# Modern Vs. 1850 Bullet Rifle test: Interesting Article



## NDTerminator

Saw this article on the North American Muzzleloader Hunters website. It is an accuracy test at 220 yards shooting a Knight Long Range Hunter against a historically accurate 1850's bullet rifle and period scope.

Very interesting read...

http://www.hpmuzzleloading.com/EditorsView2.html


----------



## Plainsman

He closely reflects my thoughts. I have always guessed that the only reason people complain about modern muzzleloaders is because they want the resource to themselves. It's much like the crossbow. In the hands of an experienced archer there is no advantage to the crossbow. The only advantage is for the novice who can become proficient faster with it than a compound or traditional bow. The big scare for us archers is the crossbow might get a few more hundred people into the field, and one of them might shoot the deer we are after.

I have put my Thompson Center System 1 up against my Thompson Center Hawken off the bench, and on calm days the round ball will group as well at 100 yards as the inline with a sabot. Push it to 200 yards and I would have to put a conical in the Hawken. I have shot my Cherokee 45 caliber with a conical to 200 yards and it keeps everything in a gallon paint can. Now I know a gallon paint can isn't a sophisticated target, but all bullets in it made me happy.

It's kind of interesting isn't it. We keep hearing take a kid hunting on one hand, and on the other hand they scheme to keep people out of the field. Don't worry pay hunting will eliminate 75% of our hunters in the next 20 years. Teach a kid shuffle board.


----------



## barebackjack

That article or "viewpoint" is pretty old, I read it a while back. As soon as I saw who wrote it I closed the window.

I would take EVERYTHING ole Toby writes with several grains (or pounds) of salt. Hes flip-flopped his views numerous times in the past several years (depending on his sponsor list) that ive been following him. I used to read him just to get riled up, now I dont bother.


----------



## Plainsman

> I didnt read it. As soon as I saw who wrote it I closed the window.


bareback, isn't that equivalent to closing your mind?????? I would guess you closed it because it didn't agree with you. Why do you want to restrict muzzleloaders, or scopes, or any of the things you don't like? I'm not trying to be a smart aleck, I am just the curious sort. I would also like to know if you own an inline, or how many rounds have you run through one. What I am getting at is your dislike of some of these things through experience or what you have heard others say.

Have you ever made the comparison between traditional and modern inline? I have. How many others on here have? I would like to hear from them. I think it is much to do about nothing.

Don't get me wrong, I am happy with the equipment I have. Heck I would be happy with a flintlock only, but that would reduce our numbers in the state and make us vulnerable to other restrictions we don't like.


----------



## barebackjack

NDTerminator said:


> It is an accuracy test at 220 yards shooting a Knight Long Range Hunter against a historically accurate 1850's bullet rifle and period scope.
> 
> Very interesting read...
> 
> http://www.hpmuzzleloading.com/EditorsView2.html


Im willing to bet that scope he used it FAR nicer than any scope that would have been available at that time. Most likely nitrogen filled, and probably much much nicer optical quality. Just my .02.


----------



## barebackjack

Plainsman said:


> I didnt read it. As soon as I saw who wrote it I closed the window.
> 
> 
> 
> bareback, isn't that equivalent to closing your mind?????? I would guess you closed it because it didn't agree with you. Why do you want to restrict muzzleloaders, or scopes, or any of the things you don't like? I'm not trying to be a smart aleck, I am just the curious sort. I would also like to know if you own an inline, or how many rounds have you run through one. What I am getting at is your dislike of some of these things through experience or what you have heard others say.
> 
> Have you ever made the comparison between traditional and modern inline? I have. How many others on here have? I would like to hear from them. I think it is much to do about nothing.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I am happy with the equipment I have. Heck I would be happy with a flintlock only, but that would reduce our numbers in the state and make us vulnerable to other restrictions we don't like.
Click to expand...

I personaly do not like inlines. My guff is not with inlines, it is with putting powered scopes on them, putting electronic ignition systems in them, etc. We already have a season for weapons capable of accurate 200 yard + shots, its called the regular rifle season. You want to use a scope, use it there.

Yes, if it were up to me, inlines wouldnt be allowed in MLer season, but I also realize their here to stay, ive squared with that, no argument from me on inlines. And yes, I have shot inlines many times. IMO the only advantage to a IRON SIGHTED inline, is increased weather resistance, lets face it, no matter what you stuff in it, without a scope, its a 100 yard or less gun plain and simple. But you put some powered optics on them, and you change the ball game completely. I think thats what this big scope push is for. MOST guys are royally po'd that they have a weapon with the ballistics to do the job at longer ranges, but the sighting system thats currently allowed isnt condusive to those longer ranges. Well boo fricken hoo, its called hunting for a reason, if you want to shoot, go to the range.

I edited my post after looking at the article again, I did read it some time ago, its not a new article. In fact, it was one of the first articles by this "expert" :roll: I ever read. He also has one praising his abilities after taking whitetails at 200+ yards with a scoped MLer. Hes a sponsor whore. WhenI first started reading him he literally hated traditional guys (and he was very mean about it) and took every opportunity to bash them into the stoneage, but at least he stuck to it, now he's all "weve got to stick together, blah blah.....he just flip-flops to much, on his stances, his equipment choices (sponsors), etc.


----------



## Plainsman

> Hes a sponsor whore.


OOOOOH, I hate those guys. Seriously, I wasn't being facetious . I waited a long time to get the hunting channels on cable, and now I can't stand to watch them. They nearly always hunt with some outfitter, and push certain products. Some of the products aren't worth wiping your behind with. Many of the outfitters you would like to. 

I agree with you on some aspects bareback, I just think we should only limit when it surpasses the ability of products produced in the 1800's. I suppose idiots exist that will try shoot a deer as far as they can see them with a nine power scope, but those same idiots will shoot beyond their capability if you give them a Chinese hand canon.

Bareback, our old Hawken type rifles can be very waterproof with the correct use of a little beeswax. I like to drip it onto foil then after cooling cut out the pieces and put in a little bag. When you need to keep things dry peal a drop off the foil and wrap it around your cap.

