.58 caliber HEAVY conicals???

Help Support Muzzle Loading Forum:

Joined
Jul 14, 2021
Messages
100
Reaction score
127
Location
NW OHIO
All you heros who are shooting conicals for large potentially animals should do some RESEARCH.
Conicals were found to be INEFFECTIVE on dangerous game in Africa and India soon after they were invented. But people need to reinvent the wheel or refuse to learn from the past. I have a rifle that shoots a 1 ounce ball (.662"). It will shoot hardened lead or soft lead.
Now we go to the past. James Forsythe tells us that his 14 bore rifle (.69 caliber) rifle with short barrels (it was a double) shooting a 137 gr of powder that was likely about like FFF today, and hardened ball would shoot though an Indian Elephants head.
Then we have Sir Samuel Baker and his 6 bore "Devil Stopper" that shot a belted ball. He had a conical mould made for it to make it better. He was nearly killed by elephant it failed to stop so he reverted to the belted ball to restore its efficiency. But of course everyone today is an expert. Even though COMPLETELY ignorant of what was used in the past. Conicals were not used for heavy game until the advent of the breech loader and then the heavy rifles, 4 bores for example, shot a "bullet" that was virtually the same weight as a round ball. Also many people in the 1870s were STILL using large bore MLs with RBs for heavy game. See "A Hunters Wanderings in Africa". Or Forsythe's "The Sporting Rifle and its Projectiles"


Bud, sectional density is a real thing... and it was studied extensively in the late 19th and early 20th century in military ordinance. Already, back in the second third of the 19th century. The superiority of the bullet was well established. Can't change physics. I get it, a lot of us have a intimate relationship with a lead balls, be it out of a sense of tradition, or a desire for a challenge, but it won't do, generating misinformation to justify your choices in projectile. James Forsythe was full of crap, the study of ballistics in his own day disproved most of what he claimed, and the continued study, with more modern equipment and understanding of physics has disproved all but the idea that 1. A lighter weight projectile can be made to achieve a higher initial velocity, 2. Insufficient bearing surface can lead to a bullet stripping the rifling, 3. a blunt projectile loses a significant amount of its remaining velocity/energy on initial contact with a living target... then again, the important stuff in living things isn't on the outsides... is it? Bullets were I use by the 1790's, and became popular by the 1830's in new-made guns.
 
Top