45 and deer

[roundball]

Luie, the thought occurred to me that I may still have a few boxes of those T/C .45cal Maxi-Hunters left over in a sealed GI ammo box...probably $30-$40 worth...I'll double check tonight when I get home.
You can have them for free if you'll cover the shipping...send me a PT if you want them.

 

[tg]

"You can have them for free"

Now we know the true identity of the master Seth Lord...

I just like to see traditional stuff on a traditional based board, the rules have been severly bent here to accomadate a lot of the hybrid stuff ( the modern peep sights and adjustable open and modern comicals have been noted as being in this category by the moderators so lets not go into them being traditional and just accept then for what they are,exceptions to the rules here) many of us just keep advising sticking to the old gear, which generally does not include the modern tech versions of past concepts,which offere an advantage over the originals, which one might ask if they were so good why we do not use them now? having said that if a person does not have the confidence in traditional gear to take an animal then one most certainly should not use it. Use whatever one wants just show repect for the sport when classsifying it.....waiting for the obligitory steel barrel comment :shake:

 

[roundball]

TG, you obviously didn't read the post I've copied/quoted here again for your convenience.
A difference between us here is that I'm trying to help a young guy explore various aspects of muzzleloading...not cutting of my nose to spite my face.
:wink:

:grin: :grin:
Good lord, it sounds like people should just bury their heads in the sand and never try anything except what you guys want them to use...for crying out loud, the Lad simply said he might try a maxi-ball !

There's nothing wrong with trying different things...its how we learn...and the learning is the journey...and the journey is where the satisfaction comes from.
:thumbsup:

 

[paulvallandigham]

Luie: With Each new MLer, in different calibers, or different barrel lengths, YOU NEED TO GO BACK and do comparison PENETRATION TESTING to see just how effective a smaller or large caliber RB will be on game. You have some practical experience using a .50 caliber gun to take deer. NOW, use one of those loads, to compare to your best load in that new .45.

This is the ONLY way I know that you can learn about the capabilities- and limitations- of any given caliber and rifle.

I think you will be pleasantly surprised at just how well a .45 does in penetration tests, at various distances. I would not hesitate to take a Heart/lung shot at any sized deer out to 80-100 yds. My limitations would have to do with how clear a shot I might have, and the weather conditions, or time of day. MY ranges shorten considerably in overcast, or darkened conditions.

Back in 1968=69, I was a deer checker for Monroe County, Illinois, down below St. Louis, and saw several large bucks brought in that were shot with .45 cal. Muzzleloaders using PRBs. Ranges varied from 3 yds. out to 60 yds., but most were taken at well under 50 yds. I don't recall the weights of those bucks, nor how many points they had, but live weights were well over 200 lbs. Dressed weights were in the 180-200 lbs areas.

One had a dressed weight over 200 lbs. and drew the attention of every hunter around the check station, and from the two bars nearby. At that time, using any MLer was a rarity, and I listened to lots of those hunters express amazement that such a big deer could be taken with such a small "Caliber" rifle. I didn't know much of anything about MLing rifles at the time- and owned NO mlers. So, I just listened to both the questions, and the answers as I went about my work of collecting data for the Dept. of Conservation( Now, Dept. of Natural Resources.)It was years later when I got my first Mler, a .45, that I joined a couple of other club members at the range to do comparative penetration testing with my gun and theirs. Later, when I bought my .50, I set up my own penetration box, and tested that gun, comparing it to others.

My .45 had no problem penetrating 6 1" pine boards spaced 1" apart. That is 12 inches of air and wood! The biggest bucks I checked in did measure more than 9 inches across the ribs, behind the forelegs of the deer. A broadside shot would have easily penetrated both sides of the deer, leaving both and entrance and an exit hole. The exit hole would be over .60 caliber in diameter. My .50 RB penetrated 8 1" pine boards and 8 spaces = 16" and the flattened ball was close to .90 caliber.

So, do you own penetration tests to give yourself an education, and the confidence you need to use the new gun to take game. You will gain a lifetime worth of education doing so. :thumbsup:

 

[luieb45]

Good penetration test idea :hatsoff:. What distance did you shoot this row of boards from?

 

[tg]

I read your post the first time, I guess I just do not see using modern stuff as one of the aspects of traditional MLing but one of the things that has diminished its place in the hoby, but as I said for here traditional is not the total focus, so posts about some modern gear are legitimate, but those who agree and those who do not seem to be able to express their views if civil about it, a gentle reminder about some things does no harm, my responses were more tounge in cheek than anytjhing else as I have no dellusions that I will alter anyones perception of the traditional aspect of an item if they like the item and are convinced it is the same as what was used in the past if they need to call it traditional, and needed for their purposes, and I am well aware that some do this to experience the past and others to take more game and shoot a different type of gun with no concern for the accesories matching the guns time frame, I hope Luie finds that trophy buck and takes it if he has to use a Phaser pistol that loads the Dilithium crystals from the front. :wink:

 

[tg]

Luie B, I appologize if my poke in the ribs about the use of a modern conincal offended you, that was not my intention, around here if in Deer camp one will get some teasing if using modern bullets or sights, no true animosity exists,I usually make such little pushes in the traditional direction when the topic comes up,as I like to keep the clasifications real when possible so history does not get lost in a shuffle of terminology, by all means use whatever you are comforatble with everyone should do this out of respect for the animals we hunt, good luck with this years upcomming Deer season.

 

[paulvallandigham]

My friend Ray and I were interested in seeing the difference between a "target" load of 60 grains FFFg, vs. a "hunting load" of 100 grains FFFg. That hunting load was arbitrarily chosen, as I had not owned the gun long enough to be working up a good hunting load for it, yet. Several Club members were using those kinds of powder charges in their T/C and CVA guns at the time, so we decided to test that powder charge in my gun. Distance to my box was about 25 feet. Again, I
was not concerned about penetration at 25 feet! This was a comparison test to test light loads vs heavy loads and how those lead balls would behave in those boards, which was the only way I had to imitate bones.

Once you have a chosen "hunting Load", you can put it to test with a penetration test medium, at actual distances, to see what you get in the way of performance.

I, for, one am constantly amazed at the ability of a pure lead Round Ball to kill game at reasonable hunting ranges. I have compared expansion of lead balls, to lots of different lead bullets fire from suppository guns over my life, in all kinds of testing medium, as well as compared then all to expanding bullets with copper or aluminum jackets. The performance for both penetration and expansion of commercial bullets is fairly easy to know and verify. Its the performance of pure lead balls that have been falsely brought into question by people who insist on using standards of measurements designed to test performance of small caliber, high speed bullets. Ft. Lbs. of Energy- a worthwhile, altho not perfect, basis to measure (all) bullets-- has no place in understanding the performance of pure lead round balls on game.

It is understandable how people raised in a modern environment, and used to comparing ballistics using FPE, and Velocity to measure different calibers and bullets, will NOT understand that they are in a whole new world- No, you are not "in Kansas anymore, Dorothy"- when they begin to shoot MLers.

I have often thought about putting together a penetration box, made of plywood( 1/4" thick on the front and back) and then filled in between with styrofoam, and several layers mixed in- no more than 1" thick -- of magazines. These would represent the ribs, and tough vital organs that a ball or bullet would pass through with a Broadside shot at a deer. The styrofoam would be light enough to represent soft tissues- you could use wet newspapers in lieu of the magazines to achieve much the same results. What you are doing is making differential test material to give an overview of how a given projectile will perform going through Unknown tissues and bones when hunting game.

One of the things I learned from my pine boards box for comparative penetration testing is that some lead bullets will Keyhole as they slow down, even in hard mediums. The same thing happens when using Ballistic's Gel. My varied- materials test box using plywood and styrofoam would give a better idea of when and how this occurs inside an animals vital organs. The holes in the styrofoam can also be quickly filled in with any number of available styrofoam spray cans , where the styrofoam dries very quickly. :hmm:

 

[Zip]

Luie B I will tell you what an old buddy told me after going deerless for a few seasons, whens I asked him "round ball or conical?" He said "iffen we ain't gettin' nuthin' what's it matter what we don't shoot 'em with?" Then he spat on my boots and wiped his mouth on my coat sleeves. I've tried both. Until I can get a good RB group with my .50 Hawken, I'l experiment with conicals. Once I do find that RB load I'll probably put my connies away for safekeeping. I'm just sayin'.

