I love my powerbelt bullets. They load easy they shoot accuratel. I have put three of them in a 1 inch circle at a 150 yards with my CVA Hunterbolt. They in my opinion are the best projectile you can buy.

I don't have the choice of a sabot in Colorado. I am trying to decide between the Colorado conical and the 460 grain no excuses. Experiences on terminal efects on elk? I like the colorado conicals, but worry the HP design might be a problem with elk sized critters? thanks.

txhunter58 said:

"I like the colorado conicals, but worry the HP design might be a problem with elk sized critters?"

Precision makes a solid point semi-spitzer in 430 grain and solid-point 450 Keith nose (a flat nose). The Semi-spitzer has good ballistics. Personally, I think once you get above 400 grains, you're gonna get enough penetration on elk even with a hollowpoint. Even so, I won't use hollow points on elk.

This is my opinion, so it may not be worth much, but, if I were going to use a flat nose on elk, I would use the 460 great plains by hornady and save some money (30 cents each). Want better flight? Colorado Conical semi-spitzer in 430 grain.

Phil

txhunter58

The 460 is a great conical if you have to use a conical - Rosko indicates that most Colorado hunters are using the heavier PowerBelts.

I personally am also not as concerned about the hollow point on elk, Barnes has proven that the HP works just fine. One of my hunting partners using them and they work great, he really wants me to change but I am resiting. I would like to say I have proven the hollow points work with the Nosler partitions I shoot but they are Protected Points because I use the 300 grain .458 (45-70) rifle bullets.AlsoI know here in Idaho there have also been a lot Elk taken with Hornady XTP's - but for me I want to insured penetration thats why I use the .458 Nosler.

Cayugad introduced me to 460's last year sometime and up to the that time I would have chosen PowerBelts for a full bore conical if had to shoot one- but after running the ballistic and shooting a few of them and seeing his results they probably would be my second choice.

Pglasgowhas some really good points about the full bore conicals. We, he and I, are both fishing just trying to justify our of bullets. it really comes down to our personal choices - I'm a stubborn swede and he is a non-budging scottsman

I'll throw him one more hook and barb - if coniclas are so darn good and that much better than copper clad bullets;how come we are not shooting them in these modern days and modern guns? We could load them into cartridges...

Sabotloader said:

Pglasgowhas some really good points about the full bore conicals, we, he and I are both fishing just trying to justify our of bullets.

Let me start by saying that I am giggling at the moment. I really do like the way we share our beloved muzzleloading experiences here. Always in good humor. Let me say that I don't feel that sabotloader needs to justify his bullet, nor do I the bullet I use. Sabotloader has done what every responsible muzzleloader should do. He has found a load which has the performance he desires and is fully capable of taking the game he is hunting for. My hat is off, I am proud to consider sabotloader a comrade in muzzleloading arms.

Let mealso saythat I live in Colorado. I want to leave my sights set for muzzleloading season, even when i hunt with my muzzleloader during regular gun season. Sabotsthen, really aren'tan option for me. Even so, I would still choose full bore conicals for Elk. Here is why.

1. More muzzle energy can be taken from a powder charge. My elk hunting load IS no more than90 grains of RS.

2. The bullets in heavier weights have good ballistics retaining this energy downrange.

3. I like the expansive qualities of solid point pure lead conicals for carving a deep and deadly wound channel in big game.

I would like to think that the Colorado DOW actually cares that Elk are taken during muzzleloading season with effective bullets.

I'll throw him one more hook and barb - if coniclas are so darn good and that much better than copper clad bullets;how come we are not shooting them in these modern days and modern guns? We could load them into cartridges...

Allow me to answer this in a round about way. The advent of smokeless powder meant that higher velocities were possible within the pressure limitations of the steel which our modern centerfire rifles are constructed from. But at these velocities, a pure lead bullet literally deforms in flight (above 2150 fps or so) and comes to pieces on impact with game. So a copper-jacket is necessary to inhibit the deformation of the bullet in flight and to control its expansion while penetrating game.

The blackpowder rifle is not a high-velocity small bore rifle. It is large bore operating at a fraction of the pressure of its modern small bore relatives. It needs a bullet designed to expand at lower velocities. The pure lead conical serves this purpose very, very, well.

I made this point in another post. The pinnacle of the art of blackpowder was achieved in the buffalo cartridge rifle. I am sorry, but I just can't agree that a sabot with light copper-jacketed bullet would have improved the 45/70 government as long as it is loaded with black powder. I think big bores and heavy conicals go together when using black powder andgoing after Elk-sized (or buffalo sized game).

Happy Hunting, Phil

Hey txhunter58 I live in CO and just started out working up a new load yesterday. It is a 370gr. T/C Maxiball conical over 85gr. Pyrodex P with a Remington Kleenbore 209 primer out of my CVA Kodiak inline. It is probably the most accurate load to date and am fully confident it will take and elk. I have not taken an elk yet but have been trying for a couple of years. Hope this helps.

p.s. didn't mean to hijack the thread. sorry

Interesting. But it seems to me that among MLhunters of the 19th Century, there were some who insisted that a big round ball was actually more deadly on big, dangerous game than a conical of the same diameter. One that comes to mind right away is Sir Samuel Baker, who used a 2-bore for elephant, and thoght that the 1/2 pound mercury-hardened lead RBkilled better than a conical of nearly twice the weight fired from the same gun......

WOW. A 3500 grain roundball and a 7000 grain conical. Maybe the extra 3500 grain in the cannon of a musketis a bit too much. Perhaps the question to ask is, given the choice, would a General in the 19th centurywant his troops equipped with roundballs or miniballs. If I were a general in the 19th century (saya civil war general), I certainly know which I would choose.

Stay clear of any 1/2lb. roundballs, they are murderous things.

Happy hunting, Phil

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 said:

On the controversy between the effectiveness of the big lead conicals and the modern sabot bullets . . .

For my part, I have not questioned the effectiveness of modern sabot bullets. Not once. I have tried to correct, what is in my opinion, a misrepresentation of the big lead conical. Each is, what it is, and each has its purpose and benefits. There is no need to stand on a soap box discouraging people not use either for purposes they are sufficiently suited for. Wouldn't you agree?

Roskoe also said:

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.

This is a good point that you are making and I am not surprised. I think you would agree that I didn't discourage the use of 444 gr. powerbelts. I do recall writing.

"Light hollow-pointed bullets (.50 cal. 295 gr.and less) are inadquate, in my opinion, for providing sufficient pentration to vital organsWHENbone must be shattered first."

I also wrote this:

"Personally, I think once you get above 400 grains, you're gonna get enough penetration on elk even with a hollowpoint."

Roscoe also said:

". . .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"

I would not argue against that one bit. I do respect your preference. Now if I reiterate the point thatone must use 67% more powder to get "just as good as" terminal performance as the big conical, I just don't think that I am stirring controversy about the performance or effectiveness of your beloved load. I'm just noting a cost of choosing that load. I've been more than willing to embrace the deficiencies of big conicals, e.g. heavy recoil, and curving trajectories. Wouldn't you agree that I have been fair in that regard?

I've said this earlier:

"What I really love about the muzzleloader, is that it becomes a personal rifle. In that sense, it is a part of the hunter unlike no other rifle. When one considers all the options available to us and how we custom fit our loads to fit our particular hunting situations and preferences, no other hunting firearm gives us such flexibility. What a great sport we have."

I just don't understand why any of my statements are beingdescribed as controversial. When I first posted to this thread, I didn't know there was an agenda to discredit the "effectiveness" of any bullet. That came out much later. If any thing, I hope that maybe, I provided a different perspective, giving more things to consider, than otherwise would have been. So any who read it can take from the thread whatever they will. Varying perspectives are good, i think. After all, we don't think in a box. Wouldn't you agree?

Happy Hunting, Phil