Bullet question
- Thread starter smokeblower
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
Might be a different view on the reference to a projectile stopping just under the skin on the far side being the best possible delivery of energy, what more could you ask for, etc.
Yes, all the energy of that particular projectile was expended inside the target...that part is correct...but...what that really means is that the projectile, already slowing down from the moment it left the barrel, slowed down so much more when it hit the target that it's forward progress tapered off enough that it didn't make it through the target.
That also means it's energy was bleeding off significantly as it traversed the target, producing less and less shock, trauma and wound channel effects as it did so.
A much larger amount of energy is expended in a target by a projectile that continues passing through the full width of the target internals at a much higher sustained velocity, creating much greater continuous shock effect, greater trauma, and longer/wider wound channels the full width of the target internals.
For example, the size of an exit wound is sometimes 2-3 times the size of an entry hole and the fact that the projectile plowed through most of the internals at that larger size is very significant...and would be far more devastating than a slower velocity projectile, that does not expand nearly as much and does far less damage as it coasts to a halt inside.
Just another view on the matter...
Yes, all the energy of that particular projectile was expended inside the target...that part is correct...but...what that really means is that the projectile, already slowing down from the moment it left the barrel, slowed down so much more when it hit the target that it's forward progress tapered off enough that it didn't make it through the target.
That also means it's energy was bleeding off significantly as it traversed the target, producing less and less shock, trauma and wound channel effects as it did so.
A much larger amount of energy is expended in a target by a projectile that continues passing through the full width of the target internals at a much higher sustained velocity, creating much greater continuous shock effect, greater trauma, and longer/wider wound channels the full width of the target internals.
For example, the size of an exit wound is sometimes 2-3 times the size of an entry hole and the fact that the projectile plowed through most of the internals at that larger size is very significant...and would be far more devastating than a slower velocity projectile, that does not expand nearly as much and does far less damage as it coasts to a halt inside.
Just another view on the matter...
balls & bullets...
Used sabot/pistol bullets, then TC and Hornady conicals, then patched round balls...took deer cleanly with all of them.
Was very fortunate to have an excellent season this year, and got great satisfaction out of filling four buck tags with patched round balls, shot out of flintlocks, at 25, 35, 50, and 60 yds...and every one fell dead within sight of the stand.
Three sprinted about 25yds and collapsed, and I'll have to admit that the 6 pointer I shot with the little .45cal/128grn ball sprinted about 5 yards farther than the others before dropping.
TG knows from whence he speaks...patched round balls are devastating.
Used sabot/pistol bullets, then TC and Hornady conicals, then patched round balls...took deer cleanly with all of them.
Was very fortunate to have an excellent season this year, and got great satisfaction out of filling four buck tags with patched round balls, shot out of flintlocks, at 25, 35, 50, and 60 yds...and every one fell dead within sight of the stand.
Three sprinted about 25yds and collapsed, and I'll have to admit that the 6 pointer I shot with the little .45cal/128grn ball sprinted about 5 yards farther than the others before dropping.
TG knows from whence he speaks...patched round balls are devastating.
Guest
For those of us who have been in this hunting game for more than a few years, we've seen this topic argued since we were old enough to read Outdoor Life, Sports Afield or Fur, Fish and Game. To say nothing of The American Rifleman or American Hunter or in the past 20+ years the North American Hunter. It's a never ending debate as to which is better; light projectiles at high velocity or heavy for caliber projectiles at moderate velocity. Indeed the same argument can go back to the late 1800's and one can study the British Express cartridges as opposed to the American Sharps, Ballard, Remington, Bullard, Springfield, ad infinitum, cartridges. At that time the British and Germans were using, and with very good effect, light projectiles at the highest velocity attainable with black powder. On this side of the pond we were shooting heavy for caliber projectiles at considerably greater distances with equally good effect. Both systems worked admirably within their parameters. A long shot in Africa and India was something less than 100 yards. On the Great Plains and in the Rocky Mountains that same shot was considered close. Now before I catch hell about 100 yds being a close shot in the Rockies and that X number of you have killed X number of game animals at 15 yards in the Rockies and on the Great Plains let me tell you I've done the same thing. However, by and large our shooting of game is longer range than Africa/India....with the possible exception of African plains game TODAY, not 100+ years ago. Anyway, the point is that both methods were and are effective. The end result is approached from the opposite end of the spectrum, the same as we are discussing here.....120+ years after the fact.
To be a complete hypocrite; I shoot nothing but PRB from my muzzleloaders and have had total success to date. I also love my Sharps and Ballard rifles and have nothing but praise for the way they put game down on the spot, period, no questions asked. I also dearly love my German and British double rifles and they do the same thing with equal aplomb.
For me, I want to take my game with a firearm of a given period used the way it was used in that era. I want my muzzleloaders to look, feel and perform as they did in days gone by and the same goes for my Sharps, Ballards and pre-1900 double rifles. Sure there were conicals available in the 1820's. But they were uncommon and almost definitely not used by the "average Joe" shooting game to feed the family. The run of the mill "buffler runner" didn't use a false muzzle and load from the front of his Sharps, Remington or Ballard either, as did a lot of the target shooters "back east". Nor did they breech seat as the Scheutzen riflemen did. The double rifles were always hunting arms and to my knowledge there was not the varied approach in their use as with the previously mentioned arms.
I suppose all of that was to say.....what difference does it make? Both methods are effective. Unless one is bound by tradition the legal taking of a game animal is as legal by one means as another, not that we're discussing legality. Personally, I prefer the "trditional" means of using any of the aforementioned weapons. To me, anything other than a PRB in a muzzleloader.....a real muzzleloader....simply isn't in the spirit of their intended use. I do not count bolt action, scoped in-lines as real muzzleloaders any more than I consider a compound arrow launching platform with peep sights and a mechanical release, ie, trigger, a bow. That is another discussion. Patched round balls out of a muzzleloader have taken every animal on the face of the earth and done it with supreme efficiency. Ain't no other projectile needed. In my Sharps I want almost the heaviest projectile available. In my doubles I'll sitck with the tried and true projectile weights for the given caliber. They are none wrong........
Vic
To be a complete hypocrite; I shoot nothing but PRB from my muzzleloaders and have had total success to date. I also love my Sharps and Ballard rifles and have nothing but praise for the way they put game down on the spot, period, no questions asked. I also dearly love my German and British double rifles and they do the same thing with equal aplomb.
For me, I want to take my game with a firearm of a given period used the way it was used in that era. I want my muzzleloaders to look, feel and perform as they did in days gone by and the same goes for my Sharps, Ballards and pre-1900 double rifles. Sure there were conicals available in the 1820's. But they were uncommon and almost definitely not used by the "average Joe" shooting game to feed the family. The run of the mill "buffler runner" didn't use a false muzzle and load from the front of his Sharps, Remington or Ballard either, as did a lot of the target shooters "back east". Nor did they breech seat as the Scheutzen riflemen did. The double rifles were always hunting arms and to my knowledge there was not the varied approach in their use as with the previously mentioned arms.
I suppose all of that was to say.....what difference does it make? Both methods are effective. Unless one is bound by tradition the legal taking of a game animal is as legal by one means as another, not that we're discussing legality. Personally, I prefer the "trditional" means of using any of the aforementioned weapons. To me, anything other than a PRB in a muzzleloader.....a real muzzleloader....simply isn't in the spirit of their intended use. I do not count bolt action, scoped in-lines as real muzzleloaders any more than I consider a compound arrow launching platform with peep sights and a mechanical release, ie, trigger, a bow. That is another discussion. Patched round balls out of a muzzleloader have taken every animal on the face of the earth and done it with supreme efficiency. Ain't no other projectile needed. In my Sharps I want almost the heaviest projectile available. In my doubles I'll sitck with the tried and true projectile weights for the given caliber. They are none wrong........
