I know that several of you shoot the larger bored revolvers, and I was wandering what your velocity window is when searching for a load, or if you even have one?

While I know accuracy is paramount with any handloads, does the velocity range you find it in make a big difference to you?

My reasoning is I am working on some cast loads for my 454. Due to the fact I have only shot around 50 total of my own poured, I have been asking questions to several fairly knowledgeable folks, some of which are probably here. The bullet I am using is the Lee C452-300RF cast from wheel weights.

My initial load was on average for 30 shots right at 1540fps. So I decided that this might eb a bit much and decided to back it down as I hear that between 1300 to 1400 is the best range for a WFN type bullet. So my second attempt which I chronoed yesterday was running at 1420fps @ 15 feet. I still have a couple of powders to try, and I haven't yet sat down and shot for accuracy just yet. I do plan on it this week.

So what you, do you simply go with whats accurate or try to also stick within a certain velocity range as well?

I'll take accuracy over a certain velocity range any day ending in "y". Having said that, I prefer running my big bore bullets in the 1,000 to 1,200 fps range. Not hard on me or the firearm and I have yet to find a critter that can hold a bullet launched at that velocity.

I don't give speed any thought, other than perusing what the manuals have to say, until I have found a load that the gun likes and I can handle. I also don't live or shoot in anything close to the 'standard environmental conditions' that the manuals use.

Accuracy is paramount for me and after I've found that, I'll run it over my chrony so I have the info for my records and caltulating drop. I do this with all my loads, not just the big handguns.

I load for accuracy first and foremost and normally only chronograph for curiosity's sake. But, because I like H110/296, the most accurate loads tend to be the top-end loads and they usually end up running somewhat north of 1,300 fps.

In my experience it is not a good idea to run a hard cast above 1400 FPS

Depeneding on the bullet and caliber 1000 FPS to not more tna 1400 FPS works extremly well on game

I load for maximum velocity. Understand that this is only for REAL MEN. But I just love to bask in the glory at the range when folks come over and say "Man what are you shooting?". It somehow makes the swollen and raw fingers and aching wrists all worth while.
Peter.

quote:

Originally posted by Peter:
I load for maximum velocity. Understand that this is only for REAL MEN. But I just love to bask in the glory at the range when folks come over and say "Man what are you shooting?". It somehow makes the swollen and raw fingers and aching wrists all worth while.
Peter.

For REAL MEN or just trying to compensate for deficiencies in other areas?

quote:

Originally posted by Peter:
I load for maximum velocity. Understand that this is only for REAL MEN. But I just love to bask in the glory at the range when folks come over and say "Man what are you shooting?". It somehow makes the swollen and raw fingers and aching wrists all worth while.
Peter.

If that's the case, you need to get a real caliber, and they start with a .5......

I dunno. I like 1100-1250 pending the gun and the use. After busting my arm up right and proper that number might have to drop a bit...time will tell.

How's the recovery going, Robert?

1300 to 1400 for hard cast. Either side just needs a little expansion.
1100 works fine but a little nose upset works better to adjust for less energy. So too for too fast that can poke holes.
The perfect energy is still needed inside game. I do not believe in "energy dump". Yet the boolit or bullet must be put to work to deliver where and when it is needed.

quote:

Originally posted by Whitworth:
I load for accuracy first and foremost and normally only chronograph for curiosity's sake. But, because I like H110/296, the most accurate loads tend to be the top-end loads and they usually end up running somewhat north of 1,300 fps.

Me too... but my 45 Colt is around 1100Ft/sec with 25og HC bullets.

Or they should be... I will run them over a crony at some point

quote:

Originally posted by bfrshooter:
1300 to 1400 for hard cast. Either side just needs a little expansion.
1100 works fine but a little nose upset works better to adjust for less energy. So too for too fast that can poke holes.
The perfect energy is still needed inside game. I do not believe in "energy dump". Yet the boolit or bullet must be put to work to deliver where and when it is needed.

Energy?? You are joking aren't you?? Damnit, Jim!

quote:

Originally posted by temmi:

quote:

Originally posted by Whitworth:
I load for accuracy first and foremost and normally only chronograph for curiosity's sake. But, because I like H110/296, the most accurate loads tend to be the top-end loads and they usually end up running somewhat north of 1,300 fps.

