Posted on 04/05/2018 5:00:31 AM PDT by w1n1
Muzzleloaders have come along way and there has been enormous improvements in muzzleloading technology. Traditionally, able to take down target at 50-75 yards, current muzzleloaders can reach out at longer ranges.
There’s mixture of sentiment as to which muzzleloader to go with. Modern day hunters have the latest piece of weaponry with all the gizmo. While some old school purist just want to use their old style muzzleloader.
Finally, a few that just want a reliable muzzleloader.
Whichever side you fall on there is something for everyone. Have a look at this best hunting muzzleloader list.
Just don’t let the British catch you carrying them.
This hardly seems like a muzzle loader to me.
You would have to have an open breach to load the casing wouldn’t you?
Or am I being too much of a purist?
You would have to have an open breach to load the casing wouldn’t you?
Or am I being too much of a purist?
IIRC, something similar could be done with the old Maynard and Ballard single shot rifles (using an insert/casing but loading from the muzzle), but they weren't really considered muzzle-loaders. Then again, those were the days before a lot of nitpicking firearms laws and game regulations.
I consider myself a "purist," and have no desire whatsoever to own or shoot a "modern" muzzleloader... but that is all I see used around here nowadays.
Check out Quackbush air rifles, made in Missouri.
Not exactly a muzzle loader, but fires a .495 round ball...
“Built on a standard Model 700 action...” kind of sounds like a bolt-action rifle to me, unless the bolt is welded closed or something. Oh well, I pretty much don’t know anything about modern muzzle loaders, or what they consider muzzle loaders now. I think as long as you have to put any part of the charge in from the muzzle, you can call it muzzle loading.
In any case, the writing displayed in the article is embarrassingly bad. I’d be curious to know what makes Jim Shockey “infamous”, though.
Or am I being too much of a purist?
_____________________
Absolutely not!!
When black powder hunting seasons first came about, it was my understanding that typical front loading, cap or flint ignited rifles were at a handicap as compared to a modern deer rifle. This was regarded as a similar handicap as with bow hunting, as bow hunting requires much skill and knowledge.
I own (I can’t recall the exact number due to a boating accident) several conventional black powder weapons that load from the muzzle and ignited by a cap or flint. They shoot 2F & 3F, primed by 4F. To me, this is true muzzleoading. To hell with these new fangled inlines.
I’m a purist to the extent that I use only black powder, cast my own bullets out of pure lead. If I could find bear grease, trust me, that would be my lubricant.
For Big Game, Elk and Black Bear up here in the mountains of centra-western Idaho, I use a CT Arms, Hawkin .54 caliber with about 120 grain load. good little recoil, but it does take them down. Please forgive my spelling.
450 grn maxi ball in front of 110-120 grains of Pyrodex gets the job done! Of course it all depends on what you are hunting.
FYI- The one on top is a modern Remington Model 700 30-06. Its in the running to be a very good gun, the Hawkin just has many, many, many years of reliable and consistent hunting and gathering behind it.
It is instructive watching Chip Hailstone on “Life Below Zero” repeatedly missing game with his muzzle-loader rifle. He must have violated some rule to force him to use black powder for hunting.
The Brits were so put out by this they declared these rifles as unfair and ungentlemanly and that they should be banned
Their thought was that by deliberately aiming at officers, the rifleman was committing murder as opposed to pointing one’s musket at an enemy formation—the ball might or might not strike someone. Their army’s method of fighting (and it was quite successful world-wide) was to put more lead in the air, faster than anyone else. For that the Brown Bess was very good.
It wasn’t until our army could fight the British way successfully that we started to win the big battles. Although riflemen/snipers at Saratoga did take out quite a few of their officers at long range.
IMO, hunting with a gun of any kind is for pu$$ies.
Face your quarry eye-to-eye, that’s my philosophy. When I go out, I only take a knife & sometimes a rope...
(at least that’s what my grand-pappy told me... ;)
Absolutely, Brother!! I took down a big 6x6 bull elk two years ago with my .54. He dropped like a stone, too. Not a long shot at all. He walked right up on me because I was bleating him in with a “hoochie-Mama” Cow-call.
Several of the "inline" designs have bolt and striker assemblies that close over the primed breech face of the barrel - the Remington is unique in that they reamed a deeper primer pocket and made it work with a primed case instead of fumbling with loose primers. There's a solid partition between the "chamber" and the rear of the barrel, with only a flash hole drilled through so the primer flame can reach the powder charge.
Ha, interesting. American innovation. Better guns, better ships. And they didn’t just stand out in the open when under fire.
Thanks for the information. I think I’ll stick with the old .30-06, though.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.