The Benefits of Pure Lead

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

As if those of us who use less than the 800ft-lb cut-off will be held accountable on Judgement day!

 :-D  :-D  :-D  :-D  :-D

[RandyWakeman]

Not at all-- but a certain fellow who needed 7 shots from a .45 / 70 Government to get a black bear out of a tree at 20 yards perhaps should be.

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

Not at all

Then what is the tie between 800ft-lbs and "ethics"?

My dictionary has several definitions of ethics, most of which include the word "moral".  Which implies an element of "good" and "evil".  The implication you conjure up with the word "ethical" is that handgun hunters and roundball shooters are doing something "evil".  IOW, it's insulting.

I don't know the full circumstances with the said "certain fellow", but it doesn't appear that he could be condemned for being undergunned.  So this scenario is irrelevant to a discussion on an "ethical minimum" of kinetic energy.

[Omega]

I'm guessing that your staunch anti-round ball stance has not changed a great deal?  

Not one iota. I still believe that like any other projectile, rb has its performance envelope and if it is used inside that then it is an acceptable choice. I've never been anti-round ball, I've severely disagreed with some of the applications that have been reported by rb users. But to each his own.

[RandyWakeman]

Then what is the tie between 800ft-lbs and "ethics"?

The article was not about ethics, it was about bullet material. "Ethics" was not a part of the thread until you brought it up. The 800 fpe figure widely accepted as the mimimum necessary to humanely take deer-sized game is nothing new at all, though some have suggested that 1000 fpe is more reasonable, such as Richard Lee.

What do you feel it should be, and why?

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

Actually, you brought up ethics in the article.  Reread it, or read my quote of it.  Had you not used that particular word, I probably wouldn't be typing this right now.

Yes, I've read the 800 ft-lb figure, but in any literature that was worthwhile it has always been in reference to that amount of energy needed to drop a deer in it's tracks.  

Do you see a distinction between instantly dropping a deer and just humanely dispatching a deer?

The 800 fpe figure widely accepted as the mimimum necessary to humanely take deer-sized game is nothing new at all

OK here is the hitch.  Replace the words "humanely take" with the words "instantly drop" and I think your statement will be more accurate.

The .44 Magnum is also "widely accepted" as an adequate cartridge for dispatching deer with a handgun.  Generally, hunters would not consider it cruel to use a .44mag to take deer out to 100 yards.  Yet the .44 makes around 850 ft-lbs at the muzzle of a 7" bbl.  And only 650 fpe at 100 yards.  

So, on the one hand we have a community of hunters who "widely accept" 800 fpe as a minimum to humanely take deer.  But that same community of hunters seems to think it is perfectly humane to dispatch deer with a .44 magnum? (I won't even tell you that a .357magnum is also an accepted cartridge)

Hogwash!

I think some confusion occurred over what was considered enough to instantly drop a deer and somehow that got mistaken as "Canon Law."

Here is the way I see it:
I don't believe you need to drop the animal in it's tracks to be "humane".  If the deer expires within a few seconds that's about what I consider humane.  Remember, a deer can cover a lot of ground in a few seconds.  A healthy human can cover 100 yards in 10 to 15 seconds, a lungshot deer can do that much faster.

So using death-within-a-matter-of-seconds as the humane criteria - you can get by with a lot less than 800 fpe.  A .44 Mag can do it, a .50 roundball can do it, an arrow can do that.

[RandyWakeman]

So using death-within-a-matter-of-seconds as the humane criteria - you can get by with a lot less than 800 fpe. A .44 Mag can do it, a .50 roundball can do it, an arrow can do that.

The 800 fpe generally accepted is just that. I didn't develop it, promulgate it, and the purpose of the article is not to direct anyone's personal moral compass. You'll have to get your favorite spirit medium to debate it with Elmer Keith. Having done a fair share of handgun hunting, I have some idea of how my Super Redhawk 7-1/2" .44 Mag performs-- and what a .357 vented barrel does on feral hogs and sheep. "Getting by" with the minimum on animals is hardly my focus. A .44 Mag out of a rifle is a different ball game-- with any number of factory loads producing 1760 fps at the muzzle, and retaining over 800 fpe to 150 yards or so, and that is easily bettered if you reload. The .223 is legal for deer in some areas as well, but merely being legal in no way makes it ideal.

As for the round ball, it remains the most ballistic inefficient projectile available. There is no reason I can see for handicapping an in-line muzzleloader with such a pathetic down-range performer-- and that happens to be the forum you are in. The number of coyote-chewed deer carcasses I've seen wounded by arrows (this year alone) tells me there is a vast difference between what is possible and what is probable.

There is no "right or wrong," and no one has the right to tell another hunter what to use that is otherwise legal. Everyone has the right to their opinion, though, and my opinion is that seeking the bare minimum load that can possibly take a game animal is not a particularly worthwhile endeavor. Whatever glory there might be in a "minimalistic" kill, tracking, or follow-up shots escapes me. Everytime I see an animal with three or four holes in him, it just seems there is room for improvement somewhere along the line.

[bubba]

I still do no tget the idea of having to quote what the person before you says like we cant figure out who you are responding too. Just another high tech tool to play with.

[woodseye]

Bubba.......my experience has been that even with quotes, others the response is not to can still feel included in the response. So many posters reading and adding to these forums that anything that helps narrow down the post direction seems benefical.

With bullet differences and shot placement variables minimum energy numbers can be an ever changing number. IMHO Minmums are always used to get by with the least amount of force while I subscribe to using more than necessary for those unforseen shot opps that go against the classic broadside picture perfect shots.

In the woods things seldom work like they are supposed to, arrows kill by a totally different method as all know and don't rely on energy. Use a bullet that opens properly for the velocity your gun shoots and get that bullet into the vitals and the deer has very limited time left here on earth and won't go too far.

I prefer a pass thru shot for added tracking blood if necessary but also employ a shoulder shot that drops them instantly about 70-80% of the time. Just a personal choice that has been developed over many years of shooting large northern bucks in very thick and wet cover. Your mileage of course may vary.

Don't know any inliners that use roundballs for hunting, isn't this more of a traditional subject? I prefer something a little more aerodynamic and sturdy........an interloc or barnes expander  :wink:

      woods

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

The 800 fpe generally accepted is just that.

Can you back this one up?  Is there a study on this?

The issue is Randy's declaration of an ethical standard, roundballs have little to do with it.  It was Randy's implication that hitting a deer with anything less than 800 fpe is unethical that I disagree with.

. . .the purpose of the article is not to direct anyone's personal moral compass.

Then terminology like ethical doesn't belong in the article.

Having done a fair share of handgun hunting, I have some idea of how my Super Redhawk 7-1/2" .44 Mag performs

And?  Let me guess it's only good for shots out to 25 yards right?  Beyond that the energy drops below 800 fp and it becomes a notorious crippler of game right?

Everytime I see an animal with three or four holes in him, it just seems there is room for improvement somewhere along the line.

Just exactly how often do you see animals with three or four holes in the chest, from a muzzle loader?

[RandyWakeman]

The 800 fpe generally accepted is just that.
Can you back this one up?  Is there a study on this?

It is well-documented from Elmer Keith to Jack O'Connor, is present in every major ballistics program today, and is also a component of the CXP method of rating ammunition. I'll determine what is present in my own articles. If you can come up with a "more accepted" kinetic energy level-- cite your sources, and I'll be happy to include it.

One of the plethora of citations is by Hank Strong:

STANDARDS

Long range hunting for muzzle loaders is anything past 100 yards. Hitting big game past 100 yards is one thing. Effectively harvesting an animal is something else. Our tests clearly demonstrat that it was possible to place a shot at 150, 200 or 300 yards accurately. However, a bullet has to have enough energy to create a deadly wound channel. The question is; "How much energy is necessary?" Our research revealed that when a muzzle loading bullet delivered 800 or more f.p.e. (foot pounds of energy) it would generate hydrostatic shock upon impact and good expansion. We tested the loads by setting up milk jugs filled with water at 100, 150, and 200 yards to check the bullet's ability to penetrate and expand. Our research disclosed that 17" of water was roughly the equivalent of 12" of body tissue. The water filed containers more closely duplicated body tissue than other materials. When a bullet was able to penetrate three jugs in a line and destroy the first two to three jugs abreast of each other it was considered effective for whitetail.

We discovered that sabot bullets had to weigh at least 270 grains, and have a ballistic coefficient (B.C.) of at least .206 with a muzzle velocity of 1500 f.p.s. or more. Conicals had to weigh at least 410 grains and have a B.C. of .190 with a muzzle velocity of 1225 f.p.s. or more. Generally, we had to use high powder charges of 90 grains or higher to deliver 800 f.p.e. at 200 or 300 yards. These standards greatly narrowed our rifle and bullet selection.

Hank's entire article from the Black Powder Journal can be found here: http://www.blackpowderjournal.com/Vol2No5/Articles/BPJ25-3.htm

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

The question is; "How much energy is necessary?"

Necessary to do what?

