# Toby Bridges versus the Patched Roundball (sorry, long)



## rogerw

Toby Bridges has advocated that States should adopt energy limits on MLs that would preclude legal use of most roundball guns for deer hunting. I took him to task for this and he has taken this commentary history down off his site, but I have a copy of the quotes I refer to. In response to his advocacy, and during the course of a back and forth discussion at his website blog I claimed that roundballs are consistent killers within their reasonable range, and that 90yds was about the maximum for a .50cal. Toby described this as "irresponsible." I also claimed that roundballs at their maximum range will create wounds comparable to modern ML bullets at the extreme of their range (which is much further&#8230;.maybe 2 to 2.5 times as far, depending). Tony decried this claim as well, using defamatory and derogatory language. He finally disabled the feedback/comment on his site, and has also written a new article where he inflates and misquotes my claim to become something different than what I said (http://www.hpmuzzleloading.com/Technical2.html ). I am the "RW" he refers to.

So, generally it is not hard to catch a fool in the act because it is so impossible to keep track of all the foolhardy claims and maintain consistency over the years&#8230;.. here is evidence of Toby's perfidy:

1) Here is something Toby Bridges wrote and published in 2004 in "High Performance Muzzleloader Big Game Rifles," Stoeger Publishing Co., Chapter 1 entitled "The Evolution of Firepower," page 15:

"Out of this need to conserve [lead and powder, as compared to large caliber German jaeger rifles] came the long-barreled rifles that became distinctively American in design. Often referred to as Pennsylvania or Kentucky rifles, the new domestically built front-loaders often sported barrels that were 40 to 44 inches in length, and bore sizes had shrunk to .40 to .44caliber. While these rifles still would not produce the same energy levels as a .62 German jaeger loaded with 120grains of blackpowder behind a 325 to 340grain soft lead ball, the smaller bored American long-rifles shot a lighter 90 to 130 grain ball at much higher velocities. And in the hands of an expert rifleman, the rifles would deliver *all the knockdown power needed to take even deer-sized game at 100 yards *- or drop an enemy at that distance." [emphasis mine.]

And on pg 17:

"During the early 1800s it was easier and less costly to have an older original flintlock rifle converted [to percussion and to larger caliber]&#8230;&#8230;Many rifles that started as a .40 to .44 caliber ended up as rifles of .47 to .52 caliber. And when hunters began to stoke the rifles with heavier powder charges and heavier larger diameter roundballs, they also realized how much more effective the guns were on big game." (presumably the guns became even better for "knock-down power" at the 100yd deer he referred to above.)

2) And here are statements Toby Bridges made on his "Muzzlehead" blogsite (http://www.hpmuzzleloading.com/ ) between Jan7 and Jan27, 2008. He later took all this down off his site, as far as I can tell, and no longer allows readers to log their comments online:

"Anyone who would attempt a 90 yard shot on deer with a .50 caliber patched round ball rifle and load is nothing short of irresponsible."

"First, 90 yards is about 35 to 40 yards farther than most 50 caliber patched round ball loads should ever be used on deer-sized game."

"It is you who contends that a puny 178-181 grain .50 caliber round ball, with a retained velocity of 1,100 f.p.s. at 90 yards and about 485 f.p.e. of remaining energy, is such a great deer killer."

"And that is what I say BS to...because that's exaclty what it is&#8230;.Defend it all you want with all of the bull**** nonesense (that does not relate to ML projectiles) that you want."

"You cannot rommance big game to death just because you want to hunt with a tradtional patched round ball rifle and projectile - no matter how much you try to justify and defend it with all of you bull**** nonesense."

"Roger, you are what's wrong with muzzleloading today, certainly not what's right with it."

I cannot judge for sure what Toby's motives are, though I have my suspicions. I can tell you for a fact that experts in the field of Wound Ballistics do not accept the notion that wound trauma incapacitation of a live target is a function of energy only (or even at all, as it turns out), as Toby claims and fixes at 800fpe for a deer (article referenced with link above, many other references too); and it is totally invalid to assume that a bullet of one construction and shape needs the same energy as a bullet of another construction and shape. This is established science. How it applies to roundballs vs modern bullets is still tbd. I am working on that problem, and making some progress.

Whether a roundball rifle can kill a deer cleanly at 90 yds is for everyone to judge for himself I guess. I only shot one once at 90yds with a flintlock, and the buck (not doe as TB said) went 30yds and piled up. And the .50cal ball passed thru, just as I would much prefer it to do. The nearest I have come to that was a 70yd shot where the deer went down where it stood, passthru too. All other shots within 50yds or so, and I have had every reaction you can name, just like anyone else who has hunted game very much.

YHS,
rogerw


----------



## barebackjack

The above is precisely why I dont give the mans words one stock of credit. He flip-flops his stances every couple years. Hes an idiot in my book.

He mostly likely got some money from some modern conical bullet company, and rather tell the truth, just spouted off about how roundballs should be outlawed so everybody has to shoot "his" sponsors stuff.


----------



## rogerw

Howdy BBJ!

I was beginning to wonder if anyone was around here, haven't seen much activity in past few days.

I kept thinking for days whether I ought to post this thread or not....but I would like for anyone who runs up against this argument of Toby's to know that it is provably invalid. Especially if it happens to occur in somebody's State Game Dept meetings.

I was out last week doing some .50 flintlock shooting from 25yds to 90yds into water....will do some more serious experiments soon. I received a book entitled "Bullet Penetration" by Duncan MacPherson....very technical, mathematical explanation of wound trauma incapacitation of live targets....the math model shows why very high velocity expands and limits penetration, and lower velocity with less expansion penetrates MUCH further.... and the non-intuitive answer is that you get more penetration with lower velocity (to a point)!

That also made me realize that those very long range shots Toby is taking on deer (up too 200yds and even close to 300yds) might end up different if the deer were to walk up within 50yds or less of his stand....the same bullet might overexpand... depends on design and construction, but typically any expanding bullet will do this if driven too fast for its design. and the bullet that does well at distance often fails up close....unless it is a roundball 

YHS,
rogerw


----------



## Plainsman

Good Morning Roger,

Our first season here in North Dakota was does only. I was shooting round ball then, and I didn't write anything down so I must rely on memory. The doe I shot that year with a roundball was either 110 or 120 yards. It was early and dark and I hit a bit back. The ball passed through the liver angling backwards and exited out the right rear ham. I don't think I caught any lung, but it was a very racking angle through the deer. She walked about ten yards, stood for five seconds, then hit the ground. By the way, I was shooting only 70 gr of Pistol Pyrodex. I forget my muzzle velocity, but I think it was right around 1600 fps.

In my mind the round ball is a ballistic/killing capability anomaly. I have done a lot of ballistic work, and comparing the killing power of round balls on paper and observing it's killing abilities in the field doesn't jive. Shooting the round ball on game is what changed me from a pure velocity school of thought as presented by Jack O'Connor, to incorporating the thoughts of Elmer Keith. One a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being of the big slow bullet philosophy and 10 being the high velocity philosophy I think I would fall at about a 7. One thing I will say is that you will find it hard to improve on pure lead at traditional muzzleloader velocities when choosing a bullet.

I flip flop too, but it is from round ball traditional in my Hawken one year to sabot bullet in my inline the next year. I have never read anything by this Toby, but having shot about ten deer with each (round ball and sabot bullet) I think old Toby says what brings in the money. I have also shot the 370 Maxi and within 100 yards it will make a sabot bullet look like a pussycat.


----------



## rogerw

Plainsman said:


> In my mind the round ball is a ballistic/killing capability anomaly. I have done a lot of ballistic work, and comparing the killing power of round balls on paper and observing it's killing abilities in the field doesn't jive.


