Hornady 385 grain M\L Bullets

[tg]

"Give me a break! Ron"

OK if you really need one, I know you are not into traditional ML projectiles and that is your choice, but the fact that you like them does not make them a better choice over the PRB, those who are in the modern bullet mode will likely stay there and are of no interests to me or most other traditional hunters but the newcommers should be exposed to the whole spectrum so they can make their own choices based on more than mathematics.

 

[Idaho Ron]

the fact that you like them does not make them a better choice over the PRB, those who are in the modern bullet mode will likely stay there and are of no interests to me or most other traditional hunters but the newcommers should be exposed to the whole spectrum so they can make their own choices based on more than mathematics.

I would say that about half of what has been said is about half true. Yes newcomers do need to get exposed to the whole spectrum. But you guys go on about how PERFECT the round ball is. Why did bullet technology go any farther? Why didn't we just end the search for better bullets right then? If someone does have an opinion that is not on the side of the PRB a guy gets ganged up on. I was not going to even bother posting to this thread cause I knew where it was going. Fact is lead is lead and we all shoot it. One guy has said he shot a conical that almost didn't make it through the skin and ribs on the entry side. While I have no experience with the 385 Hornady, I find a lot of what I am reading hard to swallow. I have used the 410 gr Hornadys and they hit like Thor’s hammer and are deadly accurate out to 200 yards.
Most of the guy’s that argue for PRB don't want mathematics because there is NO mathematical or any other proof they work better than a hand thrown rock past 50 yards. It has been said that it can’t be explained. I have also heard it said that conicals are too pointed. Since when did a PRB have a meplat? I have also read where guys try to compare how the PRB works to an arrowhead. Since when does a PRB have surgical quality sharpened blades? No they don’t work the same, never have, and never will. I have also heard that flocks of hunters are having such poor luck with the conical that they are going to PRB’s. Where is this happening? It is not happening in Idaho. In fact Idaho F&G had a season for PRB only. It was stopped because the commissioners said that the proof was that the PRB's wounded too many animals. They wanted the hunters in the "traditional" hunts to have "better" bullets so they started to allow conicals. The Hunters that participated in these hunts were classified as "traditional' in the eyes of the Idaho F&G. I participated in these hunts as a "traditional muzzleloader hunter" I don't care about your or anyone else’s definition of traditional. I only care what the rules allow as a traditional hunter
Then out come the stories that some guy’s second cousin had a friend that had a conical blow up on the shoulder of a fawn Whitetail. The bullet only left a nasty scratch. Sorry I don't buy into the PRB is just magic theory. You want new people to have the whole story but the guys that believe in the PRB magic don’t want anyone to try a conical. I don’t mind that the PRB guys love their choice of bullet, that is just their choice. For every story you guys write about how bad the conical is I have heard at least 3 that say how bad the PRB is.
No I don’t use PRB’s NOW, but at one time I did. I never found them to possess more unexplained energy. I never found them to be more accurate, and I never found them to have “magic” abilities to down game.
The only elk I have ever seen shot by a PRB took a shoulder hit and took off. I helped the guy start to track the cow down. The PRB went through the hide and meat and stopped on the shoulder blade. I was told the shot was about 75 yards. The Hunter was unable to finish the follow up of this elk. He said if you want her you can have her he was done. I couldn’t just walk off and quit. The cow was hit and wounded, and the job needed to be finished.
I continued to follow this elk up hill for a couple of miles. I finished her off and I tagged her.
I saw the ball it was flat and had failed to produce enough of a wound to be fatal. I quit thinking about using them after that for big game, and I quit putting in for tags for hunts that only allowed PRB’s. I am thankful that the Idaho F&G changed the rule and now allow the conical.
I still have a PRB barrel, and enjoy it for target. When it comes to hunting big game I won’t use them, but like I said before in other threads that is my choice not yours or anyone else’s. I don’t have to live with your decisions and you don’t have to live with mine. Ron

 

[Little Wattsy]

the fact that you like them does not make them a better choice over the PRB, those who are in the modern bullet mode will likely stay there and are of no interests to me or most other traditional hunters but the newcommers should be exposed to the whole spectrum so they can make their own choices based on more than mathematics.

