54 Cal Round Ball Penetration Test

[nw_hunter]

I tend to agree with you, and I like the extra hole for providing a blood trail to follow if necessary.

 

[Zoar]

Two Deer With One Ball is superior too two birds with one stone...

I would say that qualifies as the standard of standards for penetration tests!

Since these rounds balls are traveling 1200-1300 fps, or so, in those first 50 yards that contributes to them being very devastating.

My curiousity of what the pure lead round balls and Black Powder can do was instigated by so many hunters who argue for hardened and modern bullets as so vastly superior to PRB. I just don't see this to be true. The pure lead round balls fired from Black Powder charges can be destructive.

 

[BrownBear]

I've only recovered one 54 cal RB. Launched over 90 grains of 3f and impacted face-on in the white patch on a good buck's throat. The shot was later measured at 54 yards. The ball came to rest under the hide on the back of the neck and had expanded to about 1". The buck dropped in his tracks and its head and upper neck basically fell off when I skinned it.

Just two days ago I was involved in a rather surprising tracking job. A friend shot a large doe broadside at 20 yards, a little far back and high, passing forward from the 2nd rib to the 4th and exiting while shattering half the liver and one lung. Load was 90 grains of 2f. The doe traveled a good 300 yards and left only a small spot of blood every 30 feet or so. We worked for that deer and were fortunate to find her. The only large spoor we found was after about 250 yards when she evidently lay down briefly or fell. If it had been rainy I don't think we would have found her, because her course was so zigzagged. The tracking took us over an hour.

In my mind that doe shows pretty clearly that even at close range when velocity, energy and probably expansion were max, you still need to land your shot in a good spot.

 

[wvbuckbuster]

Some folks believe that if the ball does not exit it has expanded all its energy inside the animal but I would much rather have an exit wound that allows more blood loss and therefore easier to track if need be.

 

[laufer]

one ball= two holes so far with .54 on deer.

 

[kentucky bucky]

This can't be!!!! Modern experts say that Roundballs won't even hardly kill a deer. It takes a 5oo gr. super duper conical gobbstopper!!!

 

[Zoar]

Corelokt Boat Tailed Titanium Ballistic Tipped Big Boy Boomerooo is what you MUST have to kill a deer... They say those patched round balls just BOUNCE OFF the hide!

My oh My, these consumer consumer-guys sure are pitiful.

 

[roundball]

This can't be!!!! Modern experts say that Roundballs won't even hardly kill a deer. It takes a 5oo gr. super duper conical gobbstopper!!!

.......AND......150grns of powder plus a modern shotgun primer to light it all off :grin:

 

[Semisane]

With a stainless steel and polymer launch platform.

 

[roundball]

With a stainless steel and polymer launch platform.

...AND....where would we be without the "electronic ignition"...a high priority functional element of 21st century muzzleloading enthusiasts everywhere !!

 

[ronrryan]

Regrettably, there was a story on Drudge today that one states' donation program is to stop accepting deer shot with anything but arrows, due to supposed lead in the meat to be consumed by needy families if shot by modern weapons having lead projectiles. Camel's nose, in my opinion, to a call for banning of lead in hunting. Good smoke, Ron

 

[Raider2000]

With a stainless steel and polymer launch platform.

...AND....where would we be without the "electronic ignition"...a high priority functional element of 21st century muzzleloading enthusiasts everywhere !!

Yes we mustn't go without some electric wires to set off the charge. :youcrazy:

Don't forget too that we need that 150gr. + charge & super duper projectile so that we can take our deer that is on the other mountain side too. :shake:

 

[RiverRat]

I chroned my .54 flinter with a .530 pbr over 80 grs of 3f. I got a average velocity of 1616 fps
15 yards from the muzzle! Not too shabby!

 

[Zoar]

River--You know that is impossible. Black Powder is not modern enough to get over 1100 FPS. Haha! But thanks for the info. Now I know about what speed my 54 Cal should be running at. Thanks!

I have some hunting acquaintenances who use electronic ignition bolt action "MUZZLELOADERS" with copper clad boolits and 3-9 POWER SCOPES, and they argue that their method of hunting is HUMANE while mine is NOT!

BTW---I just ordered some more bales of hay and am setting up a better BOARD assembly to catch the round balls better in my Penetration Test Backdrop. We'll see what happens!

 

[rawdog]

Wow, this is an interesting thread. BTW, I am new here, my intro is posted this morning in intro section.

I got interested in this subject of penetration and killing power of bullets some time ago....like others I had never had a .50 PRB fail to passthru with from 60gr to 90gr and ranges from 10yds to 81yds (a previously claimed 90-pace shot is now a lasered 81yd shot).

I was also reading some modern gun writers pushing suppository guns or modern inlines and their CLAIMS that roundballs are poor....

I had some interesting experience a few years back driving a .570 PRB too fast with a heavy load and short range shot where the danged ball mushroomed so much that it did not penetrate very well. Although it killed the whitetail deader than a doorknob (it went 3 feet...straight down), I was concerned about whether it would work on elk....penetration is the ultimate requirement of a killing wound channel, without this nothing.

Here is a book http://pw2.netcom.com/~dmacp/ that helps quantify the issue quantitatively and qualitatively. I found it very useful, and I also found a few online sites very helpful, all drawing on decades of research by the US ARmy and Dr. Martin Fackler.

Basically, killing (game or otherwise) is done by ending the functionality of the Central Nervous System (CNS). This can be done by either a direct hit to the CNS (usually not a percentage shot due to smaller target area, and/or relative moveability of the head compared to the body), or by disrupting blood flow that carries oxygen to the CNS. The high-percentage shot is to heart/lung area to create enough bleeding surface (diameter of wound and length of wound) to quickly drop blood pressure to the brain, and death quickly ensues....

This explains why RoundBall is correct in his statement above....a passthru shot does not "dump" all its energy into the animal, BUT it has a higher average velocity throughout if its energy is adequate, and therefore creates a larger diamter wound channel as well as the longest possible wound channel. Also two holes gives maximum opportunity for blood to flow out and relieve internal pressure to encourage more blood loss, not to mention the better blood trail.

Here is that .570 ball that flattend so much:

And a side view:

Here is an excerpted illustration from the book mentioned above:

Although the ball tested in the image is .45cal, you can expect the same shape-deformation of any lead ball at the same striking velocity (not muzzle velocity).

So, as counter-intuitive as it may seem, dropping the striking velocity a little bit can result in a much longer penetration channel (although it will also result in less diameter wound channel) and that is what I did with my .58 flinter.

Hardening the ball, as has historically been done when hunting dangerous large game in India or Africa with huge calibers and loads(Forsyth, "The Sporting Rifle, 1864)is the Patched Round Ball equivalent of shooting large caliber non-expanding solids in modern Africa guns to maximize penetration in very large thick-skinned game. This is not necessary in North American hunting.

YHS,
rogerw

 

[Zoar]

Rawdog--- Excellent contribution to this thread. I have long surmised that 1100-1500 FPS were optimimum based on adequate speed yet not "too much deformation of fracturing" of a pure un-hardened lead ball or boolit. Your photo with corresponding FPS illustrates this very well.

 

[BrownBear]

I'm curious what the recovered .570 ball weighed. I've recovered exactly one .530 ball after it passed through the neck/spine of a buck at 54 yards. It expanded considerably, but there was lots of curl back at the edge, compared to yours with virtually none.

I've done a whole bunch of penetration/expansion testing in assorted mediums with conventional arms. Enough to say emphatically that it's useful for comparing how different bullets perform in the same medium, but poor for forecasting how they will perform in game. There are just too many variables in the nature of the materials when you hit game at different angles and locations to come up with a meaningful test medium for predicting expansion, penetration and wound channel in game. I've recovered lots of bullets from game and compared those with lots of bullets from diverse test media, and I'm not happy that any test medium was an accurate forecaster.

My limited comparisons of various calibers and velocities of round balls makes me wonder about retained weight as a factor right along with the much-vaunted surface area. You don't have to abrade much lead from a smaller caliber to begin a quick downward spiral in penetration along with expansion. On the bigger calibers you certainly abrade lead too, but a 25-50% loss in weight still leaves you with more weight than a smaller caliber might even start with. I guess what I'm saying, for a given % of weight loss and increase in frontal area, the bigger ball is going to fare better than a small one simply cuzz you have lots more lead working for you, even after a loss.

 

[rawdog]

BrownBear,

Excellent comments. I wish we could share notes in person, I would love to learn more of your experiences with bullet testing.

With my engineering background I have mostly to date merely researched what others have done. I had begun collecting masses of newspapers to do some wetpack testing, but the unexpected death of my father in May this year set me back on that track. I am the oldest son, and have spent much time since helping my mother out in Alabama.

Based on wisdom of others, I wholeheartedly agree your observations that performance in one or another ballistic media is not necessarily indicative of performance on actual body tissue, game or otherwise.

For one thing ballistic media is purposely chosen to be homogenous (consistently the same throughout) and real live targets are anything but. And in terms of mathematical modelling it is fairly hopeless on paper unless the media is homogenous. Bones and changing density of body media are problematic.

However, performance in ballistic media can give a "relative" idea of performance on living targets, and some rules of thumb can be developed.

Since I am relying more on the research (and opinion) of others than my own, I think I will leave'er right there for the time being.

Mainly, your point is well taken.

YHS,
rawdog

Here would be a main beef of mine though....it is thoroughly established by PHYSICs and by Wound Incapacition Studies over decades, including shooting cadavers, etc, that striking ENERGY is NOT the Be-All, End-ALL of discussion of "killing power."

This argument is used by modern gun writers (popular press, not scientific press) to claim that roundballs are not effective killers. Hogwash!!! (within their effective range, of course.)

"The killing power of a bullet in flight depends entirely upon the size, weight, construction, and shape of the bullet and the velocity with which it strikes, and upon no other details. ...we frequently see it stated that the killling power of a cartridge depends upon its energy....[which]depends on the weight of the bullet [and its] velocity, and on nothing else, and thus can have only a very distant bearing on our subject."

Quote from Col. Townsend Whelen, "The Hunting Rifle," Stackpole, 1940, pg. 236.

It takes very little energy to kill.....an extreme example is a modern 300gr carbon shafted arrow with a 100gr broadhead and 200fps striking velocity for a striking energy of 35.5ftlbs. Why do gun writers tell us it takes a minimum of 800 or so footpounds to kill a whitetail deer? because they are talking only in the context of modern expanding bullets.....how much energy is left over AFTER the bullet has hit and expanded and is now ready to do serious work? All I know right now, is, less than it started with by a considerable amount....What about a large caliber roundball that does not have to expand before it is ready to do work? Can it arrive with less energy and still do effective work? As an Alaskan has recently told the Nation, "You betcha!"

It turns out that an arrow is much more energy efficient than a modern expanding bullet, creating about as much bleeding surface with much less energy. With well-placed shots, the deer often goes about the same distance before expiring from either.

A 4 pound brick thrown at 25fps has 38.8ftlbs of striking energy and if it hits you in the chest it will hurt, but it probably won't penetrate and kill like the arrow will.


Col. Whelen was not a scientist, but he did work with scientists at US Army Ballistic Research Labs, and he was right. Energy, per se, is relevant only if all other variables are held constant.

 

[BrownBear]

However, performance in ballistic media can give a "relative" idea of performance on living targets, and some rules of thumb can be developed.

Absolutely. It's useful for determining relative performance of projectiles in a particular medium, but the system breaks down when you try to extrapolate individual bullet performance in artificial mediums into predictions about flesh and bone.

As a side note, when using newspaper for testing media I dispensed with the water over 20 years ago. Way to heavy and messy at the range, and it engenders all sorts of disposal problems after the shoot. Wet simply doesn't tell me anything more than dry.

Bundled dry newspaper is easier to handle before, during and after a shoot, while also providing useful comparisons between bullets. Recycling centers are happy to get your remains, while you'll have trouble convincing them to take your wet pulp. I've even had good luck "borrowing" bundled newspaper from one center, then returning it (rebundled of course) once I'm through with it. That certainly eases the supply problems.

 

[Tom Compton]

My only recovered ML projectile was a .403 PRB from my 42" barrel flinter pushed by 75 gr FFFg to a chronographed 2120 fps. Spike buck broad side at about 30 yards. Found the ball on the off side under an area of loose skin about the size of my spread hand and fingers. Thought then the pint sized chunk of lead (98 gr) had done all it could do and was just too blunt to punture the unsupported skin.

Brownbear, this was 20+ years ago and, to the best of my recollection, the recovered lead was .612 at the widest point and weighed 93.X grains. Shortly there after I read of observations at a herd thinning of buffalo. Everything from .338 Win Mag and 270 to 45 and 50 Sharps and one .54 RB. All that I recall there was the lead increased in diameter to 1.5X original and retained 92-96% of original weight. While the modern projectiles retained less than 50% of original weight. Confirmed my findings.

The 370 grain .50 Maxi-balls (pushed by 110 gr FFg) were not recovered from deer or feral hogs as you can imagine.

TC