Ethical deer range for a 50 cal round ball?

[Jackrabbit1957]

I also neglected to say that the powder charge was 65 grains of 3f.

 

[rodwha]

It's a trade-off. 50 yards should be barely fine, 75 could come up short without a 100 grain charge, good poly-tipped HP hunting bullet and good shot placement. I'd say either way you'd be fine, just go with about 20 grains more powder if you're using round balls or shooting much past 60 yards.

None of that holds up though, including the addition of 20 grns of powder. There’s not much difference between the two at 100 yds.

80 grn of Pyrodex RS and a ball produces a muzzle velocity of 1701 fps. At 100 yds it is 1020 with 409 ft/lbs. And at 125 yds it has 949 fps and 354 ft/lbs. Upping the charge 20 grns to 100 has a muzzle velocity of 1851 fps. At 100 yds it is at 1074 fps with 453 ft/lbs and at 125 yds it is 988 and 384.

 

[.75 Kal Kenny]

None of that holds up though, including the addition of 20 grns of powder. There’s not much difference between the two at 100 yds.

80 grn of Pyrodex RS and a ball produces a muzzle velocity of 1701 fps. At 100 yds it is 1020 with 409 ft/lbs. And at 125 yds it has 949 fps and 354 ft/lbs. Upping the charge 20 grns to 100 has a muzzle velocity of 1851 fps. At 100 yds it is at 1074 fps with 453 ft/lbs and at 125 yds it is 988 and 384.

Well, I was just going off testing, and

None of that holds up though, including the addition of 20 grns of powder. There’s not much difference between the two at 100 yds.

80 grn of Pyrodex RS and a ball produces a muzzle velocity of 1701 fps. At 100 yds it is 1020 with 409 ft/lbs. And at 125 yds it has 949 fps and 354 ft/lbs. Upping the charge 20 grns to 100 has a muzzle velocity of 1851 fps. At 100 yds it is at 1074 fps with 453 ft/lbs and at 125 yds it is 988 and 384.

Well, okay, I wasn't aware muzzle-loading long guns were made that well and didn't look at all the load data from manufacturers to determine the best possible load for the purpose, either. Also wanted to say 150 grains, but most guns that can handle a large charge like 100 grains can handle a SLIGHT overcharge. I didn't want to feel responsible if the OP blew his gun up. Also, not everybody's going to pick off deer from 100+ yards, but If trying to take an animal like that down quickly with 1 shot, you're at least a better shot than I am. In my limited experience, I find as little as 5 grains more powder in a .44 cal. or bigger projectile to be significantly more powerful in terms of damage to the target. Results may vary? If taking game humanely, and not knowing much about the shooter's ability, tactics, specific products or condition of those shooting products, I'd rather air on the side of over-kill when I give advice like this, anyway.

 

[rodwha]

Well, I was just going off testing, and

Well, okay, I wasn't aware muzzle-loading long guns were made that well and didn't look at all the load data from manufacturers to determine the best possible load for the purpose, either. Also wanted to say 150 grains, but most guns that can handle a large charge like 100 grains can handle a SLIGHT overcharge. I didn't want to feel responsible if the OP blew his gun up. Also, not everybody's going to pick off deer from 100+ yards, but If trying to take an animal like that down quickly with 1 shot, you're at least a better shot than I am. In my limited experience, I find as little as 5 grains more powder in a .44 cal. or bigger projectile to be significantly more powerful in terms of damage to the target. Results may vary? If taking game humanely, and not knowing much about the shooter's ability, tactics, specific products or condition of those shooting products, I'd rather air on the side of over-kill when I give advice like this, anyway.

I’ve only begun working on a hunting load as all of my shooting prior was just to break in the barrel and grin a lot. So far 50 yds is about all I’d feel comfortable at, but on a traditional muzzleloader forum there are plenty of people who regularly kill deer ethically from 75-125 yds. And there are a few who hunt elk with a .50 cal and a ball, but these few make sure their ranges are shorter as in 50 yds.

From what the many fellows on that forum who hunt this way and have been for a very long time generally all have the same thing to say about what they see. Within 75 yds and the ball is often found expanded nicely on the offside under the hide. Beyond 75 yds and to 125 yds they often notice what appears to be a caliber sized hole figuring the lower velocity didn’t make it expand at all or much and thereby giving it better penetration as it’s often a clean pass through. Of course a few people have experiences that say otherwise, but they don’t seem to be the norm.