I would say that about half of what has been said is about half true. Yes newcomers do need to get exposed to the whole spectrum. But you guys go on about how PERFECT the round ball is. Why did bullet technology go any farther? Why didn't we just end the search for better bullets right then? If someone does have an opinion that is not on the side of the PRB a guy gets ganged up on. I was not going to even bother posting to this thread cause I knew where it was going. Fact is lead is lead and we all shoot it. One guy has said he shot a conical that almost didn't make it through the skin and ribs on the entry side. While I have no experience with the 385 Hornady, I find a lot of what I am reading hard to swallow. I have used the 410 gr Hornadys and they hit like Thor’s hammer and are deadly accurate out to 200 yards.
Most of the guy’s that argue for PRB don't want mathematics because there is NO mathematical or any other proof they work better than a hand thrown rock past 50 yards. It has been said that it can’t be explained. I have also heard it said that conicals are too pointed. Since when did a PRB have a meplat? I have also read where guys try to compare how the PRB works to an arrowhead. Since when does a PRB have surgical quality sharpened blades? No they don’t work the same, never have, and never will. I have also heard that flocks of hunters are having such poor luck with the conical that they are going to PRB’s. Where is this happening? It is not happening in Idaho. In fact Idaho F&G had a season for PRB only. It was stopped because the commissioners said that the proof was that the PRB's wounded too many animals. They wanted the hunters in the "traditional" hunts to have "better" bullets so they started to allow conicals. The Hunters that participated in these hunts were classified as "traditional' in the eyes of the Idaho F&G. I participated in these hunts as a "traditional muzzleloader hunter" I don't care about your or anyone else’s definition of traditional. I only care what the rules allow as a traditional hunter
Then out come the stories that some guy’s second cousin had a friend that had a conical blow up on the shoulder of a fawn Whitetail. The bullet only left a nasty scratch. Sorry I don't buy into the PRB is just magic theory. You want new people to have the whole story but the guys that believe in the PRB magic don’t want anyone to try a conical. I don’t mind that the PRB guys love their choice of bullet, that is just their choice. For every story you guys write about how bad the conical is I have heard at least 3 that say how bad the PRB is.
No I don’t use PRB’s NOW, but at one time I did. I never found them to possess more unexplained energy. I never found them to be more accurate, and I never found them to have “magic” abilities to down game.
The only elk I have ever seen shot by a PRB took a shoulder hit and took off. I helped the guy start to track the cow down. The PRB went through the hide and meat and stopped on the shoulder blade. I was told the shot was about 75 yards. The Hunter was unable to finish the follow up of this elk. He said if you want her you can have her he was done. I couldn’t just walk off and quit. The cow was hit and wounded, and the job needed to be finished.
I continued to follow this elk up hill for a couple of miles. I finished her off and I tagged her.
I saw the ball it was flat and had failed to produce enough of a wound to be fatal. I quit thinking about using them after that for big game, and I quit putting in for tags for hunts that only allowed PRB’s. I am thankful that the Idaho F&G changed the rule and now allow the conical.
I still have a PRB barrel, and enjoy it for target. When it comes to hunting big game I won’t use them, but like I said before in other threads that is my choice not yours or anyone else’s. I don’t have to live with your decisions and you don’t have to live with mine. Ron

:hatsoff: :hatsoff:

This will be my first year hunting with ML's but my range "tests" show....I duct taped 3 4" phone books together and was able to retrieve all the prbs I shot at them, which was three. Mushroom'd fine weight retention good. The same 12" of compacted paper would NOT captutre the conicals. Admitantly I was shooting 80 grains behind the PRB and 100 grains behind the conical....When I added a 4th phone book for 16" of compacted paper I captured 2 outta thee connicals. All shots with the PRB's were at 50 yards, The "captured conicals wrere at 100 yards. NOT very "scientific" true and NOT balistic gel for sure BUT a measure all the same.
I DO intend to kill critters with BOTH PRB's and conniclas. That being said I have no PERSONAL doubts abought which one is "MORE" lethal.

 

[Kentuckywindage]

i disagree, its not the projectile wounding the animal, its the moron behind the sights who pulled the trigger at the wrong time because he wanted to get a texas heart shot.

poor shot placement with any bullet is going to wound an animal.

 

[tg]

"s. I don’t have to live with your decisions and you don’t have to live with mine. Ron"

I don't care what you do or don't do, many people cannot get into the traditional hunting mode, so they define what they use as traditional due to screwed up game regs or loose association with something from the past,Most RB hunters don't even bother to post here on this type of topic any longer because it is a waste of time, if some one wants to shoot a modern design bullet with modern designed peeps(aside from peeps needed for aging eyesight)and call them selves traditional hunter that is their choice,there is nothing to say that one needs to accept the facts on this issue, I just wonder why they don't just go ahead and take the next step and use a &^%-line it just a short step from where they are now, but to each their own, I care not what those who are in so deep with the modern stuff that reality is out of focus, but I will continue to suggest the use of real tradtional gear to new hunters who have not been tainted by the huge amount of modern stuff that is so nicely built up by advertisment and those who are unable to make the old type gear work.There is little reason to contine this on my part, so you guys can stack a pile of modern bullets and dance around singing "How Great Thou Art" for all I care.

 

[Idaho Ron]

Most RB hunters don't even bother to post here on this type of topic any longer because it is a waste of time,

What about the 50 cal for elk thread? The PRB shooters were working them selves into a frenzy over there. It got to the point that a PRB was the "gold standard" for elk. PRB threads lean to the left as far and the Conical threads lean to the right. Don't give me the "RB hunters don't even bother to post here on this type of topic any longer because it is a waste of time"
look a couple of threads down to the 50 cal for elk thread the PRB :bull: was flying there.

if some one wants to shoot a modern design bullet with modern designed peeps(aside from peeps needed for aging eyesight)and call them selves traditional hunter that is their choice,there is nothing to say that one needs to accept the facts on this issue, I just wonder why they don't just go ahead and take the next step and use a &^%-line it just a short step from where they are now, but to each their own,

It is funny. On some web pages guys think of me as a traditionalist wacko because I use a TC Renegade and wont go to an inline. On this web page I am as bad as an inline shooter. Funny how guys think. I don't use inlines because I have not seen one yet that can hold a candle to my TC Renegades with GM barrels.
All I care about is Most states here in the west have decided that my equipment is as traditional as Daniel Boon's own rifle. As long as I can use my equipment in a traditional hunt that is all I care about.

I care not what those who are in so deep with the modern stuff that reality is out of focus, but I will continue to suggest the use of real traditional gear to new hunters who have not been tainted by the huge amount of modern stuff that is so nicely built up by advertisment and those who are unable to make the old type gear work.There is little reason to contine this on my part, so you guys can stack a pile of modern bullets and dance around singing "How Great Thou Art" for all I care.

I can't understand how a guy wanting to shoot the best load for the game at hand is out of touch. The reverse can also be said about the guys that use PRB's.
So much hacking on conicals has gone on lately I had to say something. Like I said before if you want to use it you have to live with it not me. Trashing a song of God is not cool either. Besides we nontraditional hunters don't do things like campfires, remember. Ron

 

[doulos]

Just have to stick my nose in here. I started hunting with PRB exclusively last year. I hunt whitetails only. I opted to go with a .58 because of the mass in the projectile. Ive killed deer with a .54 PRB but only 2 and now one with the .58. I killed many more than that with conicals both .45 and 50 cal.

As far as accuracy goes in my case I think the PRB is stunning. I shot about a 2 inch 9 shot group at 60 yards last week. The center of the target was just gone. IVe shot some great groups with conicals too. As far as killing power and energy you cant compare the 2. The energy retained by 400-450 grain conicals even at long range is frightening. And the heavier the more energy.

