# Rifle advice needed



## oldfireguy

I hunted this year with borrowed Knight stainless T-bolt .50/209 Tasco 3-9 scope.
Killed a nice doe at 103 yards.
Rifle concerns : Difficulty with primer load/remoal (fixed that by buying the right tool.) Is 100 yards considered good accuracy by today's standards?
Alternative considered is the T/C Triumph. I like the looks and feel of the gun. Really like the break action access to primer and breech plug removal.
Quandry: The Knight can be bought for $300. The Triumph will run closer to $650 with a modest scope.
Questions:
1. How much more range could I gain with a Triumph (if any)? 
2. How often will I really need to remove the breech plug? (I had an old cap lock and never once removed the plug)

Your opinion please.


----------



## Savage260

I would say with some practice, a good load for the rifle and a good scope 200-300yds should be within reach, depending on how good YOU are with the rifle. I can shoot my Kodiak Pro at 200 very comfortably with my Leupold Ultimate Slam 3-9X40 and 120gr Blackhorn 209 with a Barnes Spitfire TMZ 250gr sabot. As soon as I get out to the range again I am going to try 300. I want to be comfortable enough with it to use it instead of my centerfires next year during gun season.


----------



## laxratnd

If you want a super accurate muzzle loader with ease of use and clean up. take a look at this savage.

http://www.savagearms.com/muzzleloader_home.htm

lax


----------



## mike landrich

I've never shot the T/C Triumph, but I'll comment on the Knight. The Knight Disc rifles are a better option than T-Bolt. They're just a more refined version. I have both a .50 Original Disc and a .52 Disc Elite. The .52 caliber is a lot more gun. It uses a power stem to ignite the front of the powder charge, so the powder is burned at the back of the barrel, as opposed to the normal flash hole igniting the back of the powder charge and the powder burning as it is pushed out of the barrel. The other reason I'd recommend the .52 is the caliber bullets used in the sabots. The .50's use 44 or 45 caliber pistol bullets (really .429 or .451) whereas the .52 uses 458 rifle or 475 Pistol bullets (real dimensions). Without writing a dissertation on the advantages, the 458 rifle bullets are made much more stoutly than 451 pistol bullets, plus can be had in much longer, ballistically superior, heavier bullets. When using 475 pistol bullets, the advantages are the same that the 475 Linebaugh or 480 Ruger enjoy over the various 45 calibers, heavier bullet with larger meplat= better penetration.

EDIT Cleanup is easy and takes maybe 5 minutes. Honestly the Savage may be a little easier, but, when using plastic sabots, all you are really doing is cleaning the powder residue. You still need to pull the breech plug and swab the barrel. It's not like you'd just shoot the Savage and put it away dirty.


----------



## Dak

I have a T/C Omega. Love it.

Reference the range issue, no scopes greater than 1X allowed here so that is a restriction for some.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

I have a Knight break action and it is a very accurate rifle. It has the Berrga barrel which is US made. Tolerance on the barrel is very good which means that it loads a bit stiff compared to others but that is because it is not over sized. Thus it is consistent round to round on performance.

I use two sabots, one a Hornaday 300 gr being pushed by 95 gr of loose 777 powder and the other a Powerbet 348 all lead that I shoot 87 gr of loose powder with. I also like to shoot conicals and my current choice is a 400 gr Spitser HP made by Precision and I use 92 gr of loose 777 powder to push this. It is a good 150 yard load as well and will knock them off their feet.

The TC guns run Green River barrels I do believe and are known to be accurate. However one thing to remember is that many of the bullets produced for use in ML are not designed for high velocity that can be generated by todays powder and rifles. The result is poor performance when they hit the target especially at ranges under 70 yards.

Pellets are easier to use, but loose powder will give you the ablity to fine tune your ML and bullet choice to get optimum performance at the ranges you expect to shoot. Bullet drop is a factor beyond 150 yards on most and to be shooting at longer range requires time at the bench getting to know the load and also how it is affected by temp. My POI changes from summer shooting to cold weather conditions by as much as 4" which when coupled with a persons skill can result in a miss at long range and or the wounding of an animal!


----------



## barebackjack

This right here COMPLETELY backs up why I think guys want to make powered scopes legal. Its not about "ethical" shots. Its about "ethical LONG range shots". i.e. make the hunt easier.


----------



## Savage260

> This right here COMPLETELY backs up why I think guys want to make powered scopes legal. Its not about "ethical" shots. Its about "ethical LONG range shots". i.e. make the hunt easier.


What is the difference??? An ethical shot is an ethical shot is an ethical shot. Warm camo makes the hunt in cold weather easier too.

I want to use mine for centerfire season. I have open sights during muzzy season, and I guess I really don't mind not having the scope. It makes me put in more range time which is never a bad thing.


----------



## alleyyooper

Savage ML II. That being said No body can tell you what to buy. They don't know where you are at so they can't even see what is legal in your state.

If money is no object you may want the Ultmate Muzzle loader that shoots 200 gr. of powder and garinteed to 200 yards. 
Most that can afford them know enough that they don't need to ask what to buy.

 Al


----------



## single-shot

I shoot an omega and its dead on at 150yds......at 200yds i can put them in a pie plate [and im not a great shooter at 56.....

as far as removing the breach plug i can have it out in under a minute and i take it out all the time to keep it super clean, no big deal

" rules are for people that cant think for themselves"


----------



## farmerj

I guess I gotta wonder how bad your eyes are if you feel you MUST have glass to be able to take a 300 yard shot.

even the Army and Marines teach the troops to shoot out to 500 yards with iron sights.


----------



## oldfireguy

I ended up buying the Knight T-bolt. I'm happy with performance at 100 yards, and next summer I'll play with it to see just how far it will shoot accurately. My eyesight is such that I can either see the target or the sights in focus (unless I use the scope). 
Either way, making a clean ethical kill is the prime concern. I'll pass on any shot I don't feel good on. With my .270, I'm comfortable at 300 yards, but not beyond. Had some good instructors when I was a kid....got to compete in the state youth small-bore tournament one time. (Did not come close to finishing in the top group) but learned a valuable lesson in th 1960's when a girl won top honors.
I digress.... Thanks for all the shared advice. Keep your powder dry.


----------



## farmerj

oldfireguy said:


> My eyesight is such that I can either see the target or the sights in focus (unless I use the scope).


It is physically impossible to see both in focus at one time. One of the major principles that is hard to train in to someone is to focus on front sight. Enough so, I have experienced shooters say it out loud until they have it in-grained into them and it finally becomes second nature.

I know I have shot clay pigeons at 200 yards with a M14 with iron sights. More than enough to take a deer.


----------



## alleyyooper

Buy and install a good peep site on your rifle.

In my day the military taught kids with good eye site for the most part to shoot a rifle with a peep site.
Useing a peep site lines up just right the front site in the center of the ring and the target is still in focus.

 Al


----------



## farmerj

alleyyooper said:


> Buy and install a good peep site on your rifle.
> 
> In my day the military taught kids with good eye site for the most part to shoot a rifle with a peep site.
> Useing a peep site lines up just right the front site in the center of the ring and the target is still in focus.
> 
> Al


A peep sight allows for faster alignment of the sights, You still are physically unable to focus on the target and the front sight.

What you want them to look like.









What they should and will end up looking like.


----------



## barebackjack

farmerj said:


> It is physically impossible to see both in focus at one time. One of the major principles that is hard to train in to someone is to focus on front sight. Enough so, I have experienced shooters say it out loud until they have it in-grained into them and it finally becomes second nature.


Well said, and correct.

I have nearly perfect vision (20/13) and I cant focus on both the front post and target, it IS physically impossible.

Some people may have a more difficult time, in which case a peep can help, but moving the rear sight forward on the barrel will help more.


----------



## single-shot

so did they answer your original question about muzzleloaders.

1...removing breach plugs

2...what kind of distance to expect when shooting


----------



## farmerj

single-shot said:


> so did they answer your original question about muzzleloaders.
> 
> 1...removing breach plugs
> 
> 2...what kind of distance to expect when shooting


Probably very detailed for item #2.

A good muzzle loader, just like a center fire is limited to the ability of the shooter, not the rifle.


----------



## maximini14

I've never owned nor shot a Knight-so cannot speak of them.

I've owned a TC Triumph 50 cal. Was a good shooter with 1 1/2 " groups at 100 yds using 3 pellets 777 at 2160 velocity for a 250 gr shockwave sabot. 2" high at 100 gives dead on at 150 yds. 200 yard shots should be easily do-able, but I don't have a shooting range with that distance to confirm any results.

I liked the lighter weight of the alloy receiver Triumph, the breakaction makes it a little quicker to prime and the 1/2 turn breech plug removal feature was nice, and the butt pad on the Triumph is softer (Sims SVL i think) than on the Omega.

However, I ran into a legal issue - as a break action MZL was not legal for use in the primitive arms season where I hunt, so traded the Triumph back in for an Omega (took a $150 loss on deal) and it does everything i need as stated in paragraph 1. Only a little heavier, and breech plug removal is slower, but not a big deal, just have to carry the tools for in-field removal should it be needed.

As for cleaning, I actually prefer the one piece Omega over the break action Triumph. When cleaning from the breech end, the Omega is easier to control, while the Triumph tends to flop around a bit while action is open and scope got banged on sink edge.

I also liked the fact that the Omega is available in stainless steel while the Triumph has that gray coating applied (forget what they call it).

One feature i don't like on either model is the hammer. It is on the small side- and if you put a scope on the gun using the preferred low scope mounting bases to keep the scope as close to the barrel as possible- I find it difficult to thumb the hammer back while wearing heavy gloves during our late December hunts where temps can be 0 or less. I spoke to Thompson Center factory rep concerning adding a hammer spur as is on the Contender or Encore, but TC does not recommend it, nor is there a factory option for a hammer spur available. Seems -they say, there is too much static inertia to overcome with the addition of more weight on the hammer which precludes reliable primer ignition-blah blah blah blah blah!!

If $ isn't an issue, you could choose the TC Pro Hunter- which has the swing hammer spur for ambidexterous use, as well as switch barrel capability. However you can expect to spend near $800. as stated before be careful of legalities for your region of the country regarding use of in-lines, removable breech plugs and break actions during "primitive arms season".

maximini14

"If you can't stand behind our troops, do us all a favor and please stand in front of them".


----------



## mike landrich

farmerj said:


> even the Army and Marines teach the troops to shoot out to 500 yards with iron sights.


Big difference. A wounded enemy is better than a dead one, since it takes 2 live ones to carry him out and a dead one can be left until later. A wounded game animal is never better than a dead one.


----------



## farmerj

mike landrich said:


> farmerj said:
> 
> 
> 
> even the Army and Marines teach the troops to shoot out to 500 yards with iron sights.
> 
> 
> 
> Big difference. A wounded enemy is better than a dead one, since it takes 2 live ones to carry him out and a dead one can be left until later. A wounded game animal is never better than a dead one.
Click to expand...

So your saying there is NO WAY a .30 cal rifle has the ability to cause a killing wound at 500 yards?


----------



## Savage260

> So your saying there is NO WAY a .30 cal rifle has the ability to cause a killing wound at 500 yards?


I think what he is saying is that while it is true the military shoots open sights at those ranges, it really doesn't matter killed or wounded as long as the hit renders the enemy troop unable to bring accurate fire to bear on friendly forces. With hunting it is all about a good, quick, humane killshot. Wounding should not be an option.

I know when we have training days with our M-14's on the KD range a hit any where on the torso counts as a hit. Doesn't matter if it is 75yds or 300yds, and it doesn't matter if it is a head shot or the upper shoulder or lower left side. I will shoot at that torso all day at 300, but put a deer at that range with open sights and I don't feel comfortable.


----------



## farmerj

I'd say you need to practice more.

I shoot with people every year with iron sights on the civilian side even out to 1000 yards.

These people are scary accurate.

If we can use M14, M1 and AR-15 and even bolt guns out to 1000 yards with peep sights, there is no reason not to be able to use them for hunting.

Clay pigeons someone set up at the firing line. I went 5 for 5 at 200 yards for the ones I shot at.










Groups from 200 yards with irons.









Yes, you can pinpoint hit what you want with irons at distance.


----------



## Savage260

farmerj,

I would say in order to do the things you are talking about, I would need to get a divorce, sell my boat, and quit my job.

Average joes like me can't spend the amount of time at a range that we would need to get that good. For some it is impossible. No one is disputing that these things can be done, but they can only be done by a certain percentage of the population. Also as has been talked about the sights on the average muzzle loader are not peeps, and most average joes don't want to spend the money to put special sights on a rifle when a scope works much better.

I will take my M-14 out and try the pigeons at 200 though. that doesn't seem too tough. I can usually get right around 1 inch with 3 rounds at 100, but 200 I don't think I could group any where close. It is all about an aim point for me even with a scope. Those plain green torso targets we shoot at don't give a specific point to hold on. Most times I just can't see the target well enough.


----------



## farmerj

How do people get that good?

I was lucky, the Army trained me.

I have a cousin that regularly outshoots me. How did he get so good if he never joined the army?

He grew up on a farm. Just a regular kid from rural MN. How did he learn to shoot? His dad gave him a single shot 22 and a box of shells and told him to make every round count.

