Expansion of soft lead RB's

I've been reading several conflicting reports on several forums concerning the expansion of soft lead RB's on game animals, which would then equate to men a well.

I've asked before about the minimum velocity lead needs to expand and was told upwards of 800 fps.

But there's been visible evidence of virtually undeformed balls recovered. If this is so why were RB's far superior to conicals during the CW? If there's no expansion I'd assume the wound would be similar. But it was clearly stated by 2 vets of the CW that the RB was far superior, taking the fight out of a man versus just a wound that didn't seem to do enough to the enemy.

So what gives here?

I too tire of the conflicting reports of lead balls both expanding when dropped onto a floor from table height and going over 800 fps with no expansion!

I would therefore surmise that CW Dr. notes & photos of autopsies be looked into for the real answer... IMHO the soft lead balls open-up as soon as some energy is transferred. Just like when recovering same in a deer post-harvest.

Dave

IMHO the soft lead balls open-up as soon as some energy is transferred

Click to expand...

This would be my position as well, I would think that many are not shooting soft lead like they believe.

Are you talking about a .72 caliber ball out of a Brown Bess vs a .58 conical out of a rifled musket???

I have not seen the report you are speaking of but I will bet that a .72 ball will definitely leave a mark!!!!!!!! :thumbsup:

the expansion of soft lead RB's on game animals, which would then equate to men a well.

Click to expand...

You are considering actual terminal ballistics via the damage done, but not the effects on the central nervous system. The effect of the patched round ball was also observed by Forsyth on large, dangerous game animals in India. He preferred it over the minnie type bullets. He concluded that it simply smacked harder, and backed up his opinion and observations in the field with two other expert hunters' opinions.

"The perfect destruction of various animals is dependent generally on two causes - the penetration into the body, and the shock to the system during that act of penetration. No doubt exists that a spherical bullet would combine these two qualities the best." Greener, Gunnery c. 1858

"I strongly vote against conical balls for dangerous game ; they make too neat a wound, and are apt to glance on striking bone. The larger surface struck the greater will be the benumbing effect of the blow... in giving an opinion against conical balls for dangerous game, I do so from practical proofs of their inferiority." S. W. Baker in the magazine Field, March 23rd, 1861.

The conical bullet was not first introduced to put more punch into the rifle... it was to speed reloading on the battlefield. Long after the military was using conicals, the patched round ball continued, and continued into the age of the breech loader with a paradox rifled guns firing round ball loaded into 12 gauge shells.

LD

I am mostly concerned with RB's from pistols as that's what I understand the CW vets were referring to. But the same thing has been said about PRB's from .44 to .58 cal traveling quite fast.

And I am speaking of terminal performance, a more typical wound.

At times I've even read (and seen a military video) of RB's traveling through bone without much, if any appreciable deformation.

In the vast majority of shots I've taken on deer, except for a very few instances the entrance wound was larger to much larger than the exit wound. This tells me that the rb "smack" is real and starts the expansion of a soft lead ball.

I shot a deer this fall with my flintlock,.395 RB, 60gr 3f KIK at 25 yds. flattened out the size of a dime.
Nit Wit

Just thinking about it, I don't think you could find one answer that would apply to all round balls unless you want a very generic answer.

If the ball was hand cast pure lead it would probably take somewhat less impact force to flatten than if it was die swaged.

And would both of the above be different if the lead contained say 5% tin or 10% or some other metal? - a little different or significantly??

And what if you had a hand cast ball and the sprue hit first - would that cause different expansion then if it hit somewhere else on the ball??

Then there is a "slug force" factor.

The greater the mass of the projectile the more energy that will be both retained and lost on impact (relative to the KE at impact in comparison to a different sized ball at the same velocity), so while at say 400 fps a 494 grain .690 round ball may have enough stored energy (180'ish foot pounds) to cause "some deformity" a 45 grain .310 ball will only have 70 pounds of retained energy when travelling double the speed (800 fps) - is that enough to cause any deformity or more deformity than the heavier ball travelling slower?

You seem to be looking for a "fps" that will produce a specific result - I think it's far more complex than simply "X fps" = flattened ball unless you are talking about a single caliber using a ball cast to exacting standards.

Mostly thinking out loud here and asking more questions...

I used 90 grains in my 40 with the same ball. It was a dome almost nickel sized. They were under the hide on the opposite side. The barrel was 40 inches and judging by the muzzle flash the load was about right.

Geo. T.

Round balls from short barreled pistols with light charges are certainly not going to flatten like round balls from rifles with hunting charges...

I've killed dozens of deer since the 70s, with round balls, mainly .45s and .54s with 75-100grs of powder...I never had any that didn't flatten and do excessive damage...Kills came as quick as with a modern bullet, when hit in the same location...

I haven't read 6 guns, but I have to assume that the 2 CW vets mentioned were speaking of a slower RB from a pistol of course, and possibly both .36 and .44 cal?

I can only assume that back then the lead used would have been mostly pure, and certainly not swaged.

Basically it doesn't make much sense to me that a lightweight RB that didn't expand would be touted as such a good man stopper in comparison to a heavier conical if the wound channel would be quite similar. It lends to the idea that pure lead expands and creates a larger wound. But then what of the many accounts of little, if any, deformation despite a much higher velocity from a rifle?

"I strongly vote against conical balls for dangerous game ; they make too neat a wound, and are apt to glance on striking bone. The larger surface struck the greater will be the benumbing effect of the blow... in giving an opinion against conical balls for dangerous game, I do so from practical proofs of their inferiority." S. W. Baker in the magazine Field, March 23rd, 1861.


I've looked into modifying a REAL nose profile to that of a wide FN just because of this for use of my .50 cal were I given the opportunity to hunt larger game. Unfortunately the guy doubted he could do it.

"I strongly vote against conical balls for dangerous game ; they make too neat a wound, and are apt to glance on striking bone. The larger surface struck the greater will be the benumbing effect of the blow... in giving an opinion against conical balls for dangerous game, I do so from practical proofs of their inferiority." S. W. Baker in the magazine Field, March 23rd, 1861.

Click to expand...

There were probably as many conflicting opinions on that issue as we see now on other matters.

Absolutely - just take a poll of the "best deer caliber" :hmm:

Just remember that Baker is talking about conical vs. round ball in muzzleloading rifles used in Africa and India. He's basically comparing penetration to 'slap-down' the same way cavalrymen did when speaking of percussion revolvers in a fight.

Most of the guys here like .54's with .58 being quite popular as well. I have mostly .50's with one .54 and I am liking the .54 a bunch.

The best caliber is the one you can shoot well with a powder charge that shoots accurately and reasonably flat to 75 yards. I would not use a rifle smaller than 40 but I know one Texas Game Warden that killed a bunch with a 36. I use the 54 most often but that's just me!

Geo. T.

Well, since I started it I'll throw in my vote.

When hunting from my bow stand I use my 40 cal (no minimum caliber listed in regs for my province - guess there isn't enough of us for them to spend more than a couple of sentences on). My shooting lanes are barely 35 yards and the 40 is more than enough.

If I'm hunting "elsewhere" or unfamiliar ground, I bring my 50 along - at least for now. Starting work on a 45 cal real soon and think it will become my "rifle of choice".

But if I could only have one rifle, it would have to be my 40 cal - love it to death - it's my "whitetailed squirrel rifle"...

For deer I wouldn't much consider anything below .45 cal, though I'd think with a conical a .36 might work well enough.

I chose a .50 cal as an all around caliber. Though we do have a few mule deer and elk here the biggest thing would be an axis, which is about the size of a small mulie, or a hog, which might get as much as 400 lbs. If given the chance to hunt something really big I'd drop a conical down the bore instead, which is why I've been looking at conicals that I can buy a mold for as we are getting prepared to move from Texas.

Mostly my inquiry on ball expansion is for pistols though. What made it more interesting is that several guys have stated no expansion from their ball in rifles either, which is likely traveling several hundred fps faster.