Anyone tried the Hornady "PA" conicals?

[RedFeather]

Come in .50 and look stubby kind of like a Ballet. They appear to be aimed at hunters who shoot round ball twist.

 

[William O.]

Accuracy is going to depend on the type of rifling more that the twist rate, so any advantage you might gain by having a heavier projectile might be negated by a loss in accuracy. Having said that, I tried them in my .54 trade rifle, which has a 1:48 rate of twist, when these type of bullets were being sold by Buffalo Bullet Company and were called "ball-ets". Accuracy was acceptable although not as good as a PRB and I didn't do any extensive testing at different ranges and powder charges so I can't say it they were "minute of deer" or better. I can't see any advantage over a .54 RB on large game either. The PA conical is essentially the Ball-et and is only offered in 50 caliber now.

 

[Spikebuck]

My wife has used the 50 cal ball-et, which is essentially the same as the PA Hunter. She has a Traditions Pennsylvania caplock with 1-66 twist and they shoot great. If you like a little heavier bullet than a 50 RB, they fill the bill and should work well....though I wouldn't try them in deep rifling or round-bottomed. Her gun has fairly shallow, square rifling.

 

[rodwha]

Spike: Why wouldn't these work well with deep rifling? I thought these were intended for use in RB rifles?

I have considered these as well in my 1:48" .50 cal with deep riflings.

 

[Spikebuck]

They might....just thinking that the skirt might not fill deep rifling enough to provide an adequate gas seal. Would depend, I suppose, on how they fit the barrel, etc. I suppose one could also use a lubed wad under it as a seal. Just an opinion I have...never tried them in a gun with deep rifling. I'm wondering if that's why some people report poor accuracy with them while others have good success?

 

[mooman76]

Lee REALs work good in a 50 cal with 1/48 twist.

 

[RedFeather]

I have a T/C "Express" with the 1:38 twist which might work with these. Why I sort of wish they still made the Ball-ets.

 

[rodwha]

Which REALs? The 250 grn or 320 grn version?

I'm guessing (was given a formula to figure twist rate for projectile length) it's the 320 grn.

I have no idea what the length of the Lyman's Maxi is, but at 370 grns I figure it's longer than ideal for a 1:48" twist, though it's what they designed it to work in.

I'm quite curious as wanting to find some various conicals to try out in my Deerstalker.

 

[RedFeather]

In your formula what is the constant (K)? I've had to shave off about 25 to get twist rates to match up to "traditionals". The Greenhill constant increases along with speed. Most I've seen are for medium center fire rounds like .30-06. BP is way slower, hence the lower K value.

 

[rodwha]

I was told that the slower BP velocities required for a lower number. If you are interested I could copy and paste it in a PM.

 

[Vaino]

Outside of the fact that RB bbls have slower "twists" and won't stablize the longer conicals, I think the .014-016 deep grooves in most .50 cal and larger RB bbls won't be filled w/ lead {conical dias. aren't that large} and therefore won't obturate the bore. The gas leakage would be terrific causing lower velocities and possible melting of the dia. of the conical. Lousy accuracy would result.

Stopped using Maxi-Ball type conicals because of hard loading and went to Buffalo Bullets w/ their knurled surface which allowed easier loading. Real conicals w/ their rounded grooved dia. would be easier loading also.

This topic appears regularly and evidently many aren't convinced that they should shoot a projectile that their bbls are made for.

I use both PRB and conicals for shooting and hunting....but each type of projectile is shot from a bbl that's made for it. Don't like unnecessary problems.....Fred

 

[rodwha]

I intend on getting a designated barrel for conical use, but I thought the PA conical was specifically designed for use in traditional RB barrels?

And then I consider the Lyman Maxi, which states it was designed for rifles such as their Trade Rifle, which has the deep RB grooves.

I have no idea so please don't take my response as argumentative.

 

[RedFeather]

No argument here, either. Like I said, my T/C has a 1:38, not super fast but still a little fast for round ball. Why I think these short conicals may work in that gun. The fellow I bought it from shot round ball with 50 grains and claimed he won a few egg shoots. Me, I would need ostrich eggs.

Rowdha, feel free to pm me your twist formula. I'd like to compare the two.

 

[Spikebuck]

Outside of the fact that RB bbls have slower "twists" and won't stablize the longer conicals,

Maybe an exception, but I have had three rifles with 1-65/66 twists (purportedly RB barrels) that shot the Hornady GP 435 gr 54 caliber bullets with very good accuracy...and at 100 yards they cut a perfect, incredibly smooth hole through the target, which to me would indicate stability. Though all three had "slow" twist rate, they also had shallow, square rifling and I think that makes a difference.

 

[Vaino]

Perhaps when I tried Buffalo Bullets in a 1:66 bbl, it was the deeper, unfilled grooves that were the culprits. Anyways, the conicals weren't accurate and some elongation of the holes in paper was noticed. I think the hot gases leaking down the grooves could very well have melted the lead.

At any rate....the deeper grooves in RB bbls aren't suited for conicals. Whether the slower twists of RB bbls will stabilize the longer, heavier conicals is still debatable.....Fred

 

[Spikebuck]

Perhaps when I tried Buffalo Bullets in a 1:66 bbl, it was the deeper, unfilled grooves that were the culprits.

It's an interesting topic because it just may show that twist is less the cause than groove shape and depth. I could not get TC Hunter's to fly worth a darn...same size and weight at the Hornady, but I attributed the difference to the solid flat base on the TC's that did not obturate like the hollow "skirt" on the Hornady, thus escaping gas and loss of accuracy and stability. Other's mention using wads under conicals to seal the bore.

In any case, I would agree that true slow-twist, deep groove barrels are meant for round balls! :v

 

[Wes/Tex]

Perhaps when I tried Buffalo Bullets in a 1:66 bbl, it was the deeper, unfilled grooves that were the culprits.

You hit it on the head. We found this truth out back in the 60's when the Zouave muskets first came out. They had the true musket rifling with 3 lands and 3 grooves, equal width and shallow...great for Minies, poor as poop for patched balls. Add to the fact that at the time the closest fit were .562" ball molds and you have a recipe for groups that looked like buckshot patterns!

 

[RedFeather]

Interesting observation. I've seen the exact opposite said about the Zouaves, that they have too long a twist (1:72) for Minnies and shoot round ball well.

 

[Wes/Tex]

That's odd indeed, I've never seen or heard of a Zouave since the 1960's that didn't have the shallow 1-48" twist. Perhaps a current maker has changed something but I've not heard of one that varied from the original rifling style.

 

[chipper c]

PA conicals I use for hunting , easy loading in the field , added conical weight with the same point of impact as 50 cal. round ball and patch.My 50 cal. G.P.R. with a 1 in 60 twist shoots 70 grains FF Goex with 490 Round Ball and a .018 pillow ticking patch the same as with 80 grains FF Goex using the PA conical, and hit the target in same spot, generally at 50 yards. The same with my 50 cal. trade rifles 1 in 48 twist with same set up. :thumbsup: