Conical vrs RB

[zimmerstutzen]

nose to tail is anatomically possible without hitting any bones. I have seen arrows pass through deer. An unconfirmed anecdote proves?

Show me a test where somebody took a stock 44 Remington or Colt repro and beat 500 ft lbs.

The additional volume taken by the conical displaces potential powder that would be available to push a lighter round ball. velocity squared indicates that an increase in velocity boosts ft lbs more than an increase in mass.

 

[rodwha]

"45 colt original factory loads ran about 400 ft lbs."

The original 40 grn loads or the downloaded military loads? I was under the impression that they traveled near 1000 fps with a 255 grn bullet. That would be well over 500 ft/lbs. But even if it was only 400 ft/lbs it certainly took a lot of animals over its lifetime, and has never been questioned as far as its ethical use for hunting such things as deer.

Your guess is as good as mine as to how much lead was shaved. On a ball I'd guess a few grains. On a conical several more.

My point about it not hitting 500 ft/lbs is that he also used a reduced load, which isn't necessary. Being as close to 500 ft/lbs as it was shown there's no reason to believe the additional 5 grns couldn't have achieved it.

Shaving 10 grns would give it 404 ft/lbs at 50 yds, which is still fairly close (-25 ft/lbs) to the .50 cal ball at 100 yds, and nobody claims that's unethical except that for some the wind drift or the open sights becomes an issue, but not because of performance. And yet the conical still has a much greater sectional density.

But range for a pistol is typically within 25 yds unless you are just that good or have optics, which wasn't stated. At 25 yds it has what the .50 cal ball does at 100 yds, but with the much better sectional density.

I highly doubt that Mr. Beliveau was intentionally inflating his figures by disregarding how much lead was shaved, though he certainly, with his water jug penetration testing, was showing that it would indeed make a good hunting projectile. But this inflation is a mere 19 ft/lbs and hardly worth bickering about I'd say.

If these loads can replicate or surpass what a .45 Colt load did/does, excluding Ruger only loads, why would there be anything to justify? If it's so similar there's no reason to think it couldn't.

But just the number of hunters using conicals of any sort in .44 cal revolvers, mainly the Ruger, 1860 Army, and 1858 NMA should be enough proof, and some of those have been with a ball instead.

"It is still out of the realm of average shooter's loads and average shooters probable results. "

And again, if these loads replicate or surpass an average .45 Colt load, and that was plenty, why would't this? That makes absolutely no sense. And would then question the use of a .50 cal PRB's use beyond even 30 yds as it has a much inferior sectional density.

 

[rodwha]

"nose to tail is anatomically possible without hitting any bones."

Not hitting bone would be rather difficult.


"Show me a test where somebody took a stock 44 Remington or Colt repro and beat 500 ft lbs."

The reduced charge used in the ROA, being fairly close, loaded fully certainly has the potential to reach 500 ft/lbs. And a ROA isn't so dissimilar to an 1860 or 1858.

But more to the point is that these can be loaded with a heavy conical and produce at least what a .45 Colt can, and nobody refutes the .45 Colt as being capable. Please show me how inadequate it is with proper shot placement.

 

[zimmerstutzen]

45 colt original factory loads are not legal in Maryland for deer. Just that simple.

More modern hotter loads can be legal. I have no problem with a C&B rev as a finisher. At close range with proper shot placement it can kill as a primary weapon, so can a rock.

Whenever some one tries to justify using an underpowered gun or cartridge for deer, the first qualification they throw in is 25 yds and the second is proper shot placement. While shot placement always matters, it is never brought up about the 30.06 or the truly adequate guns and cartridges.

 

[rodwha]

Not everyone is in Maryland, and since when did the Maryland politicians become the authority on what was ethical for hunting?

I guess that means we ought to sue the ammo manufacturers who make hunting ammo in .45 Colt or anything similar or less, and we need to outlaw hunting with a PRB in a .50 cal or smaller unless you can stick it in their ear.

