|
|
Post by the priest on Oct 30, 2009 16:02:10 GMT -5
see, that's different. i asked whitworth earlier if that is what he meant and he said no. but still i would ask the question, what is meant by power? that means a lot of different things to different people. some would say it's energy, some might say it's how much penetration you'll get through phone books, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by whitworth on Oct 30, 2009 16:29:35 GMT -5
see, that's different. i asked whitworth earlier if that is what he meant and he said no. but still i would ask the question, what is meant by power? that means a lot of different things to different people. some would say it's energy, some might say it's how much penetration you'll get through phone books, etc. I don't know if I should laugh or be insulted by you, Priest. Maybe you need to work on your comprehension, but I said on numerous occasions that the heavier bullet doesn't need to be pushed as hard. Meaning what? Lower velocity. I thought that was more than a little evident, but it seems you would rather play a game of semantics. |
|
|
|
Post by plainsman on Oct 30, 2009 16:56:06 GMT -5
Hey guys,
Lots of good discussion and some frustrated a bit but I have to tell you this has been a good post to follow. Lots of fun!
For some it is the accuracy and for others the sight of those big shiny lead LBTs and yet a few have real concerns of making sure that, if needed, and the shot angle not the best, they will remain on top of the food chain. Regardless of the reason, at least we live in a place where we have such choices to debate. Thanks! Given the rigth bullet twist to stabilize those big slugs (as in the 45 Colt which is at its best GENERALLY with the 240-260 grain bullet for accuracy, some of those big slugs can shoot a bit better. I agree that lighter faster slugs are best for thin skinned game where a good hollow point has the advantage. But where they wear armor over the bones, I feel much better walking around with a bullet that will not stop just because it hit a shoulder or the off side hide. Lighter bullets do shed momentum faster but that said a 250 grain at 1200 fps will shoot through a black bear with little trouble.
I subscribe to the light bullet theory...whichever bullet will let the most light in the hole gets my vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by whitworth on Oct 30, 2009 16:57:57 GMT -5
I subscribe to the light bullet theory...whichever bullet will let the most light in the hole gets my vote. LOL! That's great! |
|
|
|
Post by nonpcnrarn on Oct 30, 2009 17:20:08 GMT -5
The term heavy is relative depending on where you live. Here in California with this lead free CA Condor nonsense most of the all copper bullets are light for caliber ie the Barnes DPX bullets. Happily I found out in conversing with Franz the owner of Northfork bullets that he offers a .452 cal 260 gr solid copper bullet with a cup point. While not a true hollow point the cup point will flatten at impacts over 1200 fps, increasing the meplat size. At under 1200 fps it acts like a hard cast lead FN bullet with a .34" meplat. Franz says the cup point at lower velicities will still disrupt more tissue than a plain flat point. This is good news for me since I wanted to shoot bullets in my New Vaquero approximating the original Colt load but still comply with the stupid laws here in CA. In this case the 260 gr Northfork is a heavy bullet compared to the 225 gr DPX.
|
|
|
|
Post by the priest on Oct 30, 2009 17:41:21 GMT -5
see, that's different. i asked whitworth earlier if that is what he meant and he said no. but still i would ask the question, what is meant by power? that means a lot of different things to different people. some would say it's energy, some might say it's how much penetration you'll get through phone books, etc. I don't know if I should laugh or be insulted by you, Priest. Maybe you need to work on your comprehension, but I said on numerous occasions that the heavier bullet doesn't need to be pushed as hard. Meaning what? Lower velocity. I thought that was more than a little evident, but it seems you would rather play a game of semantics. No need to be insulted. I'd be blunt and call you some nasty piece of slang if I wanted to insult you  ;D we're just talking here. (I guess you'll have to laugh at me instead) I think part of the problem is we're having two different conversations and neither has been complete. So, let's just get this out of the way because you don't want to let it go. I'm saying that a light vs heavy bullet kicks less given the same velocity and you're saying a big bullet running at a lower velocity will kick less than a high speed light bullet. Well, in truth,...and not to be smug or 'semantic',.....but my statement is always going to be true, yours will MAYBE be true. It depends on the two differing velocities, and the two different weight of the bullets. So your statement's answer is a maybe,....not a for sure. Why? Your velocity has to be reduced a good bit to compensate for the extra weight. How much will it be reduced is the question and just saying it's running slower isn't a gar- on -T that it'll have less recoil. That,.....would be a generalization with two possible outcomes. I agree that a big bullet doesn't have to be run as hard,....but so what? How can we absolutely positively call this a benefit when we don't know the whole picture or know what it's being used for? What can we compare that too if we're looking to determine a benefit or detractor? In other words, without being specific you can't answer the question. But again,......that wasn't really the question. It's something that developed as we continued off course. By the way,.....regarding the Linebaugh comment of passing a 250-260 grain bullet through an elk at 900fps,......how much slower are you looking to shoot your bullets??? Cause much slower and you're toting a lob gun. Anyone find another reason for using these? Maybe someone else can jump in and play devil's advocate for a while??? (before Whitworth starts pot-shotting at me from NC!) ;D |
|
|
|
Post by whitworth on Oct 30, 2009 20:48:27 GMT -5
I'm not a pot-shot kind of a guy -- I am more frontal assault inclined...... ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by the priest on Oct 30, 2009 21:12:24 GMT -5
Good to know,....sounds like I need to make sure my " The front is the other side!" t-shirts (printed in large lettering on front and back) are clean and ready to wear for the next few weeks. |
|
|
|
Post by whitworth on Oct 30, 2009 21:15:18 GMT -5
LOL! ;D ;D
|
|
tdog49
.240 Incinerator
Posts: 11
|
Post by tdog49 on Oct 30, 2009 23:22:03 GMT -5
heh...
