Roundball scores well in Taylor Index at 100 yards
01-12-2006, 05:56 PM
#1
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location:
Posts: 1,470
Roundball scores well in Taylor Index at 100 yards
Got some ballistics from a members AOL site on the T/C .50 cal.
For 90 Grain 2F, what I thought may be typical for hunting, the velocity at 100 yards is 1148 fps, the energy is 512 ft-lbs.
This is anemic energy and the high powered rifle folks generally consider this unacceptable. Honestly so would I . . . B .. U .. T . . . . someone did ask, what about its score with the Taylor index.
The taylor index is 14, that is, 14 at 100 yards.
Let's compare that toa high powered rifle.
25-06, 100 grain bullet, muzzle velocity 3100 fps has a taylor index of . . .
11, yes only 11 at the muzzle mind you!
I calculated my 7mm Rem mag at 100 yards, its only 17.
Anybody care to guess what the taylor index of my buffalo round is at 100 yards?
460 great plains, 1284 fps (100 yards), energy of 1685 ft-lbs, has a taylor index of . . .
42 baby, thats right42 . . if thats not overkill I don't know what is
.
I think the reason these muzzleloading rounds score so high in Taylor index is because of the diameter of the bullet. In any event, it makes me suspect that maybe the roundball is better than I thought it was. The roundball has terrible sectional density though, I wonder at what velocity does the roundball bend the ribs and skin without sufficient momentum to pierce and penerate both lungs?
In any event, you too can have fun with the Taylor index calculator located here, http://www.beartoothbullets.com/rescources/calculators/php/taylor.htm?bw=460&bv=1284&cal=.5
Happy Hunting, Phil
For 90 Grain 2F, what I thought may be typical for hunting, the velocity at 100 yards is 1148 fps, the energy is 512 ft-lbs.
This is anemic energy and the high powered rifle folks generally consider this unacceptable. Honestly so would I . . . B .. U .. T . . . . someone did ask, what about its score with the Taylor index.
The taylor index is 14, that is, 14 at 100 yards.
Let's compare that toa high powered rifle.
25-06, 100 grain bullet, muzzle velocity 3100 fps has a taylor index of . . .
11, yes only 11 at the muzzle mind you!
I calculated my 7mm Rem mag at 100 yards, its only 17.
Anybody care to guess what the taylor index of my buffalo round is at 100 yards?
460 great plains, 1284 fps (100 yards), energy of 1685 ft-lbs, has a taylor index of . . .
42 baby, thats right42 . . if thats not overkill I don't know what is
.I think the reason these muzzleloading rounds score so high in Taylor index is because of the diameter of the bullet. In any event, it makes me suspect that maybe the roundball is better than I thought it was. The roundball has terrible sectional density though, I wonder at what velocity does the roundball bend the ribs and skin without sufficient momentum to pierce and penerate both lungs?
In any event, you too can have fun with the Taylor index calculator located here, http://www.beartoothbullets.com/rescources/calculators/php/taylor.htm?bw=460&bv=1284&cal=.5
Happy Hunting, Phil
01-13-2006, 05:28 AM
#3
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Kerrville, Tx. USA
Posts: 2,722
RE: Roundball scores well in Taylor Index at 100 yards
Thanks for posting the link. It is another interesting info cog in trying to figure out what is best for each of us.
Another good example would be the 45-70. 45caliberand 70 grains of black powder. it doesn't do so well on the foot/lbs of energy, but millions of buffalo died to this bullet.
Bottom line is that both ft/lbs and the Taylor index are ONLY mathmatical formulas someone thought up to help us compare different things in ballistics. Ft/lbs square the velocity so the faster the bullet goes the better it shows up regardless of how small the bullet weight is. In the Taylor index, the biggest factor is the diameter, so bigger bullets look better regardless of their velocity. We have to take both with some common sense and a touch of personal experience.
Good hunting.
Another good example would be the 45-70. 45caliberand 70 grains of black powder. it doesn't do so well on the foot/lbs of energy, but millions of buffalo died to this bullet.