Me too... but my 45 Colt is around 1100Ft/sec with 25og HC bullets.

Or they should be... I will run them over a crony at some point

temmi, as long as the load is accurate, I wouldn't worry a lick about the velocity -- seriously!

Nope, need energy applied at the right place and if the boolit does the job and keeps on trucking, there is no waste past the animal.
Muzzle energy is an erroneous figure as is energy dump. What counts is how and where boolit/bullet energy is applied due to it's construction, velocity, etc. Yes, bullets need to apply energy to disrupt tissue. Arrows and spears cut tissue. Both kill fast but dull arrow heads are like bullets that don't work. Ever shave with a butter knife?
Bullet energy is required but it is how it is put to use. If energy was not needed you could tape a bullet on a stick and throw it at animals.
Some still think a flat nose boolit cuts tissue---uuugh, I think not! Some think the edge of a Keith also cuts---think again!

Huh??????? Find me one -- and only one source that backs that theory.

Ruh roh...

And Whitworth, if you are going to use my line, pay royalties on it...!

well, a good example of energy being dumped, which is a bad term, is when a bullet makes a wound channel 2 - 3 x's bigger than the diameter of the bullet that's generally a sign of the bullet transferring some of it's energy into the target. normally it'd take a long time for the air resistance to slow the bullet and whatnot, otherwise the bullet would make a wound channel about the same exact size as the bullets diameter if it was just cutting a hole.

My prefered velocity is right at 1,054 fps.

quote:

Originally posted by tradmark:
well, a good example of energy being dumped, which is a bad term, is when a bullet makes a wound channel 2 - 3 x's bigger than the diameter of the bullet that's generally a sign of the bullet transferring some of it's energy into the target. normally it'd take a long time for the air resistance to slow the bullet and whatnot, otherwise the bullet would make a wound channel about the same exact size as the bullets diameter if it was just cutting a hole.

A bullet strike is an inelastic collision. The conservation of energy is not envoked in an inelastic collision only the conservation of momentum.

Energy is only conserved in a elastic collison (where both colliding bodies remain in motion).

The ballistic pendulum is an example of a bullet strike (inelastic collision) and energy is not conserved, but momentum is converted.
Therefore there cannot be a great amount of energy transfer.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.g...du/hbase/balpen.html

The mechanics of the wound channel are 1-the amount of direct applied force, 2- the amount of momentum thransfered and 3- the amount of hydraulic pressure that is created.

partially true, neither is 100% inelastic or elastic. the ballistic pendulum can be used to calculate both momentum and kinetic energy. momentum is not purely transferred either in these collisions, there's plenty of examples of this as well. when the velocity goes up and the wound channel size gets larger, you cannot say it's momentum and not kinetic energy. it's not purely described by either. there's ample examples in trauma surgery of a projectile creating a larger wound channel with greater KE versus a projectile with greater momentum. it's not an either or situation and it's not adequately described by either theory.

saying an inelastic collision has nothing to do with KE and everything to do with momentum is just false, it's just that in a perfectly inelastic collision momentum is conserved and kinetic energy is not purely transferred 100%. this does not mean it is not transferred.

an objects kinetic energy is shed so to speak through many means, friction, heat, etc, if it wasn't shed/transferred to something else it'd never loose it.

even in the atomic particle realm no collisions are purely either elastic or inelastic. i can punch someone in the chest with momentum of greater than 5-8x that of the largest express rifles, but only a fragment of the KE, would it be correct to conclude that KE is the deciding factor in the type of damage being done or is it all a misconception and any talk of KE or momentum needs to be described as work done, or more specifically type of work done?

quote:

A bullet strike is an inelastic collision. The conservation of energy is not envoked in an inelastic collision only the conservation of momentum.

this is partially true, it's neither purely elastic nor purely inelastic. to say conservation of energy is not envoked is not really correct either, it is correct to say that the energy is not 100% transmitted and in the realm of macro objects it's only a portion of the energy, but it's still translated nonetheless, momentum is never purely conferred b/c it's never purely inelastic either.

I dunno about all them college words. I just drive a 300grm WFNGC about 1200-1350 fps out of my RSBHmag 44 and bang stuff hits the ground dead. Pretty much all there is to it. Find what's good for you and stick to it. Ain't rocket science. Big bore, fast enough and accurate. Bang flop of your flavor. Just 1 1/2 cents. I am old an lost the other 1/2 cent along the way.

'sides the last hog I shot couldn't spell inelastic collision. LOL. Just learned the word DEAD real quick like.

Alrighty then, this gives me some room to play with. LOL

I don't mind the upper end loads one bit, but do realize some of the limitations of the cast lead bullets. So far I have not had any issues what so ever with leading even on the upper end loads I shot initially.

To be honest, it seemed like the lesser loads recoiled a bit more than the higher ones but I am sure this is simply perceived due to the bullet being in the barrel a bit longer. Either way they had more rise on the muzzle for sure.

Bottom line is I need to put them on paper for groups. which I haven't actually concentrated on as I was simply checking velocity and looking for signs of leading. Now that I am fairly certain that things are good with what I am using I have more confidence to play with different powders.

The only other cast I have shot through this revolver have been the Cast Performance 265gr WFN's and they run around 1570fps using the same charge I use for 260gr Mag JHP's. I have killed several hogs with both of them, and not noted much if any more tissue damage than about a 1" cavity initially with the cast, and then simply a straight line the rest of the way through unless I hit a solid bone which resulted in a pretty nasty area. The jhp's however were about what I would have expected with a decent cavity of around 2" or so initially and then a 1" or so trailing off area until they exited.

This said, those hogs have usually been shot length wise verses broadside, or quartering hard either towards or away, you take what you can get when they bust out of the cover.


I appreciate the insight and will definitely keep looking for accuracy as I move forward. This step into casting my own was more of an effort to supply this thing with adequate bullets that I could afford to shoot, rather than paying the cost they want for jacketed, if and when I could find the weight I wanted in stock. I really have no doubts that what ever one of these things hit will be a dump and roll, at what ever velocity I end up at. I do however want to maximize the damage however, if possible, due to the lesser expansion.

Thanks again,
Mike / TX

quote:

Originally posted by tradmark:

quote:

A bullet strike is an inelastic collision. The conservation of energy is not envoked in an inelastic collision only the conservation of momentum.

this is partially true, it's neither purely elastic nor purely inelastic. to say conservation of energy is not envoked is not really correct either, it is correct to say that the energy is not 100% transmitted and in the realm of macro objects it's only a portion of the energy, but it's still translated nonetheless, momentum is never purely conferred b/c it's never purely inelastic either.

Fact is a bullet strike is an inelastic collision, even when the bullet exits and is not a "perfect" inelastic collision.


The ballistic pendulum is used to "measure" the amount of energy "transfer." With the amount of energy transfered measured, then one can calculate the "velocity," and then and only then can the "energy" be "calculated" not "measured."

A 200 pound football player that runs a 10 second 100 is traveling 30 feet per second. When he collides with another player he alone has 2798 foot pounds of energy and if energy killed, then the morgue would be full after a game.

Indeed it is holes through vitals that kill-- nothing more, nothing less.

quote:

Originally posted by tradmark:
even in the atomic particle realm no collisions are purely either elastic or inelastic. i can punch someone in the chest with momentum of greater than 5-8x that of the largest express rifles, but only a fragment of the KE, would it be correct to conclude that KE is the deciding factor in the type of damage being done or is it all a misconception and any talk of KE or momentum needs to be described as work done, or more specifically type of work done?

I'd pay to see that punch!!!


Fact is that both Dr. Martin Fackler and Duncan MacPhearson agree that the KE has no bearing on wound trauma incapacitation. I also agreee

A 22-250 55 grain bullet at 3600 FPS has slightly more energy than does a 45 caliber 360 grain bullet at 1400 FPS. Go shoot an Alaskan Moose with them and the results are not equal despite the near like energy. The 45 caliber 360 grain MLFN wil perform much better on LARGE game

Get you a copy of this book ther is an entire chapter devoted to why energy is irrealevent to wound Trauma Incapacitation

i actually have that book, and in most instances it's just not an either or thing and i have many other texts on the subject. it's easy to pull whatcha want out of them.

a large semi truck traveling at 1m/s has more momentum than does a baseball traveling at 800fps, the baseball has more energy the truck more momentum, the baseball will hurt a hell of alot more, infact the truck won't hurt much at all, but then again we can find silly analogies to back up any number of opinions or ideologies.

to date i know of no one that has ever tested a flat point solid bullet from a .22-250 constructed of a material that will hold together and then shot big game, though human beings shot with a .223 with expandable bullets that hold together do alot more damage than a 45 acp, and a .44 mag with 180 grain bullets does alot more damage than the 45 acp does as well despite a smaller bullet in weight and diameter, difference............velocity.

in regards to a cast bullet out of a big bore revolver all of this is moot, we know what works, we know what is required and we know where a cast bullet can't hold up it's construction and integrity anymore. more is not always a good thing. i like mine at 1200 to 1500 fps. depending on purpose and game being chased.

Yes, but this text is the most accepted in the scientific community with regards to wound trauma and this is the only model that actually correctly predicts wound channel size and penetration.

quote:

Originally posted by tradmark:
to date i know of no one that has ever tested a flat point solid bullet from a .22-250 constructed of a material that will hold together and then shot big game, though human beings shot with a .223 with expandable bullets that hold together do alot more damage than a 45 acp, and a .44 mag with 180 grain bullets does alot more damage than the 45 acp does as well despite a smaller bullet in weight and diameter, difference............velocity.

Actually, there is. Go read through the terminal performance thread on the big bore forum. I know it is a daunting task, but it is worth reading. Michael tested the BBW #13 -- a 62 grain flat-point solid. And while they do penetrate well, they have a much smaller frontal are and therefore have less direct applied force and leave a much narrower wound channel than would a .45 caliber WFN at 1,400 fps despite similar "energy" levels. In my mind this is more proof that energy has no bearing on wound channel size.

Here is the link:

http://forums.accuratereloadin...4711043/m/2861098911

quote:

energy is not conserved,

Where does it go?!!!!
Wow. Just revised the entire Physics curriculum! I need to get my money back on my Physic degree!
Bullshit!
Peter.

quote:

Originally posted by Peter:

quote:

energy is not conserved,

Where does it go?!!!!
Wow. Just revised the entire Physics curriculum! I need to get my money back on my Physic degree!
Bullshit!
Peter.

Better yet, define it! What exactly is "energy" in this context, and what does it do? Clock's ticking!

I think 'ol JWP must have gone to ITT Tech.
Peter

quote:

Originally posted by Peter:
I think 'ol JWP must have gone to ITT Tech.
Peter

He's spot on, Peter. Have you read Duncan MacPherson's book on bullet penetration? His model is the only one really taken seriously. It's a good read.

the energy is not conserved between the two objects, the energy exists elsewhere, molecular vibration, heat, etc.

there's many texts that are taken seriously in wounding and trauma, i have them, i deal with it for a living. that said, energy is not the only force involved, it's just not irrelevant either, that is where the mistake is made.

it's not which textbooks are taken seriously or not, but also how you interpret what you read.


as far as the 22 250 test, i read all of michael 458's tests and for 1) it's in newsprint which i don't find a good comparative to flesh as far as wound channels and is highly scientifically inconsistent medium.

2) they're extremes. a .22 and .45 or 44, now what is interesting is if you take the same test and use a medium that more replicates tissue and use an expandable that will hold together and you'll see wound channels get magically more similiar.

I know nothing about the dynamics of bullet penetration in living tissue. There have been MANY different views, some of which have been discussed in the Big Bores forum eg. cavitation effect etc. Many of these depend heavily on drawing parallels between living tissue and high viscosity media like water. However none of these claim that the law of conservation of energy does not hold true!
If we look at a simple case (and the one alluded to by jwp) of a bullet impact on a solid metal object then the solution is easy. The energy of the bullet consists almost entirely of it's kinetic energy. Assuming that the bullet impacts and does not rebound (it just falls to ground) then the energy is given up by:
imparting momentum to the object struck
deformation of the object struck
deformation of the bullet
heat created by the impact.
The law of conservation of energy is a fundamental law of physics. It applies at the quantum mechanical level (with energy and matter being joined by the famous E=MC squared equation) as well as at the planetary and galactic level. jwp could well get a Nobel Prize in Physics if he can show that it is not correct. I am not holding my breath.
To say that energy is not conserved is just false. heat is a form of energy!
Peter.