So do these muzzle loaders hurt the deer more?


IT was near sunset, a gray Saturday in the Chengwatana State Forest of east-central Minnesota, and a pair of whitetailed deer crunched through the forest. Frank Badowicz — clothed in leather and wool, moccasins on his feet — raised his gun and aimed, sighting down a doe.

Mr. Badowicz pulled the trigger. A spark and ignition, a roar from the barrel, and a musket ball flew — a sphere of lead exploding outward through smooth-bore metal in a chain reaction that’s centuries old but in revival today.

In the past decade, muzzleloading guns — a broad class of firearms loaded from the front, open end of the barrel — have been bought by tens of thousands of American hunters. A nostalgia for old ways, as well as new laws in states like Minnesota, where a special extended deer season bans modern rifles but is open to muzzleloaders, has prompted a rise in the popularity of guns long seen as obsolete.

More than three million hunters and shooting enthusiasts in the United States now put black powder and bullets down their barrels, mash the ingredients in with a ramrod, and hold up the gun to fire. That’s according to the National Muzzle Loading Rifle Association, an organization based in Friendship, Ind., that has 20,000 members.

In Minnesota, where Mr. Badowicz hunts with a replica of an 18th-century flintlock, he is among about 35,000 residents that the state’s Department of Natural Resources estimates hunt deer each year with black powder and lead. Michigan and Pennsylvania are other hot spots, according to figures from the muzzleloading association; and more than 40 states now license muzzleloaders to hunt for days or weeks outside regular deer seasons.

Rising deer populations in many states, as well as a demand from black-powder hobbyists for longer hunting seasons, have bolstered the sport. “Deer hunting is almost a form of religion in some states,” said Lou Cornicelli, a coordinator with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. “So any chance some folks get to be in the woods longer is taken.”

Bill Young, a friend hunting with Mr. Badowicz and me during a special early season in October, said: “I appreciate the challenge of muzzleloading. You get one shot, and you’ve got to make that one shot count.”


rest of story in link w/more pictures.

http://travel.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/trave...ting&st=cse

What makes you think the power or accuracy of these guns would differ much from modern firearms? A 50 caliber ball out of one these is powerful indeed. You need to be closer because you're using iron sights instead of a scope and you only get one shot, that is the main difference.

If both of my lungs were perforated, I’m not sure if what kind of firearm did the puncturing would be first and foremost on my mind.

They’ve been doing the job for centuries – back when not doing the job meant a hungry night.

A lot of the states near here all have a different standard as to how much technology one can use. Several make you use flintlocks. Here in Virginia the definition has changed several times over the last 10 or 15 years. When I started muzzleloading we were restricted to the rifles using external percussion caps or flint and iron sights (exactly as pictured above). Then once more modern inlines became more prevalent we were allowed to use those as long as they were equipped with iron sights. Then we were allowed to fit them with scopes.

I’ve got a nice modern inline fitted with a scope and the whole nine yards and it’s an efficient killing machine. But I don’t consider it a giant leap foreword in killing potential compared to what I started with. If one is aware of the weapon’s limitations and takes the simple steps to mitigate them they are quite effective.


I’m a bit nostalgic and I’d switch back to my older style rifle more like what Grace pictured, but they are a bear to clean as compared to my inline.

Rudimentary. Don't these guns shoot cannonballs? A slow moving ball piercing flesh and bone vs. lightening fast, streamlined rocket shaped bullet. It's like comparing a barge with a stealth bomber.

As far as what they did in the good old days, yeah, these weapons were effective in killing the animal, as were cavemen's.

You'd better do some research before making such claims. No, they don't shoot cannonballs that are slow moving. A 50 caliber musket ball weighs approximately half of what a 12ga shotgun slug does but travels between 1,200 to 1,800 feet per second, depending on the load, compared to a 12ga slug that travels right around 1,200 feet per second.

Oh, remember how that streamlined rocket ship is banned for deer hunting in a number of flat land states too :-)

I am doing my research. HERE. That's why I asked you bubblehead.

Then ya should try Google, ya lazy ass.

I’m curious as to why you’re curious.
Edited to add link: http://www.chuckhawks.com/muzzleloading_basics.htm
Everything you want to know and a whole lot more.



While it’s generally true that a muzzleloader fires a larger projectile at lower speeds than a modern high powered rifle, that’s OK as long as the target is within effective range. The round carries more than enough energy for an effective kill when used within certain constraints.

These “cannonballs” are typically half an inch across (I’ve encountered 0.45 to 0.58” calibers, most everyone I know shoots 0.50”) They don’t have to be round, depending on the laws of the state they can be conical. And as SD pointed out, they aren’t that slow. I’m not as familiar as slug guns as the flatlanders around here, but muzzleloaders are ballistically similar to modern shotguns set up to fire deer slugs. In fact, I bet my modern inline is quite a bit hotter and more accurate at 100 yards than the flat land slug guns that are commonly used and accepted.

Pardon me while I repeat myself: If one is aware of the weapon’s limitations (range and rate of fire, specifically) and takes the simple steps to mitigate them they are quite effective.

XXMag


Well thank you XXMag. Too bad others couldn't be so eloquent and informative in their responses. Thank you also for clarifying (and validating somewhat) my question on the ball moving slower.



SD

And you should try kissin my ass ya googledick.

“Muzzleloader” is a vague term. A modern battlefield mortar tube fits the definition, though no one would confuse it with the smoothbore flintlock musket that Daniel Boone would be familiar with. I think you may have been confusing the modern incarnations of the muzzle loading rifles with the weapon available to Boone.


From the link I provided:

“A modern .50 caliber muzzleloader loaded with sabots (a pistol bullet enclosed in a plastic collar), whether of sidehammer or in-line design, on a shot for shot basis, can competitively perform with a smokeless .30-30 rifle round. If heavy conical bullets (large soft lead projectiles) are being used the same gun can compete with the .45-70 Government cartridge. Anyone familiar with firearms performance will tell you that a hunter can take any game on the North American continent with one or the other of those so-called black powder loads provided the load is configured properly.”

“The bulk of new muzzleloader sales are in .50 caliber because of flexibility, power potential for commonly hunted game, and the convenient accessibility of support and maintenance equipment in that caliber.”
“…a muzzleloading rifle is at best a 150 yard firearm with 200 yards being the maximum that can be expected from all but the most expert of marksmen.”

[I can’t think of a single deer I’ve taken past 150 yards with a modern rifle, much less a smoke pole.]

“Heading into the field with a muzzleloading rifle makes a unique statement about a hunter. The hunter with a muzzleloader is accepting the rigorous challenges of one-shot only encounters with game animals. It is a good option for a hunter who wants a greater challenge than conventional rifle hunting offers and yet does not have the time or resources for bow hunting. “

But Grace, I thought it was so rudimentary to you?

:-Þ

Well, the idea that the application of a century and a half or so of technology would increase the power, efficiency, etc. of a device is pretty rudimentary (the last century and a half at least). The implication that the old technology isn't up to the task it's given, however, doesn't withstand serious scrutiny.

The old rotary phone in my workshop is several steps backward in terms of size, efficiency, portability or any category you'd care to name when compared to the newest phone gizmo. But I can still order a pizza with it just fine. Likewise, the muzzleloader will work just fine so long as you're just dialing across town, as it were, but don't try to send a text message with it. It's simply incapable of more advanced tasks.

SD

XXMag

Yeah and that. Actually that's what I said. It wasn't rudimentary to ME, SD.

XXMag


I see your point. Good analogy.

I can't take it anymore.

How does a sissy hold a gun?

That's how.

Meanwhile, let me issue a preemptive "Takes one to know one" remark.

This better?

By a slim margin. Your guy does seem to be more concerned about actually holding onto the thing, though his foot placement would tend to suggest that his strongpoints rest neither in firearms nor clairvoyance. The holstered pistol, however, does a bit of explaining.

The sissified grip is another matter (though his stance, as well, seems rather unorthodox to me). I would think that the guy from Grace's photo wouldn't have to brace his elbow against his hip. He ought to be used to the added weight out there given the enormity of that wrist watch.

Yeah I don't know why I was standing that way. Or it might be a trick of perspective. But I've never had any problem predicting where the bullet will go, no matter what strange position I find myself in.

OK, I was wrong about the clairvoyant part.......


I predict that the bullets will strike no fuckingwhere near where I'm aiming....

Goddamn I'm good.

You're wrong about the firearms part too. Check out that sexy handgun rig. Obviously, only a real gunfighter would wear a fastdraw holster like that.

XXMag you do realize that's RF in the photo? I don't think anything is sissy about the stance but what do I know. However, if you zoom in on the the left hand you'll see the sun glinting off his Sally Hansen Bamboo Shoot polish. Probably bought a do it yourself manicure at the PX.

I saw it. 1911? Looks like it, and almost goes without saying.

Hell yeah it's a 1911A1.

Someone should show Josh that picture. That's also a bonafide, sho'nuff assault rifle. Soviet issue, one each.