 

[paulvallandigham]

Zip: The quickest way to work up any load with any PRB combination is by reading the spent patches- every one of them, as you are shooting. If you don't have it, buy Dutch Schoultz's Black Powder Rifle Accuracy system. He has a website, www.Blackpowderrifle accuracy system.com

If you are shooting a shallow rifling, fast twist short barreled rifle designed for shooting conical, you can still shoot accurately with any RB.

The secret is to use a tight fitting round ball( say a .495" ball in a .50 caliber rifle, with a tight patch- yes, tight enough to require a short starter to seat the patch and ball in the muzzle. The next thing is to reduce your powder charge to whatever the caliber of the barrel is, and then work up by 5 grain increments.

Don't use the substitute powders, as they burn at too high a temperature and are notorious for burning holes in the patch.

Use a good patch lube on the patch, and lube the patches at least 12 hours before you go shooting, to give the lube time to infiltrate the entire weave of the fabric uniformly.

Recognize that a shorter barrel will give you less velocity with either a RB or conical bullet load.

And realize that with any bullet, you need to protect the base of the bullet from being melted, and the sides of the bullet from being cut by hot gases. Using a base wad, lube, between the powder charge and the bullet will often reduce group sizes to a third of what your best group was without the base wad. The wad acts as both a gas seal, and a firewall.

Its important in working up any load for any gun to know exactly the bore diameter( land to land) to the thousandth of an inch, as well as your groove diameter(groove to groove). Groove depth will help you select the right thickness of patch fabric to use in that gun with any RB. :thumbsup:

 

[123.DieselBenz]

I have often thought about putting together a penetration box, made of plywood( 1/4" thick on the front and back) and then filled in between with styrofoam, and several layers mixed in- no more than 1" thick -- of magazines. These would represent the ribs, and tough vital organs that a ball or bullet would pass through with a Broadside shot at a deer. The styrofoam would be light enough to represent soft tissues- you could use wet newspapers in lieu of the magazines to achieve much the same results. What you are doing is making differential test material to give an overview of how a given projectile will perform going through Unknown tissues and bones when hunting game.

Think about using shredded rubber mulch found at a place like Home Depot or Lowes . . . I use it in my boolit trap, and catch, check, and recycle my lead . . . it moves some, slows down a RB from my .36 rifle in about 10" and RB from my Rem Replica (.451 RB) in about 8" . . .

 

[paulvallandigham]

I know some people who have heavy rubber pads they line their backstops with and use for penetration tests, but this is a very good use for that kind of non-degradable mulch that is sold in some garden centers.

I know its sold to put under playground equipment to provide a softer landing, but I have always winced about using anything that won't break down. I still have scars from falls off playground equipment and that was nearly 60 years ago. I earned them, and I have problems not giving today's kids the opportunity to earn their own! :blah: :surrender:

Using the stuff in a box sounds like a great idea!

Thank you for the tip. Paul :hatsoff: :thumbsup:

 

[Zip]

Paul,

Thanks for your advice on going about finding a good RB load.

 

[roundball]

Just a general comment...we all seem to go through a stage when we're getting started to try and build all sorts of penetration test boxes to simulate a deer, elk, etc. IMO, all the home made attempts might be interesting reasons to make smoke, but they really have no true science or correlation to what's actually encountered in a big game animal...just the different distances and angles alone that are encountered when shooting big game make real correlation meaningless.

Furthermore, I've seen references to building these contraptions with alternating pieces of 1x4's and 1" air spaces resulting in statements like "12 inches of air and wood"...as if that's some terrific measure of penetration testing.
But the air apaces are meaningless components of course...based on that logic you could have several feet of 1 foot air spaces and claim that the load penetrated "several feet of air"...but again, absolutely meaningless.

As to 1x4's, they're really not 1"...only 3/4"...and very soft wood at that, so instead of the contraption being a 12" test medium its really only 4-5 inches, and that kind of wood is so soft you can push a pencil into it...not much of a test medium, and immediately obvious when you actually perform hands on testing with those kinds of things.

