Cheap Shot Sabots For Hunting?

[longcruise]

I've shot some of the .44 bullets from my tc .5o with 48 twist and found that you need to be in the 180 to 200 grain bullet weight range to get stability and accuracy. 320 grain slugs were sideways at 25 yards! :shocked2:

So, if you are shooting a 48 twist, the sabot bullet option is not much different weight wise from a .50 rb. given that the rb weighs in at about 180 grains. If your gun is slower twist than 48 it's probably not worth your time to pursue it.

If you must use your .50 for larger game and it is at least a 48 or faster twist, then look at some of the .50 cal conicals with large flat meplats. The tc maxi and lee REAL don't qualify in the meplat dept.

I shot some 450 grain 50-70 slugs in my .50 tc as well. They mould at about .515 and need to be sized to fit the bore. Very accurate and LOTS of recoil!! :shocked2: They do lack the flat meplat and for that reason alone I'd go with a more conventional design.

I'll give you a suggestion untried by myself but it might be a solution for you. Get the lyman .50 cal great plains bullet mold. Cast the front 1/3 of the bullet in wheel weight and the back 2/3 in pure lead. Put them in the oven at 400 degrees for about and hour and a half and then quickly dump them into cold water. Now you have a flat nosed bullet that does not need to expand with a hard enough nose that it won't expand. That should make for a deep penetrating conical that leaves a good wound channel.

Like I said, it's untried by myself so it's just an "idea" and of course "ideas" have consequences whereas careful thought and experimentation with ideas will yield results.

If it were me, I'd find a way to spring for a good .58 or .62 caliber rb gun!! :grin:

 

[Cosmoline]

In a way I've been cursed with this rifle. A cool double Kodiak that's just a little too small in the bore.

Those are some interesting ideas. I'm going to order some old-school style conicals and experiment around with them. These Penn concials look about right:
http://www.midwayusa.com/eproductpage.exe/showproduct?saleitemid=730932

 

[paulvallandigham]

Using any .50 caliber conical, like the Lyman, or Hornady, or Lee R.E.A.L. bullets, which are short enough to work in the 1:48 ROT barrels you have, I would not feel undergunned for Black Bear, or lesser animals. That includes Caribou, Moose, Elk, Mule deer, Whitetails, wild boar, etc. Only in the area of tackling the truly large Brown bears, and polar bears would I feel Like I am over matched. Having said that, you are still hitting the animal with a half-inch wide bullet, that will penetrate. Polar bear were killed by Robert Peterson, the owner of a publishing empire that published many gun magazines, with his S&W Model 29, 44 magnum, using 240 grain bullets, so I think these heavier conicals can get the job done. Just plan on having a guide, or companion armed with a heavy rifle to back you up. The Double Gun gives you two quick shots, faster even than any semi-automatic rifle. That is a lot of power to hit any bear with, and the conicals will penetrate. If you cast RB from Wheelweights, they will also penetrate further and expand less, but again, you are beginning with a HALF-INCH HOLE in the animal, a diameter rarely reached by expanding .30 caliber bullets we would not hesitate to use on Bear out of modern rifles. Just how dead does an animal have to be? If Archers can kill bear- Brown, Polar, Black-- at short yardage with arrows, do you really think that double .50 is leaving you wanting? :hatsoff:

 

[renovato]

Sabots are mostly about getting a flatter trajectory. Pistol bullets equals pistol performance. Not something you'd want for large, dangerous game.

If I remember right, the Kodiak has a pretty fast twist. I'd look into some heavy conicals for penetration. You'd be getting performance that equals or surpasses most modern .45-70 loads.

 

[Swampman]

Thay work in a 1;48 twist?I never thought of using them,a roundball always seemed to be the best idea.

Roundballs are best, but he asked if anyone had used Cheapshots and how they worked. I shot a small buck at about 30 yards with one a couple of years ago. My charge was 80 grains of 3F. I put one through his heart and he ran about 60 yards.

To me a conical isn't traditional, wheather it has a plastic sabot or not.

 

[Cosmoline]

Thanks for that pep talk paulvallandigham. I suppose if I think about it, my usual bear guns for the Chugach are a Mosin or a Puma .44 carbine. Neither of those would give me a second shot as quick, or make as big a hole from the getgo. I just get nervy this time of year when the first mauling reports come out.

