What is the point of your using a muzzleloader in the first place, wouldn't you get more satisfaction out of using a centerfire? I know of many hunters who can't make a clean shot with a scoped modern gun.
I have no trouble taking a deer with a round ball, I know the limitations of my equipment, and myself. The hunter who wounds and cripples with a muzzleloader will do the same with what ever he uses during rifle season.

Very well said 1Shot 1Kill! Hunting ethics demand that animals be dispatched quickly and cleanly. It does not matter what method of hunting. Government should spend less time putting limits on hunters and more time educating hunters on the importance of self imposed limits based on the shooters abilities.

[Deleted by Admins]

Let me clearify a comment that I made concerning patch & ball. When I say that it is a crippler and mangler, I should not and I am not saying that everyone that hunts with this type of muzzleloader is a crippler and mangler. To be proficeint and effective with this type of muzzleloader takes years of experience and lots of self-discipline. There are many whom posess these qualities.

Yet on the other hand, many expect someone picking up a muzzleloader for the first to be just as knowledgeable and to play by their rules. It just ain't going to happen. I would much rather see a beginner or novice, pick up a T/C Encore, Knight Disc, CVA Fire Bolt, Traditions Lighting, or even a Savage 10ML-II, and be able to shoot it accurately, proficiently, and be able to cleanly and effiecently harvest game, while gaining expereince and knowledge about muzzleloading. To force a beginner or novice to use a flintlock and patch & ball is a recipy for disaster, that will undoubtabily lead to wounded, crippled, and mangled game. Not to mention a frustrated and discouraged hunter.

The fact of the matter is, some muzzleloaders are more likely to be much less effeicent at taking game than other, by not being able to put nearly as much energy on target as others. Round balls by their design are not very effeicent at transferring energy into the the game, meaing that they do not expand very much, they do not mushroom, and unless you hit solid bone they don't even deform very much. The saboted bullets and even conicals like Power Belts, used by in-line hunters, are designed to deliver maximum energy into game, they expand, mushroom, and penetrate.

If a patch & ball muzzleloader and hunter, is capable of clean kills out to say 75yds (whether it be his muzzleloader limit or his self-imposed limit), then why should he be crying and moaning over a in-line muzzleloader and hunter who can cleanly kill out to 100 or 125yds? I truely beleive as a rule, and there are always exceptions to every rule, that because a new muzzleloader hunter buys an in-line, they do not automatically think that they blast away at game at 200yds. I've talked to too many new hunters just getting into muzzleloading for anyone to convince me other wise. The vast majority have a great amount of hunting expereince, in other areas, like bow, shotgun, and rifle. They are getting into muzzleloading for a new challenge of doing something different, not to be like Daniel Boone or Davey Crockett. They are getting into muzzleloading for the extra time afield, becuase as a hunter that is what he longs for. If he gets to harvest a deer, then that is just the iceing on the cake.

Here in NC, you are allowed 6 deer total throughout the entire season, inlcuding bow, muzzleloader, and gun. You can use all 6 tags during bow season, you use all 6 during muzzleloading, or you can use all 6 during gun season. Or you can use them in any combination you want. I find it overly complicated and totally unneccessary for states to allow this many deer during bow, this many during muzzleloader, this many during gun, and this during the 2nd muzzleloader season. I know that it all has to do with money from thesales of these individual hunting season permits. Would it not be simpler to sale one hunting license/permit for all seasons, have an annual total bag limit and leave it to the hunter to dictate how and when he use his tags? I am getting off subject and rambling now, but JMHO.

