I wonder how powerful is an old hand cannon? Is .69 cal pistol equivalent to a modern large handgun bullet?

I wonder how powerful is an old hand cannon? Is .69 cal pistol equivalent to a modern large handgun bullet?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If by powerful you mean its potential for more traumatic wounds then sure. But armor penetration is going to be shit along with a consistent effective kill range approximately the same distance as the average household room. So no. Its not an equivalent by any stretch.

    Keep them as collector's pieces.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >armor penetration is
      a complete meme for any handgun, now move along

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Look up the incredibly based life story of Charles Goodfellow, MD.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Give me a couple more poigers on the guy. There are like 60 people under that name

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Nonsense. Solid copper spire point 9mm can punch straight through 3a body armor that stops a 44 magnum or shotgun slug.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Anon, are you living in 2015 or something? You don't get any respect online unless you're talking about penning level 4 plates.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Modern smokeless powder is pretty wild stuff… the old hand cannons are big, but man… the extra oomph in modern big bore stuff is hard to beat.. that said I’d love to try firing one of those if I got the chance..

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    When old solid-lead balls hit flesh and bone, they flattened into a disc and scythed off into weird directions. Lead ball leaves very fleshy, every gnarly wounds, but a blackpowder handgun may not have the necessary powder charge or barrel length to get the most out of what pure lead can do. As other anons pointed out, modern handguns are going to generally perform better overall.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Is .69 cal pistol equivalent to a modern large handgun bullet?
    usually they were loaded with shot. a 69 caliber round ball weighs ~400 grains and any velocity produces undesirable levels of recoil.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      a subsonic one, yes.
      iirc pistols usually had muzzle velocities in the range of 250-350 m/s depending on caliber, barrel length and quality of powder
      the largest difference is the actual bullet, soft lead balls have pretty bad terminal ballistics compared to modern bullets
      it was one of the reasons why the calibers were so large; a large sized ball was necessary even for short ranges because of poor ballistic performance

      something you forgot is that blackpowder firearms don't recoil as instantly as modern firearms do because of the slower burn rates so it's not actually as bad
      I powdermaxxed with a .50 cal last summer and it felt as bad as maybe .44 magnum with 18gram P+ rounds

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Soft lead does fricking horrible things to flesh anon. I would rather be shot with a modern bullet any day of the week.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          no you wouldn't
          and stop spreading fuddlore, you've mistaken the traditionally larger calibers and larger kinetic energy for good terminal ballistics
          think about what the modern equivalents are are
          the modern equivalent to a .50 cal muzzleloader pistol is something like .500 Linebaugh shot subsonic
          .500 Linebaugh is only very slightly larger in caliber and around subsonic speeds were usual for pistols
          rifle equivalent for a .69 cal musket would be .600 Nitro Express, 10% smaller in caliber, certain loads for it are around 500-550 m/s which is 10% faster than what would roughly be expected of a musket
          are you really going to tell me you would rather get shot with .500 LB or .600 NE using a modern jacketed hollow point rather than a muzzle loading pistol or rifle from 1800s?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        do you understand any of the most basic physics? because it is apparent that you don't.
        if you accelerate a 400 grain round ball to 600 fps in 4 inches, like what would happen in that gun, it will have not less than 240000 grain*ft/s of recoil. that's the same as a 240 grain bullet at 1000, which is stout, especially with a gun with such a poor grip design and low weight.
        there
        is
        no
        magic
        only
        physics
        >I powdermaxxed with a .50 cal last summer and it felt as bad as maybe .44 magnum with 18gram P+ rounds
        I shoot .69 soft lead balls out of my brown bess regularly. it would not be practical in a handgun. which is why they didn't do it.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >it would not be practical in a handgun. which is why they didn't do it.
          I'm not the guy you're replying to, but I collect large-bore pistols of various sorts and I have many historical examples, some of which even included their original ball molds. And even so, a "square" shot charge like

          A little physics and history combo lesson...

          A .69 cal smoothbore is equivalent to a 14ga shotgun bore. Just, fyi.

          One .69 cal ball weighs 495gr aka 1.13oz.

          A typical charge of shot at this time for a .69 smoothbore pistol would range from 7/8oz to 1oz of shot, plus wadding below and over the shot. Wadding would have wool, rope fibers, grass - basically anything you could stuff in there that wasn't too heavy and would hold it.

          Basically, the mass of the projectile(s) being fired would be the same, as would the powder charge.

          So, no, they weren't loaded with shot for recoil mitigation because the recoil of solid ball loads was basically identical.

          >Then why do 1oz slug kick more than 1oz birdshot loads?
          ...you may ask.

          It's because your 1oz slug loads are loaded to produce a velocity of 1600fps, while your 1oz handicap trap loads are only going 1300fps. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If you're moving X mass of lead/steel/semen with Y force of propellant, they're going to produce the same recoil.

          Now, there's some more advanced shit about things like recoil impulse duration depending of the burn characteristics of the propellant and projectile compaction, gas tapping, action type, forcing cone/freebore, etc. But, for a 1oz ball and 1oz wad-shot-wad loaded in the same smoothbore muzzleloading pistol with the same powder charge, the recoil will be perceptibly identical.

          You may also ask:
          >But while they couldn't load half a ball, why wouldn't they just use half the amount of shot?

          Because of internal ballistics. The accepted "ideal" shot charge then and now is a "square load" - when the height of the cylindrical column of shot is equal to the diameter of the bore. This produces the best patterns, allows efficient propellant burn, and produces good velocities. Any less shot in a muzzleloading smoothbore and the powder column can disrupt the shot column resulting in varying velocity, inefficient powder burn, (part 2 below)

          would weigh the same, if not more, than a round ball. A round ball is just about the lightest projectile one might expect to fire out of those old guns. Now they might not have used as much powder as a full rifle or shotgun charge in a pistol, but they absolutely did use round ball.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      A little physics and history combo lesson...

      A .69 cal smoothbore is equivalent to a 14ga shotgun bore. Just, fyi.

      One .69 cal ball weighs 495gr aka 1.13oz.

      A typical charge of shot at this time for a .69 smoothbore pistol would range from 7/8oz to 1oz of shot, plus wadding below and over the shot. Wadding would have wool, rope fibers, grass - basically anything you could stuff in there that wasn't too heavy and would hold it.

      Basically, the mass of the projectile(s) being fired would be the same, as would the powder charge.

      So, no, they weren't loaded with shot for recoil mitigation because the recoil of solid ball loads was basically identical.

      >Then why do 1oz slug kick more than 1oz birdshot loads?
      ...you may ask.

      It's because your 1oz slug loads are loaded to produce a velocity of 1600fps, while your 1oz handicap trap loads are only going 1300fps. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If you're moving X mass of lead/steel/semen with Y force of propellant, they're going to produce the same recoil.

      Now, there's some more advanced shit about things like recoil impulse duration depending of the burn characteristics of the propellant and projectile compaction, gas tapping, action type, forcing cone/freebore, etc. But, for a 1oz ball and 1oz wad-shot-wad loaded in the same smoothbore muzzleloading pistol with the same powder charge, the recoil will be perceptibly identical.

      You may also ask:
      >But while they couldn't load half a ball, why wouldn't they just use half the amount of shot?

      Because of internal ballistics. The accepted "ideal" shot charge then and now is a "square load" - when the height of the cylindrical column of shot is equal to the diameter of the bore. This produces the best patterns, allows efficient propellant burn, and produces good velocities. Any less shot in a muzzleloading smoothbore and the powder column can disrupt the shot column resulting in varying velocity, inefficient powder burn, (part 2 below)

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      A little physics and history combo lesson...

      A .69 cal smoothbore is equivalent to a 14ga shotgun bore. Just, fyi.

      One .69 cal ball weighs 495gr aka 1.13oz.

      A typical charge of shot at this time for a .69 smoothbore pistol would range from 7/8oz to 1oz of shot, plus wadding below and over the shot. Wadding would have wool, rope fibers, grass - basically anything you could stuff in there that wasn't too heavy and would hold it.

      Basically, the mass of the projectile(s) being fired would be the same, as would the powder charge.

      So, no, they weren't loaded with shot for recoil mitigation because the recoil of solid ball loads was basically identical.

      >Then why do 1oz slug kick more than 1oz birdshot loads?
      ...you may ask.

      It's because your 1oz slug loads are loaded to produce a velocity of 1600fps, while your 1oz handicap trap loads are only going 1300fps. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If you're moving X mass of lead/steel/semen with Y force of propellant, they're going to produce the same recoil.

      Now, there's some more advanced shit about things like recoil impulse duration depending of the burn characteristics of the propellant and projectile compaction, gas tapping, action type, forcing cone/freebore, etc. But, for a 1oz ball and 1oz wad-shot-wad loaded in the same smoothbore muzzleloading pistol with the same powder charge, the recoil will be perceptibly identical.

      You may also ask:
      >But while they couldn't load half a ball, why wouldn't they just use half the amount of shot?

      Because of internal ballistics. The accepted "ideal" shot charge then and now is a "square load" - when the height of the cylindrical column of shot is equal to the diameter of the bore. This produces the best patterns, allows efficient propellant burn, and produces good velocities. Any less shot in a muzzleloading smoothbore and the powder column can disrupt the shot column resulting in varying velocity, inefficient powder burn, (part 2 below)

      (Part 2)
      ...and thus unpredictable terminal effects. There's a lower limit to how light a shot charge can be, especially in the days of packing loose fibers into the bore for wadding - the modern, plastic, gas-sealing wad was a long way off.

      Lastly, a patched ball is much faster to load than poking in wadding, rough-measuring out and pouring shot, and stuffing in more wadding. So, in battle solid ball was usually used. You'll see shot used for first loads sometimes, or when reloading wasn't going to happen as in shipboarding parties. But generally, it was solid ball. Solid ball was also easier to make at home and on the march. Shot of that time period was very inconsistent, and molding tiny balls was tedious and time consuming compared to full sized solid ball, just like loading them.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        In those times, shot wasnt molded as such, it was made by pouring lead through a sieve at the top of a tower. The molten lead would form into a ball on midair and cool. Which as you said, isnt really something you can do in the field

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Shot towers were used to produce birdshot. They were useless for buckshot. Buckshot was cast in molds.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Is there any specific reason why the projectile couldn't be alloyed with antimony to make the projectile non-deforming? Assuming the pistol can sling it fast enough to meaningfully deform the projectile on impact in the first place

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Is there any specific reason why the projectile couldn't be alloyed with antimony
      Alloying it with antimony would make the bullet harder, and this was known historically. Picrel is from W. W. Greener's _The Gun and its Development_ discusses projectiles for elephant guns. Note that Greener says "A much better plan is to make the bullets of type-metal..." He is talking about Linotype alloy used for typesetting, which has a high % of antimony.

      But it's not like it would be completely "non deforming", it would just deform less than lead. It's still not going to pen meaningful modern armor simply because it's a big relatively slow projectile. Though I'm also not sure why that matters, armor pen is not the end-all be-all.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *