Post by: mark davidson on October 23, 2008, 03:12:19 PM
Post by: R.M. on October 23, 2008, 03:19:16 PM
Post by: mark davidson on October 23, 2008, 03:31:47 PM
Post by: Mitch on October 23, 2008, 03:36:40 PM
Post by: Uncle Russ on October 23, 2008, 04:16:42 PM
Quote from: "R.M."
Boy, wait till you talk to Bigsmoke. He'll talk big bores with you.
Yep, that fella strongly believes in "use enough gun", for anything that just might come along.
Uncle Russ...
Post by: Bigsmoke on October 23, 2008, 04:41:27 PM
With all that being said, my own personal arsenal consists of a .62 caliber English Sporting Rifle, a .69 caliber English Sporting Rifle and an eight bore double rifle.
The .62 is my "plinking" rifle, which I would use for casual shooting, target matches and maybe deer hunting. For plinking/targets, I use 135 grains of Ffg. For more serious, I up it to 200 grains Ffg.
The .69 is my elk rifle. For shooting, I run about 165 grains Ffg, for serious, 200 grains Ffg.
The 8 bore was built with Africa in mind, although that hasn't happened yet, and at this point, I am doubtful if it will. The gun did go to Africa, but I didn't be the one to take it. That fellow shot a 525 pound male lion with it. He said the ball went in high at the chest, went the entire lenght of his torso, smashed the pelvic girdle, and kept on going out its butt. Flipped him in the air and did a turn and a half, wound up on his back, facing the oposite direction. Penetration? I'd say. Power? Plenty to spare.
I had a beautiful .72 caliber that I dropped a bison with, but sold it to a good friend. Strangely enough, that rifle was probably the best shooting of the bunch.
I really like a slow twist on the big bores, .62 through .72 had 1:104, wide lands, narrow grooves, and shallow rifling. The all shoot 200 to 225 grains of Ffg well. The 8 bore has 1:144 and seems to like 300 grians of Fg.
I think any of the above calibers would look good in a Jaeger style rifle. The .62 would want to be minimum 1 1/8 at the breech and the .69 and the .72 would be 1 1/4". I don't think I would go with any bigger bore.
With a 200 grain charge of Ffg in the .62 with a 32" barrel, I am getting about 2,000 fps. The .72 with 200 grains (might have been 225) gave around 1,800 fps. That was good enough to knock an 1,800 pound bison off his feet and roll him onto his back at 100 yards. He was shot in the neck, the ball clipped his spine and came to rest under the hide on the far side. I'd say that is adequate penetration.
I don't know of anything else I can add to this. You might try Beartooth Bullets website and play with some of their ballistic calculators to see the difference between your current rifle and some of the big bores. Quite a difference.
Let us know what you wind up thinking about.
Post by: hawkeye on October 23, 2008, 04:55:06 PM
I also have a .62 caliber early Virginia rifle with a 42" barrel. I shoot a .600 round ball and 100gr 3f out of it. It blew right through the deer I shot last year with it.
My "Pea Shooter" is a 28 bore (.54 caliber) Jackie Brown canoe gun. I shoot mainly shot out of it but have taken both squirrel and finished off a deer with it using a round ball.
Post by: Bigsmoke on October 23, 2008, 07:10:42 PM
I couldn't agree with you more about the 2 bore being too big. On the wall in a nice, lighted display would be a good place for that to stay. That sure is a beautiful piece of work. Bravo!! You get it shot yet?
The 16 bore looks pretty nice and is a comfortable size to shoot. That would be a .66 caliber. I had one of those for a while, but just couldn't get excited about it.
Still liking the .62 and the .72 the best.
As long as we are recycling photos here, this is a double 4 bore with a .530 ball in one muzzle, just for comparrison. Kinda makes the little .54 seem about insignificant by comparrison.
(http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii161/bigsmoke72/4BORE023_edited.jpg)
Post by: Kermit on October 23, 2008, 07:39:53 PM
Post by: sse on October 23, 2008, 08:38:09 PM
Quote
This one is too big."King Kong" LOL!
It's a 2 bore
Post by: mario on October 23, 2008, 11:06:53 PM
Quote from: "bigsmoke"
Hmmmm... Seems like I have somewhat of a reputation going here as a person that likes more gun than is necessary - but always enough to get the job done.
Quote from: "bigsmoke"
The .62 is my "plinking" rifle, which I would use for casual shooting, target matches and maybe deer hunting. For plinking/targets, I use 135 grains of Ffg. For more serious, I up it to 200 grains Ffg.
With things like this in the same post, you wonder why?
Mario
PS- My offer to help sight in that 2-bore still stands, Steve, if your client will pay my airfare...
Post by: oneshot72 on October 24, 2008, 12:37:22 AM
Mike
Post by: snake eyes on October 24, 2008, 06:55:15 AM
That 2 bore looks like it could shoot mortars :lol:
snake-eyes
Post by: Uncle Russ on October 24, 2008, 07:35:29 AM
Quote from: "oneshot72"
Being the proud owner of the .72 cal that Bigsmoke mentions I would have to agree that it is a fine shooting gun and great caliber. If I just want to plink with it I use a load of 100 grain of Ffg and for serious hunting I use 200 grains of Ffg. Both loads are extremly accurate in the right hands. The hunting load is not too hard on the shoulder either but much bigger than that and it might get a bit harsh.
Mike
FWIW; At Mikes invitation, he and I attended the Che~lo~han Primitive Shoot, back about Feb. or March of this year.
In the "Woods-Walk", Mike using the same .72 mentioned above, cleaned the targets, and many of the targets were extremely difficult..... plus that particular course had a life size "Running Moose"...or "Moose on a cable" as some prefered to call the contraption.
(The shooter had about a 20' window to pull up, aim, and shoot. at this moving target. A really, really neat game, if you have the facilities to set up such a target.)
If memory serves me right, Mike was the only one to hit that Moose in the designated kill area.
Trust me when I say he can shoot that big rifle, and he does it quite well!
John Boy (BigSmoke) seems to really enjoy his big bores, and there is not a thing in the world wrong with shooting a big bore...as big as you can stand up to, and still shoot accurately.
I shoot a .66 cal smoothie, but I do not use anywhere near the powder charge that Mike and BigSmoke use.
As I said, this little blurb is FWIW. But I do hope it shows that big bores can be very accurate, and quite manageable.
Uncle Russ...
Post by: mark davidson on October 24, 2008, 10:14:07 AM
Post by: Bigsmoke on October 24, 2008, 11:49:07 AM
Read my original post about the bison I shot. 100 yards distance as verified with a range finder, shot in the neck, went in, clipped the spine, kept going to the other side of the neck, and stopped just under the skin. Knocked the critter all the way over onto his back.
I agree with Steve that the story of the .72 bouncing off the hide is the stuff that urban legends are made of. The BS flag is blowing wildly.
The club I used to shoot with actually banned guns like that from competition as they caused way too much wear and tear on their silhouettes. I think they put a .54 or .58 limit on bore size a while back.
They are plenty gun for anything on this continent, and almost enough for anything anywhere else.
And with the right rate of twist and the right powder charge, they have an amazing flat trajectory as well.
Post by: mark davidson on October 24, 2008, 12:40:20 PM
Post by: Kermit on October 25, 2008, 12:35:43 PM
Crosschecking with the formula of bore diameter cubed times 1502.6, I get a similar number.
I'm trying to imagine enough powder to accelerate one of those pumpkins to murderous velocities in a barrel of, say, 36 inches. And when I try to imagine the recoil produced, I wonder which end of the gun I'd want to be on when one of these things lights off...
This ball needs to be launched from a swivel gun!
