PRB effectiveness

[bramble]

In response to Kirrmeister's comment regarding changing Deutsch hunting regs, remember Post 198624 that started a thread documenting PRB effectiveness in hunting. Anectdotal evidence won't "prove" anything, but the documentation to date provides strong support for the use of PRB's
bramble

 

[Stumpkiller]

I've never killed a deer yet by holding a ballistics table up to it's eyes and saying "See, says right here you're dead". There is so much more to it.

Most of us here have never doubted the round ball when used within it's limitations. Poking a 1/2 inch or larger hole through an animals vitals is far below the fancy hydro shock and ballistic coefficients relm, nor does it need them. Much closer to the "drub them with a club" or "let some light through them" school of ballistics. If you sharpened a length of 1/2" I.D. iron pipe and jabbed it through a deer and then withdrew it the effect would be about the same with maybe only a hundred foot pounds of energy required. Takes a little more energy to push a small, blunt ball through hide and sinew, but a 1/2" hole is still a 1/2" hole and won't be denied.

 

[Bountyhunter]

I'd reckon that if ya compared a PRB to an arrow, then the PRB would shine. Maybe these jokers oughta suggest that the bowhunters meet the energy requirments too...

 

[bob1961]

I'd reckon that if ya compared a PRB to an arrow, then the PRB would shine. Maybe these jokers oughta suggest that the bowhunters meet the energy requirments too...

yeah but punching through and cutting through are two big differences in kinetic energys....i seen where an arrow will pass through kevlar vest where a .45 will stop at the same 25 foot test some years back...........bob

 

[freetrapper20]

I remember reading a long time ago, wish I still had it, about some old ballistic testing, kinetic energy and all that. The round ball had the least energy and least penetration of all bullets used. But the tester felt there was more to it and made the comment that the round ball was the only one that blew the sides of the testing box on impact. Might have been in an old blackpowder journal. I like to compare it to getting hit by a brick going 100 mph. Its gonna mess you up!

 

[PitchyPine]

All i can say is that deer i shot the other day with a RB is the only deer other than one i shot with my 45-70, 305 gr. lead bullet that it knocked clean off its feet.
A arrow doesn`t produce the energy that does damage to the nervous system like a ball or bullet does, that`s why imo the best shot on an animal with a arrow is a double lung shot. Get a total pass through and you have too holes for blood to gush out of and no lungs they don`t go to far.
I wouldn`t of believed the damage done by the RB until i seen it with my own eyes, i`m impressed.

 

[bramble]

Hey guys, you're preaching to the choir. I'm all for PRB, having dropped two whitetails this season using them. My post was in response to Kirrmeister's question about support for PRB effectiveness, and I reference a prior thread (topic 198624) in which the author was soliciting examples documenting PRB effectiveness. My statement re: anectdotal evidence providing "support not proof" is referring to the difference between rigorous scientific inquiry and casual observation. My intent was to remind folks of the prior thread, feeling that the author's intent has some value.
bramble

 

[Stumpkiller]

You'd get farther linking to a thread instead of providing the sequential number. Even I'm too lazy to hunt one by number and I have better toys here.

 

[bramble]

Stumpkiller, I am quite computer-challenged. It was only recently that I realized that links were not a type of bobcat. Anyway, its a page or so back
bramble

 

I think the FBI's tests/studies a few years back are instructive--they tested handgun calibers for effectiveness in "stopping" power. Now, handguns are more like BP MLers in velocity and energy than are modern HP rifles. What the FBI found was that the bigger calibers (.40-.45) were better [than 9mm, .357, .38, etc] because they created a bigger hole, causing system failure in the 'target'. These tests caused the FBI to go away from their issue .357 and to a .40 S&W [even though the recommendation was for .45]. Imagine the effects of .50 and .54 round balls! Even the .45 rd ball is an effective killer of game. Just this past Sat, as he does every year, an old friend of mine took a big deer at 75 yds with his handmade .45 poorboy rifle using only 60 gr powder. [when I told him that alot of folks here advocate 90 gr in a .45 he just laughed and opined that they were wasting at least 25 gr per shot]

 

[roundball]

"...[when I told him that alot of folks here advocate 90 gr in a .45 he just laughed and opined that they were wasting at least 25 gr per shot]..."

Mike, just a clarification about your reference about others who use larger powder charges in the .45cal than you and some of your acquaintances happen to use.

For example, I choose to use a 90grn powder charge in my .45cals...it is only 75% of the way up into TC's legitimate published load chart for the .45cal...and that it's related to using a much shorter barreled TC muzzleloader, compared to longer barreld versions such as the 'poorboy' you referenced in your post.

When we discussed this a couple years ago, you posted some research results (Lyman's charts, etc) which supported the use of the larger charges in shorter barrels, comparing favorably in velocity with the smaller charges in longer barrels.

Just didn't want some readers to see your post, get the wrong idea, and go away assuming that all .45s are equal, therefore all charges should be equal...as we know, there are no 'absolutes' in this hobby, and people need to remember that all variables must be considered so any reference is an "apples to apples" reference.

:thumbsup:

 

Roundball, I meant no disrespect, nor was I referring to you specifically. TC musta changed their max load advice. In the original edition of the Lyman's BP Loading manual, they list TC max load for .45 at 100 gr fffg. My friend was referring to a 90 gr load as being wasteful (or inefficient) as he claims 20-25 gr of that are burned outside the barrel, depending on barrel length. I am not sure of his source for that statement, but I do know that in a 42 " +/- barrel, 60 gr develops over 1800 fps and 65 gr ~1900 fps MV, which is plenty fast for a rd ball. The military load for the heavy .58 minnie ball in a Springfield was only 60 gr ffg. we have had this discussion before--I advocate smaller effective loads than you do--it is personal choice, no more or less. My viewpoint is that a person should find the most accurate load for his/her rifle/gun and as long as that load gives at least the minimum ballistics needed to kill the game sought, use it. For some rifles that may mean a max load--typically it does not, but there are numerous factors involved. Typically the most accurate load is a medium load--old master Walter Cline tested alot of original rifles and found that MV of ~1400fps gave the most accuracy. Now, in smaller calibers, that is not much ME. I found that 65 gr fffg in my .45 gave me the best accuracy at reasonable MV and MEs for deer. Of course, I realize that I am not shooting a .30-06 and use that knowledge to judge max range that I will shoot a deer...darn it, this year I have yet to see one! Also this year I am using my .54 with ~80 gr ffg and a .530 ball....a little more punch down range. Nonetheless, my buddy has taken deer every year for many years with his 60 gr load in his .45....

 

P.S. I think we get too tied up with modern ballistics thinking--the idea of modern ammo delivering hydroststic shock, the cone of destruction in the animal, etc. I don't think rd balls out of the old rifles with the old time loads killed that way. They bored a hole through the animal. Shot placement was important. Much shooting was done at close range, treeing or cornering game. Another buddy has hunted for years with a TC Hawken in .50 (if I remember right) and used 90 gr ffg. He complained that he never recovered a ball, no matter what range or angle--they always passed completely through the animal. That's maybe more penetration than you need?

 

[Stumpkiller]

I've settled on +/- 85 grains of FFg in my .50 and a similar weight of FFFg in my .54 flinter (so I can prime with the same powder). It punches completely through at the ranges I hunt/shoot and is accurate. I wouldn't doubt for a minute that 70 gr in either gun would still kill if I did my part.

If you are calm, and patient, and a good shot it don't so much depend on the firearm.

 

[Slamfire]

I'm not a big beliver in hydrostatic shock. Oh, I've seen the pictures of the big ballonin' cavity in ballistic geletin, but doubt it can be transmitted very far through blood vessels. After all, they are quite elastic as my own personal anurisym proves.
Long, long ago and far, far away, I did some work with a copy of P. O. Ackley's ballistic pendulum. I could push the danged thing further with one finger, than any bullet we shot, includin' such stalwarts as the .30-06. I could not, however, penetrate the face with my finger, provin', to me that velocity enabled penetration, but energy didn't have a whole lot to do with how well a bullet killed. It seems to me that damage, caused by bullets to flesh, blood vessels and bone is the primary cause of death. Although, I've had a number of bang/flops, I can't ever remember actually knockin' an animal off its feet. The explodin' varmint is, I believe, caused by the baloonin' of the shockwave exceedin' the body's ability to contain the shockwave. :hmm:
Big holes cause death, which is why bullet makers try to achieve maximum expansion, without bullet disintegration. :winking:

 

[renovato]

There's a lot of information out there that pretty much disproves hydrostatic shock, at least at the velocities muzzleloaders and most centerfire handguns work within.

The latest is a lady cop who shot herself in the neck while cleaning her duty pistol. Here's a high velocity, expanding round, being fired at point blank range into a "target rich" environment. The bullet missed the spine, carotid artery, jugular vein, and I assume her trachea. She called 911 for herself and the first thing she wanted when the ambulance got there was a smoke. Other than a hole through her neck, she was fine.

If there was much hydrostatic shock effect, a shot that close to her spine should have disrupted it, but it didn't. Theoretically, the vein or artery should have at least carried the "shock" to her brain, but it didn't. There are a great many such cases out there, if one cares to study further.

Tissue damage to vital organs is all that can truly be counted on. That's real and tangible. The rest might or might not happen, but I won't bet my life, or my deer, on it.

The same goes for "energy" levels. There are many shooting reports out there where perpetrators took thousands of foot pounds of "energy" from multiple hits, but didn't go down because the vitals weren't hit. There aren't many reports of anything having a big hole in it's vital organs staying up for long.