And we also need to scratch any mention of the .45 Colt or .44-40 having been used to take game animals as it would just encourage people like myself who have read such things to believe that it is actually OK. Funny, too, that the .44-40 is known as the greatest North American game taker”¦

Get out the history books as we have some modifications to make...

 

[rodwha]

"Whenever some one tries to justify using an underpowered gun or cartridge for deer, the first qualification they throw in is 25 yds and the second is proper shot placement. While shot placement always matters, it is never brought up about the 30.06 or the truly adequate guns and cartridges."

25 yds with a pistol is about the range of a typical handgun without optics. Not many handgun hunters hunt beyond that. It's a limit.

Shot placement always matters just as it would if you gut shot a deer with this 30-06.


"...truly adequate guns and cartridges."

And with this in mind it would certainly disqualify your PRB's just as your Maryland minimum of 700 ft/lbs would then show the diminutive .490 RB with such a poor sectional density wouldn't be adequate. But who is going to argue that it can't cleanly take a deer beyond 50 yds?

You can ignore everything that you want, but history itself has shown that a .45 Colt, and therefor these cap n ball guns able to achieve what it can with a similar load is easily up to the task of deer within reason.

 

[rodwha]

"At close range with proper shot placement it can kill as a primary weapon, so can a rock."

It also seems all too common for those trying to refute the adequacy of a projectile/caliber to bring up rim fires, sticks, and now stones. But we aren't talking about something so diminutive now are we?

And I guess we need to revise Sixguns as there's just no way the claims of the soldiers that the conical was effective against horses, much larger than a deer.

History and experience just does't stand by your side on this.

 

[zimmerstutzen]

Shame you did not read more history.
Those 44 reps and colts rarely killed the horses. The idea was to wound them enough to make them useless to the rider. Never designed to kill.

 

[Grumpa]

Right on. Talk of foot pounds of energy is somewhat misleading in handgun discussions, as too much weight is given in the formula to velocity. Many of our gun writers make the same mistake.

Too often, those who write regulations are ignorant of the subject matter they are regulating.

 

[Grumpa]

The .44 1861 Colts were designed to kill men. Shooting the horse was a tactic to unseat the rider. I doubt that many horses survived a decent hit. They didn't die like struck with a lightning bolt, but they are a lot bigger animal than deer.

 

[rodwha]

I never stated that they killed the horses, but that they were more effective on the horses, especially compared to men.

Effective can be certainly debated. Is effective dropped right there? Or can effective be dropped within 50 yds or 100yds? What is effective?

How is it that a .44/.45 that can provide a complete passthrough be considered inadequate and unethical?

Your position just doesn't hold enough water, especially when I compared it to your .490" PRB in comparison, especially with your Maryland restrictions made by politicians. How can your position here uphold the use of a PRB? It hold no water at all.

You are avoiding some very pointed questions that show your stance us wobbly at best, and you haven't had a retort to the historical well use of the .45 Colt in taking game such as deer. Why not?

 

[rodwha]

"Talk of foot pounds of energy is somewhat misleading in handgun discussions, as too much weight is given in the formula to velocity."

To a degree I can certainly agree with that as when I first looked at a .490" PRB and put in the info it came up woefully short from modern ideas of useful. If it weren't for the many people, mostly here, that showed me a pathetic ball with little weight and a poor BC value was actually useful beyond spitting range I never would have considered, much less focused on, a PRB as useful.

And yet something scientifically known to have a greater penetrating value is greatly disregarded as unethical despite it being well known to work.

And my comparison, though I did give numbers, more to show how similar, was to show that it was far too similar to be disregarded. Please show me how different they are, how the one worked well, yet the other isn't worthy.

Just the number of critters taken home with something very similar is enough evidence for me.

How much larger a horse is than a deer was a part of my point. And I'd find it odd that it was stated that a conical didn't do much to a man, but was effective enough on a horse. I seriously doubt the military would have continued with the conical if it were no more effective than a ball. And, as we can see, the conical certainly shaped what we have these days. It couldn't have been useless.

And yes, the 1860 was meant for men, but the conicals (even the .36?) were designed for the horses and mules.

