Capper said:
You should have made this post in the beginning of the thread Dan.
I don't want to argue with you. You make a good point, and show some good proof. My dad taught me 60 years ago of the importance of using the proper gun, and making sure of shot placement. It has stuck in my brain all these years. I may lean on the safe side more than others, but i've never lost an animal. I'd like to keep that record.
I have shot big game with a PRB, but i did it with one of the unmentionables on this forum with huge loads. I was also scoped. Now that i'm into sidelocks. I'm using open sights, and much lighter loads. I'm cautious.
The thought of using a pistol seems too risky to me unless you really know what you're doing. I'm not sure someone asking if it will work is in that category.
I offer my virtual hand in friendship. No harm done. Nothing wrong with a vent now and then.
Its a PITA to post photos. And I try not to write a book when posting.
I don't post BS that I don't know unless I qualify it to reflect that I an speculating.
The problem arises when people who think things, often valid in the "modern" world but not in the BP world, when they have no experience and are simply looking at numbers.
I did penetration tests with a pistol over 30 years ago for an article for John Baird of the old "Buckskin Report". By that time I knew that at about 25 yards a 800 fps RB (muzzle vel.) would shoot completely through an antelope and blow up a big cloud of dirt in the sage brush beyond.
I knew it would shoot through about 24" of mule deer.
So in testing it against rifles at various ranges I figured that since my 50 caliber rifle would penetrate the same at 200 yards (would have to go back and read the darned article :idunno: ) that the 50 caliber rifle would do OK at 150-200 and I had shot antelope and deer at 140+ plus with the rifle and the balls went clear through on lung shots so I had cross reference before I ever did the baffle board tests.
People read tripe about MLs in some magazine.
They are conditioned to use bullets.
Combine this and we get the "round balls won't penetrate and kill stuff" drivel that, after years of trying to counter this stuff is enough to have me put a "bang head here" sign in a door frame.
SOFT lead balls at rifle velocities will penetrate about 30" of deer from about any angle to about 75-80 yards. Pistols at 25 less unless they have 12-14" barrels (guessing). I don't make them this long because they are impractical.
The shot has to be placed right. Round balls are best used in broadside heart/lung shots. But base of the neck and shoulder shots are good to. Though a 45rb shoulder shot on large deer would not be my first choice. OK if it misses the big bones.
Ball needs to be sized to the game. I like 50 for deer and bigger for elk. 62 would probably be the ideal compromise for elk. I have a rifle that uses a 662 ball but it has not found an elk yet. Found one a couple of years ago, 20 yards in the timber, no antlers....
The energy thing. High velocity greatly increases the energy carried by a bullet. But energy does not equate killing power unless there is adequate penetration. People would be shocked at just how poorly a 300 Weatherby with 180 SPs penetrates elk at 40 yards I have seen them come completely apart in 4" with only the jacket base remaining(this was before solid copper bullets were common) hit the withers and stopped when it hit one of the tall projections off the spine. Bull went down in his tracks and then died since a previous shot had cut his throat, another had broken a front leg, all at 40 yards. A fellow guide once had a similar experience with a 264 Win Mag a client was using. A 50 cal RB will do better in either case even though it has FAR less energy.
Yes I know but I only used the modern mentions to illustrate a point.
Anyway I tend to fly off the handle after a few go arounds. I post here to try to help people and pass on knowledge. I don't post about stuff I don't know about and lots of stuff here I simply don't post to anyway.
Dan
