Author Topic: Interesting Roundball Observation (Read 2971 times)

Ramrod · « **on:** January 01, 2004, 04:04:58 PM »

Hey folks, I saw something the other day that made me think about why it might be possible for something as "inefficient" as a roundball to kill as well as it does. I was casting for my repro .58 Enfield musketoon other day. I ran about a hundred minies, and then dumped the sprues back in the pot. Then I dropped the first few minies I cast (wrinkled as the mold was heating up) back in. Then I switched to my new Lee .562 roundball mold and ran another hundred. Now I got to tell ya I've cast a bunch of .44 and .45 balls but this was my first time with these big boys. When I dropped my first few rejects back in to the molten lead LOOK OUT! The splash was 2 to 3 times higher than when I dropped the minies in. It didn't matter which way the minies landed, point first, sideways, ect, the lead just swallowed then up. The balls weighed only half as much as the minies but were obviously causing much more disturbance entering the melt. I could even put them on the surface and when I let go still a sizable splash upward. I WAS wearing leather gloves and was actually having fun doing this.( OK I'm easilly amsused). Now I know 900 degree lead is NOT flesh, but the "experts" test bullets in geletain and that ain't either. But I think I saw something here. Anyone care to comment, flame, nominate me for Nobel Prize, whatever?

Ramrod

rollingb · « **Reply #1 on:** January 01, 2004, 04:24:30 PM »

Ramrod,.... Are you sure thet the velocity was the same 'tween the minnies and roundballs, when you dropped'em back in the pot??

You got me "stumped"!!!!!! :eek:

KING · « **Reply #2 on:** January 01, 2004, 05:19:18 PM »

:shock: .......and I thought I was the only one that thought that this was amusing when I am running ball.........................stay safe............King :shock:

crow_feather · « **Reply #3 on:** January 01, 2004, 09:02:27 PM »

I think that soft lead does so well because it doesn't fragment like the harder lead bullets. If a half inch lead ball hits bone, instead of shattering, it just spreads and plows on through. Of course, a half inch hole through something is impressive in itself.

C F

WD45 · « **Reply #4 on:** January 02, 2004, 02:14:06 AM »

What would be interesting would be to take some of that jello stuff and shoot it with a round ball and then a minnie while filming it and then watch the instant replay in slow mo. You could see how they disrupt the jello differently..... Ok what flavor should the jello be :-D

rich e · « **Reply #5 on:** January 02, 2004, 04:45:29 AM »

Ramrod, was the room you were melting lead in well VENTILATED? :-D :-D

:-D

crow_feather · « **Reply #6 on:** January 02, 2004, 11:47:05 AM »

I always thought that jello being shot at should be - naturally - red in color. Now if you could give the jello a fur coat before you shot at it - to make it more natural sort of............... :?

New Hampshire · « **Reply #7 on:** January 02, 2004, 12:46:15 PM »

Hey crow-feather, dont ya know! According to PETA fur is dead.....well of course its dead I SHOT IT! :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D Hmmm I wonder if they think Jello is dead too? Well heck I guess Ill have to shoot that too! OK, Im gonna stop now before I hurt myself :lol: !
Brian M.

NHANG · « **Reply #8 on:** January 02, 2004, 02:05:10 PM »

I learned my lesson with round balls last year. I got a new TC Renegade and have hunted with round balls since I was a kid. Well I decided to try maxi and mini balls to see which shot better for deer season. My Dad and I were sighting in our guns and his were consistant. Mine were all over the paper and keyholed. I tried adjusting powder charges just to see if that made a difference. Dad handed me a round ball and I hit the black. He fed me 5 round balls and I adjusted my sights so I was able to hit a 3 inch circle at 100 yards. Needless to say, the maxi and miniballs are no longer in my pouch anymore and my Dad reminds me everytime I take out my Renegade.

Black Jaque Janaviac · « **Reply #9 on:** January 04, 2004, 04:02:53 PM »

Yep, I've been using an analogy to describe the roundball's terminal performance. When a diver wants to impress the judges, he makes a perfectly straight dive making hardly a splash. But when a young boy wants to impress the girls, he does a CANNONBAAAAAALLL!!!!! :lol:

I've noticed the same thing when returning RBs to the melt.