Prior to the expansion westward anything .40 cal was large with guns more typically in the .30’s and low .40’s. They hunted everything with those including bears. But that side of our country is pretty thick and 50 yds would be a long shot. Calibers weren’t common above low .40’s until they moved westward where the ranges got much longer and the critters got bigger. With that in mind a .50 cal is a bit of overkill for deer, and there’s nothing wrong with that. I don’t fancy the idea of ever using what may just barely be adequate.

I chose .50 cal for my first rifle as I felt it could handle most anything I may get to hunt, including elk, which I figured I’d use a conical for. The trajectory of either a ball or my 250 or 320 grn REAL is fine sighted at 100 yds and out to 125 yds. Now a ball is horrible beyond 50-75 yds if it’s a little breezy since the low BC allows it to get pushed far too easily and I’m nowhere near as good at judging wind speed as I am figuring rough distance out to 125 yds, which isn’t too much of an issue anyway as the point blank using a ball and the estimate of my load’s velocity (1825 fps assuming 70 grns of 3F Olde E/T7 is the accurate load) gives it just 2” high at 50 yds and 3.7” low at 125 yds. If it’s closer aim slightly lower and if it’s further aim slightly higher and, assuming again that the average group size isn’t something crazy, this easily would keep you in the vitals. So far 75 yds would seem too far for me but I have a ton of work ahead of me.

 

[.75 Kal Kenny]

I sit corrected.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

It's a trade-off. 50 yards should be barely fine, 75 could come up short without a 100 grain charge, good poly-tipped HP hunting bullet and good shot placement. I'd say either way you'd be fine, just go with about 20 grains more powder if you're using round balls or shooting much past 60 yards

Well you're right about shot placement, but that's true of any projectile, as far as what black powder will due, even vs. a mule deer... you're under informed (imho). I know that White tailed deer in PA are every bit as large as mule deer, and a 177 grain, all lead, patched round ball (.490) with 80 grains of 3Fg will slay one at 100 yards, broadside, no sweat.

One of the huge problems folks do is try to equate modern bullets, which are harder and often jacketed, to the soft, round ball. IT does things on impact at much lower velocities that "poly tipped hunting bullets" simply can't.

LD

 

[rodwha]

Well you're right about shot placement, but that's true of any projectile, as far as what black powder will due, even vs. a mule deer... you're under informed (imho). I know that White tailed deer in PA are every bit as large as mule deer, and a 177 grain, all lead, patched round ball (.490) with 80 grains of 3Fg will slay one at 100 yards, broadside, no sweat.

One of the huge problems folks do is try to equate modern bullets, which are harder and often jacketed, to the soft, round ball. IT does things on impact at much lower velocities that "poly tipped hunting bullets" simply can't.

LD

Initially I believed the same way as I looked at the low BC and SD of a ball and the low velocity as it sheds speed so quickly and felt 50 yds wouldn’t even be ethical or serviceable as modern gun writers have been telling us we need a lot of energy to make a kill. And people on modern forums were saying the same things and pointing people to sabots and modern bullets if one wants to ethically hunt. I figure this is mostly due to those writers making money selling modern products.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

And people on modern forums were saying the same things and pointing people to sabots and modern bullets if one wants to ethically hunt. I figure this is mostly due to those writers making money selling modern products

While it might be from mercenary motives, I think it's simply lack of objective data coupled with lack of personal experience.
The logic is, since the all lead, soft, round ball is not a modern bullet, it can't be doing what the modern bullets do. Which is true, but the obverse then is, What is the soft, lead round ball actually doing?
Folks also don't realize that every cartridge has it's limit as far as balancing accuracy and damage. At a certain point that sabot isn't going to expand as it's impact speed is too low, and it's making a smaller hole than the roundball in the same caliber.
Study of the patched round ball died out in the last third of the 19th century when cartridge guns took over the sport of hunting. Right as some very valuable data had begun to be collected. In 1867 Captain John Forsyth published a book on why the patched round ball was superior to the minnie ball for hunting dangerous game, but shortly after that came a flurry of cartridge guns, followed by smokeless powder.

LD

 

[alsaqr]

About ten years ago a renowned muzzleloader hunter and writer with decades of experience advised states to require a minimum energy limit for muzzleloaders that would have precluded the use of most patched round ball guns. Early in his career Toby Bridges had killed deer, elk and bear with patched round balls.

For his trouble Toby Bridges was dropped by one of his sponsors, Pedersoli.

https://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=49411

https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/bl...es-due-his-extreme-views-muzzleloading-2.html

 

[rodwha]

About ten years ago a renowned muzzleloader hunter and writer with decades of experience advised states to require a minimum energy limit for muzzleloaders that would have precluded the use of most patched round ball guns. Early in his career Toby Bridges had killed deer, elk and bear with patched round balls.

For his trouble Toby Bridges was dropped by one of his sponsors, Pedersoli.

https://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=49411

https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/bl...es-due-his-extreme-views-muzzleloading-2.html

Well that would be rather counterintuitive then as it’s quite obvious most calibers have shown themselves plenty useful. I didn’t look at any of the articles you linked yet, but for someone with experience as you stated, it makes no sense that his conclusions would discount most guns. I’ve seen some states have a minimum caliber of .40 and some .45. There’s not very many calibers or guns below those and plenty more above that. It would be ridiculous to discard those as not acceptable.

Though maybe a .40 has been used in the past along the east coast and by a few I’ve seen at limited ranges (50 yds?) I’d prefer a larger caliber for medium game, though our deer tend to be rather small and no doubt well within the .40’s capabilities with a ball, I’d rather not have a gun with such limited use and why I chose a .50. However I’ve thought a .38-.40 fast twist for conicals with a wide meplat would be quite nice for medium game and longer ranges.

Now maybe I’m far off the mark having not read about this fellow and what he said and why. But taking it at face value I call BS as the collective experience shows clearly otherwise. And I don’t man that in a snarky manner.

 

[woodnbow]

About ten years ago a renowned muzzleloader hunter and writer with decades of experience advised states to require a minimum energy limit for muzzleloaders that would have precluded the use of most patched round ball guns. Early in his career Toby Bridges had killed deer, elk and bear with patched round balls.

For his trouble Toby Bridges was dropped by one of his sponsors, Pedersoli.

https://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=49411

https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/bl...es-due-his-extreme-views-muzzleloading-2.html

Only to be picked up by others... all of which had vested interest in saboted bullets, high energy powders which required the use of inline technologies, 209 primers, etc... Mr Bridges was/is? a fairly knowledgeable guy and welcome to his opinions, wrongheaded though they may have been.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

About ten years ago a renowned muzzleloader hunter and writer with decades of experience advised states to require a minimum energy limit for muzzleloaders that would have precluded the use of most patched round ball guns. Early in his career Toby Bridges had killed deer, elk and bear with patched round balls

Yes I remember that, and the fact that he was heavily vested in Traditions inline rifles at the time, and it was and is my personal opinion, that he was of mercenary intent in his lobbying efforts.
Part of the reason some areas of the country are going to muzzleloader and shotgun only for hunting deer, is the fact that careless individuals have tossed modern rifle bullets out of "safe"...., meaning out of hunting areas to impact into residential zones, damaging property and in rare cases injuring or killing people. Accepting Mr. Bridge's "math" (if one can call it that) the in-line would become merely a copy of a high powered rifle, and thus inevitably cause further hunting restrictions, if not all out banning in some parts of the country.

LD

 

[arcticap]

Yes I remember that, and the fact that he was heavily vested in Traditions inline rifles at the time, and it was and is my personal opinion, that he was of mercenary intent in his lobbying efforts.

Toby Bridges must have regained Pedersoli's sponsorship by changing his stance as he explains on his sponsor page under the Pedersoli listing.
His current sponsor page lists them according to their length of sponsorship:--->>> http://namlhunt.com/namlhunt-sponsors.html

I thought that Knight rifles was one of his big sponsors early on.

 

[woodnbow]

“When we changed to NORTH AMERICAN MUZZLELOADER HUNTING ... with more coverage of traditionally styled muzzleloaders, the Pedersoli company renewed its sponsorship in 2012.”

Bridges lost me when he adopted the anti traditional stance. But I can see why he came around again, if only by a few degrees... why leave all that money laying there on the table?

 

[alsaqr]

I thought that Knight rifles was one of his big sponsors early on.

They were: Knight let Toby Bridges go.

A Savage smokeless muzzleloader fired by Toby Bridges blew up under what some say were suspicious circumstances. That ended the professional relationship between Toby Bridges, Mr. Ball and Savage.