Anybody see this story in the news?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45738811/ns/us_news-life/#.TvEQyTW0wtE

I don't know if the media is getting this wrong (highly likely) or if this is wishful case solving on the part of the local police, but the "facts" of this case as presented here just don't add up. Anybody here got a muzzleloader that'll shoot a mile and a half?

Rod

I live about a hour north of there and thought the same thing, i know my savage at 2800fps will get out there but i thought the same thing,,,,,just doesnt add up and besides if your going to unload the old fashion way whatever happened to a good backstop or at the least just into the ground!!! sounds fishy!!!!

I thought so as well but I did some searching to find something to either reinforce or disprove their conclusion.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQY/is_11_53/ai_n20512665/

Interesting article. Thanks.

Rod

Very unlucky girl . I feel for her family.

Yes. On the order of 3500-3700 yds actually, so more like 2 miles.

I live in an Amish community about 15/20 miles from there. It is quit the buzz around here as you might think. It was all over the front page of our local paper. I'm a hunter safety instructor and I cut those articles out of the paper and put them in a folder for my hunter safety classes. You'd be surprised at how many news clippings I have in that folder. And most of them are local. It happens. How/why would someone fire a gun into the air to unload it. If you are going to unload the muzzleloader, shoot it into a safe backstop. An this happened late (11ish p.m.)at night. Sounds strange to me, yes. And for this to happen. All the square miles of earth and it hits a girl in the head at over a mile away. What are the chances? 100 Kazillion to one, but it happened. Act of God???? Go figure. I tell my hunter ed. students when an accident with a firearm happens one or more of the safety rules has been broken. Like in this case: Be sure of your target and beyond, never point a gun at anything you don't intend to shoot, identify your target, etc. Just a shame this had to happen. Gives hunters and gun owners a bad name. Also give the anti-hunters/gun ammunition for bad press too. Just to bad accidents like this happen..

I hate to say it, but if you have a muzzle loader, you have one that will shoot a mile and a half, AT LEAST.

I am shocked at how many totally underestimate the power that firarms have, particularly muzzle loaders.

Do some simple ballistic calcs, and you will be surprised at what you find.

Shooting that far is physics. Hitting an intended target at that range is pure chance in most cases, and apparently hitting an uninteded (person) is chance as well, how very sad and tragic.

Obey the laws of gun safety and none of this happens.

SIMPLE COMMON SENSE APPLIES.... im sorry but he should be prosecuted,,,,,,, he failed to follow simple basics of firearm safety..........KEEP THE MUZZLE POINTED IN A SAFE DIRECTION!!!!!

I agree. Put him in jail. My buddy always said a muzzleloader won't shoot very far. I showed him the article in today's paper. I told him to look at how far that smoke pole will shoot. A long ways. I just can't believe someone would do something so stupid. I gotta think there is more to it than that. Shooting at 11:30ish p.m. AT NIGHT. What's someone doing out at 11:30ish at night shooting his muzzleloader? And into the air? Maybe he was shooting/poaching a deer and didn't want to admit it. I've got to think there is more to it. We'll see. How STUPID.

doubt he was poaching unless he hit her alot closer than they are saying, showed this to my 10 year old as well and explained to em how far that bullet travels.....his reply was" why didnt he shoot it into the ground dad?" maybe it was a fluke and i feel for the family deeply, but it just doesnt add up to me...........

bottom line.....as a gun owner he failed in every respect to respect and show safety for the gift of owning a firearm!

Yes, that says it all. Even a 10 year old knows better. Maybe he was shooting at a deer on the horizon? Who knows. Should charge him with manslaughter.....

+1 or at least a felony ad yank his gun rights for quite a few years! im sorry ive been around guns most of my life and even when i was young and stupd i would never consider firing in the air................ as basic as it gets!

agreed
if i recall correctly doesn�t the 1853 Enfield have a max range of 2000 yards thus well over a mile .
not to also mention that rifles like the Whitworth and Medford rifles have shown very good accuracy at 2000 yards +

Sadly today all to many folks hold the opinion that muzzle loading guns , be they modern or traditional , just are not as capable as a center fire . Thus they just don�t view them with the same safety as they should until something like this happens

and apparently from what i understand from a relative that lives in that area , it was another amish who was the one that unloaded the gun, so as far as amish go at least around here they mostly have the latest greatest firearms sooo.... it was probably a inline so my question is isnt it easier in todays age to just remove the breech plug and push out the load as opposed to firing it and cleaning it? either way it sounds fishy and he should be charged with something......just complete stupidity nothing less.....this was negligence not a accident!!

When deer hunting shotgun only laws were created the common projectile of the day was a Forster Slug or buckshot. If one is interested in keeping max range of hunting arms short they should return to that standard and limit muzzle loaders to round balls. Comparing state of the art muzzle loaders with a .30-06 is a meaningless exercise that can only be driven by underlying agendas.

The stupidity of some folks leaves me speechless from time to time...

In Mass, an off duty State Trooper just shot a woman with a muzzle loader a couple days ago. She was walking 2 dogs and the guy thought she was a deer and shot her in the stomach. No charges filed. More will come out on this one.


A guy that was a member of my rod and gun club was shot and killed during shotgun season a week ago. I posted on that on the campfire forum.

I find it extremely difficult to believe my .50 caliber percussion cap rifle will shoot a round, patched, 177 grain rifle ball 1� miles and still have sufficient force to kill someone.

With a muzzle velocity of 1700-1800 fps and a ballistic coefficient of just .068, I ran such a round through a ballistics program and found the rifle ball hit the ground in less than 500 yards if fired with the barrel parallel to the ground... and at the time the rifle ball hit the ground, it's velocity was down to just a few hundred feet-per-second, as I recall.

I find it unbelievable that a round, patched lead rifle ball would travel 2640 yards (1� miles), even if shot at the "perfect" angle, and still have sufficient force to injure someone.

I admit I could be wrong, but I don't think I am. Regardless, it is a tragic event and I have great sympathy for the girl's family and loved ones.

That said, I seriously doubt that it was that fella's muzzle loading rifle that did the "dirty deed".


Strength & Honor...

Ron T.

i dont recall reading anywhere that the projectile was a PRB .
for that mater that it was sidelock or modern .
but again if you look at the max range of the 1853 Endfield , its over a mile .
same with the Tryon and Rifles as well as many others that are sidelock

as to how many footlbs it takes to kill a human .
if i hit you in the head with a hammer that produces less then 80 ftlbs , care to place a bet that it would most likly kill you ?

Captchee...

I don't disagree with you one bit in what you believe... because what you say is true, but I find it extremely difficult to believe it was a muzzle loader fired from a mile and a half away that killed the girl.

Regardless, it is sadly tragic...!

BTW... if you're gonna try to hit me in the head with a hammer, I hope you've got good body armor 'cause yer gonna be "wearin' " several rounds of .45 ACP hollow-points if you raise that hammer since I don't "cotton" to being hit in the head with a hammer.


Strength & Honor...

Ron T.

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.