.45 or .50 Pac-Nor

[tar12]

Rexxer,
My post was not anti-pac-nor.The man asked a question and was leaning towards a .50.In my minds eye it was a mute point to trade a .50 for a .50 if the max range is 200 yds?By his own account the stock .50 shot well?So whats the point?Spend money?Accuracy gain at that range would be minimal at best.Past 200 yds that would be a different story.For his needs it seems unnecessary.For your question in regards to my happiness with my first .50? It still makes me smile! ;D That puppy would flat shoot right out of the box!It was all stock and unaltered.Actually I have not shot a stock savage yet that would not shoot the factory 1.5 or better.many times better..I am currently working in conjunction with a new board member on a custom carbide plug in which is going to be installed and tested in a new .50 cal Pac-nor barrel as well as the .new .45 Pac-nor barrel for my daughter.I can not wait until I can let the cat out of the bag on that new plug! ;D ;D I am very excited about it! I had zero to do with the final design.BUT,I will be testing that puppy!

[rangeball]

Jan 6, 2010 19:33:04 GMT -5 rexxer said:

Jan 6, 2010 14:39:21 GMT -5 rangeball said:

Jan 6, 2010 14:12:13 GMT -5 rexxer said:

One question a person might ask themselves is what will the .50 do that the .45 can't?

Shoot 300gr+ bullets to speed?

If you need that kind of fire power in the .45 I might suggest the 290 Barnes. Another option might be a 275 grain bullet shot at the 3000 fps mark.

Rexxer, I was thinking more of the heavy weights. The load database lists loads for the .50 using 4-500 grain bullets. The .45 stops at 300 gr I believe.

Bob may or may not have a call for that, but if someone absolutely had to shoot such heavy bullets, the 50 will do it apparently.

Re-reading Bob's original post, I'm with Tar. If his stock .50 barrel is giving him everything he needs right now, for the same money I'd get the .45 just to have both to play with, a good benefit of an easy switch barrel set up savage.

[Chris Champion]

I too was one of the lucky one that had zero problems getting my 50 cal to shoot right out of the box. I attribute 90% of that success to this board. My 50 cal was never a consistent sub MOA shooter or even an MOA shooter but its best loads always shot between 1 & 1.5 MOA out to 250 yds as long as I did my part, (which mostly consisted of not rushing from one shot to the next and holding the gun the right way). The main reason reason I got a 45 cal was reduced recoil. I grew up shooting 12ga slug guns with 1.25 oz slugs so I'm not recoil sensitive. The fact was that my 50 cal Savage was very finicky on how it was held. I found that out the hard way during 2008 deer season, (as Tar12 likes to remind me from time to time), I missed a doe twice from just under 200 yds because I was not getting into my gun and was not holding it tightly enough and shot over her back both times. That bugged me for months. So I took the plunge and went with a 45 figuring the reduced recoil would reduce the dramatic shift in POI that I was seeing based on how tightly I was holding the gun at the bench or in the field. I was going to buy one direct from Pacnor until RB posted that he had a special run of 45 barrels that were sized almost perfectly for sabotless shooting. I went with one of his conversions because I wanted to try sabotless too but without the hassle of having to buy sizing dies and a press. After banging my head against the wall for a few months trying to get the all copper Barnes bullets to shoot sabotless, (patience is not my strong point), and realizing that the driving reason for me to go 45 in the first place was to reduce recoil, I gave up on that endeavor and "settled" on a 195g Barnes MZ at 2700 fps that shoots MOA or better all day, every day out to 300 yds.

I love my 45 for two main reasons:
1. Shooting sabots I don't have to wait 15 min between shots even when shooting in 60+ degree weather. I contribute this to the quality of the barrel.
2. The POI when holding forend tightly vs not holding the forend at all is only about 1" at 200 yds. I contribute this to the lack of recoil compared to my 50 cal load.
3. Its the most accurate gun I've ever shot.

[bigmoose]

hillbill,

We are difinitely on the same page,

Good Hunting and Good Shooting

[encoreguy]

If I ordered a .45 Pacnor it would be just to have a new and different toy to play with. My .50 savage is sub. moa out to 300 yards if conditions (wind) are good and I do my part. It is not stock, it has a Kevin Rayhill stock, 3rd pillar and been bedded. However, if I got a pacnor I would do the same, I just like the set-up. Unfortunately most guys are comparing a relatively cheap priced factory muzzle loader to a true custom gun. If I re barreled one of my factory Savage center fires with a custom barrel in the same caliber I would expect it to shoot better. So we are apples to oranges. Only Jeff has a .50 Pacnor, that I know of, and he doesn't have a .45 pacnor to shoot side by side with. I do feel that a .50 pacnor would be an improvement in consistency over many factory .50's. The Henry Ball guns where just bedded, they still have the same factory barrel.

The .50 does give you many more bullet combo's and perhaps would be an issue depending on which states you might hunt in. A saboted or even .45 bore might not be legal, or in some cases with sabotless it would make you legal where the .50 saboted might not be? If the barrels were a little cheaper I would buy both a .50 and .45. ;D I have a great shooting .50 so I would probably get a .45 just for a new challenge and it would be legal at least here in Indiana. But for the money I would have in it I might just buy a complete custom smokeless gun. Personally I like shooting 300 grain bullets though, so for that my .50 does very well. If you want to go sabotless there is no question the .45 is a better choice. I think you would be happy with either one and will end-up with a very nice custom gun that will shoot very consistently.

[Dave W]

I have both a .45 and a .50 and I admit I am not as enamored with the .45 as most seem to be, of course my .50 shoots great, not as good as the .45 sabotless but I don't feel I am disadvantaged by carrying the .50 at the ranges I plan to shoot. Of course I shoot sabotless so I am still dealing with the same amount of recoil as a .50 cal shooter.

JMO a custom barrel is a custom barrel, .45 or .50 both would probably shoot tiny groups. The .45 would probably be easier to shoot small with the shorter dwell times and less recoil.

I went back and checked the old board to refresh my memory. Pretty much all the Ultimate guys were shooting MOA to 300yds and 1.5 MOA 4-500yds using a 300SST at approx. 2300fps with 4 Pyro pellets, Lothar Walther barrels. Don't see why a .50 Pac-Nor would be a bad choice if you don't mind recoil especially for less than 300yds.
I admit, off the bench a .45 with 200gr bullets is a lot more pleasant to shoot.

[rexxer]

Tar- I did not think you were anti Pacnor! I agree with almost everything you said. You and R-man were the people that got me to shoot the Barnes Bo and n120. It shot really good out of my .50. I shot two deer with this load and was convince I did the right thing getting rid of my shotgun!

Sometimes on the forum a persons opinions might come on a little stronger than intended. You are not sitting across from someone face to face and can not see the expressions on someones face.The same words can me a diffrent meaning just by tone or expression.I hope this is not the case with any of my friends here at Dougs. I do like to debate topics but believe me this is all in fun.

To this date I have shot five deer with my Savage.
Three with the .50 and two with the 45. All deer could have been killed with the stock .50 but I still love my 45 Pacnor!

Sorry-I forgot Rangeball too! ;D

[rangeball]

No worries here

[tar12]

No problem Rexxer! ;D Rangeball you can stand down now we are not going to have make that trip to straighten him out now! ;D ;D

[rwp]

First off thanks for all your replies. When I was 11 I was so fortunate to have the worlds largest gun club move into my back yard. I would ride my bike there every day begging for a job. At 17 I became the manager. Today what I miss most about those days were the factory reps. I spent so much time with,a great group of people. I found that love again with this board. Mainly being a shotgunner I always used a muzzle loader for deer hunting and back in those days your choices were few. I love to tinker and with the help from this board I built a Savage with a Richards Thumbhole, bedded and third pillar. I had more fun doing that project so I did a Duramax a couple years ago. Long winters here so I need another project and thats why the .45-.50 Pac-Nor post started for some input. The BIGGEST problem I have is the weight, hunting all day with a 11 pound gun is getting very uncomfortable for me. I know now adding a .45 Pac is not going to help compared to what I have now. I love my Savage but for hunting I need a lighter gun and not being a machinist ( wish I had that talent ) the Nula,s weight seems to fit the ticket. With all my years skeet and trap shooting you get the feel a shootability of a gun real fast. Rifles are a different animal for me and not knowing anything about the Nula except it's weight is hard making a decision to purchase one. With all the talent out there I want you guys to get together an build me a light weight shooter ;D Someone out there let me know more about the Nula (mainly the breech plug design etc.etc.) Again I thank you all. I really appreciate your help. Bob.

[tar12]

Savage-less recoil
Nula-more recoil
You will have to decide if the trade off is worth it in a 50 cal.
for what I do with a .50,a Nula would be brutal. Is Nula still offering a .45? That would be your only light weight option as far as I know in smokeless.I believe it was RB who said he could get either a .50 or .45 in under 8lbs.Bill Ball would be worth talking to as well.

[sw]

I've read all the posts and have some thoughts. IF, there was no such thing as a MLer and it had just been invented and a special season was going to be made for deer hunting and caliber/bullet size-wt was being discussed and the only legal velocities were 2200-3200'/sec, what would be chosen? Also 40-50 cal was allowed and saboted or sabotless bullets could be used. Would people be talking about shooting 250-300g bullets at 2200-2500'/sec with all that energy, recoil, and lack of trajectory or would the 40 cal(still very big for this usage) with 175/195 Barnes or 200 XTP/SST or 210 Rem(resized) be considered or a 45 cal shooting these same bullets plus the 195g 357 DC. I doubt the 50 would even be considered. I think it is still here because it is still here. Yes, there are great bullet selections for the 50 but they are still heavy, recoil a lot, drop a lot,etc. The bullets for the 45 and 40 shoot faster, recoil less, are very easy to obtain great accuracy, drop less, kill deer very effectively. Retaining a caliber that existed so a 175-177g RB could be shot at 1500-1600'/sec for 50-75 yds and looses 1/2 of it's energy by 100 yds seems pointless for 2300-2400+'/sec smokeless MLer shooting 250-300g conicals. Just my thoughts! How many disappointed 45 cal shooters? How many want to go back to 50 cal? How many moan and complain that the don't have an adequate bullet selection compared to 50 cal shooters? Now , how many 40 cal shooters(except DD) want to go back to a 45? I wouldn't get a 50 PacNor even though I think it would be a step up when it costs just as much as the next step, the 45 cal PacNor. Incidentally, I prefer shooting the 45 saboted.

[chuck41]

Oh SW. You is such a smooth talker! You convinced me back almost a couple years ago and I am so glad you did!

[boarhog]

Just for grins, I compared trajectories of 50 cal shooting a 300 gr BO @ 2400 fps, against a 45 cal shooting a 195 gr Barnes @ 2800 fps. I was shocked to see that the two drop tables are almost identical when sighted appx 3" high at 100 yds. Less than 2" difference at 300 yds! I was using a 2007 ver Sierra Ballistics Explorer program. It does not have many of the bullets designated for ML in it's mfg bullet list. I can set up custom bullet profiles, but need to know the BC to plug in. I am not sure if the Barnes 195 gr ML bullet listed is the same one we use in .45 today. The major difference was in the energy column. The BO have a substantially greater energy level!

[Richard]

If you run the 300 gr. BO at 2400 fps against the 200 gr. .40 cal. SST you will find the the difference is more like 6" less drop at 300 yds.
At 2900 + fps, with the 200 gr. SST, sighted 2.5"+ at 100 yds. I am -4" at 300 yds.
Richard

[Jon]

Richard thank you for the real. From all the reading I have done the balistic programs don't work with our bullets.
Jon

[sw]

Jan 10, 2010 19:38:43 GMT -5 Jon said:

Richard thank you for the real. From all the reading I have done the balistic programs don't work with our bullets.
Jon

They just don't work.

Also, I agree with all the Barnes supporters that the terminal effect of both the 175 and 195 40 cal Barnes is as good as it gets. I don't know what more anyone could want. If only this bullet existed for 40 and 45 cal shooting, there would be a good selection with only which of the 2 wts to use.
However, I prefer the inflight trajectory of the 200SST enough more to be willing to use it. I agree, with the fewer # of pass-thrus, there is no blood trail normally since the deer is DRT! Only one time out of about 30 deer with the 200SST did I have a deer go ANY distance - the intentional 108 yd scapula shot on a small 8-pt. Huge blood trail and bullet was in the opposite shoulder. 100yd trail.

[sw]

Jan 10, 2010 16:48:24 GMT -5 chuck41 said:

Oh SW. You is such a smooth talker! You convinced me back almost a couple years ago and I am so glad you did!

It's good to listen to the front seater.

[smokeless77]

Sw What kind of load do you recommend for the 200 SST. I Have some on the way.

[sw]

I shoot 10/54 VV-110/2015 or H-322 with harvester light blue sabots, a single WW, and CCIm. 2754-2777'/sec and very accurate. I don't necessarily think this load is better than a # of others. It does work very well for me. Of course, this is a 45 cal load. It also works well with 195Barnes.
I just read of a similiar duplex that is rather temp sens - I do not know if this one is, but mine is likely lower pressure which would make it even more temp sens. (12/48 vs my 10/54).

[smokeless77]

Thanks SW, I will give that a try next time out. Yes, It is for the 45.

Thanks John

[wilmsmeyer]

When you consider that a 243 loaded with an 85 gr nosler partition is competely adequate for deer hunting at any reasonable range, even the little .40 shooting a bullet twice as heavy and almost as fast would be considered over-kill SW.

Assuming it was possible, wouldn't a sleek 30 cal ML be better?

Regardless how the bread gets sliced, all these calibers in smokeless can be hot-rodded, down loaded or ran in the middle of the road. The .50 just happens to have over a dozen sabots available, countless possible bullets available, gobs of horsepower when needed.

About trajectory, inside 300 yds there isn't much real world difference that a marksman can't deal with. Inside 200 yds there is NO difference and over 90% of deer are killed inside 100 yds IMO and from accounts from most people.

The .50 is SO simple that a caveman can get one going after reading a little here......

Going to a .50 pac-nor is not a mis-judgement....nor is it a waste of money. It's a great idea.

As some of you get older and more recoil sensitive, I doubt even a 200 gr bullet at 2900 fps will be pleasant to shoot.

The .40's and .45's are awesome developments and hugely effective and cool. They are not the end-all, be-all calibers for ML'ing.

The big turning point that will sway the masses, would be a combo of a major gun manufacturer to begin offering a smaller caliber in smokeless that has a faster twist, and the component companies offering a large scale variety of sabots and bullets that will be of higher BC then what we have. IMO, smokeless sabotless will never make the main stream....too complicated for Joe six pack....who runs the industry

The reason most of us push these guns for long range capability is that ALL of our bullets are basically lower on the BC scale then the worst centerfire bullets. Speed off-sets this problem....until you get past 300 yds. Then all of our bullets are plowing and losing steam. Even the .40 and .45 aren't overcoming this fact.

[153]

I would much to prefer to shoot my 45 with a 200SST@2600fps than my 50 with a 300XTP or 300BO@2150fps. I even like the terminal performance of the 200SST and 195MZ better than the 300BO, I still think the 300XTP is the terminal performance King. I purchased a 243 for my son last year to hunt with, this past year it ended up with me in the stand more while my 06 and 270 were being safe Queens. All this was being said with whitetail in mind, if game were bigger I may have different thoughts.

[edge]

Jan 11, 2010 6:19:44 GMT -5 wilmsmeyer said:

SNIP.

The .50 is SO simple that a caveman can get one going after reading a little here......

Going to a .50 pac-nor is not a mis-judgement....nor is it a waste of money. It's a great idea.

SNIP.

Personally the only reason I no longer shoot my .50 is because I did not go fast enough on my twist, and if you decide to go .50 I would say that 1:20 should be the slowest, your mileage may vary !

There are more components for the 50 and you can use the faster/easier to ignite powders vs the 45.
A lapped barrel loads easier and shoots faster than the OEM barrel.
I don't think that you can go wrong with either caliber, but if you don't want to tinker much the 50 probably has the edge.

edge.

[sw]

Jan 11, 2010 6:19:44 GMT -5 wilmsmeyer said:

When you consider that a 243 loaded with an 85 gr nosler partition is competely adequate for deer hunting at any reasonable range, even the little .40 shooting a bullet twice as heavy and almost as fast would be considered over-kill SW.

Assuming it was possible, wouldn't a sleek 30 cal ML be better?

Regardless how the bread gets sliced, all these calibers in smokeless can be hot-rodded, down loaded or ran in the middle of the road. The .50 just happens to have over a dozen sabots available, countless possible bullets available, gobs of horsepower when needed.

About trajectory, inside 300 yds there isn't much real world difference that a marksman can't deal with. Inside 200 yds there is NO difference and over 90% of deer are killed inside 100 yds IMO and from accounts from most people.

The .50 is SO simple that a caveman can get one going after reading a little here......

Going to a .50 pac-nor is not a mis-judgement....nor is it a waste of money. It's a great idea.

As some of you get older and more recoil sensitive, I doubt even a 200 gr bullet at 2900 fps will be pleasant to shoot.

The .40's and .45's are awesome developments and hugely effective and cool. They are not the end-all, be-all calibers for ML'ing.

The big turning point that will sway the masses, would be a combo of a major gun manufacturer to begin offering a smaller caliber in smokeless that has a faster twist, and the component companies offering a large scale variety of sabots and bullets that will be of higher BC then what we have. IMO, smokeless sabotless will never make the main stream....too complicated for Joe six pack....who runs the industry

The reason most of us push these guns for long range capability is that ALL of our bullets are basically lower on the BC scale then the worst centerfire bullets. Speed off-sets this problem....until you get past 300 yds. Then all of our bullets are plowing and losing steam. Even the .40 and .45 aren't overcoming this fact.

Wilms, I'll respond to each paragraph in order:


1) Totally agree that the 243/85 Partion is highly adequate. Last time I deer hunted with a CF was with my Sav 223/60 Partion so you can see I agree in principle. Incidentally, the deer went appx 20 yds. Shot was >100 yds. So we agree!! The 40 is way over powered but is the best legal I can shoot and also the smallest I can get bullets for available barrel demensions. So the 50 seems like it would be too large for either of us. Next ---

2) Yes, if we could be happy with 55-60+K PSI(I would). Bullet selection problems again. Also legal restrictions. So, 40 is still the smallest legal, etc. So we agree again.

3) I've only used more than 1 sabot and 1 bullet once in my smokeless MLer and that was enough . Bulged my barrel and messed up my face even more than it was. When the 40 or 45 sabotless is shot fast, it doesn't hurt!!

4)I agree on the 200 yds being most common - often people aren't confident at shooting >200 yds. In the past 4 years, at least 1/2 of my deer have been shot >200 yds. My son's only ML deer this year with his(actually mine 45 was 267 yds. X-bow was 52 yds. Still , why keep the max range less that can be obtained?

5) Even a caveman can get a 50 going but remember all the posts about just how easy it is to get the 40/45 going and the groups are so much smaller on a consistent basis. Even a cavegirl could get a 40/45 going.

6) Not a mis-judgement, but why? The 50 Sav shoots quite well in most cases. The 50 PacNor would shoot better IMO.

7) I routinely shoot my 40 2930'/sec/200SST and it is pleasant. The 45 or 40 being shot at 2600-2700 is so much lighter in recoil than any 50 cal load I've shot.

8) I agree that the 40 and 45 may not be the ultimate but they are the best we have to date - that are legal and for which bullets are easily obtained. Way ahead of the 50, IMO.

9) Don't care about the masses. We can have our smokeless MLers in these smaller calibers and if they don't research, care, whatever, it's their problem. I've been near the masses at public ranges IN THE PAST!!! and they scare me. They can shoot their Remington Genesis with their 150g of T-7FFF/heavy Powerbelts all they want as long as I'm not near. I practice in agricultural fields now - it's safer. The masses don't shoot 50 PacNor smokeless anymore than than they shoot the 40 cal smokeless. I think all the Manufacturers are missing the boat by not offering a fast twist 45 with possible loads of up to 150g of the Blackhorn 209 or T-7 3-F and shooting 195 Barnes or 200SSTs at 2400+'/sec with extreme accuracy or coming out with the same gun that can also shoot smokeless. This would be a goldmine for them IMO. Still, the masses don't affect what we can and have now.

10) The 40 and 45 are doing a lot better trajectory wise than the 50 so they are still the long range champs. Why go with a 50, when the 40/45 add significant range with flatter trajectories, less recoil, better over-all accuracy, and over-all more than adequate energy for anything we might want to shoot, except for "big moose"?

I think we agree on virtually every "fact" here, as can be evidenced by your post. You need to hurry up and get in line for a PacNor 40 or 45.

As for me and my house, "we will shoot 40s and 45s."

[tar12]

Steve,


If you reread Wilms post he was advocating the switch to a .50 Pac-Nor.I know you find this hard to fathom,but not everbody needs a .40 or .45. or.50 pac-nor or even wants one for that matter.Many do not care to shoot past 200 yds or to incur the added expense/knowledge/skill to do so. I will always keep a .50 on hand personaly as I plan on hunting game larger than a whitetail in the near future and it will be sporting a new .50 Pac-Nor.Now back to the origin of this post.RWP has eliminated the Pac-Nor and Savage as a viable option for him as weight is critical criteria for him.He then inquired about the Nula.Can we help him to that end?

[sw]

Jan 11, 2010 21:54:43 GMT -5 tar12 said:

Steve,


If you reread Wilms post he was advocating the switch to a .50 Pac-Nor.I know you find this hard to fathom,but not everbody needs a .40 or .45. or.50 pac-nor or even wants one for that matter.Many do not care to shoot past 200 yds or to incur the added expense/knowledge/skill to do so. I will always keep a .50 on hand personaly as I plan on hunting game larger than a whitetail in the near future and it will be sporting a new .50 Pac-Nor.Now back to the origin of this post.RWP has eliminated the Pac-Nor and Savage as a viable option for him as weight is critical criteria for him.He then inquired about the Nula.Can we help him to that end?

Tar, I was primarily just pestering Wilms. Indiana Hunter certainly likes his NULA. If I had no smokeless MLer, I'd consider a NULA 45. Their recoil has been reported as very light considering the light wt of the gun. Though I like the 40 very much, it can actually do nothing in the field that a 45 can't do as well. The 45 is lighter per barrel length and can reach the same velocity with less pressure. Tom Post's guns are interesting also. I'd consider one of these also. A light NEF or H&R stock with a 22-23" fluted 45, that is somewhat tapered could be very light and user friendly. Did I do better?

[wilmsmeyer]

I recognize pestering when I see it ;D

It's obvious that SW is partial to the smaller bores. No matter the topic, SW gets his advertising in. Someone has to show the other side of the coin...cause there is one. But like Tar said, the poster was trying to justify going to a .50 pac-nor while also wondering about the .45. It was a valid discussion.

I think we all gave him enough things to think about. Really can't go wrong either way.

[rexxer]

State gun laws are another thing to consider when choosing a.45 over the .50. Some state have a min. where a sabotless load would have to be used.

[DBinNY]

Pestering Wilms is fun ;D. Thanks SW, I can use the help. I like .45s and .50s!