What pistol at 25 yards?

[pab1]

Restoration Firearms "Worlds Most Powerful Pistol" might be what you are looking for. If their ballistic info is accurate, the .54 has a Talor Knockout Value of 45 with a connical.
http://restorationfirearms.com/OnlineCatalog.html

 

[poordevil]

That looks like the Lyman Plains Pistol re-worked. The Lyman pistol uses the same size BBL as the rifle and rates it for 60 grs of powder. I have shot 80 grs of 3FFFg out of my .54 and it Snorts!

 

[Greg Hardy]

I've got a .50 cal CVA Hawken Pistol that looks very similar. 1 in. across the flats. It is a beast. It will handle more than I can, but...

 

[nkbj]

A properly engineered pistol would be more than adequate. It would be engineered for something different from pistols commonly produced today but hey, single shot black powder pistols were always made to the purpose, from muff guns and pocket pistols to horse pistols. I'd really like to have a .47 flinter decked out with a tapered barrel to use the molds available for the .476/.480 revolvers. That'd be just about as much as I'd want to hold on to. Maybe too much.

 

[Dphar]

OK so not to highjack the other elk / pistol thread....Is there a pistol load combo that one would feel comfortable shooting an elk at 25 yards max? I think .58 cal and about 800-900 fps would do it. Or a .58 mini ball at a little less.

Let the fireworks begin!
P

A 54 or up will work us 60 gr+ of fff. Going over 58 will reduce the velocity due to recoil considerations. Loads of this sort will give velocities at the muzzle similar to a rifle at 80-100 yards. A 10" barrel should make 1100 fps in 54 caliber if not more.
With a 8-10" barrel a 54 will give effective power levels about like a 44 mag to 25 yards but shot placement will have to be careful. Hitting heavy upper front leg bones with a 54-58 RB is not a good idea so shoot for the lungs. With most factory loads the same is true of the 44 mag for that matter.

Minie/Maxi ball is a REALLY bad idea in a pistol, its bad enough in a rifle. Its not going to increase killing power either and in this case could REDUCE IT.

Dan

 

[Dphar]

"Is there a pistol load combo that one would feel comfortable shooting an elk at 25 yards max?"
-----

Only if it was my only gun and I was starving to death.

Properly loaded there is little or no difference in the BALLISTIC PERFORMANCE of the 54 pistol at 25 and a 54 rifle at 100. But it takes more than 35-40 grains of powder.
So the question is can the shot be properly placed?
Having shot deer and antelope at similar distances with pistols...

If I had a close shot with one of these

The elk is gonna die.
But I would sooner use a rifle but if circumstances dictate the pistol I would take the shot.

Dan

 

[Pete Gaimari]

Not sure i'd take an elk shot with a PRB at 100 yds. It lost a ton of fps/fpe by then.

How about getting a pistol to have the same as a rifle at 70yds. (with a good load in the rifle)

 

[crockett]

Some of the mountain men or adventurers with the mountain men had really large bore pistols they used to shoot buffalo at point blank range while on horseback. It must have worked or the practice of using a pistol would not have lasted. I'm not sure of the bore but probably something like a .69 caliber, probably smooth bore. What a PRB loses in velocity out to 25 yards- I don't know.

 

[Dphar]

Some of the mountain men or adventurers with the mountain men had really large bore pistols they used to shoot buffalo at point blank range while on horseback. It must have worked or the practice of using a pistol would not have lasted. I'm not sure of the bore but probably something like a .69 caliber, probably smooth bore. What a PRB loses in velocity out to 25 yards- I don't know.

Pistols of this bore size are practically unknown in this context other than the 65 caliber pair by J&S Hawken, which appear nearly unused BTW.
The documentation is from military officers using 54 caliber issue SB pistols for buffalo. I believe this can be found the "Firearms of the American West 1803-1865".
The Colt Dragoon revolver was also used for this after it came into production.
A 69 caliber ball weighs 500 grains IIRC (a .662 weights 437). Shooting it with enough powder to make it effective on buffalo say 500-600 fps minimum would not be a lot of fun or even practical. Especially when the 50-58 cal will work.
A 54-58 with 60-70 grains is about like shooting full house 44 mag load.

Running buffalo they did not care if if ran a mile and fell over (most apparently did not make it this far if shot right), so long it fell over.

Dan

 

[Dphar]

Not sure i'd take an elk shot with a PRB at 100 yds. It lost a ton of fps/fpe by then.

How about getting a pistol to have the same as a rifle at 70yds. (with a good load in the rifle)

Most rifles used in the west were sighted for 120-150 yards.
I mentioned that a certain original Hawken rifle has a high rear sight and a fairly low front one indicating it is sighted for a long range zero for a RB rifle.
The friend I was talking to then related that he had not only shot the rifle but killed a deer with is years ago and it seems to be zeroed for well over 160 yards or more with a moderate powder charge (70-80 gr in a 54 IIRC).
Animals are not bullet proof. Remaining energy is totally meaningless in MLs and BPCRs. It simply does not apply to large diameter lead bullets or RBs.
If it did a 243 would be a better bear rifle than any BPCR or large more ML. But the REVERSE IS TRUE.
I have shot through deer at 140-150 yards with 50 and 54 caliber RBs I have killed elk in the 80-100 yard range with a 54 rifle. Do I consider it the best choice for this? No. But it works if the ball is placed right and the 50 caliber was considered a working minimum back in the 1830s.
I have shot through an antelope, side to side with 490 RB backed by 45 gr of powder in a 6" barreled flint pistol. I have shot through the on side shoulder muscles, though the lungs at a diagonal and the ball was under the hide at the diaphragm of a grown Mule deer buck with the same pistol.
This load made 800 fps over my chrono. It gave the same baffle board test penetration at 25 as a 50 rifle with 90 gr did at 200. So we can assume that a 50 RB will give adequate pentration to kill a deer or antelope at 200 yards if fired from a rifle with 1/2 ball weight of powder.
A longer barreled 54 flint pistol, 8-9", will make 960 with 60 gr of FFF.
I have shot a deer at 25 with a 54 with 70 gr of FFF, shattered the humerus and lodged under the far side hide. Deer died within 40 yards since the ball took out the top of the heart.
Based on this a 25 yard shot on an elk is doable I sure as heck would not let it walk. They are to darned hard to come by where I live hunting public land.
BUT AS ALWAYS PLACING THE SHOT IS THE KEY. You cannot shoot them in the ass and expect to reach the heart.

In the "Oregon Trail" Parkman related his guide killing two buffalo in two shots at 170 yards using Parkman's rifle and his own. Parkman later killed an Antelope at 200 steps.Depending on terrain and how the hunter "steps" will be 150 to 200 yards.

Dan

 

[Pete Gaimari]

All well and good Dan.

I'm still not convinced there's any magic in a round ball of lead compared to a bullet.

I'm just not going for..... "ballistics don't matter."

 

[Dphar]

All well and good Dan.

I'm still not convinced there's any magic in a round ball of lead compared to a bullet.

I'm just not going for..... "ballistics don't matter."

Look at the FPE for a 45-70-405 Sharps then look at 243.
Which has the highest FPE?
I can assure you based on information from local hunters and a trusted friend acknowldged expert in most things firearms who has guided many many elk hunters a 243 (or even a 264 WM with 120-140 gr) WILL OFTEN NOT PENETRATE FAR ENOUGH TO KILL ELK or BEAR when the range is 40 yards or under.
Even the anemic 45-70-405 Smokeless load does not have this problem.
I guess what I should have said is in the context of modern ballistics FPE applied to lead round balls and lead bullets such as those fired from a 40-45-50 caliber Sharps are INVALID.
A 45-100 or 44-77 or 50-90 will actually STOP an American Bison better than a 300 mag will. This from a guy who has seen a LOT of buffalo shot he was amazed that the buffalo we shot with Sharps with chest shots did not run off and stay with the herd which is all too common it seems with HV magnums.
F.E. Selous thought that the 450 BPE with a 365 gr bullet propelled by 120 gr of BP was a wonderful load for African Lion. Modern experts would think he was nuts based on bullet energy.

