Conical and RB penetration?

[GBG]

All opinions I've read favoring the conical compare it to a RB of equal diameter. Have any test results been published comparing conicals to RBs of Equal Weight?

 

[Idaho Ron]

Hang on boys this will be a rough ride! :thumbsup:
Ron

 

[Idaho Ron]

Actually I don't know of any conicals that weigh that little. I don't think that a test like that is possible unless you compair different cal's. Like a 58 prb vs a 50 conical.
Ron

 

[cowpoke1955]

It all boils down to what you want to shoot. Within muzzle loading range, both will do the job. Both have pros and cons. On animals like wild boar and larger bears, I would say conicals hands down. Not sure about Big Foot :rotf: .

 

[nw_hunter]

I don't think they make a gun big enough or a bullet heavy enough to kill old B. Foot :grin:

 

[GBG]

Apologies for my poor wording. Different calibers was the intent of the question. For example: a 230grn .45 caliber maxi and a 220grn .535RB. I've never read a comparison of the two.

 

[nchawkeye]

I'd prefer the .54, it will expand to a larger diameter than the .45 conical will, causing more damage to the lungs which will drop deer faster...

A buddy of mine shot a .45 back in the 80s and shot several deer we didn't recover while using MaxiHunters...

 

[F.G. Ford]

Very simple!
Round balls evolved into conicals, and conicals evolved into cartridges, and now cartridge bullets try to expand to round ball diameters ( which they can't)
And that is why, we weirdos are here.
Most all of us have given up our cartridge guns, to be here!
To shoot round balls!
Old Ford

 

[slowpokebr549]

....and the wheel is round.

 

[catman]

Very simple!
Round balls evolved into conicals, and conicals evolved into cartridges, and now cartridge bullets try to expand to round ball diameters ( which they can't)
And that is why, we weirdos are here.
Most all of us have given up our cartridge guns, to be here!
To shoot round balls!
Old Ford

Well said my friend, nothing like a RB....

 

[Zonie]

To the best of my knowledge no scientific comparison has been made between say, a 182 grain .495 roundball and a 180 grain .45 cal slug.
Neither has a scientific comparison between a 230 grain .45 cal slug and a 230 grain .535 diameter roundball.

The reasons are many.
First off, the only real world, fair test would involve shooting live animals exactly in the same spot and timing their deaths.

Second, non living materials like ballistic gelatin really doesn't die so it is impossible to say which projectile is more deadly.

I have long been a believer in the formula that takes the bullet diameter times the velocity times the bullet weight to arrive at a number.
These numbers don't really have a value like foot pounds or ergs but they have been found by many to be very representative of what happens in the field when hunting i.e. a large heavy roundball moving at a moderate speed can easily have more "killing power" than a small diameter lighter weight bullet moving at a high speed.

When is all said and done though, the real limiting feature on a Traditional muzzleloader is the sights not the projectile.

A hunter can have a very heavy bullet which is totally capable of killing out to 150 yards but most shooters can't use iron sights to make a accurate shot at that distance and without accuracy all of the power in the world won't make a clean kill.

 

[Walks with fire]

Momentum is mass x velocity. Weight and large diameter at medium velocity = more wompability. My .50 roundball rifles are sighted in for 80 yards but really don't want to shoot beyond 70 yards at whitetails. With a 385/410 grain conical from my fast twist flinter I wouldn't hesitate to drop the rock on a whitetail at ranges out to 150 yards; with a solid rest and a stationary target I can group 3" at that range with open sights. Wind is what becomes the major concern after 100 yards; not energy with these heavy loads.

Roundballs can have the weight but their ballistic coefficient is very low so they loose speed very quickly and are subject to wind drift more than longer and higher bc bullets that even have more weight. A .50 caliber conical is big medicine.

Roundballs work just fine at ranges under 100 yards with good shot placement and while I only have a .50 caliber roundball barrel I can't say just how good a .54 or .58 roundball does on deer. I think I would like a little more weight than a .495 ball at the longer ranges but just use a conical in a faster twist for more thump at the moment.

 

[poordevil]

I would think a conical of smaller dia. would penatrate deeper than a larger dia. RB of same weight as it will retain it's Vol. better and has a smaller front area to push through, like a 6.5 mm or 7mm compared to .30cal.

That said, I do not believe I would chose the smaller conical over a bigger RB for taking game bigger than dear on a regular basis.

P.

 

[Russianblood]

I like mass! Even with modern guns, I prefer slow and heavy. My deer gun is a .62 early Virginia rifle. I shoot a thick patched .600 round ball and 110gr 3f. I have also just acquired a Colt 1861 rifled musket and I plan on shooting the "issued" 525gr Minie Ball (bullet) out of it.

Just remember, heavy penetrates better than light will. So a round ball or bullet of same weight and velocity will pretty much have the same penetration.

 

[poordevil]

a 500 gr 0r 405 gr 45.70 will out penatrate a 460 gr..69 cal round ball, even if started out with 120 grs. powder. a 9mm will out penatrate a 45 auto. Which is better? The 45. So is Max. penatration what we want or just enough ? I agree a big fat slow moving ball within its range will smack hard.

I shot a buffalo with my Parker-Hale musketoon in 2007 with a prichett style mine ball at 536 grs and 70 gr 3fffg powder. The front legs of the buff lifted off the ground with the shot. My son used a .30-06 with 220gr at about the same range. We knew he hit his, but until it fell it showed no sign of being hit. Both buffs died but mine reacted to the shot even more than I expected. My next buff I will use ether my .69 mine ball and 1842 Rifle musket and 720gr minie ball or a new (I am waiting for it) Short smooth bore .75 cal using 690 cal round ball :thumbsup:

 

[rkite]

I never get this argument. Round balls .50 cal and up are cheap, accurate and will drive all the way through a broadside deer at 125yds with no problems. There is no need for the ball to expand any larger and it retains 90% or more of its weight. The ball cuts a plug on entrance and thus leaves a decent blood trail. I have never seen a deer run more than 30-40 yards after being hit by a round ball and I have seen a lot of deer shot with me and my buddies over the last 15 years. One of my buddies occasionally brings out a .40 cal and the deer drop to that gun as well even at ranges of 100 yards. Of course that is not recommended.

I have nothing against conicals but the round ball is more than sufficient for deer. I know the energy figures are not there but it does not seem to matter the deer just drop on the spot.

One day I was shooting targets with friends and we ended up shooting all day long. I shot 75 rounds of nothing but round balls. Total cost of balls shot was a little over $7 and I still had 25 left out of a 100 count Hornady box of .530 balls.

 

[Blizzard of '93]

I've taken 3 whitetail does w/my 50 loaded 70gr 3F and PRB. I use it to fill my doe tags usually but if a shot at a buck presents I'll take it of course.
2 were pass-throughs at about 40 yds in the heart-lung juncture area and the deer went about 20 yds and fell.
one shot I should not have taken, through brush at about 40-50 yds moveing at a trot and I hit too far back and high but still drilled the tip of lungs good. it went aways - of course right into thicket so took a couple hours to find it about 300 yds from where I shot. the ball was under the hide opposite side. I wonder if I hit a branch before the ball hit the deer it was flattened out some.
the PRB will do the job with good placement.

 

[BrownBear]

As a rule of thumb conicals penetrate better than RBs of the same diameter. How much bigger in diamter does an RB have to be to penetrate as well as any particular conical? Who knows. It's an interesting question, but I don't see any need to find an answer other than curiosity.

Bottom line, deer are pretty fragile creatures and pretty easy to kill with ideal broadside shots through the vitals. A much debated question is how small a RB at what velocity is needed to do that.

Conicals are likely to have an edge for penetrating far enough to reach through to the vitals on shots at poor angles. They also have an edge in trajectory for longer range shooting, while also retaining velocity significantly better than RBs started at the same velocity.

If I was shooting game at long range or willing to take off-angle shots, I'd be reaching for a conical. But it would have to be launched at pretty stiff velocities for best long range performance with a significant increase in recoil.

RBs are ample for the ranges I shoot and the shots I'm willing to take. For bigger game than deer I only have to reach into my rack and grab a larger caliber. If I didn't have that luxury and had to hunt the bigger game with a comparatively small caliber, I'd be stuffing a conical down the bore.

 

[paulvallandigham]

I agree with what BrownBear says here. However, remember that if the RB is cast from hard lead alloys( like wheelweights) they will penetrate just as far as the conical of similar weight and caliber do. They don't expand as much, but they do penetrate further. That is another option that shooters should consider.

Some guns have too slow a Rate of Twist in their rifling to stabilize conicals well. By using a hard cast RB, those shooters can also hunt larger game with expectation that angled shots are still going to get that ball to vital organs and kill the game.

 

[longcruise]

they will penetrate just as far as the conical of similar weight and caliber do.

How does one arrive at a conical and rb of similar weight and caliber? A ,50 cal rb will weigh from 177 to 182 grains depending on actual size. How long would a 180 grain .50 cal conical be? Pretty short! You would be comparing balls to wafers.

Anybody notices that the original poster did not ask about penetration in any particular animal or even in an animal at all? Probably was the gist of his question, but we always seem to boil all of these discussions down to killing whitetail deer. Anybody who has killed even a few deer with muzzle loaders knows that within the typical hunters ability to hit the vitals that either rb or conical is quite deadly.

RB and conical penetration will vary with the impact velocity. Even a slower moving round ball can penetrate quite well when it doesn't get flattened out on impact. Same with a conical, the more it expands, the less it will penetrate given an equal velocity.

Don't see how this could be tested. Maybe a .50 cal roundball versus an 180 grain .430 in a sabot?