HuntingNet.com Forums - View Single Post - Another -> PowderBelt Question
View Single Post
Old 01-08-2006 | 10:38 AM
  #29  
Roskoe's Avatar
Roskoe
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,127
Likes: 0
From: Colorado
Default RE: Another -> PowderBelt Question

What an interesting thread this is turning out to be. Back in post #9, pglasglow indicated that all Powerbelts were hollowpoints. They make a 444 gr. flatpoint in .50 caliber. I have tested them on paper and in wet phone books. Perform very similar to other big lead conicals - moderate controlled expansion and great penetration. Like other Powerbelts, good accuracy at moderate velocities.

On the controversy between the effectiveness of the big lead conicals and the modern sabot bullets, I use both for elk. Hunt in Colorado's muzzleloading season, Colorado rifle seasons, and also inNew Mexico. Have one rifle set up just for my Coloradolegal load (410 Hornady); and another scoped rifle just for sabots (250 Shockwaves). They both have their merits -but the Shockwave (with 130 grains of Pyrodex pellets) is more accurate, shoots flatter, and delivers just as good of terminal performance as the big conical. And the discussions within the Colorado Division of Wildlife that eventually banned the sabot/pellet loads were centered around performance issues. They allow us to hunt elk with our smokepoles during the peak of the rut, and want the weaponry to remain fairly primitive.

Although I enjoy hunting with the big conicals in September, if they lifted the ban I would probably go to the Shockwaves and not look back. My personal two cents worth . . . .
Roskoe is offline  
Reply