1 Shot,Now you know that what your are saying makes entirely to much sense for any D.N.R. to even consider. <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>

In Tennessee, if you want to hunt small game, that is one license. If you want to gun hunt for deer, that is another license. If you want to bow hunt, another license. If you wish to MUZZLELOADER hunt, that is another license. If you want to hunt on some of the WMA's, that is yet another license!
And for those of you who have dreams of doing it like YOUR forefathers did, more power to you! but dont try to tell me I have to do it that way. You &quot;died in the wool&quot;, do it the old way types, why stop there? Turn off your electricity, running water, gas heat, sell your automobiles and buy horses. Go back to coal oil lights and wood heat. And by the way, most of those people died before they ever reached 40.
I'm staying in the 21st century, thank you.

Well, I tell ya one thing. Here in this commie state of MD, the only reason they allow any hunting is for deer population. Only reason they extended the extra muzzleloader season and let ya use a scope with inline was for more kills. They could give a diddly about tradition. When the deer are down to acceptable levels, say goodbye to any kind of extended seasons and technology that goes with muzzleloading. Its kinda funny on how people feel so different from different parts of the country. I come from Turkey creek, Ky, near pond creek, the deer kill percentage there is alot less than here in MD, hence the not as long season for muzzleloader or bow.

I usually avoid these threads because they nearly always degenerate into a childish spat of name calling. But, I feel compelled to respond to several statements. So:


&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;As far as keeping it primitive goes, HOGWASH.

&gt;The fact of the matter is, it was traditional M/L hunters who got the special seasons established for the specific purpose of using traditional weapons.


&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;I had to remove my scope and replace the sights that had long ago been removed because of their uselessness.

&gt;That's largely a matter of skill and marksmanship knowledge. True, iron sights require more skill than optics, but that's part of the attraction. My 9 year old son killed his 1st deer this year with a traditional rifle & open sights. My 16 year old daughter has killed deer with a traditional rifle & open sights. And, my 81 year old father-in-law (he's blind in one eye, and we're not sure he can see out the other) is still very competitive in benchrest matches that are restricted to iron sights.


&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;As far in-lines go, the first ones were around in the early 1700's.

&gt;True, there were some early firearms that could loosely be described as &quot;in-lines&quot;. And, I would say if you wanted to build a historically correct replica (or just a reasonable facsimile) of one of those rifles, and use it in a traditional M/L season, more power to you! But, it ain't gonna look like a Rem700 and it ain't gonna have a 3-9X scope.


&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;PA is a prime example, of the small minority, yet very effective lobbying group, keeping out dated hunting methods as the law of the land.

&gt;I would say PA is a prime example of a state that has preserved the original intent and spirit of the M/L season and should be applauded for having the balls (pun intended) to do so.


&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;If I had my wishes here in NC, patch & ball would be outlawed. These may be effective at 50yds but anything past that and they are just cripplers and manglers..

&gt;I'm afraid your inexperience is showing. It reminds me of the old lead/steel shot arguements. It took a long time for people to understand that steel was different and assumptions and principles that were valid with lead were not valid with steel. Experience showed us that steel can be effective when the proper assumptions and principles are applied. High velocity, smokeless powder/jacketed bullet principles and assumptions don't apply to blackpowder and M/L, and lead to erroneous conclusions about effectiveness.


&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Round balls by their design are not very effeicent at transferring energy into the the game, meaing that they do not expand very much, they do not mushroom, and unless you hit solid bone they don't even deform very much.

&gt;Again, your inexperience is showing.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote<font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
I usually avoid these threads because they nearly always degenerate into a childish spat of name calling. But, I feel compelled to respond to several statements. So:


&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;As far as keeping it primitive goes, HOGWASH.

&gt;The fact of the matter is, it was traditional M/L hunters who got the special seasons established for the specific purpose of using traditional weapons.
****Sorry, the reason WE have a muzzleloader hunt is for POPULATION CONTROL********


&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;I had to remove my scope and replace the sights that had long ago been removed because of their uselessness.