The PRB is deinitely flatter shooting but I still wanted a large heavy one thats why I went with the .58. I want penetration at the outside range of my max shooting which is about 80-90 yards with open sights. If I hit a shoulder I want the ball to make it to the vitals. And please dont scold me about markmanship. There is not one hunter out there with a lot of time under his belt where his bullet has gone exactly where he was aiming every time.
Heavy conicals will give a more predictable outcome at further distances under more circumstances period. I know may who say I dont need the .58 for deer. Probably not, but I want the edge of a hevier projectile. The outcome we want is penetration. Will they both kill? YES.

AS far as period correct. Im not chained to that even though Im having a Stith kit put together for me. I like the lines and simplicity of sidelocks and the ease of cleaning. I love shooting PRB because I can shoot all day without sweabbing. Would I go after something bigger than deer with the .58 PRB? SURE, but I still wont consider it as efficent of a killer as a 450 grain conical especially at longer distances.

 

[Stumpkiller]

But you guys go on about how PERFECT the round ball is.

Nope. They're the worst for range and ballistic coefficient. But they are reliable and you never hear of a failure due to design or materials. You have to get close. Aim careful. Maybe pass up on a lot of opportunities. You may have to hunt for game.

Some of us like to put the challenge back in out limited hunting time.

I raise meat goats, chickens, turkey and meat rabbits. I have a much better way to harvest meat.

I hunt because I love it as a sport.

This is a traditional hunting/shooting website. If you need the best, newest, most radical, improved, modern and highest performing - take it to another website, please.

 

[Idaho Ron]

Nope. They're the worst for range and ballistic coefficient. But they are reliable and you never hear of a failure due to design or materials. You have to get close. Aim careful. Maybe pass up on a lot of opportunities. You may have to hunt for game.

Hunting means different things to different people. It takes a lot of skill to sneek up on game. It also takes a great amount of time and energy to build and maintain long range shooting skills. And to tune loads to get the job done.
I like both and I have been very blessed in shooting some very nice trophy animals both at close and long range. I don't need to have blood splatered on me when I take the shot. I don't need to look into it's eyes and breath it's last breath for it to be a hunt to me.
Also I don’t hunt just for the meat, but it is a very important part of my hunt.

Some of us like to put the challange back in out limited hunting time.
I hunt because I love it as a sport.

You don't believe me but I hunt because I also love to hunt. I could care a less about dressing up and playing in the woods. When I go hunting it is serious. None of the role-playing or using loads that are proven to me to be unreliable.

This is a traditional hunting/shooting website. If you need the best, newest, most radical, improved, modern and highest performing - take it to another website, please.

Back at it again I see. My rifles and my loads fall under the guidelines of the forum. If you elect to remove me because I don't conform to your way of thinking go ahead. There are a lot of guys shooting TC Renegades, using conicals, and Peep sights. Are you going to give them the boot?
Now what about the guys that are shooting marbles? What about the other non-lead loads? They are not conforming to YOUR LAWS. If you can't stand the truth, fine remove me.
Then you can have your forum and guarantee that the TRUTH the way YOU see it.
We got into it before. We will get into it again. The reason is you don't want me to have an opinion contrary to yours, and you don’t like me to stand up for my self. There you have it either kick me off or allow me the same freedom of speech the others have. Ron

 

[doulos]

For what its worth Ron Ive been reading posts about your TC renegades and conicals for a while here and on other forums and they dont look "too modern " to me. I just dont see why everyone has to flame out because a guy shoots conicals.

 

[rkeltner]

as i see it, the flinters in the forum probably have a legitimate beef about conicals, but when you get into percussion, which is all i've ever shot, all bets are off. when reading period literature, you will see references to r.b. and conicals, and i believe you will even see some of the same arguements. back then they called them picket balls, and some of the folks hunting big, mean, and toothsome creatures swore by them. bottom line, once you get past about circa 1840, one is about a appropriate as the other! sorry to stir the pot, but i figured i'd weigh in.

 

[Kentuckywindage]

i hunt with both PRB and modern conicals, I just dont do any posting on here about using the modern conical. I usually only post that when i post pictures of the animals i've taken.

 

[Stumpkiller]

Look back through. I wasn't involved in the conical thread. I didn't toss my hat in until it turned against round balls.

