54 Cal Round Ball Penetration Test

[rawdog]

When I read your comment about "balls bouncing off of deer" I understood it in the context of misinformed popular media gunwriters.

Before Toby Bridges changed his older website format and moved to Montana, I had an extensive exchange of views with him thru the reader's blog on the site....he tends quickly towards derogatory personal attack and quick jumps to conclusions to categorize you....but he does not do much dealing with the physical facts. So I went to some of his older books and found quotes by his own self that contradicted what he was saying and I quoted this to him:

2004 in “High Performance Muzzleloader Big Game Rifles,” Stoeger Publishing Co., Chapter 1 entitled “The Evolution of Firepower,” page 15:

“Out of this need to conserve [lead and powder, as compared to large caliber German jaeger rifles] came the long-barreled rifles that became distinctively American in design. Often referred to as Pennsylvania or Kentucky rifles, the new domestically built front-loaders often sported barrels that were 40 to 44 inches in length, and bore sizes had shrunk to .40 to .44caliber. While these rifles still would not produce the same energy levels as a .62 German jaeger loaded with 120grains of blackpowder behind a 325 to 340grain soft lead ball, the smaller bored American long-rifles shot a lighter 90 to 130 grain ball at much higher velocities. And in the hands of an expert rifleman, the rifles would deliver all the knockdown power needed to take even deer-sized game at 100 yards ”“ or drop an enemy at that distance.”

And on pg 17:

“During the early 1800s it was easier and less costly to have an older original flintlock rifle converted [to percussion and to larger caliber]”¦”¦Many rifles that started as a .40 to .44 caliber ended up as rifles of .47 to .52 caliber. And when hunters began to stoke the rifles with heavier powder charges and heavier larger diameter roundballs, they also realized how much more effective the guns were on big game.” (presumably the guns became even better for “knock-down power” at the 100yd deer he referred to above.)


That was exactly when he closed up that older website and moved out of Dodge.... :surrender: :rotf: He is just a shill for certain manufacturers, and old technology is what he beats on in order to contrast and sell new technology.

Changing the subject, in fluid flow mechanics there is a phenomenon with a venturi aperture (as in a touch-hole) known as "choke." (Air or other gas is considered a "fluid" in this context.) For a given size aperture, as the internal pressure increases, of course gasmass will flow thru the aperture. But as the pressure continues to increase the gasmass flowrate slows and then levels off at a constant flowrate. The aperture is "choked" and increases in pressure will not result in more gasmass flow thru the aperture.

For a relatively small aperture choke occurs at relatively low pressures (compared to breech pressures) and the amount of gasmass lost thru the touch-hole is measurable but small compared to the total gasmass produced in the breech. It is also very sensitive to aperture size, which is why we want the touch-hole to be at least about 1/16" for reliability but not over about 5/32", with 3/32" being about an upper limit in my experience.

There is some evidence that caps given unreliable seal on the ends of nipples....sealing better on one shot than another, and resulting in variable pressure release and therefore variations in muzzle velocity. I have no personal evidence of this, but I have seen caplock rifles that were purposely "vented" similar to a flintlock and the reason given to me was to overcome this deficiency of caplocks and allow the muzzle velocity variation to be smaller...... maybe so....

 

[JackAubrey]

What a terribly interesting thread!Every year the round ball proves itself more than adequate for the purposes needed and has been consistently doing so for several hundred years,something the "gun writers" tend to overlook just as consistently.I do have to believe the roundball does impart "hydrostatic" shock to an animal though.Velocity only increases or decreases the amount of shock.There are two types of incapacitation,RAPID incapacitation and INSTANT incapacitation.The only guarantee of INSTANT incapacitation would be a hit to the Central Nervous System.A ball passing through a chest cavity will create a permanent wound channel but will produce temporary cavitation in the soft tissue as well,this can cause RAPID incapacitation which can,on occasion, appear to the hunter as I.C..Because animal tissue is in fact made up of a high degree of water one must conclude that a projectile striking this "water bag" would of necessity impart a "ripple effect",to the tissue.If one tosses a pebble into a still pond it creates a "ripple effect",that is hydrostatic shock.The velocity of the pebble is not so fast yet the laws of physics still apply.What creates the initial static shock is the resistance the water surface presents to the pebble.Since the medium is water it is now "HYDRO" static shock.As the pebble passes through the water it displaces a certain amount of liquid.As I see it, the animals' body is the pond,as it were, and the ball is the pebble.So I have to believe the round ball does impart hydro static shock to the tissue.SOOO,if one shots a round ball into a piece of wood,one can get penetration without HYDRO static shock?Lol.I am your servant,Best regards,J.A.

