# Powerbelt disappointment



## hagfan72

I spent a LOT of money last season and bought a few packs of the platinum powerbelt bullets. Well, I got my elk, BUT i was severely disappointed in the lack of penetration shown by these over-hyped pieces of lead. Not to thrilled on their accuracy either. Has anyone else noticed this, or am i being too picky? I went back to T/C Maxi-Balls this year.

By the way, here in CO, we cannot use sabots, so that is not an option. I am shooting a T/C Omega, with 150gr of Pyrodex.


----------



## Plainsman

They shoot OK in my son's rifle. I talked with the guy that first started producing them. He really talked them up so I tried hmmmm I can't remember the smaller size, but I think the heavy one was 440 back then. They had no grease groves was the first thing that bothered me. Then when I shot them the accuracy was poor. The thing I really disliked about them is if you bumped the muzzle of your rifle they would move forward in the bore. Luckily I talked with someone who had this happen before I had to go through the experience myself. 
They load easy, but that ease of loading also does not hold them in place if you bump your muzzle against something. 
I never did shoot anything with those bullets. Like you I went back to the TC Maxiballs. Now I shoot some sabots, some maxiballs, and with my Green Mountain barrel round ball only.


----------



## hagfan72

Yeah, I guess I am one of those dorks that has to try everything that the gun rags write about. They aren't HORRIBLE, but for the price and hype, I'll stick with Maxiballs. Unless Colorado pulls their collective heads out of their poop chutes, and legalizes sabots!!!


----------



## Savage260

Hagfan, I shoot powerbelts and they seem to work great for me. I did have some trouble starting out using the 150 777. I dropped down to 100gr and that really improved my accuracy. I just bought a new .50 cal and started using the magnum 777. 2 pellets are 120gr. This seems to be a good mix of velocity and accuracy. Could just be that my CVA likes them, and I have no experience with elk only whitetail. I am shooting 223gr powerbelt platinums. Might want to play around with the powder a bit, if you haven't already.


----------



## hagfan72

Accuracy was only part of the problem, I also was disappointed in the penetration, or lack thereof.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

At what range did you take your elk? I ask this because even the power belts are not constructed to hold together and penetrate at the MV generated by 150 grs of powder. It destabilizes the bullet in flight and results also in poor penetration. I do believe it was around Jan or Feb last year that F&S did an article on bullets from ML shooting into ballistic gel. It was the third or fourth article in the past 3 years I have seen on this issue. But it is something I learned on my own over 10 years ago!

Dropping these bullets down in overall speed increases accuracy as well as penetration. They are not alone in this problem but not being sabots they seem to be the most affected.

I was shooting sabots and had a doe take a 325 gr HP on the front should blade and get knocked off her feet and run off. The doe was just over 35 yards from my stand. We gained permission to access the land she ran on and did get her with a shot to the neck. The bullet never went past the shoulder blade. My hunting partner was shooting the same bullet and gun but instead of 150 gr of powder in pelts, he was shooting loose powder at 80 grains.

He took three deer that week at ranges of 20 yards 47 yards and 130+ yards! The buck taken at 130+ yards was a front shoulder shot. The bullet went in through the shoulder blade, and came out the other side through the shoulder blade dropping the deer in its tracks. The one doe was also taken with a similar shot with the bullet deflecting back and staying just under the hide!

The 20 yard doe was a quartering shot and he missed his point of aim hitting the deer back behind the rib cage. Bullet hit the opposite rib cage traveled along it and up into the neck stopping just short of the head.

We tend to want to shoot at mv speeds we know from rifles, but forget the bullet construction is not designed for those speeds with only a few exceptions.

In regards to them moving in a barrel after loading. I have spent a lot of time in the past with guys that ML. Most of them will tell you that the barrel tolerance on most rifles is such that the bullet will move. TC and Knight rifles have the closest bore diameter of all mfg guns.

Some of the shoots I have been at the guys almost have to drive the bullets into the barrel. These guns would time after time shoot the tightest and the hottest loads.

Guys that where attempting to shoot guns with barrels of greater tolerance levels never had the accuracy and consistency!

From my own experience of owning both, I can agree with this being the case. The tighter the bullet in seating into the barrel the better the accuracy was regardless of gr or style of projectile shot.

F


----------



## hagfan72

Wow, lot's of good infor there!! And yeah, I was trying to squeeze as much velocity as i could as elk are one of the toughest creatures around. I never considered that i was using TOO much powder to get the penetration that i wanted. But i just dont think that the bullet "came apart" because we recovered it and, although we didn't weigh it, it seemed to be mostly there.

Like i said, I am going to work up the most accurate load for the Maxiballs, and shoot those until this moronic state legalizes sabots.


----------



## Dak

Ron,

Good info. Thanks for posting.


----------



## Csquared

Ron,

Please explain what you mean by the MV produced by 150 grains of powder "destabilizes" the bullet in flight.


----------



## sasklab10

The light weight powerbelts are probably one of the weakest bullets out there. If you think about it, you can probably scratch them with your finger nail, the are .50 cal boresized bullets, so with the one around even 290 gr or w.e they are there sectional density is brutal. Not saying if I had to I wouldn`t use these but it would definately be the heavy ones.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

From shoot these and even other brands high velocity seems to work against them staying true in flight. A couple years back we had many hit the target tumbling at max powder loads both loose and pellets.

When we backed down on the powder the tumbling issue went away. Now I would possibly believed it was the rifle, but I saw this happen from different ML from the Rem to the T/C!

Not sure if there is not enough twist in the barrel to stabilize the bullet, or if it has something to do with the design I am not sure. I just know that after dropping down to under a 100 grains of loose powder and down to 120 grains of pellets, I never saw a single hole be sideways in the targets and I also saw the change in performance in the field on penetration and retention of both the bullet weight and shape!


----------



## Plainsman

Ron, I have often wondered if the combination of soft material (pure lead) shallow rifling, and high speed are a poor combination. If soft lead is pushed at high speed perhaps the shallow rifling is not sufficient. Perhaps there is shearing of the lead, or at least deforming so there is a loss of gyroscopic stability. Also any deformation would allow escaping gasses to further deform the bullet and upset stability as it exited the muzzle.

My max loads for soft round ball has been 90 grains. Even with .012 inch cut rifling in my Green Mountain Barrel which is one turn in 70 inches. For Maxiballs I do not go beyond 110 gr, and even with the sabots I loose optimal accuracy beyond 130 gr.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

I have tried to find the information in the back issues I have from Field and Stream. They talked about this to some degree as well. I was trying to remember the bullet type they had found worked best. I did some looking on a couple sites that I visit in regards to this and it seems that the makers of these bullets are now starting to look at bullet construction to meet the velocity that comes from hot loading.

Like most things, the companies build the rifles to stand the pressure of 150 gr of pellets but the bullet makers are behind the curve for the most part.

I called a farmer friend Tuesday to find out if he was done deer hunting. He said yes, but went into a tirade about ML being wounding machines. He told me that in filling his doe and buck tag that both his deer where hit in the shoulder and ran off requiring a bunch of time spent tracking.

I asked what he was using and he told me 260gr black sabot from Knight being pushed by 150gr of Pyrodex pellets. Both deer where shot at 75 yards and under. Both had the bullet explode upon impact with the shoulder blade. One deer died about 400 yards from where he shot it. a couple small fragments managed to punch into the lungs and cause it to bleed out.

The other required another shot to kill it. This one went through the ribs and into the lung and heart.

Now my calculations figure these rounds to have a ML of around 2300 ft give or take. Much to high for the construction of these bullets at that range on solid bone.


----------



## weasle414

All I've ever shot from my Knight muzzleloader have been 245 grain powerbelts(not the platinum, the original) with 100 grains of Pyrodex loose powder. Great setup, real nice grouping and great penetration. The second deer I shot was a running away shot, about 3/4 of the way back if I remember right, and it went right out the chest and hit the tree behind it. The last one I got had a neat 1/2" hole through it at 120 yards. I found the bullet plopped in an icy mound of dirt behind her. All in all I like 'em.


----------



## hagfan72

Well, when i get home, i will try some 85-110gr loads with the powerbelts i have left over.


----------



## weasle414

I think you'll be pleased when you see the results when you back off the powder. I was shooting about a 3-4" grouping with mine @ 100 when I was 11, not too shabby for someone that small who's never shot a big gun before. I haven't shot paper in a while but the last time I did I was punching raged holes at 50.


----------



## jimbob357

Here's the recovered bullet from my flank shot doe on Dec 9,2007.
Load was 100 grains of American Pioneer Powder 2F, powered by a Winchester 209 primer. The load chronographs a little over 1400 fps from my 24" Traditions Yukon.
She was about 110 yards away. She dropped in her tracks due to the proximity of the spine, and it ruined the inside tenderloins and a couple of backstraps.
Also cut the artery under the spine resulting in a quick bleed out.
Bullet is expanded to .78-.80.. about the size of a nickel, and weighs 129 grains. I also found a hunk of lead in the entrance hole, but didn't keep it.
The unused bullet is 252 grains, 245 grains for the bullet + 7 grains with the plastic skirt.



















The bullet from my doe shot on Dec 4th was disintigrated. It hit high in the front of the left shoulder and the exit was behind the right shoulder.
Only a few fragments cut the hide near the exit hole.. but she dropped in her tracks. Doe was 100 yards away.

My brother in laws doe at 80 yards was shot through the lower part of the front shoulder and brisket, and went down in it's tracks. That bullet left some fragments
and a pretty good exit hole in the meat, but nothing in the hide.

I was worried about the lack of penetration on the first doe, I've always liked an exit wound for easy tracking.
BUT I guess I'm not too worried about penetration, when the bullet expands like it does and all the energy stays inside the deer and it tips them over.
Maybe 1400 or so fps is the magic velocity.. I don't know.. but this year I'm happy how the 245 gr HP Power Belt performed.
In years past, I've shot a few deer with .50 Round ball loads doing 1700 fps or so, and the ones I recovered were flattened out just like the powerbelt, but it sure didn't seem 
to deliver the same energy.


----------



## boondocks

That looks like excellent bullet performance to me.

I also read on another forum where this same topic was being discussed. They were saying the same thing Ron is and thats that they perform best with under 100 grains of powder. Better accuracy and better penetration.


----------



## NDTerminator

Were elk my target, I would stick with my go-to load, the 44 Cal Hornady 300 grain XTP, Harvester 50/44 Crush Rib Sabot, 100 grains loose ffg T7, and a T7 primer.

The 44 cal 300 grain XTP has a higher SD than any 45 cal of similar weight, which means better penetration all else being equal. It's a pure hunting bullet designed for penetration and terminal performance at moderate range & velocities, where the lighter polymer tipped stuff is designed for flatter trajectories first and foremost...


----------



## hagfan72

Only problem is: can't use sabots here in CO.


----------



## NDTerminator

Sorry, I didn't know that. Count your blessing though, you aren't restricted to 1X scopes or open sights...


----------



## hagfan72

Ahem, yes, we are restricted to open sights ONLY!


----------



## rasmusse

I shot a nice 500+ lb cow elk in Colorado with a 405 gr. Powerbelt HP in front of 115 grains of 777. The distance was about 100 yards and the bullet went clear through the cow, taking out both lungs. I used the heavier bullet for more penetration. Accuracy is acceptable for 100 + yards. I don't think I would try too much longer shots on elk with my muzzle loader because of the open sight restriction in Colorado.


