50 Ae
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Joined
·
7,804 Posts
Hi, Ceejack:
Factory energy numbers for what they're worth, are:
.44 Magnum 970 ft.lb. (240 gr @ 1350 fps)
.480 Ruger (Hornady's site is still messed up)
.454 Casull 1871 ft.lb. (260 gr. @ 1800 fps)
.50 AE 1414 ft.lb. (325 gr. @ 1400 fps)
Check out Speer's site for more data.
http://www.speer-bullets.com/
Bye
Jack
Factory energy numbers for what they're worth, are:
.44 Magnum 970 ft.lb. (240 gr @ 1350 fps)
.480 Ruger (Hornady's site is still messed up)
.454 Casull 1871 ft.lb. (260 gr. @ 1800 fps)
.50 AE 1414 ft.lb. (325 gr. @ 1400 fps)
Check out Speer's site for more data.
http://www.speer-bullets.com/
Bye
Jack
Hi Jack Monteith,
.44 Magnum 970 ft.lb. (240 gr @ 1350 fps)
.480 Ruger (Hornady's site is still messed up)
.454 Casull 1871 ft.lb. (260 gr. @ 1800 fps)
.50 AE 1414 ft.lb. (325 gr. @ 1400 fps)
[/QUOTE]
This is my first post here.
In fact this velocity about .50 AE is out a Semi Auto pistol 6" barrel (Desert Eagle). When you talk about .50 AE in a 5 shots custom like Bowen, FA or similar there is a different thing.
In a couple of month I'll receive my next FA 7.5" in .50 AE, I'll shoot bullets havier than 340 gr. the max will be a 385 gr bullet with 30-31 gr of H110 that will give a velocity over 1500 fps with a 7.5" barrel. With my Desert Eagle I reach velocity that you wrote with same bullet weight.
I like in other forums to share my passion for that round in a SA revolver. Despites that it is a rimless cartridge, when the cylinder hole are perfectly design you'll have no problems to reload adn to shoot this round.
Regarding the power of that round compares to .454 Casull or .480 Ruger, I can talk only about the .454 Casull I own a Taurus and a FA in that caliber. But what do you mean by powerful : recoil, velocity,... Recoil is up to each person, velocity I can compare the .50 AE out a SA revolver with the .475 Linebaugh in term of velocity only.
I hope this can help you. I can tell your more about hat round in forthcoming months. Cheers.
.44 Magnum 970 ft.lb. (240 gr @ 1350 fps)
.480 Ruger (Hornady's site is still messed up)
.454 Casull 1871 ft.lb. (260 gr. @ 1800 fps)
.50 AE 1414 ft.lb. (325 gr. @ 1400 fps)
[/QUOTE]
This is my first post here.
In fact this velocity about .50 AE is out a Semi Auto pistol 6" barrel (Desert Eagle). When you talk about .50 AE in a 5 shots custom like Bowen, FA or similar there is a different thing.
In a couple of month I'll receive my next FA 7.5" in .50 AE, I'll shoot bullets havier than 340 gr. the max will be a 385 gr bullet with 30-31 gr of H110 that will give a velocity over 1500 fps with a 7.5" barrel. With my Desert Eagle I reach velocity that you wrote with same bullet weight.
I like in other forums to share my passion for that round in a SA revolver. Despites that it is a rimless cartridge, when the cylinder hole are perfectly design you'll have no problems to reload adn to shoot this round.
Regarding the power of that round compares to .454 Casull or .480 Ruger, I can talk only about the .454 Casull I own a Taurus and a FA in that caliber. But what do you mean by powerful : recoil, velocity,... Recoil is up to each person, velocity I can compare the .50 AE out a SA revolver with the .475 Linebaugh in term of velocity only.
I hope this can help you. I can tell your more about hat round in forthcoming months. Cheers.
Joined
·
7,804 Posts
Hi, Gents:
Apparently the .480 Ruger shoots a 325 gr XTP/MAG bullet at 1350 fps. The formula for energy is velocity squared X bullet weight / 450240, so 1350 * 1350 *325 / 450240 = 1315 fp.lb. Doing it this way overflows an 8 digit pocket calculator, so use 1350 * 1350 /450240 * 325 = 1315 ft.lb. Multiply by 1.356 to convert ft.lb. to joules.
1500 * 1500 * 385 / 450240 = 1924 ft.lb. THAT should be a handfull.
