Enthusiast
New member
At which caliber does a lead roundball, like those used in cap and ball revolvers, have the same stopping power as a modern 9mm hollow-point bullet?
Roundball VS hollow-point
- Thread starter Enthusiast
- Start date
FrankenMauser
New member
You'll have to define "stopping power" and the means by which it will be measured.
Along with the rest of the pedant's points of contention: Which 9mm cartridge? What barrel length? Which hollow point? Which weight?
What is the roundball being fired from? A muzzle-loading revolver? A muzzle-loading rifle? A cartridge rifle? A cartridge revolver?
Along with the rest of the pedant's points of contention: Which 9mm cartridge? What barrel length? Which hollow point? Which weight?
What is the roundball being fired from? A muzzle-loading revolver? A muzzle-loading rifle? A cartridge rifle? A cartridge revolver?
44caliberkid
New member
Elmer Keith said he talked to a Civil War veteran who said the 36 round ball with a maximum powder charge was a man stopper. I know the recommended powder charge of 11 - 12 grains, for modern cap and ball revolvers, is accurate but pretty anemic. I shoot C&B class in Cowboy Action Shooting, and with that load sometimes the scorer couldn’t hear the bing of the steel plate. So I started loading the chamber full of powder (20 - 22 grains) with just enough room to seat the ball. That made an unmistakable loud BING. I’m not sure you could scientifically compare it with a jacketed hollow point. Soft, pure lead balls will mushroom and do even weirder things when they hit bone or cartilage, personal experience from shooting game. I wouldn’t want to get shot with one. Bill Hickok downed a number of men with a 36 round ball.
Last edited:
bamaranger
New member
comparison
I have in my archives a magazine article written about 1985 or so that compared a variety of cap & ball loads to modern ammo. I have that article down in the den. The article was written by a guy last name SANOW. He and another scribe last name MARSHALL did a comparison of actual shootings and came up with a percentage likelihood of one shot stop for defensive loads of the era. Sanow could then extrapolate cap & ball stopping percentage . I don't remember the math, but I do have the article, relatively close at hand.
I will locate same and report back. I do remember that "wild Bill's" .36 Navy was rated as the equal of a good .380 hollow point. I'll be back.
I have in my archives a magazine article written about 1985 or so that compared a variety of cap & ball loads to modern ammo. I have that article down in the den. The article was written by a guy last name SANOW. He and another scribe last name MARSHALL did a comparison of actual shootings and came up with a percentage likelihood of one shot stop for defensive loads of the era. Sanow could then extrapolate cap & ball stopping percentage . I don't remember the math, but I do have the article, relatively close at hand.
I will locate same and report back. I do remember that "wild Bill's" .36 Navy was rated as the equal of a good .380 hollow point. I'll be back.
bamaranger
New member
article
OK, ...."Handguns", Feb '98, "How good were Wild Bills Colts?"-Ed Sanow.
Sanow measured/compared ballistic gelatin wound channels, to his data base of "one shot stops" in actual shootings and came up with a percentage of likelihood of a one shot stop. Remember this is Sanow in '98, NOT bamaranger. Sanow/Marshall work was criticized a bit, but provides a useful yardstick for comparison.
-.31 RB percussion, 30% stops, modern equal, .22 lr HP
.36 RB. 59% stop, 88 gr.380 JHP
.44 RB, Army, 75% stop, 200 gr .44 spl lead HP
.44 Walker RB, 87% stop, .210 gr .41 mag JHP
The RB was faster than conical, displaced more gelatin, and was superior to the respective conicals in all bore dia's. SANOW had data for conicals, (velocities and charge weights for both) but I am not posting same in consideration for brevity.
OK, ...."Handguns", Feb '98, "How good were Wild Bills Colts?"-Ed Sanow.
Sanow measured/compared ballistic gelatin wound channels, to his data base of "one shot stops" in actual shootings and came up with a percentage of likelihood of a one shot stop. Remember this is Sanow in '98, NOT bamaranger. Sanow/Marshall work was criticized a bit, but provides a useful yardstick for comparison.
-.31 RB percussion, 30% stops, modern equal, .22 lr HP
.36 RB. 59% stop, 88 gr.380 JHP
.44 RB, Army, 75% stop, 200 gr .44 spl lead HP
.44 Walker RB, 87% stop, .210 gr .41 mag JHP
The RB was faster than conical, displaced more gelatin, and was superior to the respective conicals in all bore dia's. SANOW had data for conicals, (velocities and charge weights for both) but I am not posting same in consideration for brevity.
Jim Watson
New member
Once upon a time it was commonly said that the .44 Walker Colt was the most powerful handgun made until the development of the .357 Magnum. I think the .45 Colt got overlooked.
Back in the late 70s, we played with cap and ball Revolvers quite a bit.
It was easy to get a .36 Colt Navy, or Remington up to 900fps with a round ball. So yes it would act a lot like a .380.
.44 1860, and Remingtons were a little slower, but 850-900ish was normal. Again round ball loads. That gives 38 Special velocity, with a larger diameter bullet.
Pure lead balls deform if the hit something hard.
It was easy to get a .36 Colt Navy, or Remington up to 900fps with a round ball. So yes it would act a lot like a .380.
.44 1860, and Remingtons were a little slower, but 850-900ish was normal. Again round ball loads. That gives 38 Special velocity, with a larger diameter bullet.
Pure lead balls deform if the hit something hard.
It wasn't overlooked.
bamaranger
New member
power
Sanow claimed he drove a RB with 60 gr of 3F to 1280 fps plus, for just over 500 ft/lbs of energy.
Sanow claimed he drove a RB with 60 gr of 3F to 1280 fps plus, for just over 500 ft/lbs of energy.
bamaranger
New member
velocity
As noted earlier, Elmer Keith claimed the LRB driven at max velocity was a better "stopper" than the conoidal/picket style bullet of the same caliber in percussion revolvers. The Sanow/Marshall study reflected that opinion, the faster, soft pure lead round ball actually deformed a bit and the higher velocity contributed to wound cavity development also. The LRB is lighter of than the respective conical. Additionally, cowboy action shooters report that the RB is typically more accurate.
Interestingly, at least in the Civil War era, the revolver was issued with paper cartridges loaded with conicals. Better penetration at distance and against horses. Not to say that round balls were not in service, but issue was the conical, at least in the Union army.
As noted earlier, Elmer Keith claimed the LRB driven at max velocity was a better "stopper" than the conoidal/picket style bullet of the same caliber in percussion revolvers. The Sanow/Marshall study reflected that opinion, the faster, soft pure lead round ball actually deformed a bit and the higher velocity contributed to wound cavity development also. The LRB is lighter of than the respective conical. Additionally, cowboy action shooters report that the RB is typically more accurate.
Interestingly, at least in the Civil War era, the revolver was issued with paper cartridges loaded with conicals. Better penetration at distance and against horses. Not to say that round balls were not in service, but issue was the conical, at least in the Union army.
I have killed dead, grave yard dead with cast Wadcutter taching along at 650-700FPS.
This bullet 95% lead- 5% tin, 242gr. 45cal. from S&W m25-5. I would guess that the blunter a lead bullet is the more it will deform on impact. The more pointed the tip the less resistance, it eases the way for the main diameter to follow. Thus less expansion on impact.
This bullet 95% lead- 5% tin, 242gr. 45cal. from S&W m25-5. I would guess that the blunter a lead bullet is the more it will deform on impact. The more pointed the tip the less resistance, it eases the way for the main diameter to follow. Thus less expansion on impact.
I've chronograph several of my C&B revolvers. A full size NMA or 1860 colt holds its own with 9mm. In fact, most 147gn 9mm ammo out of normal sized modern handguns struggles to achieve 1100fps. A .45 ball weighing 140gns will average 1120fps with 37gns of OE fffg under it by my chronograph (out of a Uberti NMA). Of course with standard goex or Schutzen powder it's more like 970 fps, so the powder makes a giant difference.
A lead ball is also purported to give a very good mix of penetration and adequate tissue damage in regards to terminal ballistics. I've not hunted enough since I took up BP shooting to weigh in, i'm simply repeating what i've read. External ballistics of a round ball, as most know, are atrocious. The BC has a zero for the tenths digit.
A lead ball is also purported to give a very good mix of penetration and adequate tissue damage in regards to terminal ballistics. I've not hunted enough since I took up BP shooting to weigh in, i'm simply repeating what i've read. External ballistics of a round ball, as most know, are atrocious. The BC has a zero for the tenths digit.