Idaho Ron said:
Wow it must sting pretty bad that guys like me get to use the same forum as you do.
In my opinion every guy that left for the west would have taken their Original hawkens and burned them after shooting mine. I wouldn't trade 50 of the originals for one of mine. I have no use for one. Ron
Ahh. Ron.
They knew about elongated projectiles from before the 1830s. The most popular early bullet in America, the picket bullet, was being used in long range matches out to 440 yards or more, before the Mexican War. The false muzzle, according to Chapman, was invented for the Picket bullet. By the 1850s the PP bullet was in use as was the Minie and other experimental military bullets. But not for the typical "sporting rifle". They simply were not seen as necessary, obviously. The PP bullet as used here was even more complex to use than the Picket. The best shooting ones used 2 piece bullets with the different parts cast from different alloys then swaged to lock them together, 2 and 3 strip patches etc. These last requires even more pieces to keep the paper strips in place
As I have stated the Picket (and the somewhat later PP bullet) added too much complexity, weight and easily damaged or lost equipment to be viable in the field. AND the bores were often (dare I say invariably) choked so that once through the false muzzle and the choke the weight of the loading rod would cause the PP bullet to seat on the powder and tipping it down after it was loaded could cause it to slide away from the powder.
The "naked" bullet was dangerous to use (see following comments) since anything not cloth patched to a tight fit can move off the powder and does in both historical context and modern. Its a problem for LR ML match shooters I have been told. Many rifles have had their barrels ringed by a bullet moving away from the powder/wads as the rife is carried to the firing line.
Here is another question. What about horses? Have you ever rode for a day or 3 on a horsewith one of your bullet guns then checked to see where the bullet is?
You DO understand why there was never a Minie Ball Cavalry carbine adopted for general issue right?
You see modern usage is not 19th c usage. The early percussion breech loaders and the Spencer and Henry were better horseback guns than any of the MLs. You see the SB carbines would unload themselves in a few miles of horse travel (documented from writings of the time) as would the Minie ball rifle muskets for the same reason, too little friction in the bore for the weight of the projectile.
While civilians did not generally carry them on a sling as the Cavalry did they were still generally muzzle down across the pommel, this carry continued with all guns that were very heavy and/or long since if the rifle were long (by modern standards) it just does not work well. So if we put the bulleted ML on a horse with the muzzle down, since its easier/safer, the bullet may well move unless its tight in the bore to the point that it cannot move. Of course if we don't ride a horse its meaningless or have a short barreled ML we can carry them in a saddle scabbard (so long as they have never been capped) but they are still carried somewhat muzzle down and not with the buttstock back behind the rider since they tend to SLIDE out and are then lost on steep trails. So they are generally carried muzzle down butt to the front or if they are long across the pommel and these end up muzzle down. If they are carried at too flat an angle muzzle to the rear they may interfere with the horses leg. We can see the pommel carry wear pattern (if one knows what it is) on original rifles like the fairly pristine Bridger Hawken in Helena, an 1850s rifle made for the PRB and obviously for use in the west. Colt revolvers and revolving rifles were using pointed bullets much like a picket before Jake Hawken died of disease.
So when people start talking about people not knowing about elongated projectiles and how they would have preferred them they show very limited understanding of how the firearms were used at the time. The cloth patched RB was very difficult to beat in a ML. It seals the bore better, it can be used successfully on heavy game like Elephant where the ML conical was found to be far less effective. It does not slide away from the powder charge and can be used without fear or it moving under recoil in double rifles.
Garrard in "Yah-To-Yah and the Taos Trail" describes a man with a Hawken rifle that shoots a bullet an inch long. So apparently the Hawken shop knew of them too, but this is the only known description of one using anything but a RB. Whisker in "Gunsmiths of Lancaster County PA" shows a bullet mould by A Gumpf (there were two one living until 1851 the other until 1907) it has a RB cavity, a pointed "Picket" cavity and another cavity that casts a "slug" about 2 calibers long with rounded ends. Have no idea how this could be used. Its not usable with a cloth patch at any rate.
Wounded game? Wounded game is the result of poor shot placement. It is impossible to cure this with a projectile change. In fact people thinking they can shoot at greater range than they or the firearm are
practically capable of can be a major cause of this.
The "wounded game" argument is the classic "modern ML website" drivel aimed at the RB which "won't kill anything because it has poor sectional density".
Reliability?
I can't help if you had some cheap ML when you were a kid and it didn't work. Its very common with poorly designed and assembled firearms no matter if its a ML or brass suppository type. This is beyond my control. Buy cheap stuff sometimes it don't work right. Just a fact. Confusing this with ALL traditional MLs being unreliable is a sign of lack of experience. Or people simply wanting to do what they want to do and trying to justify this by what ever means they can think up. Lots of hunters also wound game with modern scope sighted rifles usually from lack of practical marksmanship skills or from SHOOTING FARTHER THAN THEY SHOULD since they read of or watched someone on TV shooting an antelope or what ever at 750 yards etc.
Penetration testing from over 30 years ago has shown me that a 490 RB will penetrate adequately to kill deer to 200 yards. Reports from a friend to witnessed the shot from a hillside and later checked the distance prove that a 54 RB will kill a Moose (in Northern BC Canada) at 175. No effectiveness issues at all, moose went about 30 yards IIRC before piling up. Now had he KNOWN it was only a RB he might have lived for years (according to the "modern ML" folks) but he must have thought it was a 338 of something :rotf: Either a complete pass through or to the far side hide. Would have to have my memory refreshed.
I have shot a number of deer and a couple of elk with bullets similar to what you shoot in your ML. I just use them in BPCRs. As a result I am not ignorant of the abilities of the projectile either on game or at targets. I know what works and what does not work so good. So far as killing power a LOT of deer and elk and some Gbears have fallen to the 44-40 in the west. I can assure you that a 50 caliber ML shooting a RB of identical weight is far superior of the 38-40/44-40 BP load for deer or elk. In fact a 45 caliber rb is more effective on deer and makes larger wound channels within its range.
Conicals are not magic. You still have to place the shot. I have a 45-100 Sharps that is accurate enough to kill Bison or an Elk to probably 1000 yards with reasonable reliability. But I would not shoot at one at 300 unless I REALLY knew the range. I have in the past (40-90-380 actually). Poor success for TWO experienced hunters, range was ACTUALLY 425 long steps (flat ground probably off by 5% at the most). It is very possible, even likely that the lighting and the size of a given animal can make them look a lot closer. You see this was before lasers. Bull would probably have gone Boone and Crockett too :shake:, we both still laugh about it. Today one of us would have killed him with the same rifle/load with my Leica 1200 laser. So I know about shooting at elk at extended ranges both with and without a sight setting for the range.
I don't shoot at critters with a ML at extended ranges, over 150 and don't shoot that far anymore due to eye problems. If I think longer range will be the norm I use something capable of the range I will likely encounter. But then where I live we have not been saddled with a ML season, we hunt the general season like everyone else. Thanks I believe to efforts by the bow hunters in the state who oppose, rightly, another season. So there is no reason for all the nimrods to take to the woods with a ML they barely understand for the "ML Season".
I like hunting with a Flintlock. I have never seen a reason to shoot an elongated bullet from one though I have a percussion I shoot pickets from every year or 3 or 4. But its not a hunting rifle.
Dan