-
Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.
We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.
Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103
45 cal and hunting
- Thread starter petew
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
Wow that's rather insulting, and completely uncalled for.
Perhaps it's you who should re-read the posting, as I limited it to bullet weight and range in the original loadings.
The 30 WCF was first loaded with a "metal patched" bullet of 160 grains, and was quickly followed with a "metal patched" bullet of 170 grains, and from a 20" model 1894 an average velocity of under 2000 fps. Later when using jacketed bullets, normally the MV exceeded 2000 fps. Please don't confuse jacketed bullet with a metal patched bullet, as they are not the same nor do they perform the same.
Now, a .490 patched round ball of 175 grains fired with 90 grains of 2Fg produces 1950 fps MV, and with 100 grains of 2Fg produces 2052 fps MV. Hence, the 30 WCF launching a 170 grain bullet produces a MV of 2000 fps, and the .490 round ball of 175 grains may also be loaded to a MV of 2000 fps. So when considering bullet weight and range limitations only...(range limits are determined by muzzle velocity as the first factor -but not the only factor- ) the two are very similar. The comparison as I put it, stands, for the range limitations that the students understand are not correct when considering their modern rifles... keep reading and you will see why.
The .35 Remington launching it's most common and original load of a 200 grain bullet averages also at under 2000 fps MV when fired from its original rifle, the recoil operated Remington Model 8, which bleeds some of the energy into cycling the action. In a lever action rifle, the .35 Remington with that projectile averages 2000 fps MV. Now the 230 grain .530 patched round ball (though just a tad heavier) may be loaded to almost the same speed. Again they are similar in bullet weight and based on MV.
As I wrote, "There are, of course, many many more variables in what actually happens, but since the majority of hunters don't actually ever consider those variables, I need to start [emphasis added] somewhere with the novices.
It is true, most "hunters" and hunting students enter a class, without consideration of more than bullet weight and range. How far can they shoot, can it hit where it's pointed , and when it hits will it take down the deer... is all they think they need to know.
They have heard their fathers and/or grandfathers swear by the old .30-30 and the .35 Remington as a good deer getting "gun" out to 200 yards, BUT are best at 100 yards or less. They have also been often and ignorantly told that the patched round ball will not do the job at all. So in my simplistic equating of what they know (the weight of the bullet and the cartridge within which it is loaded, a la a 170 grain .30-30 and a 200 grain .35 Remington) compared to what I can show them with a round ball (at their "taught" range limit of 100 yards), they then begin to realize that black powder isn't as anemic as they have previously been taught.
As I also wrote, that's where I start. Start.
Round ball isn't the same ballistic coefficient, nor composition, as a modern, jacketed bullet. Yes, I fully understand that at 100 yards the two modern cartridges are different in velocity from the patched round ball, thus energy on impact plus terminal ballistics based on the body of the bullet are also different. I never implied in my post that I taught anything different than that, nor did I imply that I left the comparison at that simplistic level. That appears to be your assumption, and is not consistent with the full text of my post.
When teaching you first must gain the student's attetion, then break away any previously incorrect learning, before you can instruct correct information. Hunter education classes are 9 hours long, and that in no way is sufficient time to give justice to the proper use of modern rifle bullets, let along optimal use of the round and the rifle from which it is fired..., the class covers much more than modern rifle shooting in that limited time. What my comparison does, quite successfully, is to thwart the myth that the round ball will not work, and then from their I can delve into modern bullets vs. round ball, conicals, and sabots. I hopefully open their eyes to paying attention to the bullets they use in every instance, instead of the Walmart philosophy of "let me have a box of what ever is cheapest in [fill in modern cartridge name here]"
Here endeth your lesson.
:wink:
LD
Perhaps it's you who should re-read the posting, as I limited it to bullet weight and range in the original loadings.
The 30 WCF was first loaded with a "metal patched" bullet of 160 grains, and was quickly followed with a "metal patched" bullet of 170 grains, and from a 20" model 1894 an average velocity of under 2000 fps. Later when using jacketed bullets, normally the MV exceeded 2000 fps. Please don't confuse jacketed bullet with a metal patched bullet, as they are not the same nor do they perform the same.
