Thoughts on the use of a Pederzoli Kodiak .50 sxs muzzle loader : 370gn Maxi-balls for plains game hunting?

Fo

Grumpy gumpy said:

What was the original question again……
(That’s a joke just in case)
Gert, in amongst all the other stuff, you sort of have an answer. I , personally with time permitting, would get some maxi slugs and some round ball ( 20-30 of each would be more than enough ) and try shooting them into a semi soft media like old phone books (can people still get them?) or newspapers, magazines etc that have been soaked in water till sodden, and see which penetrates the best for your intended game animal. Using a different powder charge for each couple of shots with each different projectile, first shot to see where it hits, second for the target to test expansion and penetration. This seems like a lot of work, but it is probably the best method to see what your particular firearm likes. You can be lucky and find the best choice straight away, then load up ten or so of that combination and shoot for point of aim.
And to clarify another question, the 10.15 Mauser is the 43 Mauser cartridge, which is a nice round.
Gumpy

For sure , I will do that in the near future..my focus now is on getting a load that is accurate at 50 meters to 80 meters on warthogs for the upcoming hunt in twee weeks

Click to expand...

Grumpy gumpy- good advice. It’s easy enough, but time consuming, to test projectiles in a media that more or less simulates tissue. I found that what some call “wet pack” correlates pretty well with what can be expected in the field. I built a plywood trough about 4 ft long that would hold bundles of phone books or other similar paper. I make the bundles 6-8 inches thick and tie each bundle with nylon string. I soak the bundles in water for at least a couple of hours or until 100% saturated. Stack them in the trough and shoot. Between bundle #1 and 2, I place a 1 1/2 inch piece of hardwood to simulate bone. I carefully align the shot axis to the axis of the trough. Then bundle by bundle, I reveal the bullet track and take note of wound channel, bullet track, depth of penetration and attitude of bullet at terminus. I reduce load so impact velocity matches about that of an average 50-100 yard shot or whatever distance the test is supposed to simulate. Do it the same for every test and you can legitimately compare performance among different projectiles at their normal impact velocities. Pain in the rear and time consuming but one of the few ways I know of to make valid bullet performance comparisons. I believe @michael458, who has done more bullet testing than anyone here, uses a similar method. Another test media of course is ballistic gelatin with actual bone imbedded. No matter the test, media has to be replaced after each shot.

fourfive8 said:

Do it the same for every test and you can legitimately compare performance among different projectiles at their normal impact velocities. Pain in the rear and time consuming but one of the few ways I know of to make valid bullet performance comparisons

Click to expand...

@fourfive8 you are 100% correct, I concur. I use a bit different mix, but the results are the same. What we find in this test medium is that bullet behavior is exactly the same in the test mix as it is in animal tissue, I have literally 100s of different bullets to make direct comparisons. What you get in the Test Medium, you will get in Animal tissue. Animal tissue has some variables that come into play, bone for example, and one can even simulate that to an extent in the test medium.

My mix is a little different, in my early years of testing I used straight wet news print. A few years later, my wife was getting 3-5 inches of catalogs and magazines A DAY! I was thinking, I need to make some use of this material, instead of the trash? I started experimenting some with it, against known bullets, and I found out somewhat by accident by adding this into the mix, it made it much tougher than straight wet news print. My mix ended up being roughly 10 inches of wet news print, a layer of catalogs/magazines 1.5-2 inches thick... and repeat for every 10 inches of wet news print through the mix. This medium showed to be about 30%--35% more dense and tough on bullets than straight wet news print in direct comparisons. Since I was receiving so much of this, and it did make it a little tougher on the bullets, I stuck with this mix for the last 20-25 years of testing. It is and has been a standard here for a very long time, and many 1000s of tests.......

When I built the Indoor Range, in the back I had one box built, water piped in, and a drain put in the floor as well. We were set to do proper test work. The box was put on wheels so I could move it around. When we started design and test work on the various CEB and NF Solids, I soon found out that one 65 inch deep box was not enough, I had to have another built to catch any solids that penetrated beyond 65 inches. So I have two boxes, and testing proper designed solids I put them together.



With any expanding or trauma inflicting bullet, one box is more than enough........



I will put a box together, then start soaking it several times a day for at least a couple of days to make sure it is thoroughly wet through and through. Only Aqueous Medium is valid. Animals are aqueous.

The one thing that does not equate is depth of penetration. The Test Mix is far more dense than animal tissue. I have shot enough over the years to develop a few "Rules of Thumb", not absolute, but simple rules of thumb. With common expanding bullets you can expect 50% to 70% more penetration in animal tissue than test medium. Trauma inflicting Generation 1 and Generation II bullets... Such as Hammers and CEB Maximus Gen 1, and Raptors being Gen II, you can look to get double the depth of penetration in animal tissue. Solids are different, you will get on average 35% more penetration in animal tissue than the test medium. This applies to my test medium only. Mileage will vary in others....... depending on the density of the medium.

fourfive8 said:

Another test media of course is ballistic gelatin with actual bone imbedded. No matter the test, media has to be replaced after each shot.

Click to expand...

Ballistic gel is fine for testing handgun bullets and such. But when you move to big bore rifle bullets, not so good. And Solids? forget about it, you need 10 ft or more to catch some of these. And, have to be replaced as @fourfive8 says after each shot. You would NEVER get enough done to be worthwhile.

We don't test as much as we used to, but back in the day we were going through literally TONS of Wet Print. I used to have a deal with the local newspaper, and would go load up 3-4 tons dry at a time, I paid $0.10 per lb at the time. Same price they got to recycle.

fourfive8 said:

Pain in the rear and time consuming but one of the few ways I know of to make valid bullet performance comparisons.

Click to expand...

Indeed, it is a lot of work. I was fortunate to have a test partner that was just as nuts and anal about doing things right as I was and it made a big difference with two of you going at it. But at the end of the day, we were totally wiped out...........

All of the test work can be a drain on your system, load data and pressure data is not quite as physical as wrestling wet print, but it is also rather demanding. Regardless, you learn so much by doing these things it is extremely enlightening. And you learn something new every time. Which is indeed rewarding.



Sorry guys, I don't even know what this thread is about?? I just noticed my name was invoked and the subject being test work.......... and off I go..........

I may have opened a (interesting) proverbial box of worms…..
I was thinking more of the OP just shooting a stack of wet paper in a wooden box to see which lead projectiles were going to be the best option for him, re penetration and mushrooming
Gumpy

@michael458, no worries The info and methodology apply across the board for testing and comparing bullets.

I did mention and upload photos of the Pedersoli SxS .50 cal where I am replacing the v- express sights on the muzzle loader wit a Leyman rear tang ghost ring sight ..I am sure I will get better accuracy with the ghost ring sight.

I fit the Leyman ghost ring sight to the Pedersoli today...tomorrow will find me shooting a few groups just to see what difference the ghost ring sight will do in regards to accuracy out to 25 meters and 50 meters.. Will give feedback ...

I moved the ghost ring sight down to the last screw and drill a hole in the wood to fasten the ghost ring as tight as possible ..The ghost ring stem is currently adjusted to the lowest height and there are a lot extra height available to adjust ...

Those are fun rifles to shoot .I have double ecpress sites on mine and double small primer adapters on it .It goes off instantly .It shoots 1.5 inches at 76 yards

dgr416 said:

Those are fun rifles to shoot .I have double ecpress sites on mine and double small primer adapters on it .It goes off instantly .It shoots 1.5 inches at 76 yards

Click to expand...

dg416, thank you for your input it is much appreciated.. I currently have the TOP HAT nipples on the Kodiak..I am considering re-placing it with the nr 11 nipples...the large TOP HAT nipples , especially the left side nipple has a large blow out of gas when igniting..in such an extend that I have to wear a glove when shooting it....

I am using ZAR black powder, a high quality black powder, so I do not think the nr11 nipples will have a delayed when firing ....

Members, are there anyone who use these type of bullets /sabots in their .50 cal muzzle loader Pedersoli SXS rifles??

I used nothing but size 11 Remington and CCI caps on my .58 Kodiak.
NEVER a delay or hangfire.

Daryl S said:

I used nothing but size 11 Remington and CCI caps on my .58 Kodiak.
NEVER a delay or hangfire.

Click to expand...

Daryl, Yes I already have two nr 11 nipples available..will replace the top hat caps ...nipples ...

I used mostly 200 to 240 gr 44 mag hp bullet .The maxium was 100 grains for that rifle with my primer adapters .It was a 125 maxium range rifle with the adjustible double site express sites .I think a 1x5 scope might be better but 1.5 inches with both barrels 6 shots at 75 yards is awesome .

Gert Odendaal said:

Members, are there anyone who use these type of bullets /sabots in their .50 cal muzzle loader Pedersoli SXS rifles??View attachment 785742View attachment 785743

Click to expand...

Not them but I have shot buffalo with 50 cal muzzleloader and Hornady Monoflex copper saboted bullets. It worked very well.

I did shoot maxiballs and they were accurate but didnt expand