Howdy All.

I know next to nothing about black powder express rifles. I currently have a Krieghoff .470 NE and have been looking at some British BPE doubles.

Is a .450 BPE, .500 BPE or .577 BPE actually something you can use on dangerous game? If you don't reload is it very difficult to find a load that works with the rifle? The proofs I have seen seem to be all over the map as far as bullet weights.

Thanks.

I have owned several of these in .450 BPE, and .500, and have fired .577-500s and .577s. If you don't reload, there is zero chance of shooting them as ammo is not available, but that is half the fun of owning them. Is it hard to regulate them? They are very individualistic, more so than nitro guns, as you not only have the ideosyncracies of DR shooting, you also have the quirks of black powder as well. And, of course, there is Nitro for Black loads; I once owned a Greifelt .500 made in 1924, made for Nitro for Black loads well into the smokeless era. You will need Graeme Wright's book. Suitable for dangerous game? Certainly not the .450s, and the .500 would be very iffy. Soft lead bullets at 1800 fps and all that. When you get into the .577s, you add a lot of bullet weight but penetration is still limited by Lead. Originals used mostly paper patched bullets, and the term "express" meant fast, usually by trading off bullet weight. That is why in the BP era, they went to 8 bores and up for dangerous game, and in 1898, when the .450 Nitro came out; that was a fantastic thing. These are very interesting guns to own and shoot; Get the book.

The bullet weights they used for proof were different for black and nitro for black. Black was ususally lighter. Full nitro loads were different yet.

Will it work for DG? It depends on how good of a shot you do and if you got the critter angry.
Do you want a margin of safety?

PSmith,

don't denigrate yourself. Dumb is just shy of stupid. Ignorant, on the other hand, is something we all are; just on different things. Ignorant means you haven't learned about a subject you are interested in.
Take your remote control and your wife, if you are like me you are ignorant of how either works. So you just enjoy pushing the buttons and having fun. With either, if you push the right buttons you get the desired results...

Rich

quote:

Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter:
PSmith,

don't denigrate yourself. Dumb is just shy of stupid. Ignorant, on the other hand, is something we all are; just on different things. Ignorant means you haven't learned about a subject you are interested in.
Take your remote control and your wife, if you are like me you are ignorant of how either works. So you just enjoy pushing the buttons and having fun. With either, if you push the right buttons you get the desired results...

Rich

+ 1


The only dumb question is the one not asked.

quote:

Is a .450 BPE, .500 BPE or .577 BPE actually something you can use on dangerous game?

Ah. There is "dangerous game" and "dangerous game". Runs the gamut from a leopard to an elephant with a rhino, lion and buffalo somewhere i the equation!

A bit like saying is XXX rifle adequate for "American game". It depends on what exactly you mean!

Don't forget that the British Empire included both parts of Africa and India plus, of course, Britain.

Some of the what were then called "small calibre" such as 450 BPE were not really African calibres but calibres more suitable for India or for Britain. Where if you missed what you shot at it would run away from you and not towards you!

The early blackpowder big game shooters in Africa were using eight bore and bigger calibre. Plus in some cases bullets with a steel embedded tip cast in when the bullet was made in the mould.

PS, I've looked into this very subject, as there are many classic old BP double rifles out there. The only one that seems capable for hunting large game is the 577. A 650gr bullet at 1,800 fps or perhaps a bit more would generate sufficient energy for Cape Buff and Elephant. Graeme Wright's book is great on the subject. Dave Powell (owner of Guns International website) is very knowledgeable as well. I used to find rifles and send him pix of the flats, and he would tell me what to expect in modern terms. Most can be loaded with smokeless powder, but you have to reload and know what you're doing.

PSmith:
The British killed everything on the planet with black powder express rifles. The .450 seemed to be popular in Africa whilst the .500 was more liked in India. The .577 was everywhere. Remember the .450 3 1/4" was the biggest of the Sharps cartridges and perhaps 3 Winchester high walls were made in .50 3 1/4". You can get loaded ammo from Kynoch but the price is high. Reloading can make whatever rifle you have sing. There were a variety of powder charges, bullet weights, and case lengths for each of the three calibers you mentioned. When you decide on a rifle give me a call or email and we can work up a proper nitro for black load with modern powders. Woodleigh bullets for black powder velocities will work fine for what game you decide to hunt.
Goot shooting,
Cal

quote:

Remember the .450 3 1/4" was the biggest of the Sharps cartridges

While technically true in name, no sharps rifles were ever chambered for the 3 1/4 inch rounds. The largest 45 ever actually built by Sharps was the 45 2 7/8. These were offered in significant numbers toward the end of the great buffalo hunt. To my amazement, this historically correct round (45 2 7/8) was featured in the movie "Quigly Down Under".