My opinion is no more or less valuable here than anyone elses. But don't get all bent out of shape if you come out dirty when kicking a stovepipe. Shooting round balls or lead shot is the focus point of this whole forum & all sub forums. Of course you'll get grief here when proposing otherwise.

Seems some folks realize it rankles and just seem to enjoy causing discord.

I'm not going to run out and buy a Barrett .416 or .50 BMG because all other hunting rifles have been "proven inefficient" by relative comparison. But neither would I go on Barrett's hosted forum and start insulting the owners.

 

[Idaho Ron]

That analogy is not even in the ballpark. My equipment is no different than the equipment others use, and at no time have I insulted anyone.
I have helped many on this site to set up sights, and barrels. I have helped with making bullets, and pouring lead. I have even given bullets to some of the members to try at MY cost!
Besides a couple of individuals that insist that I should not have a voice, I get along with about everyone.
Under the right circumstance I would probably get along with you, and TG.
I won’t stand by as my favorite bullets are bashed the way it has been in the two threads. Most of what was said was :bull:
Ron

 

[paulvallandigham]

I think the historical reason for moving from the pure lead round ball is that as settlers moved West, they left the heavily wooded eastern areas, and found they needed to have the ability to kill game at longer ranges, because they had not learned how to crawl through ground cover to close the distance to their game. It takes time to climb that learning curve, and people depended on what they killed to survive, until they did learn. Later, when people got out onto the Great Plains, the need for heavy caliber rifles, firing bullets became evident again, to kill buffalo, and then elk, and bear. Mule deer were much more likely to drop to a conical than to a PRB. You began to see the heavy mountain rifles with calibers above .50, shooting conicals. This only lasted a period of about 25 years before adequate breechloading cartridge guns became available, and the heavy muzzle loaders were relegated to history.

Did the PRB suddenly become inadequate as a hunting projectile? NO.

The conditions and type of game available to hunt expanded. That the game was larger, or more dangerous to man called for a different gun, and different projectile.

America's history was then big enough for both to be used. I think this forum is big enough to let people who shoot both PRB and conicals to exist here, too. This current thread sounds like the small bore faster velocity bullet crowd vs. the Large bore, heavy, but slower velocity bulletcrowd, fighting interminal battles about which gun kills best. I don't shoot conicals, but I live on a Prairie, for Gosh Sakes! If I lived in Idaho, the conical would probably be my projectile of choice, too! My shots on deer have never exceeded 50 yards, in the thick bottom country I hunt. I have rarely even seen deer beyond 50 yards in the woods.

 

[renovato]

But you guys go on about how PERFECT the round ball is. Why did bullet technology go any farther? Why didn't we just end the search for better bullets right then?

Specious argument.

Most, if not all, firearms developement came from the military sector. The military was looking for a way to hit more accurately at longer distances. That requires improved sectional density. The round ball just doesn't do well at long range. The development had nothing to do with increasing terminal performance.

I can understand your determination in touting the conical as the best projectile. I had hunted with them exclusively for 20 years or so and I felt exactly the same way. Nobody could have convinced me otherwise, and I have had many of the same arguements as you in defending the conical.

It took a lot of convincing to even get me to try hunting with round balls. I was still sceptical of them for several years of hunting till I had used them enough to finally become convinced that they worked better for me. I have to have faith in the gun/ammo combination I'm using and that faith was slow to come.

Are round balls perfect? No. Magic? No. I can't explain why they work better for me, but they do work better for me. Hunt with what works best for you. It's of no concern to anyone but you. Just remember that none of us have all the answers, especially when it comes to terminal ballistics.

It seems that every few years we revise our "knowledge" of terminal ballistics as new information comes out. Yet none of that information has proven accurate enough to have any staying power. For example, Marshall and Sanow's "stopping power" reports tended to lean heavily towards "energy" as the incapacitation method. Yet it disproves itself when you consider that every single "failure to stop" had one thing in common. It didn't matter how much "energy" the target absorbed if the bullets didn't make it into the vitals because of poor placement or lack of penetration.

A round ball has less energy and penetration than a conical. Logically it just seems to me that it shouldn't work very well, but it does. Why? I don't know. I just know that we don't understand terminal ballistics well enough to know why.