Hawken Twist

[Muley]

Would you bet your life that nobody hunted with a conical before 1960?  

[MountainDevil]

I dont recall ever hearing buffalo hunters using conicals in the 1850s-1860s  They used a sharps.

[Muley]

You think a Sharps used round balls?

[MountainDevil]

you tell me, you seem to be the expert here.

[Muley]

The Minié ball (properly pronounced “min-YAY” after its developer, the French Army officer Claude-Étienne Minié, but pronounced “minnie ball” by the Americans) wasn’t a ball but a conical-shaped bullet. Popularized during the Crimean War, it was perfected in early 1850s America. An armorer at the arsenal in Harpers Ferry named James Burton simplified the design that had made Minié famous and developed a hollow-based, .58-caliber lead projectile that could be cheaply mass produced.

The first generation of rifled projectiles were hard to load, since they had to fit snugly within the rifling grooves inside the barrel. Minié balls were slightly smaller in circumference than the inside of the barrel, so they could be dropped in quickly. When fired, the base of the bullet expanded and gripped the rifle grooves, which imparted a spiral on the projectile and thereby gave it its greater range and accuracy. In 1855, Secretary of War Jefferson Davis adopted the rifle musket and Burton’s improved Minié ball, or bullet, for the United States Army.


Bullet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Minié ball - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[MountainDevil]

yes used by the military mostly. I want some cold hard proof that civilians used conicals for hunting. If normal person used them, it was more than likely for long range target competition, not hunting.

[Muley]

You want to know this, because military arms and ammo is never used for hunting?

You just want to argue, and i'm done. We've already hashed this out in PM's. I don't know what your motive is in this thread?

[MountainDevil]

We're just having a discussion. Seems neither party has the proof to back anything up. Mine just seems more logical that conicals when they came out were not favored much by the hunters. Today you hear, conicals slip off the charge and can blow up your barrel! Im sure that would have been a huge problem back then on horse back for tens of miles at a time.

"Do you think there's any truth in this, and if it isn't. Why did they use a 1-48 twist for just a PRB?"

You already pointed out that they had patched balls in mind when making the 1:48 twist. Not conicals.

[greyhunter]

Read this discussion top to bottom, twice, and I think there is enough info from CB and Captchee and others to more than satisfy all queries. Anything further is beating a dead horse.  Lets stay friends here and let this thread end.

[Muley]

Yes, I was pretty much done. Jon is a good friend, and i'm even a mod on his forum. We have these sort of discussions all the time, but I didn't want to do it here. I like to think of this forum as my peaceful forum.

Bottom line is i'm hunting with a PRB. I was just curious how PC a conical would have been. Not a big deal.

[Captchee]

Good morning , just checking in .
 As grey hunter suggested , disagree all you like , but be respectful  to each other about it .

As to hunters using conical. There are a few references of conical in muzzleloaders for market hunting . but most of them are rather late and concern buffalo and eastern elk.
 They are however few and far between . But i do seem to recall a couple late accounts profile in American rifleman with photos of elk an bison.   I also recall  the photos were of wealth Europeans . As I said  conical are actually earlier then many believe . There were many European muzzleloader designs  that shot conical and  most were civilian gun as the militaries held onto the Round ball longer . But yes the RB does seem to be far more prevalent .

Also we should not that the sharps rifle was not the only  gun used .  Factually you see Remington, Spanish and other  rolling blocks  also being very prevalent. The idea of the sharps  for a buffalo hunter is IMO become very much like the idea that every mountain man wanted a Hawkens or for that mater carried a plains style rifle . Its simply not the case . Factually the numbers of guns made by Hawkens was only a very ,Very small fraction of the guns being produced at the time . So we cant really state that , their chosen twist  was what  everyone carried.

Also we have to remember that concerning conical’s  there was enough of a popularity  even by the  mid 19th century that  manufactures were   providing moulds for them . But mostly concerning small side arms . However the RB again holds favor  for the revolvers . I know that’s getting away from the discussed application  but  I thought I would throw it out there as those were also the bullets  that were the base beginnings of the  later cartridge applications , which allowed for a heavier  projectile in a smaller caliber .

 But back to the Hawkens 1-48 . I don’t think we can definitively say why they chose that twist . Its only a mater of record that they did . That it works well for both RB and conical may be just one of those  historical happens stances  that  was nothing more then a role of a dice

[Captchee]

IMO Muley , being PC has nothing really to do with it considering the rifle  being chosen .
 but thats neither here nor there as if we want to go that rough , then we have to say yes its PC  as the TC rifle was  marketed for a conical  and in a time when conical were being used  for hunting . So I guess it all depends on how fine a line  one wants to hold .

As many folks here know , I use both RB and conical in my  slow twist flintlock . What I chose is dictated by what and where im hunting . Most times  if im hunting on the canyon rim  for bull elk , then I chose a 435 grain 54 cal  Bernard Minnie. Not because the RB wont do the job but because  im hunting Bulls in the Rutt , at very close range , in an area where the difference between going 100 yards and going 50 yards can make the difference between getting them out  and  needing a Knife and fork . They 435 grain does a lot more damage , carries a lot more energy  and at very close range  often times puts even a big bull that’s all worked up ,   if not right down , within just a few yards .
 The rest of the time I  mostly use RB  as does my wife in her 50 cal ..

So is the type of conical I use PC for my rifle , I would give a hands down NO on that one . But is it accurate  out to around 75-100 yards  for hunting  and do I use them . Yep I do in my 1-70  hand forged barrel

[Muley]

Thanks to everybody who responded in this thread.  

[Captchee]

Ha, no issues . everyone has opinions  and thats what we are discussing  unless we are discussing a single documental case. Sometimes even then there is different interpretations. After all if everything was cut and dry , there would be no need to discuss it  LOL .

[Muley]

The only reason I was considering a conical was for knockdown power. I hunt a lot of steep terrain. Also, i'm near a lot of beaver ponds. I'd sure hate to try and get the meat from a cow that landed in a beaver pond. I also hunt quite a few benches on the side of very steep terrain. I want them to drop on the bench. I'd be screwed if the elk went over the edge. I hunt alone, and i'm older than dirt.

Even though I always knew a .50 PRB would kill an elk. I wasn't so sure how far it would run after being hit.

My thought was a 460gr NoExcuses bullet would have a better chance of keeping the cow from running too far. Even with a low powder load.

What are your thoughts Cap, or anybody?


NoExcuses
Product Line