PDA

View Full Version : Muzzle loader striking energy/effects question


RAfiringline
January 11, 2016, 02:32 PM
When I was watching that bear attack scene in Revenant, I started wondering what kind of striking energy a round from one of those old guns would have, and what could be expected in shooting big animals w/ them. Obviously, caliber varied, as did the amount of powder used.

Does anybody know how the span of impact energy from those old guns compares w/ more modern rifles?

Thanks

mapsjanhere
January 11, 2016, 02:57 PM
Muzzle energy of a rifled musket was in the same range as a modern shotgun slug, somewhere around 3000 J, bullet was similar size and weight. Good luck with the effect testing.

Erno86
January 11, 2016, 03:24 PM
Conical shaped bullets were better for use on large game, compared to round balls, because when a round ball hits bone...it tends to pie-shape more than a conical would --- thus reducing penetration.

kilimanjaro
January 11, 2016, 03:53 PM
The energy was not very great. The historical record is full of examples of Grizzlies being shot a dozen times with black powder rifles and muskets before dying of wounds. The journals of Lewis and Clark contain several such entries. Hunting parties were made up of six or more men, for this reason, as well as getting enough game to feed the camp.

As a military weapon, that .58 or .74 caliber soft lead ball was spherical, not pointed. It was going to expend all of it's energy in the person it hit, not pass on through, except at close range.

On striking the human target, the ball seldom glanced off bone, but shattered it. Again, soft metal, large diameter. No neat holes.

That is the reason amputations were so common in the battlefield infirmaries. The bone was shattered, and could not be mended. Tissue wounds were large and destructive to the muscle. Organs were pulped. There wasn't enough energy to kill you outright, barring a CNS hit, so victims bled to death or died of shock.

Hawg
January 11, 2016, 05:32 PM
As a military weapon, that .58 or .74 caliber soft lead ball was spherical, not pointed. It was going to expend all of it's energy in the person it hit, not pass on through, except at close range.

You've obviously not seen what a .58 minie ball can do. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PifleEwbeko

Pathfinder45
January 11, 2016, 09:39 PM
I thought the Minie ball was an invention that came about just a little before the Civil War where it was used extensively. But at the time of Lewis an Clark and the subsequent mountain fur trade era, the round ball was the period-correct projectile.

kilimanjaro
January 11, 2016, 10:32 PM
The Minie 'ball' was an entirely different projectile introduced just prior to the US Civil War. Any discussion of muzzle loaders in the Mountain Man era, Napoleonic, Revolutionary, Mexican, or other War should exclude the Minie ball.

The Minie cartridge, a paper cartridge that included powder and ball, was more accurate and had higher velocity, and thus energy. It's use against Americans, even Confederates, was briefly controversial and considered inhumane. That sentiment didn't last very long as Union casualties mounted.

The true inhumanity was using 18th Century formations in the face of rapid volley fire.

Slamfire
January 11, 2016, 10:35 PM
The energy was not very great. The historical record is full of examples of Grizzlies being shot a dozen times with black powder rifles and muskets before dying of wounds. The journals of Lewis and Clark contain several such entries. Hunting parties were made up of six or more men, for this reason, as well as getting enough game to feed the camp.

I understand Grizzlies don't fall over and die after being tickled with modern rounds. I saw one that was stuffed, big bear, he had been hit by at least three 300 Win Mag's.

The Lewis and Clark expedition went out west with 32 and 36 caliber rifles. Adequate for eastern game, but not powerful enough for Grizzlies. The later plains rifles had bigger bores, like 54 caliber. I have looked at the ballistics of a 54 caliber round ball and it and a 44 Magnum pistol are about equivalent in momentum. Not really reassuring against an 800 lb animal.

As for a Minie, that is a 58 Caliber projectile weighing 510 or 460 grains. If it penetrates, it makes a heck of a hole. Still, might have taken a squad to bring down a Grizzly. Once repeating lever actions in large calibers, like 45/70 were available, a lone man had the ability to fire more rounds that could kill a Grizzly.

Jim Watson
January 12, 2016, 10:34 AM
Such information as I have been able to find shows only one .36, Clark's personal "little rifle."
Best estimate of the Lewis and Clark Expedition rifle was a 1792 contract rifle, most likely shortened for horseback carry and maybe rebored larger than then standard .49 cal. With 15 procured, the rest of the Army party of 30 were surely issued .69 muskets.

I have heard hunters to say the round ball killed better than paper ballistics indicate... but not bear hunters.

