Quote:

---

by Yogi000 - Bill, I think your round ball shoting with the heavy powder charges you are talking about will be MORE than adequate for any application you are looking to get yourself into. The heavy conicals would most likely be the proverbial OVERkill.

---

: Here's another quote by S. Baker writing in "The Field" 'paper' of March 23rd. 1861 concerning conicals:
: I strongly volte against conical balls for dangerous game; they make too neat a wound, and are very apt to glance on striking a bone. The larger the surface struck the greater will be the benumbing effect of the blow.....In giving an opinion against conical balls for dangerous game, I do so from practical proofs of their inferiority. I had at one time a two-groove single rifle, weighing 21 lbs., carrying a 3 oz. belted ball, with a charge of 12 drachms (drams) powder. This was kind of a "devil stopper," and never failed in flooring a charging elephant, although, if not struck in the brain, he might recover his legs. I had a conical mould make for this rifle, the ball of which weighed 4 oz., but instead of rendering it more invincible, it entirely destroyed its efficacy,(sic - efficiency), and brought me into such scrapes that I at length gave up the conical ball as useless."

Major Shakespear, the author of "Wild Sports in India" says: "I have Minnie bullet-moulds for my rifles; but so long as the spherical bullets go through and through large gme, I do now see the use of running the risk or shaking 9breaking) the stock of the gun, and of extra recoil, by using the heavier balls(minnies)."

Note in this day - and later, generally all projectiles were called 'balls'. There were of course, "spherical balls", ie: round balls and "conical balls" ie: any form of elongated bullet.

Even Greener, who was the strongest supporter of the expansive bullets for military use (minies), wrote in "Gunnery" in 1858 page 404 : "For other purposes other than war, rifles will continue to be constructed on the polygroove (mulitiple groove) principle, and with spherical bullets" He carries on to explain about "The perfect destruction of various animals is dependent generally on two causes---the penetration into the body, and the shock to the system during that act of penetration." No doubt exists that a spherical bullet would combine these two qualities best."
Here, W.Greener, instead of calling all projeciles 'balls' preferred to call them all bullets. Interesting departure to the norm of the day.

So there we have it - in the very large bores, conicals reduced killing power. Their extra penetrative power was not needed as round balls penetrated just fine. The conical's reduction in speed and conical shape reduced the shock to the animal as well as being likely to glance on contact with bone. The "minnie ball caused 'neat wounds' glanced on bones and travelled through the soft parts of the body while spherical balls smashed the bones asunder and caused most grievious wounds" - Surgeon General - Grimean war - coment on expamining wounds of soliders.

--------------------
Daryl


"a gun without hammers is like a Spaniel without ears" King George V

Post Extras