# Powerbelt conflict



## sdeprie

I have heard conflicting reports on powerbelts. On one hand, they are easy to load, accurate, good performance, etc On the other hand, some say they are liable to slide down the barrel and creat a pocket around the powder because they are not tight enough, or even, heaven forbid, get pushed down the barrle a little just from the ignition of the 209 primer, especially magnum primers. Any thoughts. I really like to use full bore size bullets (vs sabots) and even go to the length of pouring my own conicals, but that's so labor/space/time (all limited for me, right now) intensive. Besides, loading a conical bullet that was too hard is what broke my ramrod, which resulted in not finishing my range time which resulted in my shooting over the deer. :-? So, I would like to know what you guys think.


----------



## Sasha and Abby

Powerbelt bullets, manufactured by Big Bore Express, have been around for a long time now. They were known as "Black Belt Bullets," available in plain lead versions as well as with a thin copper-wash, as thin a copper plating as you may have seen on some .22 rimfire bullets.

CVA may offer some questionable guns, but what this Spanish owned importer does have an affinity for is loud, hyperbole driven marketing. CVA / BPI / Winchester Muzzleloading / New Frontier Muzzleloading rifles all come from the same inferior source. But "Powerbelt" bullets are made in Idaho.

Contrary to what the ads say about CVA Powerbelts, they are not the "most advanced" muzzleloading bullets. They are also not the "hardest hitting," nor do they have "all of the advantages of sabots."

The fact of the matter is, ballistically, bore sized projectiles are the very worst muzzleloading projectiles available. Comparing a .452 or .452 saboted pistol bullet to a "fifty caliber" bore-sized conical makes even the poorest pistol bullet look like a shooting powerhouse. It is fundamental that when comparing projectiles of similar weight and shape, the smaller caliber bullet is always superior in sectional density and almost always superior in ballistic coefficient. In other words, it flies better and penetrates deeper, losing less of its terminal striking force than a bore sized bullet.

Far from advanced, the Powerbelt is merely a pure lead conical. It is old wine in a new bottle, doing very little that the Minie balls of the Civil War did not do. The lighter versions do less.

Pure lead can be scratched with your fingernail; drop a Powerbelt and it easily dents. Powerbelts, like all lead conicals, shorten and belly out upon firing. Powerbelts shoot exactly the same whether the green hula hoop skirt is attached or detached.

They are simply slip fit conicals. Their sole benefit being that they need no messy lubrication of Crisco or other bullet lube, as the copper plating takes care of that. Unfortunately the better selling, lighter Powerbelts (245 and 295 grain) are the worst performers on game. The 348, 405, and 444 grain bullets are far more effective.

Powerbelts work best at moderate velocities and ranges. Doc White has extolled the virtues of heavy pure lead conicals for many years. What they do best is expand well at relatively low impact velocity, and they hardly need a hollow point (or a plastic "Aerotip" shoved into that hollow point) to initiate expansion. But, muzzleloading marketing being what it is, things seem to sell well if brightly and colorfully packaged--and you don't mind lying a bit.

Their primary benefit is easy loading. Otherwise, these overpriced and ballistically inferior slugs wouldn't have much sales appeal.

The 405 and 444 grain renditions are easily the better bullets, doing their best work with loose powder. Unfortunately, CVA barrels are not rated for bullets this heavy. It is unwise to use heavy conicals in a muzzleloader with an extruded barreled. They are better reserved for use in frontloaders with high quality barrels, such as Knight, Thompson, and Savage.

The facts speak for themselves. From any ballistic performance standpoint, Powerbelts make Hornady XTPs and Barnes MZ-Expanders in MMP sabots look like God's gift to muzzleloading. The day of the deer-crippling round ball has come and gone. Now, with the advent of Triple 7 and other high-energy propellants, the dismal trajectories of conicals means that their days as popular hunting projectiles are probably numbered.

It is only fair to note that, for "honey-hole" or "boiler room" shots on deer inside 120 yards, the 348 and 405 grain bullets have done well, and have given acceptable field accuracy in Austin & Halleck, Knight, and Savage muzzleloaders with 100 grains of T7 FFg loose powder. Where sabots are not an option, the 348 and 405 grain Powerbelts have a good track record when used within their limitations.

Are Sabots THAT Much Better than other Muzzleloading Projectiles?

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.

One opinion.


----------



## nmubowyer

theyre much easier to load than sabots, not the best accuracy, but i did get a grouping of 2 ragged holes at 40 yrds leanin against a tree this morning, but thats not that far and the best ive ever had em shoot so take it for what its worth, and it was a dirty bore


----------



## sdeprie

Sasha and Abby, while I do appreciate your response, I have limited time at work to read my e-mail. If you could condense that to about 1/10 that long, I would like to read it. I did skim and didn't think I had asked anything about CVA. I actually have a CVA Kodiak, and while I'm not prepared to make a blanket statement that it's the best gun in the world, I have complete confidence in it and its' safety. By complete accident I loaded it numerous times with 200 gr T 7 with a 300+ gr bullet. I won't do it again, but it fired this load several times without any apparent damage and indeed, had its' best group, at under 1" at 100 yds. I understand the difference in ballistics with a smaller bore/higher ballistic coefficient bullet. One reason I love my .58 is because it makes a bigger hole. My main concern is whether or not Powerbelts might create a pocket by liding away from the powder.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Most issues with bullet slippage in ML is due to poor quality control on bore size period. I have owned three various brands and only one the Thompson made had a true 50 cal bore. While accuracy was not so much an issue, all it took to get rid of the others was that single time the slug had moved.While I never had a barrel rupture or other calamities that have occurred when this happens. The shot and recoil punch was enough to scare the heck out of me.

