Patch and ball rifles are not ideal hunting rifles

[bang]

Spoken as a true inferior shooter.

 

[coloradoclyde]

I've come to the conclusion that patch and ball rifles are inferior in every way to a rifled musket.

I like 'INFERIOR".

That's the attraction. Using an "inferior" weapon allows me to hone my real weapon (the brain) to it's finest. A true hunter need only his wits to be successful, a witless hunter needs all the help he can get.

Why bother using a fixed sight, patch and ball for 50 yard shooting when I can have a conical firing rifle that can shoot 50 AND 300 yards?

If you have trouble getting closer than 50 or 300 yards to your quarry, try taking a bath, use unscented soap, no deodorants, perfumes etc.
Learn to be quiet and move like an animal. Remember the animals are watching you too. Hunt wearing socks instead of shoes if you are noisy. Ballet lessons will improve your stalking ability and allow you to place your feet without making a sound. Hunt without a weapon and you will learn an animal's habits. Become the hunted and you learn it's secrets. A true hunter and marksman should be able to hit the mark without the aid of sights, with either hand and in any position.
If you cannot do these things you have much to learn.
Hunting is a time investment.
A better weapon does not make you a better hunter, it merely masks your inabilities.

 

[PastorB]

Hey fellas, the best response (to original poster), is often no response.

Proverbs 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

 

[R.J.Bruce]

Thread should be closed.

Anyone that has been involved in muzzleloading for any length of time (flintlock longrifle, .45 cal., 1971) would know that round lead balls, patched or bare, have killed more game since firearms were invented than any other type of projectile. And, that speed in reloading after the first shot has missed, or failed to kill its animal; and being able to kill at very long distances (200m-300m), IS NOT what modern day, sidelock shooting, black powder hunters are all about.

In order to shoot at those distances a hunter needs one of five things.

1. 20/10, or BETTER uncorrected vision to shoot open sights.
2. A modern telescopic sight.
3. A vernier tang sight, such as a Lyman 57, a Redfield, etc. target peep sight with a Hadley eye disk installed.
4. Or, a traditional ladder-style vernier tang sight with a Hadley eye disk installed.
5. A globe front sight with a fine post insert.

#'s 3,4, & 5 will only work in open country with adequate light. They are worthless in heavy cover, at dusk & dawn, and for certain people with particular eye conditions.

That makes most muzzleloaders, 99% of them, 100 yards and shorter, guns. INCLUDING most rifled muskets.

One of my favorite musicians is Joe Bonamassa. In his many interviews of other musicians he puts forth the theory that regardless of what field/trade one is engaged in, it takes at least 10,000 hours of practice/work at one's profession to start becoming proficient at it.

I feel this is especially true for shooting. Especially, for shooting long distance with a muzzleloader, and for shooting handguns. I am skeptical of anyone online that claims that they can blithely shoot big game cleanly with black powder muzzleloading rifles, with ethical kills at any distance over 150 yards, with standard open sights that were common in the 18th/19th Centuries.

Unless they have a boatload of online videos showcasing their shooting abilities at long range with such sights on such weapons.

I have met several people in my lifetime that had that kind of shooting ability. They were all military trained, were snipers, and had EXCEPTIONAL EYESIGHT. And, not a one of them would shoot at an animal at 300 yards with a Civil War style rifled musket with regulation sights with their open eyes. PERIOD. They had too much respect for themselves, and for the game they hunted.

 

[LawrenceA]

I think you have asked the wrong question.
I think you need to ask what do I see as the ideal hunting rifle?
Is it the efficacy or the experience?
Probably a mix that varies.
For you it may not be something with "patch and ball". Personally I use "shot" from time to time amongst other things.

 

[andy52]

Well the 20 or so deer I've taken with patched round balls didn't go anywhere but to the ground. The OP makes no sense to me unless he lives in Kansas where it's flat and has very little trees.

 

[Sparkitoff]

Interestingly, I have a rifled musket. The only two muzzleloader deer I have lost were shot with that rifle. It is pretty accurate and sighted in at 100-yards. Both buck deer were within that range. I don't know what went wrong because they were not recovered (one never and one a picked carcass after 7-days). Same circumstances have occurred dozens of times and my PRB rifle(s) killed that animal outright. So I couldn't say one is better and a general conclusion would be that the rifled musket is worse.

 

[FishDFly]

Sounds like an alcohol induced post.

 

[Ames]

I shot my 200 pounder at 20 FEET in open woods last year. Not a stick between us. Could have made that shot with the gun in my lap as he walked past me.
I think the O.P. should learn how to hunt, not just walk around claiming he could do it at 300 yards.
And the "speed of loading" comment is mute if you make the first shot right into the boiler room. What second shot?

 

[Enfield58]

I've not had the pleasure of harvesting a big animal yet with a patched round ball but have lost count of the deer that I've killed with my Whitworth.

