Reasons for small bore MLers

[BrownBear]

A bad shot is a bad shot no matter the caliber. A bad shot with a .45 would still be a bad shot with a .62.

Worst self-induced tracking job in my life came after a bum shot on an 80-pound doe using my 62 caliber. Couple of hours of frustrating and embarrassing tracking, but I gotter done. And vowed NEVER again to think a bigger hole in a pipe is going to let me get away with making an idiot shot. :nono:

 

[Onojutta]

Glancing through these two links serves as a quick and dirty comparison showing that there is almost no appreciable difference between .50 and .54 PRB ballistics. In fact, often it is .50 that retains more velocity and energy down range given the same amount of powder. This is because, as I mentioned previously, the larger balls are less efficient.

So, it is not simply the size of the ball that makes a better hunting load.
http://www.namlhunt.com/traditionalmldata1.html
http://www.namlhunt.com/traditionalmldata2.html

 

[BrownBear]

...there is almost no appreciable difference between .50 and .54 PRB ballistics. In fact, often it is .50 that retains more velocity and energy down range given the same amount of powder. This is because, as I mentioned previously, the larger balls are less efficient.

So, it is not simply the size of the ball that makes a better hunting load.

In lots of field comparisons, it's been my first hand experience that critters don't know math and could care diddly whoop about efficiency. A 54 ball tears a bigger hole and penetrates deeper, and larger critters mostly die faster.

That's a very big deal with a moose standing near a waterway and likely to swim out to the middle before dying, or an elk stands ready to bail down a near-cliff choked with blowdown timber after a hit. The faster and more reliably you can put them down, the better your day is going to end.

Deer? Meh. They die easy and well. Why not leave that oversize 50 at home and use a more efficient 45? :wink:

Since we're mostly shooting inside 100 yards, ballistic charts and formulas are also on the diddly whoop list.

 

[Onojutta]

A 54 ball tears a bigger hole and penetrates deeper, and larger critters mostly die faster.

That's a very big deal with a moose standing near a waterway and likely to swim out to the middle before dying, or an elk stands ready to bail down a near-cliff choked with blowdown timber after a hit. The faster and more reliably you can put them down, the better your day is going to end.

Generally, the load that delivers more energy down range is going to do more damage, not really the size of the ball. Some think the higher momentum of a slightly heavier ball will cause it to penetrate better, and that would be true if compared against a lighter ball traveling at the same velocity. But if the smaller ball arrives on target traveling faster and delivering more energy, it will penetrate further and be more lethal. As for the diameter of the ball, an animal with a 0.54" hole in it is no worse off than one with a 0.50" hole in it. That 0.04" difference isn't a big one.

As for me, I prefer the more efficient .50 ball that has a better trajectory and is more aerodynamic, resulting in a more accurately placed shot that retains its energy better.

Since we're mostly shooting inside 100 yards, ballistic charts and formulas are also on the diddly whoop list.

True for most modern cartridges, especially where trajectory and drop is concerned, but when you look the the ballistics for black powder PRB, there is a big difference out at 100 yards.

 

[BrownBear]

Generally, the load that delivers more energy down range is going to do more damage, not really the size of the ball.

You're still really hung up on all the ballistics you've read from centerfire aren't you? When it comes to low velocity round ball performance, much of that translates into bull-istics. :nono:

When I want more "power" I choose a larger ball, as people have been doing with round balls for hundreds of years. It's a proven "formula" that actually works. Even computers and math can't reinvent that wheel. :wink:

 

[Onojutta]

Generally, the load that delivers more energy down range is going to do more damage, not really the size of the ball.

You're still really hung up on all the ballistics you've read from centerfire aren't you? When it comes to low velocity round ball performance, much of that translates into bull-istics. :nono:

When I want more "power" I choose a larger ball, as people have been doing with round balls for hundreds of years. It's a proven "formula" that actually works. Even computers and math can't reinvent that wheel. :wink:

Sorry, but your oral tradition isn't science based. Someone who makes a bad shot with a smaller caliber and loses a kill naturally thinks "gee, if I had a larger caliber maybe the animal wouldn't have gotten away." Likewise, the person who makes a clean kill with a larger caliber has no way to tell if they would have been just as successful with a smaller caliber. The bigger is better mentality may have made sense two hundred years ago, and perhaps still today to those who don't understand the physics behind it.

Not talking modern ballistics, go look at the links I posted.

 

[BrownBear]

...oral tradition....

It's called history and experience. Haven't seen a calculator yet with those buttons on them, so they have no way of punching them into a formula.

Not talking modern ballistics....

Sure you are. Haven't seen any mention of energy and formulas in history. Not the least interested in using my band width to chase links. Post yer quotes here.

 

[bender20]

I always looked at it as I would rather try to stop a 180lb man who runs a 40 yard dash in 4.3 seconds than a 300lb man who runs the 40 in 4.8. Science can say what they want but tackling guys on the rugby field has taught me bigger is generally going to run you over. I always thought to much emphasis has been put on velocity.

 

[Britsmoothy]

Good example.

The only advantage to high velocity is gravity has a less effect and wind has less effect for a very short while longer. With high velocity other issues can also arise. One of which is the integrity of the ball or bullets ability to penetrate.
The faster it goes not only does it hit harder but what it hits is also harder on it!

My 2cents lol.

B.

 

[Onojutta]

I always looked at it as I would rather try to stop a 180lb man who runs a 40 yard dash in 4.3 seconds than a 300lb man who runs the 40 in 4.8. Science can say what they want but tackling guys on the rugby field has taught me bigger is generally going to run you over. I always thought to much emphasis has been put on velocity.

That's because you don't understand the relationship between mass and velocity. Whether you are tackling somebody or trying to drop them with a projectile, its a collision- same principle.

Momentum = mass x velocity (or speed times weight)

If the lighter rugby player is running faster than the heavier player, he can easily have the same or more momentum, making him hit harder than the bigger player. Same principle for PRBs.

In your example, the bigger player has more momentum. But if the 180 lb player ran the 40 in 2.0 seconds, he would be harder to stop.

The reason I prefer a faster shot is because the faster ball gets on target quicker and has less time to drop, the flatter its trajectory.

Anyway, in the real world we are talking small differences between these calibers. There are so many other variables in play that affect each shot that few of us are going to realize the slight difference between a .50 and .54 load.

So, shoot whatever caliber gives you the most confidence. Having confidence in your shot will make you a much more efficient hunter than the perfect ballistic combination.

 

[George]

The faster it goes not only does it hit harder but what it hits is also harder on it!

I just ran across an extreme example of how hard it can be on a really fast ball. For a long time my load for squirrels in my .30 caliber flintlock was 25 grains 3F and a .295" ball weighing only 38+ grains. I chronographed that load and got an average of 2120 fps. Looking at some old notes I saw that I used 35 grains 3F for a while. I never measured that one, but with 30% more powder it would have been very fast. I shot a fox squirrel in the left shoulder with it, and found the ball under the skin over the right kidney, completely flattened and split 1/3-2/3. I'm amazed it didn't pass through.

Spence

 

[Britsmoothy]

Thats the rub, your not going to get that player to run that quick and with black powder, velocity is too likewise limited.
You also are overlooking ball integrity!!

B.

 

[Britsmoothy]

Yes, thank you Spence. My findings are similar.

B :hatsoff:

 

[Onojutta]

Thats the rub, your not going to get that player to run that quick and with black powder, velocity is too likewise limited.

Wow. At just what speed does the momentum = mass x velocity relationship become valid?

You also are overlooking ball integrity!!

My goal here wasn't to provide a dissertation on shooting ballistics. Simply addressing the concept that "bigger is better" is not necessarily the case when comparing PRB calibers.

 

[BrownBear]

Wow. At just what speed does the momentum = mass x velocity relationship become valid?

Bout the time da old round ball pokes in one side of da critter, keeps it soft hiney in a round shape and pokes its nose out da udder side.

My goal here wasn't to provide a dissertation on shooting ballistics.

Sure it was.

You're poking formulas at actual experiences and claiming computers know better than the combined experience of folks with black powder residue under their fingernails.

At some point you have to back slowly away from the computer and go shoot some game.

 

[Flint311]

I read in "Foxfire" that they started as small bore for economy, but also so they could be freshened later. Once they got to .40, they were big enough for black bear.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

But if the smaller ball arrives on target traveling faster and delivering more energy, it will penetrate further and be more lethal

ONLY if both projectiles do not deform.

It has been tested and demonstrated that when using the soft lead of the patched round ball, the ball moving at a faster velocity on impact will often deform at a faster rate to a larger diameter than the larger ball, driving its friction coefficient up higher than the larger ball in your example, and NOT penetrating as well as the slower, heavier, larger ball. It is a peculiar behavior of the lead PRB.


NOW if you used an alloy for both projectiles that ensured that neither deformed..., and you delivered the smaller bullet to the animal at a sufficiently superior velocity over the larger bullet...then the larger ball (using the .490 vs. .530 example) although having 21% more mass, and a mere 8% larger diameter, would have more friction, and would not penetrate as far....

But understand..., according to GOEX, if we both launched our respective bullets (yours .490 and mine .530) using the same powder load..., you're only getting an average of 141 fps more muzzle velocity than me using loads from 50 grains to 100 grains of 2Fg ...that's a mere 9% advantage velocity advantage, and only a 8% diameter advantage..., and that's insufficient to give you the superior velocity to overcome and out perform the larger bullet's 21% greater mass.

LD

 

[Britsmoothy]

Phew, thanks Dave :hatsoff:

B.

 

[Onojutta]

But if the smaller ball arrives on target traveling faster and delivering more energy, it will penetrate further and be more lethal

ONLY if both projectiles do not deform.

That is correct, I don't know why I said 'penetration' because that is not my point. But since, we somehow got stuck on penetration...

There is more to a lethal shot than penetration. See modern hollow points vs. FMJ.

I do not want en exit wound, because if the bullet/ball travels through my animal and keeps on going, that means it did not transfer all of its energy to do internal damage to the critter. I want my bullets/balls to expand, and be stopped by the animal.

Again, in general the most important factor in determining whether a load is sufficient for killing game is energy. This is often the criteria you see specified by ammo manufacturers, and if I'm not mistaken some state game regulations that specify minimum rounds for game are based on minimum energy.

You will notice that I did not try to cite this fps and this muzzle energy vs that fps and that muzzle energy. We could go all night throwing around different examples from different charts. You would show some .54 examples that have one advantage, and I would show some .50 examples that have another advantage. This is like the classic .308 vs. .30-06 debate.

As I also said before, this isn't a dissertation on bullet design.

Besides, there are too many individual variables to really get carried away with the perfect ballistic combination. Few of us are able to repeat every factor with enough consistency. And that's the fun of blackpowder! Two of us could stand side by side, same rifle, same ball, patch, lube, charge, etc. and record different muzzle velocities because of the way we individually load our guns.

For the last time, my entire point is that when shooting black powder, bigger is not always better.

 

[Skychief]

I doubt that I'm the "odd man out", in that I much prefer two holes in any game that I shoot. Makes for a lot easier track than one hole should the critter go very far or through a tangled mess.

My take is the perfect hunting load shoots to my point of aim with enough oomph to get through the vitals. It's really that simple to me. :idunno:

Best regards all, Skychief.