Sometimes 450400 or 450436 is used as the divisor.
Bye
Jack
Apparently the .480 Ruger shoots a 325 gr XTP/MAG bullet at 1350 fps. The formula for energy is velocity squared X bullet weight / 450240, so 1350 * 1350 *325 / 450240 = 1315 fp.lb. Doing it this way overflows an 8 digit pocket calculator, so use 1350 * 1350 /450240 * 325 = 1315 ft.lb. Multiply by 1.356 to convert ft.lb. to joules.
1500 * 1500 * 385 / 450240 = 1924 ft.lb. THAT should be a handfull.
Sometimes 450400 or 450436 is used as the divisor.
Bye
Jack
Hi Ceejack2,
Oh yeah, how much energy ft. lbs. are you expecting BER007? [/QUOTE]
The energy ft. lbs. is on the paper, you need to know that the .44 mag and all calibers over are capable to kill any animals living in this earth. This with a good loads, a good hard cast bullet, good shooting distance,... in fact nothing news and more that a hunter knows.
There is other formula like Taylor KO,...
Those who build a SA in .50 AE are : Freedom Arms, Bowen,Gary Reeder,Clements,Philips&Rodgers,...
Have a great time if you choose to get a revolver in that caliber. Cheers.
Oh yeah, how much energy ft. lbs. are you expecting BER007? [/QUOTE]
The energy ft. lbs. is on the paper, you need to know that the .44 mag and all calibers over are capable to kill any animals living in this earth. This with a good loads, a good hard cast bullet, good shooting distance,... in fact nothing news and more that a hunter knows.
There is other formula like Taylor KO,...
Those who build a SA in .50 AE are : Freedom Arms, Bowen,Gary Reeder,Clements,Philips&Rodgers,...
Have a great time if you choose to get a revolver in that caliber. Cheers.
Joined
·
416 Posts
After many years of testing terminal performance of various bullets, sometimes scientifically and sometimes just on observation, I have come to the conclusion, possibly wrong but mine nonetheless, that bullet energy is the most overrated statistic that is used. In my opinion, Taylor Knock Out gives a very good figure to compare various apples to oranges (.454 to .50AE to .44 Magnum).
I don't remember what Keith used to figure his "pounds feet", I think it was M*V/7000, but using that figure will give a pretty good indication of how bullets in the same caliber and of similar construction, but with different weights, will comparitively perform.
My opinion.
DC
I don't remember what Keith used to figure his "pounds feet", I think it was M*V/7000, but using that figure will give a pretty good indication of how bullets in the same caliber and of similar construction, but with different weights, will comparitively perform.
My opinion.
DC
Joined
·
7,804 Posts
Hi, Gents:
Terminal Performance formulas are a dime a dozen, and I've got fourteen in a spreadsheet. Most have some basis in reality and none are perfect.
Taylor's isn't bad as long as velocities are kept in a narrow range, but there is some advantage to raising velocity to a higher power. It rates my .30-06 and .35 Remington as equal, and I can't quite buy that. We should remember that Taylor himself only used it for head shots on elephant that missed the brain. That's why he called it a "Knockout" formula. I should get his book back from my buddy and post his comments.
Elmer's formula is straight momentum, but doesn't divide by the acceleration of gravity (32.16) as the scientific formula does. M*V/7000/32.16 or M*V/225120. Again, not bad but not perfect.
There's some formulas in Ballistician's Corner on wound size and there's Mr. Gates article here too.
http://beartoothbullets.com/tech_notes/archive_tech_notes.htm/13
Check out this interesting but very long article.
http://www.mindspring.com/~ulfhere/ballistics/wounding.html
Bye
Jack
Terminal Performance formulas are a dime a dozen, and I've got fourteen in a spreadsheet. Most have some basis in reality and none are perfect.
Taylor's isn't bad as long as velocities are kept in a narrow range, but there is some advantage to raising velocity to a higher power. It rates my .30-06 and .35 Remington as equal, and I can't quite buy that. We should remember that Taylor himself only used it for head shots on elephant that missed the brain. That's why he called it a "Knockout" formula. I should get his book back from my buddy and post his comments.
Elmer's formula is straight momentum, but doesn't divide by the acceleration of gravity (32.16) as the scientific formula does. M*V/7000/32.16 or M*V/225120. Again, not bad but not perfect.
There's some formulas in Ballistician's Corner on wound size and there's Mr. Gates article here too.
http://beartoothbullets.com/tech_notes/archive_tech_notes.htm/13
Check out this interesting but very long article.
http://www.mindspring.com/~ulfhere/ballistics/wounding.html
Bye
Jack
Joined
·
416 Posts
I didn't mean to imply, in my previous post, that either Taylor's or Keith's calculations were the absolute measure of anything. I just feel that either of those two measures of a cartridges performance gives a more realistic comparison between two cartridges than the energy of the projectiles, if all that is available is the published ballistics.
At the muzzle, the .30-06 and .35 Remington may rate about the same with Taylor (edge to the '06), but downrange, where the bullet goes Thump, the '06 rates consideably better.
Naturally, the only real measurement of performance is derived from use on the intended target, or, lacking that, on the closest possible simulation of the target.
DC
At the muzzle, the .30-06 and .35 Remington may rate about the same with Taylor (edge to the '06), but downrange, where the bullet goes Thump, the '06 rates consideably better.
Naturally, the only real measurement of performance is derived from use on the intended target, or, lacking that, on the closest possible simulation of the target.
DC
Joined
·
7,804 Posts
Hi, DC:
Actually I don't think we're very far apart, and I hope I didn't imply otherwise. I ran some numbers into a spreadsheet, just to see what pops up and I did get one surprise. If I use a 180 grain round nose bullet in the .30-06 (which I don't), and use a muzzle velocity of 2600 fps instead of the standard 2700 fps, the .35 Remington equals, for all practical purposes, the .30-06 with the Taylor formula! The fact is, my .30-06 doesn't make 2700 fps until I'm over book loads, but my .35 Remington does make 2080 fps within book loads.
I did the numbers on another pair as well. A friend knocked out a pronghorn at 600 yards with a .243 (why?), but it got up when he drove up to it and he had to shoot it again. The first bullet hit it at the base of the horn and didn't penetrate to the base of the bullet. That's what he told me, I didn't see it myself. On the other hand, the old buffalo hunters liked to set up at 300 yards so they won't spook the rest of the herd after a couple of shots. Now a .243 and a .50-90 Sharps have about equal muzzle energy, but the Sharps wins at long range no matter how I figure it. I did some guessing on the Sharps ballistic coefficient and used .400. The one in my cartridge collection has a slender nose with a .18" meplat, and looks like the Lyman 410660 & 457671. The following numbers are at the muzzle, 300 yards and 600 yrads.
Velocity Energy Taylor Keith
2960 1946 10.3 42 .243 Win
2215 1090 7.7 32 100 gr.
1598 567 5.5 23
2600 2703 20.6 67 .30-06
1652 1091 13.1 42 180 gr.
1069 457 8.5 27
2080 1922 21.3 59 .35 Rem
1135 572 11.6 32 200 gr.
837 311 8.6 24
1350 1915 46.3 91 .50-90
1058 1176 36.3 71 473 gr.
902 855 31.0 61
I should compare the .30-06 and the .35 Remington in wetpack at the same time. While I've tested both, it wasn't in the same year, let alone the same wetpack. Then there's some 467 grainers for the flintlock here too. The more I learn, the less I know.
Bye
Jack
Actually I don't think we're very far apart, and I hope I didn't imply otherwise. I ran some numbers into a spreadsheet, just to see what pops up and I did get one surprise. If I use a 180 grain round nose bullet in the .30-06 (which I don't), and use a muzzle velocity of 2600 fps instead of the standard 2700 fps, the .35 Remington equals, for all practical purposes, the .30-06 with the Taylor formula! The fact is, my .30-06 doesn't make 2700 fps until I'm over book loads, but my .35 Remington does make 2080 fps within book loads.
I did the numbers on another pair as well. A friend knocked out a pronghorn at 600 yards with a .243 (why?), but it got up when he drove up to it and he had to shoot it again. The first bullet hit it at the base of the horn and didn't penetrate to the base of the bullet. That's what he told me, I didn't see it myself. On the other hand, the old buffalo hunters liked to set up at 300 yards so they won't spook the rest of the herd after a couple of shots. Now a .243 and a .50-90 Sharps have about equal muzzle energy, but the Sharps wins at long range no matter how I figure it. I did some guessing on the Sharps ballistic coefficient and used .400. The one in my cartridge collection has a slender nose with a .18" meplat, and looks like the Lyman 410660 & 457671. The following numbers are at the muzzle, 300 yards and 600 yrads.
Velocity Energy Taylor Keith
2960 1946 10.3 42 .243 Win
2215 1090 7.7 32 100 gr.
1598 567 5.5 23
2600 2703 20.6 67 .30-06
1652 1091 13.1 42 180 gr.
1069 457 8.5 27
2080 1922 21.3 59 .35 Rem
1135 572 11.6 32 200 gr.
837 311 8.6 24
1350 1915 46.3 91 .50-90
1058 1176 36.3 71 473 gr.
902 855 31.0 61
I should compare the .30-06 and the .35 Remington in wetpack at the same time. While I've tested both, it wasn't in the same year, let alone the same wetpack. Then there's some 467 grainers for the flintlock here too. The more I learn, the less I know.
Bye
Jack
I agree that KE is possibly overrated as the operative number in terminal peformance.
BUT, if you want to see something totaly ridiculous, go the the archery ads. KE is their big selling point because you can always squeeze a few more ft/sec out of a bow by using a lighter arrow. Any extra ft/sec are squared in the KE formula and that make the bow look better.
The modern compound shooter that is searching for speed shoots an arrow that is so unstable because of its light weight that a normal broadhead cannot be used. That's why the mechanical broadheads are so popular.
Bows and handguns are alike in that heavier projectiles produce a more stable and effective shot.
My 2¢
BUT, if you want to see something totaly ridiculous, go the the archery ads. KE is their big selling point because you can always squeeze a few more ft/sec out of a bow by using a lighter arrow. Any extra ft/sec are squared in the KE formula and that make the bow look better.
The modern compound shooter that is searching for speed shoots an arrow that is so unstable because of its light weight that a normal broadhead cannot be used. That's why the mechanical broadheads are so popular.
Bows and handguns are alike in that heavier projectiles produce a more stable and effective shot.
My 2¢
Hi! Folks,
Not to mess with an interesting thread. I have a question. I am thing of having Mr. H. Bowen convert another RRH for me in .500 Linebaugh. Should I consider a .50 AE? I already shoot a .475 RRH. I am told that the .500 has a different feel in recoil?
Jack K
Not to mess with an interesting thread. I have a question. I am thing of having Mr. H. Bowen convert another RRH for me in .500 Linebaugh. Should I consider a .50 AE? I already shoot a .475 RRH. I am told that the .500 has a different feel in recoil?
Jack K
Joined
·
5,224 Posts
Jack,
I had a Bowen made 500 till this past summer when a buddy of mine decided he needed it more than I did. Mine was a Redhawk, but...
To me, the 500 with full house loads wasn't near as bad as the 475 with full house loads. It still wasn't pleasant, but I learned to manage it pretty well. It took a lot of practice to be able to fully control, but I don't know if I could've done that with the full 475 loads. The 500 Redhawk had a 4" barrel and the 475 Bisleys of my friends all had 4 5/8" barrels. The 475's recoil is much sharper and quicker. The 500 had a heavy slow roll to it.
I had a Bowen made 500 till this past summer when a buddy of mine decided he needed it more than I did. Mine was a Redhawk, but...
To me, the 500 with full house loads wasn't near as bad as the 475 with full house loads. It still wasn't pleasant, but I learned to manage it pretty well. It took a lot of practice to be able to fully control, but I don't know if I could've done that with the full 475 loads. The 500 Redhawk had a 4" barrel and the 475 Bisleys of my friends all had 4 5/8" barrels. The 475's recoil is much sharper and quicker. The 500 had a heavy slow roll to it.
50ae vs 480 and 454
The basic problem as I see it with the 50ae is that there is not as wide of choice of bullets for it as with some other cal. also being a auto round tis hard to get a good roll crimp unless shooting thru a revolver. I have been doing some load work for the 480 ruger in a 7 1/2 in super redhawk. the factory load is 325g xtp at 1350 approx the same as the 50ae. I have been loading a 375g lfngc at 1300 and a 425g at 1000. My FA454 will handle a 300g at 1750, a 335g cast at 1450, and a 360g at 1300. There are also bullets available for the 480 in 350g, 380g and 400g. H Bowen list the 50ae as his midrange choice between his 50 special and the 500 linebaugh. G Reeder is developing a new shorten version of the 500 Linebaugh called the 500 GNR which as I understand will be akin to what the 480 is to the 475 Linebaugh. I did several months of reserch before I ordered a 500 Linebaugh and what I decided was that the 50ae in a short barrel revolver would make a very fine packing gun with plenty of power, but for hunting and since I reload the 475, 480 or 500 made a better choice based on the wider choice of loads. Just my 2 cents worth , hope it helps
The basic problem as I see it with the 50ae is that there is not as wide of choice of bullets for it as with some other cal. also being a auto round tis hard to get a good roll crimp unless shooting thru a revolver. I have been doing some load work for the 480 ruger in a 7 1/2 in super redhawk. the factory load is 325g xtp at 1350 approx the same as the 50ae. I have been loading a 375g lfngc at 1300 and a 425g at 1000. My FA454 will handle a 300g at 1750, a 335g cast at 1450, and a 360g at 1300. There are also bullets available for the 480 in 350g, 380g and 400g. H Bowen list the 50ae as his midrange choice between his 50 special and the 500 linebaugh. G Reeder is developing a new shorten version of the 500 Linebaugh called the 500 GNR which as I understand will be akin to what the 480 is to the 475 Linebaugh. I did several months of reserch before I ordered a 500 Linebaugh and what I decided was that the 50ae in a short barrel revolver would make a very fine packing gun with plenty of power, but for hunting and since I reload the 475, 480 or 500 made a better choice based on the wider choice of loads. Just my 2 cents worth , hope it helps
I have a Redhawk .500 Linebaugh done by David Clements, and really love it. It has the full-lug barrel, ported, gun weighs 55 ounces empty which I think tames down recoil somewhat. It is quite controllable even with the stoutest loads I've tried in it, and a real pussycat with plinking loads (440 LFN at 1000 fps or so). The right grips are VERY important with that sort of piece.
Mark
Mark
Hi folks,
Thanks for all the info. I guess that the .500 linebaugh will be my choice. My .475 is a Redhawk with a L-frame 5.5 in barrel. It is not ported. But the two things that seemed to make it controlable were the L-frame barrel and the grips. The barrel Is long enough to get the speed up and still very packable. I have Jorden Trouper grips made by Herrett. they seemed to make the most difference. Right now I have only three loads that my gun shoots accuratly. the first is my plinker a 385gr. lfngc with 10.7 grs. of AA #5 and a Fed. mag. primer The second is a 325 gr. XTP Hornady with 28 grs. of H-4227 with a CCI 350 mag. primer.
Third is a 440 SWC PB with 24.5 grs. WIN. 296 and a CCI 350
primer. This load is for hunting it and the first are the only loads that has been conie. at 1325fps for the 440 gr. load and 1075fps for the 385 gr. load out of my pistol. I only have BB brass. The .500 I want will have a L-frame barrel of 5.5 so I will very much like to see how the two compair. the .475 is a SS gun and the .500 will be Blue. When I receive it and compair I will let you all know how they compair.
Jack K.
Thanks for all the info. I guess that the .500 linebaugh will be my choice. My .475 is a Redhawk with a L-frame 5.5 in barrel. It is not ported. But the two things that seemed to make it controlable were the L-frame barrel and the grips. The barrel Is long enough to get the speed up and still very packable. I have Jorden Trouper grips made by Herrett. they seemed to make the most difference. Right now I have only three loads that my gun shoots accuratly. the first is my plinker a 385gr. lfngc with 10.7 grs. of AA #5 and a Fed. mag. primer The second is a 325 gr. XTP Hornady with 28 grs. of H-4227 with a CCI 350 mag. primer.
Third is a 440 SWC PB with 24.5 grs. WIN. 296 and a CCI 350
primer. This load is for hunting it and the first are the only loads that has been conie. at 1325fps for the 440 gr. load and 1075fps for the 385 gr. load out of my pistol. I only have BB brass. The .500 I want will have a L-frame barrel of 5.5 so I will very much like to see how the two compair. the .475 is a SS gun and the .500 will be Blue. When I receive it and compair I will let you all know how they compair.
Jack K.
Joined
·
171 Posts
I own both in identical 5 1/2 in linebaugh built guns and with the very top end loads if you blindfolded me I couldnt tell you which I was shootingand I doubt if anyone else could either.
Jack K said:
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