Vic
Very good post,snd as for the following.."I suppose all of that was to say.....what difference does it make?".. none! except that when one states that at short ranges the conical is superior to the RB, and kills quicker, better yada yadda and that todays conicals are PC, there is what might be considered unfounded, fabricated data being put forth as fact, and that is not fair to those who are lurking/learning about this sport and are looking for info unbiased by modern myth and mindset.
My point might have been missed...I wasn't comparing light & fast to heavy & slow at all.
I was addressing the statement that implied that a projectile stopping under the skin on the far side was the best thing possible, which I don't happen to think is the case.
Use your same .50cal rifle with two 180grn balls:
Run one into a deer at 1000fps and another one into that deer at 2000fps.
The first one will probably stop inside the deer, the second one will probably drive right through the entire width of the deer with power.
The damage done to that deer by the one going twice as fast (same weight) will be much more devastating...that's all I was addressing
I was addressing the statement that implied that a projectile stopping under the skin on the far side was the best thing possible, which I don't happen to think is the case.
Use your same .50cal rifle with two 180grn balls:
Run one into a deer at 1000fps and another one into that deer at 2000fps.
The first one will probably stop inside the deer, the second one will probably drive right through the entire width of the deer with power.
The damage done to that deer by the one going twice as fast (same weight) will be much more devastating...that's all I was addressing
TwoShadows
40 Cal.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 340
- Reaction score
- 0
Quote from Roundball:
"I was addressing the statement that implied that a projectile stopping under the skin on the far side was the best thing possible, which I don't happen to think is the case.
Use your same .50cal rifle with two 180grn balls:
Run one into a deer at 1000fps and another one into that deer at 2000fps.
The first one will probably stop inside the deer, the second one will probably drive right through the entire width of the deer with power.
The damage done to that deer by the one going twice as fast (same weight) will be much more devastating...that's all I was addressing"
-------------------------------------------------
Yep, I see what you are addressing....which aint the TRANSFER OF ENERGY, or knock down power if you prefer. Lets say that your 180 grain 50 caliber ball running at 2000fps stops just under the skin in the manner I spoke of....it still has transferred all its energy....can't compare apples and oranges....so it's a moot point in that respect.
I contend that the shape of a round ball also has a greater tendency to "mushroom"/"expand" etc than an elongated projectile, given that they encounter the same impediment. You and I could empty a tall bottle and politely disagree far into the nite...each believing their own hypothesis the correct one. No doubt you have opinions also and would freely expound them on whether Hell is endothermic or exothermic.
A deer ran into by a big ol Peterbuilt at 65 mph is as dead as one ran completely ran through with a Volkswagen running at 100 mph. Transfer of energyand penetration are different sides of the proverbial coin. No need to respond to this...we're both kicking a dead horse!
"I was addressing the statement that implied that a projectile stopping under the skin on the far side was the best thing possible, which I don't happen to think is the case.
Use your same .50cal rifle with two 180grn balls:
Run one into a deer at 1000fps and another one into that deer at 2000fps.
The first one will probably stop inside the deer, the second one will probably drive right through the entire width of the deer with power.
The damage done to that deer by the one going twice as fast (same weight) will be much more devastating...that's all I was addressing"
-------------------------------------------------
Yep, I see what you are addressing....which aint the TRANSFER OF ENERGY, or knock down power if you prefer. Lets say that your 180 grain 50 caliber ball running at 2000fps stops just under the skin in the manner I spoke of....it still has transferred all its energy....can't compare apples and oranges....so it's a moot point in that respect.
I contend that the shape of a round ball also has a greater tendency to "mushroom"/"expand" etc than an elongated projectile, given that they encounter the same impediment. You and I could empty a tall bottle and politely disagree far into the nite...each believing their own hypothesis the correct one. No doubt you have opinions also and would freely expound them on whether Hell is endothermic or exothermic.
A deer ran into by a big ol Peterbuilt at 65 mph is as dead as one ran completely ran through with a Volkswagen running at 100 mph. Transfer of energyand penetration are different sides of the proverbial coin. No need to respond to this...we're both kicking a dead horse!