A lot of guys that hunted with them in WI would always check the seating of the bullet once they where in their tree stand. Most of them would not carry ML when doing drives. Preferring to go back to shotgun and slugs because of the possibility of bullet slippage. Now I am told that in the newer models with Spanish barrels, I have been told the tolerance is much better. I would only buy one after checking the bore.


----------



## Plainsman

I have not fired my rifle with a powerbelt that has moved forward in the barrel, but twice I have found the bullet three to four inches ahead of the powder charge. Once I bumped a log with the muzzle and immediately checked the position of the bullet. It had slid forward a few inches. The second time I don't know what happened. I found myself checking it often after the first occurrence, and after finding the second I just gave up on that bullet. 
The reason I checked the first time is because I was concerned with the ease of loading. It took nearly no force to push the bullet down the barrel. Another thing I found was that the bullet was separating from the plastic base. If I tapped lightly with a rubber mallet while holding the muzzle down the bullet would come out, but the base stayed in. In that one experiment I pushed the ram rod down the bore and the base was still against the powder charge. If the base is holding the powder tight and there is a good ignition with the bullet inches ahead I don't want to be close to the guy pulling the trigger.
Keep in mind this was years ago. As a matter of fact it was the year the bullet came out, and they may have improved it.


----------



## sdeprie

Sounds too dangerous for me, since I am such a klutz I'm always falling down. I like to mold my own and have an excellent Lee mold for an improved conical, something like 400 grains, if my memory is correct (and it seldom is.) I think I'll shoot my own loads. Now, to get some pure lead. Any ideas?


----------



## rogerw

Sasha and Abby said:


> Powerbelt bullets, manufactured by Big Bore Express, have been around for a long time now. etc&etc&etc. One opinion.


Wow. For one opinion there was a lot there to disagree with. I will only pick one:

There actually is a large body of documentation on the "medical look at terminal wounding ballistics." Much of it came from the US Army BRL/ARL/ARDEC labs and it has been borrowed by such as the FBI and adapted to LEO requirements. The sporting community is largely (but not totally) unknowlegeable about the physics of wounding because the truth does not sell the new bullets or guns so well, and as you say, many continue to use metrics of efffectiveness that are not based in physics.

One of the things that occurs over and over again in this literature is something you said, that "..."energy alone" does not kill animals..." but a corollary of that fact is that a BIG slow moving slug (with much less energy) does not give up much of anything in terminal ballistics to a smaller faster higher energy pill when it comes to killing. In fact, depending on particulars it may be MORE effective. Depending, of course....but what that REALLY means that general statements about how one is always superior to the other is WRONG, and that is my real point.

YHS,
rogerw

PS - when it comes to wounding, penetration is the first thing; big hole is the second thing. It does not matter how you make it, if you make it long and big. And big slow moving slugs can make it. big long holes that is, thru bone and whatnot. What they do not make is big bucks for ammo makers, nor do they shoot flat to 200yds.


----------



## sdeprie

I like big and slow (probably because I resemble that  ), and my eyesight isn't that great out to 200 yards, so big and slow works for me. My first deer was with a 12 ga muzzleloader. Talk about big and slow. I can actually mold pure lead conicals heavier than any of the Powerbelts, anyway, so I think I'll go that route.


----------



## nmubowyer

sorry to hijack but, sdeprie where is your shot placement with the big slow conicals, ive never hunted with em, but plan on it this coming season and heard blowing out the shoulders is the way to go, is that true?


----------



## honkerslayr

I ow a CVA optima in .45, and use the power-bely's. To this dayafter about 3 years, I've never personally had a problem with them to be honest. And can't say anything bad about them. I also have gotten decent groups with then at about 100 yds which is the max. range i will shoot. But to each their own i guess. I'm not arguing with people who have had bad or not so good experiences with them. I agree with them also. I guess the only way to see is to try them out, I did and don't really regret it.


----------



## alleyyooper

Here is a couple links to some power belt test. The fellow who did the testing says people drive them to hard.

http://www.huntingnet.com/forum/tm.aspx?m=2758267

http://www.powerbeltbullets.com/trophyden.html

http://www.powerbeltbullets.com/trophyden2.html

Were it me i would buy Bull shop conicals fitted for my bore.

 Al


----------



## sdeprie

I haven't shot them much, yet. I'm in the process of moving, so all of my mold equipment is packed up. The ones I did shoot were not pure lead, but wheelweight lead, which is too hard for muzzleloaders. They were extremely hard to load and one even got stuck halfway down the barrel, resulting in a broken ramrod and a really irritated shooter.  The few that I shot were a great group, but low (3-4 inches) at 100 yards. The sabots were shooting high (about 8 inches). So, I have more time at the range planned (with a new range rod).


----------



## yooper77

I have a stock pile of lubed 50 caliber T/C Maxi-ball bullets. Since the rise of reloading components I started making own 50 caliber bullets from true T/C brand maxi-hunter mold and Lyman maxi-ball mold. I also make my own 50 caliber round ball from my RCBS .490 mold. I use T/C bore butter for everything and .015" pillow ticking patches.

I have tried sabots in my 15" Encore 209x50 pistol barrel and my T/C Treehawk, because these have a fast rifling twist rate.

Since the sabots work pretty well for these guns, I am going to cast some bullets for my sabots instead of buying them. Now I can use harder lead for these. All I need to buy then is some bulk sabots, pellets or loose powder and 209 primers for the Encore.

Yooper77


----------



## Stu_Loves_His_GSP

I have a white. They say to use true bore. Tumbles. all loads. tried powerbelts, prefect. How do I get ramrod ends that wont hurt powerbelts for white ramrods.


----------