&gt;That's largely a matter of skill and marksmanship knowledge. True, iron sights require more skill than optics, but that's part of the attraction. My 9 year old son killed his 1st deer this year with a traditional rifle & open sights. My 16 year old daughter has killed deer with a traditional rifle & open sights. And, my 81 year old father-in-law (he's blind in one eye, and we're not sure he can see out the other) is still very competitive in benchrest matches that are restricted to iron sights.
*****Comparatively speaking, iron sights simply cannot compete with a Leupold! My vision is 20/15. I can shoot iron sights with anybody, but a scope is FAR superior.*******


&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;As far in-lines go, the first ones were around in the early 1700's.

&gt;True, there were some early firearms that could loosely be described as &quot;in-lines&quot;. And, I would say if you wanted to build a historically correct replica (or just a reasonable facsimile) of one of those rifles, and use it in a traditional M/L season, more power to you! But, it ain't gonna look like a Rem700 and it ain't gonna have a 3-9X scope.


&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;PA is a prime example, of the small minority, yet very effective lobbying group, keeping out dated hunting methods as the law of the land.

&gt;I would say PA is a prime example of a state that has preserved the original intent and spirit of the M/L season and should be applauded for having the balls (pun intended) to do so.


&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;If I had my wishes here in NC, patch & ball would be outlawed. These may be effective at 50yds but anything past that and they are just cripplers and manglers..

&gt;I'm afraid your inexperience is showing. It reminds me of the old lead/steel shot arguements. It took a long time for people to understand that steel was different and assumptions and principles that were valid with lead were not valid with steel. Experience showed us that steel can be effective when the proper assumptions and principles are applied. High velocity, smokeless powder/jacketed bullet principles and assumptions don't apply to blackpowder and M/L, and lead to erroneous conclusions about effectiveness.


&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Round balls by their design are not very effeicent at transferring energy into the the game, meaing that they do not expand very much, they do not mushroom, and unless you hit solid bone they don't even deform very much.

&gt;Again, your inexperience is showing.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote>

Edited by - Tn_hunter on 01/15/2002 13:58:48

Tal/IL, I am afraid, my friend, that it is your inexperience that is on display here, tempered by a healthy dose of ignorance on the subject of smokeless powder muzzleloading. You see my friend, I have been thru the gaunlet of flintlock p/rb, sidelock percussion with solid lead conicals, to sidelocks with saboted pistol bullets, to in-lines with saboted pistol bullets, to custom smokeless powder muzzleloaders, to the Savage 10ML and 10ML-II. I have more ropunds down range thru smokeless muzzleloaders than most people put down range in a lifetime, collectively. When it comes to the subject of smokeless powder muzzleloading I am anything but inexperienced.

If you think that a p/rb is more efficient than a Savage 10ML-II at taking game? Let let the figures speak for themsleves, shall we?

.50 Cal shooting .490 cal 177gr Speer round ball:
muzzle fps/fpe....100yd.....200yd.....300yd
2,300/2138.....1,099/488...781/247...590/141


.50 cal 10ML-II with .452 Hornday 300gr XTP
mzl fps/fpe....100yd........200yd.......300yd
2230/3313...2026/2735...1500/1499..1234/1015


.50 cal 10ML-II with .452 Hornday 250gr XTP
mzl fps/fpe....100yd.......200yd........300yd
2450/3333...1985/2188...1591/1406...1276/904

I am being a little conservative with the 10ML-II, because the latest load data performance is 20-25% greater than I listed here. The fact is that the 10ML-II performance is greater at 300yds, than a P/RB has at 100yds. How can someone with your self-proclaimed knowledge and experience make a logical arguement that a P/RB muzzleloader is just as effective or more so at taking game, than the smokeless 10ML-II, when the facts are staring you right in face? Yes the round balls start out fast and put up modestly impressively fpe at muzzle, but with basically zero BC, they shed velocity and energy not just by the yard, but by the inch.

If I put my Savage 10ML-II in a circa 1700's stock, removed my scope, installed open sights, added a dummy rocklock, so that it looks like a flintlock, would that please you?

Edited by - 1SHOT_1KILL on 01/15/2002 14:57:43