Killing Power of Patched Round Ball (PRB)

[Cosmoline]

As I get into black powder, I've been reading up on projectiles. I've long assumed that PRB's are an archaic form of projectile with a poor SD and BC. They're one advantage is they maximize surface area. But I've noticed a school of thought, going back well into the 19th century, that PRB's are THE projectile of choice for black powder muzzleloaders. Apparently, so the argument goes, conicals in a 1:48 or slower bore aren't stabilized enough to penetrate through game. So the same conical out of a 1:20 or better barrel will penetrate better than a conical out of a slower bore. Whereas the roundball will cut right through. OTOH I've heard that roundball has poor killing power and conicals should always be used to hunt deer or better size game, unless you're shooting a monster bore firearm.

My own piece is a double .50 1:48 and shoots well with PRB and short conicals in sabots. Is this only good as deer medicine with PRB's?

 

[Voodoochile]

PRB's are a good deer killing bullet out to say 75 yards "maybe more but don't quote me" from say a .50 & up calibers & I'msure that there is record of some one using a .45 caliber but when the distance is greater than 50 yards the shot placement is more criticle than a conical due to the lack of striking energy as compared to a heavier bullet.

I use PRB in my .54 Hawken out to 75 yards but then again here in Va. the average shots taken at deer is less than 50 yards.

 

[4v50 Gary]

It's where you put the bullet. Remember, George Hanger was with Banastre Tarleton when they were shot at by a rifleman at 300 yards distance. The riflemen missed them but hit the bugleman's horse (who was behind and between them). The bugler jumped off his horse and excused himself, stating that his horse was just struck (and killed).

 

[DutchmanDick]

A roundball is, from everything I've read, the most ballistically inefficient shape for a bullet. It tends to lose energy rapidly as it goes downrange. HOWEVER, within, say, 100 yards or so, a PRB has stopping power all out of proportion to its caliber (but don't try hunting deer with a .40 or smaller rifle...). This is because it tends to dump all of its energy inside the target when it hits. A roundball in a caplock revolver actually has better stopping power, within a reasonable range, than a conical ball, although the conical will generally be more accurate and retain its energy farther downrange.

 

[goon]

IIRC, the round ball fired from a .36 revolver was known to be a lot more effective than it's small caliber would indicate.

Before that they had been making rifles in .50 and .54 for something like 100 years. I'd think that if the patched round ball in those calibers was ineffective they would have gone to guns with larger bores.

 

[Pancho]

Practically speaking PRB's will be more accurate than conicals because you can't cant a roundball but you can cant a conical. The only way to put more lead on the target is to either increase the caliber or lengthen the bullet. When you lengthen the bullet it is no longer round and while you're at it you might as well taper the leading the end and make it conical or you can get creative and taper both ends and make it a boat tail.

 

[dogrunner]

Elmer Keith commented at length on the killing power of the .36 and quoted several original users that reinforces the effectiveness of the rb.

The deer that I've shot with my guns seemed to drop just a quickly as they did with a HP modern bullet in the same area and the added bonus was that the meat near the wound was not nearly as blood shot.

 

[mykeal]

Before that they had been making rifles in .50 and .54 for something like 100 years. I'd think that if the patched round ball in those calibers was ineffective they would have gone to guns with larger bores.

They did.

 

[Cosmoline]

They went over to smaller bores, actually, with breech loaded rifles firing conicals. But as I understand it, this had more to do with longer effective range than greater close range power. The account of old musket ball found in griz from "California Grizzly" by Storer and Tevis is interesting, but I suspect may indicate too many far shots. Roundballs do lose their power very rapidly. Or some version of the traditional Alaskan villager practice of giving old Ephriam a "belly ache" from a distance. There is no corresponding account of these huge bears killing or attacking the people who put those roundballs in them.

 

[Dave McCracken]

IIRC, I've killed 4-5 deer with PRBs, one with a 58 caliber RB with a plastic cup patch and maybe 15 with conicals, all 50s and 58s.

Furthest was maybe 70 yards. All died within 100 yards of impact. The doe hit with the 58 dropped in her tracks, grazed the spine on a broadside shot.

Inside 75 yards, I don't see any difference.

 

[mykeal]

They went over to smaller bores, actually, with breech loaded rifles firing conicals.

Well, I guess it depends on who 'they' were.

goon said:

IIRC, the round ball fired from a .36 revolver was known to be a lot more effective than it's small caliber would indicate.