It's no mystery to me why the RB is so lethal. The Ballistic Coefficient stinks. That means it decelerates extremely quickly. It decelerates in air, and it decelerates in flesh. That deceleration is what translates to "energy deposit". Like they say about falls from great heights - "It's not the fall that kills you, it's the sudden stop at the end".

The only problem with the RB is that it doesn't fly efficiently.

It would be interesting to see some information on the ballistic coefficients of mushroomed bullets. I'll bet they're about like a roundball. In otherwords, all the hi-tech bullets are trying to do is mimic a roundball after the bullet gets past the first layer of hide.

Bob/FLA · « **Reply #10 on:** January 04, 2004, 04:24:00 PM »

Very interesting observation Black Jaque :shock:
I have seen the effects of rb and high tech bullets. One thing long shank bullets have over the rb is the sectional density. Physics determines that the higher the SD, the deeper the bullet will travel, all other thing being equal. Personally, I take very close shots...it wouldn't matter if I was shooting a rb, bullet, or bag of rocks.

Black Jaque Janaviac · « **Reply #11 on:** January 04, 2004, 04:41:39 PM »

Bob,

Exactly, but what is the sectional density of a high-tech boollet AFTER mushrooming?

One could say that higher sectional density will penetrate AIR or flesh better. But, evidently, this isn't the most desireable for flesh - otherwise why mushroom?

Super Rat · « **Reply #12 on:** January 04, 2004, 06:52:01 PM »

Under the heading of "all things being equal", the round ball is going faster than a slug, from the same gun at the same pressure, so it's hitting a little harder. The round ball does slow down fast, but at the ranges we hunt at, usually 100 yards or less, that's not a biggie. But I think what the ball lacks in weight, and sectional density, it makes up for in velocity.

The slug will penetrate more, but the ball will penetrate enough, hit harder initially, and "smoosh out" more. So balls kill very well, as long as they are not too small. As long as they are of reasonable calibre, they will give good penetration. I think what a slug really does is make a smaller bore "bigger". But for deer sized game .50" and bigger is plenty of bore size for round ball. If I was using a .45" or smaller, then I'd consider going to a slug.
(yes I know many deer have been taken with .40-.45" guns)

That's how my twisted mind looks at it anyhow. :roll:

Bob/FLA · « **Reply #13 on:** January 05, 2004, 04:39:58 AM »

Take it for what it's worth...
The SD of a mushroomed bullet is based on it's length vs. width after expansion, the same as the RB length vs. width after expansion. Some modern bullets are very frangable and blow to bits on impact, others lose only their tip and maintain a heavy base and drive deep. Modern bullets are broken into MANY groups, whereas RB's are...well...round. Since RB's have been documented to kill everything on the planet, it would be fruitless to argue against them. Just pick the right size ball for the animal you hunt.

Look at SD this way. A .50 cal rb hitting the shoulder of an elk at 100 yds will expand. It may or may not penetrate. Length vs. width mandates that the SD is VERY low. If a 30.cal solid hits the shoulder, it's SD should not change and it will continue to penetrate. If a .30 cal frangable bullet is used, it should fragment on impact and blow off a hunk of meat and hide...maybe hitting the shoulder...no SD after impact.

If I had my druthers based on this scenarion and the numbers alone, I would choose:
1. A bullet with higher SD like a T/C Maxi
or
2. Get closer. The ball should carry through the shoulder at higher speeds.

But...My REAL choice is to punch a hole through both lungs and SD, BC, fps, etc be damned. :-D

By the way...did you notice that the diver goes deeper into the water than the guy doing the cannonball? :roll:

crow_feather · « **Reply #14 on:** January 05, 2004, 05:54:51 AM »

Well - we had a guy named Selmer Oliver Olsen III. He was about as big as an elk - though I didn't know until later, as I never saw an elk in my youth. Anyways, when Selmer Oliver Olsen III hit the water in a cannon ball after seriously straining the stregnth of the new fiberglass diving board, he always hit bottom - of course there was usually very little water in the pool after he slammed into it. Once Terry Smythe, a skinny little fellow, got trapped in the splash and had to be taken off the roof of the house next door by the fire Dept.

Honest

C F

Black Jaque Janaviac · « **Reply #15 on:** January 05, 2004, 06:44:21 AM »

Bob,

I would say that the RB is a good "compromise" bullet. It penetrates well, AND it deposits energy well.