----------



## hagfan72

I didn't realize that they made 405gr Powerbelts. Are they the aerotips or the hollowpoints?


----------



## rasmusse

The 405 gr Powerbelts I used were hollowpoints, copper plated. I have also seen 405 gr Powerbelt hollowpoints that were not plated, lead outside. My logic was that as long as I was shooting a muzzle loader at 100 yards or less, any additional velocity I would gain by using a lighter bullet, especially one under 300 grains would not off set the loss in killing power by going to the lighter bullet. Any way you cut it, a muzzel loader is not going to be a high velocity weapon unless you use the Savage with smokeless powder.

I was very happy with the power that the 405 gr Powerbelt has down range; it does have a bit of a kick at the other end though. Nothing like the .338 WM but you know you have a fairly stout load. Since I was using 777 powder, pellets are prohibited in Colorado, I did not go for the maximum 150 grain load that is possible in the T/C Encore with Pyrodex. One thing I did find out is that the Powerbelts give better accuracy if you do not clean the barrel after each shot, just fire a fouling shot and then load the rifle for the best accuracy.


----------



## hagfan72

Yeah, see i was using 150gr of loose powder on the 335gr or so sized platinum Powerbelts. I am gonna try slower velocities, like the previous posters recommended.


----------



## Hunter_58346

Are Sabots THAT Much Better than other Muzzleloading Projectiles?

By Randy Wakeman

This question comes up more often than I would have imagined. Before moving along, we have to accept that there is no such thing as a 250 grain muzzleloading projectile pushed by 100 grains of black powder that cannot kill a deer. At least to the best of my knowledge there is not. We harvest some 9,000,000 deer a year with a variety of hunting methods, and another estimated 2,000,000 deer are trashed each and every year by automobiles.

So it goes every year, and it is hard to construe the whacking of a deer as an extremely unusual or unique event. If we think so, we are just engaging in frivolous self-congratulation and are ignoring hundreds of millions of deer that have ended up in the meat locker. It is hard to build a totally ineffective 250 grain muzzleloading projectile of .44, .45, or .50 caliber, and no motivation for doing so.

One might think that at this stage of the game, with the huge body of evidence collected every year in the form of cleanly harvested game animals, there would be little room for dispute about muzzleloading reloads and bullet effectiveness. Alas, if only that were true. Most of our evidence is as far from clinical as could be imagined. Our information is more anecdotal than anything else, and the "hunting version" of an autopsy is a far cry from a scientific, medical look at terminal wounding ballistics.

It's not that we don't try-we think that the size of the hole in and perhaps out tells the story, which it doesn't. We like to think that firing into wet newspapers, soap, water, or ballistic gelatin as a "tissue simulant" can tell us can tell us the real story on terminal performance, but of course it cannot. All of these substances have no circulation, and no bones. They may give us an idea how well our bullet kills newspaper, or performs in a non-circulating boneless animal body fluid medium, but those aren't game animals, have no hides, and ignore how elastic game animals' bodies really are.

Just as we find it hard to accept that every rifle is an individual, we seem to find it difficult to accept that every game animal is an individual, and no two bullet wounds are identical. The best we can hope for is not absolutes, but trends and generalizations.

We also have a rough time accepting that "energy alone" does not kill animals, and there is no such thing as "knock-down." This physically impossible, for if the animal was truly "knocked down" by force alone the shooter would be knocked down the same way.

More recoil does not mean more lethality, or better wounding; it just means more recoil. There was a time when the size of the hole in the muzzle of a rifle was the primary factor in assessing its game getting ability, but those days are long gone. Few of us are shopping for a nice new .72 caliber rifle, rationally so.

Sabots have been around in muzzleloading for some time courtesy of Del Ramsey, and they get better all the time. They have had to, as Pyrodex is more energetic than black powder and Triple 7 even more so, burning at both higher combustion temperatures and pressures than black powder.

There is a limit as to what an unjacketed bullet can take without stripping from the rifling, and there is also a limit as to what jacketed bullets can take as well. Anti-tank guns use sabots, as the extreme tightness of the twist that would be required to stabilize these monstrous projectiles exceeds what jackets can withstand.

For today's muzzleloading hunter, there is no doubt that a saboted bullet can clearly outperform the bore-sized alternatives on a number of levels, and it most always does. The trajectory limitation of .50 caliber projectiles is clear, and the already loopy muzzleloading performance level is diminished dramatically by shooting larger, blunt, aerodynamically deficient projectiles.

A .40 to .50 caliber projectile in saboted form of equal weight and style gives you a huge benefit in trajectory making good shot placement that much easier. The bullet is not chewed up or deformed by the rifling, leaving the bore in pristine condition. Out of a muzzleloader, no jacket strength is compromised. Bullets of similar style and weight not only fly flatter, they retain more of their original muzzle velocity, which enables better expansion, better penetration, or both. Penetration, expansion, and precise shot placement all translate into faster and cleaner kills.

It is very easy for anyone to prove. Sight in a 245 grain Aerotip Powerbelt at 100 yards, then fire a group at 150 yards. Using the same charge of the same powder, fire a saboted 250 grain Barnes Spitfire TMZ the same way. The difference you see will astonish you. Sabots are exactly THAT much better.

With all this clear information, and ballistics that are easily verified by anyone, who in their right mind would settle for less? Why isn't 100% of the inline muzzleloading market shooting the best product for the job? Well, the fact of the matter is that many of us get our information from ad copy or the sweater behind the counter at the local chain store. Both may be tremendous, endless sources of bad information.

Part of the human condition is taking the path of least resistance, and most of us are a bit on the lazy side. Are our shoes too tight, or our feet too big? Can we blame a shoe manufacturer if we order the wrong size? I suppose we can, but of course we should not.

So it goes with today's muzzleloaders, where we have no universal standards. Knight, Savage, and Thompson have among the most consistent barrel bores. The Thompson's appear to run very close to .500 land to land, Savage 10ML-II's are close to .501, and Knight inline barrels are close to .502. That said, other muzzleloaders I've tested called ".50 caliber" have been from .497 to .508, yet still are called "fifty caliber."

Bullets can be .452 (Hornady), .451 (Barnes), .4515 (Sierra). These are the consistent ones; other "forty-fives" can be all over the map.

We have a one-time task ahead of us to enjoy the great benefits of saboted projectiles in our individual rifle. We must mate the individual geometry of our rifle's bore to the geometry of the bullet we wish to use, and no one can do it for us. We may luck out and have saboted bullets fit our barrels by fortuitous happenstance, but more likely to achieve easy loading coupled with the best accuracy we will need to experiment a bit. Muzzleloading is handloading, and we alone control the components.

MMP sabots offers a variety of sabots so our assembled outside diameter is where we need it. Aside from the dimensions of the bullets, the bearing surface of those bullets is also a factor. A shorter bearing surface bullet (a 250 Barnes MZ for example) will be easier to load than a 300 MZ Expander, all else being equal.

The benefits of saboted muzzleloading are huge, and there for anyone who seeks them. It does take a small amount of attention to detail for best results, as does all handloading.


----------



## hagfan72

That is all well and good, now can you convince the State of Colorado to legalize sabots? :eyeroll:


----------



## NDTerminator

hagfan72 said:


> Ahem, yes, we are restricted to open sights ONLY!


Yeesh... Sorry, my bad!...


----------



## rogerw

When it comes to terminal performance the answer can be NO. Your argument hangs on the superior exterior ballistics of saboted bullets and this is unquestionably true, but not the whole picture.

