1-48" bullet choice for elk

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Thanks folks! I wonder how that hornady great plains would do a little slower - like 1200fps mv. It seems like a soft, somewhat frangible bullet, so maybe there'd be a little more shank showing at impacts under 1100fts? Less recoil too!
 
Herein lies the problem...speed of sound...As a bullet transitions through the speed of sound (1120fps plus or minus) it becomes unstable (remember Chuck Yeager's problems?) You can try to see if your accuracy is ok, but you might find that 1400fps or so would make it a 50 to 75 yard gun for you

That is why you see so many folks talk about great accuracy at 50 but scattergun at 100. Their bullet is transitioning below supersonic and with an inherently slower twist rate (less bullet slickness in the air) becoming unstable. Faster twist rates will do much better in transonic. So the slow twist common in muzzleloading guns and the slower velocity associated with our sport is a double whammy in that troublesome transonic zone. Also it isn't that the spin rate is decreasing...it just starts out slow...the rate of decrease in 100 yards is negleable.

Below is an article with Bryan Litz (the master of all things ballistic) explaining it.

https://www.accurateshooter.com/ballistics/transonic-effects-on-bullet-stability-bc/
 
Last edited:
@chorizo I'm having trouble with the transition to subsonic. At 1400 fps mv a typical 50 cal bullet in the mid 300 to 380 gr range should be ss out to even as far as 150 yards.

yds;"fps";"ft/lb";"PoI in";"dev. in"
0.0;"1400.0";"1610.12";"-0.7";"0.0"
10.0;"1379.2";"1562.63";"0.3";"0.0"
20.0;"1358.9";"1516.89";"1.0";"0.2"
30.0;"1339.0";"1472.80";"1.6";"0.3"
40.0;"1319.5";"1430.25";"2.0";"0.5"
50.0;"1300.4";"1389.15";"2.2";"0.8"
60.0;"1281.7";"1349.41";"2.2";"1.1"
70.0;"1263.3";"1310.97";"2.0";"1.5"
80.0;"1245.2";"1273.76";"1.6";"1.8"
90.0;"1228.5";"1239.83";"0.9";"2.4"
100.0;"1212.1";"1206.90";"0.0";"2.9"
110.0;"1196.3";"1175.64";"-1.1";"3.6"
120.0;"1181.0";"1145.88";"-2.5";"4.2"
130.0;"1166.3";"1117.47";"-4.1";"5.0"
140.0;"1152.0";"1090.27";"-6.0";"5.7"
150.0;"1138.2";"1064.19";"-8.1";"6.5"
 
I used a SWAG OF .215 FOR A 370 Gr maxi ball. That is probably overly optimistic. It's probably actually somewhere between. 195 and .215.

I got these charts using the data that you used.

Screenshot_20221119-104936_Exterior ballistics_copy_600x1267.jpg
Screenshot_20221119-104949_Exterior ballistics_copy_600x1267.jpg
 
Close enough for gov work. I think the discrepancy is the use of "ogive" for the bullet....saying they are ogive is a stretch...lots of frontal area (meplat) , but by definition they are ogive...just not as efficient of an ogive as a regular bullet Might want to bump up your MV to 1500, to give you that "150 yard" gun before subsonic Transonic starts some 50 fps before sub...more or less, so you should look at something giving you 1170/1150 depending on altitude.

I am happy with a 125 yard gun so it simplifies things...but I also am using a fast twist...1:32 for my 50 and 1:38 for 54.

I do have two other guns with 1:48 for each caliber and they are accurate guns, just not as.

By staying above the threshold of transonic, you will avoid the burbles that affect accuracy
 
This is so interesting - thanks for all of the knowledge shared. So if a guy is ok with a 100 yard gun (which i am), what about starting at the speed of sound and having 950ish fps remaining at 100 yards? How would this affect accuracy, and would a bullet still be stable in game after contact? Because muzzleloaders don't get a lot of hydrostatic shock in most loads, maybe this lower velocity would maximize the penetration potential of soft lead conicals since they'd deform less, but still have the mass to carry through game. What are your thoughts on this?
 
That works. Avoid the transonic and you are ok. I shoot subsonic all the time in a couple of my unmentionables with silencers. Your real limiting factor is distance to shoot.

Google 300 black out sub sonic for hogs and you will see what I mean They typically limit the distance to 150 yards
 
Last edited:
Close enough for gov work. I think the discrepancy is the use of "ogive" for the bullet....saying they are ogive is a stretch...lots of frontal area (meplat) , but by definition they are ogive...just not as efficient of an ogive as a regular bullet Might want to bump up your MV to 1500, to give you that "150 yard" gun

The term "ogive" you see in the table has nothing to do with the bullet shape. The ballistics program is written in Spanish and has an English translated version. Some terms are left un translated and this is one. The literal translation is "warhead". Or IOW the bullet without regard for its shape.

Here is where you describe your "warhead". 😀

Screenshot_20221119-193622_Exterior ballistics_copy_600x1267.jpg


I m not big on conicals but like Little Big Man, my personal ml history can be broken down into periods. My Conical Period took place in the mId '70's. It involved quite a bit of experimenting. In the '90's i acquired a chronograph and revisited some of those Conical loads as well as some new ones. In my 28" barrel, 1400 fps was never achieved. I found that the loads i was using back then ran from high 1100s to around 1290.

My suggestion to anyone developing a conical load is to find an accurate load in the 70 to 100 grain range. Test your accuracy out to the distance that would be your limit. If the are adequate accuracy wise then hunt without concern for sonic or subsonic transitions.
 
I chron mine and with t7 I can get 1700 with light bullets (375 gr) in 54cal. I believe that when the bullet hits subsonic that is where you get wide variations in accuracy especially with slow spins on ml bullets and why many folks have supper accurate guns at 50 and can't hit a barn door at 100. Ogive is the curved bullet shape at the front of the bullet an was on old French word adopted into old English and is used in mathematical discussions to mean/describe diagonal curve. I am fluent in Spanish...I believe that the designer of your calculator simply used the term to show that a pointed bullet shape was the default in his calculations. An example of a non-ogive bullet is a wadcutter. Typically the "pointier" the bullet (the longer the ogive...called a secant ogive) the more accurate the bullet in supersonic/transonic flight as there is less pressure impact to the bullet. Part of the same reason you see very pointy noses on supersonic jets and many rockets.

Spin is a factor too...you typically see faster twist rates on heavier bullets in the same caliber because of the longer bullet. For example, a 200 gr bullet calls for a 1:10 where a 125 gr calls for a 1:12 in 30 cal. and why the faster spin rates typically shoot conical bullets more accurately.

Of course, the above isn't the only consideration for bullet selection on hunting, rather one of the inputs as is expansive characteristics and penetration, but for our discussion I am sticking to bullet shape and MV

I think you will find this little blurb on ogives interesting....especially the part where he talks about the "windshield" on the 16" battleship round to make it aerodynamically friendly.

https://www.mathscinotes.com/2011/01/ogives-and-battleships/
This blurb talks about bullet shapes

https://www.mathscinotes.com/2011/01/ballistics-ogives-and-bullet-shapes-part-1/
My experience in ballistics comes from being a long time long range shooter with modern firearms and as silencer subsonic shooter. Bullet instability at the transonic velocity is a very noticeable and quantifiable phenomenon. One of the reasons sniper rifles went with secant ogive, higher velocity rounds, heavier weight for caliber bullets is for energy retention and to lessen the impact of air pressure is to push out the entry to transonic, thereby extending effective range.

There is NOTHING secant about the conicals we use, for sure ...hahahah

Now all of the above is a real pretty speech not to mean anything if you don't go out and shoot your particular gun with your bullet and powder load and ACTUALLY see what it does.

I have found that, at least in my guns, that the entry into transonic/subsonic reliably predicts a commensurate drop in accuracy, enough so that I will use that at my max range in shooting my slower moving bullets...for example, in my 58 cal Buffalo Hunter. The blunt, fat bullet and slow spin with slow MV...starting at 1250 fps.... starts to become erratic at 90 to 100 yards.

Last of all, a link to a discussion of transonic entry and impacts to accuracy:
https://thearmsguide.com/5348/long-range-shooting-external-ballistics-transonic-region/
@Speedgoat44 Look at the hornet's nest you kicked!
@longcruise Thanks for the great input and learned discussion. ¡Salud!
 
Last edited:
.I believe that the designer of your calculator simply used the term to show that a pointed bullet shape was the default in his calculations.
Nah, you are overthinking the designers intentions. The BC runs the calcs. Take the same exact inputs I used and put them into Hornady, Point Blank, Strelok, etc., and you will see the same outputs. Probably not absolutely identical but the same.
 
Could be...like your quote says.

But whatever his intentions, ogive is used to describe a shape and is used in external ballistics to describe a bullet shape...ie pointed and tangent and secant are used to describe the type of ogive.
 
Last edited:
Could be...like your quote says.

But whatever his intentions, ogive is used to describe a shape and is used in external ballistics to describe a bullet shape...ie pointed and tangent and secant are used to describe the type of ogive.
I'm well aware of the meaning of the word ogive, but the actuality is that neither the word or the concept is applied to the calculations of the app.
 
I am a big fan of a headshot. No meat messed up, also makes for easy tracking. If ya miss at least you only have to clean one thing.
 
I was looking at some ballistic tables in my speer #11 - starting at 1100fps ends up only a little more than 150 fps slower than a 1400fps mzzle velocity at 100 yards. To my aging brain, the performance at 100 would be the same, or better from the slower load. Those pure lead slugs are pretty squishy and flatten out a lot from the limited tests I've researched online. I think even maxi balls and great plains bullets would perform well at these slightly diminished velocities. I guess the main issue would be if there will be enough rpms generated with a 1-48" to stabilize the conicals used. I'd like to play around with the No Excuses 420 grain, but, again, I'm a little concerned that the bullet will tumble in game if it's barely stabilized. Maybe a water jug test would indicate something if this were a problem? Is there a sticky for BCs for muzzleloading conicals?
 
I don't know of any BC charts for conicals....I had to search far and wide for the two I got. I don't believe a water jug test tells you much, especially about tumbling. I don't think it will...but that is based upon a vague idea based upon experience with no empirical data to support that opinion. Gel test would provide a better result.

Why not shoot your gun at 1400fps, see what the accuracy is at 100 yards and go hunting with it. The results in your game will tell you. I suspect it will be fine. The use of transonic as the max effective range is a guideline, not a hard and fast rule and only shooting your load combination will tell you the real truth in the matter.

This discussion devolved into a very theoretical rambling and while very interesting, after doing all of the study and coming up with numbers I ALWAYS go shoot to confirm. Most of the time it is close, but close is the key word. Only holes in paper and wounds analysis will give you the answers.
 
I don't know of any BC charts for conicals....I had to search far and wide for the two I got. I don't believe a water jug test tells you much, especially about tumbling. I don't think it will...but that is based upon a vague idea based upon experience with no empirical data to support that opinion. Gel test would provide a better result.

Why not shoot your gun at 1400fps, see what the accuracy is at 100 yards and go hunting with it. The results in your game will tell you. I suspect it will be fine. The use of transonic as the max effective range is a guideline, not a hard and fast rule and only shooting your load combination will tell you the real truth in the matter.

This discussion devolved into a very theoretical rambling and while very interesting, after doing all of the study and coming up with numbers I ALWAYS go shoot to confirm. Most of the time it is close, but close is the key word. Only holes in paper and wounds analysis will give you the answers.
From what I've learned here, starting at 1400 and 1100 yields the same terminal point blank range - one from a velocity standpoint and the other from an accuracy standpoint. There'd be no advantage to higher velocity unless it went way higher, which is not desirable and probably not possible with my set up and the more traditional powders I'm using. In theory at least. You're right - the proof will be in the paper punching. My Investarms 50 cal is pretty light, so lower recoil would be nice.

On the BC, the Hornady 385grain is .148 as per their website. So I'd guess heavier bullets would be similar or slightly higher in their BC.
There's a dude that has a youtube channel called "I love muzzleloading" who tested a number of projectiles out of a modern gun - I was actually impressed with the TC maxi hunter 275 grain at an impact velocity of around 1300 fps (1800fps MV). It flattened out like a pancake but only lost about 1 grain of weight. This same bullet launched at lower velocity would probably flatten out less and due to less frontal diameter would penetrate more. I'd love to see that same test starting it at 1100 ish. The low velocity principal is why the 30/40 frag was a good elk gun 100 yrs ago - slow 220 grain roundnose penetrated a long ways. That bullet at 1900 fps behaves differently than at 2600 fps where it loses a bunch of weight at impact.
 
@Speedgoat44 And that is exactly what you should do...what works for you, is effective and accurate. I prefer the higher velocities, as long as it is accurate, because I will shoot out to 125 yards.

Also to factor in is retained energy. A good guideline for elk is 1200 ftlbs of energy minimum upon impact. The 54 cal 375 gr deerslayer bullet starting at 1520 fps has a retained energy of 1220 ftlbs at 125 yards. It will break bones and still penetrate to the far side.

https://chuckhawks.com/elk_cartridges.htm
I don't think that the lighter bullets starting out at 1100fps will have that at 100 yards, but I haven't run those numbers. BTW: could you provide me a link to the BC of the hornady GP hp-hb bullet. The number you cited isn't what I am using (I am likely wrong). I am using .195

I only use my 50 cal when hunting deer, so I don't need as much energy. So I start out with 80 grs T7, Hornady GP HP-HB and that give me 1420 fps and a relatively flat shooting round out to 125 yards, less recoil and plenty of energy to kill a deer.
 
Last edited:
@longcruise I forgot to mention......love the Little Big Man reference. One of my 3 favorite movies.

As Grandfather said about magic (and ballistics would fit that) "Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't"
 
Back
Top