Another -> PowderBelt Question
 

I am trying to get an a couple answers and I am tryingto be dipolmatic about the approach to the question. The question(s) only apply to those of your that use a 50 cal ML because I can not back up my thoughts for the use in a 54 or a 45 caliber barrel. Also those of you that live in states that require full bore projectiles - you are out of the equation.

Question #1 - How many of you use PowerBelts because of the ease of loading?

Question #2 - How many of you use PowerBelts because of the ease of loading the follow-up shots... (when you do not have time to run a damp patch)?

Question #3 - How many of you use PowerBelts because of their performance, both down range and their peformance on bringing the animal down?

Again I am not trying to generate a controversy - but a conversation because I feel that most of the people using PB's are using them because of the ease of loading.

Now for my personal feelings - We are able to use sabots in Idaho - if we were not I would probably be using PowerBelts. I feel a PowerBelt is nothing more than an elongated round ball. A round ball with with better ballistics, better ballistics and sometimes a very thin electroplated copper cover or even with a Polymere tip.

I honesty do not no what this proves or if it proves anything: but in my wood shop one day I placed a copper coated 295 PB in the vice and squeezed it - soft really soft -squeezed right down. Then I put one in the vice and cut it in half with a 24 tooth hack - piece of cake, I really believe I could have cut through it with a razor blade knife. I then ran the same experiments on a 300 grain XTP - there was a world of difference in which bullet appeared to be the strongest.

Like someone has said so often "you either love them or hate 'em"

Just thought I would vent a little...

Please remember one of the great things about America - is choice and it is your choice. i am just wondering

RE: Another -> PowderBelt Question
 

Sabotloader,
You need to add another reason for shooting Power Belts....."accuracy"
The consistant accuracy I canachieve whileshooting themin a widerange of rifle twists, powdersand powder charges makes it a good choice in my books.
I do not remember ever needing a quick 2nd shot while hunting, so the ease of loading a 2nd shot means almost nothing to me. I want accuracy and a bullet that will humanely harvest the game I'm hunting. I'm not saying that PB's are my #1 choice, but I do like them.
If I was hunting animals thicker skinned than deer, I would opt for another bullet.
My #1 pick of the litter would probably be the Barnes Spit Fires 285gr.

RE: Another -> PowderBelt Question
 

ENCOREMAN

Thank you for your reply. I guess I assume you are shooting an Encore?

Hunting accuracy of the bullet has never really been a question. Their accuracy for the most part has always been there - I do often question their performance on animals. And I should qualify that also by saying I think in the hands of an experianced user they will perform as you suggest.

My hunuting partner uses them in his 54 hawkin and he has learned to use them - at first, when he began it was pretty messy and pretty brutal. He made shots that I believe should have done the job but didn't, various reasons the bullet blew up, it passed through without expanding, got caught in a major bone, etc - now he is more particular about range and location.

Again thanks...

RE: Another -> PowderBelt Question
 

i do not have personal experiance with pb's yet but an uncle of mine showed me his target thathe used 2 check the zero on his cva optima pro 50.cal an his 3 shot group was under 2 inches and with50.cal size holes id say thats pretty good he was using 150 grains of 777 i think

RE: Another -> PowderBelt Question
 

Sabotloader,
I did like the "squeeze vice test" you did. You must have more $$ than I do, cuz I can't afford to squeeze them in a vice:D I just wanna shoot them....LOL
"Yes I do" shootan Encore and many others, but mostly T/C's and Knight's.
I shoot traditional archery (recurve instinctive)and I'm use to selecting my shots carefully. I take pride in my marksmanship withboth bow & gun. Maybe that's why I haven't had any bad experiences with the PB's??
All of thedeer I've taken using the PB'shave gone down in less than 50yds. All of the shots taken were less than 60yds.that I can remember.
I like to take lung shots and the blood trails I getusing the PB's have not been that impressive.
If I'm lucky enough to harvest a deer next weekend, I'm going to butcher the deer myself. I want to see if I can find what's left of the PB. I use to do all my own butchering years ago, but I've gotten lazy and prefer to take it to the lockers now. If I can retrieve the PB, I'll post the picture. I've seen other posts of retrieved PB's and they do scare me!

RE: Another -> PowderBelt Question
 

REM7MMAG

Again thanks for the response,

If he is able to use 150 grain charges with PowerBelts - I am surprised that they perform that well with that charge. When we got above 120 we were melting the skirt to the post + plus really jamming the bullet up against the bore - can not say we reduced velocity but the curve dropped sharply.

Accuracy or performance on paper has never been the question - that is one of the reasons the have sold so successfully - they are great on paper.

RE: Another -> PowderBelt Question
 

PB's shoot in less than 3 inch at 100 for me but the Sabor tooth is consistantly better;I have no idea how they work on deer I use shock waves for that so far or 230 XTP. I have been watching for some info on that sabor tooth since the cost is more reasonable and they shoot more accurate in my Omega.

RE: Another -> PowderBelt Question
 

I must say I do to all three of the questions. I shot my first deer with them this year at 40 yards, and had a pass through. It went in between the ribs on the near sideand exited through a rib on the opposite side. The deer ran about 40 yards and piled up. I was using 100 grains of pyrodex and a 245 grain aerotip PB.

RE: Another -> PowderBelt Question
 

Sabotloader,

Probably the first thing to think about is that the Powerbelt is just a pure lead conical. Ultimately thats all you are going to get. Granted the powerbelts have some other features, lets discuss them.

1. All powerbelts are hollowpoints.

Yes even the ballistic tips are hollow-points with a plastic thang stuck in'em. The plastic thing helps ballistics but doesn't change the fact that it is a hollowpoint when it comes to expansion and penetration. For me the hollowpoint is a deficiency of powerbelts. Unfortunately, it helps to sell them so there is no plan to produce solid point powerbelts.

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.Most stores don't carry the heavierpowerbelts, you will probably have tomail order them.I would go at least with 405 grains in the .50 cal. and I think a powerbelt 405 should perform as well as any 405 grainhollowpoint conical when it comes to terminal performance.

2. Powerbelts are easy to load.

Yes very, but I don't have any problems with any other conicals either. Nor do I have any problems loading a second shot without swabbing when i use a low residue ascorbic acid base powder (Pinnacle, BlackMag3, American Pioneer).

3.Some are copper-plated.

One must pay extra for this feature. Its benefits are that there is no need for lube and it prevents leading. For me, I use heavy 380+ grain conicals with lube and at the velocities black or replica powders propel these heavy bullets there is no problem with leading. If you don't purchase the copper-plating, leading could be a problem without lube because lube does inhibit leading.

In the final analysis, Powerbelts are nothing but full bore conicals with features designed to sell powerbelts and appeal to hunters (ka-ching, ka-ching). I think these features do little, if any thing, to improve the powerbelt over competing conicals.

If ballistic performance and deep penetration through bonewith fully adequate expansion is what you are looking for, you may wish to take a look at the 390 grain spitzer "Colorado Conical" at http://www.bpbullets.com/colorado%20conicals%20muzzleloader%20bullets.html

I have only one chrono and so don't have a very accurate measurement of the Ballistic Coefficient, but as near as I can tell, it is on the order of .270 to .280, which is, HYPER-EXCELLENT for a .50 cal. full bore muzzleloading concical weighing in at less than 400 grains.

They are expensive so I only use them for hunting. The Hornady 385 loaded 5 grains heavier on charge will provides an excellent low cost substitute for practice with acceptable trajectory.

Happy Hunting, Phil

RE: Another -> PowderBelt Question
 

Pglasgow

Thank you for your post - better than "well" written and good food for thought. I believe we share some common thoughts. Although I really do not mind the HP at the ranges and velocities we are shoot ML's. They are most often very devastating - ask the police departments across the country.

I am cheap - I'll be the first to admit it - I can not see spending that money for that bullet.

RE: Another -> PowderBelt Question
 

Sabotloader wrote:

I am cheap - I'll be the first to admit it - I can not see spending that money for that bullet.

I think everyone has to eventually settle on something. This conical is something I worked up for a sheep load. The lighter bullet and high BC lets me, with scope, reach out and touch, (with 16 clicks), to 210 yards. But it is certainly not a bullet I would recommend for plincking. :)

I sensed that you like a flatter tractory than conicals supply in general. Hence the lightest bullet I could think ofwhile still havingvery good ballistics, with cost being comparable to the powerbelts.

Happy Hunting, Phil

RE: Another -> PowderBelt Question
 

Pglasgow

You are right I am a old relic left over from the centerfire age of 270's and 300 Win mags - shooting flat partitions and boattails.