I agree with you from personal experience, and also on anecdotal experiences of others, but there is also real physics behind the fact. The problem is that gun writers over the years have amassed a lot of experience in the field with what kills well with modern expanding bullets and then tried to relate that to physics where they often have little or no experience and knowledge and developed formulas that merely tell them what they already thought was true about their field experiences. (they have "taken" deer but they have not "taken" physics!). You wind up with a formula that cannot explain why a baseball with even more energy than the "minimum" will not kill, or why an arrow with 1/20 of the energy of the "minimum required" is deadly. 
Real physics is not that stupidly construed.

Here is what one of the more knowledgeable gun writers said (who happened to have been with the US Army Ordnance Dept, and associated with real engineers and scientist in the field of ballistics, the Army BRL):

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

"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 killing 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."
[considers both expanding or non-expanding bullets.]

Recent research in the last 25yrs totally backs up these claims made in 1940 and has achieved general theory of how to quantify for a given situation. It is not "energy" per se, nor is it momentum either. Many "gunwriter formulas" are based on one or the other of these. Velocity has a contribution to Wound Trauma Incapacitation which is closer to the square root of velocity than either the square (energy) or linear (momentum). This makes velocity less important than common sense would tell us. And this is why a slow roundball still penetrates like going thru butter!

Essentially, if energy is used to compare different construction bullets, then all bullets do not have the same energy-efficiency in terms of what is required to cleanly kill. This energy-efficiency should NOT be confused with effectiveness! A more energetic bullet that is less efficient might easily still be more effective; but saying that is so does not make the less energetic bullet that is more efficient any less effective than it is, either! It all depends....

Actually quantifying these claims for a .50 RB vs some chose modern ML bullet has not been done, and I hope to accomplish this comparison with some time and money... I cannot afford ballistic gelatin and I am saving up newspapers to make wetpacks to shoot into.

YHS,
rogerw

PS - btw, mega-dittos on the big maxiball! more mass is more important than higher velocity to wound trauma incapacitation.

PSS - actually, my baseball example is off-base in terms of energy. A baseball thrown at about 100mph has about 107fpe which is over twice what the arrow has, but only about as much energy as a .22LR. However, a baseball going 100mph has about the same momentum as a 150gr .30-06 striking at 2200fps.....ouch! One kills and the other one really hurts. This is a good illustration of why momentum is not really the total answer either; the design of the bullet (shape, size, construction) determines how effficiently the energy will be used in the wounding process and differnt bullets are just different, dang it!


----------



## Plainsman

That's why I think I make about a seven when comparing Jack Oconnor and Elmer Keith. Keith used the KO factor which is much like you are explaining. 
The round ball starts out at the diameter that a 30 caliber bullet expands to, if your lucky. Frontal diameter, weight, and velocity are all important, but one can make up for the lack of another. Velocity can make up for frontal diameter in an expanding bullet, but a large slow bullet doesn't need to expand. Today people shy away from cast bullets in a 44 mag, but they perform superbly. 
I have been seriously thinking about buying a ballistic test tube. I looked at one of those green tubes with the reusable gelatin. I know a fellow that has welded two 55 gallon drums together. He sits it in the door opening of his barn door then go upstairs, open the door above it, and shoot into the barrel. I used a white 3 X 3 foot net and suspended it off a bridge down into the water as far as I could see it. Water isn't the same as meat, but it did let me compare bullets. The crazy stuff we do to test equipment.


----------



## rogerw

Plainsman said:


> The round ball starts out at the diameter that a 30 caliber bullet expands to, if your lucky. Frontal diameter, weight, and velocity are all important, but one can make up for the lack of another. Velocity can make up for frontal diameter in an expanding bullet, but a large slow bullet doesn't need to expand.


Exactly so, Plainsman. We don't always know that smaller bullet will succesfully expand (or not disintegrate if a shot is taken very close, though some bullets are MUCH better than others), but we do know that a big ball, or conical for that matter, will not get smaller!

YHS,
rogerw

PS - btw, what is a "ballistic tube?" I am familiar with ballistic gelatin, and PermaGel; also wetpacks, and shooting into water various ways....but haven't heard of "green tube" etc.

PSS- Ok, did a search and found it...never heard of it before you mentioned it.


