View Full Version : How primative are inline muzzle loaders?
02-19-2007, 03:26 AM
I've never been on a muzzle loader hunt but im wondering what everyones opinion is on them. Is it true that one can make a kill at 300 yards with one?
02-19-2007, 12:16 PM
How "effective" are you with a modern centerfire rifle? I hear people talking about making shots to300, 400 and 500 yards with modern rifles. And I am sure there are some that have good rigs for such shooting and can make those shot. But most hunters do not posess the equipment and put in the range time to develope loads and the skill to make those shots. I may have shot a pronghorn and the odd deer at around 200 yards but I'll bet I have shot most game at well under 100 yards.
The same holds true for a Modern inline muzzleloader. If you have a good rig and spend a lot of time at the range working up loads and PRACTICING, you can I have heard make shots at "300yards" But the range you will be effective with one depends on what you put into it. I have an inline and have shot it a little at the range and feel good shooting at 150 yards or so. I have shot a pronghorn and a white-tail with it and both shots were less than 100 yards.
Robin in Rocky
Ken aka Savage
02-19-2007, 12:49 PM
Modern smokepoles have come a long way from the days of the old flintloc, but they are still a front stuffer which makes them slow to reload & qualifies them to hunt as a primitive wepon. I know in some states, south of the 49th primitive smokepoles are limited to open sights and are not alowed to shoot Sabot's, my smokepole is still equipped with open sights, but I do shoot 265gr Hornady .44 cal bullets in a .50 cal Sabot. I enjoy shooting my 209x50 T/C Encore, but if I am going out to hunt my trophy Elk, Moose, Bear or Deer I am likely to leave my smokepole home & pack one of my other rifles. When I use my 209x50 I limit my shots to 150 yards or less. Trying such long "hail mary" shots with a short range wepon with rainbow trajectory is not really being a responsible hunter or showing much respect for the wildlife being hunted, thats my 2 bits worth.
02-19-2007, 07:00 PM
I think there are some who have practiced and worked up the right kind of load and so with a range finder they could make a 250 plus shot (maybe 300 yards) and it would be a well planned event, not a "hail marry" type shot. The problem is that sometimes your "average shooter" has read an article or seen an advert. saying 300 yard shots are possible. Then when presented with an animal they think they can't get closer to, they figure "I read somewhere...oh I may as well aim a little high and have a go at it".
LONG shots should olny be attempted by those who are PREPARED to take them.
Robin in Rocky
Ken aka Savage
02-19-2007, 11:53 PM
While I agree with your comments, I have many times ranted on about the need for lots of practice, I feel the need to say that the vast majority of the shooting public are not 1/2 as good a shot as they give themselves credit for.
As a personal test for anyone thinking they are good shots, on your next trip to the range, pin a paper pie plate up @ 100 yards, then fire a 3 shot group from a free standing position. This can be humbling, so you might want to bring a larger paper plate for your 2nd try in case you can't put them all on the pie plate.:rollin
02-20-2007, 01:28 AM
Well put Duffy!
02-21-2007, 12:49 PM
My Knight American has pretty much the same parts as my old tc renegade. It's just been re-arranged. The big advantage is the scope, and better lock time but 100 grains of black powder or equivalent is driving both bullets. Now the "magnum" ones 150 grains max and the savage smokless really start pushing the enveope, of what is primative.
02-25-2007, 02:53 PM
I guess that depends on what you consider "primitive" Some of those old time muzzle loading rifles were on a par with modern target rifles and could really reach out there. What's the difference for all intents with a percussion cap and a center fire primer?
02-26-2007, 11:37 AM
Chemically not much but the percussion cap not going to withstand 50K+ psi.
I guess there are two extreams with ML seasons on one hand you have PA, USA where it is open sighted flintlock only or MO,USA where you can use singleshot bigbores (45/70 and such).
These season (muzzleloader and archery) first came into being to give guys more days afield, the success rate was such that it did not impact the resource. Though the first years I hunted (Manitoba) we had to pick archery or gun for our one buck only tag.Things have sure changed since then, with the good ol'e days being now the problem is getting the harvest rate up.
I my be an ideaist but the spirt of a primative wepons is such that it should be harder to fill you tag than with a rifle.
02-28-2007, 01:47 AM
Thanks for the info guy's. In case ur wondering why i asked this question. I live near strathcona county where most people i know hunt with shotguns. I've been debating if an in-line muzzle loader would give me an advantage on longer shots. And by the sounds of things with some practice it would be an advantage, other than the one shot part. I was about a hundered yards from a shooter a season back and i felt out of range and decided to try to get a closer shot the next day. I didn't c the buck again.
Another question now. Would u guys prefer a shotgun with a rifled barrel or an inline muzzle loader? I'm assuming the muzzle loader would be flater shooting, is my assumption correct?
Also, sheep hunter i heard that u were at the wainwright primative hunt. If this is true how did u make out, And do you shoot an inline?
02-28-2007, 05:52 AM
A sabot style shotgun slug has about the same ballistics as a full-size conical from a muzzleloader. (ie ~1600 fps with 50cal bullet in shotgun sabot) and must be used from the rifled barrel shotgun. With a LOT of practice either could go 150 yards reasonably well. But sabot slugs are very expensive compared to cast lead bullets for your muzzleloader.
Now if you use sabot bullets in your muzzleloader you get better ballistics again (say 2000 fps from an inline with max 150 grains powder and light bullets (say 220gr, .357, in 50 cal sabot)), and again the expense is drastically higher than plain bullets.
Plain (Foster) slugs are fairly cheap in comparison to sabots, but have poor ballistics due to huge surface area, rapid slowdown.
For hunting the expense is irrelevant, but for getting the practice required for long shots with a slow bullet arced trajectory expense can be a major factor.
02-28-2007, 09:50 AM
I also hunt with the American Knight and I pay about $12.00 for 20 sabots + bullets(240gr).Powder xtra of course. I don't find this expensive. I'm comfortable with shooting out to 125yds depending on how the deer or moose is standing. Broadside is best without any scrub in between. Angle shots or dead-on-facing shots, I wouldnt take at that range. I'd take them at 50-60yds no problem. I also do alot of target shooting during the summer.
02-28-2007, 02:24 PM
I never buy the blister pack sabots way to expensive
I just buy the bullets bulk as reloading components an an example, 300 grain xtp's are about $20 for 50 and another $6 for sabots and your done. I have seen those in blister packs for 15$ for 10 (if memory serves) or you could just get remington bulk for 18$ per 100.
I could kick myself a while back wholsale had some 250 partition hg's for $39 for 50 should have bought those.
03-01-2007, 09:47 AM
Last time I was in Edmonton, I was looking for 240grHP pistol bullets of .44cal. All I could find were .430 diameter. I find they are too tight to push down the barrel. So now I've ordered crushed rib sabots made by harvestor. The .44cal bullets Ibought came in a box of 100. When I made the previous post, I'd forgotten about the bulk bullets I bought. Must be old age settin in.lol.
vBulletin® v3.8.5, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.