I'm not arguing that roundballs are superior to high-tech bullets - the hi-tech stuff is indeed better. My point is that the sleek looks of a top-dollar jacketed bullet is mainly for the purpose of penetrating the atmosphere with greater efficiency than a roundball. What a lot of these companies are striving for is to get external ballistics superior to RB, but get terminal ballistics comparable to RB. They've succeeded quite well.

As you pointed out, another advantage of hi-tech bullets, is that they can "specialize" more. You can get extreme penetration, or extreme energy deposit. But the majority of high tech bullets sold fall in between these extremes. In terms of terminal ballistics they are more similar to a roundball than they are to their extremely specialized counterparts as mentioned above.

And if you read about the development of jacketed bullet technology, the writings are littered with concerns and problems with "impact" velocity. There is the worry of "what if the bullet doesn't expand at the impact velocity?" With the roundball this is not a big concern, because even if it doesn't expand, the terminal performance will be like a mushroomed bullet anyway. Better energy deposit than a full metal jacket, better penetration than a varmint bullet.

So, my point is not to say that the RB is superior to all other projectiles. My point is to say that the RB possesses terminal ballistics that hi-tech bullets would like to attain. That is, a good compromise of penetrattion AND energy deposit.

The beauty of the hi-tech bullet is they enjoy external ballistics that are far superior to the RB and at the same time they can retain the terminal ballistics of the RB. Plus there's the added bonus of the specialized bullets such as armor piercing and frangible.

But if you look at what the hi-tech stuff is all about, it's all about squeezing higher velocity so the shooter can increase his/her "point-blank" range. Basically if you look at what a .50 RB does inside 100 yards, the ammo researchers are just trying to get their bullets to do the same at 3 times that distance.

The reason we hunt with RB is not because they are superior, it is because they are inferior. And we derive greater satisfaction by succeeding in an endeavor using inferior equipment. I'm sure all of us on this board would feel quite proud if they successfully ran a marathon, yet no one here would brag about driving 26 miles. This is a perfect illustration of why using less, is "more".

Bob/FLA · « **Reply #16 on:** January 05, 2004, 12:21:48 PM »

Yeah...what I said :-D
Good thread...lots of fun talking about ballistics.

I hunt primarily with my bow, but my second choice is a .72 RB out of the big smoothrifle. It's hard to argue with a hole that STARTS out at almost 3/4" :eek:

Talk to you guys again

crow_feather · « **Reply #17 on:** January 05, 2004, 12:39:18 PM »

Killing is throwing something hard at a living object, in order to inflict trauma to that object's organs, which when damaged or destroyed, causes the object to quit living.

Lead was used because it was heavy, easy mallable, and not that hard to find. And it worked.

Every thing evolves. Except we in traditional rifles want to stay in a certain part of that evolution. Somewhere pre 1840. During that time lead round balls were the projectile used.

There are better projectiles, but I do not want to improve over what was used at that time, and thus there is no better than what I presently use, the Round Ball.

C F

Super Rat · « **Reply #18 on:** January 05, 2004, 06:41:21 PM »

Right...you can "improve" on a round ball, but really the ball works perfectly, all you have to do is adjust the size of it, depending on what you are hunting. Want more penetration? Go to a bigger ball/calibre. (see: Selmar Oliver Olsen III!) But for any type/size of game, there is a wide range of calibers that will work perfectly.

And some "improvements" are more imagined than real, or give you more range, but don't actually have superior killing power at 100 yards or less.

I would also guess that round ball shooters, in general, are more likely to be the ones that keep their shots within the 100 yard range, do their best to place them well, and are willing to let game go if there is a question of making a good shot.

Cuts Crooked · « **Reply #19 on:** January 06, 2004, 01:04:05 AM »

Quote

I would also guess that round ball shooters, in general, are more likely to be the ones that keep their shots within the 100 yard range, do their best to place them well, and are willing to let game go if there is a question of making a good shot.

And there you have it! My personal definition of "hunting" is to get as close to the subject I'm after as possible before dispatching it. My personal best in this effort was approximately 18 inches from a deer. (there was smoke coming out of the EXIT wound!

)

I have made much longer shots, but they didn't give me the feeling of personal satisfaction that I get from getting in tight & close! But I do understand the desire of others to successfully make long range kills, as well as the need to do so under some hunting conditions. Thus the need for projectiles with a high BC. You use what you need to do the job at hand, sometimes that's a round ball, sometimes it's a conical!

Bob/FLA · « **Reply #20 on:** January 06, 2004, 02:00:37 AM »

Black Jaque Janaviac · « **Reply #21 on:** January 06, 2004, 04:18:23 AM »

Dang it Bob! How are we supposed to have an arguement if we keep agreeing with each other!

And, I just have to add, a big part of the point of this is that roundballs lack ONLY in exterior ballistics. Therefore any argument that RBs are inhumane is bogus.

crow_feather · « **Reply #22 on:** January 06, 2004, 05:43:01 AM »

Cuts Crooked,
I got real close to a bear once. Came up right behind him. I was standing just behind his tail when I aimed at his head and pulled the trigger. POP - no bang - I knew I was in trouble because that old boar was turning to do me in. I had to do something quick. So I shoved that rifle where the sun don't shine and held on. Rvery time that bear turned, he turned me with him. Knowing I was behind him and him not being able to see me, made that bear nervous. He just puckered up and ran straight off. Being that he was puckered, he stripped my front sight off my rifle and even though I was able to get another cap on the rifle, I couldn't get him in my sights. Now you might not believe this but if you start searching bear scat, and find a front sight blade, then you are on the trail of one lucky bear.

C F

Cuts Crooked · « **Reply #23 on:** January 06, 2004, 05:53:13 AM »

Crow Feather,

Ah hah! THAT explains wat them research fellers found when taking samples frum dat big old bear they darted! They wuz scratchin they haids fer weeks over dat!

'mind me ta tell y'all 'bout the time I got b'twixt a POed Wolverine 'n a Catamount... 'n mah hawk handle wuz busted! :eek:

Cuts (wat 'cn tell a mountain yarn 'r three hisownself) Crooked :-D

Bob/FLA · « **Reply #24 on:** January 06, 2004, 07:25:29 AM »

Hey BJJ,
I don't believe in arguing...especially on-line. I try to do my research and state what I have determined as fact, trying not to put in my opinion. Opinions are like arses, necessary but best not shown in public. Debates in some forums become so out of control that the forum becomes no fun...note what happened here only a short time ago. Arguing with personal opinion usually creates an unproductive emotional response. Best to openly and politely debate...when civil discussions are held, even if we disagree, good things happen.

Dang...What a great place to hang out!

LOVE that story about the bear. I'm sure that if a bear turned on me, there would be more than just bear crap out there :eek:

rollingb · « **Reply #25 on:** January 06, 2004, 07:36:48 AM »

aahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh,...... sighhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh,....... it sure is "nice" to sit back, and read these kind'a "posts"!!

"snozzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzze"........!!

Bob/FLA · « **Reply #26 on:** January 06, 2004, 11:27:26 AM »

Besides...two guys from Wyoming can't fight

rollingb · « **Reply #27 on:** January 06, 2004, 02:34:26 PM »

Bob,..... :toast:

WD45 · « **Reply #28 on:** January 07, 2004, 03:28:54 AM »

That inhumane thing just makes me boil..... Most of those idiots will order a steak or buy one in the supermarket but killing bambi with something as primitive as a RB is barbaric..... How many of these people have ever been to a slaughter house or around a farm ?
At least a deer has a running chance.
A potato cant run but they will rip it out of the ground ... jab it with a fork all over and put it in a hot oven until its eyes pop out and think nothing of it :shock:
So who's barbaric

Black Jaque Janaviac · « **Reply #29 on:** January 07, 2004, 09:05:28 AM »

WD45,

Actually it's not just non-hunters and anti-hunters. I've seen more than one hi-tech in-line afficionado justify themselves by claiming that a RB is ineffective, or is a crippler.

I've often heard of the mantra "I don't have a problem with using the best technology to ensure a humane kill."

Well the presumption is that those of us who use less technology are inhumane. It's just bogus. The bulk of the modern developments in hunting weaponry have been for the purpose of increasing effective range. This has little to do with "humaneness".

If the effective limit of a roundball is 100 yards and the effective limit of a sabot is 200 yards; How is it more humane for a hunter to take a 400 yard shot with a sabot than it is for a hunter to take a 200 yard shot with a roundball?

The answer is it's not. The act of being "inhumane" comes from the decision of the hunter to take a shot that is way beyond his capabilities. If he knows his capabilities and stays within that everything is fine.