Wound ballistics has been well understood for decades in the military community.....but unfortunately not so in the popular gun press. Myths abound and pseudoscience still reigns. What many shooters and not a few writers don't understand about modern bullet construction is that the modern bullet REQUIRES MORE ENERGY to kill than older full caliber bullets simply because the energy expended to expand the bullet is subtracted from the total striking energy to get the energy leftover to create wound channel. When you hear a writer saying some minimum energy is required to kill with one type bullet, and then generalizes that same number to other types of bullets (ie, modern jacketed versus roundballs or lead conicals) beware of whatever else he says too! He flunked physics!

Failures to expand well and failures thru explosive overexpansion have multiple causes and are both commonly reported failures. One creates large cavitation with no penetration and the other penetrates without much cavitation (ie, "drills" a hole). Perhaps someday there is a "perfect" bullet out there that will perform correctly under all circumstances.....but I keep reading about many wounded and hard to track deer hit by PowerBelts and other such.

On the other hand, older full caliber bullets whether conical or roundball, arrive "ready to do business" (though still capable of also expanding if at higher striking velocity).

NDterminator told me elsewhere he is LEO with sniper training, so he will probably appreciate the FBI's' POV on sub-2000 fps bullets (excerpted from the FBI's intense study after fatal ballistic failures in the infamous Miami Shootout):

"Bullet selection should be based on penetration first, and the unexpanded diameter of the bullet second...."

That, dear friends, is a a terminal ballistics argument for the older style of bullet from people who know. If you limit your range to that which accomodates the trajectory and your aiming skills, you will maximize your killing power. If you enjoy emphasizing the hunting aspect as much as the technical shooting skills, you will appreciate the outcome that much more.

It turns out that ideally a bullet will have a large base to push on in the breech (interior ballistics, pressure times base area = force to accelerate to MV) and a small caliber in the air (exterior ballistics, allowing higher ballistic coefficient) and a large striking surface when it hits the soft target media to create sufficient cavitation consistent with adequate penetration, terminal ballistics. A sabot does all this IF and only IF it expands well and retains sufficient momentum after expansion.

Everyone may make their own judgement...but I like the FBI's point about larger diameter bullets.

Good hunting!

YHS,
rogerw


----------



## NDTerminator

I'll translate. What Roger is saying in his rather long winded fashion ( :beer: ) is that to do it's job it's most important that a bullet penetrate far enough to put a hole through the vitals. I concur. See Rog, we agree on at least one thing! :rollin:

When talking ML or big bore smokeless velocities, I'm a fan of big bullets  at fairly close range (not round balls unless the shot is held to well under 50 yards) for big game.

As I said have a lot of confidence in the 300 grain 44 cal XTP on up to elk sized critters, but I would be quite content with a good hardcast lead bullet of similar weight and sabot.

For what it's worth to you,when I shot a 54 Hawkens my favorite bullets were the 430 grain T/C Maxie Ball and 435 grain Maxie Hunter. I always figured these were best held to under 100 yards and preferably half of that.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Thanks guys, this is pretty much what the testing found with to high a velocity in most bullets being shot through ML.


----------



## rogerw

Well now, this is progress....I actually detect two things we may agree on:

1) adequate penetration is the single most important attribute of terminal ballistic performance, and,
2) I am long-winded.

But I actually was trying to say more than just penetration. If that was the only important thing, we could all shoot FMJ ammo (or somesuch).

Any hit that is not to the central nervous system depends on bleedout to kill. Bleedout depends on bleeding area. Therefore cavitation is also important (the wound diameter) and cavitation diameter times penetration depth equals the total bleeding surface.

Larger striking area is provided by a larger diameter bullet and guarantees a larger cavitation diameter of wound even if expansion fails and is therefore a desirable choice for terminal ballistics.

This is all common sense, of course, but I think it is extremely under-appreciated that within its range, a roundball is a consistent killer because it follows these same generalities. And anecdotally it is hard for me to see that claims to the contrary (they do abound) are any more significant than claims of modern bullets failures to perform correctly (which also seem to abound). Hard data, howevver, is non-existent so I can only stake this claim on the underlying physics and personal and shared anecdotal experience.

Thank you, NDT.

YHS,
rogerw


----------



## barebackjack

The first few animals I claimed with a round ball amazed me. Complete pass through shots, at ranges from 25 yards to 110. This was with a .535 ball weighing 230 grains, +/- a grain or two. All vital area shots, only one contacted heavy bone other than a rib.

Ive read in several sources that the lead rounball defies the laws of physics, I never cared for physics to much, so havent looked into it further, all I know is they work, and why fix it if it aint broke.

I fiddled with buffalo bullets and maxi-balls, a combination of poorer groups compared to the rounball and being a pain in the arse to load led me to stick with roundballs.

When I finish my fowler, im gonna play around with buck n ball loads, heh heh heh  .


----------



## rogerw

barebackjack said:


> Ive read in several sources that the lead rounball defies the laws of physics,....


Not a totally incorrect prescription in the modern context: Modern bullets REQUIRE more striking energy than roundball to create similar woundtracks, and for this simple reason it can SEEM like they defy physics (that is, based on expectations created by the context of modern bullets).

YHS
rogerw


----------



## NDTerminator

rogerw said:


> Well now, this is progress


Yes, you made your point with less than 3000 words...  Gotta remember your audience here, ND is a state with a deer herd roughly twice the size of it's human population. We're too rural for verbosity...

I believe the regs against FMJ stuff for big game are based more on safety than lethality. When they hit bone, those bone shards and fragments grenade through the target with the same velocity at which they are struck. Solids/FMJ (which aren't always the same thing) kill just fine as long as they ares placed correctly.

In my experience if you haven't got velocity going for you (say 2500FPS or more at the muzzle) then you need bullet weight (preferably a big mother of 300+ grains) with a wide frontal area to displace tissue & create that wound channel. This lands squarely in the performance envelope of most all ML rifles.

Then a person has to take the target animal into consideration. Of the big game I've taken over the years, goats (local slang for pronghorns, Roger)
require the least persuasion, followed by moose, mule deer, whitetail, and elk. I'm always amazed that despite their size how little killing moose require, and how impressively tough elk are.

I'm a big proponent of tailoring the load & rifle to the target animal and as such I have a safe full of centerfire rifles. But like most guys I know, only one ML. That being the case and that deer are my primary ML target, my primary load is tailored for that critter. Were my ML target elk or moose, I would go with a big hardcast for it's penetration.

I understand Harvester is making some 45 caliber/designed for sabot hardcast ML bullets with a big meplat (frontal area) specifically designed for penetration on tough/dangerous game. If I were going after elk or moose, I would sure give these bullets a try...


----------



## rogerw

NDT,

I agree your point on big solids with significant meplat.

Wound diameter (cavitation) is a function of meplat area and striking velocity.

Penetration is a function of mass and velocity (or momentum), and inversely proportional to meplat (non-deforming).

When the two are multiplied together, the total wound volume becomes a function only of mass and velocity squared (meplat cancels out), or energy (this is only strictly true in ballistic media without bones, etc). It is very representative of the usual heart/lung shot. Maximum bleedout in those organs is the mechanism of killing the central nervous system (CNS).

But as the FBI (and experience) points out, energy without meplat (or succesful expansion) is not good for quick kill.

When I said FMJ, I was thinking of a .30cal military so-called ball ammo, which is no meplat at all. If you do not hit CNS or significant bone (and secondary impacts hit CNS) you may easily not get fast enough bleedout to incapacitate a wild animal in less than 10secs.

We have all seen authors claim a certain energy requirement to kill cleanly. This number cannot be divorced from the bullet construction, and will vary for differnt types of bullets.

Still struggling with verbositiy..... 