I like to point this out when ever I get the chance to minimize the purchase or construction of historically inaccurate sharps rifles. Which is fine, if that is the intent, but a shame if it is done in error.

Thanks Gents, great information.

quote:

Originally posted by fourbore:

quote:

Remember the .450 3 1/4" was the biggest of the Sharps cartridges

While technically true in name, no sharps rifles were ever chambered for the 3 1/4 inch rounds. The largest 45 ever actually built by Sharps was the 45 2 7/8. These were offered in significant numbers toward the end of the great buffalo hunt. To my amazement, this historically correct round (45 2 7/8) was featured in the movie "Quigly Down Under".

I like to point this out when ever I get the chance to minimize the purchase or construction of historically inaccurate sharps rifles. Which is fine, if that is the intent, but a shame if it is done in error.

Even if they had chambered the Sharps for the .450 3 1/4 it was not the same cartridge that was used by the English! The 45-120 sharps ( 3 1/4") had a case capasity of 113.04 grs of water,and is nothing more than a 45-70 with a long case, while the .450BPE 3 1/4" had a case capacity of 136.04 grs of water, but was still a weak cartridge for dangerous game.

The .450BPE was not a very popular cartridge in Africa, till they came out with the NE cartridge, and was in the BPE form considered a small bore, for use on things like Moose, and red stagg. In the black powder days about the 8 Bore rifle was still considered marginal on Elephant and Rhino, and barely adiquate for Buffalo in thick cover. Most of the .450s powered by black powder were used in Europe, and England for deer hunting.

Even after the 450NE 3 1/4" got a good foot hold it still wasn't trusted by many in Africa, and took a while to gain popularity. In India, however, the 450NE 3 1/4" got popular very quickly with tiger hunters! Once the 450NE 3 1/4" took hold in Africa,with better jacketed bullets, it set the bar very quickly, pushing a lot of the BORE rifles back a bit, and became the darling of the Ivory hunters.

All the .450BPEs are still deer rifles! I have a Westley Richards 500/450#1 Bp Express that is a fine deer rifle, but I certainly would want something better for Cape Buffalo!

The 8 bore rifle marginal???!!! I would put it in the same league as the 577 or 600NE.

quote:

Originally posted by gatsby:
The 8 bore rifle marginal???!!! I would put it in the same league as the 577 or 600NE.

Samuel Baker thought the eight bore was marginal or less. Enough for buff, and a significant improvement over the 577BPE for that purpose. But only enough for buff and totally insifficient for rhino or elephant. And the loads he cites in his book are the heaviest ones that I have seen in terms of drams of powder.

JPK

JPK

Could it have been the the lead used in the bullets were not strong / hard enough ?

I could possibly understand that head shots on elephant might have a problem
getting through the honeycomb but side on shots ? Surely an 8 Bore would penetrate
enough ?

What are your thoughts ?

Must go and have another read of his book.

An 8 Bore used on a Big Buffalo here in Aust - side on shot as it was in full charge at another shooter absolutely pole axed it.

quote:

Originally posted by gatsby:
The 8 bore rifle marginal???!!! I would put it in the same league as the 577 or 600NE.

gatsby, you would put it in the same class as the 577BPE today,because nobody uses either for that purpose today, so the thought is a moot point. However in the days we are talking about the 8 BORE, and the 577BPE were both marginal! This was a time when 2 and 4 bore were common when hunting Rhino, and Elephant which most times required as many as ten shots to put them down for the count, and a large amount of those shot were wounded and lost!

quote:

Originally posted by 500N:
JPK

Could it have been the the lead used in the bullets were not strong / hard enough ?

I could possibly understand that head shots on elephant might have a problem
getting through the honeycomb but side on shots ? Surely an 8 Bore would penetrate
enough ?

What are your thoughts ?

Must go and have another read of his book.