The thing I like about the inline is if it gets wet and I don't get it clean right away it doesn't rust (if it's stainless). I don't see that as making any hunting difference between the two. As a matte of fact, I am going to try a round ball in mine. I haven't done that yet. I like round balls, but I like stainless. If I can get good accuracy with 70 to 80 gr of Pyrodex that't probably what I will hunt with next time I get a license. Unless I can find an OK flint lock for $500 to $600.

Bareback, why don't you like the inline? Is it just the looks? You don't have to own one, but why do you object to someone else having one?


----------



## barebackjack

Plainsman said:


> Bareback, why don't you like the inline? Is it just the looks? You don't have to own one, but why do you object to someone else having one?


Like I said, my main guff is not with inlines, rather it is with putting powered scopes on them.
Just personal opinion really. I like the added challenges of the traditional side, and inlines do make the endeavor easier, with their little added features. 209 primers offer more fire for ignition, they are very weatherproof right out of the box. Yes, a traditional gun can be made quite weatherproof with proper precautions, but again, one needs to take these precautions in inclement conditions, and yes, traditional guns can be very reliable firing, but it takes attention to detail. If traditional weapons were as "fail safe" as inlines, why were inlines invented? The answer is traditional weapons are not as realiable as an inline, although very reliable if done right. This, to me adds to the experience. And I know their here to stay, but there really does need to a "line in the sand" if you will. Allowing more and more technology that makes it easier, more effective (ie longer ranges) defeats the purpose of a seperate season. Where does one draw the line? For me, its absolutly at powered scopes. In my mind, if we allow them, we may as well just fold the 2,000 some odd MLer tags into the regular rifle season, let everybody have a crack at them, and do away with the stand alone season completely.

Inlines, im ok with someone else using them, their not for me. Powered scopes, absolutly no, not in a stand alone season anyway.


----------



## Plainsman

Bareback, we talked about this in PM's, but I want to throw it out there for everyone else also.

I suppose there will come a time where we have to draw limits. If the muzzleloader technology continues they will one day be 400 yard rifles. So how do we limit it? It would be nice to limit it before the genie is out of the bottle. Many people invest a lot in their only muzzleloader and can't afford another one.

What makes these rifles 300 yard rifles (if there are any). Not the scope, that only lets you see where your shooting. Not the powder, not the stainless steel, not the ignition system, but the projectiles. If someday it becomes necessary to limit something, then it makes sense to limit the projectile. There will always be idiots that try shoot a deer with a roundball at 300 yards, but you can't legislate intelligence. No matter what, those idiots are with us to the end. Limits or not.

Anyone have a smoothbore 62.5 flintlock they would like to trade for a real nice inline?


----------



## rogerw

barebackjack said:


> Im willing to bet that scope he used it FAR nicer than any scope that would have been available at that time. Most likely nitrogen filled, and probably much much nicer optical quality. Just my .02.


I am with you BareBack. I was at the Austin Public Library today and spent some time researching what I could find on antique scopes. I have not found all the books I need to look at yet, but what I found corroborates the view that in the 1840s and going into the 1850s not only were scopes not nitrogen filled (that was in 1949 when Leupold fielded the first such product) but they were fixed focus at 220yds. The reason was that these were target scopes for target guns (what we would call benchrest guns today, 12-25lb) and the target was typically at 40rods = 220yds. What is more, the earliest scopes were either focused for a typical eye, or custom focused for the owner's eye. They were also very fragile as compared to any scope today in terms of keeping zero. They were NOT very field-tested yet, nor field-capable yet.

I am not sure when focusing scopes are developed, but I think it is just before 1860 (according to a couple sources), in time for the War Between the States (WBtS). However, most sniper's rifles were iron sighted though some had scopes. But this is the very eve of the beginning widespred use of the cartridge as well.....the end of the muzzleloading period.

There is no question that rifle scopes were invented and exist at about 1840, and became very popular on target (benchrest) guns. Whether that means they were commony used hunting at all is unproven, IMHO.

WRT Toby's rifle, he refers to it as a replica of a 1850s rifle but I wonder if it is actually a replica of a real gun, or a replica of one which "could have existed." There is a big difference when it comes to the conclusions that Toby would like to draw.

None of this should be construed as opposition to scopes on inlines today. It should be construed as questions surrounding Tony's research behind his claims. I would love to see these claims substantiated.

BTW, I also have a .45 (picket-ball) bullet gun that is roughly styled after a WBtS sniper's rifle. I have a book on WBtS weapons and it pictures the actual rifle I modeled it on. I had the barrel made to my specs on the WEst Coast and had the gun built with components I chose in Round Rock Texas. It was built by Lee Gaydos, and I have grouped into 3"x6" with a 20mph crosswind at 200yds with it in 1995, last time I fired the gun. It has tang peep and globe front sight, just like the original does in the picture. Since it is a B&W, I cannot tell if he is a Johnny Reb or a Federal.

YHS,
rogerw


----------



## Burly1

Having little to no experience with muzzleloading, my comments don't carry much weight, but.....
I believe the original reason for a muzzleloader season was to allow a select group of sportsmen to use their traditional firearms in a manner and time of year that would allow them to harken back to the old times. I still recall, fondly, my first exposure to a muzzleloading traditionalist. I watched, from a couple hundred yards, as he, clad in a trade blanket coat, buckskin pants and moccasins, carrying a Hawken replica, stalked through tree plantings, hunting rabbits on a cold December day, thirty-odd years ago. That, in my opinion, is the person that should be entitled to a special muzzleloading season.
Inlines and scoped rifles are the response of manufacturers, who, when seeing an additional opportunity, rose to the occasion with technology and marketing. Americans have bought into their efforts BIGTIME! The ultimate bastardization, that I have seen, was the sports TV goober who was shooting an inline that was built and rated to use smokeless powder. He took antelope, legally, in an unrestricted season, at two hundred sixty yards. Do we need a seperate season for this kind of firearm?
I don't see inlines as taking anything away from a person who wants to be a traditionalist. If you buy into the thought that we ALL must stick together as hunters, no matter the methodology, (I do not), then there is no apparent problem in sharing the field and a season with dissimilar weapons.
If there was a goal to keep the muzzleloader season traditional, it has been overtaken by time. It's far too late to do anything now. Too many sportsmen have taken the sport to heart, purchased gear, etc....
The only thing I might suggest, for you who really love the traditional style, to stick with it! Reject the new technology and show yourselves as an example to those who have been overcome by the endless TV and magazine ads that pimp the latest and greatest. 
As an archer, I have seen more than one techno-lover turn to the recurve and longbow. That kind of realization comes slowly, if at all. But, sometimes it does come, and another convert to the older, simpler, more satisfying way of spending time afield, is made. 
Burl


----------



## Plainsman

I sure liked those last posts. A lot of interesting information Roger, thanks. You guys have me wanting a flintlock real bad.

Burl, huntin1 and I have shot squirrel with nothing but round ball and 50 gr of powder for years. Nothing much more fun that sleeping against a big old trunk, with your Hawken across your lap, on a warm afternoon with most of the leaves gone. Of course we have done it in knee deep snow to and thought it was fun. We twernt as old back then though.

I am happy with my current one power scope. However, I wouldn't mind a little more magnification for some of those guys who are having a tough time seeing. Maybe 2.5 power. I can't see where anyone would need more than 2.5 power. I have killed prairie dogs to 400 yards and further with little more power than that. Hmmmmmm, I was a tish younger then.


----------



## rogerw

Plainsman said:


> I suppose there will come a time where we have to draw limits. If the muzzleloader technology continues they will one day be 400 yard rifles. So how do we limit it? It would be nice to limit it before the genie is out of the bottle.


I believe you are correct in this prediction. Today, they are demonstrably 250yd guns as Toby Bridges and Randy Wakeman online article demonstrate.

I believe that it is fairly obvious that Burly is right about the orginal motivations for muzzleloading seasons. In the library today, I looked at a early Toby Bridges book and he was extolling the virtues of shooting the old guns (or replicas) and "running thru the woods in animal skins," something he mocks today.

On the other hand, I believe the genie is out of the bottle. I see no reason to question the 90%/10% claims of who shoots what.

Plainsman, IMHO the technical answer to your question is this: all of the elements of a centerfire technology incorporated into a ML inline move the performance closer to a centerfire cartridge gun:

1) enclosed primer instead of percussion cap on a nippe....this is the critical piece of centerfire technology that allows much higher breech pressures (than older percussion guns) in an otherwise suitably strong design, even enabling use of smokeless.

What higher breech pressures will do is allow smaller caliber bullets (without sabots) to be fired nearer and nearer to normal smokeless centerfire velocities. (all the brass does is serve as a gasket to a breechloader. Replace it with lots of steel and retain the primer...very strong breech.)

2) smaller caliber, larger BC bullets carry more energy further and have less wind drift, and are generally more accurate at distance for same reasons.

3) telescopic sights allow the improvements above to be taken advantage of at distance. The fact that the average shooter does not practice enough, or that the average deer is shot at less than 100yds are facts that are just as true for centerfire cartridge guns as for centerfire muzzleloaders. It does not change the fact that the performance of one is chasing the performance of the other.

Doc White himself in interview at Randy Wakeman's site predicted many of the things above; he says he was merely predicting that MLs would follow centerfire technology.

Only the brass is missing anymore, but the mantra "If it loads from the muzzle, it is a muzzleloader" remains.

If you wanted to limit the performance, I would suggest an inline that uses only ignition technology available in the 1850s or earlier - percussion/flint/match etc. This would limit breech pressures to what could be done at that time, no matter what changes in powder, bullets, or scopes are made.

That would mean no 209 primers. But I do not suggest that this can be done (or even should be done)....the Genie is out of the Bottle and the vast majority of muzzleloader hunters today do not care for any limits. Far too many have economic stakes (the manufactureres and their voices, the writers; and the 90% hunters).

YHS,
rogerw


----------



## Plainsman

I only use percussion caps in my inline. I don't like messing with the 209 primers, and the musket caps are clumsy too. The breech isn't closed on my Thompson Center System one either. I wish it was, it makes a mess out of my scope. I'll have to make some sort of boot to go between the cap and scope.

I think the biggest limit to muzzleloader now is two thins. I mentioned the projectile before, but here in North Dakota and most states they must use black powder, or black powder substitutes. None of these can come close to smokeless powder. We should limit that now and that will be a major step to keep the genie in the bottle. Also, although I have an inline my rifle shoots maxi balls very accurately. Many states do not allow sabots, and it would make more sense to eliminate them than scopes. We limit scopes to one power now, it would be easy to limit them to two power.

I was serious when I asked if anyone wanted to trade a nice inline for a flintlock.


----------



## rogerw

Plainsman said:


> You guys have me wanting a flintlock real bad.
> 
> 
> 
> Plainsman, if you do get a flintlock, get as high quality a lock as you can afford. L&R or Chambers (Siler) or Davis locks are some of the best.
> 
> Unlike a sidelock percussion which only has to whack the cap on the nipple, the geometry of a flintlock is more critical to good operation. And the ideal location of the touch-hole is about 1/16" higher than the bottom of the pan, and centered.
> 
> A cheaper lock CAN definitely work well, but may require some "tuning." I first had a flinter Lyman Great Plains Rifle, and had trouble with it. Traded it for a used custom flinter, shot my first flinter deer with that one. I would buy a Lyman today, but with some fore-knowlege of what might be required.
> 
> I love flintlocks. I even knap my own flints from flint I pick up locally and I believe they are as good as any storebought, probably better, certainly cheaper. I also have come to believe it is easier to clean my flinter after shooting than any percussion gun, including any inline I have seen. But that is a different post...
> 
> YHS,
> rogerw
Click to expand...


----------



## NDTerminator

I didn't read it as a literal modern v. trad bit to validate my personal beliefs in this area, nor did I offer it up as such. I don't see every freakin' thing that has "muzzleloader" in it as the basis for yet another modern/trad pee match.

I just found it extremely interesting that the period rifle using period bullets was virtually every bit as accurate at the long end of ML range as a model recognized as probably the most accurate modern available.

There a a number of guys hanging out here who find anything that shoots as interesting as I, so I shared it in that light...


----------



## Burly1

It Was interesting! But in my view, was a good argument that traditional equipment is/can be, as effective as modern offerings. 
Sorry if the post took a turn that you didn't like, but I don't see anyone pounding either side. Simply a matter of different opinions presented.
Burl


----------



## barebackjack

rogerw said:


> I believe that it is fairly obvious that Burly is right about the orginal motivations for muzzleloading seasons. In the library today, I looked at a early Toby Bridges book and he was extolling the virtues of shooting the old guns (or replicas) and "running thru the woods in animal skins," something he mocks today.


Exactly why I dont read a word this guy writes anymore. Hes a sponsor whore, plain and simple. Read him long enough, and he'll change his views more than a woman changes her blouse getting ready for a night out. Hes first pro trad, than modern, than HATES traditional, calls it inhumane and calls trad guys irresponsible for taking the chance, now hes "we need to stick together", blah blah, cant stand the guy.

The article didnt suprise me, or I should say, the fact that a well set up traiditional weapon, with a well thought out load worked up can be amazingly accurate. Even if HALF the claims of marskmanship through the centuries are true, its very safe to say that some pretty amazing feats can be accomplished with one of these weapons with the right user. But what Toby is doing with it is trying to prove a point, that being that inlines arent any better, more accurate, and what have you, than traditional guns. Now accuracy is a matter of user (at least a good portion of it). But, anybody thats fired both types, knows that there are many distinct advantages of an inline over a traditional gun, if there werent, they wouldnt have been invented.

Can you imagine the lawsuits from inline manufacturers that would ensue if any state completely outlawed them for MLer seasons?,.....oooooo itd be ugly. 
Burly1 and others are right, to get rid of inlines is a pointless fight. But states need to look at limits on technology, at least for special seasons.

FYI Plainsman, I have a siler lock on the lehigh I built this past summer. Id like to get video of it on a high -speed camera. I absolutly notice NO difference in ignition over my lyman GPR percussion rifle. In fact, there are times I believe the flinter to be faster believe it or not. That thing will fire every time UPSIDE DOWN, couldnt resist, I had to try it, lol.


----------



## barebackjack

NDTerminator said:


> I didn't read it as a literal modern v. trad bit to validate my personal beliefs in this area, nor did I offer it up as such. I don't see every freakin' thing that has "muzzleloader" in it as the basis for yet another modern/trad pee match.


How could you not? The title literally states, traditional vs modern or modern vs traditional.

And just for the record, EVERYTHING Toby writes has a modern vs traditional theme. He has written "informative" articles about modern bullet performance, and cant help but slip a few little "jabs" in against traditional equipment.


----------



## Plainsman

> He has written "informative" articles about modern bullet performance, and cant help but slip a few little "jabs" in against traditional equipment.


The article he wrote I agree with, but if he thinks modern bullets are far superior to lead at traditional muzzleloader velocities the guy is an idiot. I know some inlines will get up to 2300 fps, but at velocities under 1800 fps (which all traditional rifles are) pure lead can not be to beat. Small pure lead projectiles do wonderful under 1800 fps, if you need to drive deeper with a muzzleloader shoot a heavier bullet at the same velocity.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

BBJ last year a person came on the sight asking for advice concerning ML bullets. At that time, I pointed to a study done and published in F&S in regards to bullet design and performance concerning speed.Then this fall Hagfan also was asking the same question.

The author of this article, at that time was in the camp of speed was the key. He learned from those tests and subsequently I think overall about ML in general as he and others have had their eyes opened to the reality and lethal effectiveness of the old guns and loads.

Now that being said, I agree with Burly, but the sport has evolved since then and more and more people have taken a real interest in it. Recent actions by the state of NE are going to have a ripple affect on many states and some of the results are going to be positive and negative.

The author, whether you like him or not has presented valid information that really disputes the myth that flintlocks or cap ML of Hawken or Penn style are short range weapons if we consider 200 yards a long shot. For us in the prairie many of us do not. But in the majority of areas hunted 200 yards is a long ways!

Skill of the person holding a firearm is the most limiting factor concerning all of this. A old acquaintance of mine target shoots using a custom built .243. What he can do with that rifle far exceeds what I can do with it.

My buddy from WI spent the summer shooting at the range for his trip to NM this year ML hunting elk! He practiced and practiced at 200+ yards to the point he was very accurate with open sights. Better than most people with enhanced scopes at the same range. Myself I know my limit is about 125 yards with a 1x even though the ML is capable of putting a lethal load on target at 200+ just as my first kit Hawken was.

So the article has merit, the writer also has credibility in the test performed. It takes away most of the argument of ML being limited to short range hunting by most standards outside of the open plains areas.

Jack O'Connor believed and preached that the .270 was a flatter shooting gun than a 30-06. We know that speed of bullet,design and gravity are really the determining factors in this. But for years the myth prevailed, much like the myth that ML are only good to 100 yards.

So really the orginal seasons where started based on a myth and it makes no sense for those busted myths to still shape the rules governing the season. The biggest question of all of this is should the ML season even continue?


----------



## barebackjack

I have never once disputed the accuracy under IDEAL conditions of traditional setups. The first time I ever fired a traditional gun, I was AMAZED at its accuracy. And there are plenty of feats described throughout the history of the gun to backup that in the right hands, a traditional weapon/projectile can do amazing things.

I am fully capable of making deer killing shots out to 200 yards with iron sights with my rifles.....but this if off a bench, with a sandbagged rifle, under calm, laid back range conditions. Its much different in the field. No rest, or less than ideal rest, windy, unknown exact range, you may be out of breath, or excited, etc etc. 
A traditional style weapon, firing a traditional style projectile, is STILL only a 100 yard weapon, (+/- a few depending on the individual doing the shooting) for all practical hunting purposes.
What a rifle can do on a range and what you SHOULD do with it in the field arent bosom buddies so to speak. Range work gives you an idea of what you should be able to do with that weapon.

Case in point, my GPR shoots a .535 at a muzzle velocity of right around 1800 fps and 1600 foot pounds of energy, at 100 yards this drops to 1000 fps and only 500 foot pounds of energy, at 200 yards my energy is only slightly above 300 foot pounds. Now I know a conicals BC will improve these numbers, but,....at extended range, the variables of a field setting, wind, unkown range, play a HUGE part in that weapons effectiveness.

I agree with your final statement Ron. With the modern conveniences of the sport, we need to evaluate if a special season is really even needed anymore. Fold the tags into the regular season, give everybody a crack at em, and see how many hunt with a front stuffer. I bet its few.


----------



## barebackjack

I have never once disputed the accuracy under IDEAL conditions of traditional setups. The first time I ever fired a traditional gun, I was AMAZED at its accuracy. And there are plenty of feats described throughout the history of the gun to backup that in the right hands, a traditional weapon/projectile can do amazing things.

I am fully capable of making deer killing shots out to 200 yards with iron sights with my rifles.....but this if off a bench, with a sandbagged rifle, under calm, laid back range conditions. Its much different in the field. No rest, or less than ideal rest, windy, unknown exact range, you may be out of breath, or excited, etc etc. 
A traditional style weapon, firing a traditional style projectile, is STILL only a 100 yard weapon, (+/- a few depending on the individual doing the shooting) for all practical hunting purposes.
What a rifle can do on a range and what you SHOULD do with it in the field arent bosom buddies so to speak. Range work gives you an idea of what you should be able to do with that weapon.

Case in point, my GPR shoots a .535 at a muzzle velocity of right around 1800 fps and 1600 foot pounds of energy, at 100 yards this drops to 1000 fps and only 500 foot pounds of energy, at 200 yards my energy is only slightly above 300 foot pounds. Now I know a conicals BC will improve these numbers, but,....at extended range, the variables of a field setting, wind, unkown range, play a HUGE part in that weapons effectiveness.

I agree with your final statement Ron. With the modern conveniences of the sport, we need to evaluate if a special season is really even needed anymore. Fold the tags into the regular season, give everybody a crack at em, and see how many hunt with a front stuffer. I bet its few.


----------



## NDTerminator

Burly1 said:


> It Was interesting! But in my view, was a good argument that traditional equipment is/can be, as effective as modern offerings.
> Sorry if the post took a turn that you didn't like, but I don't see anyone pounding either side. Simply a matter of different opinions presented.
> Burl


No problem Burly, that's just the way it goes most of the time on this forum. It just gets old, that's all...


----------



## NDTerminator

barebackjack said:


> NDTerminator said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't read it as a literal modern v. trad bit to validate my personal beliefs in this area, nor did I offer it up as such. I don't see every freakin' thing that has "muzzleloader" in it as the basis for yet another modern/trad pee match.
> 
> 
> 
> How could you not? The title literally states, traditional vs modern or modern vs traditional.
> 
> And just for the record, EVERYTHING Toby writes has a modern vs traditional theme. He has written "informative" articles about modern bullet performance, and cant help but slip a few little "jabs" in against traditional equipment.
Click to expand...

First off, what part of my above paragraph wasn't/isn't clear?

Secondly, *This* is the title as the author wrote it:

*Is It "Modern Muzzleloading vs. Traditional Muzzleloading"...or is it "Traditional Muzzleloading vs. Modern Muzzleloading" ? Some Times I Just Seem To Forget - Especially What The Fuss Is All About!*

In your zeal to make this another modern/trad bit rather than just about muzzleloading, you convieniently left out/ignored that last sentence of the title...


----------



## barebackjack

Its all how you interpret it. I see that last little sentence as a nice little "jab", again directed towards the traditional crowd.


----------



## NDTerminator

You just made my point, Jack. Are you actually that paranoid that everything is an anti-trad ML conspiracy??? :eyeroll:

Like my paragraph, you "interpreted" the title to mean what you wanted it to, rather than accepting it simply means exactly what is written.

If you haven't figured it out yet, I'm anything *but* disengenuous.


----------



## barebackjack

NDTerminator said:


> You just made my point, Jack. Are you actually that paranoid that everything is an anti-trad ML conspiracy??? :eyeroll:


When it comes from the mind of Mr. Bridges,....its my first thought.


----------



## nmubowyer

now nobody take this the wrong way, but I find it kind of ironic to hear people say that they enjoy bow/muzzleloader hunting for the challenge yet take every advantage that they possibly can. Not that this directly pertains to this, it is just something that i hear from my friends all the time. me personally i have a modern muzzy for our shpotgun season and am saving up for a new percussion for muzzy season


----------



## Csquared

Guys, I've been desperately trying to digest this whole, never-ending debate about what constitutes a firearm worthy of use during a ML season, and I can't help but to keep coming back to one haunting question that was touched on earlier but has been avoided like the plague.....accidentally or otherwise.

That being, why..or how is any traditional hunter affected by a modern hunter trying to fill his tag during the same season?

I'll pose the question directly to you, Barebackjack.....how are you adversely affected if I hunt with a 3-9X scope on my muzzleloader while you're hunting with your flintlock?

And remember, laws are written to limit how one can adversely affect another, are they not? So the merit of the law limiting scopes should be supported by evidence of the detrimental affect of scoped ML's vs traditional equipment.

I can think of none.

I can't understand why you care what the other guy is using as long as you have a season and a tag.

Please explain to me what I'm missing.


----------



## rogerw

Csquared said:


> why..or how is any traditional hunter affected by a modern hunter trying to fill his tag during the same season?


Why or how would bow hunters be affected by having muzzleloaders and cartridge gun hunters in the same woods? Would bowhunters be at a severe disadvantage with gun hunters in the woods?

In Texas it would make very little difference, IMHO, because nearly all hunting here is done on private land where hunting rights are owned and leased. People pa upwards of $600 to $1500 per season for lease hunting rights with usually between 100 and 200acres per gun. There is very little public land hunting, percentagewise. Since the owner/leasees control the property, they control how hunting is done. Competition between different arms is not a big issue.

I imagine it is quite different in NoDak and many other States with lots more percentage of hunting on public lands......

YHS,
rogerw


----------



## Csquared

Your state is very similar to mine then, Roger, in that other hunters' equipment does not affect me.

And since you can't answer for the Nodak people, as mentioned, perhaps you should leave the question to the one(s) it was posed, and let them answer for themselves.


----------



## Plainsman

I would like to go to a flintlock as long as I can sort of see my sights yet. If I do I still don't care if NDTerminator has a scope on his muzzeloader. It's no skin of my , my, nose that's it my nose.  I'll have to try the old mountain man trick with the hole through the buffalo horn.


----------



## rogerw

BTW, All,

Back to the original comparison of an older gun and a newer gun: IIRC the new gun shot about a 3" group and the older one shot about a 3" group that opened up as the wind picked up.

I mentioned above a .45 bullet gun I had made back in the 1990s and last shot about 1995. I found a pic in my files:










It grouped about 3"x6" in a crosswind with a 300gr bullet last time I shot it at 200yds, with the iron tang peep and globe front sight you see. Main reason I mention this is to point out that this kind of performance would be run-of-the-mill on carry-able picket-ball guns by 1860 (I did only a little bit of load development and never really broke the barrel in I don't think), but it is not clear to me how common picketball guns were for hunting yet (as a percentage of useage). Bench-rested guns commonly were doing less than 2" groups at 40rods = 220yds. My iron-sighted performance is very similar to those two guns with the scopes, except I would have much more field of view with my iron peep sights than with the antique scoped one (only around 3 or 4 degrees according to a source I found. About 15-20feet at 100yds).

I did not find that gun useful for hunting as I had originally intended....continued off in a flintlock direction that had already begun before then.

YHS,
rogerw


----------



## rogerw

Csquared said:


> Your state is very similar to mine then, Roger, in that other hunters' equipment does not affect me.
> 
> And since you can't answer for the Nodak people, as mentioned, perhaps you should leave the question to the one(s) it was posed, and let them answer for themselves.


Gee, I am sorry CSquared; I seem to have inadvertently offended you yet again. I certainly did not mean to, as I certainly did not notice that your question was addressed only to NoDak resident hunters.

YHS,
rogerw


----------



## Csquared

It wasn't addressed to Nodak residents in general, as anyone with your grasp of the language most certainly noticed. :wink:

It was specifically addressed to Barebackjack, or anyone else bothered by scoped muzzleloaders as much as he seems to be.

I hadn't noticed you being in that group.

And why would I be offended by someone answering a question asked of another?

Texans aren't that easily offended...are they?


----------



## rogerw

Csquared said:


> It wasn't addressed to Nodak residents in general, as anyone with your grasp of the language most certainly noticed. :wink:
> 
> It was specifically addressed to Barebackjack.
> 
> And why would I be offended by someone answering a question asked of another?
> 
> Texans aren't that easily offended...are they?


CSquared,

I don't speak for all Texans, but I suppose it depends on who is doing the offending.... I mean, my mother-in-law for example, bless her heart, I don't hold offenses against her. And I hold none against you, if that is your meaning.

I was not trying to spar with you, I read your post as I said. After I re-read your post again I can now see why I genuinely read the question as generally raised. You addressed the note to "Guys." It IS generally raised in the first case. Later in the post you asked the question again, posed to BBJ specifically. If I had been more careful, I would have noticed that you were merely being rhetorical the first time....

Pls accept my apology for my carelessness.

YHS,
rogerw


----------



## Savage260

I don't think I was bothered at all by bowhunting during muzzy season, or was that muzzy hunting during bow season, or was it bow hunting during gun season??? As long as the season was, I never encountered another hunter in the field during any of the seasons. Although I didn't start my bow hunting until well after the season started. I would have to agree with you Csquared. I don't see what all the fuss is about. I think I am going to have to go buy a "traditional" muzzy to see for myself how much more challenging it really is. After reading all these posts it really doesn't seem like you lose much, if any thing, with the "trad" or gain much, if any thing, with the "modern". Next year I am going to bring my 25-06, .50 cal muzzy, and my bow to the stand at the same time and see if it affects any one. Is that legal?


----------



## NDTerminator

rogerw said:


> Csquared said:
> 
> 
> 
> why..or how is any traditional hunter affected by a modern hunter trying to fill his tag during the same season?
> 
> 
> 
> *Why or how would bow hunters be affected by having muzzleloaders and cartridge gun hunters in the same woods? Would bowhunters be at a severe disadvantage with gun hunters in the woods?*
Click to expand...

The answer to both paragraphs above is is not in the slightest.

Roger, I don't even get serious about bowhunting until the rut, which is right in our Firearms Season up here. I almost always take a bow buck of 125+ during rifle season. This year it took a little longer, I got a 7X4 a few days after Firearms was over, but if I remember may have been during the first few days of ML Season...

Chris, having now shot both Trad and Modern, I can advise you will find very similar performance and accuracy out to 100 yards (as far as I ever shot them), as long as you can see the open sights well enough to use them.

Shouldn't be a problem being as you have "young" eyes...


----------



## rogerw

NDTerminator said:


> The answer to both paragraphs above is is not in the slightest.
> 
> 
> 
> My point was that (only my opinion), the only reason for ANY separate season would seem to be to alleviate any competition between disparate weapons that is percieved to be unfair somehow by whomever is making the decision.
> 
> Here in Texas, I just don't see that it matters that much since hunters are insulated by land access (determined by money/affordability, I might add). It would seem to be a similar result for a different reason there in NoDak where you have a lot fewer people and a lot more public land access.
> 
> In Texas, I would probably just merge the whole ML season into the regular gun season, since not enough deer get killed anyway. And leave the bow season alone for no reason other than not to cause a fuss. We actually today only have ML seasons in less than 10% of our counties, all the rest already merged.
> 
> That sorta points out that there will be other States with situations more or less in between these two; lots of people with more limited access and hence more crowded woods. There would be a perception of unfairness of expecting bows to hunt in the same woods as cartridge gun hunters....hence a separate bow season to give the limited weapon a chance.
> 
> Does this illuminate the question of what kind of gun is appropriate in muzzleloading seasons? Each can decide that on his own. I am a proponent of the idea that each State owns its wildlife and should decide how its wildlife may be taken/harvested. I decry the notion that the Feds should be part of the decision at all. It is a local State decision.
> 
> ************
> 
> Back to the original point of this thread: comparing old and new rifles.....the article ONLY compares grouping at distance....there is much more improvements in new rifles than just groups.....how flat they shoot, how much energy is retained versus how much is needed for the given bullet, etc. The truth is that the modern gun/bullet combination is also much flatter at distance, and the modern scope generally allows this to be useful at a distance as well. Thus the PRACTICAL range truly is extended with cartridge primer/heavier charge and breech pressures/saboted bullets/modern variable scope. I only say this to say that we should not overlook the fact that there ARE big technical advantages to the modern centerfire-inline over the 1850s technology gun.
> 
> YHS,
> rogerw
Click to expand...


----------



## barebackjack

Csquared said:


> That being, why..or how is any traditional hunter affected by a modern hunter trying to fill his tag during the same season?
> 
> I'll pose the question directly to you, Barebackjack.....how are you adversely affected if I hunt with a 3-9X scope on my muzzleloader while you're hunting with your flintlock?


Were not.

But why does the season exist in the first place? Is it just another season, or is it a special season for the allowance of a more primitive weapons that do not have the effectiveness (both ballisticaly and range wise) as a centerfire weapon?
If we allow the technology into the season that makes a MLer a consistent and effective weapon at 200 yards or more for most people, what is the point of having a special season? We already have a season for long range weapons, the regular gun season. If we allow MLers this ability, I see no point whatsoever in continueing with the special season. Fold the tags into the regular gun season, let everybody have a crack at them, and hunt them with you centerfire, you flinter, your open sighted inline, or your 3-9 power equipped inline. Than EVERYBODY can hunt with whatever they please, with no argument from anybody. I bet most will not even think of a MLer, whatever style it may be.
And for those that believe a scope doesnt add to a weapons effective range, than why does almost every centerfire weapon out there have one on top of it? The fact is, a scope DOES add range to a weapon. And this, I believe is the primary reason they are wanted by so many. Modern MLer and modern loads have the ballistics to get the job done at longer ranges, but the sighting system limits the range, and people are PO'd about it.

Some say limit the sight system, some say the projectile. Both would work. But, allow it all, and there is no practical need for a stand alone season anymore.

Can you understand that? My argument is not a to each his own thing. Its why the season exists in the first place.


----------



## Plainsman

> in NoDak where you have a lot fewer people and a lot more public land access.


Off subject, but I thought you should know that North Dakota is one of the lowest in the nation when it comes to public land. I can't remember if it was Alaska or Nevada that was first. Forty years ago when I was in high school we learned that North Dakota was the state with the least federal land.



> fact that there ARE big technical advantages to the modern centerfire-inline over the 1850s technology gun.


Again to reiterate I disagree. The advantages are with the projectile. For the careless type they are perhaps more waterproof. Only some of them, mine is not. I can shoot sabots in my Hawken, and Maxi balls do well in my Thompson Center System One, so where is the great advantage. The one thing I do like is the direct line of fire when a cap goes off, but then the old under hammer has that advantage also. No, I don't see a big advantage. There are some, but for me they are all minor. I can accomplish what I need to with my Hawken, Cherokee, or System One.

If you want to argue that there are advantages today, I will agree.

As your from Texas roger I can't pass up a joke. It's sort of humor mixed with a true story. When I was in Entomology at North Dakota State University one of my friends from Texas was doing his PhD. He told me that in Texas you could get on a train at the east border at sunrise, head west, and when the sun set you were still in Texas. Not to be outdone I told him we had trains in North Dakota just as slow.


----------



## barebackjack

Plainsman, do you know where I could see a picture of an underhammer with a inline fire channel?

Ive only seen three underhammers in my life, and they all had a drum much like a percussion gun.

Id like to see that.


----------



## rogerw

Plainsman said:


> As your from Texas roger I can't pass up a joke.


ha! good one! My favorite joke on Texans concerns the one about a Texan who died while vacationin in Colorado.....the upshot of it is that there was no coffin in the whole State large enough for the [long, tall] Texan, so the suggestion was made that if they gave the corpse an enema, it could be buried cheaply in a shoe-box.....!

wrt public lands: I am surprised....I generally associated NoDak with "western" states in which the Fed Gov owns large percentages of the total land. Here is a state by state rundown: http://www.blm.gov/natacq/pls98/98PL1-3.PDF Thank you for correcting me. NoDak is down around same kinds of figures as TExas. Is it the case then that most huntable land is privately owned?

On the point of bullet vs gun, we will have to disagree agreeably. My point about the gun is that when you go from a screw-in nipple to a enclosed/supported centerfire primer you just removed the last weak link in being able to support considerably higher presssures in the breech. It does not matter whether you are speaking of BP, sub-BP, or smokeless....the safely sustainable breech pressure can now be much higher after removing this last weak-link in the mechanical design. (and I am NOT talking about "enclosing the action" for weather-proofing....I am talking about the superior mechanical seal and support that is possible with a modern primer and impossible with a traditioanal percussion cap.)

Of course, this does not apply to an inline shooting with percussion caps. In that case, there is NO difference I can see between what a sidelock perc can do, versus what an inline perc and do....and in that case I totally agree with you.

BUT, when you combine modern primer/higher breech pressure/modern bullet technology/moder scope technology I still have to say there are very definite improvements in muzzle velocity versus bullet weight and in BC which translates into flatter trajectory over longer distances with less wind drift. Of course, the optics allows this to be utilized at distance.......

I am sorry if I belabor the point to much. I cannot escape being from Texas..... 

YHS,
rogerw

PS - let me further clarify that every gun that has 209 primer ignition has not been redesigned to allow higher breech pressure. What I mean is that the last design weak-link is overcome and IF THE REST OF THE GUN IS ALSO DESIGNED FOR HIGHER PRESSURES it can be done, and is enabled by centerfire primer technology utilized in the breechplug.

The only thing limiting pressures from going equally as high as a regular centerfire cartridge rifle would probably be:

1) use a centerfire rifle primer, not a 209 shotgun primer because the larger area of the 209 cannot take as much pressure as the smaller area of the rifle primer.

2) breechplug threads are the next weakest link limit - this is a mechanical engineering thing that I am only briefly aquainted with, but much larger thread engagement surface would be required to support even higher pressures. Someone familar with this art would also say that the style (shape) design of the threads is critical. As an example, in your regular bolt action rifle you don't have threads, per se, but you have large lugs that make 1/4 turn to engage and present large engagment surface with lots of metal behind each side.

regards,roger


----------



## Plainsman

Happy you liked the joke, it was intended to be humorous to you and good old Dr. Perkins who was the friend I spoke of.



> Of course, this does not apply to an inline shooting with percussion caps. In that case, there is NO difference I can see between what a sidelock perc can do, versus what an inline perc and do....and in that case I totally agree with you.


Yes, that is the case with my inline.



> Plainsman, do you know where I could see a picture of an underhammer with a inline fire channel?


No, I haven't looked. They were common in the mid 1970's and a few of my friends were shooting them. I think those were Hopkins and Allen. When CVA and Hopkins and Allen were producing rifles I thought the under hammer may become more popular, but the high quality and very good warranty of the Thompson Centers insured the future of the side lock. The side lock was king in the 1800's, and I suppose it would have been again, but Hopkins and Allen has some followers in the 70's.

I just looked, there is a lot of information. Try this site:
http://www.e-gunparts.com/productschem. ... NDERHAMMER

And this one, I had a friend that built one of these from a kit, and it sure did shoot. 
http://www.cwslagleantiques.com/view_cat.cfm?catid=68

Here is a schematic:
http://www.pacificrifle.com/hammer.htm

Just google under hammer.

I guess I look at the underhammer more as a direct ignition than inline. The nipple puts fire right into the powder about 1/2 inch from the back of the charge. It's function is nearly identical.


----------



## rogerw

Plainsman said:


> Happy you liked the joke, it was intended to be humorous to you and good old Dr. Perkins who was the friend I spoke of.
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure I would like and enjoy him too. I don't think we laugh at ourselves often enough, and there is too much political correctness and sensitivity and suscpicion in this nation. Where I come from every good ole boy is a joke unto himself. and to all his friends too. It is all good-natured.....more or less.
> 
> YHS,
> rogerw
Click to expand...


----------



## Plainsman

I like your attitude roger, and I agree with you. I might not always agree with you, but my disagreement will be as a friend. Your manner makes it enjoyable having you here.


----------



## rogerw

Plainsman said:


> I like your attitude roger, and I agree with you. I might not always agree with you, but my disagreement will be as a friend. Your manner makes it enjoyable having you here.


And I with you, Plainsman. and thank you.

YHS,
rogerw


----------



## rogerw

If anyone wonders about the overall capability of a modern centerfire-inline to shoot deer at extended ranges, take a look at this quote from this site:

http://www.hpmuzzleloading.com/EditorsView.html

"Last fall, I also set out to see how the big .52 would perform on a whitetail out at around 300 yards. Shooting a 120 grain charge of FFFg Triple Seven behind the big 375 grain saboted spitzer .475" diameter Knight "Ultimate Slam" bullet, I managed to take a big adult doe at 282 yards (my longest muzzleloader shot ever). The deer rolled over sideways when hit...and never moved again. The big bullet still plowed right through, exiting with a hole that was easily five or six times the diameter of the entrance wound....."

In the 1870s some folks in this country started shooting at 1000yd targets. If you KNOW the range and the target won't move, it is one thing....but if you are hunting, you know that range estimation versus trajectory can be a real humdinger......that 1000yd shot was about 90ft high in the middle! and was generally limited to less than 175yds or so on a whitetailed deer, usually less than 125yds. But if you take a regular old technology inline muzzleloader and re-design it for higher breech pressures with centerfire primers and higher-BC bullets with sabots and mount a magnifiying optic scope on it.......well, my only point was that the MODERN SCOPED "CENTERFIRE-INLINE" MUZZLELOADER can shoot successfully at game much further out than a regular muzzleloader with percussion cap limited breech pressures and a bore-sized bullet.

And that was without smokeless, and only 120gr of powder though I understand that 90gr of 3/7 is as hot as 120gr of BP, so I suppose that 120gr of 3/7 is like 160gr of BP....if that is a true relationship? that is mighty hot for a bullet that heavy!!! I bet chamber pressures up around 30,000psi, where you seldom see over about 17,000psi in a conventional percussion muzzleloader.

YHS,
rogerw


----------



## rogerw

I asked Toby Bridges at his website whether his "1850s bullet rifle with Malcolm scope" was a copy of an actual gun or was a gun that "might have existed" since the technology existed. Either way, I asked for references indicating that scopes were commonly used on Hunting rifles in the 1850s.

After a lot of name-calling and not answering the question he finally told me to look in Ned Robert's book "The Muzzleloading Caplock Rifle." This surprised me because in Ned's book (which I have had for many years) there are about 85 rifles pictured and 11 of them have scopes on them. All of these are benchrested rifles, from about 15lbs to about 30lbs weight. None of the hunting rifles are scoped.

The J.R. Chapman book from 1844, "The American Rifle," never suggests scopes on hunting rifles either, but rather on target guns.

So I am left with the suspicion that Toby is making up his own facts when he stretches the truth to imply that scoped HUNTING rifles were widely used in the 1850s.

It would be nice if he would have responded with something other than personally demeaning remarks. In fact, he finally said that I could not prove that they were NOT used on hunting rifles in the 1850s....!!!

Indeed...I also cannot prove that there was not green cheese on the moon in the 1850s, and neither can anyone else.

YHS,
rogerw


----------