If I remember right, the Kodiak has a pretty fast twist.

The modern ones are 1:24, but this one dates to the 1980's and has the 1:48 twist. The big honkers I tried in it were off paper beyond 50 yards. It does like the short and squat conicals though so I'm looking at some of the old style ones in the 240 range.

To me a conical isn't traditional, wheather it has a plastic sabot or not.

How can that be if there were in fact so many wild conical designs during the CW era? Or are you talking about 18th century?

There was one battlefield pickup that was a STACKED bullet, each one inside the other like a Russian doll. They were trying all kinds of crazy stuff back then.

 

[paulvallandigham]

Conicals were military bullets, and not used by hunters, largely because of the difficulty in getting such bullets, if you were not part of the militia, or military. The people who settled this country came here broke, and with only their own labor and sweat to make something of themselves. What they got was free land. Everything came from overseas, including flints, and powder. This persisted right up until our Revolution, at which time efforts were made to make powder here, and to find flint deposits, and lead deposits that could be mined.

By the turn of the 19th century, conicals had been in use by military units, and continued to be perfected right up to the civil war. The reason you see such a variety in design is because everyone thought they had the better design. The Science of Ballistics was being birthed just as many other sciences were being developed. Some of the earliest slug guns, with false muzzles were designed and made in the 1840s. I have a friend who owns(ed) 3 original rifles from that period.

Using expensive, and hard to make conicals is fine for city folk, but for people many miles out in the country, where supply lines are NON-existent, folks tended to rely on what they knew, and could use sparingly. That was the RB. I believe that is why Mark considers it truly traditional, even while acknowledging that conicals were used during the time period.

This forum stops at 1865, to attempt to limit discussion to traditional Matchlock, Wheellock, Flintlock, and Percussion action firearms, and ammo. Because of the late date, some cartridges come into the period, and conicals must be discussed.

Some of our states have regulations calling for the use of RB ONLY, and at least one requires the use of Flintlock rifles or smoothbores, only. This is another reason that some members here believe that traditional MLing should be limited to using only RB.

Don't get your back up. This is the kind of nit-picking thing we tend to argue about, without agreement, or conclusion, anytime someone raises the issue. :surrender: :thumbsup:

 

[Cosmoline]

Did you catch the quote I posted from the 1890's about native hunters using "slugs"? They weren't restricted to roundball, at least by that point. And you'd be hard pressed to find any group more impoverished than Kodiak natives at the turn of the century.

I agree fully that most of the conicals are really just 20th century designs revamped for ML. The Keith shape is a dead giveaway. But I'm always interested in exploring the way things used to be done. The early experiments may have been dead ends, or they may have been dropped simply because they could not cope with smokeless velocities. Right now most conicals are imitations of established smokeless and cartridge bullet designs, and the plastic sabots are borrowed from modern shotgun projectiles. Why not go back to the future and mess around with some of these "slug balls" and stumpy conicals to see what they can do out of a muzzleloader? Isn't part of this exercise to rediscover forgotten history?

 

[Bountyhunter]

In order to increase your mass for increased energy, and taking into account your twist, you might elect to try either the Hornady Great Plains Bullet, or Buffalo Ball-ets for hunting loads. Both perform well in my .54 with 66 inch twist. Hornady is too expensive to shoot for fun, the Ball-ets cost less, and group just as well. .50 cal is available in 245 gr. Cabelas recommends 100 gr of 2F.

Paul referred to the "city boys???" The Indians and natives that were around there in 1898 most likely poked anything down the barrels that they could get to go....most likely there wasnt any science to it. Shots were up close and personal. They were not trying for the Cup.

 

[Cosmoline]

Those Ball-ets look promising. I'll try to hunt some down.

 

[tg]

"Isn't part of this exercise to rediscover forgotten history?"

That is a fact, I hope you can find an assortment of period bullet types to play with, it may be a challenge as most are of contemporary design,TC tried dozens of original bullets in Their Hawken before the designed their own using driving bands like artilliary rounds, it is going to be difficult keeping the modern stuff out of a thread about useing old style bullets, as most don't know the difference or have convinced themselves that all conicals are traditional, good luck and keep us posted, If I run across any sources for period bullets I will pass them along.

