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

No, I did not.

I would have to look it up , but yes early 1600�s for the flintlock .
However by the time of Crockets death the trade lists show thousands of caps being sent to the fur trade rendezvous .
Also by the lat 1820�s to early 30�s cap locks were becoming very prevalent in the populated areas of the east .
Crockett was also a congressman . While he had lost the previous election , he still had spent some time in the capital . He was no stranger to the new technologies coming about .

Most certainly I would also bet that if he had access to a M60 and a few thousand rounds , he probably would have wished for it in the end .

But it still doesn�t change the fact that he chose to use his flintlock vs. all the other weapons of new technologies. Why ?? Who can say
I have also heard it said that Travis wrote that men were showing up many times with no weapon . Others showing up with snaphence and dog locks

As to if crocket was a Luddite. Not sure one could say that with any real certainty .
Did he oppose modern technology or as the left would say progress .

I do however think he was pretty clear in his political beliefs concerning the direction the country was going .

As was said though , he was born with a flintlock in his hand . So that was what he new.
But it still doesn�t change the fact that he did have many choices as to weapons which some would consider superior . But apparently he must have been one to not believe in that superiority

As to what he would have bought ???
I want to sy I read somewhere and it may have been Boone , not Crockett , but as I recall it was said that his first rifle was a hand me down and near worn out . It may have even been a smoothbore .
That as soon as he had a paying job , he had a local smith build him a proper rifle at a cost of 2 months pay .
Now if that was the same rifle he carried at the Alamo , that I don�t know
Could he have bought something cheaper ohm ya A trade gun be it smooth or rifled would have been a whole lot cheaper

But again concerning the ; if he would have had it he would have used it .
At least in the case of Boone and Crockett that doesn�t seem to be the case .
Now for some of the other noted mountain men of the time , that wasn�t the case some grabbed on rather quick .
One very notable person was Jeremiah Johnson . While some would have you belive he was noted for his hawkens rifle . As of yet there is nothing to support that he owned one . But what he did own and what he was know for was revolvers and lever action repeaters

Jeremiah's grave marker in Cody, WY.



That's a Sharps rifle he holds in the picture.

Really? Then what was it?

If at the time of these famous mountain men and frontier legends they had a "primitive weapons" season for folks that preferred spears, somebody woulda showed up with an atlatl and pissed the traditional spear chuckers off.

If someone had proposed seasons for hunting back then I'm guessing public ridicule would have moved them on down the road.

BH, if you want to play games on point of reading comprehension, pick another player. Really.

Well that would be speculation as it didn�t happen and there was no seasons , no weapon or caliber laws �..
But eventually those laws and regulations had to happen so as to insure there would be something left for others . I wonder why that would be when the land had been able to sustain a population much larger then the population that began effecting that change .
don�t get me wrong im not saying technology is bad . It however can get out of hand and destroy what it was designed to help .

However , back to your statement ,
Ironically if you reverse your statement , would you not end up with what actually did happen . IE folks showed up with modern weapons and one way or another effected those who you call spear chucker�s . Yep it pissed many of them off . Some during that time grasp the technology as a way to resist . Yet others chose to throw the technology aside and did not conform until they were forced to .
Same goes for today . LMAO ,I would bet there are some modern technologies that piss some of the folks here off .

But lets address the spear chucker thing .
Until you start adding modern jacketed bullets , scopes , modern powders , smokeless��. You very well may have chosen to use technology that as old as the flintlock .
That Knight 85 and a lot of the muzzleloaders made by Doc White form their in line ignition base from designs and working guns from the 17th century and later was converted to percussion just as most everything else was to include the cartridge . Thus the cartridge eventually ended up antiquating the muzzle loading designs . The inline ignition , cartridge , breech loaders , revolvers ���.all existed much earlier then most folks think . They however for the most part not accepted . It was that one technological advancement called the percussion cap , that eventually changed it all


As I note to the original question though .
If you read the Lewis and Clark Journals. You will find that Clack used his small rifle to take even elk . Though frankly he did set aside , not because it would not do the job but because the small ball did not leave a good enough blood trail to easily track the animal .

Past all that . The only point im trying to make is that we should not jump to making statements or comparisons that simply by looking at the time in history would appear to be untrue .
Because what you end up with when you say , ; IF they had it they would have used it .
is something like ; If Custer had a machine gun he would have used it .
Well he did have them , chose not to take them

have a good one folks gotta run

Can't disagree with any of that.

If frogs had wings.........

Thought so, but not that important. Later.

I don't understand your reasoning. You hunt with centerfires, yet believe inlines give an unfair advantage. Over who? Who are you competing against? Why do you think other people should be bound by your opinions and prejudices? How is your experience lessened by what other people choose to hunt with?

Hunting regulations are designed to provide maximum recreational opportunities while preserving the resource, not to satisfy the selfish notions of a few cranks.

I guess my point being that if there's an activity where there are rules or limitations set, there's going to be a group that's content to stay well within the rules and a group that pushes the limits to gain the greatest advantage. It gets divisive when the "pushers" get the rules changed to match their desires to the point where the reason for the rules and limitations are lost. Personally I don't see the point of "special" seasons.

Special seasons are BS.

A person should have the latitude to choose their weapon, but no advantage should accrue to any group or discipline.

I could go along with that, but am willing to give archers ( of all persuasions ) some time alone in the woods due to the limitations of their equipment. In the 70s, I carried a TC Hawken during the shotgun season in southern Maryland and never felt I was at a disadvantage. Actually, it was more accurate than the majority of shotguns folks were carrying then.

I've long thought that the seasons for various types of weapons should be rotated occasionally to even out opportunities a bit. In neighboring Virginia, the ML season is just before the regular firearms season, which essentially makes it the real "gun" season. Another option would be to give the stick and string folks a month or two and then just have "Deer Season", controlling the take by a combination of tag sales and keeping tabs on the total kill.

My question would be . if it doesn�t give you an advantage , why chose it ?

See at least for me , its not about why the design came about .
So why did Knight chose to build the 85.
Did he know about the earlier , historic designs . Personally I don�t believe I could be convinced that he did ..
No sir . If you read the base for his coming up with the 85 it was supposedly that he and some friends had been hunting with side lock guns and were having issues with consistency and poor ignition in the cold wet weather .
Also that he chose the design of the stock as something that today�s hunter was more familiar with and better suited to mount optics on .
The full story once was on Knights web site.
So in a nut shell what he produced was a design he felt gave advantages over the traditional guns that were available on the market .

Now myself , I call BS as IMO most of the problems he told about , despite what other say ,were IMO from lack of knowledge. There simply could be no other explanation.
As other entered the market , they all toughed the advantages of their models .With each being better then the next .
Are the Better. Well frankly not if you look at the very basic function . However if your looking for anything else , then you would be talking advantages.

As for myself . As I said before . If the modern shooter is restricted from using anything other then soft lead . Bore size or slightly sub bore size projectiles , no sabots , lose powder of eater Black or a synthetic alternative , none magnifying sights , exposed ignition . Then there would be little benefit/ advantage .
Frankly , speaking again for myself . I have never seen the modern inline as a better when compared to traditional designs . Having advantages does not make it better .

But when you add in all the bells and whistles that are offered today , it IMO becomes no different then if a person were to take a 30.06 , load a empty but primed shell . Dump 60 grains of lose powder down the bore and follow it up with soft copper jacketed bullet .
In the end though , the bullet its self doesn�t care what propels it . It will react the same for a given velocity . IE if BP propels it to 2200 fps , it will do the same as if a smokeless charge propelled it to that velocity .
So really the only real change you would have made would be to have slowed down you ability to load.

As to special seasons .
There are reasons for those seasons . Sometimes it�s a mater of location. Other times it�s a mater of environment and sustainability . still other times , as is often written by some , Just more time in the woods . Other times its about safety .
IE concerning Archery. Frankly as a former and long time bow hunter �yes Compound� . the only reason I now support a separate season is for safety of the hunter . Range has 0 to do with it .

15 even 10 years ago I supported and frankly still do in some circumstances , a separation between modern and traditional muzzle loading . IE let the modern folks have all the fun toys they want to use . While at the same time allowing the more traditional folks to have a time and or areas where they can hunt without competing with laser guided , expanding projectiles being guided on target by a FO drone .
In turn IMO both camps should then support each other . IE I support you and your rules for what you want and in turn you support me and mine
But sadly , that did not work here . Grass is greener on the other side of the fence thing .

Lucky with today hunter being what it is . I don�t have to even worry as its not all that hard to get away from at least the majority of people even during the general center fire season .
Frankly I don�t think it would be to far fetched to say that in another million years the human race will probably have evolved so as to have an ATV growing from their Ass
Tongue and cheek of course

Laffin' here, anything is possible with genetic modification.

Yep , agreed . Who is to say what will come .
All we can do is look back , see how different things were for us in our lifetimes .Then speculate how much different they will be in the future if we maintain the same level of speed for technological advancement .
Sure does leave a lot of questions with very little answers.

That however is nothing new and is probably much the same question that generations upon generations before us ask .

If nothing else. They could have kept muzzleloader seasons to open sights. That would take away a lot of the advantage of inlines. They would still have some advantages, but at least their range would be limited some what.

I was talking about an advantage over other hunters. Some apparently feel that hunting is some kind of competition and worry about the other guy getting one up on them. I've never felt that way and don't understand where it comes from. I sometimes use a weapon with a limited range to challenge myself, but don't care what anyone else is using. I do have a problem with people that want to force their preferences on others, largely because from what I've seen in the past, what they really want to do is reduce the number of hunters in the woods so they can have more elbow room. Someone that hunts with modern centerfire rifles can't logically object to the use of optical sights or inline rifles as unsporting or unfair to the game. No one is forceing anyone to use a modern muzzleloader, so the only reason for an objection to their use is either a lack of confidence in themselves or a desire to dictate how other people behave.

After years of using sidelock rifles, this year I purchased a scoped inline. My eyesight no longer allows me to use iron sights effectively and in fairness to the game, I decided to go with optics. My new rifle can use any propellant and any ignition type. Having never used them before, I decided to try sabotted bullets over BH209. I also purchased a full-caliber conical mold. I also have a good supply of Hornady FPB 350gr. bullets. I don't know at this time what my chosen load ultimately will be, but after a couple of range sessions, it's clear that the inline is no more reliable or quicker to load than my sidelocks or even the flinter I used to have. It may shoot a little flatter, but where I hunt, that's not a factor. The scope does allow me to place my shots accurately again, but for practical purposes, my effective range is little if any more than it was with irons when my eyes were better. The new propellants allow more shots between cleanings than BP, but when is that a factor in the deer woods? Let's be honest; the major handicap common to all muzzleloaders, is the rate of fire.

So what remains is the fact that some people just don't like the modern guns. Well then, don't use them. I'm not about to give up a significant part of my deer season just because some purists object to what I'm shooting.

Get a life, people.

I've never liked anybody telling someone else to get a life.

I'll just leave it at that.