Bullet question

[Kentuckywindage]

Dan,

We have a different definition of a modern conical. You think of a Maxi Ball. I'm not a fan of big lead conicals. I have no doubt that because of the weight they can get the job done. They might deflect from hitting bone, but so does the RB. I will say that the heavier the bullet. The less it will deflect. I saw a test done on how bullets deflect, and it was the heavy bullets that did the best.

I may have read your post too fast, and missed what you were saying. You were calling the Maxi a modern conical. I don't. Although it was never used back in the day of the guns we shoot. It's not a miniball, but even that doesn't go back far enough. I think all lead conicals are crude, and only work better, because of their weight.

This what I call a modern conical. A RB can't compare in any way with it's performance. I've used them, and i'm taking anybodies word for how they work.

Not PC in any way, but if someone is going to use a TC Hawken with T7 powder. You might as well shoot a bullet like this. Everything else you're doing screams modern.
http://thorbullets.com/[/quote]

X2, And if that sporter has the fast 1:20 twist, that Thor should really shine as they recommend a twist as fast as 1:16 But they also shoot great with 1:48 twist,

 

[Dphar]

Dan,

We have a different definition of a modern conical. You think of a Maxi Ball. I'm not a fan of big lead conicals. I have no doubt that because of the weight they can get the job done. They might deflect from hitting bone, but so does the RB. I will say that the heavier the bullet. The less it will deflect. I saw a test done on how bullets deflect, and it was the heavy bullets that did the best.

I may have read your post too fast, and missed what you were saying. You were calling the Maxi a modern conical. I don't. Although it was never used back in the day of the guns we shoot. It's not a miniball, but even that doesn't go back far enough. I think all lead conicals are crude, and only work better, because of their weight.

This what I call a modern conical. A RB can't compare in any way with it's performance. I've used them, and i'm taking anybodies word for how they work.

Not PC in any way, but if someone is going to use a TC Hawken with T7 powder. You might as well shoot a bullet like this. Everything else you're doing screams modern.
http://thorbullets.com/[/quote]



Given that the REAL, the MAXi, the MAXI hunter, the Ballets, the Buffalo bullets etc etc all came on the scene in the 1970s or later I have a hard time not calling them "modern" in the context of muzzleloading rifles which for hunting used the PRB almost exclusively until the advent of the modern factory made ML and the bullets developed for them.

Now it seems YOU are doing the magic bullet thing.

Funny.

If a deer shot in the lungs with a 30-06 runs 40 yards and piles up dead (or 200+ after a chest shot with a 7mm mag that left lung hanging out the far side) and another similar or identical deer is shot with a 38-40 BP load and runs 40 yards and falls dead which is the better killer? The 30-06 makes MUCH bigger wound channel than the 38-40 which makes a track through the lungs about the diameter of a common retractable ballpoint pen. But both deer die when the brain runs out of oxygen.

The 38-40 was at

 

[MercerLake]

:v Great pictures, they really tell the story of "enough is enough". :v

 

[Idaho Ron]

Even with the broken shoulder and the heavy muscles the "anemic" 495 ball still exited. So tell me what would the magic conical do better? Penetrate farther into the dirt beyond the deer perhaps?

Yes the picture does tell a story. Most of the deer in those pictures are on the smaller side of average. Is a 460 gr conical needed for that type of animal no. As was clearly shown if you shoot a deer that is small and make a broad side shot a PRB is clearly enough.

You have obviously bought into the BS.

Why not add a scope and a plastic stock too?

If I were going to shoot what is essentially a semi-smokeless powder and some fancy modern bullet why would I shoot a ML?

Why not just shoot a 45-70 or a 30-30 or a 7mm mag or a shotgun with a rifled barrel?

If you are simply hunting with a ML to allow hunting in a ML season you are doing it for the wrong reason.

So you throw insults and then you make your self the up most expert on why a person should use a ML. Who gave you the power to say WHY and HOW we should use a ML? Who are you to say we are hunting with a ML for the WRONG reason? In the grand scheme of things your no different than Toby Bridges.

I started shooting MLs before all the modern conicals came on the market. So I never saw the need, shooting ML for me is a connection with the past.

