Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Muzzleloaders Getting tired of this

up to and past 1000 yards . however remember these were not in hunting situation . the shots are also taken long distance ranges specifically designed for this type of shooting and at known distances, with spotters , wind flags and such . i ready earlier this spring where the record is now 2000 yards .

i hardly see long range matches as relating to hunting other then proper shot placment. .
an interesting note is that these shots were also taken with open sights

I dunno that match competition relates or not, but I'll take a moment to paste something from another site, posted by a knowledgable sort:


'Tis a cartridge gun, but there is nothing extraordinary about the load. It illustrates what is doable with BP and lead...note the BC... Note too, it is a 15# gun. Note entirely convenient for hunting but not impossible. Shot off the stix in competition Creedmoore Matches...sub MOA nuts, hot roasted...

It is entirely probable that a fella could borrow from the old "Slug Gun" designs and theory to make a front stuffer hunting rifle that would generate impressive long range performance...oh wait, it's already been done....

No, I don't think range is a litmus in comparing the two types of guns, modern and conventional as it were. Bullets...yep, there ya go...conicals do carry some advantage, and so do round balls in their way, though it's not of ballistic nature. I wonder if 1 out of 10 fellas out there shooting inlines is aware on any level at all what conventional ML guns are capable of? Not being snide with that...honest question. Rest assured I would NOT want a Whitworth gun plinking at me on the 1,000 yard line, and I don't recall they were intended only for match work. I seem to recall that Mr. Whitworth was trying to help the King dispatch revolutionaries or something like that.

ill see you that cartradge gun and raise you a traditional side lock Percussion muzzleloader . at 1/2 the distance






here is one im sure you will like 1000 yards to
still open sites



here is another set of targets from a flintlock at 100 yards . granted its only 100 yards but its also using a RB <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />





here is a good place to read up on long range muzzleloading


Muzzle Loaders Associations International Committee, 5th Long Range World Championships

Oh, I won't take that bet sir, not with odds! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Thanking you greatly for taking the time to post those pics....the prosecution rests! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

And not only that, you get to see how big a half dollar and siver dollar are. Aint seen that in a while...!

Regards, sse

Captchee

Still got that black & White Polaroid eh!??? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Got the ol' Zenith b & w console with the separate VHF-UHF clicker tuners too? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

lost my sony in my Tipi fire 2 weeks ago . sure hope that insurance comes through soon

here is another target from the killdeer flintlock rifle
" guys these are not my targets lol , i wish they were but they are not "

this target is with RB at 200yards with muzzle and elbow rest .
60 grains of 3F. drop of ball is stated to be 39 1/2 inches below POA. the target i believe is an 8 by 11 paper

these photos are from either Dillon�s "the Kentucky rifle� or the muzzleloading cap lock rifle by Ned Roberts .
both are very good books on the subject and show what soft barreled rifles can do

im sorry i was trying to edit my post yesterday when the site went down so here is the rest of the above post

======================================
While its true these photos show what traditional weapons can do . we must remember that the fellas that posted these targets worked hard get them . They took the time to learn the rifle . Took the time to learn what loads shot best . What patch , lube and powder combinations it took to get this accuracy.

IMO when compared on equal ground traditional weapons are far superior to the modern inline in most every way to include conical shooting if equipped with the correct barrel . However the shooter must have the dedication to learn the weapon .

also as I have said to Dan in PM . To many times those coming into this sport look at modern manufacturing hype. Often times these very same folks maybe had their first taste with a lesser quality traditional fraimed production rifle . They read the pamphlet that came with it and went out and shot . Yet they never really understood what was happening and the things they needed to do or for that mater the short coming of their given rifle . Thus they were not happy with the results .

There are just so many myths out , spread by many different folks for any number of reasons .
I personally have seen and been soundly whipped by smoothbore shooters who can hold their own very well even on paper out past 100 yards , Past 200 on clangers .
I will also tell you this . I have a flintlock Hershel rifle with an iron barrel and a slow RB twist . That rifle
� WILL� hold a pie plate group at 120 yards with a hollow based 436 grain conical using and elbow rest . I would bet that a better shooter then I could even tighten that up . None of the conical go through sideways or show signs of tumbling . Maybe it�s the rifling , or maybe the bullet ??. most likely a combination of the two , I don�t know. all I can tell you is it works and I use it for bull elk most all the time as it patterns more then acceptable for that size of game within that yardage .

I will also tell you flintlock ignitions are not slow but in fact IMO a person would be hard pressed to tell the difference in ignition between a cap and a flintlock that is properly maintained .
What about weather you say ? I have hunted in rain , snow and wind . When a person takes the time to learn their rifle and how to properly maintain it IMO the only ignition problem you will have has to be blamed on you the shooter not the weapon .
Hard to clean ? Also false .
don�t fall for a bag of cleaning patches and a bottle of cleaner . How long does it take to clean your center fire ? It should take no longer to clean a BP weapon then that . If it does , your doing it wrong . There simply is not other way to say it .
Simple take the barrel off . use the pantry sink or if you have a pinned long rifle get the proper bucket and hose set up . Run a dry patch and follow with a good gun lube . Its true BP is corrosive and if a weapon is not properly cleaned it will rust . However so will your center fires if they are left in the back of the closet for a year ,,,, or more

Now let me say this . Your not going to buy a rifle and open the box or for that mater have a custom one made and get fantastic results if you only take it out 1 or 2 times a year . If the only time that rifle see�s the light of day is the weekend before opening day , then your missing the whole point .
Not only are you missing the point of shooting a muzzleloader , but your missing the point of why the seasons are even available to you
Woooooo lol hope that�s readable lol anyway just had to get that off my chest LMAO

OK, captchee, I'll bite. For one of the great unwashed heathens who's not familiar with flintlocks, what would your recommendation be for a rifle? A good rifle, with a custom lock if need be. I'd want to shoot conicals for elk. But you know, my hawken with 1 in 48 always shot 410 grain Hornadys pretty well, what do you think of that twist? A good compromise? What about having two barels and switching? Sacriligeous? I backapck so I don't want one with a real long barrel.

I know why I can hunt in a muzzleloader season, Cap. We live in America. Our Constitution protects our right to own firearms. The laws of this nation, enacted by our elected representatives, allow me to carry a firearm into the field and hunt.

Hunting seasons are available to us because we understand our right to hunt must be balanced by our responsibility to serve as stewards of wildlife and habitat. This is why we spend our tax dollars on fish and games agencies... to ensure that our public policies reflect our values as a society that respects ethical hunting. Disagree as you wish, that's your right as well. The simple fact is that muzzleloader seasons and regulations vary from state to state because the electorate (including hunters) varies from state to state.

A firearm, modern or primitive, is just a tool. A master craftsman can do more with a simple wood chisel than an amateur can do with power equipment. The same is true for weapons. As I have stated elsewhere, I wager the weapon is less than 10 percent of the recipe for a successful hunt. As such, I don't understand why we, as hunters, spend so much time on the modern versus primitive debate.

Insofar as "range," my point is that black powder rifles are capable of great accuracy at extraordinary ranges. Sure, the "average" marksman doesn't have the same range with a muzzleloader as with a modern, scoped, centerfire rifle... but what are we really talking about? Look at the average range data for successful hunts. It is lower in the east than in the west which, along with robust whitetail popuations, that eastern fish and game agencies (and hunters) don't seem to care as much about the primitive/modern debate. If memory serves, the average range for successful whitetail kills in Maryland was in the 50 to 60 yard range... well below the effective range of any shootable muzzleloader even in the hands of a mediocre marksman. I'd guess the average ranges are higher in the west, but I hunted Montana for many years before relocating to Maryland (and I still elk hunt as a nonresident). I'd bet the backstraps off my next elk that the average range for a successful elk hunt (firearms) is under 120 yards.

I suspect the regulations against modern inlines are a victory of form over substance because I don't think modern muzzeloaders make a statistically significant difference in harvests. Of course, the right way to test this hypothesis is to test it in the field. The problem is that some primitive afficiandos don't want this sort of test. They simply want to keep the "special" seasons and increase restrictions or outright prohibit modern inline firearms. This tells me that some of the arguments coming from the primitive campfire are really a smokescreen for protecting special seasons.

Hamstead, couple of questions and a comment:

Hunting in the US has absolutely nothing to do with "rights". It is a priviledge. I grant that some states MAY have provisions making it a right in that state, but on a federal level it is not.

Would you mind if centerfire hunters joined you during the muzzle loader season, if so, why? If not, why have special seasons for different classes of arms/weapons?

Hampstead .
The constitution protects your right to bear arms . It does not protect your right to hunt in any way shape or form . The only people in this country that have specific rights to hunt are we American Indians and even that is subject to change .wording of individual treaties may very ." big understatment "

Smoke pole :
A good rifle ?
That would depend on what one was looking for as to weight caliber and projectile .
Production gun wise I would say the lyman GPR is one of the best in flintlock .
Now custom guns are a complete nother story ..
One thing IMO that holds true however is that for a flintlock a good lock is the most important part. don�t skimp there or you could be sorry .


I also don�t see anything wrong with interchangeable barrels or for that mater ignitions . A custom maker can build you a rifle that will easily switch from flint to percussion as well as swap barrels either for twist rates or for rifled to smooth bore ..
This avenue also allows different rifling designs for barrels . These also have an outcome on how a particular rifle will shoot different projectiles .


As to the old 1 in 48 twist debate .
How good a twist works is dependant on many things . rifling for sure but also proper fit of projectile .
Just because someone purchases a 50 cal does not mean the bore is .500.. I have seen barrels range from as much as + or - .010 within the same manufacture.
Same with depth of rifling. Yet its not uncommon to find folks shooting .490 or .495 RB.
For instance . I have a Colerain barrel on my De Chase that�s supposed t be 62 cal . Yet it is not . . If I try to load a .600 RB with a .015 patch you cant hammer the ball in . why because the bore is actually . 612

So I have a mould for a .595 RB and use the .015 patch .

I submit this . A slow twist will shoot a conical . maybe not optimally but it will shoot it and within a give distance be accurate . A fast twist will also shoot a RB . Again maybe not the best choice but given the right load both the slow and fast twist will work . the trick is finding that critical powder charge , projectile or prb size that it likes .

With the 1 in 48 this is somewhat easer as the twist is middle of the road . Still however as in sure you have found it will shoot some conical designs better then others .
The PRB is also much the same but takes some work on the powder side .

I think often this size difference is why folks have different experiences with a given twist .
Remember we are talking muzzleloading and in this sport there is no one size fits all even with modern designs

You want a light flintlock , traditionally framed rifle for elk . Id recommend either a NW trade gun with a rifled or smooth bore octagon to round barrel in 54 or better .
Even put rear sights on it if you like . Trade guns having no rear sight is also another miss leading so called fact . if you really get to looking you will find just as many with rear sights or that had rear sights as those that do not .
even a jaeger rifle with the above barrel or a swamped barrel profile .
As to twist ? That would depend on you choices of rifling and how often you shoot different projectiles

Well Hampstead, skill is 90% of the equation, but I guarantee you that if most people are shooting a scoped, smokeless powder/ smaller-than-bore-sized saboted 250 grain spitzer-shooting in-line, they will kill more deer or elk and at longer ranges than they would with a traditional rifle or an unscoped in-line for that matter.

Yes, iron sights can be shot accurately and I've even done it myself under controlled conditions but get out in the woods, shooting through brush, no rest, different angles, poor light, etc. and it's a whole lot more difficult to hit with irons than with a scope.

Your comparison of skilled hunters to unskilled hunters is apples/oranges. If you want to compare apples to apples and get a realistic handle on this, compare the average joe with traditional (or otherwise restricted) MLs vs. the average joe with a fully modern ML.

No comparison IMO.

And as far as testing your hypotheseis, how much do you think that would cost, in terms of my taxpayer dollars? Personally, I'd rather have my state agency set the regs with input from the citizens, and be done with it. Spend the money on habitat improvement or something more worthwhile.

Some people doubt that there would be too many bull elk killed if they set the general firearms season during the rut. But the DOW sets the general season after the rut because they believe too many bulls would be killed. I don't know if there is a statistical basis for either argument, but it's a pretty good educated guess by the DOW. I'm OK with that.

Thanks, Captchee, a lot to think about. Does the Lyman GPR allow you to switch barrels?

I'm thinking if I had to go with one barrel to start, I'd be shooting lead conicals in the 400-460 grain range. So my other question is, with all the good .50 caliber bullets in that range, why would you go with a .54?

Also, what do you think of the Lyman lock? Would you go with a different lock and if so, which one?

Sorry for all the questions.

Yes, hunting does have everything to do with rights. If you want a serious discussion about this, I suggest a new thread and to start by opening your Constitution to the 10th Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The government does not "grant" us rights; it recognizes the rights we possess and limits them only to the extent necessary to protect the public health and safety.

As to your next point, if centerfire hunters were in the field, it wouldn't be a "muzzleloading" seaon. I hunt elk in Montana as I draw tags. There is no muzzleloading season for elk, so no, I don't have any problem taking a centerfire rifle or muzzleloader into the field during the firearms season. One of the priorities for DNR is to maximize opportunities for hunters. I don't have any objection to youth hunts or areas for disabled hunters. Technologies like archery can work well, particularly in areas surrounded by dense residential development. To the extent we are successfully managing wildlife populations, I like the idea of a wide range opportunities for hunters to engage in fair chase. I think our continued right to hunt depends on a continued social acceptign of blood sports as legitimate. This is why I dislike the internecine bickering between hunting groups.

As stated before, I'm all for trying regulations and examining outcomes. I'm not sure allowing modern inlines has created a substantive difference in harvest rates, particularly in places where optics are prohibited. The rational argument for "special" seasons is that low efficency allows for longer seasons which means more days in the field for hunters (and more permit fees to use towards habitat). I think the most fair approach is the transparent one. Tell hunters what is happening and let us give the regulatory agencies feedback on regulations.

Well any barrel on any rifle is interchangeable this goes back to the modification debate .
I can and have converted many cartridge guns to muzzleloaders . In theory a person could take a muzzleloading barrel �if made from the proper steal� and make a breech loader from it . The real key is how much work one wants to do ?

I don�t know that the Lyman has an interchangeable barrel system . Production wise I don�t believe it does . After market wise if you gave a barrel manufacture the width across the flats , length of barrel , thread count and pitch of the breech plug one could most certainly be made to drop in ..

My base for the 54 is more on size and that I shoot mostly RB . The acceptations is bull elk . Where I hunt I want as heavy a projectile as I can get . As you know these boys when in the rut have tremendous straight. While I have killed more then a few with RB and it WILL do the job I just feel a little more comfortable with the heavy conical for added knock down .
Sometime a mater of them making it a few feet is the difference from packing it out with a knife and fork or actually getting the 1/4rs back to a cooler .

The lyman lock is IMO the best production weapon lock on the market . It sets correctly with the flash hole and the greatest majority that have came through my door spark well . TC also has a good lock now that they have fixed their geometry .

IF there is a short coming its the material they use to bridle the tumbler . Its very thin, not very solid and thus on some weapons allow the sear to slide past the fly causing the lock to catch on the half cock at times

Remember the lyman isn�t a light weapon . it�s a plains rifle and as such is heavy framed.
Another thing to remember is that just because a rifle is long , does not mean its heavy . A correct long rifle will balance very nicely when cradled . I have yet to see a production version of a long rifle in either flint or percussion that could not use a good diet �

No please don�t get me wrong here , im not trying to bad mouth production guns . There are some very good makers that build weapons that will give reasonable results .
TC and lyman however are the only two that I can think of that take little to no work to make consistent
With lyman having the best shape and weight for that design of them all .

Hampstead , i here what your saying .
however understand .
a right can not be taken away from you , well it can but its allot of work .
privileges can \very simply by even the lowest courts .

IE you brake the law while driving enough and no license .
Same with hunting , you brake the law and there is a good chance you will be suspended from hunting for a time period .If the offence is grave enough maybe for life .

Voting now is a right and as such can never be taken away no mater what you do

I'll take your response as not objecting to CF gunners being afield during 'Muzzle' season for sake of the discussion....why not simply have a longer "general" hunting season, thus allowing all to hunt equally regardless of choice of weapon?

We'll have to agree to disagree on the Constitutional interpretation....not thinkin' you'll get a hunting case before SCOTUS on that basis myself, but I've been wrong a few times in my life. Damn odd when that happens too.... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

many states are making hunting a right . however this is not to be confused with constitutional rights
Or fundamental right s

While the states are doing this to protect hunters from the attacks of the enviro groups the US supreme court I believed ruled back in the late 70�s that hunting was not a fundamental right that was covered under the US constitution or its articles. That while a state had the powder to declare hunting safe and a right under their constitutions , this did not mean a person could not be barred from the privilege or that non residence had that same rights as residents/citizens


Thomson Legal Record :
State Citizenship: Privileges and Immunities
Origin and Purpose :
Annotations p. 13

Baldwin v. Montana Fish & Game Comm., 436 U.S. 371 (1978).


The virtual demise, however, of the state ownership theory of animals and natural resources compelled the Court to review and revise its mode of analysis of state restrictions that distinguished between residents and nonresidents in respect to hunting and fishing and working with natural resources. A two-pronged test emerged. First, the Court held, it must be determined whether an activity in which a nonresident wishes to engage is within the protection of the clause. Such an activity must be ''fundamental,'' must, that is, be essential or basic, ''interference with which would frustrate the purposes of the formation of the Union, . . .'' Justice Washington's opinion on Circuit in Coryell afforded the Court the standard; while recognizing that the opinion relied on notions of natural rights, the Court thought he used the term ''fundamental'' in the modern sense as well. Such activities as the pursuit of common callings within the State, the ownership and disposition of privately held property within the State, and the access to the courts of the State, had been recognized in previous cases as fundamental and protected against unreasonable burdening; but sport and recreational hunting, the issue in the particular case, was not a fundamental activity. It had nothing to do with one's livelihood and implicated no other interest recognized as fundamental.

Second, finding a fundamental interest protected under the clause, in the particular case the right to pursue an occupation or common calling, the Court employed a two-pronged analysis to determine whether the State's distinction between residents and nonresidents was justified. Thus, the State was compelled to show that nonresidents constituted a peculiar source of the evil at which the statute was aimed and that the discrimination bore a substantial relationship to the particular ''evil'' they are said to represent, e.g., that it is ''closely tailored'' to meet the actual problem. An Alaska statute giving residents preference over nonresidents in hiring for work on the oil and gas pipelines within the State failed both elements of the test. No state justification for exclusion of new residents from the practice of law on grounds not applied to long-term residents has been approved by the Court.
Universal practice has also established a political exception to the clause to which the Court has given its approval. ''A State may, by rule uniform in its operation as to citizens of the several States, require residence within its limits for a given time before a citizen of another State who becomes a resident thereof shall exercise the right of suffrage or become eligible to office.''
===================================


now in an im not attorney . I don�t play one tv either lol
And I know at least one of the those posting on this topic can could state the opinion legally I take this to mean that hunting is not a fundamental right covered under the constitution .I also believe this has direct implications that states in and of themselves decide �not the federal government � has jurisdiction of the legality over what is aloud under their individual state constitutions.
Please correct me if im wrong in my interpretation.
I find this very interesting to say the least as I see this directly linked to the validity of a recent complaint that was filed with the DoI concerning discrimination