Some thoughts on effective ranges for roundball
 

There has been some recent discussion on whether some mininum kinetic energy is adequate to define the ethical range of a projectile.I think we all have come to the conclusion that what is good for small-bore high velocity projectiles is too restrictive for a large diameter, more massive projectile at lower velocity. In other words, kinetic energy understates the capacity of muzzleloading projectiles to kill game.

For at least the small bore high-power rifle, though, 800 ft-lbs kinetic energy may be adequate as a measure. We seemed to agree that kinetic-pulse was a better measure to relate a projectiles capacity to kill game, so I set about to attempt to determine a reasonable value of kinetic-pulse which would provide some ethical minimum.

In many states the .243 is the minimum sizedcenter bore rifle legal for deer hunting. At 800 ft. lbs the kinetic pulse of the .243 is approximately 565 kp. So I set out to find at what ranges does the roundball for .45, .50, .54 calibersmarginally exceedthis k.p. They are in the table below. I am curious as to whether there is any agreement, among those that use roundballs, that these ranges are what they may consider to be either the maximum ethical or maximum effective ranges for each caliber.


CaliberMuz Vel Max Range Vel@Rng K.E.@Rng K.P@Rng
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
.45 RB 1950 53 yds 1523.4 659.6 570

.50RB 1900 92 yds1237.5594.97572

.54 RB 1850132 yds1044.8545.28 570

All the above ranges have the same K.P as the .243 when the .243 is at 800 ft-lbs. I would appreciate comments from those with experience in hunting thes projectiles whether the table represents the muzzle-velocity for a standard hunting load and whether the range limitations imposed by the minimum KP value are reasonable.

Happy Hunting, Phil

RE: Some thoughts on effective ranges for roundball
 

At first glance, the ranges in your table look about right as far as my own experience is concerned. But a question I have is at what distance does the 243 bullet drop to 800 ft lbs, and how fast is it still traveling? I assume this is probably a 115 grain bullet?
Part of my question concerns the issue of hydrostatic shock. As I understand, this only occurs at about 2600 fps and above. If the 243 bullet is still above that, wouldn't this be an "apples and oranges" comparison - or am I off track here?

IM jaybe :)

RE: Some thoughts on effective ranges for roundball
 

jaybe asked:

But a question I have is at what distance does the 243 bullet drop to 800 ft lbs, and how fast is it still traveling?

I am not sure of the range. I know that it exceeds 300 yards. The velocity is between 2200 and 2300 fps but i don't remember exactly.

I assume this is probably a 115 grain bullet?

No I used 70 grains, also a legal minimum in many states. Choosing a heavier bullet would have had the effect of reducing the ranges in the table. This is because a heavier bullet has a greater KP at 800 ft-lbs.

If the 243 bullet is still above that, wouldn't this be an "apples and oranges" comparison - or am I off track here?

The comparison is only meant to compare by KP (capacity to cause a wound channel of some specific volume)in the hopes that a congruent pattern may emerge, confirmed by the experience of those who use roundballs.

Happy Hunting, Phil

RE: Some thoughts on effective ranges for roundball
 

OK - well, my first thought (maybe it's my second or third) is that I'm not sure I would consider shooting at a deer at 300 yards with a 70 grain bullet regardless of whether or not it was legal. I guess I assumed that since your question has to do with ethics, not legality, that we would be talking about something with at least 1,000 ft lbs of energy. I know this is all a matter of opinion, but that's my take on it.
However, given the data you are using in this scenario, I would consider any of the roundballs at the ranges and velocities in your table to be more ethical than the .243 70 gr at 300 yards.

IM jaybe :)

RE: Some thoughts on effective ranges for roundball
 

Jaybe said:

However, given the data you are using in this scenario, I would consider any of the roundballs at the ranges and velocities in your table to be more ethical than the .243 70 gr at 300 yards.

From what you have said, you seem to have an opinion regarding the maximum range the .243 should be ethically used. I think for everyone, there comes a point, when armed with a .243, that the range of that 12 pt. buck is just two far. Some kind of bell is ringingand we attempt tostalk closer.

I am curious as to where the ethical minimums may lie and what those that use roundballs have determined for themselves should be for themselves. If by chance a minimum kp has agreement, then that is pretty cool, don't you think? I'm not trying to determine whether a .243 at 300 yds is as ethical as .45 RB at 53 yds, though I do agree with you on your opinion of it.

Happy Hunting, Phil

RE: Some thoughts on effective ranges for roundball
 

I am not a man armed withdetailedballistics tables but I have developed some experience over a lifetime that includes all the typical CF rifle cartridges like .30-30's, .30-06's, .35Rem's, .264 Win/Mag, etc, and have taken a lot of deer with them over 40 years. I've then taken them with handguns, shotguns, muzzy broadheads,nowmuzzleloaders...inlines, then sidelock percussions, toFlintlocks which are all I now hunt with, using Hornadysoft lead patched round balls.

There is a factorthat comes into play with the lead ball that does not easily fit well within traditional ballistics formulas and charts which try to plot various velocities and energy levels...and that factor is frontal area...the sheer size of the ball when it arrives on target is already large, and begins a large wound channel from the moment it breaks the skin.

Every deer I've shot with a PRB has been inside 100yds, and it's always a heart shot, or low double lung shot,or under very rare conditions even the neck vertebrate shot...in that order, or I don't take the shot.

The neck vertebrate shots drop in their tracks of course, but even the heart & low double lung shots only sprint 25-35 yards and collapse...bycontrast, I've madedouble lung shots on many deer with a slim pointy .30-06 bullet zipping along at 2500fps and trailed them 100 yards todrag them out.

I believe there are many cases where a lot of slim streamlined bullets slip right through soft tissue like lungs and don'treally open up very muchbefore they're throughand out the other side...a hole through the lungs for sure...but not a massive, torn, traumatic one...yet ballistically, the CF cartridge would appear vastly superior.

The soft lead round ball factor...the size of the frontalareawhen it arrives at the target and theimmediate expansion that beginshappening to the soft lead and onthrough the vitals is very underrated,probably misunderstood, or at least not yet easily quantified.

It does not "plot" well inballistics programs, but the round ball'sability to put down big game right now within 100yds is incredible...noting your reference to a .45cal ball...I shot a six pointer at 60yds with a .45cal ball...hit/broke a rib going in and flattened to the size of a dime, turned the heart to jelly, and lodged under the hide of the far shoulder, splitting the hide...I squeezed the hide around it and it fell out in my hand...would have easily taken a deer with a double lung shot at 100yds...but the "energy" according to ballistics programs would have been around 200-300 ft/lbs.

Sofrom what I've experienced,the simple round ball is incredibly effective butreally does not fit conventional ballistics thinking...it is not of course,a 300 yard player...it's basically a 100 yards woods rifle like a .30-30.

RE: Some thoughts on effective ranges for roundball
 

I agree with roundball completely. All too often when people think of a roundball, they think that the thing looses steam quickly and therefore has no power to take game at longer ranges. My longest is 80+ yards with a .54 caliber roundball which resulted in two deer down. I have a friend that hunts with a Kentucky long rifle in .50 caliber. It has a 1-66 twist and is made by Traditon's I believe. He never flinches at a 100 yard deer.He just kills them dead. I know of three off hand that he's made.

The effective range of a roundball is what you practice to. I would put mine at 100 yards and a little further with the .58 caliber only because of the power that big ball demonstrates. I still say if you can place that roundball in the right place, it is deadly out to 100 yards without a doubt. That's my own personal opinion and not based on ballistics.

RE: Some thoughts on effective ranges for roundball
 

roundball commented:

It does not "plot" well inballistics programs, but the round ball'sability to put down big game right now within 100yds is incredible...noting your reference to a .45cal ball...I shot a siz pointer at 60yds with a .45cal ball...hit/broke a rib going in and flattened to the size of a dime, turned the heart to jelly, and lodged under the hide of the far shoulder, splitting the hide...I squeezed the hide around it and it fell out in my hand...would have easily taken a deer with a double lung shot at 100yds...but the "energy" according to ballistics programs would have been around 200-300 ft/lbs.

Sofrom what I've experienced,the simple round ball is incredibly effective butreally does not fit conventional ballistics thinking...it is of course, not a 300 yard player...it's a 100 yards woods rifle like a .30-30.

Thank you roundball. I agree that the roundball doesn't fit convential ballistics. I was, I guess, hoping that it would fit some alternate, ie, KP. Though it seems that it doesn't.

Happy Hunting, Phil

RE: Some thoughts on effective ranges for roundball
 

Pglasgow, I used to hunt the open corn fields in IL and I also shot a lot of pratice for the 177 yd hawken match I have taken 3 deer and a bear at 175 plus and they all dropped in their tracks on the spot they were hit all were standing shots and all were hit on the back edge of the frount shoulder all were shot with a 54 cal RB hawken and with a V peep that I made myself the Hawken had a 35.5 inch barrel and could be depended on to shoot 5 shots in less than 20 inch string measure. I shot 130gr ff black and a 535 ball an ticking patch lube with veg. oil.
I moved to AR now and there is lots of deer on the hunting ground I bought, I am considering trying for one next year with my Rugar Black powder with 30 gr. p and a 45 maxi ball. Lee

RE: Some thoughts on effective ranges for roundball
 

lemoyne said:

Pglasgow, I used to hunt the open corn fields in IL and I also shot a lot of pratice for the 177 yd hawken match I have taken 3 deer and a bear at 175 plus and they all dropped in their tracks on the spot they were hit all were standing shots and all were hit on the back edge of the frount shoulder all were shot with a 54 cal RB hawken and with a V peep that I made myself the Hawken had a 35.5 inch barrel and could be depended on to shoot 5 shots in less than 20 inch string measure. I shot 130gr ff black and a 535 ball an ticking patch lube with veg. oil.

Given a .45 a roundball is adequate, then your load seems perfectly adequate at the above mentioned range.

Happy Hunting, Phil