Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Muzzleloaders Why Use Large Bore For Deer?

Your shooting sucks balls.

Whoa ... wait ...

Your shooting sucks patched round balls.

Is that right?

I'm confused.

My flinter is a genuine ball shucker, and a big bore .45 to boot.

How far will it shoot?

Are you taking advantage of "in-line non black powder sabotted garbage"?

Interesting questions. I respond with my own.

Beyond the common usage of the word sabot today, and what the term originally meant, what is a sabot other than a material which isolates the bullet/projectile from the bore and allows the use of sub caliber projectiles? Ergo, Daniel Boone and Mr. Crockett were using sabots of a sort back in their day. Today I guess inline sabot sluts sneer when they say "patched round ball"? And what about us weirdos that paper patch, both as wrapped and cross stripped? Some even use a Chase patch. Oh, the horrors!

Are gunners in the Abrams tank gay for using a sabot on their DU darts?

Is a condom also a sabot?

Weighty questions....but in response to your own:

It will shoot about 800 yards. It never misses planet Earth. I can load my balls frontward, backward or sideways. I don't use 209 primers to shoot muzzle loaders. I don't use smokeless powder in muzzle loaders, nor do I use copper jacketed bullets with plastic tips or hollow points. New chitt makes me nervous.

And lets see , since Christy made carriages in the 1800 that were drawn by horse and they made carriages for that set on steel frames with a combustion engine in the front instead of a horse . They there for made automobiles since the mid 1800�s?

If you had ask old Davy or Crockett if they shot sabots they would probably looked at you like you were an idiot for trying to load a shoe . Which by the way is what Sabot originally meant and later became the base for the word saboteur. So they may very well also have said ; yes we shoot saboteur�s every time we see one .
What we call sabots today , would have been called canisters and used prominently in larger artillery .
You don�t really see the word �Sabot� used in the context we use it , tell the 20th century . Even though we may define items of the past to be what we call �Sabots�

Speaking of that , funny you should bring up the M1 Sabo round / sabot round .
Do you know what the purpose of that round is and why it was invented ?
Might want to look that up because frankly it supports the reasoning of the person your trying to belittle .

So could a patch , be it paper or cloth be considered a sabot . Well ya you could look at it that way as the patch acts as a gas seal . But does it act as a centering device ????
I guess it could but its really more of a gas check .
Does it allow for sub caliber rounds to be loaded . Well yes it would since your talking in the range of .010 . But since 90% of the shooters out there have no idea of what their true bore is , then that number could be greater
Could one load a thick enough patch so as to be effective when trying to shoot sat a .400 projectile from a .500 bore . Probably not unless you were using it at close range .

so basicly its one of those things where

; since the powder is black , it therefore must be black power .

Parker 275 BE at 3000fps. .450x.458 Krieger barrel on a Rem700 SA. No patch or sabot needed.

Exploding deer targets, No tannerite required.
http://youtu.be/ZDkdbS0QNpM

Look Ma no head.

No need to belittle one who did such a masterful job on themselves.

As to the rest, there is a manner of discourse common in America know as tongue-in-cheek. Now you know my version.

No. It blocks the shot.

It goes against the reason for using a sabot.

Bingo! Was a trick question. You passed.

but they make the projectile fit tighter in the hole. So in a way...

I have little doubt that if Davy had sabots available to him. He would have used them. He had no interest is using a technology that was 200 years old like is done today.

You're guessing.

Ol davy used a new fangled flintlock instead of a matchlock.

So I've heard. Head of the class on technology he was. Sadly, that technology was well established 200 years before his passing.

Actually , good old Davy had access to technologies greater then what he used . He chose what he chose for his own reasoning . It would appear though that he did not make more of it then it was.
As i recall from my readings , he did use a flintlock . and when he was killed , he still shot a flintlock .
so lets see , what would have taken its place ????? mmm maybe the cap lock .
he also still shot a long rifle , yet 1/2 stock plains rifles ruled the day and the Hawkens bros were right in the middle of it making a small handful of rifles a year
The western fur trade was almost over and in just 4 more years we would see the end of the Rendezvous� west of the rocky mountains .
Hall had also been producing his inline , breech loading flintlock rifle for some 17 years , with roughly around 12-15 thousand being sold . Not to mention was on the verge of producing the rifle in percussion. That ended up not happening tell 1842 when military orders boosted sales and HF began the production which ran well through the US Civil war .
He also had a handful of cartridge guns that were coming on the seen. Actually that choice had been around for a very long time . But apparently he chose not to use them .
So you see factually , if we want to say , ;If he would have had it he would have used it .
Well that may not be completely true because in the end , he die in 1836 with an out dates flintlock , long rifle in his position .
Not a cap gun , not an inline , not a breech loader and not a cartridge gun
But ha,,, LMAO thats all Tung and cheek . But you might want to look it up just to make sure



Tongue and cheek or not the compression is rather a stretch . Stretch it to far and like the condom it will break .
As to that
I would say that a condom would be a sabot .
a) it holds back pressure .
b) depending on the type , it could be self centering
c)ahhh ??? Lets see what could C) be ,,, oh how about allows for shooting a smaller projectile in a larger bore ,,, LOL

PS. might want to take a look at when the flintlock was invented .

So, Mr. Crockett was a Luddite?

My understanding is that the flintlock came into being in the very early days of the 17th century and was well established in the hands of techno-geeks by 1630. Yes/No?

That's a bit different though. Davy started with a flintlock, and was comfortable with it.

What would he have chosen if an inline was readily available, and cheaper to buy when he first started to shoot? As it is today.

I'm pretty sure he would have opted for belt fed at one point, had it been available. Or even a Warthog.

Sort of missed my point.