Lead hollow point or AeroTip?

[Kentuckywindage]

http://huntingnet.com/forum/tm.aspx?m=2510086&mpage=1


I prefer the copper series aerotips.

With the lead powerbelts, the skirts have a bad habit of sticking to the base of the bullet and throwing the shots off.

Also, Any loads of 100 grains or higher, the skirt partially breaks off the bullet and sticks to the bullet. I really like loads of 80 grains or less. The powerbelts perform best at lower volocity speeds.

 

[Runner]

Whether or not I or anyone else shoots modern guns has absolutely nothing to do with what is discussed here. I put roughly 10,000 sabots thru muzzleloaders years ago. Modern and traditional. I put a scope on a Kentucky pistol as a test bed for traditional pistol loads. If we ever meet up in a place where discussing sabots is appropriate, I have no problem with that. I just have no interest anymore. You will find that most here have been that deep in the hobby over a long time, and they have all come home to traditional. This is the place to discuss that.
Actually, I have not fired a gun that was not a traditional muzzleloader or an airgun for years. Every now and then I will fire a shot thru someones new gun to keep them happy, but that is it. That hasn't happened for years. Most who know me would not even ask me to shoot a modern gun, and those that did would be giving my crud. This is a great place!

 

[roundball]

"...what i failed to comprehend until it was pointed out to me, is that you are not welcome on this site if everything you do is not before 1865.

Scott, I'm still worried that you're veiwing this as a "not being welcome" issue and that's not the case at all...let me try this analogy as I don't know how else to explain it:

The are WWII fighter aircraft associations who specialize in WWII vintage aircraft. One day a pilot shows up, joins, and wants to start using his F15 Strike Eagle in the WWII aircraft association...would not be a fit to that mission and purpose.

That's only because it's not what "that" particular association is about...and it doesn't automatically mean that the WWII group doesn't support aviation...indeed, they're specializing and concentrating on one segment of aviation to keep that part of the aviation heritage alive.

And there would surely be F15 associations or jet engine associations where the F15 would be a good fit...BUT...if the F15 pilot wants to learn all about a P51 Mustang, the WWII group is more than willing to welcome him and share what they've learned.

:wink:

 

[Claude Mathis]

i must have missed that 1865 thing, i guess my flintlock is not as traditional as i thought because it throws sabots.

That's correct. A Ford Model "A" with fancy chrome wheels, is not a "traditional" model either. Some folks don't think that "modernizing" a flintlock is traditional (or at all necessary) and they'll tell you so. That's to be expected on a Forum like ours. Nothing personal, just very different opinions.

 

[rabjr]

Also it should be pointed out that questions generally deemed not of the "Traditional" type are better received in the "Non-Muzzleloading forum. :v

 

[Claude Mathis]

i would think the more you have on the site promoting our sport, no matter what they shoot, would be our goal.

The rules that everyone agrees to when joining, makes it very clear about the time period we discuss here.

"The main focus of this site is "Traditional Muzzleloading"; The history of the people, the weapons and battles, up to and including the American Civil War."
[url] http://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/fusionbb/showrules.php[/url]

 

[tg]

" promoting our sport, no matter what they shoot"
That is an interesting statement, around here the basic subject matter of OUR sport is real ML's not modified centerfires that load from the front,
using centerfire components.

 

[tg]

" i guess my flintlock is not as traditional as i thought because it throws sabots."

exactly!, no flame, just fact, the modern designed bullets and sabot loads are not traditional,( ask the manufactures what 19th century bullets they were based on ..I have) when shooting them it is the same as using the modern style guns they were made for, nothing wrong with these projectiles but one does not achieve a traditional outfit by exchanging the modern ML with a side lock gun but keeping the rest of the modern components.

 

[pmwest]

“ I am of the opinion that in a little time, the superiority of the flat-ended picket will be perceived and acknowledged, by its superseding the use of the round bullet in hunting deer, bear, and other large game. I am convinced from practice that it is not so much the size of the wound made in a deer or other animal that will kill him quickly, as the certainty of the bullet being driven through him, thus making two ”˜eyelets’.” ~ written 1844 by John Ratcliffe Chapman

To be historically correct to the flintlock period then a round ball would be the appropriate projectile. If we include discussions of the caplock rifle, although not legal for some primitive weapon seasons, then it is certainly appropriate to include cylindrical bullets. It would also be difficult to dismiss any particular design, as each rifle maker of the period would have supplied the bullet making equipment with the rifle. This equipment was either of the maker’s design or a design the owner requested. During the caplock era the bullets seem to be as individual as the rifles. The use of copper and plastics did not come along until the 20th century but lead/tin alloys and composites with iron were all used. It would also not be unusual for flintlock rifle to be used well into the caplock era and it could not be said that the “holdouts” did not experiment with bullets other than round ones.