cleaning rootbeer off my monitor....
thanks.
|
|
Sarge
.30 Stingray
Posts: 353
|
Post by Sarge on Oct 31, 2009 0:25:46 GMT -5
About 15 years ago I got on a kick of loading 300+ grain slugs as fast as they'd go from .44's & heavy .45 Colts. It was great fun to shoot through old utility poles, lob 'em 500-600 yards at stuff across dry crop ground and generally see how much powder & lead I could launch with one shot, and still stay upright.
In the process, I beat a good gun or two and myself ragged with the effects of heavy recoil. These days I still load a 325 Keith in the .45 but scoot it 1050-1100 fps, which will knock a water-pipe size hole through game to 400 pounds, from any angle you deem appropriate.
So I guess that's my definition of 'power'- a big, heavy sharp-shouldered bullet that'll bore through lots of muscle and bone on demand and leave a good hole on exit, regardless of the circumstances.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigmuddy on Oct 31, 2009 11:59:31 GMT -5
I think I can see everyone's point here, really.
Do we NEED big heavy slugs to hunt deer with say a 44 or 45, the answer would be NO.
Do we NEED big heavy slugs to hunt bigger animals, MAYBE. In these cases, the only way to find out we needed more is to have a failure, so we as ethical hunters need to remove as much possibility of failure as we can. In these cases, we KNOW the heavies will penetrate so we use them.
I am one that shoots the heavy weight bullets sometimes, but not always. I have used them to hunt on a few occasions. I wanted to be certain of enough penetration on my hog hunts. Both were "pay" hunts and if you draw blood you pay. I wanted to be absolutely certain of entrance and exit holes, so I used heavy lead bullets. I have used them a couple times on whitetails, not because I needed the penetration, but because the load and gun chosen were extremely accurate and it gave me one of the main ingredients needed when hunting with any weapon....CONFIDENCE!
The other reason I sometimes shoot them is like others have said, for the fun of it. I may not and probably will not get the chance to go hunt in Africa, or hunt big bears in Alaska, but it is fun to load up ammo and guns that would work if I could. I walk my trail walk, shoot at my hidden steel plates with big bullets in powerful reloads, and pretend. I may not need the big heavy loads, but it is fun to know that I could shoot and handle them if I were so lucky to ever need them.
In a recent discussion with another friend and fellow handgun hunter, we were discussing the "need" for guns like 454's and 475's. In reality we decided that a good 44 magnum is probably all the handgun we would ever NEED, but how boring would that be?
