Large bore pistol for deer?
- Thread starter SigEm73
- Start date
- Status
bigbore442001
Member
Ages ago I belonged to a group called Handgun Hunters International which produces a newspaper magazine called The Sixgunner. I recall a story about a Maine hunter using a ROA on deer during the regular season.
zimmerstutzen
Member
Paul I agree that energy isn't everything. But if the bullet can't penetrate the rib cage, the animal will just run off.
My dad killed a deer with a 38 Spec snubbie, but the deer stood directly under his tree stand. It still took three shots.
As far as I am concerned cap and ball revolvers are borderline for deer. They require shot placement and close range. (which to an extent is true for all firearms)
in addition, I am not convinced that a conical in a cap and ball packs any more oomph than a round ball. Conicals take up valuable powder space. I'd want to see some chrono figures. While conicals normally carry energy further down range, cap and ball revolvers just don't have that kind of range.
here at home, I have a regulation size 500 meter ram hanging at 100 yds which I shoot at with a cap and ball revolver. I can hit it, but i'd never shoot at a deer that far away with a cap and ball.
My dad killed a deer with a 38 Spec snubbie, but the deer stood directly under his tree stand. It still took three shots.
As far as I am concerned cap and ball revolvers are borderline for deer. They require shot placement and close range. (which to an extent is true for all firearms)
in addition, I am not convinced that a conical in a cap and ball packs any more oomph than a round ball. Conicals take up valuable powder space. I'd want to see some chrono figures. While conicals normally carry energy further down range, cap and ball revolvers just don't have that kind of range.
here at home, I have a regulation size 500 meter ram hanging at 100 yds which I shoot at with a cap and ball revolver. I can hit it, but i'd never shoot at a deer that far away with a cap and ball.
Zim: Take a look at the videos that Duelist has made concerning the use of RB vs conical vs bullet and you will get an idea.
In his original videos he used his 12-14" "Buntline" ROA, which may not give accurate results in comparison to what a typical cap n ball would give, though maybe an 1858 Bison/Buffalo would be close, but it does show how the conical penetrated more than the RB, and the bullet more than the conical.
Although his penetration tests are done at close range we do know that a heavier bullet holds on to it's velocity much better than a RB. There isn't a tremendous difference out to say 25 yds as there is with a RB.
And yet I've read about passthroughs on deer and hogs using RB. I, myself, wouldn't feel so comfortable using a RB for hunting anything but little southern deer under 25 yds. But I would use a bullet, which tends to replicate a 45 Colt.
The video itself hasn't been posted, but in Duelist's latest videos using typical ROA it shows the velocity. energy, and penetration characteristics of all 3.
There is also some videos posted on youtube showing velocity/energy figures. Although it's been stated that chronograph results may not be accurate as there is no way to know if it's calibrated correctly, and under what conditions...
In his original videos he used his 12-14" "Buntline" ROA, which may not give accurate results in comparison to what a typical cap n ball would give, though maybe an 1858 Bison/Buffalo would be close, but it does show how the conical penetrated more than the RB, and the bullet more than the conical.
Although his penetration tests are done at close range we do know that a heavier bullet holds on to it's velocity much better than a RB. There isn't a tremendous difference out to say 25 yds as there is with a RB.
And yet I've read about passthroughs on deer and hogs using RB. I, myself, wouldn't feel so comfortable using a RB for hunting anything but little southern deer under 25 yds. But I would use a bullet, which tends to replicate a 45 Colt.
The video itself hasn't been posted, but in Duelist's latest videos using typical ROA it shows the velocity. energy, and penetration characteristics of all 3.
There is also some videos posted on youtube showing velocity/energy figures. Although it's been stated that chronograph results may not be accurate as there is no way to know if it's calibrated correctly, and under what conditions...
the Black Spot
Member
I have killed one doe with a 1860 colt loaded with 30 gr of Blackpowder and 457 rb. 6 yd shot. NO EXIT wound. deer ran 30 yds and dropped to the heart shot it had received.
Black powder Ballistics
I found this pretty informative.
http://www.poconoshooting.com/blackpowderballistics.html
Do a search on the web and you will find many stories of deer taken with BP pistols and revolvers.
Oh yea.How about this, http://hoveysmith.wordpress.com/201...-bullet-lee-bullet-for-revolvers-deer-huntin/
I found this pretty informative.
http://www.poconoshooting.com/blackpowderballistics.html
Do a search on the web and you will find many stories of deer taken with BP pistols and revolvers.
Oh yea.How about this, http://hoveysmith.wordpress.com/201...-bullet-lee-bullet-for-revolvers-deer-huntin/
zimmerstutzen
Member
While certainly not a scientific test, I normally shoot round ball from my Ruger OA, but I have loaded two different size 45-70 bullets over the years. The felt recoil is greater with the round ball. The 250 grain bullet simply took up too much powder space to overcome the advantage of the heavier bullet weight. The 190 grain 45-70 bullet was much closer to the round ball in performance.
I recently obtained 200 pieces of 5/8 inch clear pine about 4 inches x 10 inches and thought about doing some comparison shooting. But the thing is it seems to me going through the first piece of wood is about like getting through the rib cage. Inside is a lot softer than another piece of wood.
I recently obtained 200 pieces of 5/8 inch clear pine about 4 inches x 10 inches and thought about doing some comparison shooting. But the thing is it seems to me going through the first piece of wood is about like getting through the rib cage. Inside is a lot softer than another piece of wood.
"To an extent"??? Seriously, just when is that NOT true? Pray tell us just what gun and load allows one to just bang away at any part of a deer from long range without concern for where the rounds will impact.
This entire discussion is meaningless if we don't go into it from the start with the understanding that shot placement is the most critical parameter of all.
Caution: Mike's 'penetration' test results using water jugs are questionable as to whether they apply to flesh and bones.
Patocazador
Member
Bones are much different than water. Hollow points destroy water jugs but but splat on bone.
All penetration tests are questionable how they apply to living animals. even fresh dead animals react differently to a shot than a live one.
Tests are interesting, and other than vast hunting experience, is all we have to work with, but still dont reflect exactly what happens in live animals, only compares what the loads used will do in the test medium.
One regular on the leverguns site is a guide on a ranch. He has shot or been at the shooting of thousands if animals over the years. He did tests on various loads on fresh dead cows, and found that when stacked together or alone, the results were different than what he'd seen in live animals. Penetration on the dead animals was about double what the same loads did in live ones, if I recall correctly. On the other side of that coin, I was told that in the Linebaugh penetration tests, that the 200 gr 348 Hornady bullet generally goes about 14"-16" in their test medium. A guy thats used them over the years in Montana reports that they generally (if not) always shoot through elk on broadside shots. I think he said 3 feet wasn't unsual for penetration on end shots on deer and elk.
Other than shooting a lot of game, there isn't much guarentee as to what various loads are going to do in live critters.
This guy seems to be getting fairly good expansion after shooting through dry bone. Then again, results can vary considerably from live animals. One of the posters in the thread noted that the bone exit fragments were very different than he was used to seeing in humans from xrays.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=606797
Tests are interesting, and other than vast hunting experience, is all we have to work with, but still dont reflect exactly what happens in live animals, only compares what the loads used will do in the test medium.
One regular on the leverguns site is a guide on a ranch. He has shot or been at the shooting of thousands if animals over the years. He did tests on various loads on fresh dead cows, and found that when stacked together or alone, the results were different than what he'd seen in live animals. Penetration on the dead animals was about double what the same loads did in live ones, if I recall correctly. On the other side of that coin, I was told that in the Linebaugh penetration tests, that the 200 gr 348 Hornady bullet generally goes about 14"-16" in their test medium. A guy thats used them over the years in Montana reports that they generally (if not) always shoot through elk on broadside shots. I think he said 3 feet wasn't unsual for penetration on end shots on deer and elk.
Other than shooting a lot of game, there isn't much guarentee as to what various loads are going to do in live critters.
This guy seems to be getting fairly good expansion after shooting through dry bone. Then again, results can vary considerably from live animals. One of the posters in the thread noted that the bone exit fragments were very different than he was used to seeing in humans from xrays.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=606797
Last edited:
zimmerstutzen
Member
Folks have taken bear with a 22 rf. takes shot placement and range. ( Just don't look for me to try it. )
Shot placement becomes far more critical with a 180 ft lb peashooter than with a 3,000 ft pound magnum. The area for a hit that is quickly lethal is larger by multiples.
I once picked 4 or 5 22 bb's out of a horse's hide. They didn't even go through, just imbedded in the hide. The horse was definitely not pleased but didn't even bleed. That horse still runs my pasture. A bullet or ball not only has to penetrate, the hide but get through the rib cage to vitals. Just saying a certain amount of energy is required to do that. Sort of a threshold to break through to where it damages lungs and/or heart. The heart again, is an extremely tough muscle. It takes quite a bit to blow through the heart in addition to the lungs and rib cage.
Shot placement becomes far more critical with a 180 ft lb peashooter than with a 3,000 ft pound magnum. The area for a hit that is quickly lethal is larger by multiples.
I once picked 4 or 5 22 bb's out of a horse's hide. They didn't even go through, just imbedded in the hide. The horse was definitely not pleased but didn't even bleed. That horse still runs my pasture. A bullet or ball not only has to penetrate, the hide but get through the rib cage to vitals. Just saying a certain amount of energy is required to do that. Sort of a threshold to break through to where it damages lungs and/or heart. The heart again, is an extremely tough muscle. It takes quite a bit to blow through the heart in addition to the lungs and rib cage.
"Caution: Mike's 'penetration' test results using water jugs are questionable as to whether they apply to flesh and bones."
Not that it is comparable to what would happen with flesh, blood, and possibly bone, but that it does show that a conical will penetrate further than a RB, and a bullet further than a conical. If some have had a RB achieve full penetration of a deer it tells me that the bullet stands a very good chance of fully penetrating.
If you look over Mike's results, and assuming that his chrono gives good enough readings, it shows for the 7.5" barrel:
40 grns Goex RB 812/217 and 5 jugs
33 grns T7 RB 1062/371 and 6 jugs
30 grns Goex bullet 744/314 and 10 jugs
25 grns T7 bullet 920/479 and 11+ jugs
The T7 load with a bullet surpasses 45 Colt performance. I'd say it would do quite well since the 45 Colt can do quite well. Right?
Not that it is comparable to what would happen with flesh, blood, and possibly bone, but that it does show that a conical will penetrate further than a RB, and a bullet further than a conical. If some have had a RB achieve full penetration of a deer it tells me that the bullet stands a very good chance of fully penetrating.
If you look over Mike's results, and assuming that his chrono gives good enough readings, it shows for the 7.5" barrel:
40 grns Goex RB 812/217 and 5 jugs
33 grns T7 RB 1062/371 and 6 jugs
30 grns Goex bullet 744/314 and 10 jugs
25 grns T7 bullet 920/479 and 11+ jugs
The T7 load with a bullet surpasses 45 Colt performance. I'd say it would do quite well since the 45 Colt can do quite well. Right?
MCgunner
Member
I have yet to try my ROA on game. I've shot deer and hogs with my .357 Blackhawk and my scoped Contender in .30-30 Winchester. I NEVER shoot unsupported, let alone one handed, not at game. Might be the "only way" for black powder shooters, but I don't want a cripple. If your conscience can handle letting a cripple get away, okay, but I don't think that's a very good hunting ethos, personally. Just stick to paper. I guess if you're close enough that you KNOW you'll hit vitals at your skill level.........still, I prefer a good rest even with a rifle if I can get it. I know my limits otherwise and have shot game off hand with a long gun, even on the run, so it's just determined by what you feel comfortable with, i reckon.
I've thought about one of those Traditions 50 cal hunting pistols, but I never bought one. Heck, I just shot my first muzzle loader buck last year.
I've thought about one of those Traditions 50 cal hunting pistols, but I never bought one. Heck, I just shot my first muzzle loader buck last year.
AABEN
Member
There is a brass length that the law 357 is the less we can use in IN
andrewstorm
member
when I first harvested deer with a ROA.....
I aimed for the eye and there the kieth style 255 gr entered amd eIxited perfectly through the oppisite ear.didnt have to chase that deer,he shoulda never stomprd his foot at me
I aimed for the eye and there the kieth style 255 gr entered amd eIxited perfectly through the oppisite ear.didnt have to chase that deer,he shoulda never stomprd his foot at me
"In water jugs, yes, for whatever that's worth."
Outside of a steel plate is there anything that the heavier projectile won't penetrate better through over the RB?
It has more weight and momentum, and from what little I understand , that will always do better.
6 jugs doesn't necessarily tell what I can expect in a game animal, but it does show me that the heavy bullet penetrates much better than the RB. So if someone has been able to get a passthrough using a RB than I can assume I'd stand a much better chance using a heavy bullet.
I can also assume that if it replicates a 45 Colt's performance that it ought to do about as well. It'll just add a little bit of a smoke screen too.
Outside of a steel plate is there anything that the heavier projectile won't penetrate better through over the RB?
It has more weight and momentum, and from what little I understand , that will always do better.
6 jugs doesn't necessarily tell what I can expect in a game animal, but it does show me that the heavy bullet penetrates much better than the RB. So if someone has been able to get a passthrough using a RB than I can assume I'd stand a much better chance using a heavy bullet.
I can also assume that if it replicates a 45 Colt's performance that it ought to do about as well. It'll just add a little bit of a smoke screen too.
zimmerstutzen
Member
the heavier bullet only penetrates better with sufficient speed. A 500 grain 45 caliber bullet will not penetrate as well as a round ball if the bullet is fired over 5 grains of powder and the round ball is fired over 40 grains. And there lies the problem. In a cap and ball revolver, the chamber has a limited volume capacity for powder and bullet. More bullet taking up space necessarily means less room for propellant powder. There is a point at which a bullet may take up too much room, so that the round ball is actually more powerful due to it's much higher speed. The trick is finding the perfect balance between powder and bullet within that limited volume for optimum killing power.
"There is a point at which a bullet may take up too much room, so that the round ball is actually more powerful due to it's much higher speed."
The capacity certainly makes sense. But as we saw with the projectiles he used this was not the case. It was shown that the heavy bullet out penetrated the RB easily. Using jugs of water isn't exactly scientific and doesn't give a clear picture since we can't see just how far it penetrated. But we do know it penetrated much further.
The capacity certainly makes sense. But as we saw with the projectiles he used this was not the case. It was shown that the heavy bullet out penetrated the RB easily. Using jugs of water isn't exactly scientific and doesn't give a clear picture since we can't see just how far it penetrated. But we do know it penetrated much further.
zimmerstutzen
Member
water jugs and pine boards and wet sand and water traps all have certain departures from the reality of hunting penetration.
Some folks have tested round balls and found that they expand upon impact and actually punch a larger hole in side than the caliber the ball started out.
It has long been recognized that a longer bullet carries it's energy further than a round ball. But at short distances, the round ball is generally moving faster (1) because it weighs less and (2) because of a slightly extra amount of powder.
Did the shape of the bullet nose play any part in the result?
Some folks have tested round balls and found that they expand upon impact and actually punch a larger hole in side than the caliber the ball started out.
It has long been recognized that a longer bullet carries it's energy further than a round ball. But at short distances, the round ball is generally moving faster (1) because it weighs less and (2) because of a slightly extra amount of powder.
Did the shape of the bullet nose play any part in the result?
I didn't mean to suggest that the water jug tests were meaningless or erroneous. This is good data. What I wrote was "use caution".
The conicals clearly had an edge in the limited testing and mediums used. That's not surprising. But, can we apply that universally? I'd be reluctant to do so, as zimmerstutzen suggests. Better chance at penetration? Yes, in most cases, but for me, not enough to automatically overrule other factors in choice of projectile.
As was stated earlier: these are a half inch in diameter, after all.
The conicals clearly had an edge in the limited testing and mediums used. That's not surprising. But, can we apply that universally? I'd be reluctant to do so, as zimmerstutzen suggests. Better chance at penetration? Yes, in most cases, but for me, not enough to automatically overrule other factors in choice of projectile.
As was stated earlier: these are a half inch in diameter, after all.
- Status