To cleanly harvest a deer right?  How clean is clean?  Does the deer have to drop in its tracks?

The author's never clarify this.

Our research revealed that when a muzzle loading bullet delivered 800 or more f.p.e. (foot pounds of energy) it would generate hydrostatic shock upon impact and good expansion.

Ok, so we know that 800 ft-lbs is the minimum to produce hydrostatic shock and blow up milk jugs.  

How does this translate to cleanly harvesting deer?

The hydrostatic shock is what is sought to produce an instant drop.   The authors seem to presume that this is a standard for "clean harvests", which it is not.  Are you willing to state that anything less than dropping in their tracks is a "messy kill"?

In fact, if the entire article is read through and through, it appears that the big crippler of game is untrained hunters taking shots at 150+ yards - regardless of the amount of fpe.

[RandyWakeman]

In some areas, it is a matter of legality as well. According to the the BASC, "There are laws covering the kind of rifle which may be used for deer. In England and Wales the minimum calibre for any sort of deer is .240 with a muzzle energy of not less than 1,700 ft/lbs. "

Perhaps Chuck Hawks' article will be more pleasing to you: http://www.chuckhawks.com/rifle_killing_power.htm

If you care to take the time and effort to write an article that you feel is more accurate than previously mentioned, please do so. As it is, the 800 fpe remains what it has been for years-- "generally accepted," though some are more comfortable with 900 or 1000 kpe.

One individual who has co-mingled the art and science of muzzleloading is Toby Bridges. Toby writes, "I firmly believe that a whitetail should be hunted with a bullet that can maintain as close as possible to 1,000 foot-pounds of energy at the distance the animal is shot to insure a good, clean and quick harvest.  Some of the the lighter bullets have great aerodynamics, but just lose too much energy too quickly."
 

Some of Toby's experiences are documented at http://www.hpmuzzleloading.com/Technical.html

Sir Albert Gore, taking 1000s of animals in the 1840's, used 10 and 12 bore rifles, and considered his .67 caliber a "lightweight," while expressing his disdain for the smaller calibers of the day. The .58 caliber Minie ball, developed in the 1840's as well, was shown to be far superior to the .69 caliber round ball at that time. Though they weigh about the same, the Minie ball (480 gr.) fired at 1100 fps (std. military load of 60 gr. or so FFg BP) proved to be way ahead of the .69 cal RB-- retaining 900 fpe at 200 yards compared to the .69 cal's 690 fpe at the same range, with a far flatter trajectory. So, 900 fpe at 200 yards has been common since the Civil War, making it hardly recent "news," or even a breathtakingly higher level of energy.

So yes, 800 fpe was cited as generally accepted, though Chuck Hawks prefers 900 fpe, Richard Lee and Toby Bridges have cited 1000 fpe. If there is some "negative" to seeking 1000 fpe into an animal at terminal distance, I have yet to hear it.

[jh45gun]

I guess I will add my 2 cents to the fray. I like casting my own lead bullets wether it be for muzzle loaders or centerfires. I also get a kick out of those who downplay cast bullets as they have killed cleanly in years past and will keep on doing so in the future! I have no arguement for those who like jacketed bullets in muzzle loaders. My attitude is I like launching large chunks of lead down range if I wanted to shoot a 44 pistol bullet I would out of a 44 mag. For those that do like it go for it I will not impede on your fun. Lead works no matter what the guys who shoot the other projectiles think. The important thing is no matter what you shoot lead or jacketed it is not worth the arguement as we should all stick together in our sport and that includes the traditional as well as the non traditional guns and shooters. Jim

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

Randy,

I think you misunderstand.  I'm not debating whether the 800 to 1000 fpe is a widely accepted criteria.  I know those numbers are frequently bantered around by lots of respected hunters and writers.  

It's the part about making it an issue of ethics that I disagree on.


From the link to Toby's site:

Of the 15 deer shot with the 300 grain XTP, ONLY four deer went down on the spot (including the two on which the bullets had not exited) and the deer averaged close to 60 yards before going down.  

Toby does note that the 250 grain bullet dropped the deer more quickly than the 300 grain bullets.  But he never raises this as an ethical issue.  The fact is the 300 grain bullet did just fine, it's just that the 250 grain bullet did better.  He didn't seem to loose sleep at night knowing that the deer hit with 300 grain bullets were traveling an average of 60 yards after being hit.  That's because that 60 yards represents only a few seconds - a very humane kill.

[RandyWakeman]

Live and learn. :oops:

Next 2400 word article I write, I think I'll change "recommended 800 fpe ethical minimum" to recommended 800 fpe minimum -- if that's okay by you.