I guess in the end shooting heavy bullets is like owning a lot of different handguns...NEED HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Markbo on Oct 31, 2009 18:06:06 GMT -5
This is great stuff. If I use a 255gr .45 bullet and kill white tail and hogs (not huge boars) why would I change to 300gr bullets? For the experience of it. I am not one of the lucky ones here that lives in the country and can shoot everyday and hunt almost any day. My hunting days are few and planned. But I have never been able to leave well enough alone. Heck the amount of money I have spent modifying 10/22's is testiment to that! Along that same line since I got started reloading - in verylarge part thanks to the men on this and the older site - I cannot seem to find one magic load and leave it along. In every revolver I have I find an accurate load combination or two, make good note of it, and as soon as I obtain bigger/heavier bullets, I must experiment. Now what I experiment with in SAA replicas are certainly not the same as what I do with the big Rugers, but I still play with them. I was actually hoping to find an accurate .44 special load in the 200gr range. I did. Then I started pharting around with it and found an even MORE accurate 240(ish) grain load. Guess which one I will carry? And that is not even a good example of the big/fast heavies. Bigmuddy nailed it. For me personally, confidence is a HUGE factor when I take any arm into the woods. If I have more confidence in a particular revolver with HFC bullets, why wouldn't I carry it with those loads? That does not mean I suddenly have the want or skill to start taking 150yard shots (and I can just about guarantee you I never will), but it WILL make me more confident on 50-75 yard shots, which are about as far as I ever want to shoot a revolver at live game. With me behind the trigger, they deserve better. |
|
|
|
Post by jhrosier on Oct 31, 2009 19:28:11 GMT -5
There are only two practical ways to put more energy downrange, more weight or more velocity.
Higher velocity gets shed quickly, more weight does not change at any range.
I would not place too much importance on balistic coefficient with a handgun bullet.
The worst are only slightly less efficient than the best.
I will put my money on a slower and heavier bullet for best results.
I have been told, many times, that heavier bullets tend to shoot more accurately than lighter ones, but have been unable to prove it to myself so far.
I'm just starting to experiment with the 310 gr bullet in the .44 mag.
I have not yet found the load that shoots better than my usual 240 gr bullet.
Perhaps as the loads get closer to max that will change.
Jack
|
|
|
|
Post by nonpcnrarn on Nov 1, 2009 2:18:02 GMT -5
DO you guys know how tempted I am to throw a whole pile of meaningless numbers into this discussion? Something along the lines of: Surface area to volume ratios being what they are for cylindrical objects, a large caliber bullet can be fired at the same velocity and will penetrate more deeply & lose velocity less quickly than a smaller caliber bullet of equal material, design, sectional density & initial velocity. I certainly don't want to give TEXASFIVEGUN a headache, but I LOVE those sorts of "meaningless numbers" - as long as you know how to apply them, they can be really fun. Back to The Priest's quote of John Linebaugh, both the .475 and .500 Linebaugh's existed when he wrote about the 260 gr Keith @ 900 fps being sufficient for whitetail even out to @ 100 yards. I think Linebaugh's quote needs to be taken in context of the full article/thesis. He was stating that the 45 Colt loaded with standard loads is sufficient for most hunting, but loaded to it's full potential can flatten trajectory extending effective range (provided the shooter is up to task) and can be used to tackle heavier game. He certainly promoted larger cartridges (his own) if the shooter KNEW he was going after game that could potentially trade places on the food chain. Priest asked about "NEEDING the extra weight" for the game we usually hunt and if a standard weight slug wouldn't suffice. I can certainly see the logic in using one load for all hunting - and if you hunt elk, moose, bear, etc, making it the largest/heaviest you can handle. Conversely, if most of our hunting is deer, antelope, small pigs, etc, does an extra heavy bullet/load provide us any REAL advantage? Also, I (and I'm sure others here) can't/don't use the same load in our Rugers that we do in our Smiths. Same bullet maybe, even if heavy, but not driven to the same velocities. So there has to be some adjustment. So if we switch from say a 300 or 330 gr bullet to a 280 gr slug, are we really giving up that much performance at normal hunting distances on the majority of the game we hunt? As an example, I'm looking at a word document of some results from one of the Linebaugh Sixgun Seminars and some of the results are surprising. Looking at the .45 Colt results, I see a... 350 gr LFN @ 1030 fps penetrating 26" of wet newsprint and a 265 gr. Mt Baldy Keith @ 675 fps penetrating 27" of same. I realize this is only a single example from a large test and while a single test like this isn't conclusive, it does help me to see things from The Priest's perspective. Does the additional weight (and velocity) buy us enough of a performance increase to offset the additional recoil, blast, etc? In many cases it may - especially in the case of large critters. But on deer?? Max. P.S. A couple more examples from the same document... 335 gr CPBC LFN @ 1158 fps penetrating 29" of newsprint. 240 gr LRN @ 950 fps went 21" 330 gr LFN @ 1289 fps went 22" 300 gr LBT @ 1180 fps went 38" 350 gr LBT @ 1187 fps went 42" 350 gr LBT @ 1400 fps went 43" (ouch!) All these loads from a .45 Colt (I'm assuming the last two loads from a 5 shot revolver). |
|
;D we're just talking here. (I guess you'll have to laugh at me instead) 
