Hickock's revolver load

[Loyalist Dave]

Was part of that reason because the thin skirts required smaller charges of powder? Or that the more blunt ball still was more destructive?

He didn't like the performance on impact.

…, It is found, that with any form [of bullet] more pointed than a hemisphere, the shock given to an animal is much less, although the actual diameter, and consequently the striking area, of the ball be the same.


It is, moreover, found that the slightest obstruction of bone or sinew, or even muscle, meeting obliquely a pointed cone passing through an animal, is apt to turn it from its course, and frustrate the aim of the sportsman. The bones escape unbroken, and the [conical] ball merely makes an eccentric flesh wound, harmless at the time, although it may eventually cause the death of the animal. It was from observing constant instances of such wounds that I first began to doubt the advantages of the pointed form for sporting projectiles; I have seen such a ball strike a tiger between the eyes, and cut a groove over the top of his head, making its exit at the nape of the neck, with no other effect but that of temporarily stunning him.


Regarding humans…



…, and shortly after the Crimean war, a surgeon in charge of a large number of wounded men reported that he-...,


“Also observed that these [minie] bullets made holes as if they had been drilled, and that they travelled over or through the body in the most eccentric directions…. The conclusion drawn is that, after all, conical balls produce less dangerous gunshot wounds than the ordinary spherical ones, since, whenever they first meet an obstacle, unless they strike with the apex, they deviate from their course instead of smashing bone, and make their way through the fleshy part of the body.”


LD

 

[paul harm]

Well, my experiences are just the opposite of some of you. Many times I and friends have found a flattened round ball just under the skin on the far side of the animal. They do not go through. There's only one hole, so there's less blood sign for tracking. This has happened over and over many times deer hunting in Michigan. Once Elk hunting out west the guide and I watched through binoculars, a guy shoot a Elk with BP and the skin went out about 5" on the far side. The guide said " he used a round ball". We went down there and told him what we had seen, and sure enough there was the flattened RB under the skin. The up side is all the energy is displaced in the animal.

 

[Jackrabbit1957]

I am thinking that small game being smaller than an elk or deer may explain it better. Larger animal equals more mass for the ball to travel through giving it more time for expansion. My Jackrabbits might only weigh in at 8 to 10 pounds and are thin skinned. Regardless of what the explanation is the round ball still goes through and the conical doesn't.

 

[tbob38]

Fellow name of Ed McGivern was said to be able to hit a man sized target at 300 yards with a .357 mag. Just takes practice, you might be surprised what you can do with a handgun.

At one time, I shot quite a bit on a range where we had a steel plate 16" wide by12" high mounted at 385 yards. I got so I could put 2 or 3 of 5 shots on that plate and once put 4 of 5 on it. So long distance handgun shooting is quite possible.

 

[John L Venable]

the conical will change it's yaw and pitch depending on impact angle...the ball being spherical, bores through with slight deflection. just my .02

 

[Loyalist Dave]

Many times I and friends have found a flattened round ball just under the skin on the far side of the animal. They do not go through. There's only one hole, so there's less blood sign for tracking. This has happened over and over many times deer hunting in Michigan. .

That's odd. I wonder about your shot placement or your powder load

I have taken close to 20 deer with a .530 patched round ball, from a 38" barrel, using a mere 70 grains of powder. I have recovered exactly two ball. One was from a bad load where I had failed to ensure the bore was completely free of rust preventative, so my load was underpowered, and the ball was found under the skin of the buck, which went about 50 yards before it dropped. The other was when I hit the spine of a buck. All the rest, at close range or as far away as 110 yards, were through and through. I was actually surprised that the 110 yard shot went right through the large doe.

Now my last buck was hit at about 65 yards, and the ball went right through him, both sides, taking out his lungs, but he went a good 120 yards, and zero blood trail. All the rest of the deer, buck or doe, dropped within sight of the location where they were hit. Had they gone farther, and I had to track it would've been rather easy, as the blood from where they were hit to where they piled up was a large amount. The buck was, however, already "juiced" when I shot him, as he'd fled from the adjoining property where fox hunters were passionately pursuing a fox. The hounds and horses had spooked him across a road and up to where I lay in wait on a different farm, so..., I figure adrenalin gave him enough to go so far.

Another fellow on a different forum has been for the past four years, exclusively taking shoulder shots. Specifically, he tries to place the ball between the shoulder joint and the neck, as he's found that the deer literally drop where they are standing. He has found his lead round ball impact and hit bone, and then deflect into the spine. He has been pleased and surprised with his results.

I don't go for the heart, I go for the lungs, as I like to eat the heart.

LD

 

[paul harm]

Michigan deer are tougher than Maryland deer.

 

[daboyleroy]

Check out
http://thebuffalorunners.proboards.com/thread/119/wild-bill-hickoks-1851-surprise


https://truewestmagazine.com/wild-bill-truth/

 

[Deltaboy1984]

Good information!

 

[LRDGCO]

In the ball vs conical debate, must we not also consider alloy? Ball, historically, will have been pure lead and BHN 6, whereas it its is likely that conical bullets will have been harder, to avoid substantial deformation in loading. Ball would therefore be more likely to aggressively expand and deliver larger permanent wound channels than harder alloy, somewhat less expansive, and relatively smaller meplat conicals. As to the degree of penetration, this theory would suggest greater penetration by conicals, conditions at odds with Keith's Civil War vet accounts. But, if we also imagine that the longer conical bullets may have accompanied a lesser powder charge, it would square things.

Just theories, if course.

 

[Chompiras]

Actually, if you read The Sporting Rifle and Its Projectiles by Lt. Robert Forsyth (British Army, India), he had access to all sorts of bullets when he published his book in 1867, round ball, belted ball, Whitworth, Minie, & etc.... YET he used patched, round ball on everything from deer to bear to tiger to rhino to elephant. He expressly did not like the Minie bullet for hunting game, especially dangerous game. So apparently the round ball does do more than what mass-upon-impact (in an equation) show it to do.

LD

Indeed. I believe that round ball can be especially more effective when it hits bone as the profile and greater velocity will lend itself more to deformation. I was quite happy to see the Paul Harrell recently used .454 round ball in a recent meat target test wherein it performed most admirably, in contrast to the gel tests I've seen that showed it not altogether different from fmj type bullets. This, IMO, not only shows that the meat target is a more realistic medium than gel, but also that the variance ov density as opposed to a uniform mass allegedly representative ov an average can have an altered effect on projectiles. And in this case, it seems that when RB encounters an obstacle like bone or a heavy animal(not varmits and such), it is more liable to expand to increase efficacy. If I were a pistolero in the old west, I would feel more confident with RB owing to the ease ov loading as well as its potential efficacy upon humans/larger animals granted a gun/charge adequate to allow for such potential.

 

[rodwha]

In the ball vs conical debate, must we not also consider alloy? Ball, historically, will have been pure lead and BHN 6, whereas it its is likely that conical bullets will have been harder, to avoid substantial deformation in loading. Ball would therefore be more likely to aggressively expand and deliver larger permanent wound channels than harder alloy, somewhat less expansive, and relatively smaller meplat conicals. As to the degree of penetration, this theory would suggest greater penetration by conicals, conditions at odds with Keith's Civil War vet accounts. But, if we also imagine that the longer conical bullets may have accompanied a lesser powder charge, it would square things.

Just theories, if course.

Do you have a source for alloyed conicals? My understanding, and this seems evident in some reproductions, is that the rammer face is somewhat pointy, much like ramrod attachments for various muzzleloader projectiles.

Civil War paper cartridges were all over the place as far as bullet weight and powder charge, and likely powder quality and size. But the Hazard’s using their Pistol Powder was quite an animal using an energetic powder equivalent to Swiss/Olde Eynsford, and found to be 4F. This is pushing a 211 grn bullet in .44 using 36 grns of powder, and in .36 cal using a 141 grn bullet with 21 grns of powder. These wouldn’t be underwhelming.

But these veterans that Mr Keith knew may not have been using those particular cartridges. Gatofeo had found a lot of information on paper cartridges from then. This is what else he listed:

Bartholow:
.44 - 260 grn bullet with 19 grns powder
.36 - 139 grn bullet with 14 grns powder
Johnston & Dow:
.44 - 242 grn bullet with 35 grns powder
.36 - 150 grn bullet with 17 grns powder
Hotchkiss:
.44 - 207 grn bullet with 22 grns powder
Unknown:
.44 - 256 grn bullet with 17 grns powder
.36 - 155 grn bullet with 12 grns powder
149 grn bullet with 13 grns powder

Poorer performance was likely due to the pointy design as its performance is well documented. But also the variations in cartridges we see above. I’ve only seen the Hazard’s cartridges tested for performance. It could well be many of the others used subpar powders much like standard Goex and Schuetzen (power wise). A low velocity certainly won’t make lead expand as seen in the 60’s military video where a ball from an 1860 Army is shot into gel containing a bone. The velocity was a bit under 700 fps and the ball didn’t deform.

 

[rodwha]

Indeed. I believe that round ball can be especially more effective when it hits bone as the profile and greater velocity will lend itself more to deformation. I was quite happy to see the Paul Harrell recently used .454 round ball in a recent meat target test wherein it performed most admirably, in contrast to the gel tests I've seen that showed it not altogether different from fmj type bullets. This, IMO, not only shows that the meat target is a more realistic medium than gel, but also that the variance ov density as opposed to a uniform mass allegedly representative ov an average can have an altered effect on projectiles. And in this case, it seems that when RB encounters an obstacle like bone or a heavy animal(not varmits and such), it is more liable to expand to increase efficacy. If I were a pistolero in the old west, I would feel more confident with RB owing to the ease ov loading as well as its potential efficacy upon humans/larger animals granted a gun/charge adequate to allow for such potential.

Indeed. It took another 100 yrs to find that a wide flat meplat was superior.

 

[Eyrie G. Dogg]

Apparently, Elmer Keith was comparing round ball to Picket type pointy bullets when he talked about the superiority of round ball.

Is it correct to conclude that Keith finally believed that a ogived SWC with a meplat of at or over 70% of major diameter was superior to round ball for killing men and beasts? It seems that he did.

 

[arcticap]

All I know is that when Val Forgett went on safari in Africa, he was shooting fairly huge monolithic conical bullets out of a .58 to kill elephants and other large game with, and not round balls.
IIRC it was simply a very long, heavy round nose bullet that he used to shoot it in the head.

Even Sam Fadala's favorite bullet to shoot with black powder out of a .30-30 Improved cartridge was a 190 grain round nose Winchester Silver Tip.

 

[rodwha]

Apparently, Elmer Keith was comparing round ball to Picket type pointy bullets when he talked about the superiority of round ball.

Is it correct to conclude that Keith finally believed that a ogived SWC with a meplat of at or over 70% of major diameter was superior to round ball for killing men and beasts? It seems that he did.

My Lyman Deerstalker seems to do quite well with the 320 grn Lee REAL. I’ve considered either modifying it or creating a design with Accurate Molds to give it a ~75% meplat, though I read of great results as is. Not sure if disrupting the BC would do it any major injustice and a wide meplat certainly can’t be bad otherwise.

 

[Steel Hayes]

This is an excerpt from the 1867 Harper’s Weekly interview with Wild Bill.

“I would like to see you shoot.”

“Would yer?” replied the scout, drawing his revolver; and approaching the window, he pointed to a letter O in a sign-board which was fixed to the stone-wall of a building on the other side of the way.