Thanks, but I'll decide if I want to respond to something or not...and I don't need to crawl into a bottle to discuss it...you made a post and I simply posted a different point of view...sorry if it doesn't match your theory but that's life
TwoShadows
40 Cal.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 340
- Reaction score
- 0
Believe I said there was no NEED to respond....whether you do or not is your privelege.....Didn't think "crawling into a bottle" was what I suggested either....lighten up pal,
smokeblower
40 Cal.
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2003
- Messages
- 205
- Reaction score
- 0
Well, I have been insulted by a narrow mind who has loose roundballs in their head. Because I have seen results that scream out to me the REAL is much better load for taking deer that a roundball. I have taken deer with roundballs, many more than the REAL, but in a few years that will change. I do not argue with stumps full of roundballs. If that is your load I respect you, do the same as I take game with my loads. The evidence in my camp has led to the storing of the roundball mold and the use of the REAL. There is no REAL argument, my mind is made up, based on observed results. The roundball is retired in my camp. Those who have allowed this topic to melt into an argument are showing their closed to change and narrow minded to anything new. I do not slam you for the roundball devotion many have bought into for sake of historical accuracy, yet you are wrong in my experienced, observed opinion. This will be my last post on this topic. Learned debates are always open, emotional traditionalism; I had enough of that years ago in church.
I am with TG, I too have never liked "crippling" a living creature.
Smokeblower,
Why did you ever post this question to us rookies if you have such vast experience in your camp?
From your last post, maybe you should just go ahead and get a Knight inline and be done with it. I have no doubt "Old Gabe" would have if he could have.
Is Jim Shockey your camp leader?
As far as insults go, your original referral to yourself as a "real" hunter alluded that the rest of us are not. That to my mind was an insult. If you felt insulted by subsequent remarks, then so be it. You earned it.
I think the vast experience in your camp adds up to a lot of hot air and very little real knowledge. It suits me if you decide to keep the hot air expulsion and "smokeblowing" to you and your camp.
Originally I thought your first post was done without real forethought. Now I see it as the work of a Troll.
Smokeblower,
Why did you ever post this question to us rookies if you have such vast experience in your camp?
From your last post, maybe you should just go ahead and get a Knight inline and be done with it. I have no doubt "Old Gabe" would have if he could have.
Is Jim Shockey your camp leader?
As far as insults go, your original referral to yourself as a "real" hunter alluded that the rest of us are not. That to my mind was an insult. If you felt insulted by subsequent remarks, then so be it. You earned it.
I think the vast experience in your camp adds up to a lot of hot air and very little real knowledge. It suits me if you decide to keep the hot air expulsion and "smokeblowing" to you and your camp.
Originally I thought your first post was done without real forethought. Now I see it as the work of a Troll.
The question of wheather the projectile stops or penetrates all the way thru has been argued ever since there has been projectiles. the old idea of
releasing all it's energy if it stopped was at one time thought probable. Although now we all know kinectic energy has little to do with killing power and that a hole all the way thru
as Roundball says is much deadlier than one that
stops. The shape of the projectile and how much it mushrooms also has a lot to do with killing ability. No one these days kills enough game to become an authority, I have records of over a 100 deer and Elk that I've killed but we need to listen to hunters who have killed many hundreds
and mostly if not all say ,all the way thru is better and common sense will tell you that's true.
however, why argue, if what your using satisfies you, use it, if not try something else.
Deadeye
releasing all it's energy if it stopped was at one time thought probable. Although now we all know kinectic energy has little to do with killing power and that a hole all the way thru
as Roundball says is much deadlier than one that
stops. The shape of the projectile and how much it mushrooms also has a lot to do with killing ability. No one these days kills enough game to become an authority, I have records of over a 100 deer and Elk that I've killed but we need to listen to hunters who have killed many hundreds
and mostly if not all say ,all the way thru is better and common sense will tell you that's true.
however, why argue, if what your using satisfies you, use it, if not try something else.