 

[rodwha]

And my point has never been that a .44 cal cap n ball pistol is the best option, but that it was an option that was viable. It's not minimal like a rock, stick, or rimfire. It has worked for quite some time now. It's irrefutable.

And it's silly to state that a PRB out at range is far more effective and ethical than a conical (and I made a WFN more like Keith had designed as I've seen the RN and pointier old designs weren't as good) is quite silly as science shows us that with those figures the heavier conical will break through bones and penetrate better. The stance is a wobbly one with nothing concrete to stand upon other than one's own feelings despite what's been noted in history. Plain and simple.

 

[zimmerstutzen]

PA has outlawed all rim fire for deer, regardless of how powerful, even the 41 Swiss, which is on par with the 30-30. Last I knew, Virginia outlawed anything under 25 caliber for deer. (Been 20 years since I checked.)

45 colt hot loads for modern guns are something completely different than a cap and ball revolver or a conversion cylinder made for cowboy loads.

Original loads are very anemic. You want to tout the Cap and Ball revolvers as on par with 45 colt loads that would blow them to pieces. Apples and oranges.

For the first time in 35 years we are again able to use cap and ball revolvers for deer in PA due to a ruling by a bureaucrat that they are centerfire. (Which they are Check any old US made percussion cap tin. They are labeled "Centerfire" ) But they permit any center fire here, even the 2 mm Kolibri with all 7 ft lbs of energy. My Dad shot a fat doe with a 38 S&W but a deer that stands directly under a ten foot tree stand is within range of a throwing knife.

There is a story about Ruger loading an old army with smokeless and shooting it. Not that I would recommend it. Probably the only way to beat 500 ft lbs,

There are folks here now trying to legalize air rifles for hunting. I recently saw a demo of a 50 cal air rifle. The guy put "pellets" through an inch and a half of particle board at 50 yds. Might be good for medium stuff. Don't know about deer.

Cap and ball revolvers are limited by their chamber volume. Both powder and projectile must be stuffed into that limited space. More bullet less powder. Less powder less speed. More bullet less speed. So more bullet and less powder means even less speed. There's no way to load a big conical and keep up the speed. A flat nosed hollow based bullet made to take less space than a round ball, may work. A 45 colt case holds more powder than a 44 C&B (other than a walker) can accommodate. A matter of geometry.

 

[nkbj]

Anybody loaded up the cylinder in a .44 Remington or open top Colt with ball in three chambers and long bullets in three chambers and fired them into gelled paper or putty to get a direct read on penetration?

The 6 1/2" barreled .41 Remington went through as much as 8" of stacked paper (depending upon the nose design used) that had been soaked to the point of gelling and I was pretty surprised by that. Guess if I jiggled in as much 4F or 777 as I could smash down it would go further but I'm after developing load data for accuracy rather than power. Uh, not to say that the most smoke isn't going to shoot the bestest.

 

[Dphar]

Conicals will likely shoot at least the wedge loose, maybe the Cyl pin as well.

Dan

 

[Dphar]

"Re a 44 Cal you can't get 500 out of an roa with 4fg.
Maybe w walker."

Not true at all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WNYGs2_UZw

You'll note that Mr. Beliveau was able to achieve nearly 500 ft/lbs with a 255 grn conical made by Kaido using a mere 25 grns of 3F Triple7, which is a reduced load (~16%) that also used very slight compression, which isn't necessary except when loading cartridges.

According to the few comparisons I've seen Triple 7 gives very similar velocities as both Swiss and Olde Eynsford of the same volume and size. Not a lot of choice, but certainly two true black powders.

So even if the load weren't max and was a little slower you'd likely still achieve over 400 ft/lbs, which is a modern .45 Colt load.

And then here we have a fellow who loaded up his 1858 with T7 and achieved nearly 500 ft/lbs with a ball.
http://poconoshooting.com/blackpowderballistics.html

it's certainly possible if you use an energetic powder, but as you can see in both of these is that standard Goex cannot perform to that level, which is why we have so many people who believe that these (.44 cal) guns are no more powerful than a .38 Spl.

Sorry there is some modern guns stuff here. But this is where the testing and data is so there is no alternative.

T7 is not blackpowder so the comparison to FFFF is not valid.
So far as the 44 C&B revolver being no more powerful than a 38 special. This is based on believing that ME is an ACCURATE guide to effectiveness. Its not. It does not take into consideration the greater energy transfer of the larger diameter projectile. While some "moderns" will poo-poo the science of the Thompson-LaGarde tests of 1904 it did recommend the military adopt a cartridge with the bullet diameter and ballistics of the 45ACP. A recommendation that has proven to be correct repeatedly over the decades and decades of the round use in actual combat. So much so that the USMC has adopted (re-adopted I guess) the 1911 in 45 ACP (likely loaded to +p but still a fmj rn) as the M45 to replace the 9mm at least for the Marines that actually USE the firearm for its designed use rather than using it for a badge of office. Even though the 9mm hard ball 124 gr is ball park equal to or even better than the 45 in energy the 45 is a far better fight stopper. The 9mm in service has proven to be what it always has been with hard ball, very marginal for gun fight use.

500 ft lbs? In a percussion revolver with semi-smokeless powder? Cool, I guess. Me? I would hate shooting proof load pressures every shot from a gun proofed for a BP load. Gotta remember T7 was designed for inlines to shoot saboted bullets at high velocity at low end modern CF pressures using SHOTGUN PRIMERS to contain the pressure at the SEALED breech. So the inline shooters can make those 200 yard shots with a "muzleloader".
If I need that kinda power in a BP handgun I will shoot something like this.

It will make the 500 ft lbs if thats considered necessary and a 58 or even 54 RB has more authority at the velocity levels we are dealing with than several 45 balls from a revolver.
Its deer/elk capable out to at least 40 yards. And it don't need semi-smokeless and high pressures to achieve it.
If one feels the need to hotrod a percussion revolver he is missing the point of using one and really needs a brass suppository revolver.
One other thing. 1250fps with a 144 gr RB (needed to make 500 ft lbs) is just scary in a percussion revolver. Makes me wonder if the hammer gets blown off the nipple every shot.
Dan

 

[rodwha]

There's a company who sells an aftermarket cylinder that allows an addition 5-10 grns of powder for the ROA sold by ClassicBallistix.

I really don't believe that 500 ft/lbs is necessary for deer or typical hogs, and this has been seen with the many hogs harvested, the heaviest I'm aware of was nearly 300 lbs, most all shot with either Kaido's 240 or 255 grn conical designed from Lee's 255 .45 Colt bullet (the one in Mr. Beliveau's testing).

Texas has allowed .22 cal rifles for hunting deer, which I strongly oppose. I've known of one fellow who shared the lease that shot his small (~100 lbs on the hoof) deer 5 times with a .222 Rem. This was a young boy and his father. I was quite angry. Maybe some can do a great job, but I think it's marginal at best. And it's obvious the boy needs more range time.

I've only ever used a .270 Win or a .30-30 for everything I've taken, and now have a .50 cal muzzleloader that I intend to use PRB's through as the many people here showed me that they do indeed work very well and certainly beyond 50 yds.

There's certainly no way anyone could achieve the original 40 grn charge in these cap n ball pistols that we've been discussing. But we can easily achieve the more modern loadings (non cowboy stuff) as these are generally only around 400-450 ft/lbs. And that wouldn't blow them to pieces unless it were brass framed or poorly maintained.

I could easily get 40 grns of 3F under my 195 grn WFN conical as I designed it to take up no more room than a ball. It's only .460" long. And my 170 grn WFN is only .400" long.

 

[rodwha]

I've actually been wanting to do that and had worked it out at the range I went to by using a private stall, but I've recently moved, and the nearest outdoor range (45 mins away) doesn't allow for it, though he didn't even know what ballistics gel was.

 

[nkbj]

I'd give 'er a go right now if I hadn't stripped and dried off twice today already!
:haha: