Do you REALLY hunt??

[Carl Fowler III]

One of Ronald Reagans famous lines was: There you go again....if you read my last post again you will see I never advocated shooting running deer at 400 yds...first of all if we are talking muzzleloaders, and we should be....a 400 yd shot is out of the question even if the deer is stuck in concrete and totally immobilized...so what does this have to do with taking a shot at a moving target with a muzzleloader? This Spring after the snow melts out your way, get yourself a tire and put a target in the hole...have a friend roll it down a grade and take turns shooting at it with the muzzleloader...hint...hint don't lead it as much as you think you should...keep your front sight on the black! It may surprise you how well you can hit a moving target! :v

 

[hoochiepapa]

Exactly! That's how my dad taught me to hit a moving target. And I was forbidden to shoot at anything moving until I could hit the black. He would roll the tire down a ravine that had another side, so that it would roll back at you. It's easier than it sounds. Try it!!

 

[hanshi]

Exactly! That's how my dad taught me to hit a moving target. And I was forbidden to shoot at anything moving until I could hit the black. He would roll the tire down a ravine that had another side, so that it would roll back at you. It's easier than it sounds. Try it!!

Yeah we did that too. I hated it because the training was priceless but it also conflicted with my other teaching "you shoot it; you eat it". To this day I can't stand the taste of rubber. :v: :barf:

 

[Carl Fowler III]

hanshi, you could bake a cake in a round pan...remove from the pan and let it sit on the counter for a week...then roll this hardened cake down the hill for a moving target...this way you can have your cake and eat it too! :rotf: :rotf:

 

[Greenmtnboy]

Oh well Im outta steam so let the debate begin...

No debate from this quarter.

It's just common sense. And a whole lot of experience.

no doubr brother...
Heart and lung only club here!!

 

[hanshi]

hanshi, you could bake a cake in a round pan...remove from the pan and let it sit on the counter for a week...then roll this hardened cake down the hill for a moving target...this way you can have your cake and eat it too! :rotf: :rotf:

What about ricochets? I've seen some haaard dry cake in my time. :grin:

 

[Carl Fowler III]

hanshi, you could bake a cake in a round pan...remove from the pan and let it sit on the counter for a week...then roll this hardened cake down the hill for a moving target...this way you can have your cake and eat it too! :rotf: :rotf:

What about ricochets? I've seen some haaard dry cake in my time. :grin:

Not if you were using a 4 bore...you may need to step up in caliber to git this kind of penny-tration! :shocked2:

 

[Rat Trapper]

Oh well Im outta steam so let the debate begin...

No debate from this quarter.

It's just common sense. And a whole lot of experience.

2X

 

[simeon england]

Howdy!

I will admit right away, I have not read this entire thread. Only the first page, and parts of the second and fifth pages. So forgive me if this has been covered.

I am a bit radical in my thinking, in that I want to have a gun that is a common bore for what history tells us was most common for my time period. That is what has helped shape and form my needs and wants in a gunne bore size.

To be brief, larger bores were common during the Indian wars up to and a bit through the 1790. I have a pard who performed a survey on surviving rifle guns from ye 18th century and found the average to be around a 52 caliber. The larger bores fell to smaller bore sizes when larger game such as Elk and bear, wolves and catamounts became more scarce and or run off, and there was far less worries from ye savages on the frontier.

But, this is all subject to my own time frame and place, and may not apply to yours at all.
So for me, I allow history to dictate what I carry, and not what my modern thoughts or reasoning would tell me.

Hope this helps!

Simeon

 

[George]

So for me, I allow history to dictate what I carry, and not what my modern thoughts or reasoning would tell me.

That really is a radical approach, Simeon, doubt it will ever catch on here. :grin:

FYI From the journal of John Joseph Henry, a Pennsylvania rifleman on Benedict Arnold's failed campaign against Quebec in the fall of 1775. While trekking through the wilds of Maine, he lost his rifle when a canoe overturned. He managed to buy another rifle, for twelve dollars, and had this to say about it:

"This gun was short, and carried about 45 balls to the pound. [.47 cal.] The stock was much shattered, and it was worth about five dollars. Necessity has no law. Never did a gun, ill as its appearance was, shoot with greater certainty, and where the ball touched, from its size it was sure to kill. This observation, trifling as it may seem, ought to induce government to adopt guns of this size, as to length of barrel and size of ball. There are many reasons to enforce this opinion."

I get the impression he thought a .47 caliber was a big one.

Spence

 

[simeon england]

Howdy!

I get the impression he thought a .47 caliber was a big one.

To clarify on my above post, I did not say there were no guns smaller than a 52, I said it was the average of guns surveyed. For there to be a 52 cal average, there would have needed to be some less than 52, some more.

And yes, I do have a bit of a radical view. But its what I consider fun. I hope everyone has fun with BP, with however radical or not they decide to be.

 

[George]

To clarify on my above post, I did not say there were no guns smaller than a 52, I said it was the average of guns surveyed. For there to be a 52 cal average, there would have needed to be some less than 52, some more.

Sure, I understand that and was not questioning your numbers. I was expressing my own surprise that he believed a .47 caliber was a big one. He was part of a force which included more than 200 riflemen in three companies, and I would have guessed their average bore would have been larger than .47, not smaller.

Good luck with your radical approach. I've never had the impression history had much influence on most members, but one can always hope. :grin:

Spence

 

[simeon england]

Got it, clears it up.

Good luck with your radical approach. I've never had the impression history had much influence on most members, but one can always hope.

Thanks. Yes, I know I am different, but its what I like to do. I dont try to pigeon hole anyone into doing it like I do, or downgrade anyone for not playing like me. And I hope I get the same in return.

 

[Rod Lassey]

I've never had the impression history had much influence on most members, but one can always hope. :grin:

Spence

:haha: :haha: :applause:

Rod

 

[tenngun]

I like lots of lead but only like to take good shots.I think someone who knows his gun,takes only good shots and follows through can kill as well as me.In the old days lots of deer and bigger were taken by guns we might think too small today.Early mountian guns were often .50 cal lots of early rifles were40-45 cal.Use the gun you belive in,use the gun you know,take the shots you can hit and the hunter you will be :idunno:

 

[dc7x64]

Well I must say, I've only killed two deer in the last 2 years. A doe I shot last year with a 1:48 twist .50 cal T/C factory barrel loaded with 90gr of 2F patched roundball. Shot her at 50 yds, broke both shoulders,had to shoot her again,recovered the ball. This year I shot a spike I mistook for a doe, at roughly the same range. This time with a 1:70 twist .54 cal Green Mtn. barrel with the same 90gr and roundball....pole-axed! With only 2 muzzleloader deer under my belt I cant offer up any sound advice other than if you hunt with a roundball, the larger calibers seem to really hit hard!!..no experience with conicals in smaller calibers though :idunno:

 

[dc7x64]

Forgot to mention, both those deer were in the 100# weight range...not very big. I did kill an 8-point with one of those "unmentionables" weighing in at 183#.The deer was well within muzzleloader range. Had some accuracy issues at the range with my ML(need more practice!)so switched over to CF late season.Just goes to show confidence does play a big factor in what you use. I feel if I was on my A-game, my .54 would have been big medicine on that 8-point...maybe next year.