sabotloader

Randy W. just wrote a really good post over on another board about ML's being compared to magnum centerfires.

The article promted me to do ballistic comparisons on:

http://www.handloads.com/calc/index.html

so what I did was grab my Speer reloading manual and looked up the infomation on a 30-30 Winchester - ran those numbers through the ballistic calculator then fed in the numbers I have for a 45 cal 250 grain bullet from the A&H... surprised the numbers are really close you can make a case that the 30-30 is superior to a 50 cal inline or just the opposit. I would venture to say that there is a lot of people out there that would believe their inline much more powerful than a 30-30. At least a lot of ML companies want us to believe it, and I guess I certainly wanted to. I know a 150 grain charge would up these numbers a bit, but the Law of Deminishing Returns also catches up with you very fast.

well, anyway here is the comparison:





I did not plug in xwinds which really have a drastic effect on big ML bullets..

Roskoe

There was a similar comparison made a few years ago, before the Colorado Wildlife Commission, as to why sabots and pellets should be outlawed in the regular muzzleloading season. They were primarily concerned with elk and the current season structure that allows muzzleloading hunters to engage them at the peak of the rut.

If you run the numbers with loads in the 2,000 plus fps muzzle velocity, the .50 caliber looks real good compared to the .30-30. Particularly with spitzer bullets like the T/C Shockwave, that has a ballistic coefficient about as high as the 150 grain .30-30 bullet.

sabotloader

Roskoe

Ok I ran the 250 with your velocity and BC - it looks to me that is it somewhat hotter the the 30-30, definitey more energy - but look at total drop and time in flight. The ML drops a little farther take just a bit longe to get there. Other than energy certainly nothing to write home about. And again this is not computing in wind drift which is really significant with a ML.

I still feel people that believe that inlines, other than the Savage - smokeless or maybe the Ultimate, are as mighty as center fires are off base.

What if you compared a .270 or a 30-06 there would be a significant difference between them and a ML




[align=center][/align]

cayugad

I read Randy's post where he showed a comparison to a 7mm Magnum I believe it was. All too often we hear of a inline rifle compared to a modern Center Fire rifle. I never believed the argument then nor do I believe it now. I shot too many high power center fire rifles to even start to claim they are similar.

Roskoe

No question that thehighest performingmuzzleloading loads are still moderate range prospects at best. 200 to 250 yards absolute maximum, IMO. The knockdown that they have within this range has always been pretty impressive. I shot an elk in 2003 with a Barnes 250 Expander, at a ranged 211 yards, and it literally dropped in its tracks. Wouldn't have even attempted that shot with a .30-30; even though, from a trajectory standpoint, I'm sure I could have hit the vitals.

sabotloader

Roskoe

200 yards for an '06 at an elk - nothing to it if you can shoot at 200 yards. A 180 grain bullet from an '06 has 2046 ft lbs of energy - that sounds more than adequate - never shot an elk that far with a '06. But I have with a 270 and that really is not a problem. A 150 grain .277 still has 2106 ft. lbs of energy and shoots flatter. The ML has 1244 ft. lbs of energy.

Both of these guns far outdo the ML and they are not even considered by a lot of people a the gun of choice - Mags are the choice.

The ML can not be compared modern day centerfire big game rifles.

Roskoe

I would agree that the "big bullet - modest velocity" guns of yesteryear cannot compare with today's high performance centerfire rifles. But the comparison is primarily related to the bullets travel from the muzzle to the animal, though. Once the bullet hits the vitals of a big game animal, it has been my experience that big bullets kill a lot better than their foot-pounds of energy figures would suggest.

Imagine the buffalo hunters of the late 1800's shooting these2,000 lb.beasts at 500 yards with abig lead bullet that only left the muzzle at 1200 fps. I'm not sure what the remaining energy is at 400 or 500 yards; but those big old bison were stacked up like cord wood with rifles in this peformance class. And bison are an animal that is known to scoff at a center chest hit with a 7 Rem Mag - look at the hunter as if to say "is that all you got?" Something to think about . . . .

little-d

way out there the ml bullet is outdone by the modern rifle in most folks hands but in the hands of a very experienced shooter such as the bison hunters of yesteryears and a small handfull of todays shooters armed with the sharps or other guns I would not to be a game animal and stand still at any range. The omega i have, loaded with 150gr of loose 777 and a 45 cal.(451.)
230 gr.xtp hollowpoint and a black mmp sabot only drops 15 in at 200 yards.

eldeguello

Roskoe is absolutely correct about this. Although not a whole lot of buffalo shot with the old Sharps and Remington rifles just hit the ground and never moved again when those big ol' heavy bullets hit them, they usually didn't go very far, either.

I agree that "foot-pounds of energy" doesn't really do much to predict how well a bullet will kill something. As far as I have been able to determine, there really is no mathematical gyrations you can perform to find this out, either. The only really valid way of finding this out is by shooting things! And in this day & age, very few of us get the chance to shoot enough game to develop valid observations. Only people acting as professional hbunters or guides sget towitness enough game being killed to really learn much-guys like Les Bowman and Bob Hagel, for example. And even in this group, there aren't a lot of keen observers who pay enough attention to wound channels, bullet performance, etc., to form valid opinions!