No Excuses 420g

Modern Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Modern Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Dave, In light of your concerns, the idea to try your bullet with an added hollow point is dropped.

Me, i have no opinion about the best/worst media for to catch bullets. However, i do know the use of the water bottles is economical compared to other type media. Using the water bottles was expeditious when assembling over 125 bullet traps. Using water bottles allowed assembling over 125 identical bullet traps, which is very critical. If the traps aren't identical; results would be meaningless. See HERE

Dang Ron don't be a quitter:D inquiring minds want to know. And again thanks for doing all the tests!!!!!!!!
 
50 grains of Blackhorn powder. I have never used this powder and know nothing about it. Is it a substitute? Is is 2f, 3f? How is the recoil? 50 grains seems very manageable even with such a large projectile.
 
do a search here on the forum and you will find tons of info on BH209 , also check the stickies out at top of forum page..
It is a BP substitute.




50 grains of Blackhorn powder. I have never used this powder and know nothing about it. Is it a substitute? Is is 2f, 3f? How is the recoil? 50 grains seems very manageable even with such a large projectile.
 
They are pretty soft. I have a 12" oak by my shooting range. I shot it with the 460 NE from a knight mk-85 with 100gr of black mz. I shot the same tree with my sharps with 405 hard cast over 38gr of 3031 at roughly 1200fps. The 45/70 zipped through it while the 460 was stopped in the tree. I used that bullet on a doe last fall at 96 yards. I love the bullets and wish he could make some .58 caliber ones for my TC big boar
 
Using the water bottles was expeditious when assembling over 125 bullet traps. Using water bottles allowed assembling over 125 identical bullet traps, which is very critical. If the traps aren't identical; results would be meaningless. See HERE
Ron, I understand the reasons for economy and repeatability. But how did you settle on the two powder charges of 50 and 80 grains?
 
Cannot recall why the 50 grain charge was decided upon.

The reason for the 80 grain charge is so many of the bullets failed to work when using 50 grain powder back when this shooting began. The tipped Barnes didn't work. The XTP didn't work. The Deep Curl didn't work. The Partition didn't work.

The Lehigh controlled fracture bullets worked good using only 50 grain powder. The Hornady monoflex worked good when only using 50 grain powder. When we finally had access to the 250g Deep Curl, we found it works good when only using 50g powder. The Barnes MZ with the large hollow point works good when using 50g powder. Heavy lead works good using 50g powder, when it is hollow point. Seems like the ball point bullet worked good.

Cannot recall why the 50 grain charge was decided upon.




This past hunting season the boy, and i used the 250g Deep Curl bullets. Load was 90g Blackhorn. We killed deer at 55, 60, and 140 yard. The deer stayed right there. The bullet worked very good. The bullet cost 25¢, which made it even better.
 
With an expanding bullet, penetration decreases with velocity and expansion increases with velocity. With any bullet, you need to match the velocity to the bullet. 50 gr. of powder is way less than most of us shoot, so pure lead with a large hollow point is what is needed for expansion. I shot a precision rifle 400 gr. pure lead bullet at 225 yards at a bull elk, and the bullet expanded to over an inch but didn't exit. I was using 150 gr. of 777. I'm still trying to find the perfect combination of bullet and powder. A 405 gr. Rem. .458 with a hollowpoint, and 120 gr. of 777 seemed about perfect, but the bullet is no longer available. A hardcast penetrates stem to stern, but doesn't expand. My ideal is a bullet that expands to about double its diameter, and exits. Still looking.
 
I can't remember exacts but I thought these powder charges were decided on because they somewhat replicated at 25 yards what impact speeds would be at 100 yards with a heavier charge. Maybe I'm wrong about that though.
 
I can't remember exacts but I thought these powder charges were decided on because they somewhat replicated at 25 yards what impact speeds would be at 100 yards with a heavier charge. Maybe I'm wrong about that though.

I was thinking the same thing but at 200 yards.
 
Mnoland30,
This topic has probably already been hashed over, but are you aware of the extensive soft tissue destruction (STD) that occurs with hard wide flatnose (HWFN) bullets?
My comments are directed mostly with elk hunting in mind. I do not mean to disparage the many on this forum who are obviously very pro hollow points/expansion/not to mention fragmenting, bullets. History has proven their value in the harvesting of millions of big game animals, and it's hard to argue with success, but....
Veral Smith, in his book Jacketed Performance with Cast Bullets, talks about the "spray" effect that occurs with the HWFN bullet style that mimics the damage caused by an expanding nose, but gives better, usually much better, penetration. So it seems to me that you get the best of all worlds: STD, an exit wound for greater bleeding and thus easier tracking, and if necessary, better bone crushing ability. What performs well on larger animals should also work well on smaller ones.
Admittedly, most of my thinking is based on what I've read, rather than experience. What think ye?
 

Latest posts

Back
Top