Post by: Bigsmoke on October 25, 2008, 02:08:29 PM
If you were to go check out the thread that Steve originally started a while ago about the 2 bore gun, I checked out the ballistics of the thing on the Beartooth Bullets calculator. Frankly, I don't recall all the numbers, but the felt recoil was somewhere north of 200 pounds. That's a real thump. A swivel would be a good ideal. Someone else's shoulder would be even better.
Post by: tg on October 26, 2008, 02:45:20 PM
Post by: Gordon H.Kemp on October 26, 2008, 05:18:09 PM
Post by: mark davidson on October 27, 2008, 09:28:28 AM
Post by: Bigsmoke on October 27, 2008, 09:47:07 AM
The .72 that Mike and I have shared seems to shoot about point of aim at 100 yards. So does my .69 and my .62.
Roger Renner at pacific Arms at one time advocated the use of shot in his Zephyr Rifles as an option. I think the use of some sort of shot cup was advised. However, even with his slow rifling 1:144, the powder charge really had to be backed off, as the spin of the rifling tended to obliterate the pattern if a very hot load was used. Without the shot cup, they will tend to lead up.
Post by: mark davidson on October 27, 2008, 11:11:30 AM
Post by: rollingb on October 27, 2008, 01:10:19 PM
Quote from: "mark davidson"
TG, or someone, Tell me about caliber and the "shot option." Can I shoot shot a lot from a rifled barrel or do I really need a fowler? .72 is the equivalent of 12 guage.....is that correct. Then what is .69 the equivilent of? Will shooting lots of shot ruin the rifling of a rifle or diminish its accuracy with patch and ball. Be patient, I am obviously fairly new to this. Finally, is there a huge trajectory difference between .62 and .72. I do not mind getting close to critters cause I am mostly a bowhunter but I do not want to spend the money to get a rifle and end up with a 50 yard gun. I need it to perform within reason at 100 yards at least. Thanks in advance for all opinions and advice.
"Trajectory" (of ANY calibur) is directly related to the powder-charge used until you reach the cailbur's "PODR" (Point Of Diminishing Returns) when using blackpowder.
The bigger the bore,... the bigger the powder-charge needed to retain the "same" trajectory when being compared to smaller caliburs.
Or,.... (maybe) more simply put,... "velocity" is directly related to "trajectory".
Post by: mark davidson on October 27, 2008, 01:37:20 PM
Post by: rollingb on October 27, 2008, 02:43:12 PM
On the other hand, "barrel length" is also a very big factor when we start discussing PDR/blackpowder ,... as an example, consider the navel guns on a battleship (they also use blackpowder charges, and would definitely be fun to play with, but would be a "real pain" to carry in the field :laffing
I prefer a muzzleloader that's light and easy to carry, it just makes my experience in the "field" that much more enjoyable. :shake
Post by: mark davidson on October 27, 2008, 03:32:53 PM
Post by: Spotted Bull on October 27, 2008, 04:07:51 PM
Post by: rollingb on October 27, 2008, 04:57:46 PM
Quote from: "mark davidson"
Thanks again for your kind and polite responses. My mission centers around the word "want." I have a custom .54 and it kills bambi with much authority. I just for whatever reason "want" something with a "big" ole hole in the end but I still want to be able to shoot on out to 100 yards without excessive holdover. Trajectory can be so bad in some cases that you have to completely cover the target with sight, muzzle and everything to have any hope of the projectile falling into the target. I do not want that! I have always liked big bores in handguns as well. There is just something appealing about a big hole in the end. None of us "need" such things. It is all part of our version of FUN! ;-)
2 things here,.... if the trajectory is "that bad", then (either) increase the powder charge to flatten the trajectory by increasing the velocity,... and/or, take a few "swipes" off the front sight with a file (if) you don't have an adjustable rear-sight.
I "can" adjust my loads, and my sights, to shoot poorly,... or, I can work up a load that's every effective, and tune my sights to be accurate out to 100+ yards. (I chose the latter options)
"ANYTHING" your .54 can do,... a bigger bore can "ALSO" do.
...., please tell us what "calibur", what "rifle", and what "load", is being used to give such a horrible trajectory, as mentioned in your post?
Post by: mark davidson on October 28, 2008, 11:16:51 AM
Post by: rollingb on October 28, 2008, 12:15:52 PM
Quote from: "mark davidson"
Rollingb, Man, I just asked a simple question in an honest desire for information about really big bores caue I have NO EXPERIENCE with them. I am perfectly capable of pouring in more powder and trust me my shoulder can stand it. I am also quite capable of setting my sights. I managed to set me .54 well enough to slam 7 deer with it last year at various ranges. The trajectory is flat enough that a clean six o clock hold at 50 yards and a 12 o clock hold at a hundred will put a prb in the bullseye at either range. Most of my other shooting experience is with center fires. .45acp is a good example of what I do not want in a rifle. A 230gr projectile that hits well with a typical sight picture out to 50 yards is almost completely unusable at 100 yards cause the trajectory is so bad you have to hold up so much that the target disappears behind the muzzle. Add another couple of hundred feet per second and the same projectile becomes practical on out to 100 yards in the .460 Rowland version of the same round.
I think you've just answered your own question, and remember that the ACP is "limited" because of it's "case capacity" when compared to the .460,... if trajectory was governed soley by "calibur" then a .458 Win. Mag would have the same trajectory as the old .45-70 Springfield round.
Velocity has "everything" to do with trajectory,... so where is the confusion regarding "calibur"???? :)
Quote
There comes a point that a round is simply too big and drops like a rock very quickly with even a very stout powder charge.
The "law of physics" will certainly disagree with that statement,... and you even contradicted it by using the ".460 Rowland vs .45 ACP" example.
Quote
I just figured some of you on here might have shot the big stuff enough to tell me of one has an edge over the other or not. Simple question; simple answer.
The simple answer is,.... the bigger the ball, the bigger the "edge",.... and the bigger the "RECOIL" factor, due to the increased powder-charge needed to retain a reasonable "velocity" with a bigger ball.
I hope this helps answer your question.
Post by: Bigsmoke on October 28, 2008, 12:17:17 PM
OK, here is my experience with the .62 and .69 and .72 with 1:104 shallow, wide groove, narrow land rifling. Frankly, I cannot tell much difference in trajectory.
Africa, a fellow with one of my rifles shot a duck off a pond at a lazered distance of 240 yards. Boom, no duck! .69 cal. Same guy, same gun, shot an eland at 140 yards, went down like a truck hit it. His observation was that his tendency was to shoot over critters, as he had difficulty believing it would shoot so flat. Probably 200 - 225 grains Ffg.
Me, .72 cal, 200-225 grains Ffg, bison, 100 yards, hit it hard enough to roll it all the way onto its back. Same gun, approx 250 +/- yards uphill, hit a 12" square gong, 200 grains.
Me, .62 caliber, 165 grains Ffg, won a distance shooting contest at 200 paces. Target was a ram silhouette. Hit right where I aimed.
Guess what I am trying to say is that in my opinion and experience, if the rifle is designed right, with the right rifling, it will definitely reach out and touch something. Right where you want it to be touched.
In all honesty, as was already mentioned, there are no degrees of dead. Once the lights are out, that's is. However, I think that it is a much better kill to hit the critter so hard that it just slams it into the ground and lights out, rather than hitting it and it walks off for 50 - ??? yards and then gradually expires.
Roaring Bull, the book has already been written. It is The Sporting Rifle and its Projectiles, by James Forsythe. Good luck finding it, they are getting pretty scarce. Buckskin Press republished it in the 1970's. Have seen a few originals, but they generally run in the $125 - $150 range. And Buckskin Press has gone the way of the carrier pidgeon and the dodo bird. Extinct.