Now, a .490 patched round ball of 175 grains fired with 90 grains of 2Fg produces 1950 fps MV, and with 100 grains of 2Fg produces 2052 fps MV. Hence, the 30 WCF launching a 170 grain bullet produces a MV of 2000 fps, and the .490 round ball of 175 grains may also be loaded to a MV of 2000 fps. So when considering bullet weight and range limitations only...(range limits are determined by muzzle velocity as the first factor -but not the only factor- ) the two are very similar. The comparison as I put it, stands, for the range limitations that the students understand are not correct when considering their modern rifles... keep reading and you will see why.
The .35 Remington launching it's most common and original load of a 200 grain bullet averages also at under 2000 fps MV when fired from its original rifle, the recoil operated Remington Model 8, which bleeds some of the energy into cycling the action. In a lever action rifle, the .35 Remington with that projectile averages 2000 fps MV. Now the 230 grain .530 patched round ball (though just a tad heavier) may be loaded to almost the same speed. Again they are similar in bullet weight and based on MV.
As I wrote, "There are, of course, many many more variables in what actually happens, but since the majority of hunters don't actually ever consider those variables, I need to start [emphasis added] somewhere with the novices.
It is true, most "hunters" and hunting students enter a class, without consideration of more than bullet weight and range. How far can they shoot, can it hit where it's pointed , and when it hits will it take down the deer... is all they think they need to know.
They have heard their fathers and/or grandfathers swear by the old .30-30 and the .35 Remington as a good deer getting "gun" out to 200 yards, BUT are best at 100 yards or less. They have also been often and ignorantly told that the patched round ball will not do the job at all. So in my simplistic equating of what they know (the weight of the bullet and the cartridge within which it is loaded, a la a 170 grain .30-30 and a 200 grain .35 Remington) compared to what I can show them with a round ball (at their "taught" range limit of 100 yards), they then begin to realize that black powder isn't as anemic as they have previously been taught.
As I also wrote, that's where I start. Start.
Round ball isn't the same ballistic coefficient, nor composition, as a modern, jacketed bullet. Yes, I fully understand that at 100 yards the two modern cartridges are different in velocity from the patched round ball, thus energy on impact plus terminal ballistics based on the body of the bullet are also different. I never implied in my post that I taught anything different than that, nor did I imply that I left the comparison at that simplistic level. That appears to be your assumption, and is not consistent with the full text of my post.
When teaching you first must gain the student's attetion, then break away any previously incorrect learning, before you can instruct correct information. Hunter education classes are 9 hours long, and that in no way is sufficient time to give justice to the proper use of modern rifle bullets, let along optimal use of the round and the rifle from which it is fired..., the class covers much more than modern rifle shooting in that limited time. What my comparison does, quite successfully, is to thwart the myth that the round ball will not work, and then from their I can delve into modern bullets vs. round ball, conicals, and sabots. I hopefully open their eyes to paying attention to the bullets they use in every instance, instead of the Walmart philosophy of "let me have a box of what ever is cheapest in [fill in modern cartridge name here]"
Here endeth your lesson.
:wink:
LD
LD, I used basically the same analogies for years when trying to explain muzzleloader big game hunting with PRBs to someone only familiar with modern center fires. Brief examples to give you an idea:
.45cal is like the .243...its light, fast, wait and pick your shots, avoid bones, etc.
.50cal is like the .30-30 as a 100yd woods gun...a little more power, will handle a shoulder OK, etc;
.54cal is like the .35Rem...starting to get some real punch, have more power for distance, more flexibility in shot angles, a better match for larger big game than the .45/.50cal;
.58cal is like the .30-06...a lot more power at distance, more penetration from ball weight, more flexibility on shot angles...essentially, if you can visualize the heart location from any angle on a whitetail, you can get there...and enough gun for most NA big game except the big bears;
.45cal is like the .243...its light, fast, wait and pick your shots, avoid bones, etc.
.50cal is like the .30-30 as a 100yd woods gun...a little more power, will handle a shoulder OK, etc;
.54cal is like the .35Rem...starting to get some real punch, have more power for distance, more flexibility in shot angles, a better match for larger big game than the .45/.50cal;
.58cal is like the .30-06...a lot more power at distance, more penetration from ball weight, more flexibility on shot angles...essentially, if you can visualize the heart location from any angle on a whitetail, you can get there...and enough gun for most NA big game except the big bears;
Idaho Ron
58 Cal.
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2007
- Messages
- 2,729
- Reaction score
- 1,226
Loyalist Dave said:
If I were the person in charge of your Hunters ed in your region I would fire you. Your giving the wrong impression. ML's are not the same as Centerfire in any way shape or form. The only way a 45 is like a 30/30 is they both go bang. In that case you could also say that aq 45 is like a AK 47. :td: :td: :td: :td: :td: Ron
hanshi
Cannon
LD, my appraisal of muzzleloader effectiveness is pretty much along the lines you and rb discussed. The ME figures you give very much mirror my chronograph data.
Of course what I'm referring to when I compare prb with cf rounds is simply "effect on game". Many just don't seem to be able to properly understand prb "power" and how it measures up to cf. I've killed deer with more cf calibers than I can easily recall, but let's say .22 Hornet to .45/70 and .243 to .338 Win mag. On average my quickest (all one shot!) kills have been with prb, .45, .50 and one each with .54 and .62. I can't really add more to what you and rb have posted. :thumbsup:
Of course what I'm referring to when I compare prb with cf rounds is simply "effect on game". Many just don't seem to be able to properly understand prb "power" and how it measures up to cf. I've killed deer with more cf calibers than I can easily recall, but let's say .22 Hornet to .45/70 and .243 to .338 Win mag. On average my quickest (all one shot!) kills have been with prb, .45, .50 and one each with .54 and .62. I can't really add more to what you and rb have posted. :thumbsup:
Actually, I think you just insulted avocados.
I would say apples to zebras. And if a .58 isn't big enough for bears, just what is?!
I would say apples to zebras. And if a .58 isn't big enough for bears, just what is?!
I don't see why people like to compare their muzzleloader's killing ability to their centerfire's killing ability. It's like comparing apples to oranges, blondes to brunettes. IT JUST DOESN'T WORK LIKE THAT. When people ask me if one of our muzzleloaders will kill deer, or if they say something like, "I bet it's probably weaker than a 20 gauge slug." That is where I chime in and say, "hey, guess what? I'll be taking a deer to the locker tonight while you're belly-aching about how your scope was off or whatever excuses you have!" I just ask them to take my word for it.
At least it's not an in-line.
I figure my .54 is 3X more effective than my recurve with 600 gr arrows - or about the same as a 12 ga rifled slug . . . range wise. About 1/2 the range of a modern sabot 12 ga slug. I'd MUCH sooner rely on a .30-30 at 150 yards than my .54; which I won't consider taking past 120 yards on deer.
A 30-06 of 165 gr or better grains is far beyond a round ball of ANY size at 200 yards and beyond. I have used a 7.62 x 54R with 180 gr JSP (near .30-06 pretty much) and at 10 an 15 yards I would have had better stopping with a .54 round ball. The bullet passed through the deer without expanding. A 230 gr 0.530" round ball would have clobbered them at that range.
So you better learn to hunt if you want to use a muzzleloader and forget comparing it to centerfires. I had a neighbor who was better statistically with an (illegal) .25-20 than most 12 ga slug shooters. He was a hell of a hunter, though. By the time he was 98 years old he kept pretty much close to the house.
I'll rate a .45 round ball right up there with a .30 Carbine or a .351 Self-Loader. It will kill deer sized game at 100 yards if applied properly.
I figure my .54 is 3X more effective than my recurve with 600 gr arrows - or about the same as a 12 ga rifled slug . . . range wise. About 1/2 the range of a modern sabot 12 ga slug. I'd MUCH sooner rely on a .30-30 at 150 yards than my .54; which I won't consider taking past 120 yards on deer.
A 30-06 of 165 gr or better grains is far beyond a round ball of ANY size at 200 yards and beyond. I have used a 7.62 x 54R with 180 gr JSP (near .30-06 pretty much) and at 10 an 15 yards I would have had better stopping with a .54 round ball. The bullet passed through the deer without expanding. A 230 gr 0.530" round ball would have clobbered them at that range.
So you better learn to hunt if you want to use a muzzleloader and forget comparing it to centerfires. I had a neighbor who was better statistically with an (illegal) .25-20 than most 12 ga slug shooters. He was a hell of a hunter, though. By the time he was 98 years old he kept pretty much close to the house.