 

[Swampman]

1898 is modern according to the BATF :wink:

 

[Vaino]

Our elk party "loan out rifle" is a TC .50 cal. "Hawken" w/ a 1:48 twist and it is very accurate using 410 gr. "Buffalo Bullets", 100 grs. 2f and has taken a few elk. The only problem is keeping the bullet on the powder in a clean bbl. PC or not, these conicals would satisfy your requirements....Fred

 

[longcruise]

In a way I've been cursed with this rifle. A cool double Kodiak that's just a little too small in the bore.

Those are some interesting ideas. I'm going to order some old-school style conicals and experiment around with them. These Penn concials look about right:
http://www.midwayusa.com/eproductpage.exe/showproduct?saleitemid=730932[/quote]

Those penn conicals are the spitting image of the ballet bullets. Same difference. The penn bullets are said to be .512. Could be very hard to load.

Like Flehto says further down this thread about the loaner gun and the problem being with the conical slipping around in the bore. This is a real problem that I and several others I know have observed first hand. I often see shooters respond to this by saying that their concial is a tight fit. Well, no matter how tight it is getting it started, by the time that lubed bullet is pushed all the way down the bore is is completely sized and ready to slide! :shocked2:

I did not realize that you were shooting a double gun. My advice with a double gun and conicals is don't do it! There is a good chance that the recoil of the first shot will cause the remaining conical to slip forward off the powder. Could be dangerous.

You could always experiment at the range. Load up both barrels with heavy charges and shoot one then check the position of the bullet in the unfired barrel..

 

[paulvallandigham]

Just us two OS cards on top of the conical to hold the bullet in place. You should not have a problem. I do recommend using an OP wad between the powder and the bullet, including the great bullets mentioned. Understand that recoil can be brutal with the heavy weights. That is why I recommended the Lee R.E.A.L. slug or the similar slug by Buffalo Bullets.

 

[Cosmoline]

There is a good chance that the recoil of the first shot will cause the remaining conical to slip forward off the powder.

I was warned about that and I've been watching for it closely, using a marked ramrod to check the unprimed barrel after the primed barrel has been fired. Even with max charge and very large conicals there has been no slippage at all. I suspect reports of slippage have been the result of poorly seated bullets. They've been selling these doubles for thirty plus years now, so I suspect any major design flaws like that would have shown themselves already. Plus the barrels are like none I've ever seen--smokeless or black. The barrel walls are .2" thick steel all around and I doubt any pressure spike from the charge could harm them. The newer Kodiak 50's and 54's are made with a fast twist for conicals, so I can't imagine conicals are unsafe with them. I will keep an eye on them though.

Understand that recoil can be brutal with the heavy weights.

It hasn't been bad at all, probably because the rifle weighs over 10 lbs as it is and has weights in the stock.

 

[renovato]

If your conicals are a tight fit, they shouldn't slip. I've talked to folks who shoot short conicals in the .72 version. My first worry was slippage too. Maybe a heavy thwap to finish seating and expanding the bullet would help tighten the fit also.

 

[Cosmoline]

I've been giving the big ones one or two taps with the brass hammer via the ramrod (fiberglass of course). Seems to help seat them down nicely on the charge.

 

[paulvallandigham]

Unless the loading tip has been shaped to fit the OGIVE of your conical, hitting it with a mallet, or hammer, is just distorting the shape of the conical, and destroying any group accuracy you might otherwise achieve. You usually don't get the best accuracy battering the noses of conicals.

There is not way you can uniformly distort the nose of sucessive bullets when using a mallet, and fiberglass rod down the barrel. Considering how expensive conical are to buy, and time-consuming to cast and size, it makes better sense to just GENTLY seat the bullet on the powder, and then put one or two OS cards down on top of it to hold it in the barrel. YOu will definitely see the difference in group sizes out at 100 yards. You should be able to tell the difference at 50 yards.

 

[Little Wattsy]

1898 is modern according to the BATF :wink:

LMAO!!!! :rotf: :rotf: :rotf:
Now THERE is an authority on something intelligent "BATF" :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: