.75 cal power

[Dphar]

The first deer I shot with the 16 bore rifle I stalked across a grassy plain with enough terrain features to BARELY maintain concealment. As I ran out of "cover" and was wondering how far I needed to crawl so I could get a shot, the deer, with a doe in the lead, came to me headed for water behind me several hundred yards. I did not get a shot at the buck I was stalking but I had a "B" tag. Below is the blood trail and a good representation of the terrain.

If you have Google Earth go to
45 59 57.56 N, 109 43 35.52W it is about where the shot was taken.
The overhead photo will give an idea of the area I hunt quite a lot. I can survey this spot from about 4 miles away where the county road tops a rise. But this does not make getting a shot that much easier. I have not seen a deer where I shot this doe since, they just happened to be there on that day.


This is why I won't use smoothbores or low velocity loads. It has little to do with killing power its TRAJECTORY and accuracy at ranges to 120 yards.
If you hunt in some plot of land with trails the deer follow and shoot 15-30 yards from a blind or tree stand it is a FAR different situation than most of my hunting which is almost entirely stalking animals on public land in the west.
Now if someone wants to read some historical information on the subject of trajectory and why its important for it to be flat James Forsythe's "The Sporting Rifle and its Projectiles" is available for download at google books.
Its a must read for the ML hunter.

Dan

 

[RedFeather]

I don't have experience hunting with a .75 but there is one point here that might be overlooked. In reading about the introduction of conicals in the early part of the Civil War, it was held on both sides that these were exploding bullets because of the extreme damage they inflicted. The author went on to explain that this was the due to the conicals ability to carry up or retain energy much more efficiently than the older, round ball muskets at ranges of 100 yards or more. He claimed that round balls tended to break bones and even glance around a bone if hit on the edge, whereas the conical splintered anything it came into contact with. Something to think about once that ball has shed most of its momentum past the 100 yard mark.

 

[Dphar]

I don't have experience hunting with a .75 but there is one point here that might be overlooked. In reading about the introduction of conicals in the early part of the Civil War, it was held on both sides that these were exploding bullets because of the extreme damage they inflicted. The author went on to explain that this was the due to the conicals ability to carry up or retain energy much more efficiently than the older, round ball muskets at ranges of 100 yards or more. He claimed that round balls tended to break bones and even glance around a bone if hit on the edge, whereas the conical splintered anything it came into contact with. Something to think about once that ball has shed most of its momentum past the 100 yard mark.

From my reading it was the Minie ball found to be notorious for not staying on track. It was determined by surgeons during the Crimean War that they would often go off track on striking bone whereas the RB would pass straight through.
The only citation I can locate right now is from James Forsythe in "The Sporting Rifle and its Projectiles".
"...shortly after the Crimean War, a surgeon in charge of a large number of men reported,--
That he "also observed that these bullets (the Minie) made holes as if they had been drilled, and that the traveled over or through the body in the most eccentric directions. . . . The conclusion drawn was that, after all, conical balls produce less dangerous gunshot wounds than the ordinary spherical ones, since whenever they first meet and obstacle, unless they strike with the apex, they deviate from their course instead of smashing the bone and make their way through the fleshy part of the body."

Modern users of the maxi-ball have related similar problems with this bullet when used on animals the size of moose. The 72 twist used for the Minie and the 48 used for the Maxi-ball result in a bullet that is unstable when it strikes anything.
Sir Samuel Baker made comments about the poor wounding characteristics of pointed bullets as well. See "With Rifle and Hound in Ceylon" IIRC.
If you go to the pistol forum you will find a post with a photo of a 54 caliber pistol ball that broke a leg bone on a deer and still passed straight through.
I have seen the same thing with elk with 54 RB at about 80 yards breaking the (much bigger) bone and getting the arteries over the heart.

Dan

 

[RedFeather]

I'll have to dig out my book. A 500 grain lead slug hitting a femur at two hundred yards ought to do a bit more damage than a 230 grain round ball. BTW, my dad actually saw a woman shoot a man in the head with a small caliber pistol and the bullet slid underneath his scalp and exited the back.

I used to think that the high number of amputations during the Civil War was because the doctors cut limbs at the nearest joint. After reading what the Minie balls did to bone, I understand the reason for amputations a whole lot better. When there's nothing left but splintered bone, there's little can be done. If you don't think a lead slug, not roundball, can do damage, consider that they are outlawed for military use.

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

They're a part of the reason the full metal jacketed bullet was invented. Or so I've been told.

 

[CZMark]

Not to start a fight, but if I'm hunting with an open-sighted muzzleloader, I'm going to pass on 200 yard shots; I'm also not aiming anywhere near the femur.

 

[Dphar]

I'll have to dig out my book. A 500 grain lead slug hitting a femur at two hundred yards ought to do a bit more damage than a 230 grain round ball. BTW, my dad actually saw a woman shoot a man in the head with a small caliber pistol and the bullet slid underneath his scalp and exited the back.

I used to think that the high number of amputations during the Civil War was because the doctors cut limbs at the nearest joint. After reading what the Minie balls did to bone, I understand the reason for amputations a whole lot better. When there's nothing left but splintered bone, there's little can be done. If you don't think a lead slug, not roundball, can do damage, consider that they are outlawed for military use.

First I never said a lead slug would not do damage. I said from both historical and contemporary reports a marginally stable bullet often does not track straight after striking flesh or bone.
Second a bone broken by a bullet prior to modern medicine and HV FMJ bullets almost always resulted in amputation or at least loss of use. Did not matter if it was a 200 gr RB or a 500 gr minie.
Here is the "humerus", a substantial bone, from a grown Mule Deer doe.
Bullet was a 530 RB, range was 20-25 yards fired from a PISTOL. Broke bone. Took out the heart, lodged under the hide at far side, tracked straight. One shot kill.

Do you really think this is fixable with mid-19th century medicine? Could a Minie make it "worse"? Would the Minie have killed the deer deader?
I did almost exactly the same thing to an elk a couple of years previous using a 530 RB, same result at about 80 yards. Broken bone, took out the arteries over the heart, one shot kill. Ball deflected at the far chest wall as it ran out of velocity.
In my experience in shooting perhaps 60 animals with a RB it has as good or better "track record" than elongated bullets be they launched with smokeless or BP.
Lead bullets at typical 1904 handgun velocities were found to do more severe damage to bone than jacketed bullets. See actual report of the Thompson-LaGarde tests.
If you think the wounds caused by the Minie ball were a surprise to the surgeons I believe you should read the reports of the wounds inflicted on the British by rifles during the Revolution. Many it would seem were taken aback and outraged at severity of the wounds made by the higher velocity rifles, using the PRB of course.

Dan

 

[Dphar]

They're a part of the reason the full metal jacketed bullet was invented. Or so I've been told.

Lead bullets simply will not work at HV rifle pressures which run 50-60000 psi. The jacket was needed to allow the bullet to hold the rifling. Otherwise the bullet simply shears across the lands at high pressure. In his testing Mann in "The Bullets Flight" called lead bullets "putty plug" bullets due to the ease they deformed.
The use of expanding bullets was outlawed by treaties which the USA never ratified. But most military purposes "soft" bullets are not as useful since they limit penetration of barriers etc.
The US conformed to the Geneva Convention etc, for the most part in WW-I, II, Korea and VN even though we were not compelled to by law.

Dan

 

[Powerkicker]

I find a .75 trade musket to be a pleasure to shoot off-hand with 75 grains of FF. I had no problem with recoil and I shoot it much better than my own .50 Kentucky thus far.

A friend of mine has taken several deer with that gun and that load so it will get the job done at modest ranges.