YHS,
rogerw


----------



## hagfan72

On a side note, regarding FMJ ammo in military applications: Geneva Convention rules dictate the use of ball ammo. However, the benefit of using ball ammo is that you are not trying to KILL the one you are shooting at, rather, you are trying to wound him. Wounded enemy combatants utilize many more resources than a corpse. Secondly, over penetration/collateral damage is desireable in a combat scenario.


----------



## Savage260

On one of the other sections, hot topics I think it was, a person asked why do you come to this forum. This conversation over the last few days is exactly why I come here. I have not been in front of a computer screen with an encyclopedia, and a college text book or two on my lap in about 10 years. I have learned more just reading this one thread than I have in a few years of trying to learn on my own. Thanks to all who contribute to my "higher" education.

No, I am not sending out checks to pay for tuition.


----------



## NDTerminator

rogerwStill struggling with verbositiy..... :o
YHS said:


> Just joshin' you, pard.
> 
> My 18.5" barrelled Guide Gun in 45-70 is a prime example. My favorite handload chronographs 1900FPS with a Hornady 350 grain RN. This jacketed pumpkin-ball simply doesn't expand at 45-70 velocities but inside of 100 yards and preferably half of that, this rifle/load combo kills all out of proportion to what a guy might think. The only thing in the safe that approaches it is my 338 Mag, which does the job in a different fashion.
> 
> I think we all forgot to mention that range is critical with big, blunt projectiles at ML/moderate velocities. They shed velocity fast, so a guy is ill advised to stretch the barrel...


----------



## rogerw

NDTerminator said:


> kills all out of proportion to what a guy might think. The only thing in the safe that approaches it is my 338 Mag, which does the job in a different fashion."
> 
> 
> 
> This is a pretty good illustration of my point, even though the .45-70 is a cartridge gun, because its ballistics are representative of big massive muzzleloading bullets with a blackpowder load. The 338 mag will arrive with beaucoup more energy, but the wound channels, I trust, can be quite similar.
> 
> A modern spire point boat-tailed and high BC bullet will require MORE energy to create the same wound channel because it critically relies on expansion and that absorbs energy to the bullet. I have some ideas on how to quantify this experimentally, but I do not yet have the means to do it. But I do think we would be surprised how much more energy is required by the expanding bullelt than by the bullet with significant meplat and non-deforming by design. Calculations are not accurate here, it would be critically dependent on bullet construction and there are many variations....but 25% to 75% energy dissipatd IN THE BULLET is a range that has been advanced in one source I read. That would mean it might take only 500fpe to kill cleanly with a big ML bullet where a modern bullet might take 1000fpe (one of those common numbers we have been given by gun writers). So, it is good that the modern has the high BC, cause it needs to arrive with more velocity/energy. This is why roundballs, within their range, can be consistent killers with far less energy.
> 
> Many of you will remember that we used to read a lot about "What is more important, Energy or Momentum?" Well the physicists said it has to be energy, because only energy can do work, and rearranging the body tissue of a reluctant participant is work. But then there were these slow lumbering projectiles that seemed to do the job just fine, if not sometimes better, and were much lower on energy.....therefore many reasoned, it must be momentum instead of energy that matters since the big bullets have high momentum.
> 
> Well,......both matter. A non-deforming big bore bullet merely uses its energy budget more frugally on the animal instead of itself. And bullet construction cannot be ignored. And if a HP bullet explosively overexpands (develops a large meplat, so to speak, from too much velocity) it will not penetrate well, though the cavitation might be huge, commensurate with the energy dissipated. And if a SP bullet fails to expand, from lower velocity, with no meplat it will drill a hole. Same total energy, unless it exits of course. Bullet construction is as paramount as anything, and expanding bullets must strike in their speed range. The FBI preference for large caliber in sub-1500fps range (all pistols) reflects a dis-trust in reliability of expanding bullets in that speed regime - same/similar as ML.
> 
> YHS,
> rogerw
Click to expand...


----------

