.44 black powder revolver load for black bear

[maint1517]

I'm hunting black bear, not Kodiak's. I have modern firearms that have proven effective on them before. I'll just use them.

 

[midland man]

I'm hunting black bear, not Kodiak's. I have modern firearms that have proven effective on them before. I'll just use them.

like I said in earlier post take the 44 bp pistol with the 357 or 30-30 as backup and try it on a blackbear I bet it'll work like you said these ain't Kodiak's lol!

 

[Choctaw]

BP pistols are not modern hunting guns and any game animal deserves to be taken quickly and cleanly. I doubt any of our ancestors would have picked a 44 Remmy over a Ruger SBH.

 

[damoc]

Just my 2 cents worth I think the 58 steel frame loaded to the hilt would be enough for black bear at close range but not with a round ball.

Just postulating on something I know almost nothing about and having already climbed a tree after a good shot on an Australian wild pig with a rifle.

 

[rodwha]

BP pistols are not modern hunting guns and any game animal deserves to be taken quickly and cleanly. I doubt any of our ancestors would have picked a 44 Remmy over a Ruger SBH.

These actually work quite well. Go on over to the traditional BP forums and see what others have been doing.

When I first became interested in a muzzleloading rifle and ran the numbers through a calculator I didn’t see how a .50 cal ball was useful beyond maybe 50 yds according to what I read and understand about modern projectiles. As it turns out what we read has a lot of misinformation included, and going to those forums opened my eyes a bit to just what they are capable of.

If the .45 Colt has been well regarded for being quite effective how could these percussion guns, which as I pointed out roughly duplicate the performance, not be effective as well?

Better yet speak with Kaido and the group of guys he hunts hogs using these and his modified Lee bullets. Quite effective and has been shown to go nose to tail through an adult hog. Don’t need more oomph than that, and it dropped it right there as well. Worked flawlessly.

And one of hunting buddies actually prefers a ball in his Walker claiming the wound is more devastating within 25 yds.

Those guys tend to be very productive when they go hog hunting. Seems these guns work just fine.

 

[Choctaw]

How many hogs have you killed with a BP traditional handgun this year? This can be debated endlessly. I base my opinion merely on my experiences and couldn’t care less about what other people say they are doing on the internet.

You can use a .22 pistol when hunting pigs with dogs because the range will be short and the target is stationary.

A 50 caliber projectile being pushed by 90 grains of FFFg is going to have a different impact than a lead pill fired out of a Remmy.

 

[Jackrabbit1957]

yep drobs don't feel bad for years people told me that the 30-30 was only good for a 100yrds but that's bull as I have shot and killed deer out to 200yrds not a problem using 170gr sierra with 33.6grs of Winchester 760 powder but I just laugh at the stupidity I hear about the good ol'e 30-30...

Gotta agree with midland man. I have personally knocked over deer at over 300 yards with a .32 Winchester. It is basically a 30 30 opened up to .321. Same case, same ballistics. While I am not a fan of AK s I see no reason it would be so inaccurate if a proper load is worked up. In other words don't use the widely available Commie ammo and make up something that works.

 

[CraigC]

Back when the roundball was the only choice, to gain effect, you went to a bigger ball. A .45cal roundball is only 143gr. That is very light relative to bore size, not to mention the wrong shape for penetration or a large wound channel. Just as 200yrs ago, you need diameter and mass to make them more effective. A .50 (184gr) or .54 (232gr) caliber ball at rifle velocities is a huge step up in performance but they are still light for caliber. A conical bullet makes all the difference in the world. As I said, a .44 cap `n ball would be sufficient for deer if shoulder shots are avoided but I would never intentionally hunt black bear with one. Of course, there's also a huge difference between 250lb black bears in Maine and 400-600lb Carolina bears but in my opinion, it is insufficient for either and would constitute a stunt. Sure, it might work but it also might not. I don't take chances with might not.

A conical loaded in one of these guns would be an improvement but any bullet soft enough to be loaded with a rammer is potentially too soft for large game.

 

[maint1517]

Didn't mean to start disagreements with this thread.
Was not my intention.

 

[expat_alaska]

Didn't mean to start disagreements with this thread.
Was not my intention.

Well, Maint, when you or I post anything it may not be to your liking, or mine. You have to know that there will be disagreements.

That's how it is.

Jim

 

[rodwha]

Back when the roundball was the only choice, to gain effect, you went to a bigger ball. A .45cal roundball is only 143gr. That is very light relative to bore size, not to mention the wrong shape for penetration or a large wound channel. Just as 200yrs ago, you need diameter and mass to make them more effective. A .50 (184gr) or .54 (232gr) caliber ball at rifle velocities is a huge step up in performance but they are still light for caliber. A conical bullet makes all the difference in the world. As I said, a .44 cap `n ball would be sufficient for deer if shoulder shots are avoided but I would never intentionally hunt black bear with one. Of course, there's also a huge difference between 250lb black bears in Maine and 400-600lb Carolina bears but in my opinion, it is insufficient for either and would constitute a stunt. Sure, it might work but it also might not. I don't take chances with might not.

A conical loaded in one of these guns would be an improvement but any bullet soft enough to be loaded with a rammer is potentially too soft for large game.

.45 (.440” ball) was considered rather large along the east coast. It wasn’t until westward expansion in the US did the calibers grow. Granted the distance one hunted was also much shorter than out west then. But even out west the average ball size was plenty effective just as it is now.

A ball from one of these revolvers and not even fully loaded was shown to penetrate 27” and that was with a dismal velocity. It’s not lacking in penetration ability.

Having been questioning the capabilities of a .50 cal rifle I was led to traditional forums and what I was shown time and time again was a ball generally found just under the hide on a broadside hit within 75 yds and that beyond that it generally gave a complete pass through showing little to no signs of expansion but still leaving a caliber sized hole. There are even a few people who use the .50 with a ball on elk but keep the range shorter.

I certainly believe a bullet pushed by an energetic powder and with a wide meplat is capable of the penetration, but I’d not do it myself as a primary weapon for a black bear. It has done so with adult hogs that are also well known for being rather tough, and penetrating feet of animal, but with something that can chew on me I’d prefer more for that, or someone armed better with me.

 

[swathdiver]

What would be a good powder load for bear with a .454 round ball? I'll be using Pyrodex P.

You can get 35-37 grains of powder under a round ball without a wad. I would not use Pyrodex but rather, 3F Olde Eynsford. Might even try 30 grains of 4F Olde Eynsford under wad. I would not hesitate to use a 240 grain Kaido Conical with 30 grains of 3F Olde Eynsford. That load hurts my hand when target shooting with the 5" NMA. I reckon that you'd be in a tree stand and have time for a second shot.

 

[whughett]

And the debate goes on, the natives killed them with bow and arrow, perhaps stone tipped spears, settlers with patched round ball and musket, heck someone somewhere even knifed one to death. I still think old Bruin, like any game animal will fall to accurate shot placement as much as to any caliber, a hole in the heart or lungs is a done deal, a brain shot even more so.

 

[Officers'Wife]

And the debate goes on, the natives killed them with bow and arrow, perhaps stone tipped spears, settlers with patched round ball and musket, heck someone somewhere even knifed one to death. I still think old Bruin, like any game animal will fall to accurate shot placement as much as to any caliber, a hole in the heart or lungs is a done deal, a brain shot even more so.

While this is very true, in a life-and-death situation there is no such thing as a fair chance. There is only the survivor. The idea of using anything less than the most effective weapon available goes against Stern Parental Lecture # 1 that was pretty much drilled into me since I first step foot on the farm. And I quote – you may think those animals look cute, you may think they look friendly… But the fact remains they are big enough to kill you. It's up to you to make sure you give them very few chances to do so.

I have seen deer with a hole through their lungs that I still had to track a very long way. Now while I will admit I have never hunted bear, it stands to reason that if a deer can still function with a mortal wound when driven by fear, that a bear can also still function with a mortal wound when it isn't smart enough to know that it's dying or it simply does not want to die alone.

 

[CraigC]

And the debate goes on, the natives killed them with bow and arrow, perhaps stone tipped spears, settlers with patched round ball and musket, heck someone somewhere even knifed one to death. I still think old Bruin, like any game animal will fall to accurate shot placement as much as to any caliber, a hole in the heart or lungs is a done deal, a brain shot even more so.

It baffles me that people think these vague generalizations about what 'might' have happened 200yrs ago is actually relevant. I prefer to base my opinion on what folks have actually done with handguns over the last 100yrs, along with 30yrs of my own experience. All that tells me that hunting black bear with a .44 roundball out of a percussion revolver is nothing more than an irresponsible stunt.

Let's put it another way. I challenge anyone to go to a handgun hunting forum and suggest hunting bear with a .45ACP and a 185gr JHP at 800fps. A round ball is 20% lighter than that.

 

[rodwha]

It baffles me that people think these vague generalizations about what 'might' have happened 200yrs ago is actually relevant. I prefer to base my opinion on what folks have actually done with handguns over the last 100yrs, along with 30yrs of my own experience. All that tells me that hunting black bear with a .44 roundball out of a percussion revolver is nothing more than an irresponsible stunt.

Let's put it another way. I challenge anyone to go to a handgun hunting forum and suggest hunting bear with a .45ACP and a 185gr JHP at 800fps. A round ball is 20% lighter than that.

I do agree with you that a ball from these pistols is on the lean side for a bears, especially over ~200 lbs in which I think it would be ludicrous to use, especially as a primary. However to compare a JHP that doesn’t penetrate as well as it expands isn’t the same thing as that ball will penetrate nearly twice as deep and still create a ~.45 cal hole. And unless you were handloading that JHP would be going faster, as would the ball if it were loaded with the powders I mentioned and gave evidence for. Unless a magnum were used people would use a hard cast from a non magnum such as those who handgun hunt hogs.

 

[John Joseph]

guys our ancestors did it back then so whats the difference now??

Our ancestors used rifles?

 

[John Joseph]

And the debate goes on, the natives killed them with bow and arrow, perhaps stone tipped spears, settlers with patched round ball and musket, heck someone somewhere even knifed one to death. I still think old Bruin, like any game animal will fall to accurate shot placement as much as to any caliber, a hole in the heart or lungs is a done deal, a brain shot even more so.

Who was left alive to record the number of natives and settlers killed by the bears?

 

[maint1517]

When I originally started this thread, it was because I didnt know the limitations of the BP revolver. I asked for advice and greatfully accepted it.
However, even after I said I would be using my 30-30 and .357, I had to explain again that I would be using my modern firearms. To which, because someone only read a couple of posts, I was told BP revolvers are not modern firearms. Etc...
moderators, this thread should be closed.
and gentlemen, I am done.

 

[whughett]

November on the Ohio farm of my youth was butchering time. Bulls were shot between the eyes with a 22 handgun. Hogs sledged then bled. Calibers, bullet weights and velocities are all relevant. My only point was there is no substitute for bullet placement. A 44 caliber round ball over 30 grains of black will kill any soft skin game all else being equal. Would I want to try that, heck no, should someone else, go for it and video tape the results. Have your cell phone handy with 911 on the speed dial.

 

[CraigC]

I do agree with you that a ball from these pistols is on the lean side for a bears, especially over ~200 lbs in which I think it would be ludicrous to use, especially as a primary. However to compare a JHP that doesn’t penetrate as well as it expands isn’t the same thing as that ball will penetrate nearly twice as deep and still create a ~.45 cal hole. And unless you were handloading that JHP would be going faster, as would the ball if it were loaded with the powders I mentioned and gave evidence for. Unless a magnum were used people would use a hard cast from a non magnum such as those who handgun hunt hogs.

I don't know why this is so difficult to understand. It doesn't matter if it expands or not. It's too light. 100fps in either direction makes no difference. It's the wrong tool for the job. The bear deserves better.

If you want to hunt black bear with a round ball, fire it from a .50cal or larger rifle. If you want to use a pistol, use a friggin' bullet made for the job.

Bullet placement doesn't make up for marginal equipment.

 

[Gordon]

In black powder season I hunt with a Lyman .50 Stalker and have a Lyman .50 Plains pistol as back up. My third back up to the back up is an 1860 Army .44 with conicals. I never had to use the .44 yet , but I hunt in large wild pig areas..

 

[rodwha]

I don't know why this is so difficult to understand. It doesn't matter if it expands or not. It's too light. 100fps in either direction makes no difference. It's the wrong tool for the job. The bear deserves better.

If you want to hunt black bear with a round ball, fire it from a .50cal or larger rifle. If you want to use a pistol, use a friggin' bullet made for the job.

Bullet placement doesn't make up for marginal equipment.

What’s difficult to understand is your opinion of a ball when there’s a plethora of evidence it can do what you are claiming it cannot.

However we both agree that we’d much prefer something better, and that we wouldn’t hunt a bear with a ball from these revolvers.

Take that .50 cal rifle ball out to the distances where it’s been used quite successfully and you have revolver performance. Not sure how many people would want to be that close, which is my point. It can penetrate well at those lower velocities typically giving complete passthroughs.

 

[CraigC]

What evidence? Third hand 150yr old myth & legend???

 

[Jackrabbit1957]

Now I am getting curious as to what effective round ball range is. I am personally not afraid to take a 200 hundred yard shot with a 50 cal r b. I think after that it falls off pretty quickly. Or am I way off on this? Since I regularly take Jackrabbits down at or past 100 yards with a pistol be it a modern one or a black powder one I am wondering if it's my imagination or 150 year old mythology.