With that data in mind, can I say that a conical bullet is superior to a round ball? Absolutely not.

With no experience on measuring the terminal effects of a round ball, how can I use direct observation to compare one to another? I can't.

I've shot a lot of patched round ball rifles and pistols and can vouch for their accuracy and range limitations but nothing on terminal ballistics on flesh and blood.

On the other hand, patched round ball rifles were in existence longer than weapons with conical projectiles. The historical data on the round ball is clear. It's just as effective in terminal performance given the range limitations and type of target media compared to a conical projectile.

If we could speak to the British survivors from the Battle of King's Mountain, they might testify to how effective patched round balls were then.

If we were to take the OP's methodology of comparing round balls to conical bullets then a leap in logic would be to say that the bow and arrow cannot kill a big game animal.

Really?

 

[Rod Man]

= Step away from the machine Sir!

 

[Howie1968]

For me,in the last 5 years at least 200 pigs killed with various calibers of muzzleloaders from .50 up to my pedersoli kodiak double .72 i mainly hunt big mature boars which is a whole lot different than a 2oo lb deer, while i had no problem killing them with .50 and .54 caliber roundballs powder ranging from 80 grains to 120 i found the 50 and .54 would not give total pass throughs on hogs 200 lbs and under. some may say well you killed it why do you need a pass through? a pass through where i live helps track the more air you can get into the chest cavity and the mpore fluid loss generally results in quicker deaths and shorter tracking job. mind you sows are a whole different creature i wouldnt hesitate shooting the biggest sow with a .54 rb. that being said the best compromise ive found is a .58 a .570 rb with 100 grains powder and .018 ticking patch ive yet to recover a roundball from a big boar! roundballs have there place and in the right hands with the right hunter a roundball kills way better than ballistics tell you. im not knocking a .50 or .54 roundball for my applications the way i hunt and the critters i hunt if using a rb im going with a .570 or bigger. my 50s and .54s ill use roundballs on thin skind game and or eating size hogs.

 

[erhunter]

My opinion is if you can't show respect to the other people on this forum and result to childish name calling, you don't belong on this forum! Go somewhere else. At least if you want to show ignorance on here, put some money where your mouth is and join as a supporting member for $18 bucks a year.

 

[chix2111]

To respond to the original post is to legitimize it....come on guys, it's really not worth . I know, I know, I'm as guilty as you, but this deal is more to be pitied than censured.

 

[Howie1968]

I've not had the pleasure of harvesting a big animal yet with a patched round ball but have lost count of the deer that I've killed with my Whitworth.

With that data in mind, can I say that a conical bullet is superior to a round ball? Absolutely not.

With no experience on measuring the terminal effects of a round ball, how can I use direct observation to compare one to another? I can't.

I've shot a lot of patched round ball rifles and pistols and can vouch for their accuracy and range limitations but nothing on terminal ballistics on flesh and blood.

On the other hand, patched round ball rifles were in existence longer than weapons with conical projectiles. The historical data on the round ball is clear. It's just as effective in terminal performance given the range limitations and type of target media compared to a conical projectile.

If we could speak to the British survivors from the Battle of King's Mountain, they might testify to how effective patched round balls were then.

If we were to take the OP's methodology of comparing round balls to conical bullets then a leap in logic would be to say that the bow and arrow cannot kill a big game animal.

Really?

i like this analogy ive done quite a few necropsy on pigs after shot with a roundball. i can tell you this on a big hog where a roundball did not pass through the wound channel was insanely massive and it jellies everything inside the internal dammage from a roundball was nasty when i recovered the ball it was flat im sure if i weighed them they didnt lose to many grains, On the contray the conical bullet necropsys ive done have no where near the damage but they pass through spilling blood everywhere. part of the problem with big hogs is around here we have a lot of red clay. hogs wallow in the muddy clay then it hardens like a adobe brick then after the hard mud you have hair skin big calous (some call it a shield) you get through that then you get into the vitals then the roundball has to punch out the other side. usually a hog that ive shot with a rb from 50 or .54 i nice neat hole going in then once inside the cavity it creates a huge wound channel. alot of times the hogs will lay down and cover the wound and the fat slows the blood as it tries to close up

 

[Omahkapi'si]

I think history would disagree with the subject statement.

 

[Robby]

Congratulations on finding a level of technological development that intersects with your lack of hunting skills. Not many will admit to it, thank you.
Robby

 

[rp77469]

If he is taking 300 yard shots at deer with iron sights and a projectile with the same trajectory as a rock, he is not someone I want to hunt with, let alone listen to for advice.

Notice the OP has not chimed in since he left his little deposit and flew away. To paraphrase KJE54 in comment #10...

Don't feed the Troll.

I'm off to find some other topic to read that is not bogus.

 

[Dale Lilly]

I think he lives near Larned KS [look it up]

 

[rickpa]

Hold on! I wanna get some popcorn and a beer! You fellas have fun with him. I'm not even going to bother responding.