Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Muzzleloaders Accidental Muzzleloader Death on MSNBC

cant blame you there one bit LOL

but the simple mater is the capability is there for both modern and traditional rifles .
Ignition system has little to nothing to do with it. What does come into play and concerns information that we as of yet have not been given , is load and projectile .
Frankly that�s whats going to tell us if there is the capability of range .
With todays common acceptance in muzzle loading of heavy conicals and IMO high to very high charges , both in modern and traditional muzzle loading , I just cant see how we can completely rule out a muzzle loading rifle .
Even if we were to suggest low energy at that distance , we have to remember that humans are relatively easy to kill or seriously incapacitate when compared to other animals especially concerning a blow to the head .
When one considers this we then understand how even small light objects falling from much shorter distances can seriously mess up a persons day .

Regardless of what was claimed or what ends up being proven to have been used the probability of this happening is simply way , WAY out there . Everything from load , projectile to wind drift all had to be exactly right to carry that projectile , that distance and hit that exact spot on a moving target .
Not to mention if the girl was riding in one of the wagons we most often associate with the Amish , it would then have either had to make it through the wagon opening OR carry enough energy to penetrate the roof of the wagon and still hit with enough force .
The probability of all those things happening , be it intentional or not , is simply mind boggling .
The very sad thing is a girl died .
I would agree that we don�t know for sure what actually caused this death.
IMO I hope we someday do . If it does end up being from a muzzleloader , then its will simply re-enforce what has been proven countless times before .
Our guns under the correct conditions are capable of very VERY long ranges . IMO it would be smart if we as a community , be it modern or traditional , realize this

Captainchee...

I can't disagree with your logic or thinking, but before I can accept that the girl was killed by a projectile fired from the specific muzzle loading rifle in question, it will have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it is so.

I think you'll agree that there is more than one "scenario" that is possible. Any number of other circumstances may have happened. Who's to say that someone elsewhere didn't fire their rifle into the air and THEY are the guilty party who caused the girl's death?

If the local sheriff does ballistics tests that PROVES beyond a reasonable doubt that the projectile that killed the girl came from that specific muzzle loading rifle, then I'll accept that the man cleaning his rifle accidentally cause the young girl's death.

Otherwise, we're all only "guessing" as to WHO actually fired the shot that killed the girl. The fact that the man was cleaning his rifle at the time the girl was shot is meaningless since any number of others might have also been cleaning their rifles at the same time and fired a shot into the air. Who can say, without any doubt, that such isn't the case?

I agree that the coincidence of his cleaning his rifle and firing it... and the young girl being killed is strongly suspicious, but there is absolutely no PROOF the shot the man fired 1� miles away killed the girl.

Both events could merely be a coincidence and they may not be even remotely related other than the fact they both occurred at about the same time.

PROOF, my friend, PROOF is required before blame can correctly be placed. That requirement is only reasonable.


Strength & Honor...

Ron T.

i would agree with everything you said Ron .
so far we have not been show one way or the other what type of gun did this . for that mater even if it was actually a gun.
All we have is a media story that is left a lot of speculation .
Basically a guy fires his gun into the air and a mile away a girl gets killed .
Really nothing more then that at this point .

My only point is that there seems to be quick judgment that the guy gleaning his gun , was shooting a modern muzzle loading rifle .
Maybe he was . But maybe he wasn�t .
Both systems are capable .

You're making it sound like the odds are in the shooter's favor that another person was cleaning his muzzle loader and fired a round into the air, and they're responsible for the murder.

With all the publicity surrounding the death don't you think if another shot was fired from somewhere else it would have been heard and reported?

Besides, if the Sheriff's Department sent the body to a medical examiner, who was half-way competent, for autopsy, he'll be able to determine a lot from the entry point and the wound pathway (direction & angle).

It ain't even 50:50 that this guy fired the shot that killed the girl; it's more like 95:05.

CAPTCHEE...

I agree with everything you said as well. The point is that more than one person has a rifle in that area and who is to say that the man with the muzzle loader was the ONLY person to fire his rifle into the air at that time? He may be the guilty party or he may not be the guilty party... that's just something we do NOT know yet.

My own .338 Winchester Magnum in my pre-'64 Model 70 with a 26-inch barrel can supposedly fire a 200 grain bullet almost 4 miles (3.8 miles, I seem to remember)... and who would hear the faint report of a rifle fired almost 4 miles away?

IF they establish it actually was a muzzle-loading rifle that fired the fatal shot, then that definitely "narrows" the field considerably aligning it more surely with the muzzle-loader shooter and would more surely cause the man who admits he fired his muzzle loader into the air be the guilty party, but as you have pointed out, no such evidence has been found so far.

Hopefully, we'll hear more about this... especially since it occurred fairly close to my home north of Dayton, Ohio.


MAGNUMDOOD...

Please read the above text as well as what I've written down here for you.

I believe we shouldn't jump to any conclusions until we see more evidence that proves the muzzle loader owner did the "dirty deed".

Certainly, the "cloud" of guilt SEEMS to be his, but what SEEMS to be may not ACTUALLY be and we should keep that in mind before being so absolutely SURE the muzzle-loader owner did the shooting. To do less is to jump to a conclusion that isn't backed up by ANY actual evidence other than that the muzzle-loader shooter ADMITS he fired a shot into the air at approximately the same time the girl was killed.

To ASSUME the meager fact that he fired a shot at the time the girl was hit and killed over a mile away which makes the muzzle loader owner "guilty" is jumping to a conclusion as wide as the Grand Canyon!

Since neither of us were there and no autopsy report has (so far) been released, we can't jump to ANY conclusions until more CONCLUSIVE evidence is given.

What we must all keep in mind is that this was a terrible accident. The man didn't intentionally take aim and shoot the girl. I feel reasonably sure he feels TERRIBLE about this whole situation.

As an experienced traditional muzzle-loader owner/shooter (flintlocks & cap-locks), I can't imagine what he was doing "cleaning" a loaded rifle... a very stupid thing to attempt to do as is evidenced by this tragic accident!

The "bottom line" is... you may be RIGHT or you may be WRONG... but let's not get out the "hangin' rope" quite yet... ok, Tex?


Ron T.

A PRB won't travel that far, but a conical can and often does if it has a better BC than a pistol bullet.