In Idaho we can shoot sabot during ML - if we couldn't I would be looking hard at conicals. My biggest problem with conicals well ML's in general is the effects of xwinds down range. I can handle the drop becuse I can factor that in but varying Xwinds are a killer when shooting a distance down range. Here in the mountains of Idaho shooting across draws, up and down ridges winds exist almost all the time most of the time at different rates and most of the swirling. Conicals are really adversly effected by winds.

Good talking to you - mike

RE: Another -> PowderBelt Question
 

Sabotloader,

In reading your post I find myself grinning from ear to ear. 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.

Happy Hunting, Phil

RE: Another -> PowderBelt Question
 

Pglasgow

You know you are right - I really enjoy shooting and I really really enjoy shooting ML's, but I have to admit I am trying for performance - but yet I am not interested in "magnum" loads - well that statement doesn't make a hole lot of sense does it...

Just shot you a PM also...

mike

RE: Another -> PowderBelt Question
 

Question #1 - How many of you use PowerBelts because of the ease of loading? ME!

Question #2 - How many of you use PowerBelts because of the ease of loading the follow-up shots... (when you do not have time to run a damp patch)? ME!

Question #3 - How many of you use PowerBelts because of their performance, both down range and their peformance on bringing the animal down? NO, any full bore-sizelump of pure lead would be the same.

RE: Another -> PowderBelt Question
 

Sabot loader you forgot one other thing. I walk into Wally worldthere is a wholerack of PB's. I go to Dunams and there is again a whole rack of them, gander mountian too. They are all over the place in amazing numbers for 50's any way. Shock waves are a bit harder to find on store shelves and I have yet to see a barnes bullet in any store.
So the avibilty plays an important role in what people use.

:) Al

RE: Another -> PowderBelt Question
 

eldeguello

good to hear from you, I was wondering when you were goingto ring in...

And this is really what I am looking for - I propose that you can load sabots, if you get the right one, with little more effort that you use to load a PB.

PLUS! now thisis just me talking - you can use a stonger powder load if you choose, you really do not have to worry about the bullet falling off the powder, has actually happened - actually the bullet has fallen out but the skirt stayedin the barrel, and my personal bias I believe you are shooting much better bullets than soft lead elongated round balls - and within that statement there is nothing wrong with that if that is what you prefer - I'm just hooked on performance especially down range and on thick skinned game. I know they work and the continue to work - but ask mostshooters in Washington or Colorado if they had their choice - What would you shoot? Yes, some would still say give me a full big bore conical - I want to make a big hole but most would choose a more efficient flatter bulletfor themselves and the animals. If everyone shot as well as you, Roundball, Cayugad, Triple Seven, and others it would not be a problem, BUT how many hunters especially new hunters and there a bunch of new ones coming on board are that really qualified to shoot the big looping conicals estimating range - wind - drop and adding all of that into a calculation? Then make a shot...

Oh well my soap box - I know

Thanks for your reply

RE: Another -> PowderBelt Question
 

Sabotloader said

I know they work and the continue to work - but ask mostshooters in Washington or Colorado if they had their choice - What would you shoot? Yes, some would still say give me a full big bore conical - I want to make a big hole but most would choose a more efficient flatter bulletfor themselves and the animals.

I am not sure whether efficient necessarily means flatter. For a moment, lets just consider what efficiencies one may wish to have. Energy efficiency for a given charge for example. Here one wishes for the maximum energy to exit the muzzle for a fixed powder charge. Generally, this will be a heavier bullet. ;) Greater efficiency at retaining energy down range. That entirely depends on the bullet. But my 460 grain conical has a B.C. .260 which is better than any 45 cal pistol bullet which can stabilize with 1:28 twist. ;) If efficient means doing damage. The full bore conical at minimum is making a bigger hole with no expansion than its saboted cousin. If the full bore conical is softer and expanding more than its saboted cousin, then the full bore conical is much more efficient at creating a larger, more devastating wound channel. [:o]

Flatter trajectory has its benefits but it also has its costs. Again, one weighs the pros and cons, there is no single load which pleases all people at all times. I truly believe that there are no deficiencies in the heavy full bore conical which can not be overcome with range practice and patience in the field. The effiencies lost to lighter bullets are just lost altogether and the hunter can not make up for them with skill, but rather, must accept and incorporate the lost efficiencies in hishunting plan. :)

Happy Hunting, Phil

RE: Another -> PowderBelt Question
 

Pglasgow

In my mind efficient means - quicker to get there hence flatter - less time in flight hence quicker to the target - more velocity hence more energy. Heavier bullets really do not always produce more energy - velocity produces energy - same reason I can shoot a 200 grain bullet in my win mag and far out produce the energy of the 460.

In my mind effiecency at the target means - penetration through what ever it hits bone or tissue - hydrostatic shock (still think it should be hydraulic shock) sponging the vitals, a good sized exit wound losing blood fast. Spinning copper knives cutting their way through and each time the animal moves more cutting.

I guess you will just have to look at these two ballistic charts and show me where I am really lagging behind. I see a whole lot of advantages,of course I want to see advantages. Can not imagine me shooting 200 yards but a 9" drop isn't bad. Even if you compare a more realistic 75 yard target i really do not see where I am hurting. The only difference is the one that I see people use all the time "make a big hole" granted your hole going in is bigger not sure that it is any bigger on the way through or when it exits.

Speed does kill and bigger is not always better

One last thing - I hunt all year with this gun while most everyone else is using their centerfires. I do have a small handi-cap no 209's or scopesduring ML season

These charts were using 100 grains of t7-2f loosefor the Speers and shot across my chrono the 1750 was the average of 9 shots, the 460 were 80 grains if my memoryis correct and only took 3 shots. The ballitics of the 460 are rather good - I think good enough I would have to do moreresearch if I had to choose between them and apowerbelt.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v130/sabotloader/Ballistics460NE.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v130/sabotloader/300gr.jpg

thanks for the input...

mike

RE: Another -> PowderBelt Question
 

Sabotloader said,

I guess you will just have to look at these two ballistic charts and show me where I am really lagging behind.

RE: Another -> PowderBelt Question
 

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.

RE: Another -> PowderBelt Question
 

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.

RE: Another -> PowderBelt Question
 

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

RE: Another -> PowderBelt Question
 

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...

RE: Another -> PowderBelt Question
 

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

RE: Another -> PowderBelt Question
 

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

RE: Another -> PowderBelt Question
 

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......

RE: Another -> PowderBelt Question
 

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

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 . . . .

RE: Another -> PowderBelt Question
 

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

RE: Another -> PowderBelt Question
 

Roskoe said:

"Back in post #9, pglasglow indicated that all Powerbelts were hollowpoints. They make a 444 gr. flatpoint in .50 caliber."

The 444 gr. flatpoints you bought didn't have a gree plastic insert in the nose of the bullet? I've actually never seen one (444 flat pointpowerbelt)in person. I thought I had seen on their website, the one on the left below.

Happy Hunting, Phil

RE: Another -> PowderBelt Question
 

I got mine from Cabela's a couple years back. They look just like the 405 gr. hollowpoint (which I think the one you show on the right in your photo), except without the hollowpoint. Anyway, I was mainly responding to your comment that somehow the Colorado Division of Wildlife regarded the non-sabot projectiles as more effective/lethal when they banned the sabots. I was a part of that discussion and can assure you just the opposite was the case. They were afraid the line between high performance muzzleloaders and medium caliber centerfire rifles was started to blur together.

But I very much appreciate your point of view. I like shooting theseconicals and have seen some bigelk wobble andfall after being hit with such a large chunk of lead. I remember just this past September the soundof a 410 grain conical hitting and elk in the ribs at about 150 yards. There was no doubt that this was a good hit. I alsoagree with the comments about Buffalo hunting withbig lead conicals. And I respect each shooter's preference to use guns and loads at various levels of traditionalism and performance. Thanks for providing a bunch of thought provoking comments to this topic. Regards. Roskoe

RE: Another -> PowderBelt Question
 

I am thrilled with the variety of choices we havewith muzzleloaders these days. By the way, I run some ballistics on the shockwave load. Used 2050 fps, is that about right for 130 gr. pyrodex pellets? Very flat shooting, a good round.

There was a thread where the question was asked, what conical does the most damage. SteveBNy posted a load he used. My congratulatory remarks may have given the impression that I only support the use of heavy conicals. This, I hope by now, is clear to everyone not true. I just found it refreshing, that he had chosen a moderate powder charge and a heavy conical to take his most recent kill, a doe at 110 yards. This load has always been at our disposal, even with our old fashioned sidelocks (I still have and use the original I .50 T/C hawkin I built as a teenager some 27 years ago). Today, in an era of 150 grain charges and saboted boattails, it was just refreshing to seeSteve's choice of load. Not because it is more traditional, but because for his hunting situation, it is just better. In the woods of the East,I would suspect that 110 yards is a pretty distant shot. At that range, the conical is very accurate and flat shooting enough. He probably could have (had a gun rated for it) increased his charge to 90 or 100 grains, but didn't. There is no need to over do it, that is also refreshing.

For the record, I support the saboted loads we discussed wholeheartedly. They are better suited for longer shooting, especially for the inexperienced marksman. Out West, we can be challenged to get close enough with our muzzleloaders.

Regarding the regulations, your guess is as good as mine. We have to use open sights, so I don't see, for most, that taking away their sabots are hurting their chances much. The length twice the diameter doesn't make any sense either. 1:28 twist doesn't allow much longer than a 1" conical in 50 cal. anyway.

Happy Hunting, Phil

RE: Another -> PowderBelt Question
 

I have a question, when I was trying different loads I also tried different powders When I got up to about 120 gr the777 started melting down the plastic on the power belts but the rs and the AP shot better with heavy loads I took the AP{FF} up to 150 gr and still grouped 2.5.
Does 777 burn a lot hotter?
Lee

RE: Another -> PowderBelt Question
 

Lemoyne said:

"I have a question, when I was trying different loads I also tried different powders When I got up to about 120 gr the777 started melting down the plastic on the power belts but the rs and the AP shot better with heavy loads I took the AP{FF} up to 150 gr and still grouped 2.5.
Does 777 burn a lot hotter?"

Oh my yes. By volume, T7 is 15% hotter. Pressure-wise it was probably like putting 200 grains of pyrodex pellets in your muzzleloader (assuming loose T7). Do you own a Savage? Or do you like taking risks?Please don't do that anymore.

Limit loads of loose powder to 120 grains. If T7 or BMag3, limit to 100 grains. Using big powerbelts? Limit your charges even more. Blackpowder is great fun until someone gets hurt. Remember, the maximum charges are only for light saboted bullets. Lighter powerbelts are just going to shatter on your game with maximum loads.

Happy Hunting, Phil

RE: Another -> PowderBelt Question
 

This has been an interesting thread. I haven't understood anyone to be down on anyone else's opinions - just debating the various issues.
Concerning the non-hollow pointed powerbelts, the only one I have seen is their Dangerous Game bullet, which has a solid steel point. They are on the far right of the picture (if it loads for me). At $62.99 per 15, I doubt that anyone would want to use them for anything but - well, dangerous game!
To answer the original question of this post, I use PB's because of ease of loading. I would love to find something else I CAN load. So far, everything I've tried has been extremely difficult.
From all I've been reading about PB's, it seems to me like I will just need to be more selective about the shots I take with them. I have shot many deer with a .30 cal 165 gr. bullet directly in the front, or quartering to, that passed clear through the vitals and ended up in the ham, or even exited the body. I wouldn't try that with a .223, however, but wait for a broadside shot or not shoot at all. Sounds like the same must be observed with the PB's, as they tend to break up upon hitting heavy bone.

IM jaybe

RE: Another -> PowderBelt Question
 

jaybe

And that goes to my point....

What gun are you using?
Which powder?
Have you tried any of the new thinner polymere sabots on the market?

When I first started using sabots made of the old plastics I would have given up also - infact I did, but kept experimenting.

I believe there is a sabot out there will work, god knows there is a ton of different bullets that will work. Purchasing sabot/bullet packs really is not the best way to go - they package a cetain sabot with a certain and the setup my fit a majority of the guns but not all.

I need to qualify that - if you are shooting a 50 cal - and you pratice good barrel care there is probably a sabot out there. If you are using a 54 or 45 things are narrowed.

Jaybe - thanks for the reply

RE: Another -> PowderBelt Question
 

Hey Jaybe,

If most of your shooting is 120 yards or less, before you pass on any shots do at least try this.


Logon on to Cabelas and order some 444 flat points. Get enough to sight in and hunt with. IsayCabelas because, well, they have them. If you have an inline rated for 150 grainstry this.

First never use 150 grains with the 444[:o]!