Post by: mark davidson on October 28, 2008, 12:27:17 PM
Wyosmith, I'm not sure I can stand up to an 8 bore! :-) Truth is I may decide I can't handle a 12 bore and I will for sure shoot one if I can before I drop the cash for one. What would you compare recoil on a .72 cal with say 200 grains of black powder to? I shoot a lot of 3 1/2" 12 guage rounds duck hunting and I have shot a few 10 guage rounds and I have owned a .458 magnum rifle and shot it a good bit. Is the .72 similar or heavier in recoil or lighter or what do you guys think? My .54 with up to 120 grains of BP is pretty mild in my opinion and the 90 grain load is a pussycat.
Post by: Uncle Russ on October 28, 2008, 01:56:12 PM
Quote from: "Wyosmith"
If a modern 3" 12 gage with a Turkey load is not bothersome to you, the 12 bore muzzleloader will not be either.
In fact, with muzzleloaders, the recoil is usually a lot nicer just because you can build it (or have it built) to fit YOU perfectly and put a butt plate on it of 2"-2 3/8" wide, which REALLY spreads of the recoil so it's not at all painful.
I share this same thought.....and I have for some time now.
FWIW: Over the years, like many others, I went through a stage where I was a big bore fan when it came to centerfires, ie .300, 35 Whelen, .338, .375, .416, etc, etc, and, depending on the stock, some of these things can, and will, kick your fool head off if not pulled in tight.
In the past 15 / 20 years, since my entire shooting passion turned to muzzleloaders, I have shot some pretty big Black Powder guns too, but I have always seen the recoil as being quite different.
To me, the recoil of a muzzleloader is more of a p-u-s-h, as opposed to the slap, or smack, of a centerfire.
I do have a little bit of experience with a rifled .72 that belongs to my hunting buddy over in Olympia.
Jerry's load is 200 gr FFg every time he fires it! and I feel that the felt, or percieved recoil of that rifle, with that load, is somewhat less than my own GPR in .54 using 120gr FFg.
His rifle with that stock design is more of a push, while my own rifle is more a slap..... quite like the centerfires.
So, as Steve said, it's all in the stock..... at least IMHO!
Uncle Russ...
Post by: jbullard1 on October 28, 2008, 02:10:58 PM
I looked at and drooled and slobbered all over a 62 Grand Rifle built by Matt Avance this past weekend. He told me about the same thing as far as the recoil, he offered to let me shoot it but I passed. If I had been really interested and had the cash I would have made smoke with it
Post by: hawkeye on October 28, 2008, 02:56:59 PM
I'm hoping to get deer #2 with it this season.
Post by: mark davidson on October 29, 2008, 12:47:02 PM
Post by: hawkeye on October 29, 2008, 01:09:10 PM
Post by: Bigsmoke on October 29, 2008, 01:23:47 PM
I'd say a .62 with slow rifling and a 1 1/8" barrel would be 200 grains Ffg and a .72 with 1 1/4" barrel would be 225. This is with 1:104 twist. If a person were to use 1:144, you could probably squeeze in a few more and retain pretty good accuracy.
Post by: rollingb on October 29, 2008, 01:53:09 PM
So I would think (uh oh :laffing) that using 110grs. of FFFG in a rifled 42" big-bore barrel must create some "rather high" breech pressure, and would be less efficent (in that long of barrel) then the slower burning FFG.
Someone correct me, if I'm thinkin' wrong.
I use a 100gr. FFG charge (with roundball) in my .62 NWTG, but I don't use it for 100yd. hunting.
Post by: hawkeye on October 29, 2008, 02:08:12 PM
In my 20 bore NWTG, I shot 70gr 2f and a .600 round ball with great accuracy. Even with my .75 Brown Bess and .735 RB, I max it out at 90gr 2f. Smoothbore barrels tend to be thinner than rifled barrels and aimed shots with a smoothbore tend to be 25yds or less.
Post by: Mitch on October 29, 2008, 02:33:10 PM