----------



## Aythya

I have been shooting 50 caliber patched, round balls with 100 grains of black powder exclusively since I purchased my Hawken rifle in 1976. I have killed plenty of deer out to about 100 yards with this set up, both bucks and does. To be quite honest, my range is really dictated by being able to see the target with open, iron sites. In really good light using my shooting stick I would not hesitate to take a 100 yard shot but in low light I have trouble seeing the target well enough any more. I prefer closer shots but not because my rifle isn't effective at killing deer at 100 yards.


----------



## rogerw

Aythya,

You got a good 5-6 year headstart on me! Wish I had had someone like you around when I was getting started.

Actually, with no one to teach me and with a poorly rifled CVA barrel (made in USA, btw) it took me the better part of two years driving to a range to learn to shoot good groups with the kit-gun I finished in 1981. I had to back down to 60gr FF to get that thing to shoot well, but I did kill my first 8 or 9 ML deer with that gun (not counting earlier kills with centerfire)....never more than about 40 or so yards with that load though my memory is incomplete on that point.

I do remember the closest one was at about 12yds! OK, my eyes are getting worse too, but not that bad yet! I have the same issue...good light I can shoot pretty far...not so good light and I have to fold my hand.

YHS,
rogerw


----------



## Aythya

Roger,

I will have to admit that longer shots took place in my younger days when I had better eyes and a steadier hand. The last deer I shot with my Hawken was at about 9 yards and I try to set up so I get bow hunting range shots (I shoot a longbow) of under 20 yards. Heck, even when I use my .270 with a 3-9 scope I try to get shots as close as possible.

My view of the world has changed quite a bit over the years. I find it adds more enjoyment to try to get close with the old smokepole and I like to still hunt whenever possible. But, I know my rifle is capable of accurately delivering a patched, round ball out to 100 yards and hitting in vitals. Operator error induced by age limits my range by personal choice.

Thus, I think Mr. Bridges is incorrect.


----------



## rogerw

Here is some more history of RoundBalls written by T. B. Tryon in the American Rifleman in the 1930s:

[taken from page 24 of "The Complete Rehabilitation of the Flintlock Rifle & Other Works," by T. B. Tryon. First published in 1972 by Joe Bagby, it is a compilation of Tryon's articles from the 1930s American Rifleman magazines. (The illustration pictured below is dated '36)]

"With the general adoption of the percussion system came the short, heavy, large-caliber plains rifle. This severely plain weapon, of rugged construction, was designed to withstand the ill treatment incidental to innumerable skirmishes in the hands of those hardy wanderers of the trackless plains and mountains. It was in short, a modification of the Kentucky rifle, and was capable of accurately delivering a heavy ball with great shocking power at long range. The round ball was universally used on the plains in preference to the picket bullet - approved conical missile of the fine American target rifles of the period. This was due to the fact that considerable time and care were required to seat the conical projectile with the vertex concentric with the bore, inasmuch as the circumference of the base was the only bearing point; and unless properly seated, this missile was far less accurate than the round ball. On the other hand the spherical ball, enveloped in a greased linen patch, was quickly loaded, consistently accurate, and incapable of keyholing. (Figure 7) When necessary to reload for a hasty shot the linen patch could be dispensed with, which was not the case with the picket bullet if any degree of accuracy were to be had. Therefore, the false muzzles, telescopes, and picket bullets of the superbly accurate target rifles found no place beyond the outskirts of civilization. Simplicity and dependability were the requirements of men whose very lives depended upon the efficiency of their weapons."


----------



## grzzlylnghnter

I realize that no one has been on this post for a long time. But I'm new to this sight and was reading all of the topics about muzzleloading. 
this toby guy is out of his mind. Even slight research about lead bullets done by a child would blow him out of the water. 
As I'm sure all of you guys know, he is totally off about the history of muzzleloaders anyway. The fist guns brought here from Europe were small bores for the most part. Not untill the frontiersmen started running into bison and more importantly, Grizzlies, did they find a need for bigger bores. 
Thanks, Ronnie


----------