Ol Claude developed the Minie "ball" in 1848, England adopted the Enfield version in 1853, and the US went with the Burton design in 1855.
No doubt there were a lot of army surplus rifle muskets used for hunting (and a lot of those reamed smooth for shot) but I have not heard of purpose built Minie sporters. Ned Roberts discussed "picket ball" rifles which did not use the hollow base design.

Big bore repeaters were not available until 1876 and not in .45-70 until 1881.
I have seen mention of double rifles, but mostly muzzle loaders, you would have to be a cattle baron or railroad tycoon to afford a Purdey Express in the 1870s.

mapsjanhere
January 12, 2016, 11:05 AM
The true inhumanity was using 18th Century formations in the face of rapid volley fire

That's because even with improved technique a single skirmish line of muzzle loaders could not fend off a cavalry charge in the open field. And with most CW units being freshly recruited you couldn't expect fancy maneuvering in anything less than a battalion, preferably regimental block.
Even at the beginning of the Franco-German war of 1870 they tried formations but learned rapidly that only an open advance had a chance against breech loaders.

g.willikers
January 12, 2016, 12:49 PM
The historical record is full of examples of Grizzlies being shot a dozen times with black powder rifles and muskets before dying of wounds.
Gotta' think that hunters back then tended to be just as excitable as those today when confronted with a giant man eating grizzly.
Careful aimed shots might have been the exception.

ligonierbill
January 12, 2016, 01:16 PM
Lewis and Clark had a variety of firearms, including a powerful air rifle. But their main rifle was the .54 caliber "new" rifled musket out of Harper's Ferry. You can buy replicas today, or get the pieces and make your own. I have not chronographed my .58 Christian's Spring, but I'm guessing about 1,600 fps with the 280 gr ball. That's just under 1,600 lb-ft. You're depending more on momentum and a big wound channel. You never know what a critter will do when its adrenaline is up, but the shot depicted in the movie looked lethal, and Glass would have had a .50 or .54. Guessing the depiction is accurate.

Mobuck
January 13, 2016, 07:30 AM
Killing big, tough animals like bison and grizzlies requires sectional density (which round balls lack) and penetration(which soft lead round balls lack).

mavracer
January 13, 2016, 08:37 AM
The movie was set in 1823 so you're going to be looking at plains rifles shooting round balls, usually from 45 to 54 caliber. With BP you can usually achieve 1800-2000fps from a round ball and round balls are going to weigh between ~130 for 45s to ~230 for 54 so you're looking at between a 7.62 X 39 ish and 35 remington ish power wise.

Llama Bob
January 14, 2016, 10:18 PM
.50ish caliber ball at about 1400 ft/s is about what you got depending on the rifle. So we're talking 190ish grains and slightly over 800 ft-lbs of energy. Basically about what my 10mm woods load manages today, but with a lower sectional density bullet that was disinclined to penetrate.

Times were tough, and they were tougher if you had a bear you needed dead sooner rather than later.

Pathfinder45
January 15, 2016, 01:23 PM
And now an old phrase comes to mind: "....loaded for bear...." If I remember correctly, it comes from the muzzle-loading-era practice of loading two balls over a substantial charge of powder, providing in one shot what we now would call a, "double-tap".

reinert
January 17, 2016, 07:56 PM
RAfiringline,

I've seen the movie too, and the bear scene was quite amazing. The main rifle Dicaprio used in the movie was made by Ron Luckenbill, and it was a .50 caliber. I guess there were two of those rifles made for the movie. Though you see Glass using different firearms through the movie, I think the bear gun was the .50. That being said, how far do you figure that CGI bear was from him when he fired? 3 or 4 yards? Even less than that? That part, to me, when he fired, and that bear wincing at the shot, looked very well done on the screen. It looked like (and was) a good shot to the neck. Then, the enraged momma bear grabbed another gear and commenced the second go-round on Glass.

When the rifle was slowly brought up to fire by the already torn-up Glass, did you notice he deftly pulled the frizzen shut just before he fired? Even though you'd think his priming was gone after the bear knocked his gun out of his hands, you could justify easily enough that there was still "just enough" to fire the rifle...and there was (and that's Hollywood). After that next mauling, you could see the bear had her death wound by all that blood on it's neck, and she was getting a bit wobbly besides; then the knifing which ended the whole deal.

Let's say Dicaprio had a proper patched round ball load in his rifle with a 90 grain charge. A .490 RB weighs around 180 grains, and probably would be moving at 1700-1800 fps at the muzzle (?) out of a flintlock. At the range he shot the bear, that ball would penetrate well enough to cut the main artery and bleed out the bear fairly quickly, but surely wouldn't put it down immediately, which it didn't (IMO). At the angle of the shot, I don't believe there would be enough penetration of the ball to break the neck and drop the bear in it's tracks. Nothing but thoughts here, for sure. Muzzle-blast in that bear's face is fairly interesting to contemplate, too, but it sure didn't make any difference to Glass' bear, eh?

I've killed two buffalo with a .50 caliber percussion ball shooter, using the .490" patched round ball, and 100 grains of 2fg powder. They were both less than 40 yards away, and both dropped at the shots to just below each of the ears. I know the hide is quite thin in that area, and probably the same could be said of a bear if you had the broadside shot you could take just below the ear and break the neck. If you could make that shot on a bear at, say, 5 yds., I believe that bear would drop in it's tracks. Hope I never have to find out...and again, I'm just speculating here.

I've also killed enough deer and antelope with a traditional muzzleloader in both flint and percussion, using the patched round ball, to know you can shoot through the body cavities of those critters some of the time. Usually, the ball is a half-flattened out slug lodged against the hide on the far side of the shot. A couple of years ago I shot a mature doe whitetail with my .54 flinter, using 90 grains of 2fg black, and a .527" patched RB. At 82 yards (by my rangefinder) that ball passed completely through both lungs on that deer and out the far side of the hide, a complete pass-through. It ran about 50 yards and gave up the ghost. It's always cool to be able to retrieve those slugs out of a critter, and the ODGs most always did it when they could for reuse. In the early 1820s, mountain man James Clyman shot 3 buffalo using the same retrieved ball from the critters, reforming the lead projectile with his teeth to fit his rifle's bore. He was a bit low on ammo that time during a long walk he was taking...

The only time I can recall Dicaprio loading anything was right after he shot the elk in the beginning, and headed back to the fight that was commencing. All I saw him do was charge his rifle from the horn (a no-no) and spit a ball down the barrel without ramming. If that's how he was loaded when he had the bear encounter, he was in real trouble for sure, doubly. I enjoyed the movie, and didn't nit-pick too awful much. It's Hollywood, and though they didn't follow the real story, nor where it took place, it's surely worth seeing. The filming, guns, clothing and scenery was very good, indeed.

As a comparison, I believe a .50 caliber, patched round ball shooter with a charge of around 90-100 grains of 2fg black powder would be underpowered, and maybe not by too much, to a 30-30 Winchester with a proper smokeless charge and a 170 grn. bullet. The big difference would be the projectiles themselves; pure lead round ball, compared to a jacketed flat point. Just a comparison, but bullet placement, as we all know, is the key, and dead is dead.

reinert

Check out "The Revenant Rifle" at: www.recreatinghistory.com

RIDE-RED 350r
January 17, 2016, 09:17 PM
I still cling to the "older school" of modern muzzleloader hunting to this day. I haven't stepped into the world of break action in-lines that can be unloaded without firing. No Sir, I'm still using my Thompson Center Renegade complete with octo bbl, walnut stock, and side hammer cap lock.

I used to use maxi hunter lead projectiles ranging in weight from 250-400gr. This year, I decided to give the old round ball and patch a try in pursuit of better accuracy. I was always able to get minute of deer accuracy with the maxis at woods hunting ranges, but I wanted to see if I could improve on it. For the most part I did....

I have shot deer with the maxi's in the past, and they always went right through, albeit sometimes after a crazy tour of the insides of the animal.

I took a deer with the round ball this year, and while it did the job just fine with placement on the lungs, it didn't pass through. I never did find the ball, I suspect it ended up in the gut pile in the woods. It should be noted that the animal did expire as expediently as one would expect for a lung shot. I was just a bit surprised not to have a pass-through on a broadside lung shot. The maxi type projectiles seem to do alot more damage... And expectedly so.


I may switch back to the maxi projectiles again and see if I can fiddle my way to tighter groups with different powder charge levels.

I always used to use good old fashioned 2F black powder. But the last time I ran out, I had a heck of a time finding more locally. I then switched to Triple 7 and found it to be a little tougher to ignite. I used to use musket caps with the 2F with no issues. I liked the larger musket caps as they are just easier to handle in the field being bigger. The Triple 7 wasn't very reliable at all with musket caps... misfires and hang fires occurred more often than a normal successful ignition.

I'm going back to 2F as soon as possible now...

reinert
January 17, 2016, 10:19 PM
There's also a bonus when using the patched, pure lead round ball for hunting big game. Damage to meat is generally and considerably less when compared to using a modern, center-fire hunting rifle using jacketed, soft point bullets. All things considered, of course.

michaelcj
January 18, 2016, 01:15 AM
Pay attention to your twist rate as well for accuracy…. those 1:48 for maxi's are not ideal for a round ball which will do much better in a 1:66 or more.

