Conicals in slow PRB twist?

[mark davidson]

Now Mr. Rollingb,  Thanks for your input and I do appreciate your passion for the round ball and your willingness to defend  it. I often find myself in the same position with traditional archery and plain flat two blade broadheads. I do not doubt for a second that the round ball will kill as I have done so successfully several times in a row. I do think it is somewhat of a stretch to equate a round balls "effectiveness" with modern projectiles like for example a .30 caliber nosler partition. Please consider this: our social hunting situation is very different from our forefathers in muzzle loading and archery as well. We have work schedules, families, and children to get home to.....and often lots of posted land boundaries we must not cross. We do not have the luxury of spending all day and half the next tracking and grid searching for a well hit animal with no blood trail. We often do not need the critter to make a quarter mile dying dash onto adjoining property. We certainly would rather not miss supper and be out till 2 a.m. recovering a deer while our wife and kids worry and do without our company. For these reasons and many more I want a projectile to shoot from my flinter that will smash two shoulders and reduce recovery time.  Sure, sure, sure.... I could just hunt with a .300 magnum or some other shoulder fired nuclear device but my heart is in these darn ole long rockbanging smoking things. I guess I am unwilling to either give up or settle for mediocre performance cause I believe I can have both accuracy and killing power. Soldiers at Vicksburg launched .62 cal. projectiles across the river and killed people a thousand yards away I am told. Surely I can find a gun/bullet/caliber combo that will slam a menial whitetail deer time after time without crippling loses or extra long recoveries assuming I do my part with the sights and trigger.

[Uncle Russ]

Jerry, I don't want to sound negative, but I also have this particular mould you showed from Lee, and in my own experience it is pretty bad for having a thin, easily blown, skirt.

IMO, the cavity is too deep, and the skirt is too thin for hunting purposes....it is nice for paper because it is OS. On the other hand, for plain paper punching with a Minie, it is hard to beat the Lee "Trash Can", or Modern Minie.
For hunting, any of the Parker Hale type are better, and Lymans 575213PH is one of the best, albeit in .58 cal.

I would suggest a REAL or a Maxi over any hollow base mould for heavy loads in a roundball twist....with a solid base you can actually "increase" the powder charge to improve accuracy, whereas with a hollow base, when you reach a point where you are blowing the skirt, you must decrease the powder charge in order to find accuracy.

Minies are not designed for accuracy, but for field expediency. This does not mean that a proper fitting, proper charged minie can not be accurate, because they can.
I think however, in a hunting application, velocity and heavy charges are an important consideration.

In Marks case, where he is looking for an accurate, yet heavy hunting load, I would recommend a solid base conical, or a heavy skirted minie, of no more than .004 oversize.

BTW: You find the usage of O.S. on two different makers of moulds...on Lee Moulds, it means "Over Size", on Lyman it means "Old Style"....not that one is necessarily better than the other, because as a rule you do want your projectile a bit oversize from the bore, and you have to physically measure your bore to know it's actual dimensions.

Uncle Russ...

[mark davidson]

Russ,  Once gain, that last post is some good information for me. I would have initially leaned toward a hollow base design in hopes that it would obturate better and seal. I had not thought about it blowing the skirt out easier since the base is hollow.  Man, if I could make this .54 shoot a big ole heavy maxi of some kind really well on out to a hundred yards and just past, I would be a happy camper!! :-)  I assume bore measurement should be from land to land and not from the depth of the groves???

[rollingb]

Now Mr. Rollingb,  Thanks for your input and I do appreciate your passion for the round ball and your willingness to defend  it. I often find myself in the same position with traditional archery and plain flat two blade broadheads. I do not doubt for a second that the round ball will kill as I have done so successfully several times in a row. I do think it is somewhat of a stretch to equate a round balls "effectiveness" with modern projectiles like for example a .30 caliber nosler partition. Please consider this: our social hunting situation is very different from our forefathers in muzzle loading and archery as well. We have work schedules, families, and children to get home to.....and often lots of posted land boundaries we must not cross. We do not have the luxury of spending all day and half the next tracking and grid searching for a well hit animal with no blood trail. We often do not need the critter to make a quarter mile dying dash onto adjoining property. We certainly would rather not miss supper and be out till 2 a.m. recovering a deer while our wife and kids worry and do without our company. For these reasons and many more I want a projectile to shoot from my flinter that will smash two shoulders and reduce recovery time.  Sure, sure, sure.... I could just hunt with a .300 magnum or some other shoulder fired nuclear device but my heart is in these darn ole long rockbanging smoking things. I guess I am unwilling to either give up or settle for mediocre performance cause I believe I can have both accuracy and killing power. Soldiers at Vicksburg launched .62 cal. projectiles across the river and killed people a thousand yards away I am told. Surely I can find a gun/bullet/caliber combo that will slam a menial whitetail deer time after time without crippling loses or extra long recoveries assuming I do my part with the sights and trigger.