An 8 Bore used on a Big Buffalo here in Aust - side on shot as it was in full charge at another shooter absolutely pole axed it.

500N I thnk you may have something there, but the bullets they used were what was available, meaning the 8 bore was considered, and in fact, was margenal for Ele, and Rhino, and barely adiquate for buffalo.

The 8 Bore powered by black powder is still marginal even with good bullets. Powered with a good smokeless powder with very well designed bullets would certainly be better, but I wouldn't consider it the equal of the smokeless 577NE by any stretch!

..................... .............

.600 vs 8bore...it can only be some hyperthetical thoughts.
I believe Bror Blixen mentions, he had seen a lion taking 4 shots from a .600Nitro, and managed to get away.

Colonel G.B Sanderson mentions that 5 drams of black, pushing a 12bore roundball, had done "elephants" for many sportsmen in India.

jens

It's like any calibre, regardless of size - if you don't hit it in the right place, it isn't going to kill it - even though the bigger calibres do have extra "shock" value, a rear
end shot on a big animal just doesn't cut it.

Didn't Feldstein find this out with the first 600 Nitro where he shot an Elephant and it pissed off over the border and out of bounds ?

quote:

Most of the .450s powered by black powder were used in Europe, and England for deer hunting.

Correct! I had from Powell's some twenty years ago when they were still at Carr's Lane two nice doubles. An Alex Henry underlever hammer 500 BPE and a 450/400 2 3/8" by Hollis I think.

Both "deer" or "Indian" rifles in reality.

Blackpowder generates plenty of power in the 8 bore gun. Holland was unable to develope a nitro load for the 8 bore cartridge that equaled the 10 dram bp load within the same pressure parameters. That is why they settled on the thin wall 10 (9 bore) as a nitrolized cartridge. 8,10 and 12 bore bullets were available with copper and steel posts. Holland made the last 10 bore in 1929 and advertised it as a elephant gun and DG cartridge.The ballistics are the same as an 8 dram bp gun. The gun weight, recoil and smoke had a lot to do with the demise of the old bore rifles. Why did Holland stop making the 10? I don't know. How many 600's have they made since 1930?
Even if you don't fully buy into the TKO philosophy check out the muzzle energy on the 8.
That's a freight train coming.



The point is not moot, it is the topic of this post. Many hunters and collectors are buying these old guns with the specific intention of hunting with them and that might include DG.

Gatsby;
Where did you find this chart?

This is from the DGJ, Frank Findlow's excellent article "Some Thoughts on 12 Bores" Unless he is retired, I think Frank is into rocket science.

quote:

This was a time when 2 and 4 bore were common

This is total BS. The 2 bore was never used successfully for elephant hunting in Africa. Let alone common. The 4 bore was not common but was the top of the heap in its day. The ultimate 4 bore fired 1/4 pound conical bullets and was often proofed as 5 or 6. The 8bore was ideal and more common big stopper African round in its day. That is my opinion. And, not any more marginal then a 416 magnum today.

I don't mean to compare the killing power of a 416 Rigby to an 8 bore (apples to oranges), but just as today many will prefer to hunt with a 458 or 500- the 416 will get it done and done right. The 8 bore will get it done and done right, yet there were many wanting extra power of 6 to 4 bore.

Forget the 2, its just a bunch of phoney baloney.

Fourbore: You are right on in what you say about the 2-bore. Other than punt guns I can't find and reference of a hunter using a shoulder fired 2. Over the decades Baker book has been the sole instance of a 2 being used when he writes of an eight ounce bullet and 10 drams of powder. But, a 2-bore has never been found in Holland's records. What Baker had was a 4-bore shooting an elongated 8-ounce bullet.

To compare the .577, .600, the 8- and the 4-bore is not easy to do due to the higher velocity of the two nitro cartridges. I think a compromise of muzzle energy and Taylor's knock out value may be the way to go.

Numbers? I have 213 .600s in my files and I'm missing lots (both old and new). .577? Unknown, but I feel the full nitro 100-750 may be more, or as, rare than the .600. 8s were made by the hundreds and perhaps thousands. 4s? Unknown, but from the number that have been for sale over the past 20 years (I have detailed files) I'm sure they number about where the vintage .600s do.

They are all fun... except for the imaginary 2.
cheers
Cal

It is somewhat difficult to compare the modern nitro stoppers to their blackpowder counterparts. You can't disregard the shock value of the higher velocity round nor be too dismissive of the momentum generated by the heavier large diamenter 8 bore slugs.

quote:

Originally posted by fourbore:

quote:

This was a time when 2 and 4 bore were common

This is total BS.<<snip
Snip>>>Forget the 2, its just a bunch of phoney baloney.

fourbore, Don’t you think the two statements above are somewhat sarcastic? Don't you think something like; "you are mistaken" would have done as well. I simply don't see the need to hoist up the BS flag for everything you disagree with. After all this is a discussion, not a war! ...............JEEZ


However it makes little real difference as to what is being discussed. IOM, the old black powder big bore are not in the same class as the NE rounds like the 577NE. These two things have to be taken ballistic in their own times. The elephant and rhino have not changed over that time as far as it's body resisting bullets, but the bullets, and rifles have changed quite a lot. Even the men shooting these rifles have changed quite a lot as well.

There are a few (Read "VERY" few) people like you, and Cal who still shoot these type rifles. Again IMO, not because of any need, but because it is fun for you. Nothing wrong with that, some people jump out of perfectly good airplanes when there is no need to, for fun.

Still whatever the caliber of the rifle they used in quantity in the black powder days in Africa, they had to be large because they simply were not adequate for things like ele, and rhino if they were what were, in those days, considered small bore.

The same draw-back holds true today though the rifles made for these cannons today are made of much better steel, the human body, and that of the ele and rhino are no stronger than they were in those old days, and today even many modern rounds are considered less efficient than some others because of their lack of penetration. Impact energy is not very useful on things like ele and rhino. Penetration, and vital tissue damage is what counts now, as it certainly was in the 1890s. However the rifles/bullets, and powders has made great strides in the last 110 years. This is, after all, what we were discussing. Can the BP bore rifles be considered up to the use on dangerous game as the modern NE rounds now most used for that purpose? The answer to that question is a resounding.... "NO"!

In the BP days of Africa the bullets they used were far less quality than is used in such guns today, and the larger the bullet the less it could be counted on the penetrate deeply enough to not require many shots in some cases and even then many were wounded but lost. IMO, the 10 bore with good bullets, and in a very strong rifle today would shine far above those of old in the same chambering, and even more above the larger ones, because of better penetration. However I don't think anyone wants to place the strong bullets, and the loads needed to make them work in a 110 plus year old BP rifle.

I Have three large bore BP rifles that I shoot on occasion but I'm under no misconception that they are a good choice for ele and rhino hunting, and neiter would they be my first choice to hunt Cape Buffalo.

My last question is! How come every thread has to become a war lately? What ever happened to discussion and the EXCHANGE of Ideas on this website? It seems people have become real pains and say things in print here that they would be surely reluctant to say to people face to face!

We are all here to learn, and teach, because nobody here or anyplace else know it all but what they do know others may not know! Misconceptions and wrong information can be corrected without sarcasm!

Good day, Gentlemen I leave this thread to you!
........................BYE

For North American reference only.
1) I have a 45 3 1/4 Sharps that shoots a 535 gr soft lead bullet through everything I've hit in Montana except a mountain lion that I shot left of center chest and didn't exit. Go figure

2) My 8 bore flintlock jaeger shoots an 875 gr soft lead roundball with 275 grs 2ffg GOEX, again through anything I seem to point it towards. I have an NEI bullet mold for the 1260 bullet and I'm not man enough to shoot that projectile. Recommended powder charge is 300 grs of 2ffg. Rifle weighs 14 pounds. An acquaintance of mine has killed cape buffalo, lion, and the coups de grs' finisher on an elephant with his identical rifle. According to him, the buffalo was body slammed to the ground but got up and stumbled another 25 yards or so and died turning back to confront him. Jim used a hardened slug, no soft round ball. The lion died without any drama, and no surprise there. The elephant was a side shot behind the shoulder, so the elephant was still standing. This was after receiving a couple of rounds from his partner's 4 bore.

So, suitable for dangerous game? I would say certainly if you don't have anything else in your arsenal to save your hide. The intrepid hunter in this venue needs a very healthy dose of romanticism and a pith helmet to do this in 2010 A.D.