Putting real life penetration questions in various hunting forums where a variety of individuals from all over can respond with caliber and powder charges based on years of actual hands on field experience is by far the best proven way to get a sense for reliability and effectiveness of penetration. What happens in a wet magazine at 25 yards is meaningless as it relates to what happens when a ball hits an elk's shoulder at 75yds.

Your mileage may vary of course...

 

[BrownBear]

Just a general comment...we all seem to go through a stage when we're getting started to try and build all sorts of penetration test boxes to simulate a deer, elk, etc. IMO, all the home made attempts might be interesting reasons to make smoke, but they really have no true science or correlation to what's actually encountered in a big game animal...just the different distances and angles alone that are encountered when shooting big game make real correlation meaningless.



Putting real life penetration questions in various hunting forums where a variety of individuals from all over can respond with caliber and powder charges based on years of actual hands on field experience is by far the best proven way to get a sense for reliability and effectiveness of penetration. What happens in a wet magazine at 25 yards is meaningless as it relates to what happens when a ball hits an elk's shoulder at 75yds.

Well said. I've had the good fortune over the last 40 years to use or be on hand for some pretty sophisticated attempts to duplicate animals with test mediums. And through all those years I've followed hundreds of wound channels through game of all sizes with calibers and bullets of all sorts. No sense in reciting the list because you have summed up the results in very few words.

Test mediums are great for testing and comparing the performance of various bullets in the same test medium. But claims that the test mediums come close to flesh are the purest balderdash. :bull:

 

[tg]

Good point, there are scores of examples available right here about the penetration and general effectiveness on real game with most any caliber and load one can imagine I would think, at the risk of sounding like a broken record the placement is the critical part, but common sense must come into play, as many have pointed out when trying to put down small cal. MLs for Deer. Many have been killed with the .22 rimfire but is is not the best choice for the job.

 

[roundball]

Well said. I've had the good fortune over the last 40 years to use or be on hand for some pretty sophisticated attempts to duplicate animals with test mediums. And through all those years I've followed hundreds of wound channels through game of all sizes with calibers and bullets of all sorts. No sense in reciting the list because you have summed up the results in very few words.

Test mediums are great for testing and comparing the performance of various bullets in the same test medium. But claims that the test mediums come close to flesh are the purest balderdash. :bull:

Good point, there are scores of examples available right here about the penetration and general effectiveness on real game with most any caliber and load one can imagine..."

Yet we continue to be bombarded on forums like these, with the never-ending, unsubstantiated, keyboard theories being spewed out with zero honest, actual, hands on experience to back it up. 100% keyboard theory, zero actual hunting experience.

I once heard an old saying that people were given two ears and only one mouth for a reason:
"Its more important to listen than to speak".....And that's particularly true when all one has is theory to speak.

 

[tg]

"I once heard an old saying that people were given two ears and only one mouth for a reason:"

yes, but in some case the shear volume of some single mouths can greatly overcome the intake capacity of any two ears

 

[Stumpkiller]

Furthermore, I've seen references to building these contraptions with alternating pieces of 1x4's and 1" air spaces resulting in statements like "12 inches of air and wood"...as if that's some terrific measure of penetration testing.
But the air apaces are meaningless components of course...based on that logic you could have several feet of 1 foot air spaces and claim that the load penetrated "several feet of air"...but again, absolutely meaningless.

If you ever watch Karate demonstrations when the big dog arrives and breaks a pile of boards there is always airspace between the individual boards. He'd break his hand doing three boards laid flat together but can do 12 with 1" between each layer. No idea if there is a correlation to splinter spalling with a ball's penetration but it seems likely.

 

[roundball]

And you just made the point that air space makes it even easier, which means such a contraption to test penetration is even less valid.

One thing serious hunters know from hands on experience vs. keyboard theory, is that there's no alternating air spaces between the point a lead ball enters a deer hide, plows through muscle, plows through the heart, plows through more muscle, and punches out through the hide on the far side.

That's penetration and a dead deer down in sight of the stand
:wink: