I intend to carry my Old Army as a backup while hunting with my .50 cal Deerstalker. My main concern is hogs, and I originally bought several of Kaido's 240 grn version of modern conicals.
My thoughts were that I'd want the flat nosed profile and extra weight for the penetration I'm told I'll need when dealing with the heavier of these guys.
As I'm considering how it was said by Civil War vets that RB's were much better as man stoppers and conicals for game animals (they were talking of .36 cal projectiles if I'm not mistaken) it got me to thinking that the reason being is that the velocity with the lighter RB's makes it expand more readily, which gives a larger wound cavity, but reduces its ability to penetrate as deep. The conicals, on the other hand, being heavier and slower, wouldn't expand as large, and with the heavier weight, penetrate deeper.
At close range (<15 yds) would the larger wound be better than deeper penetration? If a RB is a better man stopper wouldn't it do well at close range on an average size hog (<200 lbs)? If I'm being charged by a p*ssed off hog I need it to go down quickly, and assuming the worst it may be more of a point and shoot affair.
I'm curious as to whether anyone has tested the diameter of the projectile against its penetration. According to the work Duelist did in comparing projectiles and powders I see (using T7) that the modern conical penetrated about twice as far, which is exceptional. Water jugs aren't much like flesh and bone though...
Who has used RB's in their pistols for hunting? What were your results?
My thoughts were that I'd want the flat nosed profile and extra weight for the penetration I'm told I'll need when dealing with the heavier of these guys.
As I'm considering how it was said by Civil War vets that RB's were much better as man stoppers and conicals for game animals (they were talking of .36 cal projectiles if I'm not mistaken) it got me to thinking that the reason being is that the velocity with the lighter RB's makes it expand more readily, which gives a larger wound cavity, but reduces its ability to penetrate as deep. The conicals, on the other hand, being heavier and slower, wouldn't expand as large, and with the heavier weight, penetrate deeper.
At close range (<15 yds) would the larger wound be better than deeper penetration? If a RB is a better man stopper wouldn't it do well at close range on an average size hog (<200 lbs)? If I'm being charged by a p*ssed off hog I need it to go down quickly, and assuming the worst it may be more of a point and shoot affair.
I'm curious as to whether anyone has tested the diameter of the projectile against its penetration. According to the work Duelist did in comparing projectiles and powders I see (using T7) that the modern conical penetrated about twice as far, which is exceptional. Water jugs aren't much like flesh and bone though...
Who has used RB's in their pistols for hunting? What were your results?