Ballistic Results

[Semisane]

 

[AZbpBurner]

Just some casual observations using Grapefruit Technology (Hatcher used pigs, but before Dad sold the citrus ranch in Tucson, I had all the Grapefruit I could eat, juice or shoot) indicate that at 100 yards, a .54 cal RB retains more energy than any of my .50 cal RB's. This was evidenced by the bigger explosion when a grapefruit was hit by the .54 vs a .50

Now that the grapefruit source has dried up, I suppose I'll have to use frozen water balloons, but it just won't be the same ...

 

[Semisane]

AZbpBurner, I would have every confidence on Grapefruit Technology. It just smells right. :hatsoff:

 

[Naphtali]

The answer is more transparent. Sectional density of spheres increases as diameter increases. Bigger RBs are more wind resistant, retain a higher percentage of initial velocity, etc., than smaller RBs. What I do not know off the top of my head is how the increase increases - that is, proportionally, exponentially (unlikely), other.

Hope this helps.

 

[Semisane]

Makes no difference Naphtali. Big balls are proportionally and exponentially better than small balls. :haha:

 

[Zonie]

Because the shape of a ball is the same, regardless of its caliber we can ignore that factor in figuring the BC.

Also the density of the lead is the same for each ball so we can ignore that in figuring the BC.

The wind resistance is based on velocity (which I will ignore for the moment) and the area of diameter of the ball.

The area is calculated by the old Pi times the radius squared formula. A = π (r²) Notice, the radius is squared (multiplied times itself two times) when this is figured.

The volume is equal to 4.1888 times the radius cubed. V=4 π (r³)/3 or 4.1888 r³

Because the radius in these volume formulas is cubed (multiplied times itself 3 times)when it's figured, the value grows much faster than the area which has r, only squared.

Put another way, as the size of the ball increases, its mass increases in size faster than its area.

That means more energy at any given speed than its wind resistance at the same speed.

Hope this makes sense to you.

 

[Semisane]

What Zonie says is accurate.

If you need an interpreter, what he said is.... Bigger Balls Are Better. :grin:

 

[Loyalist Dave]

...., in many and unrelated applications.

:haha:

LD

 

[Skychief]

:shocked2:

:haha:

 

[MSW]

The answer is more transparent. Sectional density of spheres increases as diameter increases. Bigger RBs are more wind resistant, retain a higher percentage of initial velocity, etc., than smaller RBs. What I do not know off the top of my head is how the increase increases - that is, proportionally, exponentially (unlikely), other.

Hope this helps.

I think we're in a geometric (rather than an arithmetic) progression.

bigger balls are better, or, to paraphrase Elmer Keith; more air in, more blood out...

 

[Naphtali]

While I mentioned nothing about ballistic coefficient, I suggest you use the formula for calculating sectional density. You will find, counter-intuitively, larger diameter spheres have greater sectional density than smaller. And I emphasize this being nonsensical on first thought makes no difference to the accuracy of formula or calculations.

 

[Rifleman1776]

Makes no difference Naphtali. Big balls are proportionally and exponentially better than small balls. :haha:

Joking aside :wink: it depends on ones definition of "better".
Bigger guns are more powerful and have more bang. That is a given.
But, for a specific application, like hunting whitetail deer, the .45 cal. rb shown has plenty of killing power at 100 yards. More gun is not needed. The charts will also show all calibers have considerable drop past 100 yards. If yer gonna miss past 100 yards yer gonna miss regardless of caliber. What we need to keep in mind is we are shooting an antiquated style of firearm using an even more ancient type of propellant. Stay within the effective range, i.e. 100 yards, and you will murder Bambi, just fine.

 

[Naphtali]

I agree that adequate ability to kill deer is more than sufficient for deer at round ball range with smaller legal bore sizes.

My comment pertained only to increased sectional density and what ballistic and wind resistance improvement accrue from it, strictly from a mathematical perspective.

And yes, I prefer BIG bores but not for that reason. At my age and with my health where I hunt deer and elk, putting the animal down quickly translates to the difference between a 45 minute field dress and getting to the truck and an 8-10 hour backbreaking job that is nearly impossible for me to do alone without suffering for a week.

 

[George]

More gun is not needed.

That's what so many people say, but what if more gun is wanted? :grin:

Spence

 

[nkbj]

Once upon a time I poured over the charts and ran the numbers just to see what round ball size appeared to give the best acceleration and velocity retention numbers. With greater mass versus square inches of surface to push against there is a trade off... bigger is more difficult to accelerate just as it is more difficult to slow down. Seems to me the numbers indicated that somewhere between .50 and .54 caliber was the magical sweet spot in what I was looking at.

 

[daniel collums]

i have only used a .54 for a couple years now and back and forth with .50 and .45, for deer i can't see much difference. for pig killing if you hit them in the head or in the neck right behind the skull it don't matter but a big hog can take a shot in the heart/lung area and do a disappearing act that would make Houdini look like a amateur. thats why i got the .54 but still being able to hit the mark is what counts in the long run.

 

[Semisane]

While I consider the .45 adequate for deer, I'm a firm believer that .50 or .54 is a much better choice - with .54 being the king.

That said, I do love a .58. :haha: (Twice the energy of a .45 at 100 yards with only a tiny bit more drop.

 

[Rifleman1776]

increased sectional density and what ballistic and wind resistance improvement accrue from it, strictly from a mathematical perspective.

Talk like that isn't permitted here. :wink:
I do understand what you are saying about field dressing and dragging.

 

[Rifleman1776]

More gun is not needed.

That's what so many people say, but what if more gun is wanted? :grin:

Spence

Hey! This is a do yer own thang game. Go fer it.

 

[Rifleman1776]

i have only used a .54 for a couple years now and back and forth with .50 and .45, for deer i can't see much difference. for pig killing if you hit them in the head or in the neck right behind the skull it don't matter but a big hog can take a shot in the heart/lung area and do a disappearing act that would make Houdini look like a amateur. thats why i got the .54 but still being able to hit the mark is what counts in the long run.

All my deer have been killed with a .45 rb. (I won't talk about the one or two with a 30-06 :redface: ). But with bear and elk in the state I had a Jaeger .54 built. Then I destroyed my shoulders and it is now a safe queen.