Big Round Balls

[Jeff Higgins]

Hit pretty god damned hard...

I gave the boys at the gravel pit a bit of a lesson in applied ballistics the other day. As luck would have it, a very common modern hunting round, the ubiquitous .30-'06, generates about the same muzzle energy as one of my big bore muzzle loaders, about 2,900 foot pounds. This is with the standard '06 load of a 180 grain bullet at about 2,700 fps. This particular muzzle loader, a .72 caliber, launches a round ball of 583 grains at about 1,500 fps, for the same 2,900 foot pounds of muzzle energy.

We were shooting at one of the Caldwell "magnum rifle" gongs at about 100 yards, like this one. Our chains ar a lot longer now, so the gong hangs almost down on the ground - we found that modification to greatly enhance durability, with more "swing" to absorb the impact. It's otherwise identical to this one. The gong is about ten inches in diameter:



So one of the guys starts in on it with his M 70 in .30-'06, shooting from various field positions, and having no trouble ringing it. Actually, it's a pretty solid "thwack", and the plate jumps all over hell. Pretty impressive, really. At least until I loaded up the .72 and went after it...

That darn thing hit it so hard that it knocked the gong around for one full lap of the cross bar, as it dislodged the frame from under the big rocks we place on its legs to hold it in place, upending the whole works.

What a stark display of the differences between how "energy" is generated by two entirely different philosophies. One, light and fast, the other heavy and slow. Some argue that "energy", whose calculation squares velocity, actually overemphasizes velocity by doing so. "Momentum" calculations do not, thereby assigning equal weight to mass and velocity both. Watching this little demonstration sure served to lend some credence to the "momentum" argument.

The rifle:



.72 round ball and .308 dia, 180 grain spitzer:

[masraum]

I'd rather get hit by a 223 round in a spot that doesn't include the central nervous system or vital organs than a train going full speed. (If I had to choose one or the other)

[flipper35]

When discussing this stuff I always ask if they would rather be hit by a 90mph fastball or 60mph bowling ball.

[John Rogers]

At our July anniversary shoot and steak fry several years ago one of our shooters brought out his English 75 caliber big game hunting muzzle loader. We shot cards set sideways, a circle, small steel silhouettes and a swinger about the size of yours. He loaded up a full hunting load of Swiss 3f, 140 grains I think, so anyways when he fired it off the ball hit the gong and the whole thing flew 25 feet or so backwards! Found the round ball just slightly flattened where most of ours are flat as a pancake!

[masraum]

Originally Posted by John Rogers

At our July anniversary shoot and steak fry several years ago one of our shooters brought out his English 75 caliber big game hunting muzzle loader. We shot cards set sideways, a circle, small steel silhouettes and a swinger about the size of yours. He loaded up a full hunting load of Swiss 3f, 140 grains I think, so anyways when he fired it off the ball hit the gong and the whole thing flew 25 feet or so backwards! Found the round ball just slightly flattened where most of ours are flat as a pancake!

Yowza! I'd like to have seen that. I assume it got everyone's attention? No one was still napping after.

[red-beard]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

Hit pretty god damned hard...

I gave the boys at the gravel pit a bit of a lesson in applied ballistics the other day. As luck would have it, a very common modern hunting round, the ubiquitous .30-'06, generates about the same muzzle energy as one of my big bore muzzle loaders, about 2,900 foot pounds. This is with the standard '06 load of a 180 grain bullet at about 2,700 fps. This particular muzzle loader, a .72 caliber, launches a round ball of 583 grains at about 1,500 fps, for the same 2,900 foot pounds of muzzle energy.

We were shooting at one of the Caldwell "magnum rifle" gongs at about 100 yards, like this one. Our chains ar a lot longer now, so the gong hangs almost down on the ground - we found that modification to greatly enhance durability, with more "swing" to absorb the impact. It's otherwise identical to this one. The gong is about ten inches in diameter:




So one of the guys starts in on it with his M 70 in .30-'06, shooting from various field positions, and having no trouble ringing it. Actually, it's a pretty solid "thwack", and the plate jumps all over hell. Pretty impressive, really. At least until I loaded up the .72 and went after it...