 

[paulvallandigham]

Interesting Analysis, Jack, I think you are right. I have often wondered if the difference between the " rapid " and "Instant " incapacitation may be only a function of whether the deer just took a breath before being hit. If the lungs are depressed, the shock wave has a much better effect on his blood pressure, and can keep him from taking another breath. If he has already taken a breath, his blood stream, and brain may already be freshly oxiginated, and the shock will simply collapse the lungs, taking air out of the mouth, but absorbing much of the shock to the Blood vessels, and delay the drop in blood pressure and the onset of unconsciousness. I wish I had more information on the Cardio-Vascular system's reaction to trauma, But I didn't go to med school!

I had a deer I shot close range- about 10 yards where my shot broke the left shoulder( and leg bone), and then pierced the left lung before tearing the top side of the heart apart and off. Yet, he still staggered, fell, got up, staggered and fell again, but got up again to travel about 60 feet before he collapsed. When I field dressed the deer, and saw all the damage my shot did, I was amazed that the deer could go that far.

 

[paulvallandigham]

Herb: I accept your apology. I am glad that you;

1. were able to kill the same deer later that day, and have a close examination of the earlier wound to guide you.
]
2. continue to look for that spent ball.

If I recall properly your ball struck the neck where it joins the shoulder. Those vertebrae are among the largest in the neck, and not much smaller than found in the lumbar area of the lower back. It is quite likely that circumstances occurred that allowed that deep a wound but then caused the ball to bounce out of the wound. It happened.

My only question has to do with whether that powder charge burned completely when you fire the gun. If not, then as happened with my incident, the velocity of the ball was reduced, and that can explain the " bounce". I saw my ball bounce off my deer, although I did not recover it from the forest clutter. I would also have had to use a metal detector to find it under all the oak and maple leaves where it fell.

Best wishes. :hatsoff:

 

[Herb]

Thanks, Paul. Yes, that was a normal shot. I had probably put over 1,000 rounds through that Leman .54 barrel by then, chronographing most of them. I knew by the full recoil that this was a normal load, and later found that I hit my point of aim at about 90 yards. I immediately reloaded and, though I never wipe the bore, found nothing different. And the next round I fired a couple of hours later also hit right where I held it, shooting rested over a cedar tree (juniper) limb.

 

[rawdog]

Great Balls of Fire!

The term "hydrostatic shock wave" is a misnomer. The mechanical impulse that accompanies a bullet impact in flesh is hydrodynamic, implying motion, and not hydrostatic, implying no motion. For some reason, popular gun writers like to throw the term "hydrostatic" around....IMHO, they have "taken game" but they have not "taken physics."

Also, the term "shock" is being used in a colloquial sense, not in the defined scientific sense of a "faster than speed of sound" event which produces a shock wave. In a human or animal body speed of sound similar to water, about 5000fps, a little bit faster than my PRBs leave the muzzle, much less impact the game animal.

There IS legitimate controversy in the literature about whether the mechanical impulse of the bullets impact (ie, colloaquial "shock") causes significant tissue disruption or CNS disruption at points removed from the wound channel, but this proposition is opposed by many experts in the field of terminal ballistics, who basically advocate the "CNS or Bleedout" theory of killing. Dr. Fackler of the US Army labs is perhaps the alltime expert:

http://rkba.org/research/fackler/wrong.html

And this is an overall article on terminal ballistics that I found fascinating and consistent with Fackler's research.

http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/wounding.html

I have personally corresponded somewhat with the author of the article at the second link. He is a mechanical engineer and professionally works in the area of terminal ballistics for the military (like KE rounds that hit tank armor)and is a hunter with modern arms and although he is not a muzzleloader he was enthusiastic and positive about the proposition that a lead ball projectile can be a consistent killer of game.

YHS,
rawdog

 

[Kentuckywindage]

I tested this homecast .530 round ball today with 80gr Pyrodex RS at an unknown distance late this evening. I plan on ranging the area tomorrow so i can see how far it actually was.

The rifle was sighted in 2" high @ 100 yards and when i shot this, the round ball had dropped 9"

She went 60 yards after the fatal hit

 

[Moloch]

WOW, the .53 ball cut her into two parts! What was the velocity, 8000 fp/s? :shocked2: :rotf:

Just kidding. :wink:

 

[JackAubrey]

Rawdog,I appreciate the corrections to my post.Not coming from a engineering/sciences background I apparently was in fact referring to the colloquial usages.I would much rather learn the proper definitions.I have read some of Dr.Facklers' writings,he's an amazing man,simply brilliant.I couldn't agree more with him that the permanent cavitation or wound channel is what really causes the bleed out.It seems reasonable that the temporary cavitation could induce further damage by stretching already damaged tissues but ultimately it is the loss of blood pressure and the leak in the closed vascular system which brings on death.I don't know if "shock" in the medical sense applies to animals since they often exhibit higher tolerances to pain but I have to believe they would be succeptable to it to some degree.Any way,seeing you are a rather new member,you are already contributing to the body of knowledge this fine site promotes.You are a welcome addition.Your servant,J.A.