If that is YOUR reason to hunt with a ML great. That is clearly not mine. You have no right to tell me or anyone else WHY we should hunt with a ML.

I don't care what people choose to shoot or hunt with. But I will not stand by and have traditional ML hunting maligned. Its impossible to hunt with modern powders and modern bullets and claim its "traditional" unless the decade of the 1970s is somehow the historic period that determines "traditional".

Here we are defining traditional once again the fight that never ends. What your calling "traditional" a lot of us call HC or PC. It is fully possible to be traditional and hunt with a TC Hawken. It is also possible to hunt with a conical and be traditional. It is NOT possible to hunt with a TC Hawken and a conical and be PC or HC.

This is the same old fight from the same people. Calling names and pointing fingers. We are told we are not good enough to be called traditional. We are told we shouldn't be hunting with a ML if we use a conical. The PRB backers will tell of phantom energy that can not be calculated that kills like lightning. It lifts a man's spirit and allows him to focus on a higher plain.
It is not the industry that is filling the masses with :bull:
Ron

 

[Kapow]

What every novice needs when starting out in this sport is a mentor. Someone who is both knowledgeable from experience as well as patient. It wasn't until I got on this site that I really started to get some idea of how it all works.

Often a newbies enthusiasm leads us down the wrong path. If there is no one to guide us in the right direction early on then who else is there to listen to but advertising?

So rather than complain about it, take someone under your wing.

 

[Pete Gaimari]

Dan,

You've already showed me those pictures in another thread.

I'm not sure why you keep bringing up CF guns and ammo? I never mentioned it.

I simple showed you a modern conical for muzzleloaders. It's an option for those who want more hitting power and distance over a PRB.

At the distance and small animals your shooting, the PRB is fine.

At 200+yds on an Elk. Your PRB will fail.

It's all hunting, and it's all good.

I'm just more flexible than you are on what I hunt with. I use a PRB for some hunting, but i'm not going to use it for everything, because I want to be PC. I'm more interested in humane kills than what someone else thinks of what's loaded in my barrel.

 

[airmansteve]

I agree, Kapow. Mentoring will do more to advance this sport/hobby than any soap box rant.

Everyone has their own reasons for hunting with a ML and for choosing their projectile. In the interest of hunting and firearms in general, I believe that personal choices should be just that. Personal and not subjected to scrutiny or out right attack from someone who has a different opinion.

Some like PRB, some prefer conical. Each has their place. If I had a rifle that would digest the conicals with accuracy, they would be my choice when I was hunting wide open fields and had 200 yard shots to make. In the woods where I normally hunt, PRB is fine because a long shot would be 50 yards.

Bottom line is that bullet choice should be based on the rifling twist, normal hunting distance and personal competence with the rifle.

Happy hunting, make smoke, harvest meat!

 

[Idaho Ron]

I agree, Kapow. Mentoring will do more to advance this sport/hobby than any soap box rant.

Everyone has their own reasons for hunting with a ML and for choosing their projectile. In the interest of hunting and firearms in general, I believe that personal choices should be just that. Personal and not subjected to scrutiny or out right attack from someone who has a different opinion.

Some like PRB, some prefer conical. Each has their place. If I had a rifle that would digest the conicals with accuracy, they would be my choice when I was hunting wide open fields and had 200 yard shots to make. In the woods where I normally hunt, PRB is fine because a long shot would be 50 yards.

Bottom line is that bullet choice should be based on the rifling twist, normal hunting distance and personal competence with the rifle.

Happy hunting, make smoke, harvest meat!

Well said. :applause: :applause: :applause:
Ron

 

[Dphar]

Dan,

You've already showed me those pictures in another thread.

I'm not sure why you keep bringing up CF guns and ammo? I never mentioned it.

I simple showed you a modern conical for muzzleloaders. It's an option for those who want more hitting power and distance over a PRB.

At the distance and small animals your shooting, the PRB is fine.

At 200+yds on an Elk. Your PRB will fail.

It's all hunting, and it's all good.

I'm just more flexible than you are on what I hunt with. I use a PRB for some hunting, but i'm not going to use it for everything, because I want to be PC. I'm more interested in humane kills than what someone else thinks of what's loaded in my barrel.

Apparently you need to see things more than once to get the point.
I bring up modern stuff because you seem to be fascinated by it and I am trying to point out that there is little difference in a properly sized RB for the game being shot and a modern CF so long as the rb is used within its range which for most game shot in NA in about 120 yards maybe a 150 for someone who knows his rifle. Past 150 is very problematical with ANY BP firearm unless the range is KNOWN and the rifle SIGHTED for the range or close too it. The projectile makes little difference in this.

You want to blather on about modern bullets I have used them quite a bit just not in ML, by ML standards even the PP bullets used in Slug Guns and BPCRs are "modern". But you cannot tell me exactly how the modern ML conical would have done better in the photos I posted.
THIS IS THE POINT.
I don't even hunt with BPCRs anymore if I don't hunt with a Flintlock I go right to a modern CF. Sometimes because late in the season I need to fill tags and the modern CF lets me kill game I could not get within in range of even with a 45-100 which will, in theory, kill even Bison to at LEAST 800-1000 yards IF I COULD PLACE THE SHOT.
I sometimes hunt whitetails where 200+ is normal and even a HV 45-70 does not shoot flat enough.
I mentioned them to point out that WHERE the animal is shot is more important than what it is shot with so long as the projectile is ADEQUATE for the job.
This is all that the projectile needs to be and this is something that was pointed out by Forsythe.
He lived in the era to the conical in English guns.
BUT.
They did not work all that well in the field, primarily because for HIS use penetration was paramount and the HARDENED ROUND BALL outperformed the CONICAL. The conical did not become the "norm" until the advent of cartridges like the 577 BPE, 10 bore cartridge guns and even 4 bores. But the really large bore heavy game guns generally used a RB or "conical" that while it had a driving band or two to help fix it in the the cartridge case was in reality little little heavier than a RB.
You need to quit reading drivel in the gun press and actually practice with your rifle and then actually SHOOT SOMETHING WITH IT. Because as near as I can tell we have no common frame of reference. I am commenting on things I have seen and done and you seem to just be commenting.

Maybe you haven't seen this one.

Over 25 years ago I killed this antelope at something over 120 yards with a 50 cal RB rifle and darned if it wasn't a one shot kill. Apparently the Antelope did not realize that he was shot with the old fashioned, ineffective, no energy, no accuracy, no copper, no plastic, no whiz bang modern feature bull crap and fell dead by mistake. But while this might amaze you its of little surprise to people who ACTUALLY hunt with a TRADITIONAL muzzleloading hunting rifle.
Current experience and the writings of the past, journals and such, are full of such things. But you don't find it in magazines with AR-15s on the cover or some "modern ML" website.
Anyone can accomplish marvelous things with a keyboard. But only real experience is meaningful.

Finally I get the idea that you have somehow "learned" that a .495" RB will not kill a 250-400 pound deer despite the fact that a .775 RB driven by 6 drams of BP was enough for animals weighing as much as 10000 pounds IF ITS USED RIGHT and WITHIN ITS RANGE.

Hunting with a ML is hunting. I need to find the animal and then approach close enough for the shot. With a modern CF I can snipe from a distance but its generally not "hunting" and I have no particular interest in it other than a way to fill the freezer when game populations are low as they are in the areas I hunt at this time. So I hunt till near the end of the season with the ML and then finish up as needed with smokeless powder. Last year I used Dad's 308 at the end and as often happens the 2 deer I shot I could have killed with a Flintlock. Always irritates me but they taste OK :grin:

I consider this a waste of time so will now give up on this thread as a waste of time and energy.

Dan

 

[Pete Gaimari]

Oh brother. Another one on this forum who thinks they can figure someone out and know everything about me by my posts.

We've had this same conversation on other threads. they usually end by you going away, because I won't bow to your pictures.

You can believe the rest of my post, or not. I could care less, because i'm not trying to convince you of anything. Just telling you the truth.

My dad taught me to hunt when I was 8 years old. That was 1950. I'm sure that was before you were born. I hunted with him until he passed away. He taught me to still hunt. I've hunted that way ever since. I tried to spot and stalk for one year, and didn't like it. I tried long shot hunting with a CF and scope. I hated it. Too easy and no challenge. I've still hunted ever since.

I've never had any interest in hunting with anybody since I lost my dad. I always hunt alone. I hunt for myself, and never take pictures. I find no need for it. My hunts are all in my mind. I can sit alone in a quiet room, or sitting in the mountains by a creek and relive them all. They're mine, and I don't need to show them to anybody else. I enjoy reading about someone else's hunt, but I have no desire to share mine.

So please, stop judging me. You don't know me. Hunting has been my passion all my life, but I consider it very personal. I've only shared my hunts with my dad, and that's the way it will remain.

 

[BadHorse]

first i want to say GO DAN GO!!!!! i couldnt agree with you more! the PRB is the most underrated, and underestimated way to go in your rifle.

Oh brother. Another one on this forum who thinks they can figure someone out and know everything about me by my posts.

We've had this same conversation on other threads. they usually end by you going away, because I won't bow to your pictures.

You can believe the rest of my post, or not. I could care less, because i'm not trying to convince you of anything. Just telling you the truth.

My dad taught me to hunt when I was 8 years old. That was 1950. I'm sure that was before you were born. I hunted with him until he passed away. He taught me to still hunt. I've hunted that way ever since. I tried to spot and stalk for one year, and didn't like it. I tried long shot hunting with a CF and scope. I hated it. Too easy and no challenge. I've still hunted ever since.

I've never had any interest in hunting with anybody since I lost my dad. I always hunt alone. I hunt for myself, and never take pictures. I find no need for it. My hunts are all in my mind. I can sit alone in a quiet room, or sitting in the mountains by a creek and relive them all. They're mine, and I don't need to show them to anybody else. I enjoy reading about someone else's hunt, but I have no desire to share mine.

So please, stop judging me. You don't know me. Hunting has been my passion all my life, but I consider it very personal. I've only shared my hunts with my dad, and that's the way it will remain.

dude in plain english, unless its a "patched round ball" it aint traditional. you keep trying to argue ways to use those silly soup can bullets. most muzzleloaders wont shoot them worth a poop! i have a hawken with 1=48, ive tried conicals in it and unless im shooting out to 500 yards plus there just no point to it.

see the above pic in my last post. PRB's fly through ballistics gel that have bones in them. i have many more examples.

 

[nkbj]

Newarcher,
Designing, casting and finishing home made hand crafted conicals is a lot of fun if you're into that kind of do it yourself hobby. If not well then store bought and round ball will do the job in North America if the diameter and powder charge are right. All kinds of projectiles were used over the centuries so nothing you try will be "new". But, every time I try a new load in a muzzleloader it's new no matter what the geometry of the projectile may be.
If you would prefer to acquire accoutrements appropriate to a specific place and time there are many fellas on the forum who are steeped in knowledge and lore concerning individual geographic areas at different times.

 

[Pete Gaimari]

Dude! In plain English I hunt with a PRB. I never said I didn't.

My argument is I know it's limitations, and they're lower than a modern conical. That's all i've ever said in this thread. I didn't tell anybody to use them. As a matter of fact. I told the OP to use a PRB.

btw I'd be willing to bet I burn more black powder than you and Dan together in a year. I don't just pull stuff out of the air. I test by shooting.

I'm getting so tired of some of you know it all's on this forum. Put me on ignore. It's more peaceful.

 

[Pete Gaimari]

Newarcher,
Designing, casting and finishing home made hand crafted conicals is a lot of fun if you're into that kind of do it yourself hobby. If not well then store bought and round ball will do the job in North America if the diameter and powder charge are right. All kinds of projectiles were used over the centuries so nothing you try will be "new". But, every time I try a new load in a muzzleloader it's new no matter what the geometry of the projectile may be.
If you would prefer to acquire accoutrements appropriate to a specific place and time there are many fellas on the forum who are steeped in knowledge and lore concerning individual geographic areas at different times.

Yes, I know that, and it's the reason i'm here. I don't need help in hunting though.

 

[tg]

"dude in plain english, unless its a "patched round ball" it aint traditional."

Well, thta does not quite ring true, while the prb was the common projectile during most of the ML era. there was quite a bit of exploring the world of the conical bullet in the 1840-50 period and later, even some in the late 18th century, I believe the Lozenge ball was of this period, the issue with conicals stems from the that fact very few are ballisticaly equal or based on originals thus giving them a considerable advantage over the originals which to many is not fair play from as traditional view, I am not a conical fan not do to the type of projectile as such but to modern bullets being allowed in as traditional projectiles and just allowed in Deer seasons one can take a sidelock ML with a highteck peep and super bullet and have the same thing balliticaly as a 50/105 cartridge single shot Ruger #1 or Remington Buffaloe gun not really what one could in anyway call a level playing field, I think it is important to know the history of the early bullets and as important to know the difference between them and what is now being offered in their place and being passed off as "traditional" the dreaed &^-line has as much place in a trdational setting as the modern conicals as this type of gun was around since the flintlock era, why we accept one and not the other is totaly lost upon me both belong in the modern world of guns and gear, ask Toby and friends these are the toys they think we should be hunting with rather than the PRB


"the problem with PRB's and hunting is people not wanting to work up a heavy hunting load."

I would like to see the datra hat supports tha mass use of sub standard hunting loads, most post Ihave seen here suggest a reasonbale load for he ranges thye are considering shooting in theirituation, some use heavy loads no matter the range others do not, but the lanket statement posted as factreally off the wall and could be very missleading to necommers to the sport

 

[BadHorse]

I would like to see the datra hat supports tha mass use of sub standard hunting loads, most post Ihave seen here suggest a reasonbale load for he ranges thye are considering shooting in theirituation, some use heavy loads no matter the range others do not, but the lanket statement posted as factreally off the wall and could be very missleading to necommers to the sport

go back and look at the ballistics gel pic and comments from Az fish and game

 

[Idaho Ron]

Idaho F&G did the same test in 1991 with 50 cal PRB,50 cal great plains conicals, and many others.

The 50 cal PRB into test clay. it had 7 1/2" of penetration.

The 50 cal Hornady 385 gr great plains had 12" of penetration.

The test went on to say " Round ball performance in all calibers tested were NOT impressive. At the 50 yard test distance they flattened out excessively which restricted penetration."

It also says for the Hornady Great plains bullet that the expansion was uniform but excessive.They didn't recommend the 50 cal 385 for elk. They recommended the "new" 410 gr great plains bullet.

The Buffalo bullets in all calibers and configurations were less likely to give uniform performance but delivered deeper penetration over all that the others tested. The only draw back to the Buffalo bullets was they were rejected due to poor accuracy.

Thompson center MaxiBalls were said to have a reputation for excellent penetration, poor expansion, and good accuracy. Test results were consistent.

TC Maxi Hunter- "Tests suggest that expansion enhancement may have been overdone a bit. Performance was similar to the Buffalo bullets, but less convenient to use since they are not pre- lubed".

The test goes on to tell about sabots and pistol bullets so I won't go on with that. It also tells about animals killed with a lot of the bullets mostly elk.
What it does say is NONE of the projectiles were "magic". I didn't read anything about the Phantom killing ability's of the PRB. They do give FPE stats, and speed. They said the PRB's work but use 50 for deer minimum and 54 for elk minimum. They also said that shooters shooting the PRB "mostly wring out superb accuracy from them and through precision shot placement and above -average hunting skills can partially overcome some performance deficiencies posed by round ball use."
In short the PRB is for top notch expert hunters only.
This test was performed by Al Marion of Boise Idaho and Gene Autry of Star Idaho. The full text can also be found in the Summer 1991 Issue of Black Powder hunting magizine. Also this was fully covered by the "Idaho Hunter's Guide to Muzzleloader Performance and Limitations"
These guys were not "gun writers" they were black powder hunters and shooters. They had no dog in the fight or sponsors to appease. I have seen first hand how PRB's have failed. I don't care for them but I don't care if anyone else wants to use them. I don't go on to PRB threads to try to make converts. I have my ways and others have theirs.
Ron

 

[Dphar]

Idaho F&G did the same test in 1991 with 50 cal PRB,50 cal great plains conicals, and many others.

The 50 cal PRB into test clay. it had 7 1/2" of penetration.

The 50 cal Hornady 385 gr great plains had 12" of penetration.

The test went on to say " Round ball performance in all calibers tested were NOT impressive. At the 50 yard test distance they flattened out excessively which restricted penetration."

It also says for the Hornady Great plains bullet that the expansion was uniform but excessive.They didn't recommend the 50 cal 385 for elk. They recommended the "new" 410 gr great plains bullet.

The Buffalo bullets in all calibers and configurations were less likely to give uniform performance but delivered deeper penetration over all that the others tested. The only draw back to the Buffalo bullets was they were rejected due to poor accuracy.

Thompson center MaxiBalls were said to have a reputation for excellent penetration, poor expansion, and good accuracy. Test results were consistent.

TC Maxi Hunter- "Tests suggest that expansion enhancement may have been overdone a bit. Performance was similar to the Buffalo bullets, but less convenient to use since they are not pre- lubed".

The test goes on to tell about sabots and pistol bullets so I won't go on with that. It also tells about animals killed with a lot of the bullets mostly elk.
What it does say is NONE of the projectiles were "magic". I didn't read anything about the Phantom killing ability's of the PRB. They do give FPE stats, and speed. They said the PRB's work but use 50 for deer minimum and 54 for elk minimum. They also said that shooters shooting the PRB "mostly wring out superb accuracy from them and through precision shot placement and above -average hunting skills can partially overcome some performance deficiencies posed by round ball use."
In short the PRB is for top notch expert hunters only.
This test was performed by Al Marion of Boise Idaho and Gene Autry of Star Idaho. The full text can also be found in the Summer 1991 Issue of Black Powder hunting magizine. Also this was fully covered by the "Idaho Hunter's Guide to Muzzleloader Performance and Limitations"
These guys were not "gun writers" they were black powder hunters and shooters. They had no dog in the fight or sponsors to appease. I have seen first hand how PRB's have failed. I don't care for them but I don't care if anyone else wants to use them. I don't go on to PRB threads to try to make converts. I have my ways and others have theirs.
Ron

I tell myself, stop posting its pointless.
But then...
What clay did they use? Did they test each block before firing to assure they were all uniform. Most people who shoot gelatine for serious testing use a low velocity air gun to give a penetration check before shooting the real gun to assure the block is uniform too much or too little penetration and the block will give inaccurate results in the real test.
So what bullet/cartridge/load did they use for a control? And how did they determine it was to be the standard for penetration? Did they then correlate penetration in the clay to penetration in an animal?
Gotta have something to compare to after all or the testing is MEANINGLESS. I could use this.

Shot on the same day with the same 50 cal that broke the deer's shoudler to indicate that approx .150" divot in this steel plate at 30 yards or so means that a 50 RB will shoot through a deer side to side at 60. Its meaningless just the same since:
If I had a 300 Weatherby and some 1980s 180 gr factory ammo I could probably "prove" that while it would not shoot through an elk it WOULD shoot through this piece of steel. What would it REALLY prove?
It would prove that the rifle would or would not shoot through the steel target.

I do know that a 54 caliber percussion Sharps "Christmas Tree" bullet backed by 70 grains of BP from a saddle ring CARBINE will shoot through a mule deer from end to end breaking a large leg bone in the process. But its pointed.
I have a sneaky feeling that unless hollow pointed and loaded heavy many ML bullets will do the same. I bet the Sharps would not make over 12" in clay either.

Did they test any 7 mag with 140 gr in this medium?
Or maybe a 264 mag with a 140 grain which at 40 yards failed to get through the shoulder muscles of a bull elk at 40 yards TWICE.
I have seen a 300 Weatherby Mag factory 180 grain shot into an elk I caped stop in about 5" on a 40 yard shot. The only thing the "saved the day" for both these magnums was that the 264 got the neck on the 3rd shot (the neck is closer to the hide than the vitals behind the shoulder muscles) and the other from the 300 hit in the withers and stuck a projection off the spine, where it stopped. But a previous shot had cut the elks throat and he then bled to death. The withers wound had no visible bullet fragments except the jacket base.
Note that the 54 RB which broke a large, heavy bone in a big old cow continued on to kill the elk. I would recommend a caliber larger than 54 for most hunters shooting elk but it has a good track record none the less.
In any case the 54 RB produced more penetration than either the 264 or the 300 exhibited IN THESE CASES.
In fact a 54 pistol I killed a Mule deer doe with, breaking the upper leg bone going in, penetrated farther than either of the magnums mentioned above.

Makes me wonder how far the 300 WM factory 180 would go in "test clay" at 40 yards. 12" maybe? Heh heh!
I have never seen any RB fail to penetrate to the far side at least on broad side chest shots. Never shot a buffalo though so don't know about that.
So when I see something like this that is so far removed from practical experience I really have no answer for it other than to simply chuckle.
How could anyone who claims to be a ML hunter take 7" penetration with a 50 caliber RB as anything believable? Unless they were out to prove the RB would not penetrate and had never actually hunted with them.
The last deer I shot with a 50 using 90 gr of FFF Swiss as previously detailed penetrated more than 7" AFTER breaking the shoulder blade right at the socket. How am I supposed to consider the testing you describe as valid. Where is the correlation? How do I reconcile this? Do I believe the clay test or do I believe what I have repeatedly seen in actual use over the years?
So the question for the people here who have ACTUALLY SHOT animals larger than a fox with patched RB is:
Have you even had a rb penetrate only 7" in a deer or a bear or an elk?

Traditional bullets? Find me a citation for a ML bullet other than the picket in anything like common civilian use in America prior to 1880.
Read Chapman's book "Instructions to Young Marksmen Improved American Rifle" printed in 1848. It has no mention of them even though it concerns itself with bullets and not balls.
But he does point out that without at least a guide starter

pickets will invariably be erratic.
My testing has shown this to be the case no matter what tricks I used so I made the the starter pictured. It fits OVER the turned muzzle and the "piston" is perfectly aligned with the bore. Centering the patch on the muzzle, then pressing the bullet into the recess in the starter reamed to a slight press fit for the bullet then putting the starter on the barrel and pushing the bullet into the muzzle and decent accuracy will be obtained 4" or so at 100 yards. If you whack it with your hand accuracy fails.
This rifle is a 48" twist 40 cal and I use a picket that weighs 160 or 135 grains depending on how long I cut the lead wire.
So if any of you think that the REAL, MAXI, MAXI-HUNTER or any of the other various and sundry modern ML bullets are "traditional" you are simply wishing it so.
SHOW ME THE PROOF. There is no historical proof that I know of at least not until the cartridge era and then it was target shooters in the east.
The picket was widely used in target shooting, usually 40 rods (220 yards). At this distance it would out perform the RB. But in the picket matches held at Cody the picket bullets do not shoot as well as the round ball at 100 yards.
I should have had a 100 yard shot in competition picket target to photograph but I had a Murphy's Law smack down after loading the rifle for the first sighter and did not compete at the only picket match I get to once a year :cursing:
I kinda lost interest in this and don't really practice with it. Just shoot it at Cody for fun, if it does not break.
This runs a little long but I do so the show that I actually have shot some elongated bullets in MLs and even shot a deer and a bear with the Italian copy of the Percussion Sharps. But the 54 RB rifle is a far better hunting gun. Longer point blank range and no difference in killing power. I have not shot anything with the picket rifle. If I carry the starter around in the field and ding the piston mouth it will require making a new one and turning it to match the starter and the cutting a cavity to match the bullet nose. Its a lot of work and one dent and the piston is only good as a punch for installing sights.
Probably why we don't see a lot of late plains rifles turned for starters...
Not to mention its heavy and the bullets are heavier than RBs and for hunting offer only increased range as an advantage and several disadvantages. And in shooting at unknown ranges a sighter will invariably be needed as is almost always was at longer ranges with the Sharps and other "long range" single shots of the post Civil War west. Sighter shots with a ML take a lot of time...
There is no magic bullet.
Everyone likes to deride the RB but invariably they have something to sell, have been bought or have never used one on game.
The only failures I have ever seen in penetration were HV jacketed bullets that were simply not able to cope with the impact velocity, especially when sticking bone or heavy muscle.
In this case they fail Forsthe's "adequate" test.
When they work they work wonderfully but when they fail they fail in a spectacular manner. Lead bullets unless hollow pointed excessively, be they fired from a cartridge gun at BP velocities or from a ML. Round or elongated do not fail to penetrate adequately.
If used in too slow a twist an elongated bullet is known to not track straight, this has been reported by people I know who once hunted with the MAxi-ball and by surgeons in the 1850s-60s military who found that the minie would sometimes turn 90 degrees on striking a man and might enter his chest then turn and exit at the hip.
People I trust used the Maxi back in the 1970s and finally gave it up as a bad job on Moose, where the Maxi should have acceled and went to larger diameter RBs of similar weight and found they killed much better and would track straight.
I have never had a round ball deflect until it had penetrated past the vitals and then only twice and one only after about 24" of penetration inches past the vitals its destroyed and then not wildly. I HAVE had some modern "gee whiz" 45-70 factory loads deviate wildly from their intended course after 1" or so of penetration due to the design of the bullet even though significantly over twisted. Its not a good thing as my friends also related from their experience with the Maxi in 48" twists.

Other than the Maxi which I have heard and read several reports of pretty strange occurances with this bullet.
I would not malign the killing power of the conical. I have killed too much game with BPCR using similar bullets.
My disagreement is in the supposed vast superiority of the conical. If the criteria is narrowed to certain situtations, like shooting almost completely through a large Bull Bison at a 45 degree angel as I have done with a 45-100-500 then the RB might be deficient. But in "normal" use at the ranges game is shot with traditional BP arms they really is no difference in effectiveness. But to modern shooter the bullet is more familiar and LOOKS better to them. So somehow it has to be better.
In reality with careful examination of wounds and enough game shot the difference is simply insignificant and can be attributed to the individual animals hardiness. Some simply do not know to fall over. I have shot WT does at short range through and through just under the front of the shoulder blades. This deer was already "amped" as WTs often are and even with what can only be called a heavy hit (100 gr of FFF 535 rb at about 30 yards) she ran 200 yards across the hay field and died mid-leap sliding to a stop on the snow. In that 200 yard (long steps)run her feet only touched the ground 10 times. She died in seconds but made a lot of ground.
I have seen some similar runs from deer shot with modern medium magnums. Next one will pile up when shot.
So if the "runner" and a similar happening with a 50 on a MD doe years previous were the only experience the rifle would be deemed inadequate. But seeing the results of deer shot with moderns that are without question if anything over powered for deer and the distance they sometimes cover it then comes into perspective.
As I previously stated I have shot or seen shot 100s of deer, antelope and Elk and a couple of bears. With a well placed shot they usually make 40 yards. Some much less some a lot more.
The round ball has been maligned in press since the advent of the modern ML bullet. Prior to that there was no problem. But when the bullets arrived and needed advertising it became useless. It was no better or worse after the maxi came out but the ADVERTISING and hype needed to sell the "new and improved" required it be deficient otherwise people might not buy the new bullet.
It really comes down to this.

I don't like having my intelligence insulted.
Now its well past bed time again...

Dan

 

[Pete Gaimari]

You said:

"I have seen a 300 Weatherby Mag factory 180 grain shot into an elk I caped stop in about 5" on a 40 yard shot."

:bull:

Now you're insulting my intelligence.

I know better Dan. That round will kill an elk at 800 yds, and you say it will only penetrate 5" at 40yds!!

I'm not blowing smoke. I've hunted with that gun, and I know what it will do. You try to come off as an authority, but some of the things you say are beyond believable. I won't be responding to you anymore.


Mods...Sorry for talking about CF guns, but I had to respond to Dan's post.

 

[tg]

""dude in plain english, unless its a "patched round ball" it aint traditional."

I saw nothing that supported the above comment, as there were a variety of conical bullets available as early as the late 18th century I am not saying they were as good better or worse than a PRB ballisticaly, that is not the issue the above statement is the issue. and any ballistic test whenter with gel or anything is apples and oranges when trying to compare PRB with conicals be they old school or new, the biggest foul is trying to argue the new type into the history books becaused they look similar to the old ones.