3)My most amazing rifle in these big bores is a smaller 14 bore percussion with 104" twist Forsythe rifling. This is one killing unit and based on the performance I've experienced with the three rifles, I'd risk my life on the 14 bore before I'd use the other two in CQB with critters with attitude. This rifle shoots a 500 gr. soft lead round ball with 210 grs GOEX 2ffg. My dead on point of aim is about 160 yards and even then that ball rolls through puny little North American antelope and mule deer and keeps on going to God knows where. What it does for close work is equally amazing.

In Africa? Cape buffalo, if I had to.
Lion and leopard, O.K. Rhino and Elephant, not no, but hell no!! Hippo and croc, O.K. but why do any of them? I love these rifles, but going half way around the world to hunt dangerous game with them in modern times seems sort of like a stunt to me.

quote:

Originally posted by MacD37:
In the black powder days about the 8 Bore rifle was still considered marginal on Elephant and Rhino, and barely adiquate for Buffalo in thick cover.

How many thousands of dead buffalo, elephant, and Rhino might disagree with the above statement? As Cal mentions, "Baby" was a 4 bore and Baker mentions that "Baby" only really came out when things got truly hairy. I don't have "Wild Beasts and Their Ways" in front of me but that tells me that the rest of the time he was using an 8 or likely even less. I think I recall him mentioning that a 577 BPE was sufficient (thought not ideal) for buffalo so a 12 or 10 bore was probably in regular use by him for such animals. He was probably thinking about the .577 BPE the way we might think of a 9,3 or .338 solid today for Buffalo. I imagine the 12 or 10 bore to be the classic equivalent of the .375 for Baker and the 8 bore to be the .416 of the 19th century. Four bores would have been the stoppers or .500+ calibre weapons of today....neat but not all that practical.

As for the original question, don't forget that the 450 BPE shot a bullet that weighed anywhere from 270 to 360 grains or so at a nominal 1800 fps on a good day. The 450 Nitro upped the performance with a 300++ grain bullet ot 2100 or 2200 fps. My 45 3 1/4" Sharps lumbers along at maybe 1500 fps.

How much is needed for dangerous game? There's a loaded question. There are some that say a 300 grain fmj .375 H&H is O.K. until the trouble starts. Hmmmmmmm..........

quote:

Originally posted by yellowstone:
For North American reference only.
1) I have a 45 3 1/4 Sharps that shoots a 535 gr soft lead bullet through everything I've hit in Montana except a mountain lion that I shot left of center chest and didn't exit. Go figure

2) My 8 bore flintlock jaeger shoots an 875 gr soft lead roundball with 275 grs 2ffg GOEX, again through anything I seem to point it towards. I have an NEI bullet mold for the 1260 bullet and I'm not man enough to shoot that projectile. Recommended powder charge is 300 grs of 2ffg. Rifle weighs 14 pounds. An acquaintance of mine has killed cape buffalo, lion, and the coups de grs' finisher on an elephant with his identical rifle. According to him, the buffalo was body slammed to the ground but got up and stumbled another 25 yards or so and died turning back to confront him. Jim used a hardened slug, no soft round ball. The lion died without any drama, and no surprise there. The elephant was a side shot behind the shoulder, so the elephant was still standing. This was after receiving a couple of rounds from his partner's 4 bore.

So, suitable for dangerous game? I would say certainly if you don't have anything else in your arsenal to save your hide. The intrepid hunter in this venue needs a very healthy dose of romanticism and a pith helmet to do this in 2010 A.D.

3)My most amazing rifle in these big bores is a smaller 14 bore percussion with 104" twist Forsythe rifling. This is one killing unit and based on the performance I've experienced with the three rifles, I'd risk my life on the 14 bore before I'd use the other two in CQB with critters with attitude. This rifle shoots a 500 gr. soft lead round ball with 210 grs GOEX 2ffg. My dead on point of aim is about 160 yards and even then that ball rolls through puny little North American antelope and mule deer and keeps on going to God knows where. What it does for close work is equally amazing.

In Africa? Cape buffalo, if I had to.
Lion and leopard, O.K. Rhino and Elephant, not no, but hell no!! Hippo and croc, O.K. but why do any of them? I love these rifles, but going half way around the world to hunt dangerous game with them in modern times seems sort of like a stunt to me.

Gentlemen the above is a thinking mans post with some very good points made for both sides of this discussion!

The above is my whole point! The old guns are fun but you simply cannot compare them to what was once considered VERY SMALL to the same caliber in a modern steel rifle, with Modern powders, and well designed bullets, even at the same velocities the old bullets would not have been near as effective. Though many things have been taken with all these rifles both modern,(NITRO CARTRIDGES) and with old,black and BPE. The effectivness cannot be compared favorably between the two!

Today when you wound a head of dangerous game in Africa, it must be,at all cost, followed up by law. This was not the case in the old days, and most that were wounded and made it past a few hundred yards were rarely followed up, and sorted out. because a particular ivory hunter collected 2000 sets of tusks, this doesn't tell you that he may have killed,three times that many and let get away to die in the bush,wasted. It is a fact that most of the old writers failed to mention the one that got away wounded,in there books written on their heroic accounts of their dareing do hunts.

Nobody in the 1890s would have even considered useing a rifle chambered for a cartridge as small as a .450BPE for ele, or even a 500BPE, if he had a 10 bore rifle handy, nor would he have used the 10 bore if an 8 ot 6 bore were at hand, and by today's standards, a 470NE or 500NE would get the nod over all of them by most safari hunters, over all the black powder rifles except for nostalgia reasons. The effeciency difference is a wide canyon between them.

All I'm saying is, this is an apples and watermellon comparison, that is not dirrectly comparible. Both have their place, but they are not of equal value to make the same pie!

Just as the writers today disagree on the merits and disadvantages of a given cartridge, so did the hunters and writers of days gone by. Burrard used the 8 bore rifle as did Wolverton and sung its virtues. Did these bore catridges become obsolete because they were ineffective or like many other great nitro cartridges did they become obsolete for any number or a variety of reasons? Based on historical written accounts, advertising and reports and data from our contemporaries who have taken them to Africa and used the old bp bore guns on dg I would conclude that they are/were quite a bit more than marginaly effective.






Wolverton on the 8 bore





Holland ad. Remember the nitro 10 paradox was in effect a nitro for black cartidge. Ballistics are identical to the 8 dram bp load. But the cordite lessened the recoil and smoke and that gun and catridge was available up untill the depression and then WWII and faded away. Isn't that the scenario for many of the great English nitro cartridges?

quote:

Originally posted by cal pappas:
Fourbore: You are right on in what you say about the 2-bore. Other than punt guns I can't find and reference of a hunter using a shoulder fired 2. Over the decades Baker book has been the sole instance of a 2 being used when he writes of an eight ounce bullet and 10 drams of powder. But, a 2-bore has never been found in Holland's records. What Baker had was a 4-bore shooting an elongated 8-ounce bullet.

To compare the .577, .600, the 8- and the 4-bore is not easy to do due to the higher velocity of the two nitro cartridges. I think a compromise of muzzle energy and Taylor's knock out value may be the way to go.

Numbers? I have 213 .600s in my files and I'm missing lots (both old and new). .577? Unknown, but I feel the full nitro 100-750 may be more, or as, rare than the .600. 8s were made by the hundreds and perhaps thousands. 4s? Unknown, but from the number that have been for sale over the past 20 years (I have detailed files) I'm sure they number about where the vintage .600s do.

They are all fun... except for the imaginary 2.
cheers
Cal

Maybe not on land, but there are plenty of records of shoulder fired 2 Bores being used on the seas to hunt whales.
This link is just one quick reference that refers to shoulder fired rifles and smoothbores from 7/8" bore to 1-3/8"(slightly bigger than a 2 Bore) used to hunt the largest animals on the planet.
Shoulder Guns

They mostly used bomb lances for this, but I have some other references to them using conical bullets and also explosive rounds.
So respectfully I have to disagree that the 2 Bore shoulder gun was imaginary and only found in punt guns. I won't argue the fact that I can find no record of this size of shoulder weapon being used to hunt land animals, but to say that they didn't exist is a whole other matter.

Colin

Really excellent thread, and informative. Thanks to all.

That said, let's not ignore the late Finn Aagard's maxim: "Bullets do not kill by shock. They kill by tissue destruction."

Given appropriate bullet design, let's all look at weight, sectinal density, and speed. In that order.