Deadeye
To some of us tradional means "traditional", to others traditional means grabbing on to the next new thing, and each of us believes in what we're doing so why bother arguing.
This reminds me of an except from "The Last of the Mohicans."
Nathaniel
Well that
This reminds me of an except from "The Last of the Mohicans."
Nathaniel
Well that
quote:Originally posted by Haggis:
Both sides of this ball configuration debate are defending what they like, and neither side will change.Well spoken, Haggis....
Round balls - Bullets
Patches - Sabots
Chevy - Ford
Stand - Sit
Coke - Pepsi.....
This falls under freedom of choise, that's what our fore fathers quilled on a piece of parchment many years ago...
Both sides of this ball configuration debate are defending what they like, and neither side will change.Well spoken, Haggis....
Round balls - Bullets
Patches - Sabots
Chevy - Ford
Stand - Sit
Coke - Pepsi.....
This falls under freedom of choise, that's what our fore fathers quilled on a piece of parchment many years ago...
The point is not the right to choose but the responsibility not to missinform, this post started with a post that an individual had taken deer for four years with a .50 PRB then dumped one with a.58 conical and for some reason was amazed that the deer dropped like a sack of spuds, (the .58 rb generally does the same thing) and thus becomes an expert on the conical being a superior projectile over the rb, I am finished with this foolishness, the absurdity of this particular incident/post speaks for itself.
Guest
absolutely correct Hagis! I'm glad we have the power to chose.
Why not pick the best of both worlds? Use a Minie ball! a historicly accurate enlongated projectile! that should satisfy everyone.
Why not pick the best of both worlds? Use a Minie ball! a historicly accurate enlongated projectile! that should satisfy everyone.
The only true freedom is to have a choice. If you need a different projectile to be happy then by all means use them.
To me, round balls are attractive BECAUSE they are at the bottom of the technology ladder but are still effective . . . enough. Part of the romance of muzzleloading. I don't want to make my weapon better, I want to make myself better at using my weapon.
To me, round balls are attractive BECAUSE they are at the bottom of the technology ladder but are still effective . . . enough. Part of the romance of muzzleloading. I don't want to make my weapon better, I want to make myself better at using my weapon.
Besides having no use for elongated bullets in my muzzleloaders, here are some other things for which this traditionalist has no use:
1. Ballistic charts and tables
2. Commercial patch and bullet lubes
3. Commercial cleaning fluids
4. Chronograph machines
5. Micrometers for ball dimension and patch thickness
6.
1. Ballistic charts and tables
2. Commercial patch and bullet lubes
3. Commercial cleaning fluids
4. Chronograph machines
5. Micrometers for ball dimension and patch thickness
6.
Wow, I thought I was a hunter having used round balls to harvest North American game animals up to and including Caribou, I now see the error of my ways being criminally under gunned and in the future will usn nothing smaller than 670gr API BMG rounds and then only if my 20MM is out of service.
Waugh'
Hawkeye
Waugh'
Hawkeye
quote:Originally posted by Hawkeye:
I now see the error of my ways being criminally under gunned and in the future will usn nothing smaller than 670gr API BMG rounds and then only if my 20MM is out of service.I would love to hunt deer/moose/bear/squirrels with a 4 1/2 inch bore Civil War cannon...
What a day that would be, shooting a 25 pound bag of #6 chilled shot over a 2 pound charge of Fg at a nearby fox squirrel...
Do you think this set-up would be a bit under-gunned?
I now see the error of my ways being criminally under gunned and in the future will usn nothing smaller than 670gr API BMG rounds and then only if my 20MM is out of service.I would love to hunt deer/moose/bear/squirrels with a 4 1/2 inch bore Civil War cannon...
What a day that would be, shooting a 25 pound bag of #6 chilled shot over a 2 pound charge of Fg at a nearby fox squirrel...
Do you think this set-up would be a bit under-gunned?
