Idaho Ron said:
So the conicals of 1858 and 1861 were not thought well of by someone. So we can assume that ALL conicals are bad? NOT HARDLY! They didn't have the right twist for the bullets and they didn't have the smarts to know what they were doing wrong. Hell they didn't even have a micrometer that would read ten thousands yet. Their guns and bullets might have been cool for their day but by the end of the 1860's they had better measuring tools and therefor better guns and bullets.
Your reference is a JOKE at very best. Like time stopped then. Well guess what it didn't. And I am not talking about todays guns.I am talking about the guns that came just after that drivel was written.
I think that the books those came out of were no different than the gun rags of today. They literally didn't know of any other bullets so they touted what they had luck with. Those are like Gun's and Ammo of the 1800's but written by people that didn't have a clue. What a joke!
He might as well wrote those books on toilet paper. That is all it is worth.
Ron
Ron, honestly if you don't know who Greener was or Forsythe or Baker were then you are remarkably ignorant about guns and hunting in the 19th century.
Your comments on these three is the classic bigotry that somehow a relatively inexperienced modern shooter knows more than a big name English Gunmaker (several generations actually) of the 19th century, a hunter who hunted practically everywhere on the planet large and small game alike and actually "invented" the 577 BPE (yeah time did not stand still but Baker did not abandon his proven MLs until he adopted breechloaders a 10 bore and then the 577 which he used extensively) and someone who lived in remote areas and hunted dangerous game, Tigers and Elephant, in the 1850s and preferred the RB, a relatively small one at that about 69 caliber, for this use well after the conical was known and backs up his preference with experience that parallels that of todays hunters.
Your argument would be more compelling if you had some idea of who was who in the shooting world at the time MLs were the common firearm for hunting and military use.
Apparently the relatively inexperienced people that I had never heard of that did the clay tests who came to conclusions you choose to agree with are right but people who were widely acknowledged in their own time and were still being quoted in books in the 1940s and even to present times are simply hack gunwriters to be ignored. Its LAUGHABLE Ron. LAUGHABLE.
I did not say the better conicals did not work.
I have shot quite a few critters with BPCRs using conicals not that much different than some modern conicals.
Thinking that the conicals of the past were all vastly different that those of today is not accurate either. There were both pointed and flatpoint bullets.
What you refuse to acknowledge is that the coming of the conical in any form did not sweep the RB from use by the HUNTERS. As Greener points out the RB is actually a pretty damned good hunting bullet for ML arms.
All the conical proponents here want to do is accept that the RB is somehow vastly inferior to the modern conical. This is not the case.
While their comments on the conical so far as penetration are fundamentally correct the level of ignorance concerning the round ball means they have no other experience to compare the conical to.
What they steadfastly ignore are the problems heavy charges and slugs cause, high pressures, nipple erosion, bullets that don't stay on the powder, yeah, I tested this 30 odd years ago. Friends have related meeting hunters with the bullet actually protruding from the muzzle. I don't see this as desirable.
I don't see high pressures as desirable. Over the typical ML hunting ranges the RB shoots flatter, penetrates adequately and kills a well as anything else. I have seen this proven repeatedly over the years and this is backed up by Greener, Forsythe, Baker and others from the past who are far more experienced than I in many cases.
Yet some here which I am sure have never shot anything living with a RB want to tell me that the RB don't work.
As I stated before I don't care what people hunt with. But to expound opinions that are not borne out by the facts because they want to justify using modern bullets is simply not acceptable in a forum that SHOULD be about disseminating reliable information about traditional ML arms.
The round ball, like any projectile, must be used responsibly. A RB shooter, just like ANY hunter needs to pick his shot properly and have the skill to make it. Shooting deer and elk or anything else in the a$$ with a RB is no more acceptable than doing the same with an arrow or a modern conical or a 30-06. ITS UNETHICAL.
As I have pointed out the few RBs I have recovered from game make about 30" of penetration. Heavy bones will reduce the penetration of any soft bullet. Even then penetration with a RB has proven sufficient to kill game the size of elk.
Yet we have people here who will believe that 50 caliber RB will not penetrate because it was considered deficient in what ever formula clay was being used in some test.
It is obvious that they will obstinately refuse to accept anything that might show that their flawed position on the TRADITIONAL ML hunting bullet might be in error.
Obviously they are heavily invested in the conical and apparently somehow feel threatened by someone pointing out that the RB works just fine so long as its sized properly for the game.
There are states that, I am told, require the use of buckshot for hunting deer is some areas. This is shooting deer with .30 to .36 caliber RBs. So it would appear that at least one state thinks that buckshot works OK. Maybe the guys with the clay could do some 40 yard buckshot testing.
While I think its unethical to hunt big game with buckshot, hunters in some places in VA (IIRC) have no choice.
Dan
