yards.
 The problem is knowing how much the ball drops at 10 yard increments past 100 yards. Laser range finder will tell you how far you are, but will not tell you how much the ball drops at any given distance.
A man's rights rest in three boxes: the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.  Frederick Douglass

Offline Daryl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15825
Re: Caliber question
« Reply #31 on: January 01, 2020, 10:02:48 PM »
You have to shoot it at those ranges - every 40 to 60 yards will tell you want you need to know.
The 53" drop figure was not actually correct as to what a person would see, as it did not use a
 zero'd range at a starting point, but simply the actual drop from the muzzle.
With express sights, the bottom of the valley is the zero'd range, while holding level with the 'wings'
 gives another 25 to 50 yards, depending on the calibre and load.
They are easy to use - BUT - you have to actually go out and practice. Someone who doesn't shoot
much past 25 or 50 yards who thinks of shooting 200yards- why that's simply out of the question.
For someone who actually shoots at the longer ranges, indeed, to 300yards WITH A ROUND BALL GUN,
200yards is not outrageous. I likely wouldn't do it, BUT- could if I needed to make meat.
That was the initial question by the OP, however to ask such a question, perhaps shows that person
shouldn't do it- without the appropriate bore, ball weight and charge & practice.
From a 100yard zero, with a velocity of 1,500fps, the actual chart I have, shows 29" drop at 200yards,
from a 100yard zero.
I also have 150 yard leaf sight - from there, it's a 15.6" drop.
I also have a 200yard leaf, so zero'd at 200yards.
Even with the 100yard leaf, holding 1/2 the elk's body height above the elk, would give a centre hit.
Like I said, one must practice.
Daryl

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

Offline flinchrocket

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1750
Re: Caliber question
« Reply #32 on: January 01, 2020, 10:36:06 PM »
I think the initial question  is what caliber would be best for elk at 200 yds. Is 54 big enough. My choice would be 58,but I would hesitate to take a shot more than 100 yds regardless.

Offline Bob McBride

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2840
  • TENNESSEE
    • Black Powder TV
Re: Caliber question
« Reply #33 on: January 02, 2020, 05:11:32 AM »
I’d go .58 as well but as said above, if you expect that shot you should train for it. Hundreds of shot at that distance is what you would need. Like my old Sarge would say, “If you can make the shot, take the shot”.

Offline flinchrocket

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1750
Re: Caliber question
« Reply #34 on: January 02, 2020, 05:40:21 AM »
Personally, I'm not thinking in terms of being able to hit my mark, I'm thinking will that ball retain enough energy to do its job at 200 yds.

Offline Daryl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15825
Re: Caliber question
« Reply #35 on: January 04, 2020, 03:57:59 AM »
I personally watched a fellow shoot a large bull moose at a lasered range of 170yards, with a TC .54 calibre Renegade.
His load was 100gr. of Pyrodex RS with the patched .535" Hornady (or Speer) commercially swaged round ball.
His initial velocity would have been roughly 1,600 t0 1,700fps- lets say 1,700 fps. The impact velocity would have been
approximately 762fps according to Lyman's book, & developing 297ft. pounds energy. That certainly sounds a little weak.

The ball went through the 1/4" thick hide, then between 2 ribs on the impact side, though the first lung and centred the heart,
 then the second lung, went through the 3/8" thick rib on the off side, and stopped against the hide. The moose took off like a
horse out of the starting gate and dropped dead mid-stride after traversing exactly 40 yards.  An elk would have done the same. 
Would I use a .54 for shooting moose at 170yards - no - but I could & possibly would use my .69 for that same shot.
You see, energy does not kill big game, penetration through the vital organs does. I know for a fact, that the 480gr. round ball
from my .69 would certainly give sufficient penetration, even if it hit the leg bone, something the lighter .54 or .58 is unlikely to do.
Daryl

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

Offline flinchrocket

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1750
Re: Caliber question
« Reply #36 on: January 04, 2020, 08:04:23 AM »
300 lbs. sounds like it would be as effective as a fly swatter,especially on a moose.

Offline alacran

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2258
Re: Caliber question
« Reply #37 on: January 04, 2020, 02:02:18 PM »
300 lbs of energy traveling at 762 feet per second, focused on an area that' that is only .54 inch in diameter is really a lot.
A man's rights rest in three boxes: the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.  Frederick Douglass

Offline Daryl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15825
Re: Caliber question
« Reply #38 on: January 04, 2020, 09:45:30 PM »
This supposed foot pounds of energy, which is a # meaning the ability to do work,  does not kill.  Making holes through the vital organs, does.

297 foot pounds of energy, means lifting a 297 pound object, 1 foot. There is no way possible that round ball would lift or move 297 pounds, 1 foot.  Nor
would my .69 literally at the muzzle, lift 2,489 pounds one foot, let along at 50, 100 or 200yards. However, both will kill a moose at 170 or 200yards,
if they hit right - that's the stickler.
Daryl

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

Offline alacran

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2258
Re: Caliber question
« Reply #39 on: January 05, 2020, 03:40:30 PM »
You are right Daryl using kinetic energy for determining what a round ball can do is misleading.
A man's rights rest in three boxes: the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.  Frederick Douglass

Offline MuskratMike

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2260
Re: Caliber question
« Reply #40 on: January 05, 2020, 08:13:13 PM »
The original topic elk rifle for 200 yard shots. I repeat myself just don't do it.
"Muskrat" Mike McGuire
Keep your eyes on the skyline, your flint sharp and powder dry.

Offline WadePatton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5303
  • Tennessee
Re: Caliber question
« Reply #41 on: January 05, 2020, 08:23:16 PM »
You are right Daryl using kinetic energy for determining what a round ball can do is misleading.

Is REALLY misleading according to ALL I've read on here in 10 or 12 years.  But folks still do it. 

« Last Edit: January 05, 2020, 08:26:54 PM by WadePatton »
Hold to the Wind

Offline MuskratMike

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2260
Re: Caliber question
« Reply #42 on: January 05, 2020, 10:32:43 PM »
Well Wade: at least you and I know better probably Hanshi to.
"Muskrat" Mike McGuire
Keep your eyes on the skyline, your flint sharp and powder dry.

Offline Daniel Coats

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1401
Re: Caliber question
« Reply #43 on: January 05, 2020, 11:38:51 PM »
I shot a mule deer buck across a canyon back when I was young, dumb, and had perfect eye sight. That .58 caliber minnie hit him in the chest and just pushed him over onto his back stone dead. Distance was probably every bit of 200 yards which I would never try again since I'm now older, smarter, and can't even see the front sight without corrected vision.

Everyone knows it's where you hit them that counts. I made a one shot kill on a moose with a .54 caliber round ball powered by 80 grains of ffg. When asked why on earth would I use such a small caliber and powder charge on an animal as big as a moose I said, "because I could shoot the back end out of a coffee cup at 100 yards with that gun and load that's why!"

Don't get me wrong I love the big bore guns but with 50 years of hunting with various types the .54 seems to be the best combination of power and reasonable trajectory. At least in my experience.

Dan
Dan

"Ain't no nipples on a man's rifle"

Offline Dphariss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9920
  • Kill a Commie for your Mommy
Re: Caliber question
« Reply #44 on: January 07, 2020, 10:09:20 PM »
I need to build a rifle for fairly long range Elk hunting. Up to 200 yards.  Would a .54 be big enough or should I go bigger?

Cory Joe Stewart

You need to rethink why you need a 200 yard shot. Have shot a RB rifle much at this distance? If I were you and this distance was the problem I would use my 15 bore rifle with a 16 gauge ball at 1600 with 140 gr of FF Swiss. If you are building one build a 69 and use 120-160 gr of FF. Charges heavier than this are counter productive.  This will give all the power needed. Just learn the trajectory. In a now wind condition the rifle should hit a paper plate every shot at 200.  The wind is the other issue. Even a minor breeze can give a RB a LOT of drift at 200. Enough for a complete miss or worse. So I prefer to get close. If this is not an option I don't use a ML.
Dan

Edit. In a NO wind condition...
« Last Edit: January 08, 2020, 03:23:15 AM by Dphariss »
He who dares not offend cannot be honest. Thomas Paine

Offline hanshi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5335
  • My passion is longrifles!
    • martialartsusa.com
Re: Caliber question
« Reply #45 on: January 07, 2020, 11:26:38 PM »
With lousy eyesight dogging me these days I doubt I could tell a buck from a doe at 200 yards and certainly wouldn't be able to tell which way it would be facing.  In a WV hunt a few years ago I could not see, at all, several deer in a pasture at 400 yds distance.  My companion could at least see them!  But with a superb military binocular it was easy to tell one was a huge buck.  Living in the east long shots are a rare exception; 30 to 40 yards is usually the max.  I have killed a couple at a bit over 100 yards with .50 prb but that was in a large hay field.  There is a difference between a shooter and a hunter; also between these two and a subsistence hunter.

I agree with my like-minded brothers that energy (foot pounds) is a nonissue.  What matters is the internal damage done as a result of penetration.  Take a knife - or not.  A fine, honed blade through the wishbone can be quickly fatal; and the energy transmitted would be only a fraction more than nothing.  The catch is that the ball, or knife, must be placed in the right area to be quickly lethal.  I am not a 200 yd open sight shooter of game, no way, no how.
!Jozai Senjo! "always present on the battlefield"
Young guys should hang out with old guys; old guys know stuff.

Offline Dphariss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9920
  • Kill a Commie for your Mommy
Re: Caliber question
« Reply #46 on: January 08, 2020, 07:06:13 AM »
I personally watched a fellow shoot a large bull moose at a lasered range of 170yards, with a TC .54 calibre Renegade.
His load was 100gr. of Pyrodex RS with the patched .535" Hornady (or Speer) commercially swaged round ball.
His initial velocity would have been roughly 1,600 t0 1,700fps- lets say 1,700 fps. The impact velocity would have been
approximately 762fps according to Lyman's book, & developing 297ft. pounds energy. That certainly sounds a little weak.

The ball went through the 1/4" thick hide, then between 2 ribs on the impact side, though the first lung and centred the heart,
 then the second lung, went through the 3/8" thick rib on the off side, and stopped against the hide. The moose took off like a
horse out of the starting gate and dropped dead mid-stride after traversing exactly 40 yards.  An elk would have done the same. 
Would I use a .54 for shooting moose at 170yards - no - but I could & possibly would use my .69 for that same shot.
You see, energy does not kill big game, penetration through the vital organs does. I know for a fact, that the 480gr. round ball
from my .69 would certainly give sufficient penetration, even if it hit the leg bone, something the lighter .54 or .58 is unlikely to do.
Daryl makes a couple of critical points here.  I will expand a little. Elk have some pretty substantial, very hard bones in the chest area. The humerus actually is in the way of a bullet to the heart if the animal is standing right, front leg a little to the rear. It can greatly reduce the penetration of a soft round ball especially. This I know from personal experience. On an Elk at 75-100 yards with a 54 and a deer at 25 or so with a 54 pistol. Both animals were one shot kills but the overall penetration was reduced. On the elk the ball did not even exit the chest cavity but took out the large artery just above the heart. Elk made it about 50 yards after being down for 15  seconds or so.  At 200 yards such a shot may result in the ball not getting where its intended.  Given my experiences over many years and lot of deer and elk class critters killed by myself and hunting companions, I would not shoot at an unwounded elk at 200 yards with a muzzle loader.  50 and 54 caliber RBs with proper shot placement will kill large animals at pretty amazing distances. But what people may have done in the distant past is not something todays hunters need to do. As the distance increases the sighting errors and wind can make accurate placement near impossible at 200 yards. I have tested a 54 RB rifle with a tang sight installed. In the early summer morning calm the rifle would shoot 5 shot into 6-8" at 200 yards. However, even the slightest breeze would result in wild misses.  I once had an undetected wind in a "coolee" (a steep sided, deep dry water course easterners might call it a "draw" or "wash") along the Yellowstone blow a 50 caliber RB at 100-120 yards a foot off the deers rear, see was facing into the wind on the far side of the coolee. I had no indication it was blowing at all.  But in the 50 yard wide  "draw" it was running pretty hard. The ball moved something like 4 ft from point of aim.
My 16 bore rifle (437 gr ball) is far more powerful than a 54 or 58 and its really hard at 180 yards or so. Breaking 3-4" think limestone. But 200 is still iffy for the reasons stated.
He who dares not offend cannot be honest. Thomas Paine

Offline Dphariss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9920
  • Kill a Commie for your Mommy
Re: Caliber question
« Reply #47 on: January 27, 2020, 08:41:01 AM »
I hate to mention it here but a rifled musket with a minie ball was designed to kill at long range.
But its hard to get it on the target at any distance due to the velocities obtainable and it has a poor record for tracking straight after hitting flesh.
TO get the velocity up the pressure will go up and a thick skirted minie must be used to prevent blowing the skirt. Then of course they tend to move off the powder charge.

There was good reason why these never caught on with civilians.

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

Offline OldMtnMan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2648
  • Colorado
    • Finest Сasual Dating - Verified Women
Re: Caliber question
« Reply #48 on: January 29, 2020, 06:08:59 PM »
I find it much more fun to sneak in close than take long shots.

Sneaking close is hunting.

Long shots are shooting.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2020, 08:45:34 PM by OldMtnMan »

Offline longcruise

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1839
  • Arvada, Colorado
Re: Caliber question
« Reply #49 on: January 29, 2020, 08:19:06 PM »
I find it much more fun to sneak in close than take long shots.

Sneaking close it hunting.

Long shots are shooting.

Yup.
Mike Lee