Roskoe said:

On the controversy between the effectiveness of the big lead conicals and the modern sabot bullets . . .

For my part, I have not questioned the effectiveness of modern sabot bullets. Not once. I have tried to correct, what is in my opinion, a misrepresentation of the big lead conical. Each is, what it is, and each has its purpose and benefits. There is no need to stand on a soap box discouraging people not use either for purposes they are sufficiently suited for. Wouldn't you agree?

Roskoe also said:

Back in post #9, pglasglow indicated that all Powerbelts were hollowpoints. They make a 444 gr. flatpoint in .50 caliber. I have tested them on paper and in wet phone books. Perform very similar to other big lead conicals - moderate controlled expansion and great penetration. Like other Powerbelts, good accuracy at moderate velocities.

This is a good point that you are making and I am not surprised. I think you would agree that I didn't discourage the use of 444 gr. powerbelts. I do recall writing.

"Light hollow-pointed bullets (.50 cal. 295 gr.and less) are inadquate, in my opinion, for providing sufficient pentration to vital organsWHENbone must be shattered first."

I also wrote this:

"Personally, I think once you get above 400 grains, you're gonna get enough penetration on elk even with a hollowpoint."

Roscoe also said:

". . .but the Shockwave (with 130 grains of Pyrodex pellets) is more accurate, shoots flatter, and delivers just as good of terminal performance as the big conical"

I would not argue against that one bit. I do respect your preference. Now if I reiterate the point thatone must use 67% more powder to get "just as good as" terminal performance as the big conical, I just don't think that I am stirring controversy about the performance or effectiveness of your beloved load. I'm just noting a cost of choosing that load. I've been more than willing to embrace the deficiencies of big conicals, e.g. heavy recoil, and curving trajectories. Wouldn't you agree that I have been fair in that regard?

I've said this earlier:

"What I really love about the muzzleloader, is that it becomes a personal rifle. In that sense, it is a part of the hunter unlike no other rifle. When one considers all the options available to us and how we custom fit our loads to fit our particular hunting situations and preferences, no other hunting firearm gives us such flexibility. What a great sport we have."

I just don't understand why any of my statements are beingdescribed as controversial. When I first posted to this thread, I didn't know there was an agenda to discredit the "effectiveness" of any bullet. That came out much later. If any thing, I hope that maybe, I provided a different perspective, giving more things to consider, than otherwise would have been. So any who read it can take from the thread whatever they will. Varying perspectives are good, i think. After all, we don't think in a box. Wouldn't you agree?

Happy Hunting, Phil