Old Stony
January 18, 2016, 05:39 AM
I have sometimes wondered if the mountain men and people of that era would keep their rifles loaded with large charges of powder all the time. Given that powder was a precious commodity in those days, I would think a lot of their hunting would be done with reduced loads....or just as little as they could get away with for the task at hand. You could kill a deer with 30 or 40 grains at close range if need be....just might entail a little more tracking after the shot.
Even full charges of powder under a round ball is not going to do the internal damage a modern round would....just not enough energy there.

RIDE-RED 350r
January 18, 2016, 08:30 AM
About the twist rate, I'm pretty sure my old Thompson is 1:48. I was thinking it might be too slow for the heavier Maxi projectiles, hence my giving the old round ball a try. But admittedly, I am no expert by any stretch in the area of twist rate and how it relates to bullet type and weight as far as calculating the best bullet for a given twist.

The year before I got my Renegade ('96 if I recall) I bought my Dad a New Englander. Same exact rifle except it has a round bbl and was available in left hand. Dad being a southpaw and the Renny only being offered in right handed the NE was the only choice. At the time that I got Dad his NE, only round ball was legal to hunt with in NY's muzzle loading season. I remember his NE being impressively accurate using the patch and round ball. The next year I got my Renny, and NY allowed for use of "modern" projectiles. I didn't even try round balls at that time, but I had noticed that the Maxi's I was shooting didn't shoot quite as well as Dads NE with round ball.

I'm sure that eventually I'll find a projectile and charge combination that I'm happy with. But I still refuse to jump into the in-lines. I just like my old school smoke-pole! :)

reinert
January 18, 2016, 09:41 AM
R R 350,

Back when I did a lot of competitive shooting with M.L.s, I had a fine shooting buddy who was the one to beat when he was at a match. He was a fine gun-builder, too, muzzleloaders or modern stuff; one of those guys who was just talented at no matter what he did. One day at a match we were standing together, leaning on our rifles waiting to take our shot at an iron buff or something made out of metal. Nobody was saying much as we watched each shooter take his shot. Out of the blue, my buddy just says to me. "Reinert, there just isn't anything better than shootin' the ol' patched round ball."

My buddy has since passed, and I've never forgotten that day and him saying that to me. That guy knew how to shoot any type of rifle (let alone build them), and did a lot of hunting with M.L.s, too. It's just this; he was absolutely right...

reinert

RIDE-RED 350r
January 18, 2016, 11:25 AM
That is interesting...

If I am not mistaken, I believe the modern in-lines have different twist rates that make them quite a bit more accurate to greater distance than the old style like mine. Also, I am told they are designed for use with saboted projectiles as well where the old style like mine are not. Dad tried sabots in his NE at one time and accuracy was abysmal.

Anyway, thanks for the insight gentlemen. I will refrain from further sidetracking from the subject matter of this thread.

samsmix
January 24, 2016, 08:53 PM
1:66 for patched ball

1:48 for a "compromise" (mine still prefers patched balls)

1:28 for conicals? Or was it 1:36? 1:36 I think. I can't remember because the modern stuff was never my thing.

B.L.E.
January 26, 2016, 07:07 AM
It depends on the caliber. Large bores like slower rifling twists. In .36 caliber, Green Mountain rifles their round ball barrels with a 1 in 48 twist, in .50 caliber, their round ball barrels get a 1 in 72" twist.
The forward center of mass of the Minié ball meant it didn't need a fast twist and original .58 caliber rifled muskets had a fairly slow twist, somewhere on the order of 1 in 72 or even as slow as 1 in 120.

kilimanjaro
January 26, 2016, 12:06 PM
Have yet to see the film, I'll pick up the Blu Ray if I miss it in the theater, but if Jeremiah Johnson is any indication, expect a renewed interest in replica muzzleloading rifles of the era. That one film sparked a lot of interest, if it didn't create the market.

reinert
January 26, 2016, 03:04 PM
If you do see the movie, see it on the best, big screen available to you. It does make a difference for the experience. My wife and I saw it the first time at our local theatre, which has a smaller screen, and a smaller capacity for seating. Also, the sound wasn't the best.

Then we saw it again with some friends on a truly big screen with a great sound system. It was like seeing an altogether different movie. The bear scene is quite realistic (IMO), and God forbid anyone having to go through something like that. This movie has stirred more controversy than any I've seen in a long, long time, especially with the fur trade history/re-enacting folks. I believe this movie very well should give the traditional muzzle-loading sport a fair enough boost, and that's all right by me.