Bottom line is that both ft/lbs and the Taylor index are ONLY mathmatical formulas someone thought up to help us compare different things in ballistics. Ft/lbs square the velocity so the faster the bullet goes the better it shows up regardless of how small the bullet weight is. In the Taylor index, the biggest factor is the diameter, so bigger bullets look better regardless of their velocity. We have to take both with some common sense and a touch of personal experience.
Good hunting.
01-13-2006, 05:45 AM
#4
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,092
RE: Roundball scores well in Taylor Index at 100 yards
Good post txhunter58. Any formula that wouldyeild a higher value for .45 round ball that it does a 30-06 lacks a bit of credibility, but I don't think the elephant hunter had round projectiles in mind.
01-13-2006, 08:51 AM
#5
Boone & Crockett
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Idaho
Posts: 11,703
RE: Roundball scores well in Taylor Index at 100 yards
Underclocked
I wasn't thinking of those exact words but I wondered if a person could say what you said. I am surprised it didn't start with "WHUT" that's what I wanted to write but I was thinking you had the copywrite on that as with "crud ring" another term you coined or teflon tape on the breech - you can say em some of us can't...
I wasn't thinking of those exact words but I wondered if a person could say what you said. I am surprised it didn't start with "WHUT" that's what I wanted to write but I was thinking you had the copywrite on that as with "crud ring" another term you coined or teflon tape on the breech - you can say em some of us can't...
01-13-2006, 10:15 AM
#6
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location:
Posts: 1,470
RE: Roundball scores well in Taylor Index at 100 yards
Underclocked wrote:
Good post txhunter58. Any formula that wouldyeild a higher value for .45 round ball that it does a 30-06 lacks a bit of credibility, but I don't think the elephant hunter had round projectiles in mind.
Do you think I could down an elephant with my .50? If I were faced with a charging bull elephant, I know I would certainly feel undergunned. I think i would prefer a 3500 grain roundball, in fact, knock the monster out with it.
While I do think the Taylor index is better suited for comparing the relatitive performance of smaller bore, high powered rifles, I am more than willing to admit that after discovering this index, I havebeen caused to considerthat the muzzleloading roundball, owing to its large diameter and weight, may beethically used below the 800 ft.lbs that high-powered rifle folks say is the ethical minimum.
That said, there comes a point where the Taylor index means absolutely nothing for the round ball. That would be a velocity where the roundball is no longer able to make the double lung wound channel. I don't know what that velocity is.I think everyone would agree that a spitzer pointed .25 caliber with good sectional density is able to dothe penetrationat velocities the round ball can not, making it better, even if it has a lower taylor index.
Thankfully the question ofwhether my projectile canhumanely kill atrange is oneI really don't need to answer, because i overkill anyway. It is nice not to have to deal with it when i hunt
.
Happy Hunting, Phil
Good post txhunter58. Any formula that wouldyeild a higher value for .45 round ball that it does a 30-06 lacks a bit of credibility, but I don't think the elephant hunter had round projectiles in mind.
Do you think I could down an elephant with my .50? If I were faced with a charging bull elephant, I know I would certainly feel undergunned. I think i would prefer a 3500 grain roundball, in fact, knock the monster out with it.
While I do think the Taylor index is better suited for comparing the relatitive performance of smaller bore, high powered rifles, I am more than willing to admit that after discovering this index, I havebeen caused to considerthat the muzzleloading roundball, owing to its large diameter and weight, may beethically used below the 800 ft.lbs that high-powered rifle folks say is the ethical minimum.
That said, there comes a point where the Taylor index means absolutely nothing for the round ball. That would be a velocity where the roundball is no longer able to make the double lung wound channel. I don't know what that velocity is.I think everyone would agree that a spitzer pointed .25 caliber with good sectional density is able to dothe penetrationat velocities the round ball can not, making it better, even if it has a lower taylor index.
Thankfully the question ofwhether my projectile canhumanely kill atrange is oneI really don't need to answer, because i overkill anyway. It is nice not to have to deal with it when i hunt
.Happy Hunting, Phil
01-13-2006, 07:05 PM
#8
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Kerrville, Tx. USA
Posts: 2,722
RE: Roundball scores well in Taylor Index at 100 yards
Pglasgow said:
While I do think the Taylor index is better suited for comparing the relatitive performance of smaller bore, high powered rifles,
Not sure what you mean by this. In my mind, the ft/lbs formula shines with small bore, very fast guns and is a good measure of killing power when you want to compare the 270 with the 7mm mag. On the other hand, the Taylor index is a better predictor of the performance of big bore, slower moving bullets. So I use it to compare these calibers.
If you want another interesting mind game, put in the ballistics for a 12 gauge shotgun slug. FYI, the 12 guage bore is just a tad under 0.75 inches! It made me think that if I have a grizzly charging me, the gun I would probably want to have is a pump 12 gauge shooting slugs (with a magazine of 8 shells)
While I do think the Taylor index is better suited for comparing the relatitive performance of smaller bore, high powered rifles,
Not sure what you mean by this. In my mind, the ft/lbs formula shines with small bore, very fast guns and is a good measure of killing power when you want to compare the 270 with the 7mm mag. On the other hand, the Taylor index is a better predictor of the performance of big bore, slower moving bullets. So I use it to compare these calibers.
If you want another interesting mind game, put in the ballistics for a 12 gauge shotgun slug. FYI, the 12 guage bore is just a tad under 0.75 inches! It made me think that if I have a grizzly charging me, the gun I would probably want to have is a pump 12 gauge shooting slugs (with a magazine of 8 shells)
01-13-2006, 07:12 PM
#9
Boone & Crockett
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Idaho
Posts: 11,703
RE: Roundball scores well in Taylor Index at 100 yards
txhunter58
I can think of a few Mountain Men in the 1840-60's that would have gladly traded their BP guns for that 12 guage with slugs when they encountered the "Griz", but today I just as soon be farther away and shooting something more with a tad more power and more modern.
With the "Taylor Index" I am getting the feeling it would be better in Africa to be using that 12 guage slug gun against the most dangerous game.
Guess it goes back to that saying "shooting paper is one thing shooting animals is another"
(and I am probably speaking off base because I really do not kow the reliability of the Taylor - forgive me if I offended anyone)
I can think of a few Mountain Men in the 1840-60's that would have gladly traded their BP guns for that 12 guage with slugs when they encountered the "Griz", but today I just as soon be farther away and shooting something more with a tad more power and more modern.
With the "Taylor Index" I am getting the feeling it would be better in Africa to be using that 12 guage slug gun against the most dangerous game.
Guess it goes back to that saying "shooting paper is one thing shooting animals is another"
(and I am probably speaking off base because I really do not kow the reliability of the Taylor - forgive me if I offended anyone)
01-13-2006, 08:31 PM
#10
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location:
Posts: 1,470
RE: Roundball scores well in Taylor Index at 100 yards
[align=center][/align]
Posts: 934
Joined: 2/12/2003
From: Kerrville, Tx. USA
Status: online
Pglasgow said:
While I do think the Taylor index is better suited for comparing the relatitive performance of smaller bore, high powered rifles,
Not sure what you mean by this. In my mind, the ft/lbs formula shines with small bore, very fast guns and is a good measure of killing power when you want to compare the 270 with the 7mm mag. On the other hand, the Taylor index is a better predictor of the performance of big bore, slower moving bullets. So I use it to compare these calibers.
Well, so much for what I think. I guess, actually, one shouldn't be comparing big bores and high power rifles. Either indicator seems to show relative performance of either class in their own right. I was surprised to find the .50 round ball at 900 ft/se and 312 KE was the same Taylor index as my 25-06 at the muzzle. At the extremes, I really don't think it works but like I said, I am warming to the roundball..
If you want another interesting mind game, put in the ballistics for a 12 gauge shotgun slug. FYI, the 12 guage bore is just a tad under 0.75 inches! It made me think that if I have a grizzly charging me, the gun I would probably want to have is a pump 12 gauge shooting slugs (with a magazine of 8 shells)
I agree. A totally excellent choice for the grizzly. Did you happen to go to the site on kinetic pulse? What did you think of that measure as an indicator of relative performance? It puts my Buffalo load comparable to a 7mm Rem Mag as opposed to three times better with the Taylor index.
Happy Hunting, Phil