Would you mind pointing out where I did that?

...., and are you attempting to say that no animal has ever be lost after being hit with a modern high power rifle?

Twice,... I have killed animals (on the run) that were hit "FIRST" with modern high powers,... one was a muley, and the other was a caribou. One high power was a 300 Savage, and the other was the ever popular .30-06.
Neither time, did I claim my muzzleloader (and roundball) was "superior, or more effective" then either the 300 or the 30-06,... but I think it was fairly obvious that I might have been a "better shot" (in both cases) then either of the 2 guys using high powers and who shot their animal in the "guts".
Had the reverse happened,.... I would suspect BOTH those guys would have been touting the virtues of their centerfire highpowers over a lowly muzzleloader (shooting roundballs), from the highest mountain top. :roll eyes

[rollingb]

Mark,... before this goes any farther, let me list a few "modern" (high power) rifles that I have owned;....

.17 Rem.
.219 Zipper
.22-250 (still have it)
.243 Win.
.25-06
.270 Win.
.7MM Mag.
.30-06
.30-30 (still have it)
.30-40 Krag
.338 Win Mag.
.38-55 (wish I still had it)
.45-70 both in Marlin lever actions, (and Remington Rolling Blocks, of which I'm a collecter)
.50-70 (still have it)
.50-140 Sharps (uses the same brass as the .500 Nitro Express, and shoots a 750 gr. cast bullet)
.375 H&H Mag.
.458 Win Mag.

As you can see, I'm no stranger to big-bore centerfires...., and I still prefer to hunt big game with a muzzleloader and roundballs (not because a muzzleloader and roundball is "BETTER" than the above centerfires,..... but because it is more "FUN" for me).  

[jbullard1]

Thanks Uncle Russ
I have never fired anything other than roundballs and the unmentionable plastic skirts thigamagigs from a 54. Was not aware of the blowing skirt problem with the lee molds Thanks
I'm still going to experiment some  

[Captchee]

russ is right , there is an issue with  blow skirts that are to thin. that what i like about the one i shoot . it has a very thick skirt and it holds well

[mark davidson]

Well Rollingb, I do not reckon I said specifically that YOU personally equate the round ball's effectiveness with modern projectiles. If you go back and read your previous post you did say that you (we) are quick to defend the round ball against anyone who claims the roundball is "inferior" to modern projectiles. I suppose the term "inferior" that you used must be qualified a bit. If the measure of effectiveness is as simple as "will kill" or "won't kill" then the round ball is as good as anything ever invented. By that criterial the four or five deer I have killed with a .22 pistol would justify the .22 long rifle as "effective" as the .458 magnum in your list and not "inferior" to the 30-06 or the .458. In practical and ballistic terms we know that such a claim for the .22 is obsurd. I already stated that I know by study and by experience that the round ball is effective. Yet, I do not see an argument for the round ball as generally "not inferior" to modern projectiles when all characteristics of a projectile are considered.   The one greatest point in this whole thread is your last statement above, "not because a muzzleloader or roundball is "BETTER" than the above centerfires, .....but because it is more "FUN" for me."  My sentiments exactly!!  We are on the same page actually and your list of centerfire differs from mine only slightly with the advantage going to you for playing with a few that I have not tried. I shoot flint over percussion cause it is more FUN; blackpowder over modern cause it is more fun; round ball and conical over sabots and pistol bullets cause it is more FUN.  Now all I got to do is find a particular round ball or conical that also performs to my expectations of FUN and I will be a happy camper.

[Uncle Russ]

Thanks Uncle Russ
I have never fired anything other than roundballs and the unmentionable plastic skirts thigamagigs from a 54. Was not aware of the blowing skirt problem with the lee molds Thanks
I'm still going to experiment some  

Let me fix ya up with some Minies & Maxi's with a few short & long REALS thrown in for good measure...Pm me yer address, I'll get 'em in the mail.

This goes for Mark too. You'll just never know until ya try a few. "What's good for da goose, jest ain't always whuts good fer da gander!"

Uncle Russ...

[mark davidson]

Thanks Russ, Sent you a pm.  Experimentation is the spice of life!

[rollingb]

Well Rollingb, I do not reckon I said specifically that YOU personally equate the round ball's effectiveness with modern projectiles. If you go back and read your previous post you did say that you (we) are quick to defend the round ball against anyone who claims the roundball is "inferior" to modern projectiles. I suppose the term "inferior" that you used must be qualified a bit. If the measure of effectiveness is as simple as "will kill" or "won't kill" then the round ball is as good as anything ever invented. By that criterial the four or five deer I have killed with a .22 pistol would justify the .22 long rifle as "effective" as the .458 magnum in your list and not "inferior" to the 30-06 or the .458. In practical and ballistic terms we know that such a claim for the .22 is obsurd. I already stated that I know by study and by experience that the round ball is effective. Yet, I do not see an argument for the round ball as generally "not inferior" to modern projectiles when all characteristics of a projectile are considered.   The one greatest point in this whole thread is your last statement above, "not because a muzzleloader or roundball is "BETTER" than the above centerfires, .....but because it is more "FUN" for me."  My sentiments exactly!!  We are on the same page actually and your list of centerfire differs from mine only slightly with the advantage going to you for playing with a few that I have not tried. I shoot flint over percussion cause it is more FUN; blackpowder over modern cause it is more fun; round ball and conical over sabots and pistol bullets cause it is more FUN.  Now all I got to do is find a particular round ball or conical that also performs to my expectations of FUN and I will be a happy camper.

Darn right, I'd say your .22 was every bit as "effective" as a .458 might have been,.... it killed'em, didn't it?  

[jbullard1]

Thanks Russ, Sent you a pm.  Experimentation is the spice of life!

Same here and thanks Unc Russ

[tg]

Most mL hunter using the PRB do not try and smash thru the shoulders, the typical shot is thru both lungs, once again modern methods atre being carried thru to the ML, there is little that can be said to those who hold to such ideas tha will make any difference,the endless numbers of deer and Elk taken every year with .50 and up PRB's is hard to ignore,  it is ones own perogative to use what one wants whan hunting with a ML but it would be best for those who are looking to experience the traditional Ml hunting experience if folks would not try to spin the modern design bullets into the realm of traditional gear, if that simple honest, fact based concept is not understood then nothing can likley drive the point home, we can only hope tha those new to the sport will garner enough valid info from these exchanges to make the an honest representation of the type of gear  used be it modern or trdaitional.

[mark davidson]

TG,  Well said and respectfully said as well. I do hope to glean enough valid information from these exchanges  to make an honest effort to effectively and efficiently take the game I hunt. As for the "representaion of the type of gear used"..... I am not sure what that means. If it means period correctness, then I really could respectfully care less. The FUN factor of shooting flintlocks is what appeals to me. I am willing to stay within the confines of the round ball or conical to get effective kills. I am sure I can get the results I want and meet MY criteria for killing effectiveness with a big round ball or with a conical.  Now if I am somehow too "modern" in my approach for some, I simply ask for the same respect in my pursuits that everyone else seems to want.

[mark davidson]

Rollingb,
    Our discussion is getting trite and our attempts to justify "our" position equally silly. Potential effectiveness of a caliber or round is given assuming good shot placement not a shot in the butt or hindquarter. A .22 is simply NOT as potentially effective as a .458 or a 30.06 assuming typical decent shot placement. Such a statement to the contrary flies in the face of even basic mathematics. Another word that comes to mind is responsibility. My shooting deer in my youth with a .22 was nothing short of irresponsible no matter how "dead" it killed them.  Had I continued that irresponsible practice it would only be a matter of time before it did not "kill um dead" and would result in a tragic wound and loss. My quest here is simply for an efficient and effective projectile within my chosen confines of flintlock muzzleloader hunting. It is that simple. I volunteer....let's drop this .22 vs .458 debate. This is my last post on the subject.