Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Muzzleloaders Pedersoli Co. drops support of Toby Bridges due to his extreme views on ML

Pedersoli Co. drops support of Toby Bridges due to his extreme views on Muzzleloading, other sponsors also reconsidering.

"In the past we allowed Mr. Bridges to test our traditional ML rifles as well as our in-line ML rifles and he had our cooperation and limited sponsorship. Due to the new path Mr. Bridges has taken , in which traditional muzzle loading rifles would no longer have their current exclusive hunting period and in which in-line rifles would hunt at the same time as the traditional rifles, we have withdrawn our former support and sponsorship of Toby Bridges.

The Davide Pedersoli company has advised Mr. Toby Bridges to remove our company name from any list of sponsors who support his lobbying efforts because even though we manufacture in-line muzzle loading rifles, we strongly support the use of traditional types of flintlock and percussion lock rifles during hunting periods assigned to muzzle loading rifles.
We always believed that the hunting with muzzleloading guns, both traditional and modern black powder in-line rifles, could co-exist, even if two different muzzleloading hunting seasons would be more required. Certainly we never thought they could get into conflict with each other.
We regret Toby Bridge's decision which surprised us, considering that in the past he took important positions, which we could share, but absolutely not his last one.
The use of traditional muzzleloading rifles for hunting has all the historical, political and rational reasons to continue and to expand and cannot be forced to die, as Toby Bridges warns and predicts (and is trying to make happen) nor can be the enthusiasm and will of people who are dedicated to this traditional sector be disregarded. On the contrary, the traditional muzzle loading guns contributed surely much more than the modern in-line muzzleloading guns have to the muzzle loading hunting being accepted in our states. Rather than trying to promote the in-line rifles and push aside the exclusive hunting season for traditional percussion or flintlock rifles we should all be working to strengthen the separation of hunting seasons for archers, traditional muzzle loading rifles, the powerful in-line rifles and of course the modern cartridge rifles.

The in-line rifles are closer to the modern high power cartridge rifles and we hope that all government officials involved with making or changing hunting rules will recognize the big difference in power and range which in-line rifles (which use conical bullets) have over the traditional antique or replica rifles which use round ball bullets. Both archery hunters and traditional muzzle loading rifle hunters accept the great challenge and limitation of their hunting weapons, the need to stalk the game and get very close in order to make a clean killing shot. For the in-line rifle and modern cartridge rifle hunters a much different challenge is presented and the mixing of traditional and in-line rifles in the field at the same time would be unacceptable to the vast majority of traditional muzzle loading rifle users.

I read the letter Toby Bridges published in his web site in which he explained he has been misunderstood. I acknowledge his effort, however this letter gives me the opportunity to contradict Toby about the in-line rifles being the natural modern evolution of the muzzleloading guns.
The real modern aspect was when many years ago some of the American states opened the hunting season to the muzzleloading guns. This was a modernity sign! What happened later with the introduction of the in-line rifles and the continuous improvements to reach high performances, such as the use of pelletized substitute powder, waterproof ignition systems or sabot bullets, etc. made the modern muzzloading guns get closer to the modern cartridge gun performance. I am convinced that most of the hunters using in-line rifles are only taking advantage of this enhanced performance in a dedicated muzzleloading hunting season. I am also convinced that if the muzzleloading hunting season becomes an "open hunting season", several of the users of the in-line rifles will drop their rifles to hunt only with the modern ones.
I have to say that I am fond of the hunt in all its aspects, I am a hunter with modern guns, with cartridge guns, with muzzleloading traditional guns and with in-line rifles.

Davide Pedersoli is not against the modern in-line rifle hunting, which we consider as an alternative and different activity from the one with traditional guns . Without doubt, hunting with traditional guns must be protected and sustained in the spirit of the rules approved in many of the American states because it gives the American sportsman a hunting challenge and emotional satisfaction which no other type of gun can give."

Pierangelo Pedersoli, President

Davide Pedersoli & C.
Via Artigiani 57
I-25063 Gardone Valtrompia (Brescia) Italy
ph.030 8915000 fax 030 8911019
www.davide-pedersoli.com

Dear Pierangelo,

It is with a sense of sadnesss and amazement that I read your ignorant comments about the AMERICAN muzzleloading experience.

It befuddles me how a so-called manufacturer could be so uniformed, ignorant, and wrong-headed to state that "inlines use conicals" and traditional rifles use "round balls."

It is this type of absurd statement that shows how out-of-touch your company is with the American marketplace. BOTH sidelocks and inlines use conicals; the conical in the form of the Minie ball (also attributed to WW Greener) was the projectile of choice in the first major armed conflict where aimed small arms fire resulted in the majority of casualties-- the AMERICAN CIVIL WAR.

Any person with a very small amount of experience knows that sidelocks and inlines can use saboted projectiles, and do. The very common 1:48 rate of twist in the majority of sidelocks offered today allow both conical and saboted projectile use. Where have you been? If you are unaware, flintlocks and percussion sidelocks have been available with 1:28 twist barrels for many years.

As for the comparison between inline muzzleloaders and "modern high power cartridge rifles," your ignorance of exterior ballistics also defies logic: look at the 10 mph wind drift of a 100 year old cartridge, the .30-06 Springfield, at 200 yards, and try to find ANY muzzleloader remotely in the same league. Of course, the old .30-06 in not the flattest shooting cartridge at all-- just the most common. How can a manufacturer be so irresponsible as to make this comparison?

The "mixing" of inlines and sidelocks in the field has LONG been how the MAJORITY of muzzleloading seasons in these United States ARE. Only Pennsylvania ALONE has a flintlock-only season.

You are completely out of touch with the majority of muzzleloading DNR's, seasons, and hunters in the United States. For an Italian company to dictate the way AMERICAN hunters prefer to hunt is unconscionable.

Your ignorance of our seasons, your ridiculous comparison of "modern high power cartridge rifles" and inline ignition muzzleloaders proves you have no concept of the reality of the way guns perform.

Now, you have me wondering why anyone in their right mind should celebrate a great AMERICAN tradition-- with Italian steel? I have no reason to think anyone should, particularly a company that clearly attacks the VAST majority of American muzzleloading sportsman, and has no understanding of most of our seasons-- like here in Illinois, where a "traditional" season has NEVER existed.

Sincerely,

Randy Wakeman

The controversy is not that anyone claims that no sidelocks are manufactured with a twist rate to shoot conicals, or that conicals were used historically in the US. It is that Toby is lobbying for a BAN on using the patched round ball for big game hunting.

Personally, although I am admittedly new to muzzleloading, I applaud Pedersoli's actions. I have too many friends who have reliably taken big game for many years with the patched round ball, used in proper calibers and at proper ranges on the proper game, and I would hate to see this traditional option taken away.

Mr. Wakeman, I intend absolutely no disrespect to you by this response.

Best Regards,
Liam
(who shoots a Lyman Deerstalker .54, using both conicals and PRBs)

Some people hunt with muzzleloaders because they "are" muzzleloaders. Some hunt with them because the can be "called" muzzleloaders. Some people like a walk in the woods. Some use an ATV. The woodland experience will not be the same. Truly, it cannot be.

Dan C

Like where? I could care less what anybody else shoots; why should anyone care?

Two words: "special seasons"

A ban on roundballs is not what I'm talking about here though, I think that's ridiculous. I don't use round balls because I don't believe they're as good as conicals for killing big game, but in the hands of someone who likes the challenge of getting closer or just likes the traditional aspect I say, more power to you.

What I'm talking about is this: when muzzleloaders get to the point where they're scoped, using smokeless powder, and using smaller than bore-sized saboted bullets, a line has been crossed. All of those things add up to a huge increase in the effective range (for the average hunter) of a weapon that started out as "primitive."

Special seasons like the one in Colorado were originated to give additional hunting opportunities to hunters using a weapon that put them at a disadvantage compared to modern rifles. We get to hunt during mid-September, during the archery season and during the beginning of the rut for elk. And the reason we're allowed to do this is because the effective range of the rifles is limited for the average hunter. Colorado does this by banning scopes, sabots, pellets, and smokeless powder. It's not perfect, but it does honor the original intent of the special early muzzleloader season by limiting the effective range and keeping the ML hunter at a disadvantage. Take away that disadvantage and there's no justification for a special season, especially one during the rut.

I don't care if someone wants to shoot an ML with smokeless, sabots, and a scope. I just think their proper place is in the general firearms season. Or in places where there are too many deer and they need to be thinned.

That happened over 20 years ago. Where is the "news"?

A scope does not enhance trajectory-- that's nonsense. Of course, a cotton patch has the same function as a sabot, and is used for "smaller than bore sized" projectiles.

Who do you think gets to "draw a line" for the United States? A gunmaker in Italy? A shooting range in Indiana? You? Me?

Ridiculous. Citizens should. DNR's exist to serve citizens, not the other way around.

One does not take a step back in time, in order to achieve the technological advances the pioneers would have desired, given the chance. I personally don't care all that much. But I tend to know when an argument has the sound of a heavy door firmly closing, and one that blows with the wind.

Most of us know that all the advertising hype of the inline manufacturers is on the far end of totally credible. At the same time, most of us know that the surge in the popularity of the inline system is based largely on those advertising claims and the inexperience of those who gravitated to muzzleloading for the additional hunting opportunities.

The entire aim of the inline manufacturers was to create a weapon that loaded from the muzzle, whose performance could be brought as closely as possible to that of a single shot centerfire weapon. The bar will continue to be raised, and in fact at this time, many of the inline weapon systems have exceeded the "one-shot" performance of some of the better slug guns. If I were hunting in shotgun/slug areas and felt comfortable with a muzzleloader, an inline would be my choice over a pump or bolt action shotgun/slug combo.

As it is, I use a Contender .45-70!

It's an interesting argument, but one that shows little imagination on the part of those who merely want to maximize their time in the woods, rather than optimize their hunting experiences.

Dan

Who said a scope enhances trajectory? I sure didn't, what are you talking about? But I will say this--a scope sure as hell allows most people to shoot a lot more accurately at long ranges. To say otherwise, now that's nonsense. A scope, a sabot, and smokeless powder all increase the effective range of the average hunter, allowing the modern muzzleloader to "have his cake and eat it too." In other words, to hunt in the special early seasons with a rifle that can kill cleanly at 200 yards.

And you know what else is nonsense? Comparing a cotton patch to a sabot and comparing a modern saboted muzzleloader bullet to a round ball, now that's nonsense. If that comparison was valid, everyone who shoots sabots could just switch to a patched round ball and get the same performance. What a crock.

You ask where's the news and say all this took place 20 years ago? Now that's nonsense too. What happened 20 years ago was the popularization of the in-line by Knight. So far so good because everyone knows that the in-line action itself gives no ballistic advantage, that's been pretty well proven.

Was the muzzleloader that uses smokeless powder developed 20 years ago? I don't think so, but you would know that better than I would, what was the date? It wasn't 20 years ago, now was it? What about the popularization of muzzleloaders that are built to shoot "magnum" charges of 150 grains of powder (which by the way in practical terms are only really useful for flatter trajectories at long ranges) ? Was that 20 years ago too? Twenty years ago, was everybody new to muzzleloader hunting shooting saboted bullets and using scopes? Not where I hunted. Barnes didn't make ML bullets back then and the best rounds for sabots were just pistol bullets, not even close to the BC of the specialized ML sabot rounds available today.

So that's what's new, in case you missed it.

Who gets to draw the line? I agree, it's citizens. And every time I read someone's opinion about how the Colorado DOW is "backward" for its restrictions on muzzleloaders, it's always from a citizen--of another state. They don't count.

Sometimes these opinions are also from people "in the business" who are promoting and have a financial interest in marketing these new products.

Sometimes, these people even post on this forum.

Pedersoli is WAY-OUT-OF-TOUCH-with the American ML-Buying public. Their reference to the integration of inlines & conical-bonding is a perfect example showing this Italian ML company has no clue what the American consumer wants - or is using these days.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with Toby's stance that's asking for the lifting of discriminatory practices that many state wildlife governing bodies currently practices. These states fail to match their traditional-only ML hunting season with a Modern ML-only hunting season.

Why should only one style of ML or component be allowed -- yet the other be entirely shunned? Separating seasons is fine with me. But states like Pennsylvania should have a ML season that prohibts traditional flintlocks. Colorado should have a season that prohibits #11 caps and conicals. Now that would erase the present discriminatory practice in Pennsylvania & Colorado.... just to name two states out of several who are not serving it's ML-purchaser requests fairly,

A poster on another board commented that he feels the games laws which effect each state should be determined by that state. Well..... all 50 Wildlife/DNR governing bodies EXIST TO SERVE IT'S CITIZENS.... so let the American ML hunter decide -- not the other way around!

If a governmental hunting body is going to stay the present course and not show equal rights to what a vast number of ML purchasers in the past decade are buying - in terms of modern components/accessories -then choose to discriminate against such, well that's an indication that the Wildlife/DNR governmental bodies are NOT SERVING IT'S ML-BUYING CITIZENS with a fair shake. Forcing it's citizens to only purchase traditional MLs is like telling their citizens that color TVs will no longer be allowed -- everyone must buy a black & white.

BTW..... Toby Bridges NEVER STATED he wanted a ban on roundball/patch hunting involving what more than 95% of us hunt on this messageboard.... deer or smaller-sized game.

Well I shoot my smokeless sabot slinger here in NC and have fun doing so,,,,it is a week in the woods with far fewer people than gun season. I say let CO decide for themselves, same for us in NC. The vocal minority decides what the seasons are anyway, if you care and raise more fuss than the other side you will be listened to,,,,,my beef with NC hunting regulations??? no Sunday hunting,,,but that�s another beef. Toby seems to always be in the middle of a controversy,,,blows up a savage and goes from they are the best thing since sliced bread to they are killing machines that are to dangerous to consider and now this....he selling books or something.

No, it was some 120 years ago when muzzleloaders, blackpowder cartridges, and shotguns ALL began using a propellant designed to be a better sub for blackpowder.

That included "King's Semi-Smokeless," "Lesmoke," and quickly developed from the monopoly of DuPont-- from which Hercules, Goex, and IMR were all formed.

They count well enough to soak them year after year with nosebleed tag prices. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" /> All depends who might be doing the counting. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

Are you serious? This is from Savage's website describing their ML10, and it's quoted verbatim:

"Call it innovation...call it thinking out of the box...at Savage, we call it listening to the needs of the hunter. That's why we developed the world's first smokeless powder muzzleloader."

So, are the folks at Savage all wet?

I can't buy this. State game agencies place all kinds of restrictions on weaponry, and it's not discrimination, it's regulation. Game agencies aren't only charged with representing their citizens, they're charged with protecting a resource, and if you take a state like Colorado it's a resource that has a lot of pressure on it from hunters all over the country. Don't even begin to try and make some kind of argument that you know better than the Colorado DOW how to best protect the resource while also maximizing the opportunity for hunters.

By your logic, if I want to use a crossbow (illegal during the archery season in Colorado) during the archery season, the state needs to set aside a special season for me so I'm not discriminated against. I look at it differently--If I want to hunt during archery season I won't whine about discrimination, but I will get a bow that's legal in Colorado.

Anybody here ever talked to the Colorado DOW about their Muzzleloader regulations and how they came to be? I have.

The special early seasons were developed to provide expanded recreational opportunities for hunters using weapons that put them at a disadvantage compared to modern rifles. The DOW solicited and received a lot of input from hunters when they developed the regs, and they arrived at a compromise wherein in-lines were allowed (to maximize hunter opportunities) but scopes, sabots, and smokeless powder were judged to tip the scales too far to the advantage of the hunter, given the fact that the special ML seasons are during the elk rut, which is a huge advantage for hunters. Hunters with centerfire rifles can't generally hunt during the rut, by the way. So scopes, sabots, and smokeless were banned.

There's no discrimination, and there's no "only one style of ML or component being allowed -- yet the other is entirely shunned." You can use your in-line in Colorado, just leave the scope, sabots, and smokeless powder at home in accordance with our regulations. And if you want to hunt with your scoped, smokeless powder, sabot-shooting rifle, you can do that too--during the general firearms season.

And if you don't like those regulations, there are plenty of other places to hunt so no one is denying a "right" or discriminating here.

If I wanted to hunt in Pennsylvania, I'd respect their regulations and get a flint lock, not whine about being discriminated against.

It's called supply and demand--if you don't like the prices, don't hunt here. BTW, I believe the prices are about in the middle of the pack, compared to other western states.

wow been a long time since i was here .
haa T7 roundball, smakepole how are you fellas

wakeman you know, you and i dont exactly see eye to eye on must everything and i stand behind your right 100% to have your say . but for a person representing a major manufacture ?
Man that�s some of the poorest writing , are you representing savage with those remarks ?
Do I have to remind you Pedersoli and their name have a lot more experience in muzzleloading then you have gotten from the net ?
Get ahold of yourself .

Now take a trip over to toby�s site and look at the projectiles he is profiling ,
Take a look at the distances and then read his hunting stories where one of the bullet manufactures writes about taking a 300+ range shot and that his bullet still would achieve 1260fps at that distance .
I qoute :
The elk lurched to its feet at 1:15, right on schedule. He stood 220 yards away. facing in the other direction. My quartering shot entered just behind the bull's left shoulder, broke the shoulder, then exited out the front of the same shoulder. The animal immediately dropped fron sight. I knew the shoulder was broken, and that the bull wouldn't go far if it wasn't pressed. "Let's give it an hour and give him a chance to stiffen up," Terrance suggested. When the time was up, Terrance circled wide behind where we'd last seen the elk, then began moving back towards me.When I saw the bull again, he was running in and out of the trees at the edge of a long slide. He stopped 20 yards beyond a pair of shed antlers I'd lasered at 320 yards. There, he stood broadside long enough for me to shoot again. Taking the 45-degree slope into account, I held a few inches below the bull's spine and squeezed the trigger. The bullet struck 6 inches below point of aim - a center hit. Remaining velocity at that distance would have been 1,260 fps.



Now either he isn�t telling the truth , you aren�t ?
Pedersoli my take is that a designer , manufacture and long time company dealing with muzzleloading weapons has some idea of just what they are talking about

See the problem doesn�t lye with having scopes . The problem is states like Idaho that have muzzleloaders in a short range classification, you add scopes and the likes of bullets advertised on TB�s site and you no longer have any more of a short range weapon then a 30.06 or a 270 .IMO
TB isn�t pushing this subject because he cares about the general hunting public be that traditional or modern . He is pushing because he has a stake in this fight .

He also doesn�t tell you the whole story . for instance that Idaho will alow you to use a scope in muzzleloading , even a crossbow in archery . All you have to do is get a medical waver from any doctor .
Not only will your license be cheaper as a handycap hunter but it opens a whole new set of laws and tags .

Any way basicly I wanted to say when I heard of your reply here .
Kooodoos to Pedersoli for standing up and saying what many modern and traditional shooters have been saying all along
And randy , while I always see a slant to your words and frankly take everything for the money that�s behind it .
i never exspected to read writing like that above with your name on it .
tell me someone else wrote it and forged your name

When a company like Pedersoli issues a letter that states America shoots conicals with it's fast twist MLs, that tells me this company is clueless about what's going on inside America's hunting grounds, gun ranges and state-by-state ML regulations.

Toby's views are not extreme -- they are way-overdue. Forcing Pennsylvanians to buy primitive MLs year-after-year is ridiculous. Forcing Coloradians to shoot expensive Powerbelts or low B.C. blunt nose conicals in vast open lands with no scope on their Omegas & Encores is proposterous.

and there in is the real issue , not discrimination but regulating modern weapons so as to keep them inside a give set of bounds .
without the scope the average shooter cannot take advantage of the greater distances without being declared unethical




T7 he is a goof you know , i know , savage knows it ,as does most everyone else when they really think about it .
support him if you like , i dont have a problem with that. however before you take what he says as fact , call the game commission in any of the states he listed . ask them specifically about this so called discrimination charges and how much weight it carries , how the process actually works . If you don�t believe them . Call the state attorney general , ask them .

If you take so much of TB�s statements for gospel then realize. he also strictly promotes conical in modern weapons and By not allowing those conical and scopes into muzzleloading seasons you are the handycapping his chosen weapons system

Quote
rest assured that there is presently considerable wound loss, especially by those traditional muzzleloading hunters who still go out poking holes in game as large as elk with patched round ball hunting projectiles. Have you ever stopped to consider that no .50 caliber rifle loaded with a patched round ball is still capable of delivering that ball with 700 foot-pounds of energy at just 75 yards...even if loaded with 140 grains of FFFg black powder???

So let me get this strait ?
Traditional muzzleloader ??? I don�t see the words traditional and modern muzzleloaders ?,,, wait let me check again ???? No it specifically states �especially by those traditional muzzleloading hunters �

Now also if you like I can post a personal e-mail
Where he states his plans of removing RB from legality and teach us traditional shooters a lesson. Of course ill have to take some foul language out first .
i think i would also make refrence of all the other weapons that also do not meet that standard that would also go by the way side IE pistols and many very popular deer size game rifles .

So now I can fully understand were someone would get the opinion about the two different system shooting diffrent round as thats easy to get just from TB himself .

If you applied simple reasoning you have to hold the same opinion of bridges .
But haaa that�s just me
I have always been square with you and treated most everyone with equal respect . But im here to tell you Idaho also has a traditional only season
We also have areas open to general muzzleloading and others that during the general muzzleloading season are classified as traditional only areas .

Wakeman left that part out with his Pennsylvania has the only traditional season in the country ,,, well he is sadly wrong on that point .
I also don�t see where bridges states anything to the fact on is writings either .

Please feel free to contact the Idaho fish and game . If you would like ill even give you contacts to the commissioners themselves . Ask them then make your own decisions about what�s true and factual .
don�t listen to smoke , don�t make snap decisions , look at all sides get the facts of whats going on .
Then and only then will you see the money that�s pushing the poo poo platter in front of you

i say open things up give into the scopes but only if 2 things happen
1) modern weapons are delegated to the general any weapons season and removed from short range definitions
2) get rid of all muzzleloading season , completely . extend the general season so as to give modern hunters a few more day .
i bet you though the modern muzzleloading manufactures would also be dead set against that
lol

The "cut and paste" that started this thread was obvious an attempt to start more meaningless froth. There is no link, just a cut and paste of bad information. It has worked.

What is false on its face is that "inlines use conicals" and traditional rifles use "round balls." A new premise, and an easily disprovable one. The comparision of inlines to centerfires is likewise absurd, and easily disprovable. Pedersoli's display of ignorance is remarkable. As for their internal problems, they'd be better off fixing the defective Denali's they've sold rather than foisting their myopic dogma in the form of a meaningless "press release" that says nothing.

As for the rest, it is not relevant until Americans need muzzleloading tips from Italian manufacturers. What one like or dislikes is personal choice. The analogy is the noise from bowhunting all over again.

Anyone who things that all Omega or Encore hunters are bad hunters, poor sportsman, etc., are bigots or worse.

Same for the casual dismal of Knight fans, Savage fans, H & R fans, White fans. Same for automatic characterizations of "center fire hunters" as all being evil, incompetent, or just nasty people. Mere ownership of equipment indicates nothing-- does anyone believe a more expensive car makes you a better driver?

If a hunter is hunting legally, to criticize that hunter due to his or her personal equipment choice regardless of what it is is irrational, and worthy of great disdain.

As for the rest, I know of no reputable manufacturer that says anything other than than please know your firearm, be safe, respect the outdoors and your fellow hunters, and obey all state and local regulations.

It seems Pedersoli may be the first to display their ignorance so clearly. How they might sponsor or not is their problem. Why would anyone care if they change their marketing? Do sponsorships and ads mean anything to an an individual's hunt?

It is hardly the milk of human kindness to attack fellow hunters, legal hunters-- when everyone knows there are those that would prohibit hunting altogether and firearm ownership altogether.