Toby Bridges

CoyoteJoe · Dec 25, 2010

I received this email from Toby by mistake, it was actually a reply to a friend who emailed Toby from my computer but he does site some interesting stats. He repeatedly states he is not opposed to hunting with patched ball but it still comes across that he is.

"Joe;
I have no problem with anyone hunting with a round ball. What I have a problem with is someone feeling that EVERYONE who hunts with a muzzleloader MUST
hunt with a patched round ball.

Argue all you want my friend about the effectiveness of a round ball... but the physics of ballistics are against you.

I actually once participated in a study by one game department...on a very controlled hunt to take down the deer population on a large privately owned eastern plantation. In four days, 24 shooters took 102 deer. Each day, 8 went out with modern rifles and sabots...8 went out with bullet rifles and maxi-style bullets...and 8 went out with patched
round ball loads. All things were recorded...including the loads, distance of the shots, where the deer were hit, the angle of the shot, whether the projectile exited, how far the deer went after being hit, and the extent of damage to internal organs.

All rifles were 50 caliber, shooting 100 grains of the appropriate powder - Pyrodex in the modern guns, black powder in the traditional guns.

Guess which projectile came in dead last in the efficiency department? Yep, the round ball.

None of the deer shot were more than 100 yards away. The average shot with all three different rifles and loads was about 55 yards. In all, 41 deer were taken with
sabot loads...29 with maxi-bullets...and 32 with the patched round ball.

31 of the deer hit with a sabot went less than 20 yards after being hit...only 2 went more than 40 yards...none went 50 yards.

16 of the deer hit with a maxi went less than 20 yards after being hit...6 went more than 40 yards...and 6 went past 50 yards...and 1 made it to nearly 100 yards.

13 of the deer hit with a patched round ball went less than 20 yards after being hit...9 went past 50 yards...6 made it to 100 yards...and 3 made it to between 125 and 150 yards, and 1 traveled close to 200 yards before going down (with a double lung hit).

Only 1 deer was lost during the entire hunt...and it was shot with a patched round ball.

This hunt was conducted by one of the eastern state game departments. I was one of two muzzleloading industry people asked to participate, all others were state wildlife agency officials - who were asked to reduce an over population of deer on a large private farm. And it was this hunt that got modern in-line rifle loads legalized in this
state. Those rifles and loads proved to be the most efficient...traditional round ball rifles and loads proved to be the most inefficient.

Again, I am not against anyone having the right to hunt with a patched round ball rifle and load. I am against regulations that say those who choose to hunt with a more efficient modern muzzleloader and load do not have the right to do so. And I will fight those game departments and individuals who hang on to such non-serving muzzleloader hunting regulations. (There's a reason why fewer than 5% of all muzzleloading rifles sold in this country today are of traditional design.)

And in 2011, I fully intend to bring all of this back to a hard boil.

Toby Bridges
LOBO WATCH" end quote

I wonder what he means by intending to bring all of this back to a hard boil?
My reply to him was, in short, that no one questions that inlines and sabots are more efficient and that is exactly why they don't belong in the muzzleloading season. A scope sighted 30/06 semi-auto is more efficient still but they aren't allowed in the muzzleloading season either, so is that unfair to owners of those rifles? If a person doesn't want to hunt with a real muzzleloader, accepting its' drawbacks, limitations and challenges then there are other seasons for modern firearms and that is where the inlines belong.

luieb45 · Dec 25, 2010

I don't believe this experiment makes a lot of sense. Not all deer are the same. Maybe some of the deer that took longer to go down were bigger and older deer. And not all deer have the same amount of fight in them. I've seen deer go over a hundred yards with lung shots from slug shooting shotguns. Then the number of roundball hunters getting less deer means nothing because not everyone will have the same shooting oppurtunities.

roundball · Dec 25, 2010

CoyoteJoe said:
I received this email from Toby by mistake, it was actually a reply to a friend who emailed Toby from my computer but he does site some interesting stats. He repeatedly states he is not opposed to hunting with patched ball but it still comes across that he is.

"Joe;
I have no problem with anyone hunting with a round ball. What I have a problem with is someone feeling that EVERYONE who hunts with a muzzleloader MUST
hunt with a patched round ball.

Argue all you want my friend about the effectiveness of a round ball... but the physics of ballistics are against you.

I actually once participated in a study by one game department...on a very controlled hunt to take down the deer population on a large privately owned eastern plantation. In four days, 24 shooters took 102 deer. Each day, 8 went out with modern rifles and sabots...8 went out with bullet rifles and maxi-style bullets...and 8 went out with patched
round ball loads. All things were recorded...including the loads, distance of the shots, where the deer were hit, the angle of the shot, whether the projectile exited, how far the deer went after being hit, and the extent of damage to internal organs.

All rifles were 50 caliber, shooting 100 grains of the appropriate powder - Pyrodex in the modern guns, black powder in the traditional guns.

Guess which projectile came in dead last in the efficiency department? Yep, the round ball.

None of the deer shot were more than 100 yards away. The average shot with all three different rifles and loads was about 55 yards. In all, 41 deer were taken with
sabot loads...29 with maxi-bullets...and 32 with the patched round ball.

31 of the deer hit with a sabot went less than 20 yards after being hit...only 2 went more than 40 yards...none went 50 yards.

16 of the deer hit with a maxi went less than 20 yards after being hit...6 went more than 40 yards...and 6 went past 50 yards...and 1 made it to nearly 100 yards.

13 of the deer hit with a patched round ball went less than 20 yards after being hit...9 went past 50 yards...6 made it to 100 yards...and 3 made it to between 125 and 150 yards, and 1 traveled close to 200 yards before going down (with a double lung hit).

Only 1 deer was lost during the entire hunt...and it was shot with a patched round ball.

This hunt was conducted by one of the eastern state game departments. I was one of two muzzleloading industry people asked to participate, all others were state wildlife agency officials - who were asked to reduce an over population of deer on a large private farm. And it was this hunt that got modern in-line rifle loads legalized in this
state. Those rifles and loads proved to be the most efficient...traditional round ball rifles and loads proved to be the most inefficient.

Again, I am not against anyone having the right to hunt with a patched round ball rifle and load. I am against regulations that say those who choose to hunt with a more efficient modern muzzleloader and load do not have the right to do so. And I will fight those game departments and individuals who hang on to such non-serving muzzleloader hunting regulations. (There's a reason why fewer than 5% of all muzzleloading rifles sold in this country today are of traditional design.)

And in 2011, I fully intend to bring all of this back to a hard boil.

Toby Bridges
LOBO WATCH" end quote

I wonder what he means by intending to bring all of this back to a hard boil?
My reply to him was, in short, that no one questions that inlines and sabots are more efficient and that is exactly why they don't belong in the muzzleloading season. A scope sighted 30/06 semi-auto is more efficient still but they aren't allowed in the muzzleloading season either, so is that unfair to owners of those rifles? If a person doesn't want to hunt with a real muzzleloader, accepting its' drawbacks, limitations and challenges then there are other seasons for modern firearms and that is where the inlines belong.

Yours was a good reply.

The individual in question is publicly known and identified as a paid shill for the highest bidder.
Any further attempts on my part to describe him would require the use of adjectives inappropriate for publication on this Forum, as they would relate to issues of character.

Hard boil next year ?
The first thing that came to my mind is that Knight is now back in business, geared up to market smokeless muzzleloaders.

lonehunter · Dec 25, 2010

If he was endorsed by a company that only made roundballs, I bet his view of them would be different. :hmm: :shake:

BrownBear · Dec 25, 2010

If you ignore a weed and don't feed it, pretty quick it withers and dies.

roundball · Dec 25, 2010

BrownBear said:
If you ignore a weed and don't feed it, pretty quick it withers and dies.

Unless it's "Cudzu" !!!

nkbj · Dec 25, 2010

Seriously guys, if you want to use one .31 round ball at a time to hunt deer or a fire belching buffalo blaster, you should be able to do so without somebody putting their thumb in your back.

Look, they're not your deer any more. Don't you understand the process? You really want to request new and greater restrictions?
Wow!

rabjr · Dec 25, 2010

None of the deer shot were more than 100 yards away. The average shot with all three different rifles and loads was about 55 yards. In all, 41 deer were taken with
sabot loads...29 with maxi-bullets...and 32 with the patched round ball.

31 of the deer hit with a sabot went less than 20 yards after being hit...only 2 went more than 40 yards...none went 50 yards.

16 of the deer hit with a maxi went less than 20 yards after being hit...6 went more than 40 yards...and 6 went past 50 yards...and 1 made it to nearly 100 yards.

13 of the deer hit with a patched round ball went less than 20 yards after being hit...9 went past 50 yards...6 made it to 100 yards...and 3 made it to between 125 and 150 yards, and 1 traveled close to 200 yards before going down (with a double lung hit).

Only 1 deer was lost during the entire hunt...and it was shot with a patched round ball.

He's full of more **** that a Christmas Turkey. I've taken more than a few with both Maxi's and premium Sabots and the only ones that went less than 20 yards were the ones that dropped on the spot. The longest traveled deer after being shot was with a Maxi and I had several that made me scratch my head traveling almost or in excess of 100 yards after being hit through the vitals. Funny my findings show all those hit with a ball died within 60 yards.

Just by the reason they were there, I'm guessin this was slanted from the get go in their favor.

tg · Dec 25, 2010

What a Bastich I really wish he would catch an errant ball or bullet in the backside or front, they are both the same, as stated the traditional ML with ball is supposed to be less efficient than the modern stuff like a bow and arrow is less efficient than an '06 DUH! what a buffoon.
Stepping back to a less efficient technology was the whole point of special ML seasons in most states he really made a good point for not using modern projectiles in ML seasons, idjot, somefabatch, moron. Sells his typewriter to the highest bidder it will be a blessing to the sport when he is gone.

nchawkeye · Dec 25, 2010

Guess we all need to be hunting deer with an '06...

Tumblernotch · Dec 25, 2010

I shot a buck at 15 yards with a Whitworth shooting a 560 gr. slug over 70 grs of fffg. The bullet destroyed the heart, opened up the intestines and left a hole you could put your fist through (slightly quartering shot). Stood the deer up on his hind legs. He turned and ran 100 yards down a hill and died in mid air as he jumped from a bank. When I field dressed him I had to roll him over and pour out the blood before I could gut him. So, yep, I don't think it matters much what you hit 'em with if they're not ready to die! I hit hime with what is probably the most lethal muzzleloading round and he still ran the length of a football field. And yet, later I shot one with my .40 at about 30 yds. and he turned, ran into a tree and dropped dead. So I know where you're coming from!

Bruce Bogart · Dec 25, 2010

Toby WHO?????? :idunno: :barf:

wvbuckbuster · Dec 25, 2010

If the deer shot with round balls died what difference does it make how far they went? As for the one that was lost there is telling where the shot placement was so that it is no different than using any other load or weapon! I have had numerous people make the claim that they shot a deer thru the heart or lungs and watch it run off. If the deer was not recovered how did they know where it was shot? As all of you have said just take the man for what he is worth. :barf:

Grizzled Roberts · Dec 25, 2010

The only way this test could be fair is if the same man took all of the shots under the same conditions. The round ball took everything that walked on this planet for over 500 years. The key to making a kill on a game animal is hitting the vital spot with a good projectile.

Jason Lewis · Dec 25, 2010

CoyoteJoe said:
I received this email from Toby by mistake, it was actually a reply to a friend who emailed Toby from my computer but he does site some interesting stats. He repeatedly states he is not opposed to hunting with patched ball but it still comes across that he is.

"Joe;
I have no problem with anyone hunting with a round ball. What I have a problem with is someone feeling that EVERYONE who hunts with a muzzleloader MUST
hunt with a patched round ball.

Argue all you want my friend about the effectiveness of a round ball... but the physics of ballistics are against you.

I actually once participated in a study by one game department...on a very controlled hunt to take down the deer population on a large privately owned eastern plantation. In four days, 24 shooters took 102 deer. Each day, 8 went out with modern rifles and sabots...8 went out with bullet rifles and maxi-style bullets...and 8 went out with patched
round ball loads. All things were recorded...including the loads, distance of the shots, where the deer were hit, the angle of the shot, whether the projectile exited, how far the deer went after being hit, and the extent of damage to internal organs.

All rifles were 50 caliber, shooting 100 grains of the appropriate powder - Pyrodex in the modern guns, black powder in the traditional guns.

Guess which projectile came in dead last in the efficiency department? Yep, the round ball.

None of the deer shot were more than 100 yards away. The average shot with all three different rifles and loads was about 55 yards. In all, 41 deer were taken with
sabot loads...29 with maxi-bullets...and 32 with the patched round ball.

31 of the deer hit with a sabot went less than 20 yards after being hit...only 2 went more than 40 yards...none went 50 yards.

16 of the deer hit with a maxi went less than 20 yards after being hit...6 went more than 40 yards...and 6 went past 50 yards...and 1 made it to nearly 100 yards.

13 of the deer hit with a patched round ball went less than 20 yards after being hit...9 went past 50 yards...6 made it to 100 yards...and 3 made it to between 125 and 150 yards, and 1 traveled close to 200 yards before going down (with a double lung hit).

Only 1 deer was lost during the entire hunt...and it was shot with a patched round ball.

This hunt was conducted by one of the eastern state game departments. I was one of two muzzleloading industry people asked to participate, all others were state wildlife agency officials - who were asked to reduce an over population of deer on a large private farm. And it was this hunt that got modern in-line rifle loads legalized in this
state. Those rifles and loads proved to be the most efficient...traditional round ball rifles and loads proved to be the most inefficient.

Again, I am not against anyone having the right to hunt with a patched round ball rifle and load. I am against regulations that say those who choose to hunt with a more efficient modern muzzleloader and load do not have the right to do so. And I will fight those game departments and individuals who hang on to such non-serving muzzleloader hunting regulations. (There's a reason why fewer than 5% of all muzzleloading rifles sold in this country today are of traditional design.)

And in 2011, I fully intend to bring all of this back to a hard boil.

Toby Bridges
LOBO WATCH" end quote

I wonder what he means by intending to bring all of this back to a hard boil?
My reply to him was, in short, that no one questions that inlines and sabots are more efficient and that is exactly why they don't belong in the muzzleloading season. A scope sighted 30/06 semi-auto is more efficient still but they aren't allowed in the muzzleloading season either, so is that unfair to owners of those rifles? If a person doesn't want to hunt with a real muzzleloader, accepting its' drawbacks, limitations and challenges then there are other seasons for modern firearms and that is where the inlines belong.

let's take a look at mr. bridges email and i believe we'll see that it's either slanted, missing information or just made up.

first of all, he mentions that an eastern game department performed a study during a controlled population reduction hunt on private property. there is no mention of the game department, this is a study performed by a public agency, as such, the results are public knowledge and should be available for public study or at least peer review of the study methods. the name is not mentioned.

secondly, he points out the kills taken by the hunters, supposedly, there were 24 hunters in total with the number of kills taken with each type of firearm and load. what we don't know is the placement of the hunters, number of deer seen by the hunters, number of deer presenting a target to the hunters, where there spotters with the hunters recording shot information, what was the skill level of the hunters, how many misses were fired, what type of sights were used. moreover, why wasn't the data corrected for statistical errors, clearly, they are trying to compare data from different sample sizes with missing important data.

thirdly, the type of powder used is incorrect, both rifles have the ability to use blackpowder. given this, the study should have had all the guns using the same powder to eliminate this variable.

fourthly, we have no idea of the distance of the shots taken, we do not know who had actually used a firearms he or she owned and if they had practiced with it or not. he, mentions that the shot placement was recorded, and the data should have been corrolated to this. as any hunter knows, even a deer hit "double lung" on the lower lobes will run a long way before either bleeding out or suffocating from dual hemothoraxes. the lost deer mentioned does not say how the deer was hit, if hit poorly the deer may not have even died.

and lastly, the rifles compared are equal only in caliber. while the .50cal prb is an effective killer, why not compare a prb of equal weight class to the sabot or maxi. say a .600 prb of around 300gr or a .530 ball of 220gr, thus ensuring that penetration will be more on par with the other two projectiles.

in conclusion, i believe what we have here is largely and exaggeration of the truth. given the data, which is largely incomplete and poorly done. this seems to me, that this was probably not a formal scientific study at all, perhaps more to test the killing power of the weapons in question and prove they will kill deer and gain approval as a lawful harvest firearm. not a direct comparison of killing efficiency which is clearly not being tested as reported. all of the weapons killed deer with nearly a overall 100% success rate, including the lost deer.

the only real way to compare killing effectiveness would be to shoot cadaver deer at fixed known ranges, shot placements, angles and more importantly with the same marksman behind the trigger. the cadavers could then be dissected and the tissue damage examined.

further, why would a game department ask mr. bridges to hunt with them? i.e why not a knight or a hale?, why only two muzzleloading industry people participate in a largely state employee run hunt? why not a firearm representative instead of a writer? who was shooting the prb?,
certainly not mr. bridges.

IMO, this is either fiction or loosely based on a controlled hunt that mr. bridges heard about. i base this on the statement that the prb came in last in efficiency, he intends to "bring it to a boil" the issue of state game depts allowing more and more modern ML into the fray. mr. bridges clearly has a biased view of the matter, aside from his occupation, which, even if he liked shooting the prb, he would likely not be allowed to say publicly. i'm sure the man has a family to feed like the rest of us. i would like to note that i don't know the man and am not intentionally questioning his character or morality.

luieb45 · Dec 25, 2010

I just thought of the word I was looking for. The experiment didn't cover all the variables to be creditable. Sabots probably do have more killing power than a round ball but are the sabots really necessary?

zrifleman · Dec 25, 2010

Toby Bridges has promoted non-traditional muzzleloaders, and fake blackpowder---even smokeless loads in inlines. Looks like he is still doing that. I guess he didn't learn his lesson from blowing up a Savage inline using smokeless. My personal experience and personal knowlege of my hunting friends using muzzleloaders says that Rb and conicals both kill well with a slight edge to conicals and cast bullets.

mykeal · Dec 25, 2010

I suggest you email Mr. Bridges back and ask him for a copy of the report from this taxpayer funded study. There must, by law, be one. If it's not disclosed file a Freedom Of Information Act demand. Something makes me think it doesn't exist because the study didn't happen.

CaptainKirk · Dec 25, 2010

grzrob said:
The only way this test could be fair is if the same man took all of the shots under the same conditions. The round ball took everything that walked on this planet for over 500 years. The key to making a kill on a game animal is hitting the vital spot with a good projectile.

Is there any need to carry this discussion any further based on the above fact?
Or, maybe we should build a time machine, go back and cite such hunters as Philip Tome,(67 deer in his last season alone!) Seth Nelson, (3500+total) E.N. Woodcock, John Q. Dyce, and others, who altogether probably slew more than ten thousand deer, all with PRB (source, Deer & Deer Hunting Book 2, Robert Wegner, Chapter 3, "Deerslayers of Yesteryear") with immoral/unethical hunting practices?
Now, wouldn't that appear stupid to the casual observer....
Every generation has it's own Messiah. Toby obviously thinks he's this one's..... :shake:

preston cook · Dec 25, 2010

roundball said:
BrownBear said:

If you ignore a weed and don't feed it, pretty quick it withers and dies.

Click to expand...

Unless it's "Cudzu" !!!

:rotf: it is spelled Kudzu

Toby Bridges

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

70 Cal.

54 Cal.

Cannon

58 Cal.

In Rmembrance

Cannon

Cannon

Cannon

Cannon

58 Cal.

69 Cal.

40 Cal.

45 Cal.

54 Cal.

Moderator

54 Cal.

40 Cal.

58 Cal.

54 Cal.

45 Cal.

Similar threads

Join the conversation!

Join today and get all the highlights of this community direct to your inbox. It's FREE!