That darn thing hit it so hard that it knocked the gong around for one full lap of the cross bar, as it dislodged the frame from under the big rocks we place on its legs to hold it in place, upending the whole works.

What a stark display of the differences between how "energy" is generated by two entirely different philosophies. One, light and fast, the other heavy and slow. Some argue that "energy", whose calculation squares velocity, actually overemphasizes velocity by doing so. "Momentum" calculations do not, thereby assigning equal weight to mass and velocity both. Watching this little demonstration sure served to lend some credence to the "momentum" argument.

The rifle:



.72 round ball and .308 dia, 180 grain spitzer:

You need both calculations to determine the transfer along with the principles of Conservation of energy and conservation of momentum, assuming a ricochet and not absorption.

[Jeff Higgins]

I'm eager to go out and actually hunt with this thing. I've hunted with muzzle loaders all of my life, and have taken a fair amount of game with them over the years. I began with a .54 caliber Thompson Center "Hawken", shooting their "maxi-ball" conical projectile, and later the Lyman "Great Plains" bullet. I never thought the round ball was entirely adequate as a hunting projectile, with its terrible sectional density and ballistic coefficient. Hell, they lose fully have their initial velocity in less than 100 yards. I always felt conical bullets, typically twice the weight of the round ball, were superior. I certainly never had any complaints on the deer and elk taken with them.

Here are the three .54 caliber projectiles I've used. Round ball at 230 grains, Maxi Ball at 430 grains, and Plains Bullet at 460 grains:



Then, over the years, I decided that using conical bullets was somehow "cheating", in that they are not really "correct" for the time period when muzzle loaders were all we had. I even "regressed" as far as going to a flint lock round ball shooter, in .50 caliber. A .50 caliber round ball only weighs 180 grains, by the way.

Well, it didn't take long to understand that these "small" round balls - .50 and .54 caliber - were pretty darn inadequate on mule deer and elk. No wonder they were so quickly abandoned when something better - conical bullets - came along. I know .50 caliber (and to a lesser extent .54 caliber) are more or less the "standards" here in the U.S. for modern muzzle loading seasons, but that is when used with projectiles other than round balls. As "round ball guns", these are considered decidedly "small bore".

The .72 caliber - 12 gauge - starts to get into the "medium bore" category when discussing round ball guns. Sir Samuel Baker, in his The Hound and the Rifle in Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) describes his 12 and 10 bore rifles as adequate for the stags roaming that island. His rifles for heavier game were typically 8 bore or even larger.

So, yeah, after trying .50 and .54 caliber round balls for a few seasons, I quickly wrote them off as ineffective and went back to the conical bullets. I'm thinking this .72 caliber is going to work a bit better...

[71T Targa]

Those are some big balls Jeff.

Apples to oranges, but my old paintball gun had a slightly curved barrel that caused backspin on those balls and introduced lift, or if turned sideways, a curve ball.

I wonder if something like that has been tried with the ball muzzle loaders?

[John Rogers]

Sorta tried I'd say with the direction of the barrel twist direction. We have a Schuetzen fellow with a rifle made by Harry Pope with two barrels, one right hand twist and one left hand twist. Since the bullet is small diameter and very long the direction it is spinning in relation to the wind direction can cause the bullet to either climb or drop slightly? With a patched round ball the tightness of the patch and width of the rifling can affect how the lead ball travels. As an example I have a "chunk gun" that was made including the rifling in the 1 1/2 inch 50 caliber barrel by a Midwest master gunsmith named Web Terry that has the lands and grooves the same diameter and is made to use a very tight ball and linen patch and it goes in an arc but straight as an arrow even in a healthy wind. I have several others with different rifling and they are very easily affected by side wind so I have to refer to my note book every time I shoot them.