The patched round ball SO LONG AS IT IS PROPERLY SIZED FOR THE GAME is a very efficient hunting projectile, this has been repeatedly proven for a very long time.

I have shot a deer with a blackpowder loaded 38-40, the most anemic BP arm I have ever used. The deer ran about 40 yards and collapsed. If you shoot them with a 7mm mag in the same spot they run 40 to 100 yards and collapse. I shot a doe center of the lungs with a 44-90 with 92 gr of FF and a 400 gr soft bullet with a large flatpoint. This this was devastating on anything I shot with it, she ran 150 yards and dropped dead.
My son shot his first deer with a 45 caliber FL rifle with 45 grains of FFF, it made 100 yards. Ball did not even exit. But the shot placement was good. The 44-90 with far more energy did no better than the 45 RB and the range was near identical.

So lets see we have a 6.5 x55 (killed quite few deer with this, me and the kids) 30-06, 7mm mag (and numerous other "modern" calibers), 45-50-54-58-67 RB rifles with various powder charges. Various BPCRs from 38-40 to 50-90. ALL of which I have used or personally witnessed and often field dressed the game for hunters.

THE RESULT IS THE SAME WITH SIMILAR SHOT PLACEMENT 90+ percent of the time. The deer runs 40 yards and piles up. Sometimes they pile up at the shot sometimes run 200. The energy at impact is virtually irrelevant.
So tell me with the VAST range of impact energies why is this so?
Its because, for the most part ME or impact energy means almost nothing.
BUT the small bore modern rifles NEED the expansion that high velocity and high energy provides. A 54 Rb needs little expansion for make a large wound channel

The round ball, properly sized for the game need only give adequate penetration. While higher velocitys at impact will often produce more damage but this does not mean that the deer dies faster. Shoot the arteries off the heart with a 50-54 rb and you get arteries shot off deer dies. Do the same with a .662 ball and the whole top of the heart is pulverized. Deer still runs. Massive difference in damage little or no difference in the time the animal lives. In either case they live till the brain fails and this is usually 40 yards. The deer shot with the .662 ball made 55 long steps. There was a long string of blood, tissue and fat ejected back toward the gun, the ball struck at the base of the throat, made a hole almost as large as the heart at the top of the heart.

Massive blood loss. Deer still turned 90 degrees and ran...
She actually made it farther than the buck I had shot with a 38-40 that made tiny wound channels in the lungs.
I KNOW which one transmitted the most energy...
But that apparently did not mean much in the outcome.
Dan

 

[Pete Gaimari]

First off. Lets compare apples to apples. You compared a .24 cal CF to a .45 cal CF.

My gripe is guys who say ballistics don't apply to a round ball. Why not? It's a projectile being pushed through the air. Just because it's round? Just because it's lead? It's not hard to calculate the damage it can do at a certain weight and speed.

Why would it do more damage than a lead bullet shot from a CF gun? If the RB is going slower than the CF bullet. Why should it do more damage. How can a RB penetrate better than a bullet that's going faster, or even the same speed if they are both the same caliber and weight?

I've never said that a RB isn't effective. It's all I hunt with, so i'd be a fool if I didn't think it would work.

I just can't accept when someone says ballistics don't matter with a RB like it's some kind of magic round.

 

[Zonie]

I have no doubt that ballistics do apply to roundballs as well as bullets but to my thinking foot pounds of energy isn't the only criteria for evaluating the killing power of a projectile.

Todays shooters have a fixation on energy like it is the only basis for determining how well a projectile will kill something and quite frankly their wrong.

I know several people who think their modern 3400+ ft/lb energy rifle is the deadliest thing around and while there is no denying that it does the job what they fail to realize is that the bullet only used a small portion of its energy in the animal and it then uses the rest to bury itself in the dirt or tree on the far side of the beast.
Most roundballs deliver all or almost all of their energy to the animal.

Many of these modern projectiles cannot expand to a size that begins to approach the size of a muzzleloaders roundball and that is before the roundball has started to expand.

IMO, the size of the roundball has as much or more to do with its killing power as the energy it possesses.
That is not to say that a very large roundball shot at the low velocity that the typical pistol will give it will make up for that low energy.

To be effective the ball must have both size and velocity to do an adequate job of humanly dispatching a large animal and I know of no black powder pistol that will do this.

 

[Pete Gaimari]

What you say is very true about a lot of the CF ammo. They just blow through the animal unless it's at very long range. There are some like the Barnes that expand at any range, and will give a RB a run for it's money on expansion.

Anyway, I know we shouldn't talk about CF here. My bad.

I guess it's a pet peeve of mine about saying ballistics don't matter with a RB. It's too much of a general statement. I know what they mean though.

I have faith in the RB. I don't have faith at long distance though.

 

[himem777]

I agree with Zonie. There are too many variables to say one bullet will always do x or y.

Truth is in my state a hand gun may be used on deer if it has 500ft/lbs of muzzle energy, yet I know a guy who (albeit not legally for his state) regularly uses a 17HMR 250ft/lbs. The shooter has as much to do with it. (Do not do this by the way, you are not as good as you think you are.)

 

[Pete Gaimari]

Lets not confuse deer with the topic. Elk.

 

[himem777]

duh..

 

[crockett]

Some thoughts....
1. On that big bore pistol- I'm thinking William Drummond Stewart who was British, the other I think was Russel(Clyman?) with his German horse pistol- which I've been told was a military type. Again this would be at point blank range. Most non-military American pistols were the 50-54 calibers. I think all types were used on buffalo.
My point on all this was rather simple, lets say in 182x some one tried a pistol on buffalo and it didn't kill the beast. If such became common then after a while no one would bother- why waste the powder and lead? So it would seem at point blank range the pistol would (if placed right) kill a buff. At 25 yards- if placed right- seems it ought to kill an Elk BUT (always there's a but) I'm not sure how much velocity loss there is at 25 yards. However I'm not sure whether hunting elk with a pistol is advisible.
2. On the ballistics.......
EVERYTHING today is foot pounds of energy. Take a hollow point or a full metal jacket. If the weight of the bullet and the speed of the bullet crank up a certain amount of foot pounds of enery, then that's that. It seems the type of bullet isn't considered that much.
I admit- I'm subject to the same thing, if I hear about a new round all I do is check the foot pounds of energy to decide if the round is any good.Some of the old time writers felt the big, slow moving bullet wasn't properly measured with the foot/pounds of energy method because the formula was more favorable to higher velocities- in any event- it's been an issue for years.
On the PRB you are using soft lead that often flattens like a quarter on impact and its spinning, so you have a jagged, spinning quarter buzz-sawing though both lungs of a game animal. Sure- it doesn't kill like a modern bullet but neither does an arrow. To some extent it seems we have to fly by the seat of our pants. The evidence seems to indicate that an elk hit broadside through the lungs at 100 yards or less with a PRB 50 or 54 caliber usually comes out one dead elk. Hit it though the hams or shoulder- might be a different thing.
On the Hawkin range. From most of the stuff I read, when the mountain men crawled up on buffalo they tried to get within 100 yards or less. The longer range shots may have been more for Indian fighting. Off hand, I can't recall any really long range hunting shots on big game like buffalo.

 

[Pete Gaimari]

No info that's solid for Buffalo. For all we know the Buffalo ran 2 miles before it died. You wouldn't want to do that to an Elk.

Here's another problem I have. It's easy to say i'll shoot the Elk at close range. easy to say, but not easy to do. What if it's 40 yds? Do you pass up the shot? Not everybody can do that.

I have concerns about using a PRB at 75 yds with a rifle and 90 gr of 3F. I know I shouldn't and i'm safe with the load and distance. I'm just that way until I see a successful shot.

You have no idea how much I care for a humane kill, and nothing about my joy in a kill.