“That sign is more than fifty yards away. I will put these six balls into the inside of the circle, which isn’t bigger than a man’s heart.

The reference to round ball sold me.

 

[Sistema1927]

This is an excerpt from the 1867 Harper’s Weekly interview with Wild Bill.

“I would like to see you shoot.”

“Would yer?” replied the scout, drawing his revolver; and approaching the window, he pointed to a letter O in a sign-board which was fixed to the stone-wall of a building on the other side of the way.

“That sign is more than fifty yards away. I will put these six balls into the inside of the circle, which isn’t bigger than a man’s heart.

The reference to round ball sold me.

Except for the fact that "ball" was used interchangeably with "bullet" in those days. Since he just says "balls", and not "round balls", I don't know that we can infer anything from that quote.

 

[Steel Hayes]

I don't know that we can infer anything from that quote.

Your quite right, I was looking through a book,’US Army in transition 1860-1880’, and surgeons were describing conicals as bullets.
Rats!

 

[cheygriz]

Don't think a semi wad cutter is classified as a conical. Its design is to cut a circle from a paper target, rater than punching through.
I'd like to be able to load that bullet in a 45C case for the 1860 Army conversion cylinder. What the mold number if its hand cast.

Try RCBS 45-255, or Lee452 252

 

[Loyalist Dave]

Michigan deer are tougher than Maryland deer

Seriously, that may be very true, no joke needed.
They may be larger, and thus the bone density would be higher and the bones thicker. THEN if you move to an area and go for mule deer, they tend to be a step above whitetails from any region.

LD

 

[Ironhand54]

It's called Bergmann's rule. It states that the colder the environment, the larger the average member of a species will be. It has to do with heat loss and the ratio of body mass to surface area

As to Mule Deer, it is probable that an Arizona muley would not be as large as an Alberta Whitetail.

IronHand

 

[Jackrabbit1957]

There is no probably about it, the difference in size can be seen in within the state itself. Desert Muley's are smaller than the deer from northern part of the state by a considerable amount.

 

[whughett]

Plant Diet and mineral content of the soil plays a part also. Ohio bucks are known for untypical racks.

 

[woodnbow]

Was part of that reason because the thin skirts required smaller charges of powder? Or that the more blunt ball still was more destructive?

I fully intend to find an accurate load in my 1:48” twist Lyman .50 cal using a patched ball. Not so much because I feel it a better projectile, but more because it is a very old fashioned one/traditional, but to see for myself just how well the poor sectional density and low energy projectile works, which would no doubt be impressive to others I may hunt with who’d no doubt also feel it quite inferior. So far it has shown much more promise with a 320 grn Lee REAL...

But for my revolvers I certainly prefer a wide nosed bullet. It has proven to create an oversized permanent wound track and should no doubt be a better performer, though I may one day try it as well. Quite frankly a .457” ball at 25 yds isn’t too dissimilar to a .490” ball at 125 yds and that one certainly worked for far too many hunters.

As a teenager I bought the first edition of the Lyman black powder hand book, one of the first things I’d noticed were the high speed photos of various projectiles and the pressure wave they generated. Up until that time I’d only read about the effectiveness of the round ball (Elmer Keith was one of my favorite authors by the time I made it into high school.) and I’d been hunting deer, rabbits, and squirrels with a 5.5” .44 Colt replica, a .40 caliber caplock rifle, maker unknown, and my kit built .54 Renegade for several years.

I knew the round ball worked, and better than it had a ballistic right to, but I didn’t really know why. I suspected, and smarter men than I have confirmed, the “wave” looks much the same as the ball passes through the nearly liquid tissues that make up humans and animals alike with corespondent disruption of the tissue and a resulting large wound channel. The miserable ballistic coefficient of the round ball is the reason it’s so effective on thin skinned medium and large game. And if it’s of sufficient diameter, even thicker skinned and dangerous game. The same, obviously, is true of any wide flat nosed bullets.