I'll rate a .45 round ball right up there with a .30 Carbine or a .351 Self-Loader. It will kill deer sized game at 100 yards if applied properly.
I think there's a basic misunderstanding going on here...speaking only for myself, I don't think I ever said any particular muzzleloader caliber was "equal to" or "the equivalent of" any particular center fire rifle.
The context I referred to above...prefaced with the descriptor that they were some quick brief examples for this thread...was to share an approach I use when trying to start getting a newcomer's head into the world of muzzleloading...they're usually already familiar with the typical set of CFs and I try to draw parallels "within the set of muzzleloader calibers"...as if they were the set of familiar centerfires he/she already knows about.
For example, if a CF shooter understands the relationship / differences between a .243 and a .30-06, I try to draw parallels to give him/her an idea of the "relationships between different muzzleloader calibers"...never saying they are "equivalent to" those CF calibers...and always in the context of the typical world of muzzleloader distances, etc.
If anyone knows a better way to start explaining the idea of big game hunting with muzzleloaders / PRBs to a potential newcomer, by all means post it up.
Hope that helps clear things up.
:thumbsup:
The context I referred to above...prefaced with the descriptor that they were some quick brief examples for this thread...was to share an approach I use when trying to start getting a newcomer's head into the world of muzzleloading...they're usually already familiar with the typical set of CFs and I try to draw parallels "within the set of muzzleloader calibers"...as if they were the set of familiar centerfires he/she already knows about.
For example, if a CF shooter understands the relationship / differences between a .243 and a .30-06, I try to draw parallels to give him/her an idea of the "relationships between different muzzleloader calibers"...never saying they are "equivalent to" those CF calibers...and always in the context of the typical world of muzzleloader distances, etc.
If anyone knows a better way to start explaining the idea of big game hunting with muzzleloaders / PRBs to a potential newcomer, by all means post it up.
Hope that helps clear things up.
:thumbsup:
Walks with fire
54 Cal.
I hunted deer here in PA for upwards of 30 years with a Winchester 94 lever action and in all those years of shooting at least a deer every season I never had one deer move out of it's tracks when hit. I never shot over 100 yards and I never shot more than once per deer. It was a very good round for woods range deer. I now use other centerfire rounds but none has had the short range effectiveness of the 30-30 for me.
I have also taken quite a few with a .50 caliber roundball from my PA hunter rifles and they are not and never will be anywhere near the deer rifle that the 30-30 was.
This is not taking sides with anyone here but I have used both most of my life and I can tell you that the difference is huge.
I have also taken quite a few with a .50 caliber roundball from my PA hunter rifles and they are not and never will be anywhere near the deer rifle that the 30-30 was.
This is not taking sides with anyone here but I have used both most of my life and I can tell you that the difference is huge.
But to be a little be more fair...shoulder shots with shock value to the spinal column/nervous system with a CF is not the same as a heart/lung shot no matter what firearm is used for the heart/lung shot...and that of course is the typical shot used with MLs.Walks with fire said:
A .308 caliber / 170grn Flat Nose through the heart / lungs from a .30-30 won't drop them any faster than a 180grn .50cal ball through the heart / lungs...done it both ways many times.
Walks with fire
54 Cal.
I agree; the shoulder shot is what I used. I think it's the shot I will use when the .58 roundball rifle is used too. My .50 works fine but they don't drop at the shot but again I don't use the shoulder shot either.
hanshi
Cannon
The handy lever action 30/30 is one of the two finest woods deer cf rifles extant. And so is the soft lead prb from a .45 and up. The forest is their world. :thumbsup:
I've wondered about that myself...if the .58cal/279grn (or .62cal/325grn) ball would deliver enough energy-shock to that region to affect the vertebrae passing nearby.Walks with fire said:
We know the energy dump of CF's will affect it long enough for them to suffocate before they can recover...but I always worry that there wouldn't be enough shock value from the PRB to have a long enough lasting effect on the nervous system and they'd jump up and run off.
Normally, at the final moment when I get a chance at one, I forget about all the ideas, habit takes over, I tuck that sight in tight behind the elbow and trip the sear...LOL
Similar threads
