Conicals in slow PRB twist?

[rollingb]

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.  

[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.

[rollingb]

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  

[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.

[rollingb]

One last note,..... and no disrespect intended.

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.

[rollingb]

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.  

[woodman]

Rollingb
  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

[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. :-)

[rollingb]

Woodman,... thanks for the info, it's been a while since I hunted deer in Colorado.  

[rollingb]

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. :-)

 

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.  

[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.

[rollingb]

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".  

[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. If it does not do any better then I will resign myself to a different sight picture and only be a dab of money worse off. I ain't rich at all but I have spent worse  on less! :-)  Besides, any excuse for a new gun is better than none! :-)  I am outta here for the day. You fellers have a great evening and thanks for the insight and inspiration and even the perspiration! ;-)

[rollingb]

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

[Captchee]

no  Min cal here in idaho Ex for  muzzleloading  and 45 is the small est