Put in75 grain T7 or 90 grains RS or BP and sight in dead on at 15 yards. Now this is not exact, but it should put you close to zero at 100 yards. Go ahead and test at 50 or 100 yds. At 100 yds, if you are above line of sight your muzzle velocity exceed 1400 fps, the opposite is true if you are below line of sight.

If below you can try increasing the charge. If you weigh charges try a 5 grain increase. To high? decrease by 2. Too low? increase by 2. Then increment by one until you zero at 100 yards.

If you measure by volume, increase 5 grains until you are above zero at 100 yards. Stop there. Your zero is a little beyond 100 yards.

Now lets look at the ballistics:





Range
Velocity
Energy
Moment
Elev
Wind
Lead
Slope
Time

(yards)
(ft/sec)
(ft-lbs)
(lb-sec)
(inches)
(inches)
(inches)
(in/yd)
(sec)

0
1400.0
1932.2
2.76
---
---
---
---
0.000

10
1378.6
1873.6
2.72
-0.46
0.03
3.8
+0.096
0.022

20
1357.7
1817.2
2.68
+0.40
0.12
7.7
+0.078
0.044

30
1337.2
1762.9
2.64
+1.07
0.27
11.6
+0.059
0.066

40
1317.3
1710.7
2.60
+1.55
0.48
15.6
+0.039
0.088

50
1297.9
1660.6
2.56
+1.83
0.75
19.6
+0.018
0.111

60
1279.0
1612.6
2.52
+1.90
1.08
23.7
-0.002
0.135

70
1260.5
1566.5
2.49
+1.76
1.47
27.9
-0.024
0.158

80
1242.6
1522.3
2.45
+1.40
1.92
32.1
-0.046
0.182

90
1225.2
1479.9
2.42
+0.81
2.43
36.3
-0.069
0.207

100
1208.0
1438.7
2.38
-0.01
3.00
40.7
-0.092
0.231

110
1191.5
1399.6
2.35
-1.06
3.64
45.1
-0.117
0.256

120
1175.8
1362.9
2.32
-2.37
4.33
49.5
-0.141
0.282

Not bad is it? More than enough to take any deer. Flat enough for 120 yards. And I GUARANTEE that the 444 with .300 Sectional density is going to burrow in, bust bone, and destroy vitals on shots you would pass up with the 295 PB's.

Happy Hunting, Phil

RE: Another -> PowderBelt Question
 

Taking another stab at the ballistics chart. Muzzle Velocity 1400 fps Muzzle Energy 1932 ft-lbs , zero 100 yds



Rge Vel Energy Elev.





0
1400.0
1932.2
2.76
---
---
---
---
0.000

10
1378.6
1873.6
2.72
-0.46
0.03
3.8
+0.096
0.022

20
1357.7
1817.2
2.68
+0.40
0.12
7.7
+0.078
0.044

30
1337.2
1762.9
2.64
+1.07
0.27
11.6
+0.059
0.066

40
1317.3
1710.7
2.60
+1.55
0.48
15.6
+0.039
0.088

50
1297.9
1660.6
2.56
+1.83
0.75
19.6
+0.018
0.111

60
1279.0
1612.6
2.52
+1.90
1.08
23.7
-0.002
0.135

70
1260.5
1566.5
2.49
+1.76
1.47
27.9
-0.024
0.158

80
1242.6
1522.3
2.45
+1.40
1.92
32.1
-0.046
0.182

90
1225.2
1479.9
2.42
+0.81
2.43
36.3
-0.069
0.207

100
1208.0
1438.7
2.38
-0.01
3.00
40.7
-0.092
0.231

110
1191.5
1399.6
2.35
-1.06
3.64
45.1
-0.117
0.256

120
1175.8
1362.9
2.32
-2.37
4.33
49.5
-0.141
0.282

Hope this reads better!

Happy Hunting, Phil

RE: Another -> PowderBelt Question
 

Guy I'm sorry for the bad use of space. It was unintentional. The problem is fixed now see below.

Jaybe,

As I said before, it isn't bad. At 100 yards you have almost twice the energy required to take deer. You could even harvest a buffalo with it. Think about that. A 50-90-444 sharps buffalo rifle is sleeping dormant in your muzzleloader ;). Now I GUARANTEE that with the 444's sectional density you are going to burrow in, bust bone, and destroy vitals on shots you would pass up with the 295 PB's.

Happy hunting, Phil