Small Rifle help

[jeffinsgf]

No, but they will keep the arrow flying in a nice arc as it decends to the ground. The "wings" on an arrow are not providing "lift" the way an aircraft wing provides lift. They are there for directional stability. It still is going to fall just like a rock, a beaver, a bowling ball or a bullet and it will still impact the ground at the same time as the other objects (presuming they were fired or dropped from the same height, parallel to the ground, etc)

Thank you for the clarification between lift and directional stability.

 

[DieselPower]

Don't forget. The airplane wing has more surface area on the top than on the bottom. That's what makes lift as air moves across it or a low preasure area on the underside of the wing.

 

[EddieWalker]

Nowhere did I make a recommendation that either cartridge would make a good choice for elk. I only chose an elk because as poor as either cartridge would be for elk, one is vastly superior to the other.

In closing, Eddie, where did I say the .45 Colt had to be fired from a pistol? Are there no carbines in that caliber? But, even giving you that restriction, your comment that "the (.45 Colt) pistol will barely break the skin" at 100 yards demonstrates conclusively the width and depth of your knowledge.

You list some very imprssive authors and a few of my personal favorites. I'm impressed that you know who they are, which means that you either have some knowledge of them, or you just listed a bunch of famous authors and hoped to bluff your way through a very bad argument.

How you draw your conclusions that a fat, slow moving bullet that is only going 860 fps and has 418 pounds of energy is more likely to penetrate an elk over a small, fast moving bullet that is moving much, much faster and with more energy is still a mystery. Neither are very good elk or hunting rounds, but the slow one without any energy to it isn't a very good choice at all.

All the authors that you posted are fans of big bullets in bug guns with massive amounts of powder. The difference between your slow moving, low power bullet and what they all preach, is that you have to put allot of powder behind those bullets to accomplish anything. Then you get a big bullet that will move fast enought to develop massive amounts of energy. With a big bullet and lots of powder, nothing will get away.

This is exactly what I was refereing to in my reply to Thingy. A bullet that is absorbed by the animal, and doesn't travel all the way through it, can be argued to be better at killing an animal than a bullet that passes through it, and carries it's energy out of the animal. Elmer Keith is famous for this. Of course, he's been dead a very long time and "modern" rifles and bullet design are something he didn't know about at the time of his writings. Same with your other authors. They make there points on calibers and bullet design based on the information they had available to them in there day. They also wrote to only shoot fixed power scopes since variable power ones change the objective too much and you loose accuracy. Modern scopes don't do this anymore and are much better choices than fixed power scopes.

Sighting people from so long ago is like debating wether it's faster to plow a field with a team of horses or a steam engined tractor. It's out of date information that has not relevant facts. Times change and technology has improved bullets, powders and every thing about shooting.

Read Craig Boddington if you want to learn about modern ammo and how they perform. He's one of my favorites and somebody I've met and have a great deal of respect for.

I apologize for implying that you thought those two rounds would make good hunting calibers for elk. You brought up an elk in your example and since it was such an absurd example, I felt compelled to point it out. That's also why I shared with you the reasons for your mistake. If you had some knowledge of hunting or ballistics, you could have chosen from dozens of species for your example, or even humans. After all, both calibers were design for killing people.

The 45 was to stop the Japanese soldiers during WWII who were wired on drugs and kept coming after being shot multiple times with smaller calibers. The 45 would drop them instantly. This was becasue it was such a big round that DIDN'T pass through those shot with it. The person shot absorbed all the energy and at close range, it was devastating. The .223 was also designed for people, but not so much as a killing round, but one to wound and cause allot in injury. The bullet has a tendancy to tumble on impact and tear things up as it passes THROUGH a person. If it stays inside the victem, it travels around, causing massive amounts of damage.

I also apologize for assuming you implied the 45 caliber bullet in your example was fired from a pistol. When I checked the ballistic tables, they showed similar speeds and energy from pistols in that caliber, so I made an assumption. If it makes you feel better, I'm willing to change my earlier opinion about the round and say that it's a lousy caliber when fired from a "RIFLE" with very little speed or power to be effective at killing an elk. It doesn't matter what it's fired from, it doesn't have enough energy or power to kill an elk at close range.

I thank you for your closing and admitting that the the .45 will barely break the skin of an elk at 100 yards. It's not from any amount of knowledge on my part, but just plain common sence and experience.

If you still feel the need to continue this argument, I'd be more than happy to read what you have to say and hopefuly you will actualy make a point yourself. Telling me to go read some antique books, some that I already own and have in my collection, doesn't really get your point across very well. Does it?

Eddie

 

[thingy]

If I can just remember this,,[at the right time],I'll be able to start alotta arguments,,,and if told to right people,,will have experamenting going on,,[except we ain't got many beavers around here,so they would have to use groundhogs or something,think somes got cannon],,,thingy

 

[Jimbrown]

I told you this could be argued till heck froze over. I have to dissagree with Eddie onthe 45colt. I got one in a rossii carbine and I guarantee with corbon loads it will make mush out of a beaver. Don't know about elk don't think I ever saw one.

 

[EddieWalker]

I told you this could be argued till heck froze over. I have to dissagree with Eddie onthe 45colt. I got one in a rossii carbine and I guarantee with corbon loads it will make mush out of a beaver. Don't know about elk don't think I ever saw one.

Jim,

No disagreement from me. I'm sure the 45 will do a number on a beaver!!!! I also think it will kill and elk under ideal situations that are very unlikely to occure in real world hunting.

I'll admit to not knowing what a corbon load is? I' also not familiar with the Rossi Carbine. I've seen there shotguns, but never noticed a carbine before.

Eddie

 

[N80]

Two small points of clarification. 1) The colt 45 was designed before WWII. There is a 1911 model if I'm not mistaken. It was designed to meet the need of stopping a charging person, but it was not the Japanese in WWII. Obviously, it worked as well in WWII as it did in 1911. 2) Military bullets are designed to punch a hole in people. Tumbling (which is another hotly debated subject) is not part of the design and is probably a function of extreme range. Hunting type and fragmenting bullets are against the Geneva Convention. Modern military bullets are designed to poke a hole in the enemy, preferrably disabling him rather than killing him. (There are also logistics issues, you can get a lot more 223s in a box than 30-06s.) The enemy uses far more resources in the care of a wounded soldier than a dead one. Given our current conflict we might ought to re-think that. An enemy that has no regard for his life, the life of his comrade or anyone else's life simply needs to be snuffed in any way possible.

We are waaaaaaaaay off topic and are of no use to the OP but this is a great discussion nevertheless.

Skypup, at what point does a 70 pound beaver reach terminal velocity as compared to a 30 pound beaver?

 

[Sigarms]

Bullets are just like the reason my wife says she married me...bigger is always better! (yeah, in my dreams)

 

[RG_Upton]

Still off subject but out there in firearms land....

If I recall correctly, you are both (close to) correct on the .45 origins. The .45 Colt revolver was adopted by the military after failure of the .38 on tribal Moros (hyped up like Eddie said on who knows what) in the late nineteenth or early 20th century. The .45ACP in the Colt 1911 was an outgrowth of that slow fat bullet mindset when the US Army wanted to move to John Browning's semi-automatic pistol design.

FWIW, the Corbon loads are heavy .45 Colt loads for modern firearms only. Traditionally the major manufacturers of ammunition make only light loaded .45 Colt loads since some earlier firearms were not designed to take the pressures that modern ones can. Some of these new high-pressure rounds are similar in energy and ballistics to a .44 Magnum. These heavy rounds and modern arms were the basis for the creation of the .45 Casull cartridge (slightly longer to enable the use of even more powder and longer bullets and not be compatible with the older .45 firearms).

I have heard that the "tumbling" attributed to the .223 occurred with early AR15/M16s due to a slow rifling rate which barely stabilized the bullet for flight and therefore was not terribly accurate. As the round was standardized for military use, bullet weight and rifling rate were changed to make for a more stable and accurate bullet.

 

[weldingisfun]

The 45 was to stop the Japanese soldiers during WWII who were wired on drugs and kept coming after being shot multiple times with smaller calibers. The 45 would drop them instantly. This was becasue it was such a big round that DIDN'T pass through those shot with it. The person shot absorbed all the energy and at close range, it was devastating. The .223 was also designed for people, but not so much as a killing round, but one to wound and cause allot in injury. The bullet has a tendancy to tumble on impact and tear things up as it passes THROUGH a person. If it stays inside the victem, it travels around, causing massive amounts of damage.

Eddie

Eddie, I very seldom ever question anything to write and I', not questioning anything you have said in your thread except of one monir matter. The .45v was developed for the Army during the Phillipine Insurrection in 1911 for exactly the reasons you stated and was the Moro rebels, not the Japanese soldiers. The Army issued .38s to the troops back then and against the Moros they were ineffective. Until the introduction of the M9 9mm, the .45 ACP was the issue weapon. Impressive history.