Post by: mark davidson on January 26, 2009, 12:35:43 PM
Post by: Loyalist Dave on January 26, 2009, 12:45:00 PM
ya can't fool the physics, sorry. That slow a twist will give your conical an attitude in flight that'll cause it to tumble like a football kicked for a field goal. It's not a question of velocity.
I started as a kid with a CVA caplock in .45. I still have that rifle. Tried T/C Maxi Balls and Maxi Hunters. Made nice keyholes in the paper at 25 feet. Off the paper at 25 yards. Later I found out why, while it also shot cloverleaf patterns at 25 yards with a round ball. The slow twist just isn't enough.
LD
Post by: R.M. on January 26, 2009, 01:05:30 PM
Post by: Flint62Smoothie on January 26, 2009, 01:24:24 PM
(http://home.comcast.net/~dfhubbard/Muzzleloading/Ball-Ets.JPG)
(http://home.comcast.net/~dfhubbard/Muzzleloading/Ball-Ets2.jpg)
I hear Ball-Ets may not be made anymore but Midway sells the CVA version.
Post by: mark davidson on January 26, 2009, 02:13:59 PM
Post by: jbullard1 on January 26, 2009, 03:53:48 PM
Wish I had a mold for a 54 maxi/minnie or such I'd cast some and send them to you just for testing
Post by: Fletcher on January 26, 2009, 05:32:19 PM
I am waiting to see how Longhunter does on Elephant, Rhino and Cape Buffalo with his PRB guns - but I have high hopes!!!
Post by: Bigsmoke on January 26, 2009, 08:37:07 PM
Post by: AxelP on January 26, 2009, 09:13:58 PM
I also was told that those plastic sabots are really bad with deep groove slow-twist barrels. The powder will burn past the gaps and melt the plastic all in your bore and its a real pain to get cleaned up...
Axe
Post by: Captchee on January 26, 2009, 09:17:20 PM
I know because I do it .
My load for my house rifle is 110 grains of 3 F
She has very large deep round bottom rifling and shooting a a 435 grain Burton pattern minie she will hold an 8 inch pattern at 100 yards .
So IMO it depend on what type of rifling you have and how well the conical seals to the bore
here is a photo of the minie i use . it shows a 58 but i use a 54 cal of the same design
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fc/Minie_Balls.jpg)
Post by: mark davidson on January 27, 2009, 10:10:45 AM
Post by: rollingb on January 27, 2009, 10:25:32 AM
Post by: Captchee on January 27, 2009, 10:53:00 AM
benched she will do better im sure . but i dont hunt from a bench or stand so i care little for what my hunting load does of a bench . what maters is what my rifle does off hand .
I simply do not shoot past 100 regardless conical or other
i can tell you benched , she will hold , concerning RB , less then a 4 inch string "NOTICE I SAID STRING" . but i did not get a mould for those conicals when i bought the rifle . i only recieved 50 of them when i bought it .
the owner told me she would throw a sub 3 inch group at 100 . but frankly i dont know . i swallowed hard just tossing 5 at paper off hand . im now down to less then 10 so that gives you some idea how stingy i am with those conicals .
im very close to being forced to having a mould made as i cannot buy one .nore is the fella i bought the rifle from alive to make me more .
off hand i have taken long gong shoots at over 300 yards hitting a 3ftx3ft target 5 out of 5 times ,off hand with 80 grains of 3Fand a patched 530 RB . but off hand at 100 im lucky to be able to hold a 6 inch patern off even with rb .
its not the rifle its me
so given that group with rb off hand 2 inches more with conicals off hand , naaa im not worried in the least considerning the load and recoil is much , much higher with 2X the wieght and 30 grains more powder
i can tell you this much as well . that conical will tear through bone , mussel and bone and not blink with from what i exsperianced no sign of stoping .. the wound channel is right at 3/4 of an inch across
i have full confidance that even at 100 yards my rifle will but that conical right into and through the kill area with no fear at all .
none
Post by: Captchee on January 27, 2009, 10:58:14 AM
Post by: rollingb on January 27, 2009, 11:26:32 AM
Quote from: "Captchee"
that group is off hand not benched lol . it will and has taken more elk through the years then i can count . granted 100 is still far with most all those shots being under 50 yards .
benched she will do better im sure . but i dont hunt from a bench or stand so i care little for what my hunting load does of a bench . what maters is what my rifle does off hand .
I simply do not shoot past 100 regardless conical or other
i can tell you benched , she will hold , concerning RB , less then a 4 inch string "NOTICE I SAID STRING" . but i did not get a mould for those conicals when i bought the rifle . i only recieved 50 of them when i bought it .
the owner told me she would throw a sub 3 inch group at 100 . but frankly i dont know . i swallowed hard just tossing 5 at paper off hand . im now down to less then 10 so that gives you some idea how stingy i am with those conicals .
im very close to being forced to having a mould made as i cannot buy one .nore is the fella i bought the rifle from alive to make me more .
off hand i have taken long gong shoots at over 300 yards hitting a 3ftx3ft target 5 out of 5 times ,off hand with 80 grains of 3Fand a patched 530 RB . but off hand at 100 im lucky to be able to hold a 6 inch patern off even with rb .
its not the rifle its me
so given that group with rb off hand 2 inches more with conicals off hand , naaa im not worried in the least considerning the load and recoil is much , much higher with 2X the wieght and 30 grains more powder
i can tell you this much as well . that conical will tear through bone , mussel and bone and not blink with from what i exsperianced no sign of stoping .. the wound channel is right at 3/4 of an inch across
i have full confidance that even at 100 yards my rifle will but that conical right into and through the kill area with no fear at all .
none
I'd like to clarify that I don't "hunt off a bench" either :rotf
Post by: Captchee on January 27, 2009, 11:41:06 AM
workin up a load is one thing . applying that load is completely another .
even if your rifle will hold a sigle hole at 100 yards with 5 shots , if you cannot hold that off hand then your patern is going to travel .
growing up there were basicly 2 types of shooters . those who sighted in for hunting and those who sighted in for target shooting .
those guys could hold a single hole with thier centerfires when benched for a great distance . but strugled to hold a group on a paper plate at 100 yards off hand .
but those who sighted in on paper plates holding a group off hand , always tightened their group when it came to the bench
my rifle shoots true . i know for a fact it does . its just that i cant hold it as true off hand .
but i can tell you this much with all certainty . There is no doubt in my mind that if a person size target took off running and made it to 300 yards my Hershel house rifle with me holding it would lay that target to rest 90% of the time ."humanly speaking LOL " big game i would never try that .
With that conical I showed above , I have never not placed one of those conical through the kill zone through my slow twist barrel
Shooting off the bench will tell you what the rifle is capable off . But shooting off hand will tell you what your capable of .
that’s why 99.9% of all the shooting I do is off hand . If I can place a shot in the pickle barrel off hand I sure should be able to pin point a pickle when benched
Post by: mark davidson on January 27, 2009, 11:50:12 AM
Post by: Captchee on January 27, 2009, 12:07:24 PM
My rifle i got used in 1991 . it was built back in 1970ish .
when i got it the fella handed me a box of those minies and said here is the charge . i still have that box and that small peice of paper still sets ontop of it
Post by: mark davidson on January 27, 2009, 12:44:07 PM
Post by: rollingb on January 27, 2009, 01:15:29 PM
First thing I do with a new rifle, is "bench it" at 100 yards, and if it's not shooting sub-2 inch groups at that distance then I start tweeking my loads.
After benching my rifle and working up the load it likes best, and "setting" my sights,... I know that any time I miss what I'm shooting at,... it's "my fault" and NOT my rifle or load.
I've seen guys that were pretty good off-hand shooters (on paper), but were terrible shooting from cross-sticks.
When they tried benching their rifles they found out WHY "that is".
I call it a "controlled flinch" which actually seems to help some people who "sight in" off-hand, and "shoot" strictly off-hand,... but might be as much as 18-20 inchs "off" dead-center at 100 yards when benched or shooting off cross-sticks. :shock:
Any rifle/load that is benched properly, will reveal any faults a "shooter/hunter" has, whether it's poor breathing, jerking the trigger, flinching, and etc. simply because any error with rifle, sights, and load, have been removed from the equation.
I had a friend in Alaska, that hunted moose with his Lyman GPR and lead conicals, and I thought the "rainbow trajectory" of his load was AWFUL, and it was,... compared to how it shot PRB's.
The last I knew, he still hadn't got a moose with his conical-loads and had went back to roundballs.
I also think, that with a gun/load shooting over-sized groups at 100 yards, pretty much eliminates taking an occasional grouse at 15-25 yards (with head-shots) when out hunting bigger game. (I used to do that, just so I'd be garuanteed to have something to eat at the end of the day.
)
Post by: Captchee on January 27, 2009, 01:17:58 PM
now tow does sell a Lyman bullet one thats close to what i shoot
but i tried it in my rifle and was not satisfied at all . the base isnt as deep . it also has one less lub crove in it .
Lee makes one they call their Original minie but its wight was 20 grains less then the ones i have again depth of the hollow base .
I would like to try the parker hale minies but Lyman only has them in 58 cal . but the design of that bullet is very close to what im shooting now .
but i have come to the conclussion that the fit is the key .
i think what is matching with my rifle is the conical has a deep soft hollow base . combined with they type of rifling in my barrel it works .
so i guess i would say try a hollow base to start with , see ow it shoots . dont go with a real long bullet eather . you simply dont have the twist to stablize it at longer distances .
i wish i could tell you why it works ? i just dont know . all i know is that in my rifle i get acceptable results at the ranges i shoot
anyone here know the rate of twist of the 1853 Enfield ,can we say 1:78
in fact from what guys have been telling me "i dont know " but they have been saying that the enfield is capable of sub 2 inch froups at 100 yards ?
the enfielsds also have alot smaller rifling . thus i have to ask if the case is that a slow twist barrel will not stablize a large heavy conical , then how did the enfild do it with a slower twist and a 500 grain projectile ?
Post by: Captchee on January 27, 2009, 01:37:46 PM
but when i was thinking of shooting the enfild i had i wanted some information on their accracy concerning the slow twist and very light rifling .
a person i ask the question to sent me this link .
hope it gives you something to think on and maybe work with
http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:AR1W97h7I-cJ:castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php%3Ft%3D38029+1853+enfield+accuracy&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us
Post by: mark davidson on January 27, 2009, 01:51:22 PM
Post by: rollingb on January 27, 2009, 01:57:07 PM
Post by: tg on January 27, 2009, 02:51:19 PM
Post by: Captchee on January 27, 2009, 03:00:30 PM
myself and i dont know how many times i have said this before but ill say it again .
i chose a conical becouse of where i hunt elk not becouse it will not work and work well for elk .
i do not use conicals for deer or elk down in the flats , i simply see no need.
but lets try and remebers folks that this person is not asking about that and while that may be many of our prefrences . we should have enough respect to answer him based on our own personal knowage .
im not sayting anyone has not done that , i think everyone has so 2 thumbs up to you all
Post by: mark davidson on January 28, 2009, 11:32:13 AM
Post by: tg on January 28, 2009, 12:55:40 PM
Post by: mark davidson on January 28, 2009, 01:27:22 PM
Post by: tg on January 28, 2009, 04:07:13 PM
This is done with a PRB by many evrey year, I have no intention of changing someones mind who obviously does not understand the potential of the PRB and its long history of usage, I only hope to offer those newcommers that may be in the wings a chance to aquire some knowledge and make an intelligent, informed choice when they decide to take their ML afield after game, and get the most enjoyment as possible from this great sport, and leave the centerfire ballistic mindset behind with the modern guns where it belongs. Hopefull for those who cannot take game with the PRB there will soon be a high powered straight necked rimmless cartridge that can be loaded from the front and extracted from the breech , thus being leagaly a ML yet have all the advantages of the 30/06, this will "killem" real good.
Post by: rollingb on January 28, 2009, 04:29:09 PM
Post by: tg on January 28, 2009, 06:02:00 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"TG,... don't ya know everybody starved to death, prior to the invention of "pointy" bullets '
So it would seem acording to the way some would have us think,
as I said I have no thoughts of changing someones mind who hunts traditional with one foot in the modern world or those who cannot take game effectively with traditional gear. I just keep a dialouge open when the topic of bullets arises so those who may be lurking will get a complete view of the topic and hopefully become informed enough to make an educated choice and get an honest assesment and understanding of using traditional gear, the non-traditional crowd gets a little hot under the collar at times but they will survive to toss big ol' bone cruching meat grinding maxiconisuper bullets another day.
Post by: Captchee on January 28, 2009, 08:00:35 PM
the rb is a good projectile . the reason i dont use them for elk is
1) im hunting most times n the rut and them buggers have un real streagth at the time of yer
2) the area i hunt is many times inly maybe 100 yards across and then it drops a mile on eather side . of that im not making it up , one one side is hells canyon , the deepest gorge in North americia and on the other is the salmon river , if i recall 3rd deepest .
now yes there are horror stories about the rb . but guess what , there are horror storied about every caliber .
you do just what you said in your post and the rb will do just what your looking for
Post by: mark davidson on January 29, 2009, 09:42:53 AM
Post by: Captchee on January 29, 2009, 10:25:10 AM
Mark , if i may here .
don not ever think you are getting punches here .
we simply do not do that or alow it here on the TMA .
yes we have disagreements and those disagreements are aloud but only as long as they are kept civil and not attacking another for their view . We also do not allow off hand personal attacks
In requiring people to do this they must understand an respect another for their view . Thus we do not have the fighting that IMO destroys the community and information exchange often found on other boards .
We also enforce our rules concerning the above
So please do not feel your taking any punches that’s simply not the case .
Also understand that a good 90% of the folks here are hunters . Not just occasionally ,but every season they can find that will give them the availability to hunt with their rifles or smoothbores..
I just wanted to make that very clear .
Your remark about arm chair or key board hunters , is simply not the case here .
Im sure you will find that the folks here will only give you their honest opinions , with no bad intentions to you , your opinion or your experience level concerning any given topic . that’s why we have so many good people here .
I will accept your apologies concerning that on behalf of the others here and ask that in the future we save such remarks for other places .
Please understand , im not scolding or reprimanding you . Im simply advising you and others here of the rules . Lets all keep those in mind at all time . That way folks can ask questions regardless of how basic or common without fear of being hammered into the ground for their request .
Lets understand that and respect that .
Ok so hat off .
Ill discuses my thoughts on the projectiles which I am writing as you read this
Post by: Captchee on January 29, 2009, 11:23:07 AM
your just going to have to read through my bad grammer and miss spelling
As to the rb .
Here is what I have found through ?? Well a very long time LOL.
People have different experiences with the RB for many reasons . Most is limited knowledge I think . Now that’s not knowledge of hunting , that knowledge of the projectile and many times the rifle they chose to use .
Now when it comes to projectiles there are many things to consider . Caliber, charge , projectile ,range and intended target .
I would not shoot a bull elk with a 45 cal rb . Now that’s not saying the 45 would not do the job , it will . I have killed deer and elk with 22 long rifles . If you place the projectile , regardless if that projectile is a cactus throne or a conical , into the hart of ANY living thing , death will happen instantaneously .
But sometimes that animal does know its dead and will go a ways . Archers know this and this is why they wait for a time before moving after their game
As far as bllod trail . The only time I have found one lacking with a RB was when I was either shooting a low charge or was shooting to the limits of the range of that projectile .
I also have experienced issues when trying to shoot through the shoulder VS behind the shoulder angling forward .. But I also have experience this same thing with big slow moving conical.
The reason Im thinking for this is that we do not achieve the large se secondary wound channel that hi velocity center fire weapons do . Ifact this lack of secondary wound is way we can eat right to the hole and lose very little meet . But it also does less tissue damage and results less disruption of blood vestals
I think of it myself very much as an arrow carrying a Brodhead. The blades must cut blood vestals and create massive blood loss or the out come will be less then desirable
Basically I think we can divide the issue pf projectiles into two lines of thought
1) are those that want complete pass through
2) are those that complete pass through means little .
Both have the same considerations of ,target , caliber , charge and projectile
Lets look at # 1 real quick .
Normaly RB are made of soft lead . This expands on contact and thus when not achieving complete pass through , transfers every last amount of energy into the target . But if are wanting complete pass through . Normally with the thought creating both an entry and exit wound in the hopes of creating a larger blood trail . We would then use a harder material for the ball . Thus it will not expand as much . Thus increasing the chance of complete pass through .
But what is this complete pass through telling us ? Well lets look at the Lyman charts here .
We see that a 50 cal 370 grain maxi hunter fired with 90 grains of 3F is putting out 846ftlbs of energy at 100 yards .
Now lets say that we achieve complete pass through . How much energy has that projectile actually imparted into the animal ? See we don’t know because the target did not stop the bullet . But we can say that because of the weight . That bullet has enough energy to drive through heavy bone and keep on going .
But I submit that we are trying to cover all bases with that line of though . We should not have to worry about a large blood trail if we know we have placed our shot . Again I point to archery were in compression the blood trails can be far less to none existent. Thus the reason for the marketing of string trackers and electronic tracking tags .
Relying on a blood trail alone should only be part of your skills .
Now lets look at #2 .
When a projectile , be it a rb , conical or what have you . I say conical here because I have had conical that did not achieve complete pass through as well .
When a projectile does not achieve complete pass through , again it has transfer all its energy into the target . Thus the projectile has stop all forward motion . This can be a good thing if you putting a lot of energy into the animal . We must understand that IF we drive a soft RB through an animals shoulder , a lot of the energy is transfer right there . Thus we have to have the knowledge that at a given range , that RB will still have retained enough energy to take it on to the hart and lungs .
So now lets look at the charts for the RB . Again the same load but with a RB
Well at 100 yards that ball is putting out 430 ftlbs . IMO still more then enough to do the job .
But maybe not enough to get complete pass through .
BUT at 50 yards its putting out more then enough and in fact more then the heavy conical is at 100 .
So what this is telling us is that we need to be closer if we want complete pass through ..
OR we can use a material to make our rb , that make them harder and thus expand less . Thus reducing drag of expansion thus carrying the energy longer when passing through the target .
So now your saying OK so why then captchee to you feel the need to use a conical ?
Well first I will say that I have never met a deer or elk that would not be killed with a RB . NEVER imo no such critter exists out there .
But because at the time of year I hunt bull elk , those boys are very much like trying to stop a drug addict who is hopped up on cocaine.
Even with large caliber s like 300 H&H or weatherbee , they can often go a very long ways .
So while at 10-15 yards a 435RB will do the same as a large conical , most of my shots I find to be in the 25-50 yard range . Still acceptable for the RB of that there is no doubt .
But I want to plw through both shoulders . Smack them with as much energy as I can to ensure the don’t make it the short distance to the canyon walls .
Now that being said , I have never , knock on wood lost an elk to a RB and I don’t ever plan to . But I have ended up having them make that last little distance to a place where life is hell getting them out .
Now you think dragging a 120 lb white tail isn’t fun . Try standing next to a 900lb+ bull and realizing you first 200 yards is near strait up not only for 1 trip but 5 or 6 times ..
Now when im down here in the low lands ??? Ha no problem , my rifle is loaded with rb and rb only .
They are effective and will do the job as long as I do mine .
If the law went back to where we could only use RB like it once was . Truthfully I wouldn’t care. It wouldn’t hurt my feelings . All that would happen is when I was up hunting the canyon rim, I would be a lot more carful about when and where I shot those bulls
So as my final say on this , I would like everyone to realize that this issue isn’t new . Its not about muzzleloading . Its about projectiles . If you go to hunting forums that have center fire discussions you will see people who poopoo the 30.30 , 270 or what have you for elk . Saying they have seen to many lost animals . Well that’s their opinion and they are welcome to it . But I can tel you I have never not killed an elk that I shot with a 30.30 or 270 nor did I lose the 2 cow elk I killed as a boy with a 22 .
But all these same folks must face the facts that the center fire season is responsible for the largest w/l rate of any hunting season
Regardless of what you chose to hunt with , if your wanting a clean humain kill relying on caliber or type of projectile is looking past the fat that if we don’t know our weapon , its capabilities , its ranges all added to our abilitiy to place the shot . Then the problem lies with us , not the firearms system .
folks , be good to eachother
Post by: Uncle Russ on January 29, 2009, 11:30:55 AM
I would suspect that I am also a fan of the Big-Bore, although after years of juggling ballistic tables, ball size, powder charges, and practicality, I came to the conclusion that the .54 would do about anything I wanted to do, including taking seven (7) Elk over the years.
And, I have decided to stay with that caliber.
As with anything else in life, your mileage may vary, but it comes down to what each and ever one of us are comfortable with and have confidence in.
As far as the number of deer killed with a muzzleloader, I would wager that I have killed just about as many deer as anyone on this board, and that is mostly because while serving on active duty for 23 years, I had the privilege of being stationed in several more southern states, including Alabama on two different occasions, where that particular "bag limit" was "Not to exceed one antlered buck per day".... let me assure you, that amounts to a lot of deer taken during the 60's and 70's of which 90% were taken with a .50 caliber, which was considered over-kill by many of that day.
The obvious question is; have I ever used conicals?
The answer is yes. I am an avid "caster" and there are very few conicals I haven't tried.
I have, at last count, somewhere in the neighborhood of 60+ moulds, and believe me when I say they are not all round ball.
Have I shot any game with conicals?
The answer is yes, I have shot a lot of game with conicals.
However, for the life of me, I am not astute enough to see any great difference in killing power, or any advantage of the conical over the lowly round ball.
The disadvantage of conicals, as I see it, is that the conical is much more sensitive to powder charges (ie, blowing the skirt.) and exact range is much more critical.
I would also like to add that you shouldn't feel anyone is picking on you because they disagree with you....such disagreement is normal.
Personally, I thought the remark about "starving to death" was very funny, because those outside traditional circles would have everyone believe that has happened, or is going to happen. But, again, humor is an individual thing and is where one finds it.
I would like to ask that you not give up totally on the round ball until you give 'em a chance....and try different calibers. You just might find, like many others, that they are indeed very practical.
Uncle Russ...
Post by: mark davidson on January 29, 2009, 11:31:45 AM
Post by: Captchee on January 29, 2009, 11:35:29 AM
Post by: R.M. on January 29, 2009, 11:58:20 AM
There just seems to be no definites here.
Post by: Loyalist Dave on January 29, 2009, 12:15:04 PM
Also there is a bit of a dif in performance if one uses close to pure lead vs. folks using linotype, or wheelweights. Less expansion on the harder rounds, so in theory deeper penetration. I use soft lead on whitetails.
My .54 hammers deer, but my shots are always UNDER 75 yards, and the vast majority are around 50. Through and through. BUT when I went to Canada 6 years ago for moose, I used a .50 with a 1:48 twist, AND a 370 grain Maxi-Ball with 90 grains of 2Fg. It shot these great, although my shoulder didn't enjoy it as much as a patched round ball.
I had a 1/2 tag and didn't see a thing except some bears, but my partner got the buck with a 405 grain .45-70 handload. I didn't feel one bit of guilt, and neither should you. Do what works eh?
LD
Post by: mark davidson on January 29, 2009, 12:49:24 PM
Post by: rollingb on January 29, 2009, 01:10:21 PM
Quote from: "mark davidson"
I do apologize for any offense in my tone. It just troubles me to see that hint of "traditional superiority" here that I have seen for twenty years on the traditional archery forums. You see now why I refrained from disclosing my real reason for being interested in conicals. I somehow suspected that the discussion would go south or become very close minded. I have always gotten good information here and much help when I got started with this flintlock obsession. I guess I inferred too much or perhaps had a pre-existing chip on my shoulder but it sure seemed to me that we were about to get into that old close minded mindset where the PRB is king because it is traditional and that its traditionalism makes its shorcomings invisible. Once again, I like the accuracy and the potential of the round ball. I am genuinely seeking answers for my glaring failures with it and seeking a real solution. If that solution is a bigger ball or more powder or both, then I want to know what to go to. If that is conical then OK. If it is .62 cal and 200 grains of 2F then that is OK. I would just like to know from someone who has shot a lot of deer(not just four or five) what really works and smashes shoulders and comes out about every time. That is my quest. Again, my apology if my tone was inappropriate.
Mark,... I think what you'll find with traditional muzzleloader shooters/hunters is, we do NOT claim roundballs are "superior" to conicals, or, saboted jacketed modern bullets.
What we DO claim is, that dispite what modern shooters/hunters say,.... the roundball is EFFECTIVE on game of all sizes (as proven through out history) and that roundballs (on average) are much more ACCURATE in slow-twist barrels then conicals are.
In other words, we traditionalists don't claim the simple roundball is "superior" to other projectiles,.... but we WILL defend it (and it's capabilities) when someone/anyone says it is "inferior" to more modern projectiles.
If you want "smashing penetration" from a roundball for hunting,.... getting it is as simple as going to a bigger ball and powder charge,.... you've got a huge "historical array" of roundballs to choose from, from the tiny/humble .32 calibur, up to the mighty "BIG BORES"[.
Post by: jbullard1 on January 29, 2009, 01:10:50 PM
Quote from: "jbullard1"
I don't think a sabot will help at all
Wish I had a mold for a 54 maxi/minnie or such I'd cast some and send them to you just for testing
Mark
You got me to thinking and I fumbled around in the shop and found this. I shoot a 54 as well and want to find out what all it will shoot.
If you are still interested I will cast and send you some of these
Just let me know how many. I will fire up the pot in a few days.
Might be fun to see how mine and your results stack up
What do you think?
Jerry
(http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u247/jbullard1954/Guns%20and%20Shooting/Picture002-1.jpg)
Post by: mark davidson on January 29, 2009, 01:32:46 PM
Post by: mark davidson on January 29, 2009, 01:43:54 PM
Post by: Uncle Russ on January 29, 2009, 02:05:54 PM
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...
Post by: mark davidson on January 29, 2009, 02:18:01 PM
Post by: rollingb on January 29, 2009, 02:26:47 PM
Quote from: "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.
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
Post by: rollingb on January 29, 2009, 02:59:45 PM
.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).
Post by: jbullard1 on January 29, 2009, 03:21:42 PM
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
Post by: Captchee on January 29, 2009, 03:27:57 PM
Post by: mark davidson on January 29, 2009, 03:28:23 PM
Post by: Uncle Russ on January 29, 2009, 03:30:28 PM
Quote from: "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 :shake
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...
Post by: mark davidson on January 29, 2009, 03:48:09 PM
Post by: rollingb on January 29, 2009, 04:26:26 PM
Quote from: "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.
Darn right, I'd say your .22 was every bit as "effective" as a .458 might have been,.... it killed'em, didn't it???? :)
Post by: jbullard1 on January 29, 2009, 05:09:40 PM
Quote from: "mark davidson"
Thanks Russ, Sent you a pm. Experimentation is the spice of life!
Same here and thanks Unc Russ
Post by: tg on January 29, 2009, 05:55:36 PM
Post by: mark davidson on February 02, 2009, 12:33:32 PM
Post by: mark davidson on February 02, 2009, 12:41:14 PM
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.
Post by: Captchee on February 02, 2009, 06:59:32 PM
Post by: tg on February 02, 2009, 07:58:00 PM
and saving the meaning of a truely traditional experience.
Post by: mark davidson on February 03, 2009, 10:01:11 AM
Now, TG, In all due respect, please clarify for me what a "modern designed bullet" is. Also, what qualifies as a "traditional hunting outfit"? What do I have to do to enjoy a "truly traditional experience"? I shoot a custom 42" barrel FLINTLOCK muzzleloader. It has a large Siler lock with sideplate and double set trigger in curly maple. I shoot Goex 2F real black powder with a Hornady patched round ball. Now is that traditional enough? Am I good enough to play with you boys? What if I shoot a conical solid lead projectile? Is that traditional enough? I killed 7 deer last season with PRB and I would hate to find out now that I somehow tarnished the meaning of a truly traditional experience. The 7 deer that I killed right before that with black powder were with a Hawken and a more modern bullet. I dare not even tell you what the projectile was!! This whole "traditional" label is getting pretty old to me and seems a bit too much like a false badge of honor to be worn only by the self appointed chosen few. What real difference does it make what I "claim" my outfit is or what someone else "claims" my outfit is. Make smoke and kill some critters and have fun. How can a darn rockbanging flintlock muzzleloader NOT be traditional enough?????? Come on!!!!!
Post by: rollingb on February 03, 2009, 11:24:53 AM
Quote from: "mark davidson"
Now, TG, In all due respect, please clarify for me what a "modern designed bullet" is.
In my PERSONAL OPINION,.... during the heyday of the simple roundball, the invention of the "conical" was a "modern design" for which the traditional slow twist barrels of the day, did NOT shoot well. With the invention of the conical, also came the invention of faster twist rifleings (in order to stabilize the "then new" modern conical bullets).
Quote
Also, what qualifies as a "traditional hunting outfit"?
ANY traditional muzzleloader shooting the projectile it was ORIGINALY "designed" to shoot.
Shooting conicals in a slow-twist Pennsylvania long rifle, is NOT "traditional".
Quote
What do I have to do to enjoy a "truly traditional experience"? I shoot a custom 42" barrel FLINTLOCK muzzleloader. It has a large Siler lock with sideplate and double set trigger in curly maple. I shoot Goex 2F real black powder with a Hornady patched round ball. Now is that traditional enough? Am I good enough to play with you boys?
Yep! :?
Quote
I killed 7 deer last season with PRB and I would hate to find out now that I somehow tarnished the meaning of a truly traditional experience.
Congratulations,... from a "traditional" perspective you did well. :laffing
Quote
This whole "traditional" label is getting pretty old to me and seems a bit too much like a false badge of honor to be worn only by the self appointed chosen few. What real difference does it make what I "claim" my outfit is or what someone else "claims" my outfit is.
Hey, shoot what you want,.... but, don't come on a forum dedicated to "traditional muzzleloading" and call shooting conicals in a longrifle (that was designed for roundballs) traditional. :shock: :)
Post by: mark davidson on February 03, 2009, 12:07:28 PM
Post by: rollingb on February 03, 2009, 12:45:58 PM
Quote from: "mark davidson"
RollingB, :-) Great!! Now that is a good honest answer and I do honestly appreciate the information. I did not know or understand that conicals were "considered" modern or at least more modern to the point of non-traditional or at least non standard. I do see now from the purist viewpoint that shooting a conical from a slow twist round ball barrel would be considered non traditional. I also see that "IF" the "traditional" aspect is important to me then I should likely not put a fast tist conical barrel on my flintlock. Is that correct?
That is correct.
Quote
I am honestly asking. I am kinda new in this so I am not too nit picky yet. I guess I am seeing that for some, the whole gun must be considered right down to the small details. To me just the presence of the flinglock mechanism on the back end would make a rifle about as "traditional" as it gets. That is simply where I am right now. That is all it takes to transport me to yesteryear and make the connection to the past and make the experience FUN. Truthfully it was just as much fun for me to slam some deer with the Hawken and a very "modern" bullet. It was still loud and filled the woods with smoke and the freezer with deer. At that point nobody really knew or cared what the projectile was. Again, that is just where I am at this point in the journey.
Like TG stated, if that's what "floats your boat, then great",.... and as I mentioned, this forum is dedicated to the preservation of "traditional" muzzleloading, and we try very hard to give advice on exactly "what" that is.
However, nobody is gonna yell at you for being a "bit" non-traditional,... BUT,.... your "reasoning" for being so, will most likely be questioned.
Quote
I like the round ball; I think I just want (need?) a bigger one! :-) Either way, the quest is fun. Rollingb, I think for now we are past the emotion and sarcasm and communicating effectively. For that I am grateful. :-)
Yep,... (as has already been stated a page'er 2 back) if you want "more power", go to a bigger roundball and bigger powder charge (that was the traditional way of hunting "bigger" game before the invention of the "conical").
Post by: mark davidson on February 03, 2009, 02:15:40 PM
Post by: cb on February 03, 2009, 03:27:51 PM
Quote
ANY traditional muzzleloader shooting the projectile it was ORIGINALY "designed" to shoot.
Not to start a flame, but would that also include the gent who in 1847 was shooting 1" long conicals from his 1/48" twist J & S Hawken? Me thinks the gent wasn't concerned about whether it was purpose designed or not - and that's but one example of folks using conicals in their non-designed for firearms....the info is out there......
While we cannot say that the Hawken was positively a 1/48", all of the info we have regarding the Hawken shop is they used a 1/48" twist excursively.
As for modern conical designs - while the folks who designed than state they are not based on original designs (per tg) some such as the ballet are so close to original designs that they are virtually indistinguishable. Also FWIW the earliest designed conicals were made to be shot with a patch - not bare......
FWIW - I've been shooting muzzleloaders since 1962 and am a dyed in the wool "traditionalist" (whatever that exactly means, it does vary dependent on many factors) - I learned from Great Uncle, who owned but two guns, a rifle and a double smoothbore, both late 19th century muzzleloaders. I have shot all kinds over the years and love them all.......I use and have used round balls almost exclusively, except for my rifled muskets and my old two groove Purdey which shot both belted round balls and winged conicals, but frankly ahve nothing against those who stay with the spirit of such but don;t get my knickers in a knot over some one shooting something reasonably traditional...
Frankly I have nothing against any one elses shooting irons except as in the case of some of the inliners who want to prevent the traditionalists from using their chosen firearm...
Quote
With the invention of the conical, also came the invention of faster twist rifleingsActually fast twist rifling was being employed by the English long before the conicals were used to any extent.......
Again not to start a flame what is "traditional" depends on who, when, and where - if this group chooses to define it as to a certain place and time only then I respectfully suggest that they so define the "rules" for others.........I would also suggest that too narrow of a definition based on personal viewpoints rather than history can and will turn folks off...........
If my statements are found to be unacceptable to this forum and/or group then I will most graciously bow out and refrain from further posts..........
Post by: sse on February 03, 2009, 04:09:09 PM
Post by: rollingb on February 03, 2009, 05:39:21 PM
Quote from: "cb"
QuoteANY traditional muzzleloader shooting the projectile it was ORIGINALY "designed" to shoot.
Not to start a flame, but would that also include the gent who in 1847 was shooting 1" long conicals from his 1/48" twist J & S Hawken? Me thinks the gent wasn't concerned about whether it was purpose designed or not - and that's but one example of folks using conicals in their non-designed for firearms....the info is out there......
While we cannot say that the Hawken was positively a 1/48", all of the info we have regarding the Hawken shop is they used a 1/48" twist excursively.
CB,.... I doubt that the gent in 1847 was concerned about "tradition" either,... in fact, I doubt that many/any folks back then were attempting to "preserve" tradition at all.
Anybody know what mold came with a new Hawken rifle back then (roundball, or, conical)?
Post by: tg on February 03, 2009, 06:15:57 PM
Post by: rollingb on February 03, 2009, 06:20:39 PM
Quote from: "mark davidson"
Well, OK, We are on the right track now. I better understand the motives and purposes here. I suppose as a new player here I kinda assumed it was mostly about the guns and muzzleloading and shooting in general. I do and will respect your efforts to preserve the pure traditional aspects of muzzleloading. To be honest as an outsider or recent convert I must say that to some new folks like me, that whole focus on "traditionalism" however well intentioned can be a turn off. It comes across as elitist and "do it this one way or don't play."
If my personal opinion gives you the impression that the TMA does not allow shooting lead conicals from a longrifle,.... (which I have never said) then I apologize.
If I've given you the impression that the TMA is dedicated to preserveing the "pure traditional aspects" of muzzleloading (whatever that is, because it isn't even possible in these modern times),.... then I apologize.
If I have came across as an elitist, by saying "do it this way or don't play",.... (and although I've never said that),.... then I apologize.
However,... I readily welcome ANYBODY to show me where the conical bullet failed to change the way shoulder fired weapons were "designed" throughout the (short) declining years of "traditional" muzzleloading firearms.
Post by: mark davidson on February 04, 2009, 09:43:51 AM
Post by: Captchee on February 04, 2009, 10:04:10 AM
Dead is dead , there is simply no way around that .
Something as small as a cactus needle will gill just as quickly as a 155 TOD if that needle itself is driven into the hart of any living entity.
I am not exaggerating here at all . Growing up most of us , I say most as being those who lived around us Used 22 for mule deer .
Now that’s not to say your taking a 100 yard shot . that’s simply not the case
But at 20-30 yards or closer . A 22 hornet placed correctly will give you a dead drop
Just as any other caliber will .
I have taken 2 cow elk with that same 22 . Both were taken in the salmon river area from hay stacks and at less then 15 yards
I still have that rifle and would be glad to show you photos if you like , minus the sling , its still set up the very same way it was when I was a boy . Its simply not an issue as it was not uncommon .
See the pint is and IMO its one we have gotten away from through the years is that we now seem to need to over caliber everything we shoot.. We have lost an understanding of the weapons systems themselves .
If a person knows the rifle they are using . Both it and your effective range and that person gets to within that range then places the shot to where it NEEDS to go , the result will always be the same IE death .
That death will come just a quick and sure regardless of the caliber
Today as I said , many folks have forgotten how to do their part . Thus they want larger and larger calibers to make up for that loss . they want magnum loads , high velocity rounds that will reach out to great distances and still do the deed .
But the simple fact of the mater is that if they would just simply take the effort to get closer and learn their weapon , become confident in their ability to pace the shot where their Chosen projectile needs to go . They would have better results .
So as to the question , what is effective . What is ethical and what is not . Well that depends on at what range and the person trying to effect that range
In this family we have since I was a boy only owned 5 center fire rifle and those rifles took everything from elk , to bear to Mule deer .
Of those 5 on 2 are larger then a 22 . Those would be a 6.5X55 swed and a Winchester 30.30 . that’s it .
Tell I came back from the service , the biggest shot gun we owned was a 20 gage . 3 other’s were .410 and they took everything from grouse - turkey to sand hill Crain and geese with no problems .
This is why I say dead is dead
Later ill dig some photos out and prove that to you
Post by: rollingb on February 04, 2009, 10:06:43 AM
Post by: rollingb on February 04, 2009, 10:21:54 AM
Quote from: "Captchee"
Mark , don’t pretend anything and im simply stating a fact .
Dead is dead , there is simply no way around that .
Something as small as a cactus needle will gill just as quickly as a 155 TOD if that needle itself is driven into the hart of any living entity.
I am not exaggerating here at all . Growing up most of us , I say most as being those who lived around us Used 22 for mule deer .
Now that’s not to say your taking a 100 yard shot . that’s simply not the case
But at 20-30 yards or closer . A 22 hornet placed correctly will give you a dead drop
Just as any other caliber will .
I have taken 2 cow elk with that same 22 . Both were taken in the salmon river area from hay stacks and at less then 15 yards
I still have that rifle and would be glad to show you photos if you like , minus the sling , its still set up the very same way it was when I was a boy . Its simply not an issue as it was not uncommon .
See the pint is and IMO its one we have gotten away from through the years is that we now seem to need to over caliber everything we shoot.. We have lost an understanding of the weapons systems themselves .
If a person knows the rifle they are using . Both it and your effective range and that person gets to within that range then places the shot to where it NEEDS to go , the result will always be the same IE death .
That death will come just a quick and sure regardless of the caliber
Today as I said , many folks have forgotten how to do their part . Thus they want larger and larger calibers to make up for that loss . they want magnum loads , high velocity rounds that will reach out to great distances and still do the deed .
But the simple fact of the mater is that if they would just simply take the effort to get closer and learn their weapon , become confident in their ability to pace the shot where their Chosen projectile needs to go . They would have better results .
So as to the question , what is effective . What is ethical and what is not . Well that depends on at what range and the person trying to effect that range
In this family we have since I was a boy only owned 5 center fire rifle and those rifles took everything from elk , to bear to Mule deer .
Of those 5 on 2 are larger then a 22 . Those would be a 6.5X55 swed and a Winchester 30.30 . that’s it .
Tell I came back from the service , the biggest shot gun we owned was a 20 gage . 3 other’s were .410 and they took everything from grouse - turkey to sand hill Crain and geese with no problems .
This is why I say dead is dead
Later ill dig some photos out and prove that to you
Captchee,.... over on another website, a fella has this as his signature line:.... "MAGNUM means poor hunter",..... I've always liked that signature, and think those few words are a great way to describe what you just said above.
Post by: mark davidson on February 04, 2009, 11:35:27 AM
Post by: rollingb on February 04, 2009, 12:06:57 PM
Quote from: "mark davidson"
Just can't let it go can you? There is a very good reason that game departments nation wide establish minimum calibers for hunting big game the size of deer and larger. Effectiveness, efficiency, responsibility, and ethics all come into play. We do not hunt in a vacuum where everything is perfect and none of us are so perfect as to guarantee perfect shot placement every time. Larger calibers are simply a form of insurance even on a good shot. Fadala says, "Caliber is all to the ball." No one, including me, will dispute that small calibers have, do, and can kill deer and bigger game. However, only a very close minded and inexperienced shooter would claim the smaller stuff is either ideal or on par with the bigger stuff in all around effectiveness and insurance against the occasional shot. I am not real big on unnecessary limitations. If I were going to limit all my shots to under 40 yards as some here advocate by talking about "getting close" I would shoot my darn longbow and an arrow. We are talking about MLers here which in case nobody has noticed are REAL GUNS!!! The 8 point I killed two Saturdays ago was a full 90 yards and not getting any closer and about to step across onto posted land. I killed him right there with my .54 round ball. Penetration was poor and I had to reload and move up and shoot him again in the head. Wanting a bigger ball does not make me a "magnum" freak or a poor hunter who can't get any closer. Once again the innuendo here borders on insulting. There is that lurking elitist mentality that somehow makes a newcomer feel belittled for wanting or feeling the need for something bigger than what "you" whoever that is, think is necessary. I suppose by the standards I see proposed here that the deadliest thing on this planet is the magnum monitor lizzard who bits his prey and then tracks it for a week till it dies. By the anti-magnum anti-big bore logic here the monitor lizzard is just as effective as a 30-06. Gimme a break!!! If you some of you guys are that great why don't you do all your big game hunting with a 32 cal. squirrel rifle and just get closer. Better yet, hunt with a knife and get real close. For now I reckon I will just take my pitiful skills to the woods and see what I can scratch down with a .62 soon as I can get one built.
Mark,.... don't jump to conclusions (if you're refering to what I said) the "signature line" (I refered to) was on a centerfire forum,... and although I mentioned that I seen it on another forum,... I probably should have been even more specific and said it was a "centerfire forum".
I have yet to see ANY muzzleloader with the word "MAGNUM" stamped on the barrel. :rt th
Post by: mark davidson on February 04, 2009, 12:25:24 PM
Post by: rollingb on February 04, 2009, 12:37:19 PM
Quote from: "mark davidson"
Just can't let it go can you? There is a very good reason that game departments nation wide establish minimum calibers for hunting big game the size of deer and larger. Effectiveness, efficiency, responsibility, and ethics all come into play.[/b] We do not hunt in a vacuum where everything is perfect and none of us are so perfect as to guarantee perfect shot placement every time. Larger calibers are simply a form of insurance even on a good shot. Fadala says, "Caliber is all to the ball." No one, including me, will dispute that small calibers have, do, and can kill deer and bigger game. However, only a very close minded and inexperienced shooter would claim the smaller stuff is either ideal or on par with the bigger stuff in all around effectiveness and insurance against the occasional shot.
Unless things have changed just recently,... the "minimum calibur" for Antelope in Wyoming was .22,... years ago, I legally shot my share of Antelope with a .22-250 before going strictly to muzzleloaders.
In some other states (such as Colorado), .40 calibur is/was the minimum calibur for muzzleloaders during deer season.
Post by: rollingb on February 04, 2009, 12:50:57 PM
Quote from: "mark davidson"
Deep breath taken! Stepped back!! Bottom line is the same. There is always someone willing to venture to the edge of innuendo to imply that anybody using bigger guns or more powder or more technology is somehow stupid or a poor hunter or inferior shooter or a poor stalker etc....... I just hate to see poor advice given about hunting. While bigger is not always better it is almost never "bad" as long as the shooter can handle it. Too small on the other hand is often, most often, just that....TOO small....resulting in poor penetration, crippling, and losses in hunting. My main focus is HUNTING not history or period correctness or paper punching or gong banging. For real game, I much prefer a bit more lead in the air. Sorry if I jumped to conclusion but I do not feel totally unjustified.
I'm surpised that you haven't asked me yet,... what caliburs I hunt with. :)
Post by: woodman on February 04, 2009, 12:52:00 PM
In Colorado for deer the minimum caliber now is 45. The weight minimum on the projectile they established for a 45 though limits you to a conical in a 45.
Woodman
I must correct this post I just checked the regs for Colorado and 40 is the smallest caliber allowed to hunt deer,Pronghorn or Bear. But the minimum weight on aprojectile from a 40 to a 50 caliber is 170 grains.
Edited to correct info in first post. I had gone by something I had been told and not the facts.
Woodman
Post by: mark davidson on February 04, 2009, 12:53:48 PM
Post by: rollingb on February 04, 2009, 12:56:33 PM
Post by: rollingb on February 04, 2009, 01:22:27 PM
Quote from: "mark davidson"
Last time I was in Wyoming there was no speed limit in lots of places too. I have no experience on antelope other than seeing tons of them while I was out there. They seemed kinda small, more like goats. The terrain was wide open so if one was hit poorly and ran a half mile it would often still be in sight and kinda hard to lose. I am sure you had a good reason for choosing the 22-250 and I am sure that reason is none of my business. I would not consider shooting anything bigger than a varmint with the 22-250 although I fully recognize that with a good 60 grain partition it would likely kill much bigger critters. Additionally, no disrespect was intended on my part either or taken on my part. I reckon I just strongly disagree with some stuff that has come up here just like I am sure several other disagree with me. It's all good. :-)
:laffing
If you've never seen what a "high velocity .22" (such as a 22-250) can do to the heart/lungs of an antelope,... it will surprise you. (I've never had one run across country after being hit), and that rifle is still, to this day, an honest to goodness "tack driver" at 200+ yards. :laffing
Post by: mark davidson on February 04, 2009, 01:36:53 PM
Post by: rollingb on February 04, 2009, 02:55:26 PM
Quote from: "mark davidson"
Rollingb, Thanks for sharing what caliber MLers you use. I defer to your experience and would like to know how your results have been on game with the .62 in particular. If it is in our best interests to convey that information by private message and include numbers of kills and results then let's share that there. As I stated much earlier, I fully recognize the power potential of the .54; however, my results for what it is worth on 13 deer shot well in the shoulder have been dismal....very dismal......poor penetration, virtually NO blood trail, No exit wound, etc...... I have come to learn that the advice I got over a year ago about the .54 came from some really good and well meaning folks who simply have never killed deer with it. I have killed and recovered several but it was not pretty, or efficient. I am sure others have had very different experience and will now be quick to tell me what a poor shot I must be or a poor tracker or a poor woodsman unable to get close enough, blah blah blah.... All I know is that well over a dozen whitetail deer all shot almost identically have left a bad taste in my mouth for what I am shooting at least.
Well Mark,.... quite honestly (I think) you're making a mistake by choosing to shoot your deer through the shoulders with a (relatively "soft") lead roundball to start with.
Shooting a deer in the neck (breaking the spinal-cord) or, actually breaking the spine by shooting the deer high (and behind) the shoulders, will most certainly drop a deer in his "tracks",... but the "margin for error" is also increased.
The good ol' "heart/lung shot" will (sometimes) put a deer down less quickly, but also has much less of a margin for error.
Soooooo,.... it's about "6 of one, vs, half a dozen of the other" of which will kill an animal the quickest.
Miss the spinal cord, or fail to break the spine,... and you have a wounded critter.
Go for a "sure thing" and make a heart/lung shot, and the deer is dead, but might still be able to travel a ways.
Shoot a deer (elk, moose, caribou, antelope) through the shoulders, and lose/destroy edible "meat".
Personaly,.... I "ALWAYS" go for the heart/lung area, with whatever gun/calibur I hunt with. The ONLY time I would even consider a "shoulder shot" on any animal,... is (and has been) when hunting (potentialy) dangerous game like bears and hunting with a centerfire rifle shooting jacketed bullets.
Every bear I've taken with a muzzleloader and roundball, were shot though the heart/lungs,... but,... none of those bears had their "adernline up", and didn't go far at all.
If you stop and think about it,... all the hunters (who left a written record) from "days gone by", and who hunted with muzzleloaders day-in-and-day-out,... mention shooting their critters through the "lights" (heart/lungs). Those fella's very survival, depended on putting an animal down with the "best effect" possible,.... and we're attempting (today) to use the same "tools" as they used.
I see nothing wrong with moving up in calibur (if that's what we chose to do) because at the very least, doing so provides a better garuntee for more penetration and a bigger "wound channel",.... but, I still wouldn't chose a "shoulder shot" for anything less then dangerous game.
That's how I hunt, and the reasons for what I do when hunting,... I've slowed down a bunch these last couple of years (because of my health), and I don't hunt near as much as I used too,... but I hope, I've provided a little "food for thought".
Post by: mark davidson on February 04, 2009, 03:37:59 PM
Post by: rollingb on February 04, 2009, 04:03:46 PM
Quote from: "mark davidson"
Food for thought indeed, and well stated. I can clearly see my possible error in choosing the shoulder shot. It just never occured to me that a .54 cal. ball pushed by almost 100grains of 2F would not smash both shoulders and do the trick for me. I suppose I will try the .62 with a real hanful of charcoal and see what happens.
I'm sorry I'm not much help with what the .62 will "do" on shoulder shots, because, I've never tried it. :rt th
Post by: Captchee on February 04, 2009, 06:58:03 PM
Post by: tg on February 04, 2009, 09:00:24 PM
Post by: Captchee on February 04, 2009, 10:16:39 PM
you didnt understand a thing i said did you .oh well . i guess im just one of those In experienced hunter , who started out at 7 and muzzleloading at 10 .minus a couple seasons where the Government had bigger plans for me , I haven’t missed a season. Nor failed to fill a tag .
LMAO that’s ok though what ever way your stick floats
Be safe .
Post by: tg on February 05, 2009, 08:04:36 AM
I thought I understood your posts, what did I miss?
Post by: mark davidson on February 05, 2009, 09:45:41 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
dead is dead and i can tell you i can drop as deer just as fast with a 22 as any 30.06
_________________
Charles Starks
Now Charles,
I am not sure what I misunderstood or really what I said that you may have been insulted by. I do apologize if you took offense. Now the statement above your signature above does give me pause and is something I very much disagree with but I respect your right to think that if that is what you want to do. I do not think I personally ever implied that you are an inexperienced hunter. If I did then I will be happy to stand corrected. As for "filling your tag"......well how many tags do you get a year? The truth is that for those who hunt in states with a tag system you could fill your tag every year for two decades and end up with about the same killing experience some southern boys get every 36 months! Again, I certainly did not mean to imply that you lack experience and do not mean that now. The truth is that I am coming across a whole lot of people in this whole MLer cult who have been shooting forever but who simply do not hunt or are not interested in hunting which is fine with me. I just need some advice from some folks with enough game shooting experience to tell me what a given ball or bullet will and will not do. The first four or five deer I shot last year made me think my rifle was doing OK. About a dozen later between me and my hunting partner and the results do not look so good. I am honestly seeking some guidance here about round balls specifically .54 and .62 caliber balls. I didn't come on here to ruffle any feathers. Additionally, touting the .22s attributes in comparasin to the 30-06 is not really helping any of us here. Cap, me and ole RollingB managed to get the hatchet buried; how about you and me do the same thing. My hat's off and my hand out! :-)
Post by: rollingb on February 05, 2009, 11:00:55 AM
Quote from: "tg"
I am not so sure that even a .62 ball will go thru both shoulders you have a lot more enrgy/mass but a larger frontal area and it takes more force to push a bigger ball thru the same mass I would supect even a .62 would not penetrate both shoulders, that is probably why most folks have reverted to the behind the shoulder shot, it is what the consistantly sucsefull PRB hunter use from what I have seen and heard, and it has served me well with .40 cal.s and up range gets to be critical with the smaller bores , sometimes one has to let several walk before a shot can be taken.I have always felt that the best way to hunt with a Ml is to pretty much forget everything you know about centerfire hunting and start from scratch., as far as ballistics and "killability" goes.
TG,.... I agree, and we must remember that the folks shooting a critter "through the lights" many years ago,... had absolutely "no inkling" of today's modern highpower ballistics and capabilites of jacketed bullets,...... in fact, many of those same folks may never have even used a "conical" before the Civil War.
Post by: woodman on February 05, 2009, 11:17:12 AM
Might be you southern boys do get to kill more in a few months then we do in our lifetimes out here in the west.But as a whole with Mule Deer and Elk we are dealing with much bigger critters.Even with centerfires I have seen Elk go incredible distances with the wrong shot placement.
But IMHO shot placement of a ball or a centerfire thru the shoulder for anything but dangerous game is the wrong shot. The only real reason to take a shoulder shot is to take a leg out so that they can't move as well or fast.
I hunt almost exclusivly with my muzzleloader and do alright filling my tags. A heart lung shot is the preferred shot.It's the largest kill zone on a critter with the least amount of meat wasted.
With my muzzleloader I have killed deer, elk and Bison,with a couple of bears thrown in there.All have been with a heart lung shot except a couple of times that I didn't do it right.Missing my shot from either being out of breath or excitment of the moment.
Woodman
Post by: mark davidson on February 05, 2009, 11:27:40 AM
Post by: rollingb on February 05, 2009, 11:43:41 AM
Post by: woodman on February 05, 2009, 11:44:56 AM
Out here in the west sometimes depending on where your hunting ,you have to be aware of posted land. But here in Colorado if you shoot an animal on public land or an area that you have permission to hunt. If you shoot a critter and it crosses over onto another parcel before diying. The Fish and Game Department will assist you in getting onto that property to claim your game.
Woodman
Post by: Captchee on February 05, 2009, 12:50:43 PM
Again I must remind you that you seem to be feeling personally attacked here and your not .
While I do find your choice of words somewhat irritating “Cult “ or as a life long hunter my self the thought of justifying experience by number of kills . I can get past that . To each their own , no mater how much I disagree with that line of thought .
Here is the deal what qualifies for killing power ?
Again in todays way of thinking we have this warped since of view / opinion on this .
These same lines of though range all through the different hunting disciplines
For archery it’s the given idea that compounds are more effective then traditional bows .
Even in the wheel bow community there is a difference . Ya I know because I don’t a lot of compound hunting as well through the years . IE the speed of and overdraw with light carbon arrows is somehow better the slower velocities of a large heavy arrow of the riser mounted rest . Then we have those that feel that a BH with retractable blades is better then a fixed blade . I stopped at Cabelas last week and was looking in the archery section and to my amazement here were retractable broad heads that opened to give near a 3 inch cut ?? , why ???? Whats the need ??? Get in range and Place your shot
In the modern center fire world you have folks touting bigger is better magnums over standards . Large calibers over smaller . I cant tell you how many times I have heard this same argument that you seem to be putting forth. IE 270 . 30.30 is no good for elk or XXXX you need to go bigger ???? Why ? Whats the need , get in range and place your shot .
We have the same thing with muzzleloaders .
Somehow its come to the thought that modern is better then traditional . That folks need higher faster . Longer range . They simply have to have it . I just don’t understand that line of thinking . Whats the need , get in range , place your shot .
That is why a bring up the 22 . As an example
Lets ask ourselves here a few questions concerning muzzleloader .
What was the most common caliber of rifles prior to the plains area ?
If we look we will find that concerning rifles 50 cal was a big bore . And in fact what we consider squirrel guns today were the calibers most commonly used to take deer IE 40 cal and smaller . Now lets remember these were people who to make money , left their farms every so often and went hinting for hides . Thinking back to my research I cant think of any documented case where these people were close enough to their civilization , where they could just go back and get more powder and ball . They had to make every shot count . Lets also not forget that these folks in most cases were in areas that they were not supposed to be . Thus if found or caught . They at the very least lost everything they had OR at the most lost everything they had to include their lives . So I seriously doubt it would have been a good idea do a group of men to be using a rifle that was to small for the job and thus resulting in them chasing an animal very far . Or for that mater taking more then one shot which in itself would have been very foolish . IE now not only did they let anyone within ear shot know exactly where they were but also using up their valuable supply of ammunition . Also not to mention sending them tracking an animal to who knows where
The rifle simply had to be consistent , highly accurate and thus effective . It had to be because their lives depended on it .
So how did these fellas do that considering that most of there rifles would not meet the minimum caliber requirements for their chosen pray that we have set today ?
Has the animal changed ??? have they evolved to be different then they were 200 years ago ?
Now lets jump forward to another very good example that was highly documented and detailed . That would be the Lewis and Clark expedition
If we look at the rifles they carried we find that lewis had a 36 . . They also obtained rifles in 49 . There is some debate as to if any 54 were taken . Now this is excluding the smoothbores
Clark writes in now and then about his favorite rifle which he referred to as his “small “ rifle . Now if this is do to it being made by Johns Small or if it was do to the Caliber ?? I don’t think anyone can say . But the point is , it was SMALL in caliber . However he must have been confident in using it as it id documented that he used it for elk . Mind you this would have most likely been the much larger Eastern elk .
The diary from John Ordway writes about one instance of the use of this rifle . He says
Quote
"the Capt. [Clark] Shot Several times at one [elk] but his rifle carried a Small Ball, took 2 men went to hunt it and he did not Git it.
But if we look at Clarks entry we find that he mentioned that in addition to killing two bull elk that evening he wounded two others, but could not track them by blood drops because "my ball was So too Small to bleed them well..
This is what SAM is speaking about when he says size of ball .NOT that the ball would not or could not effectively kill .
Now we could easly say that this proves your point , couldn’t we .
However if we read on we will find a number of accounts of hunters using larger caliber rifles and smoothbores , using every last ball in their bag but not succeeding in killing there animal . These are mostly concerning buffalo . Now how can this BE ??? Was it that the Ball was not adequate even at 69 cal ???
The answer is NO . the reason for this is that they did not know that a buffalo’s kill area is much lower then that of a deer or elk and thus they never placed the ball where it needed to go .
We do know though that Clark preferred his 36 when he could as he was still using it when he got to the pacific coast ..
Now what about the grizzly bears . Well despite being warned by local natives “ I would read them as experienced hunters wouldn’t you ?” that they would not hunt a bear without a large group of warriors . But Lewis felt that the bear would be no match for his rifleman “ mind you Lewis was an Experienced hunter to “
But he found out very quickly that even his large caliber rifles were no match .
This still holds true today even with center fire magnums . Hunters many times have a back up person ready to shoot but very few find a one shot kill .
So what does this teach us ??
Well to me at least it show that a 36 cal will kill big game . BUT if we rely on the same distances and kill areas that we do with deer , were probably going to be less then happy with the results . But this can also hold true with larger calibers if we do not place the shot correctly
See what im what im thinking is you trying to add in a BUT / what if .
I do the same and that’s why I chose to use what I use when im up on the canyon rims . Its not that the RB isn’t effective , it is . But I want to hit that bull with everything I got . If I owned a rifle that was 69 cal id still use a conical because I know that even when driven right through the hart and lungs that bull can still go further then I want .
But I also understand that this has nothing to do with effectiveness ONLY with my want .
These what IF’s happen to everyone , every hunter and it doesn’t mater the caliber you use or the gun type you use , you still can have what ifs .
The only way to lessen those is to become confident in the system you use be it rock ,a bow , muzzleloader r a center fire .
If your having difficulties or less the desirable results then you must find out what you are doing wrong because
Dead is dead Mark . Its final , there is no way of coming back from it be that a 22 cal round to the head at close range or a magnum caliber to the hart and lung at long range . Both effectively achieve the same things IE death .
If you definition of effectiveness is based on soul damage done you have to understand that you will never see with a muzzleloader ,the damage achieved my a small caliber high velocity center fire round .
Well you may if you go to some of the modern designs shooting heavy charges and jacketed bullets . But you will never see that type of secondary damage with a muzzleloader , regardless of the caliber you chose . Its simply not capable of doing that type of damage .
Lastly being an experience hunter has nothing to do with the amount of game you have taken . I have friends in Alabama that hunt from one or two tree stands all year long . They take a lot of deer to and in fact in 2 years can take more then I , my father and grandfather did in a life time .
But if they also with all honesty couldn’t track a raccoon in a mud bottom without a very Large blood trail . Now are they hunters ??? You bet they are god bless them .
But when they come out here and hunt a different way , they struggle . They have to learn new skills and agin NEW experiences .
Now I know I have already writen a book here but I been struggling to write this for 2 hours now so im going to keep at it .
One of these fellas called me up a few years back and said Charlie , I would like to hunt mule deer would you take me . Sure I said ..ill take 5 days off
He then calls me back all miffed that the state would only give him 1 tag !!
Yep I said that’s all you get . To which he replied , what are we going to do for the other 4 days .
Well said I unless you get real lucky and find the buck you want or accept a doe , then we will be hunting . He couldn’t get his mind around this . And we discussed it all summer long .
The day before the first day of his hunt , we sat around a camp fire talking .
The next morning we got up at 4 and hiked for 2 hours up the mountain to an area that I new had some nice bucks along the way I was checking sign , showing him tracks . He simply was amazed at the size and got all excited. Now mind you I would have to say this man is a very experienced hunter in his own right .But he wasn’t in his own Right and I had to explain that what the tracks were, were actually Doe’s or small bucks and NOT what he came here for . If he would have had his way he would have say right there on the trail .
We spent all morning checking out the basins , seeing lots of smaller bucks and doe’s . Any of which I would have hunted . But he wanted something bigger
On the third day he was getting kinda disgusted. With going up and down the mountain so we went to the very top and sat down .where we could look at most of the 3 basins from one place . Now this was something he could relate to so while as it was along a game trail with lots of sign .. I set up my spotting scope lit my pipe and started looking down into these DEEP , Deep Basins .
4 hours later with him not seeing a thing he was again getting miffed . Mumbling things like the cost of the hunt , not seeing anything , wasting his tag and such .
Finaly I had , had all I could take and said LOOK , we haven’t even hunted anything yet.
When you see a buck that you want that’s when we will start to hunt .
About an hour later he spotted a group of 7 bucks , way down in one of the basins and made the statement to the effect of . WOW there is a couple nice ones but they will never come up here . I wish I had my 7mm id take a shot .
So I said really ? In my book , that’s not hunting , its shooting , why not just hunt them and he kind of looked at me like I was stupid .
So we packed our gear and we worked our way down to those bucks . He finally took a nice 4X5 nothing record book mind you but a very respectable buck . We actually set up on that group 3 different times before he got a clear clean RB shot at less then 50 yards .
The buck went less the 30 yards and dropped .
The day I took him back to catch the plain home , he was still smiling
To this day when I talk with him on the phone , it always comes up about coming back out here to hunt . How great the experience was . I also always give him a bad time about it but someday I hope to have the money to go east and hunt with him .
So I will stop this book that I seem to have written here and say .
In my life time some of my best hunting remembrances had nothing to do with filling a tag or harvesting a deer on that hunt . I don’t harvest ever time I go out but I never fail to learn something on those hunts , thus I gain in experience . I don’t know it all but I do know that hunting is so much more then killing and I find no measure of experience in the numbers of animals one kills as proof of their hunting skills .
In fact in all honesty , I have come to the point in my life where I receive very little pleasure in the harvest . Though I do still get a vast amount of enjoyment in the hunt . I would just as well take another person out and hunt . My wife and I no longer really need the meet . Though with the economy the way it is , that may have to change .
Dead is dead . It doesn’t mater how one does it , only that they do it effectively and are reasonable enough to understand HOW to do it within the limitations of the weapon they have . If that’s a little 22 and they understand that they must be within no more then 30 yards , they are willing to accept that , take the time to work to get into range . Have learned to read the situation and thus have little doubt that they can place the shot , so be it . In doing so they have placed themselves in a situation where their weapon is effective and thus the result will be the same . DEATH
To coin a fraise here , FLAWLESS VICTORY
Post by: R.M. on February 05, 2009, 12:54:15 PM
There's been a lot of good valid points made, but we don't need to be flogging a dead horse.
Just my thoughts on the whole situation.
Post by: mark davidson on February 05, 2009, 12:59:07 PM
Good point about the shoulder. Actually, my problem is a conflict of the thought process. I just cannot get my mind wrapped around the concept of a real big bore diameter gun that will not shoot through a 90 pound whitetail whether the shoulder is hit or not. I mean, I am coming back to this gun,(MLer), hunting after two decades of almost exclusive archery only. I know to stay off the shoulder with a bow and keep my shots close and wait for the perfect angle ..etc.... However, with a real GUN if all I got is a front on shot on a good deer at 60 yards, then doggoneit I want to be able to take the shot confidently. Maybe I need some educating to the idea that MLers are way less "potent" than I had hoped but I do not believe that to be the case. MLers are real guns and it seems to me that a big enough ball of lead and enough powder behind it will kill elephants effectively so surely I can find some happy medium that will smash a whitetail. However, if it has to be 4 bore then so be it!! :-)
Woodsman,
Yes, I am sure that I could get permision to retrieve a well shot animal across property lines but that is a real hassle to be avoided if possible. It would be much better to find a way to anchor the deer and not have to mess with the neighbors or game and fish either one. The property issue is really very secondary to just plain terrain issues. We have lots of cutover timberland here; I mean lots.....the kind of thick stuff a snake can't crawl through. I had just as soon avoid that hands and knees wade-through. I just find lots of occasions that I would be much happier if I could just shoot the front end out of the deer and have it right there or real, real close.
Post by: Captchee on February 05, 2009, 01:09:34 PM
i would submit to you this . next time you go out . use your muzzleloader just as if it were a bow . i think you will be happy with the results you will get from the RB
if all your getting is shoulder or frountal shots , get closer . the ball will drive through :shake
Post by: sse on February 05, 2009, 01:20:34 PM
Quote
i have had my sayNo one could argue that!
Post by: rollingb on February 05, 2009, 01:35:41 PM
Quote from: "mark davidson"
Rollingb,
Good point about the shoulder. Actually, my problem is a conflict of the thought process. I just cannot get my mind wrapped around the concept of a real big bore diameter gun that will not shoot through a 90 pound whitetail whether the shoulder is hit or not. I mean, I am coming back to this gun,(MLer), hunting after two decades of almost exclusive archery only. I know to stay off the shoulder with a bow and keep my shots close and wait for the perfect angle ..etc.... However, with a real GUN if all I got is a front on shot on a good deer at 60 yards, then doggoneit I want to be able to take the shot confidently. Maybe I need some educating to the idea that MLers are way less "potent" than I had hoped but I do not believe that to be the case. MLers are real guns and it seems to me that a big enough ball of lead and enough powder behind it will kill elephants effectively so surely I can find some happy medium that will smash a whitetail. However, if it has to be 4 bore then so be it!! :-)
Woodsman,
Yes, I am sure that I could get permision to retrieve a well shot animal across property lines but that is a real hassle to be avoided if possible. It would be much better to find a way to anchor the deer and not have to mess with the neighbors or game and fish either one. The property issue is really very secondary to just plain terrain issues. We have lots of cutover timberland here; I mean lots.....the kind of thick stuff a snake can't crawl through. I had just as soon avoid that hands and knees wade-through. I just find lots of occasions that I would be much happier if I could just shoot the front end out of the deer and have it right there or real, real close.
:shock:
Just'a nuther thought,... have you tried any "penetration tests" with your rifle (and loads) at varying distances?
I'm kind'a guessing here ('cause I'm NOT a shoulder-shooter),... but,....I think any calibur and load combo, that will consistantly shoot through "two" 2x4's (2x6's, 2x8's, or whatever), would get you complete penetration on those little deer at least 98% of the time (with shoulder shots). You might start at 100 yards with the two 2x4's and work your way closer until you DO get consistent penetration. Then you'd know for sure what your maximum range should probably be.
Post by: Captchee on February 05, 2009, 02:15:36 PM
Quote from: "sse"
Quotei have had my sayNo one could argue that! ;) :lol:
Post by: jbullard1 on February 05, 2009, 02:44:11 PM
Shot with a CVA 45 cal hardcast prb and 70 gr fffg range 45-50 yards
Shot behind the near shoulder and exiting breaking the far side shoulder joint. trailed him about 40 yards. He never got his front end back under him
(http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u247/jbullard1954/Deer%20Hunting/HPIM3070.jpg)
Shot from an enclosed shooting house with TC Hawken range 62 yards .490 prb 80 gr ffg You can see the pass through hit the water she fell just out of the picture.
(http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u247/jbullard1954/th_7b65c43e.jpg) (http://http)
Again I say I'm not trying to start anything just showing my results I have documented
Jerry
Post by: mark davidson on February 05, 2009, 02:50:56 PM
Excellent post! (the long one) I mean it; I enjoyed it and can find no fault with your logic or your story; it was a good read, and I appreciate the time you took to write it. We're way more on the same page than might be obvious. I too understand the difference between "hunting" and just shooting. It is the "experience" that drives me to the woods with the bow and with black powder gun instead of modern rifle. I enjoyed the above history lesson as well. I come here to learn; its that simple. I question and sometimes stir the pot a little, but I think it has been good for everybody. I appreciate the time and effort you and Rollingb have put into my quest for information here. I bet the three of us would have a great time around a campfire on a hunt somewhere and I would welcome both of you if given that opportunity assuming you think you could put up with me! :-)
Rollingb, Yes, we do have some small deer around here. A decent buck will be well under 200 pounds often under 150. A hundred pound doe is a pretty good size ole gal. Penetration tests......naw, I have not done any. I just kinda bought the conventional wisdom that .54 was on the bigger side of enough and I reckon it likely is if I would just put the ball in a better place.
RM, Come on now and let us play. The dead horse is dead and does not know we are flogging him! Besides we are just now all getting on the same page and getting all warm and fuzzy feeling! Judging from the views column there are almost a thousand folks who have been quietly enjoying our little rant! :-)
Post by: tg on February 05, 2009, 02:52:01 PM
Post by: sse on February 05, 2009, 02:52:26 PM
Post by: R.M. on February 05, 2009, 02:55:46 PM
Post by: jbullard1 on February 05, 2009, 03:00:11 PM
Quote from: "sse"
Jerry - That is one awesome buck! Teach me to do that.
Will do Jimmy
Hunt every day you can and
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Wait for it
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Be LUCKY and in the right spot at the right time
His love for the girls is what got him
Plus the CVA didn't mis-fire
Post by: jbullard1 on February 05, 2009, 03:01:25 PM
Quote from: "R.M."
Mark, I have seen where a post like this with a newcomer has caused him to get frustrated and leave. I hate it when this happens, but it looks like you're going to stay, and I'm glad that you are. :shake
Post by: mark davidson on February 05, 2009, 03:07:16 PM
Post by: mark davidson on February 05, 2009, 03:11:45 PM
Be careful what you wish for! :-) I don't type all that well and my shooting can be much worse!!! (after all I did spell "dad" 'dat' in my last post!! GEEEEESSH!! If I can't even hit the right key right here in front of me, I am sure hitting a gong way out there will be tough!!