Big,'light','fast' vs big,heavy,slow

Greener Jim

Well-Known Member
This is totally hypothetical, for reasons you'll soon see, but which do you think would be best in UK quarry (and similar quarry internationally) in a woodland setting.

Here is is my thinking. Both bullets would be soft lead, .620", and have the same nose profile.

'Fast and 'light': 550gr@1425fps

'Heavy and slow': 1000gr@1050fps

So we have rapid expansion, less retained weight, less penetration, and MAYBE more energy transfer VERSUS greater penetration, greater retained weight, more recoil, worse trajectory.

Bit of a fun one so go wild ;)
 
MV is irrelevant
impact velocity is the key to this discussion

what range?
any bc details?

be a good test in a gelatine block
 
MV is irrelevant
impact velocity is the key to this discussion

what range?
any bc details?

be a good test in a gelatine block

Woods ranges so well under 100 yards. Realistically it would be a 75 yard rifle at the top end simply due to trajectory and likely open sights.

As for BC, no idea although the heavier bullet would be higher as they share the same nose profile. At the close range I would say that the faster bullet would remain that way. However external ballistics isn't my biggest interest so wouldn't know.
 
Range is short, I would definitely go with the lighter (so to speak) faster pill. With that diameter weight, and velocity, it has a sectional density of .204...that puts it far ahead of most shotgun slugs which rarely go beyond an SD of about .15 so all else being relatively equal, it should penetrate better than a shotgun slug which has plenty of penetration on typical game at woods ranges. We are not talking about having to shoot stem to stern on a rhino or worry about ballistic coefficient at these ranges so no need for the longer, heavier pill. Lastly, the increased velocity of the lighter projectile should obturate more/faster and transfer more energy and provide a bigger wound channel.

That said, I think all game subject to a hit with either would definitely be in silent agreement about their "equal" efficacy....how dead is dead?

Ha..good times....ready to have my opinion torpedoed!:D
 
By your definition then I'd say "fast and light" but those figures are themselves "heavy and slow" by any definition in my view.

In ballistic terms NEITHER are fast. As others have also noted. So any supposed advantage given to one by its greater velocity over the other is irrelevant.

Therefore the only relevant factor will be weight and with its greater weight the heavier projectile will retain its initial energy and momentum for longer than the lighter projectile. And eventually surpass in those values the quicker stepping light load you have mentioned.

So as you can't, as I've argued along with others, go truly "fast", you must go heavy. If they've the same diameter and same nose profile then the heavier will, ballistically, out perfprm the other in retaining its initial energy and momentum.

One is pretty near a lead ball? The other is more a bullet? Bullets of heavy weight at a lower velocity are better than balls of lighter weight at higher velocity!

It's why the "farmer's clause" allowing shot guns on deer specifies, for the single projectile, a calibre size slug" and (by its terms) outlaws a calibre size ball.

Yes fast and light IS better than slow and heavy but your "fast" isn't fast enough to be a relevant factor. 1425 fps isn't fast, it's slow! 2425 fps is about where fast begins.
 
Last edited:
Backstraps, I agree with your points. The lighter bullet would creat a larger wound channel I think but would it lose to much weight in certain circumstances or with certain (non UK) deer/antelope species? I truely don't know. I guess the heavier bullet could be hollow pointed to expand more. At 1000 grains even if losing 90% of its weight it'd still be the weight of a typical .243 bullet!

Enfieldspares, I know neither is fast, hence the apostrophes :) I was leaning towards heavy simply due to personal biase but thanks for actually giving me a reason to justify it!!
However, for sake of debate, at such close range would the heavier bullet actually overtake the light one? Obviously hard to say without BC.
 
Last edited:
Well I did try to use one of the air gun trajectory calculators, but, problem was they can't adjust for your .620" diameter and, of course, I don't know the ballistic coefficient of the two bullets.

Certainly perceived wisdom is that .444 Marlin, .375 Winchester and .356 Winchester all pretty much arrive at 100 yards with the same velocity...so the difference, I am guessing, is the bullet weight and its sectional density. So presumably the bullet with the better sectional density (for you, your 1000 grain bullet) will penetrate better?
 
I very much think the heavy bullet will penetrate better, the high SD and massive momentum would see to that.

When I first thought of the cartridge I immediately thought of the big 1000gr, maybe paper patched if I chose to run it hotter. That's my bias, heavy for calibre.

So I thought I'd see about the other side of life, the light for calibre camp.
 
This is totally hypothetical, for reasons you'll soon see, but which do you think would be best in UK quarry (and similar quarry internationally) in a woodland setting.

Here is is my thinking. Both bullets would be soft lead, .620", and have the same nose profile.

'Fast and 'light': 550gr@1425fps

'Heavy and slow': 1000gr@1050fps

So we have rapid expansion, less retained weight, less penetration, and MAYBE more energy transfer VERSUS greater penetration, greater retained weight, more recoil, worse trajectory.

Bit of a fun one so go wild ;)
Neither matters. A .620" bullet will cause anything 'woodland' to be knocked flat. Super sonic speed as a minimum. Otherwise, do as you wish. ~Muir
 
In UK species, under-penetration is not going to be a problem with either.

The 1000gr projectile will have better penetration in theory but meplat design will influence whether they penetrate in a straight line or not. Large, flat meplat would be my choice. Don't think hollow-point will be necessary, nor significantly improve terminal ballistics, when your starting diameter is so large and velocity so low.

The 1000gr is subsonic, so less "crack", if relevant.

The 1000gr will have a rainbow trajectory; probably landing on top of your target at any significant range!
 
Well Woodleigh state their 900gr .620" has a BC of .371 G1. So take that as the BC of our 1000gr@1050fps and, when zeroed at 70 yards it's 1.33" high at 40 yards and 1.12" low at 80.
Thats perfectly workable :)

Muir, hypothetically, the cartridge will push that 1000gr at 1500fps or the 550@2000fps so nicely supersonic ;)
 
Well, take your pick!

20160220_115441.jpg

They are both accurate the CBE 780gn, Paradox and the Jim Tanner 530gn round ball. In Grahame Wrights 'Shooting the British Double rifle' there is a whole chapter on the Paradox and reloading for it. The last part talks about how he used it on Asiatic Buffalo. He said it worked perfectly. Adding hardness via wheel weight or tin will be the deciding factor in penetration in both types and both will be very effective at sensible ranges. I use Unique with both - I have pressure tested the round ball in Plastic cases and am currently testing both in the brass cases. Lots of fun!!!
Regards - K
 
Those are my kind of cartridges! Have you or are you going to use them on game?
The thinking with mine is a big bore without all the muzzle energy of the usual big bores. I don't need a 600 Nitro's power. I don't need the weight or bullet diameter either but it'll sure be fun ;)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top