I personally prefer the round ball for deer. They are very effective for the type of hunting that I do. A powerbelt or sabot offers no advantage and bring their own problems to the game. I am not going to say that using these bullets is “wrong”, I just think that the round ball has a lot to offer to the deer hunter with very little downside. The real measure is what happens when the bullet hits the target and how much energy is transferred there.

 

[Kentuckywindage]

I shoot a .45 sidelock and due to the laws i have to follow in colorado, you have to shoot a projectile weighing a minimum of 170 grains. A .440 falls well short of that mark. Now i use a powerbelt for hunting only. I can shoot other all lead bullets but why give up accuracy when accuracy matters the most in the field? All my other rifles are .50s and .54cal and i use PRB in those only.

But the point is, If the guy wants to use a powerbelt for hunting, thats fine, thats his choice. I understand that this forum is traditional and so i only mention powerbelts if someone is asking or when im posts pics of the animals ive taken.

Now sabots, yeah i know :barf: :barf: I to do not like hearing about them.Thats to "modern" for me.

Blame the guys on the modern Ml'er forums that give links to this one :haha:

This Sept. I'll "Hopefully" be breakin in the new GPR on a bull elk. Im thinking around 90-100 grains ffg goex and a .530 ball should do the job :hmm:

 

[scott024]

ok, i have thought about this a lot and i shouldn't respond but it is not in my nature. i am going to try and address everyone who responded to me in this email instead of individually.

First, Claude, i read the rules before i signed up and reread them after you posted them, and the rules state that we can discuss weapons of the period and my flinlock is a repleca of that timeframe, i failed to realize that using a modern projectile would be such a problem. that is my fault and again i apologize.

Second, Paul, Hornady has been making the XTP for a long time, i have shot them for a long time and killed many of deer with them, from 20 yards to about 80 and the terminal performance has been great. i am not saying that i wouldn't have killed them with a roundball, because all shots were in the boiler room, exept one. i shoot the hornady out of my gun because they groups better than any other bullet. Also, the bullet that was pulled from Reagan had expanded to about the size of a dime, which is very good expansion for a .22, it did however fail to explode which that bullet was designed to do. if a larger caliber was used, even a .22 mag. the outcome may have been different.

Roundball,

i like your WWII referance, but let me give you my take on it. we are at our WWII get together and we all have our WWII planes and this guy shows up with a MINT condition F6F Grumman Hellcat and it is the nicest plane in the group, then we find out that he clocked it at 400 mph, someone says, wait a minute that planes top speed is 380 mph, (because you know there is one in every group)no way it went 400. then the owner says but i am using 115 octane fuel to get the extra 20 mph. so my question is: does the guy not have a vintage WWII plane because he is using an octane the was not used in that era (85 to 100 octane)?

i just don't see the point in the whole thing, if i see a topic that i am not interested in, i don't click on it. or if a guy asks a question about pyrodex, i don't answer him and say " you should be using 90 grains of 2F goex black powder because that is what i use". i understand what you guys are saying and fully respect what you are doing, that being said, thank you for your time and experiences. shoot straight and be safe.

Scott

 

[roundball]

Scott, I see your point but just like NASCAR I assume he'd be audited and disqualified for cheating.

I think a lot of the purpose of adhering to most guidelines is to prevent the 'slippery slope" situation from occurring...if a line is not drawn SOMEWHERE, then before we know it we're easing into discussions about using "modern smokeless powder" in muzzleloaders...because hey, after all it's a powder, etc, etc...that sort of thing.

IMO, you seem like a bright guy so I don't think there's any point in my continued attempts to try and explain it to you...it is what it is...hope you stick around...if not, good luck.

 

[paulvallandigham]

Scott: If you are shooting deer at 80 yards and less, all that you need is already the best deer medicine you can shoot in a BP gun-- the Patched Round Lead Ball. In the river bottom woods that I hunt, you can't see 80 yards, much less get a shot at that distance. My kills have been at 40 yards down to 2 yards. Shot placement is NOT difficult at those ranges.

My point about the Reagan shooting is that hollow points, and collapsing point bullets don't always work as planned in real life. They are a valid effort to improve performance, but Shot placement is the most important. Round balls tend to travel in a straight line, and don't ricochette worth a darn. Conicals veer off the POA widely, for no apparent reason, and other times after hitting the thinnest of bones. When you consider the trade off of heavy recoil, and questionable performance, I believe the balance scale tips in favor of what our ancestors used to kill deer for hundreds of years- the round lead ball.

You have the right to choose to try other bullets. That is why this is a free country. However, If you are asking for information and advice, don't expect us to blow smoke up your pants, just to make you feel good about your choice, when we think its a bad decision.

I will freely admit to being biased about Traditional MLers, BP and PRBs. But I came by that choice after exhaustive trials, tests, studies, reading, and talking to experienced shooters.

Every time I kill game with a PRB, I do an autopsy of the wound channel to see what happened and when. I am always continually amazed at how effect a round lead ball is on deer sized game. On the one rare occasion I recovered my ball, smashed against a broken sternum, but held in by the belly hide, after taking the top of the heart off, It was slightly larger than a quarter in diameter. It had broken a shoulder bone,pierced the left lung, then cut a wide channel the length of the heart, and only stayed in the chest because it hit the rib bones and sternum cartilage at a steep angle after it was already flattened.

I have seen similar performance using a 12 gauge shotgun slug, , but I this was from my .50 caliber rifle, using a .490 RB. I don't think you can ask any more of a projectile fired out of a traditional ML rifle.

 

[Claude Mathis]

First, Claude, i read the rules before i signed up and reread them after you posted them, and the rules state that we can discuss weapons of the period and my flinlock is a repleca of that timeframe, i failed to realize that using a modern projectile would be such a problem. that is my fault and again i apologize.

No apology necessary. I was only trying to explain the "attitude" of most members and how, although some more modern items and techniques are not forbidden, they will not be met with as much enthusiasm as they might be on a more "modern muzzleloading" site.

 

[tg]

". It would also be difficult to dismiss any particular design"

It is not difficult at all to dismiss those made after the developement of the cartridge gun particularly those made post 1960 and designed particularly to "modernize" the ML as this was not the intent of a hunting season that took a step back tech. I would be all for traditional design conical bullets, but the new stuff belongs in modern arms seasons.I understand some have to due to foolish regs, but the majority just do not care for the traditional projectile (RB) and original conicals are scarce, could it be they are not as good as the new ones? which is all fine and ok where leagal, it is just an injustice to try and pass them off as traditional projectiles just because we like the way it sounds and that is what it's about for the most part, not a lack of education about conicals then and now, but a lack of respect for the traditional experience, or a rather lackluster approach to it.

 

[Bowhunter57]

With the lead powerbelts, the skirts have a bad habit of sticking to the base of the bullet and throwing the shots off.

Also, Any loads of 100 grains or higher, the skirt partially breaks off the bullet and sticks to the bullet.

Thank you, to all that replied!

For the above reasons, I will not be using Power Belts. I'm after accuracy and the simplicity of loading for hunting purposes.

I certainly didn't expect to raise so much controversy over modern vs. traditional projectiles. I'll ask these questions on another forum from now on.

Good hunting, Bowhunter57

 

[BrownBear]

As you start messing with other conicals, be sur to come back here for questions on the all-lead conicals, whether modern Maxi's (which are acceptable topics of conversation) and traditional minies. There are lots of folks who use them and have become really good at developing accurate loads with them. I'm betting you'll find enthusiastic help. The sabot and powerbelt users that also hang out here keep their dirty little secrets in the closet. Don't ask don't tell sort of thing, doncha know.

 

[Walks with fire]

I can't stand inlines; I do have some fast twist barrels on flintlocks; and I do have traditional ball rifles. I shoot and hunt with them all but I respect that this forum is dedicated to traditional firearms and things of that time period.

If the need arises to discuss modern state of the art BP technology then it's better done on a site designed for that.

 

[Claude Mathis]

If the need arises to discuss modern state of the art BP technology then it's better done on a site designed for that.

In fact, we insist. :grin:

 

[tg]

"whether modern Maxi's (which are acceptable topics of conversation) and traditional minies."

That would be debatable by many, at least you were honest in calling the maxis modern