When they weren't shooting that single shot Savage, they would sit in the barn and shoot flies with a pellet gun. Pretty cheep shooting.

It goes back to the fundamentals.

Buckhorn sights are just as accurate as any other sighting system.

Take time to learn the fundamentals and you can make any firearm you want do what YOU want it to do.

Learn the ballistics behind it, and you can really have fun.


----------



## Plainsman

> A peep sight allows for faster alignment of the sights, You still are physically unable to focus on the target and the front sight.


Actually that's not true. The human eye works much like the aperture of a camera. Not only does reducing the diameter of the aperture reduce the amount of light, but it increases the depth of field. That's why depth of field is so poor at night. 
The smaller the aperture you use on a peep site the better your depth of field. When you get old like me the eyes do not adjust as well. I now have trifocal lenses and need arms six feet long to see the sights on a handgun.  
I thought I would have to give up shooting a muzzle loader. Using a peep sight with a small aperture I increased my depth of field so that I can very clearly see the front sight and the target. A persons eye automaticly centers in a peep and that's why they work so fast, and also accurately.

Now, I still had problems with my handguns and other rifles. So I started using a Merit adjustable optical attachment:

http://www.brownells.com/aspx/NS/store/ ... ATTACHMENT

I have been using one for five years on and off, but wish I had bought one years ago. You can shrink the aperture so small that on rifles with well forward rear sights you can see the rear sight, the front sight, and the target.

Sometimes we think we come up with good ideas, but I read a story about old Indians boring a hole through bone and charring it. I guess even without worrying about sights it gave a person a clearer view of distant objects.

Anyway, before I spent $65 on something I knew nothing about I decided to do a little experiment. I took a 1/2 inch circle of black electrical tape, put a small hole through the center, and stuck it to my glasses. One minute I was out on the lawn looking at my sights through the electrical tape and moments later I was on the phone ordering one of these.


----------



## mike landrich

farmerj said:


> I'd say you need to practice more.


I think you need to realize that others aren't you. Your comment is somewhat condescending and implies the rest of us are lazy or incompetent. I can't speak for others, but hunting and shooting are only one part of my life. I hunt because I like to hunt. I shoot because I like to shoot. I also like to shoot my bow, golf, fish, do strongman and highland games competitions (both of which require a lot of gym time), do woodworking, do metal working and hold a real job. If I obsessed on shooting I'm sure I'd be better at it, but life interferes.


----------



## farmerj

mike landrich said:


> farmerj said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say you need to practice more.
> 
> 
> 
> I think you need to realize that others aren't you. Your comment is somewhat condescending and implies the rest of us are lazy or incompetent. I can't speak for others, but hunting and shooting are only one part of my life. I hunt because I like to hunt. I shoot because I like to shoot. I also like to shoot my bow, golf, fish, do strongman and highland games competitions (both of which require a lot of gym time), do woodworking, do metal working and hold a real job. If I obsessed on shooting I'm sure I'd be better at it, but life interferes.
Click to expand...

Don't Assume anything. Personally, I have't fire a shot in almost a year now. There are things you DON'T know that prevent that from happening.

My point is such that just because one person can't do it, don't lump everyone into not being able to do. Just as not everyone has the skill to do it. Read just about any post on here about how some people are shooting long range and there are those that start spouting how it's impossible to do it. Those attitudes drive people away just as much.

I happen to be a permit to carry instructor for MN and Utah, NRA instructor, and retired from the national guard. I know a lot of people can't / don't have the time to practice. I see it all the time when people come to class. More excuses than one can imagine. Most realize after one serious day on the range they can and do shoot better than they thought possible. From there, it's a matter of taking a couple days a month if that to maintian a decent level of skill.

But instead of sitting inside harping about how bad your football team sucks or how bad they are doing this season. Wouldn't being at the range be more productive?

Some practice can even be completed while you do watch TV or whatever around the house without going to the range. Dry fire is an incredible thing.

I do much of the same things. Most of which allows me ample time in the field to at least observe wildlife.


----------



## alleyyooper

Plains man I also agree with you on the peep sight. Thought I was going to have to give up my hawkins with the buck horn sights then I got a winny 94 with a marble peep. Tghat sure worked for me so I got the peep for the hawkins and life is good.

This thread sure got off subject. sorry I contrubited to that.

 Al


----------



## farmerj

alleyyooper said:


> Plains man I also agree with you on the peep sight. Thought I was going to have to give up my hawkins with the buck horn sights then I got a winny 94 with a marble peep. Tghat sure worked for me so I got the peep for the hawkins and life is good.
> 
> This thread sure got off subject. sorry I contrubited to that.
> 
> Al


Don't think it really did go "off-topic"

The topic started about what scope was needed or HAD to be had to shoot to 200-300 yards. "and that's when the fight started".

One doesn't NEED to have a scope to shoot to that range. It definitely helps, but it is a MUST have. Granted, some with bad eye sight definitely benefit from it.

Personally, I think it's marketing hype that one MUST have a scope to shoot at anything past 100 yards. How many people here do any shooting past 100 yards when they go to the range? How many here go to a range that has a firing line longer than 100 yards?

I have seen lots of muzzle loaders shot at 200 and even 300 yards. Just like a decent centerfire, they are scary accurate.


----------



## alleyyooper

*I hunted this year with borrowed Knight stainless T-bolt .50/209 Tasco 3-9 scope. 
Killed a nice doe at 103 yards. 
Rifle concerns : Difficulty with primer load/remoal (fixed that by buying the right tool.) Is 100 yards considered good accuracy by today's standards? 
Alternative considered is the T/C Triumph. I like the looks and feel of the gun. Really like the break action access to primer and breech plug removal. 
Quandry: The Knight can be bought for $300. The Triumph will run closer to $650 with a modest scope. 
Questions: 
1. How much more range could I gain with a Triumph (if any)? 
2. How often will I really need to remove the breech plug? (I had an old cap lock and never once removed the plug)

Your opinion please.*

Yup off topic. Orginal post only mentioned the Tasco scope on the T bolt. Plus the cost of the Trumph with a scope.

 Al


----------



## Plainsman

> Yup off topic. Orginal post only mentioned the Tasco scope on the T bolt. Plus the cost of the Trumph with a scope.


Your right we did get off track. I hope we were some help to oldfireguy.

Oldfireguy, I don't think there will be any range increase to the rifle, but the TC shoots good and will let you do better. Knight is good I guess, but I have always been a TC fan. Also, that easy remove breach plug will become the way you clean your rifle with ease.


----------



## alleyyooper

Old fire guy ended up buying that Knight T bolt.

 Al


----------



## Savage260

farmerj, 
just to keep us off track a little more, it seems you are trying to lump a larger group(average folks) in with a much much smaller group(you and your amazing open sights shooters). Mike definately has it right.

No one said, at least not on this thread, that they NEEDED a scope to shoot 200-300 yds. I am going to guess most people feel more comfortable doing it that way.

Why is it that you say people have EXCUSES when they come to your class? We don't NEED to be able to shoot 600-1000yds with a peep or even 100 for that matter to have a successful hunt. We aren't talking about killing people that are shooting back at us, we are talking hunting. We can and some, I dare say most, of us choose to use a scope, and that has nothing to do with marketing hype. 
It isn't an excuse when I have to work, or fix the sink, spend time with the wife and our friends, or any thing else that comes up that may take away from time at the range. It is a REASON.

It almost sounds like you look down on people for not spending a bunch of time at the range.

What you say is possible, but maybe not for the average person and definately not without a lot of range time.

I would love to have a chance to fire a course with the "average" people training as army and marine riflemen. I feel confident I could shoot as well as most of them any day. Those of you that are shooting these 600-1000yd matches are not the "average" military trainees.


----------



## mike landrich

farmerj
Since you base your claims on Army and Marine shooting skills, answer this question using your logic.

Why do military snipers use scopes, if "Buckhorn sights are just as accurate as any other sighting system."? If iron sights are as good, I am upset our government would unnecessarily waste $3,000 on Schmidt and Bender scopes for our Marines.

Seriously, you guys who claim you can shoot iron as well as an equally talented shooter can shoot glass are deluding yourselves. You may shoot as well as a less talented shooter, but all else being equal, you will lose.


----------



## farmerj

mike landrich said:


> farmerj
> Since you base your claims on Army and Marine shooting skills, answer this question using your logic.
> 
> Why do military snipers use scopes, if "Buckhorn sights are just as accurate as any other sighting system."? If iron sights are as good, I am upset our government would unnecessarily waste $3,000 on Schmidt and Bender scopes for our Marines.
> 
> Seriously, you guys who claim you can shoot iron as well as an equally talented shooter can shoot glass are deluding yourselves. You may shoot as well as a less talented shooter, but all else being equal, you will lose.


Unsubscribed.

Now it's arguing for the sake of arguing.


----------



## alleyyooper

GEEZ it's called posting to get the last word in.

The person that started this thread bought a rifle already.
I'm sure he is happy with it and shooting it and having fun..

 Al


----------



## rogerw

I guess this thread is off topic, but the originator says his question was answered, and many other good folks have weighed in with good strong opinions..... here is mine:



barebackjack said:


> This right here COMPLETELY backs up why I think guys want to make powered scopes legal. Its not about "ethical" shots. Its about "ethical LONG range shots". i.e. make the hunt easier.


BBJ, I completely agree (longer range shots). Whether "it matters or not" as our individual personal biases come into play is not germane to the fact that it is patently true.

As a 55yr old whippersnapper I am acutely aware of the advancing decline in the visual acuity I once had, but I can still use iron sights. Because I want to. I merely have to limit my shots, that is all. Others, in their personal views, do not wish to limit their shots and wish to rely more on technological support. Se la vie. I AM considering some form of peep on my hunting flintlock, which is the old fashioned way of dealing with this (in preference to the other method of moving the rear sight forward).

FarmerJ, nice graphics of the iron-sight focus problem....it IS impossible to focus on more than one element at a time, and the front sight is the one to concentrate focus on. And as you claim, iron sights can still be very effective in the shooter who is determined to excel with them.

Plainsman, you make a great point about depth of field and lighting versus the focus problem.....it is however, still true that you can only physically focus on one distance at a time but of course having more depth of field GREATLY alleviates this problem by putting more field into "adequate" focus.

Which probably helps explain why I gut-shot (6 inches to the rear of a well-placed shot) a doe this week (extended doe season in TEXAS) despite having solid rest and only 60yds range....it was in the last waning minutes of legal light, and I distinctly recall having trouble with my eyes focusing.....this despite the fact that I could shoot tight groups with the same gun in broad daylight. I think the exact problem was not seeing any contrast in the front sight post and the edges of the read-notch in order to well-center the frontsight. The front is whited and was well visible, but the rear is not. Fortunately, a .570 patched ball dropped her dead as a doornail within 30yds anyway. Still, a cautionary tale I intend to learn from.

My humble opinion is that muzzleloading seasons were concieved for primitive arms. However, it does NOT matter to me what you hunt with since in my neck of the woods not enough deer are killed generally anyway. But I do see modern MLs (sabots, non-BP, primer ignition, optical sights) as much, MUCH closer to modern cartridge gun than to traditional MLs (notwithstanding the fact that first generation inlines were technically no different than traditional guns (ie, BP, percussion cap, big lead bullet, iron sights) with no particular advantages other than familiarity of layout/design to more modern shooters.

This, again, is just my opinion based on the situation here, but my purposes are well served here in TEXAS with NO muzzleloading season as is generally the case here. I just hunt the regular rifle season with a flintlock, and most hunting rights are either owned or leased on private lands; very little public land acces. As I said before, to each his own, not enough deer killed anyway anymore.

YHS,
rogerw
San Saba, TEXAS


----------



## mrb

back to the subject
changing guns will make no difference on how far( accuracy, maybe another story)
something no one here seems to say anything about is the fact that past 200 yrds, the energy lever of most .50 cal black powder( pryodex/777, shocky gold, american powder, blackhorn) drops way below the recommeneded 1,000 foot pounds of energy!
so to be honest, shooting at deer past 200 yrds, shouldn't be done!

NOW with the savage, that can be out to close to 300 yards!
because of the extry power of the smokeless pwder,
but the problem you run into is the sabots come apart with speeds! and thus, need to do research on how/what to shoot, to keep things together!!

and going from a 24 inch barrel to a 28 inch barrel will only add about 80 feet per second, and little to no difference! too!!
its all media hype!


----------



## rogerw

mrb said:


> the recommeneded 1,000 foot pounds of energy!


I agree with most of what you say, but a small quibble: the notion that that is some minimum required energy to kill a given size game animal is a bunch of hooey propagated by gun writers who do not understand physics (or who have bullet-maker sponsors whom they want to help sell more expensive bullets to the hunting public). Or, as Col. Townsend Whelen (a gun writer himself, extraordinaire, who also ran the US Army Ballistics Research Labs (BRL), said:

"The killing power of a bullet in flight depends entirely upon the size, weight, construction, and shape of the bullet and the velocity with which it strikes, and upon no other details. ...we frequently see it stated that the killling power of a cartridge depends upon its energy....[which]depends on the weight of the bullet [and its] velocity, and on nothing else, and thus can have only a very distant bearing on our subject."

Quote from Col. Townsend Whelen, "The Hunting Rifle," Stackpole, 1940, pg. 236.

The required minimum striking energy will depend on the bullet design because some designs are more energy efficient than others. A design which must use up some of its striking energy to rearrange itself into a larger caliber (ie, expansion to killing diameter) is less energy efficient in the soft target than one that does not require expansion to accomplish a similar wound.

I doubt anyone thinks a point-blank hit from a .45 auto will not drop a deer pretty quickly if hit correctly, but it is only about 325ft-lbs at the muzzle. I have seen whitetail killed quickly at range with pass-thru hit of a patched roundball when the strking energy would have been about 400 ft-lbs (shot placement in the lung/heart being the key).

YHS,
rogerw


----------



## mrb

I agree with you to a point
but if you don't have a standard to keep the people out there from doing things they are not capable of, a lot of animals will die slow deaths due to poor hit, that should never have been taken!
Also, that is why there are caliber restrictions in most states on what you can and cannot hunt deer/big game with!.

look at archery for that part. very love energy!
But again, the reason they have stated the 1000 ft energy deal was put out there, was at less than that a pass through if bone( larger ones) is hit , it will hold enough power to power through, and thus a recovered animal is a higher outcome!
and with the bow, that is why most responsible hunters have a limit on distance, and shot placement that they will only take, like broadside, and quartering away, body positions!
so the odd of hitting bone is less, and vitals more!!


----------



## rogerw

mrb said:


> but if you don't have a standard to keep the people out there from doing things they are not capable of, a lot of animals will die slow deaths due to poor hit, that should never have been taken!


AGREED. But the standard should be based on some science.



mrb said:


> look at archery for that part.


Very good illustration of my point. A 500gr modern arrow striking at 200fps has a striking energy of about 44.4 ft-lbs and yet it will usually passthru and create two to four cuts along the diameter, approx 1" depending on the broadhead. The bleeding periphery is something like 2" to 4" which would be equivalent to round wound channels of .63 inch diameter to 1.26inch diameter. That is a projectile with a much higher striking-energy efficiency than a bullet, making the best of its meager energy supply to re-arrange the tissue of the target and create bleeding surface.

As an extreme illustration of the problem of a standard that does not conform to the science, you would not want someone applying a minimum 1000ft-lb standard to your arrow.

YHS,
rogerw


----------



## rogerw

Why is this important?

A .490 ball weighing 178grains will leave a .50cal muzzle loaded with 90grFF in the vicinity of 1750fps with 1210 ft-lbs of muzzle energy.

If the standard is 1000 ft-lbs of required striking energy, the maximum range of a .50cal patched roundball is ..... about 17 yards!!!

A .530 ball weighing about 230gr will leave a .54cal muzzle loaded with 90grainsFF in the vicinity of 1550fps with 1483 ft-lbs of muzzle energy and the 1000 ft-lb range is about 40yds!

Anyone with any PRB experience knows that these are not representative max killing ranges for these loads.....I would suggest about 80yds and about 100yds respectively are reasonablly humane max deer killing ranges for these bullets and the striking energies are about 500 ft-lbs, far short of what I see published as a "minimum required" energy based on modern expanding bullets (less efficient with the striking energy than PRBs, though more efficient at conserving energy while flying thru the air, ie, higher BCs).

think that no one would suggest banning .50cal patched round balls as too energy-light for white-tail? think again, Toby Bridges has and he is an activist lobbying our Game and Wildlife Depts.....

YHS,
rogerw


----------



## Savage260

> I doubt anyone thinks a point-blank hit from a .45 auto will not drop a deer pretty quickly if hit correctly, but it is only about 325ft-lbs at the muzzle.


I don't know about this one! I have seen quite a number of deer, all previously injured by vehicles, shrug off hits from a .45 auto using Fedral Hydroshocks. Most shots were from 2-5 yds and all were hit correctly. I guess they may have dropped "pretty quickly" but few if any were "bang flops". I am not sure if this is due to ammo or what. I do know the .357sig round shooting Speer ammo does the job much better.

This has just been what I have seen.


----------



## rogerw

laite319 said:


> I doubt anyone thinks a point-blank hit from a .45 auto will not drop a deer pretty quickly if hit correctly, but it is only about 325ft-lbs at the muzzle.
> 
> I don't know about this one! ....


OK, I stand corrected. (I also had second thoughts after I had posted, that a .45 ACP hardball may not be all that quick, though I have killed deer with a .45 patched roundball at 12yds when the ball did not expand and did not exit and death was within 30yds...BTW, our TEXAS deer don't tend to be as big as ya'lls deer up North.)

The .357 Sig however is about 400 to 500 ftlbs at the muzzle, depending on gun and load, so my larger point is still intact.

Thanks,

YHS,
rogerw


----------



## Savage260

rogerw, I hope you don't think I was trying "take a shot" at what you said. I was just poking a little fun at myself and those of us who have had to shoot many wounded deer on the side of the road with the .45.

I don't pretend to know any thing at all about this stuff and I enjoy reading and learning from those of you who really do know what you are talking about. :beer:


----------



## rogerw

laite319 said:


> rogerw, I hope you don't think I was trying "take a shot" at what you said..... I was just poking a little fun at myself.... :beer:


Well, I might have taken your point seriously, but not personally......I don't mind being corrected....it is how we learn.

:beer: cool!

YHS,
rogerw


----------



## Plainsman

rogerw

I have to say I really enjoy the way you look at these things. I can read articles all day on the mechanics of the projectile and how they affect the animal physiology.
I always liked the friction between Jack O'connor and Elmer Keith. One guy was a velocity proponent and the other guy liked big large diameter bullets. 
Today most people have turned to the foot pouns of energy as a measure of lethality. Still a few cling to the old KO value. I fall in between.

I remember that discussion about the 45 auto for deer. I remember that I discouraged the fellow from using a 45 and didn't consider it a very good round for intentionally hunting deer. Well, you guys have perhaps read enough of the things I write to know I have an over abundance of curriosity. Ya, you guessed it, I had to shot one with a 45 ACP last fall. Not only that, I had to plug it with my new Springfield XD with only a four inch barrel instead of my 1911 with a five inch barrel, an 18.5 recoil spring, and 200 gr hard cast pushed to 1060fps. I hunted the edge of a corn field and shot a doe facing me at 35 yards. Dumb move, but the shot must have been lucky. I run over to where she was hit expecting a 400 yard blood trail, cursing myself for stupidity, only to find her within ten paces. It was to cold to take time following the wound channel, but I wish I had. Sixty years old and still do somthing stupid once in a while. Thank God for luck.


----------



## rogerw

Plainsman said:


> rogerw, I have to say I really enjoy the way you look at these things.


Thank you, kindly, Plainsman.



Plainsman said:


> Today most people have turned to the foot pouns of energy as a measure of lethality. Still a few cling to the old KO value. I fall in between.


If you really want to read something neat and enlightening about terminal ballistics.... http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ball ... nding.html . This guy is an engineering graduate working on terminal ballistics professionally. He also is a sport hunter...and is from my own alma mater so you know he is great...but the point is that there is real physics to this and most of what you read in popular magazines is hooey by writers who may have "taken" game, but have not "taken" physics. Or if they took physics, they flunked.



Plainsman said:


> about the 45 auto for deer.


That is interesting. I like experiments like this, it is how we learn. Though the closest I have come to that is a .45 PRB from a flintlock, I theorized that it would be about minimally adequate to kill a deer fairly reliably if the hit was good... It is amazing how different deer and humans will react to the same hit, but the eventual lethality has to be about the same....death in about 10seconds or less due to dropping the blood pressure to the central nervous system.

This year a good friend of mine killed a fine buck on my place at San Saba, TEXAS with a .40 flintlock at about 63 lasered yards. It was a poorly aimed shot IMHO and he was lucky it deflected and hit the spine. BangFlop. There are many back East who swear by this caliber, but I think a .45PRB is getting pretty doggone marginal based on my limited experience, and a .40 is too small. That does not mean you cannot kill a deer with it though! Especially closer up. My friend looked at the wound channel and said he would never shoot a deer again with that gun. He is working up a .54cal now. I concur.

BTW, I also know a fellow who killed a doe with a .177cal Benjamin pump air rifle, one shot one kill, she went about 3 ft, straight down, Bang-Flop as Laite319 says above. Hit thru the eyeball and into the brain. It was not a sporting shot at all, he was trying to scare it away from his garden....totally freak shot, poorly aimed by a non-hunter. BTW, that is about 12.8 ft-lbs of muzzle energy. Deadly too.



Plainsman said:


> Thank God for luck.


Amen.

YHS,
rogerw


----------



## oldfireguy

Wow! Not only did I get the information I needed, I also have enjoyed the various discussions that have resulted. A great website with folks willing to share knowledge.
So.....
I was going to loan my ml to a ND resident friend. Unfortunately, he is a cross-dressing Druid and plans to load it with birdshot to hunt fur-bearing predators while floating in a hot air balloon over standing crops located on section lines. The problem is he buys a NR license with a forged MN ID.
Q:Will this cause a problem, or just continuation of this thread to a site "record".

Seriously, thanks to all of the responses and the additional discussions.


----------



## Powerfisher

Holy Crap! I skipped some of this thread cuz......wow. 
So, I just got me a T/C Omega and love it. Best BANG for your BUCK (pun intended) 
My first day at the range with my first BP went not as I expected. Had to get used to the swabbing after each shot. Got my ramrod suck and looked like a fool. With two T7 pellets and open sights, tac driver at 50 yds. At 100 yds 3.5" group using T/C Shockwaves 250gr. The breech plug got a little stuck but not bad. I did have to remove it a couple of times so I could get the crud ring off that the T7 pellets left behind. After some research on forums like this one, I learned a few tricks and my second day was a whole lot better. Since then I have changed a few things. 
T/C Omega, peep, BH209, 250gr. T/C Shockwave. 
I just mounted a Williams WGRS peep today.
Im hoping the peep gets that 100yd group a bit tighter for me so I can be confident at a pie plate at 200yds. 
I was shooting T7 Pellets but went and bought some BH209. I havent used the BH yet but tomorrow is the day.
My goal is to get 2" high at 100 yds, that should keep me just about right on at 150 and a bit low at 200 but still in the kill zone. I have never wounded a deer and dont plan on starting this year. 
The trick is to find out the best combo of powder and bullet. You also have to carry enough knock down power at 200 yds or whatever your max range ends up being.
I do feel that all the research I have done I am going to start at 100 gr of BH and work my way up from there.
Hope my opinion helps, experience is the best teacher, put in as much time as your life allows and get comfortable with your new gun.


----------



## rogerw

Powerfisher said:


> T/C Omega, peep, BH209, 250gr. T/C Shockwave. ....My goal is to get 2" high at 100 yds, that should keep me just about right on at 150 and a bit low at 200 but still in the kill zone.


check out this guy with similar choices: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=233501

Overall he is a very happy camper with a 200gr shockwave in an omega rifle. He seems to infer that his measured BC rom zero to 200yds is much less than advertized. This is a common occurence, since BCs given are only valid over certain speed ranges and are quoted in favorable light which avoids the trans-sonic speeds where drag goes up. Your BC will be a little better with the extra weight.

YHS,
rogerw


----------



## Powerfisher

Good info, thanks a lot. I am hoping that the BH209 will burn a bit cleaner and add some fps for more power down range. From all the hype I have read, it could be the best Sub ever. I dont mind the lack of convenience the pellets offer or the lack of the crud ring. Speed loads for hunting purpose are speed loads as far as im concerned. At the range, who cares, I let the barrel cool down between shots anyhow. I think I may need a smaller aperture, the Williams Peep is a bit big, border line Ghost Ring. Wont know for sure till I shoot. The wife gave me a honey-do list today so my range day gets bumped. I may go out in the AM before the Super Bowl and squeeze off a few rounds for S&Gs. She knows better to mess with me on a football day let alone the SB! I live in CA so I have till 2pm or so. Arrrrrgggg. Damn woman. Bless her heart.


----------



## rogerw

Powerfisher said:


> Good info, thanks a lot.


You are welcome. I hope that combination works well for you.



Powerfisher said:


> ...it could be the best sub ever.


Every new sub is the best sub ever, it would appear.

Can't help with the little lady though....I have one of my own that I have never really mastered....I think it is because she is smarter than me.

YHS,
rogerw


----------



## mrb

rogerw
some science I don't always foll,as some times things in the field can be different that in a LAB,
But the energy thing also has a lot to do with abullet expanding, and thus being treminal to the animals health!
as for the bow andf arrow, well the kill comes from the broadhead cutting some important( keeping it general) an artery or major pumper,
so a bullet and a broadhead are two different animals.
but as for what is acceptable and what is not, in amounts of energy to kill, just comes down to so many things,
thus the 1000 foot energy rule is out there, I have seen tons of things kill that had no where near that, some by luck, and some with skill places hits.
let us not forget, that deer shot with 4,000 foot lbs of energy can be lost too, seen that too many times.
it just comes down to what kind of a standarn we should have as a base line, and thus the 1,000f lbs of energy, is a decient thing for me to start at, and as skill and experience comes, then you can adjust
but lots of good stuff on this post!


----------



## rogerw

mrb said:


> it just comes down to what kind of a standarn we should have as a base line, and thus the 1,000f lbs of energy, is a decient thing


I disagree, 1000 ft-lbs is a mere arbitrary choice based only on anecdotal perceptions gained by focusing on one type of modern bullet and by repitition from one gun article to another by writers who do not understand physics.

BTW, Toby Bridges says 800ft-lbs for a white-tail, not 1000 ft-lbs. That is also very arbitrary. He could just as easily say 1127.5 ft-lbs, but since he did not calculate based on ANY physical or physiological principle, the claim is meaningless as anything more than just personal opinion. Its a nice round number pulled out of "brown air."

I do not mind this minimum energy claim if it remains opinion. I would mind if it were enacted as law.



mrb said:


> but lots of good stuff on this post!


I agree, and have learned from people on this forum. I hope to learn more.

YHS,
rogerw


----------



## Plainsman

I typed a nice long response and the darn WORD program crashed :******: 
Oh well, now I don't know if I can remember what I wrote. :******:

I think death from a bullet or an arrow is much the same. Both kill the animal through hemorrhage. The difference is unlike the arrow that slices a path within a circle the bullet destroys all tissue within that circle and disrupts the nervous system dropping the animal. That animal perhaps doesn't die any faster, it just looks that way.
Energy required. I think many writers use the 1000 ft lb simply to establish some rule of lethal energy for the average hunter. I grew up on the Spirit Lake Nation reservation where many deer were killed with 22 long rifle every year. Our neighbor killed 75 deer from Thanksgiving to Christmas one year. He got caught with 25 deer in a truck selling them for $10 up in Grand Forks. The judge took his rifle which Johnny thought was funny because he had a dozen. He had a real nice octagon barrel 30-30, I don't know why he always used a 22 most of the time for deer.
My point is even very small rifles will kill with proper bullet placement, but writers are trying to write for the average hunter and keep deer hunting humane.
For years many people argued pro velocity while others argued pro bullet weight and diameter. With two schools of thought it wasn't as hard to write articles and keep followers interested and respecting you. Today there are many more variables like bullet construction, bullet materials, bullet jacket core adhesion methods, etc. 
You can shoot a deer with a 223 and a 55 gr bullet at 3200 fps or a 44 caliber 240 gr at about 1200 fps and have close to the same energy. The 22 expands and may penetrate about 3/4 of the way through the deer. It will also create some nervous system damage. The 44 caliber will perhaps not expand at all, but it is already of larger diameter than the mushroomed 22 caliber. It will perhaps pass 3/4 of the way through the deer and although not as fast as the 22 caliber it's larger diameter will help it create about the same nervous system damage and hemorrhaging. Six of one half a dozen of the other.
A small light bullet, a heavy slow bullet, or an arrow may all appear different when they hit an animal, but if you had a stopwatch on a heart monitor the time from hit to death may be very similar. Luckily most state game agencies leave our options open to make limited but wide choices in the cartridges we choose to hunt with. The man who thinks he has the magic rifle just may be a better shot than he thinks. That's ok I like humble people.


----------



## mrb

Plainsman
, odds are the reason your buddy used the 22 over the 30/30 was due to a lot less noise, when shooting illigal deer, noise is what gives them a way a lot of times( I am not saying you are good friends)
as again for the rule on the BLANK number of ft lbs of energy needed to kill a deer, well, I agree its could be many, but since I have a lot of experience with a lot of different guns, and have been a long range shooter( hunter too! to a point)
I have seen great bullers kill deer, at certian speeds, and energy levels, as well as recovered a lot of them bullets, and most modern rilfe bullets, need speed and a certian amount of energy to work a made to!
which is another reason on the 1,000 energy level!
and as for how a bullet kills as to an arrow/broadhead,
there is in most modern rifle calibers, a major amount of body shock along with the damage done to just what the bullet hits, and thus, making a poor hit with a modern gun, a lot less of a chance of a lost animal, than with a boW and arrow!
big difference there, and becauce of that shock, deer do die faster, its not just an image thing!, the energy transfer is way different, and just that can kill!
but a good hit will kill with both, yes!! but by some what different reasons!
I still believe that the 1,000 ft lbs rule is a good one, and once someone takes the time and experience to do other things, so be it, but its a good rule of thumb for new guys to live by!
I sold over 15,000 guns, to hunters shooters, both new and old, and I am sorry to say, that the major part of them , don't know very much about guns, bullets, or hunting for that matter, and because of that, this rule is really needed, that most take for granted!
us guys that love the sport , have a major upper hand on most, and we know our limits, the majorty don't!
the good old days of hunter, learning from childhood, and thus more info every year are gone, on the large part as they were
go to a public range a few days a week, and just watch the new guys, they are scary!!, too many movies they have seen, and expect things to work like in them !!
I live in a very gun friendly area, hear gun shots every time I am outside, and I sold a lot of the guns I hear, and to be honest< I don't shoot/hunt in this area, due to the fact I know the people who are shooting/hunting the area!!
they are dangerous!!, seen them shoot the wrong targets at the range not knowing they were( some 5-7 yards off!) they have told me they shoot at sounds in the woods when hunting!, and always asked me for bullet that would blow stuff up!
and folks I have freinds all over the USA that sell guns, and they have the same thing! going on these days!!
sure there are a few real customers out there still, but its a dieing breed!
and these new guys are causing troubles, making the good guys still out there look bad!!
we are in for a bad future, between all the new gun bans/rules being thrown out there as of just the last few weeks( go to the NRA web site and see)
and a new president that thinks all guns in general are , and should be controled by the goverment!
he has said that no one needs a gun with military history
well folk, all our guns through our history, came from military guns, first the real gun, then designs modification of it to be more usefull to the hunter,sportsman
and he is going after our ammo, clips, and then makes and models

so that is why I fel we need to have base lines for hunters/shooters that are new and don't know any better!


----------



## rogerw

Plainsman said:


> I think death from a bullet or an arrow is much the same. Both kill the animal through hemorrhage.


That is precisely what the experts say. You can even find this in FBI studies in terms of what their pistol bullets need to be able to do to incapacitate, since they consulted the same experts I am talking about. The field of study is termed as Wound Ballistics, and it is organized as a scientific discipline.

You kill a deer, or anything else, by killing the Central Nervous System. A direct hit to the CNS is not a percentage shot under most field conditions, so you shoot for the lung/heart area where the goal is to drop the blood pressure to the CNS, deny the CNS oxygen, and unconsciousness and death comes within 10seconds or less, usually in 2-3 seconds if the wound creates adequate bleeding surface. It does not take a very large diameter hole to do this, but it should penetrate thru in order to give the blood a place to freely go, so the pumping pressure to the CNS drops quickly.

An arrow will create a similar bleeding surface to what an adequate bullet hit will.... the question is, in the few seconds of life remaining how far a deer might run, or not.

The only salient difference in this regard between bullet and arrow is that an arrow cuts clean and a bullet bludgeons its way thru, hence the arrow is far more energy efficient, killing with less than 50ft-lbs, yet still creating approx the same minimum amount of bleeding surface.

Similarly a PRB is more energy efficient than a modern expanding bullet since it "arrives ready to do business" while the modern bullet must use part of its own energy to expand efore it is "read to do business"....That is why a PRB DOES NOT REQUIRE ANYWHERE CLOSE TO 1000 ft lbs of striking energy.

It simply does not. 1000 ft-lbs is not appropriate as a general rule because there exists bullets simply do not require that much energy to kill.

If you insist on 1000lbs of strking energy, you consign the .50cal PRB rifle to 20yds or less effective range on deer. Anyone with any PRB experience knows that is not true. Therefore, 1000 ft-lbs is not true either. It is a misguided generalization based on observations of modern expanding bullets, NOT ALL BULLETS.

YHS,
rogerw


----------



## Plainsman

> I am not saying you are good friends


MRB, ya , he was a neighbor. I embarrassed my parents terribly once. When I was three years old I asked him to help me build a bow and arrow. He said he didn't know how. I said, "you don't know how to build a bow and arrow, what kind of Indian are you"? He didn't stop laughing for a long time. 
He didn't need to be quiet on the reservation he could shoot as many deer as he wanted to. You were talking about people taking sound shots. This man killed his oldest son with a 22 shooting when he seen brush moving. He had purchased a semi-auto and pumped nine rounds into the brush hitting his son six times. He didn't hunt for about six years. One can only feel sorry for the son and father. 
Anyway, I understand the shock to the central nervous system, but that' doesn't kill the animal. Some people think it does, but not so. I and many experienced hunters will agree on nearly everything else you had to say. 
Roger thanks for a very good explanation ---- again. When you see an animal falter before falling it isn't because his nervous system has been slammed with 3000 ft lb of energy it's because he isn't getting oxygen to the brain. Which of course is what your saying Roger, I was just reaffirming, or reaffirming a reaffirmation, or  ???? heck, I have lost track.


----------



## rogerw

Plainsman said:


> MRB, ya , he was a neighbor.
Click to expand...

Its good to know he was not killing deer illegally.

Awfully sorry to hear he accidently killed his son, but IMHO accidents like that are not excusable. That is to say, negligent homicide has ocurred, although circumstances like this one do not mean any time has to be served. but, the fact is, negligence like that is deadly.

I have to believe that an Indian who knows how to make a bow and arrow would not suffer that fate...... :wink:

YHs,
rogerw


----------



## Powerfisher

I have been hunting and fishing most my life. My first BB gun at the age of 5 and fishing before that. (44 yrs old now) I never paid much attention to the science of taking game, I just knew the basics and stuck to them. I learned from my dad how to shoot, where to hit your game and why. I now have a 9 year old son of my own and he too is learning the same way I did. Learn respect for the weapon and your surroundings. Starting with a BB gun, learned how to shoot, progressed to a bolt action .22 only one bullet at a time. He now has a 410 single shot that he is very good with. I have seen the rookies on the range. It IS scary. I have left ranges because of them. I dont know if I need to know all the things that I am learning in this forum but I sure do like it. Never made it to the range on Sunday. This weekend.


----------



## rogerw

Powerfisher,

Magnificent! I had three daughters and love them all, but I sure wish I coulda had a son. I have hoped they would marry hunters, but so far I am 0-2 on that score. My third daughter has found time a few times to go hunting with me (she is in school at Texas A&M) but of course she does not find much time for hunting. She took a nice buck a couple years ago with the suppository gun I fixed up for her. I learned from my father the same way. He passed last year, but I have great memories. I envy you, with your son, this is the best of times!

You do not have to know the science of it all, to know the art of it very well. It is enough to know the art, and there is always more to learn.

But when artists start throwing around numbers, I say look to the scientists for confirmation.

YHS,
rogerw


----------



## Powerfisher

I COULDNT HAVE WISHED FOR A BETTER DAY AT THE RANGE!

37 degrees, rain and snow mixed, 5000 ft elevation, foggy, low light level. NOBODY at the range. Perfect conditions. 
So I wanted to see for myself how many shots I could squeeze off before I had to swab. Every round seated perfectly, right to my rod mark. My result was 12 shots. The 13th shot was a delay. Swabbed the barrel and squeezed off another round and again, delay. Swabbed again, removed breech plug and cleaned completley, hole and all. No problems after that. Then I swabbed after every shot with Windex and followed with a dry patch. 
My shoulder is a bit sore. Right now I have my BH209 load worked up to 110 gr. throwing a 250gr Shockwave. 50yds, tac driver. 100yds, average 2" grouping with peep. About 3" high. WOW. I was running out of bullets so I didnt try a further shots. Last round, clean bore, 100yds, slight breeze from right to left and 1 1/4" NW of dead center. I may have flinched cuz, like I said, my shoulder was pretty sore and I knew this one was going to hurt. It did. So at the range, I will swab between shots cuz that will be the condition of my rilfe in the field. In the field, I am not going to need any cleaning supplies. I am very confident that I could squeeze off several shots without swabbing, NO PROBLEM. I am going to work the BH209 all the way up to the max of 120gr. and see what she does.


----------



## Powerfisher

OK, cleanup at home on the bench was not so bad. But not as easy as I have read. DONT use water or any other BP solvent cuz it doesnt work....well. I had to use Hoppes#9 to clean everything to my specs. I just dont swab the barrel and brush the breech plug. I clean EVERYTHING. I did have to use the Hoppes cuz the BH209 would not come off completely without it. So, on the range, I will swab with Windex between shots but when bench cleaning, Hoppes #9 is the trick for sure. I forgot to mention in my earlier post that without swabbing for my first 12 shot, the accuacy did not change and my Sabot 250gr. Shockwave seated fully every time, even when I had the hang-fires. It was a total breech plug problem. Crud did biuld up in the breech and that was causing my hang-fires. I was sighting in my new peep and every time I adjusted, thats where the bullet went. Very accurate. No flyers. Good grouping @ 50 & 100yds. It also did not get better once I started swabbing after every shot. BH209 is hot, basicly clean and you can shoot multiple shots without swabbing and not lose your accuracy. Is it better that T7 FFg? Couldnt tell ya. I know its better than pellets! I do know that I will have to work up my load more for more velocity at further yardage......150-200yds. I may drop my 250gr. Shockwave down to 200gr. but im not at that point yet. I will keep ya posted.


----------