Now, the .36 cal revolver, I believe, was popular circa 1850.

Next, good said:

Before that they had been making rifles in .50 and .54 for something like 100 years.

From that I thought he was talking about the mid-1700's, when large bore (up to .72 cal) muskets were used. Hence my comment that they did in fact go to larger calibers for more effective results.

I guess I misunderstood the context to be about the mid-1700's, not the mid-1800's.

 

[goon]

Actually, the PA rifle came after the large bore muskets and Jaeger rifles were developed.
It used a smaller sized ball to be more efficient with powder and lead.
If the large bore of the muskets and Jaegers had been necessary there would have been no motivation to go to smaller calibers.

And I was talking about two different time periods - both were examples of the effectiveness of round balls though.

But I also misread Cosmoline's question and I forgot something very important - he's in Alaska.
In my little area of the northeastern US, I'd feel fine with a .50 caliber round balls for most anything I'd run into in the woods.
But in Alaska, I'd probably want something with more thump.

 

[hamourkiller]

Green Mountain has drop in barrels of .58 and .62 for the T/C 1" Hawken and Renegade. Buy a used .54 Hawken drop that .58 rifle or .62 smoothie in there and you are ready to go.

Buy that .62 double Howda pistol and you are Big Boar ready! As Big Boars deserve Big Bores!

Have fun!

 

[Cosmoline]

Well, I guess it depends on who 'they' were.

I was thinking in terms of western settlers and explorers. The move from big bore muskets to smaller bore ML rifles in the .50 or .54 range to smaller bore cartridge arms in the .45 range to even smaller bore smokeless cartridge firearms in the .30 range.

 

[oneshooter]

Rifle bores started large (60-75cal) and got smaller in the American East (36-45cal). This was for powder and shot consevation on the long hunting trails. They were large enough for the deer, black bear and Eastern Buffalo. They had long barrels and most hunters travel afoot in the dense woods. As hunters moved west the distences traveled got longer and was done on horse back. Game got larger and more dangerous and larger calibers with shorter barrels evolved.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

 

[Wildfire]

Rate of twist ?

Hey there :
Round balls work fine on deer in their reasonable ranges. Conicals were developed to get more range and a heavier bullet down range. For more killing power. But the Rate of twist has very little if nothing at all to do with penetration of a conical. Velocity determines that along with bullet design.

Rate of twist will effect the accuracy of a conical, but That I am aware of would have little effect on penetration.
As far as round balls killing better at a given distance ? I'm not so sure about that statement either. That would be very hard to prove. The extra weight of most conicals is what gets the job done. Along with the design of the bullet.
It's a proven fact that expanding bullets kill deer faster then any other design.
Round balls can expand some but lack the momentum needed to take long distance big game. Shot placement then plays a very big part . With correct shot placement most any bullet will kill deer. I have killed more deer then I can remember, The only ones ever wounded and almost lost were shot with round balls. I have never lost one to a conical yet.
Accuracy is the issue with rates of twist not killing power or penetration.

 

[kentucky bucky]

My .54 drops deer just as effective as my 45-70 or 3006 at reasonable ranges, say within 100 yards. my .54 comes out twice as big as it enters if it happens to pass through. The balls are deceiving as to actual weight compared to diameter, meaning they look heavier than they are. I think around .45 would be my cutoff for deer sized game. They shoot very straight, but power drops off faster than a projectile with a better sectional density.


PS....It's real easy and cheap to make your own, which is a real plus!

 

[Timthinker]

A conical bullet or sabot round provides longer range accuracy. This is why militaries adopted conical bullets beginning in the 1850s. This bullet design fired from a rifled barrel greatly increased the killing range of infantry weapons over smoothbore muskets firing round balls. One other fact needs to be remembered when we speak of "killing power" and muzzleloading firearms. The lack of antibiotics and modern surgical techniques contributed greatly to battlefield and civilian deaths in times past. This is true whether a person was shot with a conical round or a patched round ball.

Personally, I believe that a heavier conical round fired from a rifle/carbine would prove superior to the round ball in terms of energy foot pounds. This is something that could be tested at least. In addition, conical rounds can be designed as hollow point ammunition, thereby increasing the potency of the particular bullet somewhat.


Timthinker

 

[BigG]

No less of a handgun icon than Elmer Keith proclaimed the original Colt Navy revolvers killed all out of proportion to their size with the miniscule .36 pill - about the size of a pea or about 80 grains as I recall. According to Keith, this gun with RB was much more effective than the .38 Colt/.38 Special cartridge guns that derived from it. Something to ponder.

 

[Ohioan]

What is "killing power"?
This topic is reminscent of the ".45 vs *pick your caliber of choice*" threads.

I live in Southern Ohio, I would feel confident taking a shot at anything around here with my .50 cal PA flintlock with PRB. I can shoot accurately out to just beyond 100 yards, on a good day, but wouldn't feel comfortable attempting to kill anything at that distance, unless I was starving.

Now, with muzzle loaders, we have the option to vary the amount of powder per shot, as we see fit, unlike our modern counter parts. I'm not going to shoot a deer with a target load. And I'm not going to punch paper with a deer load. Every barrel is different, it's up to you to figure out what load works best with YOUR rifle.

Historical note,
Guns in the U.S started out large bore, .62- sometimes 8-bore.
Then as large game became scarce in the east, smaller bore, or squirrel rifles were developed. This happened mid-late 18th century. These rifles tended to be .32-.50. In the east, they stayed small.
Then as some of our pioneering forefathers headed out West past the Mississipi, shorter barrels with larger bores came into use. 54-58 caliber were common.
Now, some of the first cartridge rifles were in the .50 range. They were just blackpowder loads in ready made cases bassically. It wasn't until modern smokeless powder and bottle necked cartridges were developed that the calibers got smaller.

 

[Pat McCoy]

I have taken deer and antelope at 15 to 85 yards with a .45 cal prb, and from 65 to 130 yards with .50 cal prb. All except one dropped where they were (the one was shot at 15 yards and ran about 30 yards with part of her kungs and heart hanging out the bottom of her chest). Plenty lethal if you ask me.

 

[Cosmoline]

This topic is reminscent of the ".45 vs *pick your caliber of choice*" threads.

That was not my intention at all. What I'm trying to get at is whether there is anything special about roundballs that makes up for their otherwise poor figures. They have a low bc, low sd, and lose velocity very quickly. Yet they seem to have solid killing power, and many hunters from the mid 19th century to today swear by them even when there are much more advanced conicals and sabots to select from.

One thing seems to be that PRB's drill holes very well, and expand without veering or falling apart. In soft lead form they flatten out enough to impart energy, but do not face shed jackets or keyholing when they hit. Plus at forty five or fifty plus cal or more they don't really need to expand. In shape they are similar to what a standard .30 cal sp bullet looks like after it hits.

I haven't been able to find any source for modern ballistic testing on RB's. Nobody seems to have bothered to test these ancient projectiles on gel.

 

[sundance44s]

I`ve done testing on wet phone books with round balls ..a 50 cal soft lead round ball will flatten out the size of a quarter doing much more damage than a hard lead cast bullet , which on the same test , didn`t expand at all ..

 

[Wildfire]

Terminal Ballistics.

Hey there:
Now you have entered the world of "Terminal Ballistics"
That is what happens from the time the bullet hits its target till the time it stops.
This is a subject that can be debated by Camp fire ballistic experts all day every day. Here are the facts. Expanding bullets traveling at high velocity kill better then slower ones that do not expand. If that fits then it fits. Round balls can and do expand some. They can be very accurate. They also can be very good hunting rounds and many chose this route just because they want to stay some what traditional. Much better designs have been invented and used for many years. The conicals have proven to be far superior in the range and energy class. But make the traditionalist feel somewhat uneasy.
The more a bullet can rip apart and damage inside of it's target the faster it will fall. Some like the term Hydrostatic shock. That is fine and gets the point through. The correct term (inside of a deer ) is Hydrodynamic shock. The effect is wild. Expansion with no place to go . The shock waves bounce off things inside of the critter and create a shock effect. This is why we some times see a deer fall strait to the ground. But the bullet did not and can not push the deer down. That is not how the energy of a bullet works.
So there is nothing wrong with you chosing to use a round ball as long as the distance is reasonable.

 

[dmb3006]

When I hunted deer in Upstate NY.I used a .50 caliber CVA Mountain rifle that was 1:66 twist.It shoot Buffalo bullets Ball-et's very well.As well as patched round balls.3\4" 3 shot groups at 50 yds.Head or neck shoots the job was done.