• Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.

    We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.

    Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103

Toby Bridges

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I see this a little differently than most I guess. :idunno:

1: The Email was not to you, so you should have immediately deleted it. Not read it, and not publish it. You said it was sent to you in error, that is as far as it should have went.

2: Most know of Mr. Bridges & his thoughts on the round ball. IMHO, he will promote whoever pays his way.... and his name never should not even be mentioned on this forum....... let alone have 4 pages of posts about it.

3: You did Exactly what he wanted..... and it went just exactly like he planed it........

IMHO, the less said on here of him the better. I think the entire thread should be Deleted.....

Keith Lisle
 
A personal bias (perhaps financially motivated) will always taint a "study" (and I used the term in its loosest connotations) like this...
 
The email was addressed to me by name, although it was in reply to an email I never sent.
I said I thought the statistics were interesting I didn't say they were accurate nor representative.
It really comes down to the whole inline vs. traditional muzzleloading issue. Of course a scope sighted inline offers advantages over an open sighted flintlock. That is exactly why people buy them and exactly why they don't belong in a separate season set aside for those hunters who are willing to handicap themselves by hunting with a muzzleloader.
It's human nature to always want to make a thing work better, and that is good. But when that means building a "rule beater", something which by law constitutes a muzzleloader but which in fact totally violates the spirit of what muzzleloading is all about and for which the "primitive season" was originally established, it can't be justified by the claim that it works better.
 
Oh, yeah... Toby has a certain fondness for me. :grin:

I've read some of his writing from prior to 1985, before the advent of the modern inline. And I read a book of his written after that, I think from the late '90s or early 2000s. The difference was amazing. In the earlier stuff, he came across as such an ardent fan of the simple round ball, going into great detail about ballistics and how effective it is.

In the later book, he still covered information about hunting with the round ball, but it was so slanted that you wouldn't think it was the same person. Even while describing hunting with the roundball and how to do it, he couldn't resist dropping little reminders that it's still not as effective as a modern jacketed saboted hollow point or polymer-tipped bullet. I kept thinking to myself "Yeah. Thanks, Toby, but I already know that. Now let's get back to the roundball, shall we?"

And the sections about hunting with modern technology in a muzzleloader railed on about how effective it is with as much passion as his earlier writing did about the old tech.

The impression I got from his writing was that he was trying to push the message that hunting with a roundball was nothing more than quaint and fun, while serious hunters use modern technology on their muzzleloader hunts. I thought he was really shooting his own reputation as a writer in the foot with his obvious bias.

I got about 3/4 of the way through that book when I finally threw it in the trash. I just got tired of the constant slant in his writing.

I don't have a problem with anyone using muzzleloaders with modern technology, I just think they belong in the general season, because they were invented with the express purpose of taking unfair advantage of the rules intended for a certain level of technology. I have no doubt that the modern tech is superior to the old tech, and it's fine if he loves the newer tech better now and promotes it with his writing. I just don't understand why he has to tear down the old tech to do it.
 
You know I really don’t care what anyone uses to hunt with as long as it’s a legal means. But what does stick in my crawl is the sights used. If you made those haughty in-line shooters use iron sights like we do, the result would be greatly different. I made my thoughts know to our local game warden and he told me there was talk in Topeka to limit the use of scopes in muzzle loading deer season. If it gets any traction only time will tell. The only deer I have shoot with my flintlock DRT. The shot was from a tree stand and the 50 cal patched round ball hit higher than I was aiming and hit the backbone right behind the neck. But this is meaningless as to the effectiveness of PRBs because of the many uncontrollable variables.
I do hope Kansas makes scope sighed muzzle loaders illegal. That is the real unfair comparison, otherwise bring’m on.
 
If a farmer left his tractor in a field where kudzu was growing, he may have a difficult time finding it in the morning as the kudzu will have grown over it! That is the problem with the Toby Bridges' of this world.
 
The only smokeless powder ML that I know of is the savage bolt action the other in lines can't shoot smokeless powder. Can they ? :confused:
 
There are big flaws with Tony Bridges' study. The sampling of only 24 deer is way too small to make an accurate decision that round balls are ineffective. Other flaws are that all the deer were not shot from the same distance, facing the same direction, the same age, size, or shot in the same place. At least 500 deer would have to be killed with all the exact same conditions to be a real study.

What makes a big difference is the bullet weight. If all weapons were 50 caliber, the round ball has less weight and therefore less energy than a conical. That is one reason I use a .62 caliber. Some would say that is over kill on deer. They may be right. I just like the big boom it makes.
 
Toby Bridges said:

"What I have a problem with is someone feeling that EVERYONE who hunts with a muzzleloader MUST hunt with a patched round ball."



I think the position of most traditionalists is not that everyone must use a roundball, but that roundballs are for the muzzleloader season, and muzzleloaders that use modern tech belong in the general season.

I often wonder if Toby genuinely doesn't understand that simple (yet vital) difference, or if he does but he tries to make it sound like we simply want modern tech banned altogether in an attempt to vilify us.

I wouldn't doubt if it's the latter, because his writing is so obviously slanted.
 
Jumpshot said:
Toby Bridges said:
"What I have a problem with is someone feeling that EVERYONE who hunts with a muzzleloader MUST hunt with a patched round ball."

I think the position of most traditionalists is not that everyone must use a roundball, but that roundballs are for the muzzleloader season, and muzzleloaders that use modern tech belong in the general season.

I often wonder if Toby genuinely doesn't understand that simple (yet vital) difference, or if he does but he tries to make it sound like we simply want modern tech banned altogether in an attempt to vilify us.
I wouldn't doubt if it's the latter, because his writing is so obviously slanted.

Nobody on the planet is that stupid...high school kids taking American history understand that.
He's just a paid pitchman greasing his skids to keep the money rolling in...understanding facts and truth is not something that enters his mind, only dollar signs.
 
walruskid1 said:
the man thrives on controversy. he is also a paid shill. i agree he can't be taken seriously. too bad the general hunting crowd does fall for his ramblings.

The general hunting crowd contains everybody from all sort of walks of life. Professional folks, people that can hardly read, conservationists, poachers, nice folks and lazy-a$$es. People with a brain and a mind of their own and complete idiots that should be given a test before they're allowed to vote! AND dare I say that WE have some of these SAME PEOPLE in our ranks right now. Only difference is that we have a forum to make known what is RIGHT and just!

So once every so many thousand posts Toby's name comes onto the thread listing and everyone of us rushes to click on the thread like stopping to watch a train wreck :idunno: .

O-K, the head-bashing into the walls can continue :rotf: :haha: .

Dave
 
So once every so many thousand posts Toby's name comes onto the thread listing and everyone of us rushes to click on the thread like stopping to watch a train wreck .

Yep, he's like a hemroid...once you think you got rid of it...hello! :shocked2:
 
Birddog6 said:
Most know of Mr. Bridges & his thoughts on the round ball. IMHO, he will promote whoever pays his way.... and his name never should not even be mentioned on this forum....... let alone have 4 pages of posts about it.
I agree.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top