Muzzleloading, where do we go next?
 

I've spent the last few weeks reading the archives of this forum and soaking up the all of the information. It has really had me thinking about where muzzleloaders have come from and where we are going.

I have to admit, I am a nerd when it comes to ballistics. I try to read every single thread or article on bullet performance that I come across. One thing that I have read a few times on this forum is that BC isn't as important to us as it is to centerfire guys. I would tend to disagree... A guy shooting a 300 win mag with a comfortable 200 yard zero doesn't have to think about what his bullet is going to do in most hunting situations. bullet drop isn't issue for him until 400-500 yards, far beyond the range of most hunting shots. Even for the guy shooting the best of what modern the black powder world has to offer, bullet drop becomes an issue at 150ish yards. Replace that slick jacketed 45 cal bullet with a 50 cal hunk of lead, and inches of drop can become feet. BC is very important for black powder guys.

If anything is less important to us than centerfire guys I would have to say that it is sectional density and expansion. A guy that shoots a deer with a .243 and has no expansion is going to have a worse day than a guy that shoots a deer with a .452 with no expansion.

I think that the next step in muzzleloader development will be smaller, more aerodynamic bullets. I don't know why a manufacture hasn't made a fast twist (1-15" or so) .45 muzzleloader. There are some great .358 bullets made for the .35 rem (that need a little faster twist) that have a BC in the .3-.4 range and mmp makes a .358/.45 sabot. I've seen where guys with .45's have been pushing 180gr bullets in the 2400-2500 ft/s range. That is getting close to modern centerfire range!

I also wonder why nobody has tried making a "bottleneck" chamber. If you look at centerfire cartridges you'll see that the biggest jump in performance came when they went away from straight walled cartridges. Short, wide columns of powder burn much better than a long, skinny one. Why not make the barrel a few hundredths bigger at the breech plug?

I think the greatest limiting factor in muzzleloading performance in the future will be DNR regs (as some states have found), but that doesn't mean we shouldn't push the envelope whenever possible.

Where do you guys think we are going?

I guess some guys want a muzzleloader that will kill at 200 yards or better, but not me...

I started in the 70s with flintlocks and do most of my deer hunting with a .54 flinter that I made, shooting .530 balls that I cast...

While I do own an inline, I haven't used it for deer in 3 years...To me, it's more fun hunting with something more primitive...

The funny thing is, when I move from bow season to using my flinter, I feel that I have a great advantage...

I actually see it moving in the other direction...I give talks on the American Revolution to schools and Boy Scouts...Whenever I do this there is never enough time to answer all the questions...Many of these young men are turning back to side hammers for the total experience of the hunt...

There is nothing wrong with high tech equipment but there's no substitute for plain old practice. As far as where is muzzleloading going well get a barrel, some triggers, and a lock, and the other goodies and build one, fancy or plain no matter it will be yours there won't be another like it and that my friend is what muzzleloading is all about

Well here's the thing, I have a thompson center hawken that I shoot prbs and lead conicals out of, so Im not just an inline guy. I live in Iowa and for most of the season an inline is as close to a rifle as I can get (I can only use one in the January antlerless where I live). So for me and a lot of others a muzzleloader isn't a way to get back to our roots or have more fun, it it is the best tool that we have available. Hunting with a prb and a side hammer within 75 yards is fun, but for taking top level game, nothing compares to being make an ethical shot at 200+ yards.

There's room for all types of weapons in the woods, but when you build your own it puts a different spin on the experience.

Josh...It's a shame that the Iowa Game Department doesn't let it's hunters use centerfires...Every state has it's own quirks in it's game laws and it's too bad they affect the type weapons and experience we have in the field...

It does put a different spin on things when you are restricted in this manner...

I'd be inclined to look into a Savage inline if they are legal in Iowa...The fellows that invented it live about 30 miles up the road in Greensboro, they can get you dialed in to long range shooting...

I'm also a member of a NC Hunting Forum, the guy you need to hook up with is 1Shot1Kill...Here is the link to that forum...

http://nchuntandfish.com/forums/index.php

I do know that he prefers the Hornady XTP 300gr in .452 diameter...He posts each year on his hunts in eastern NC...We have land over there as flat as Iowa and he has made kill shots over 200 yards with his rig...Must be terribly boring having to hunt to do research and developement...:)

Well I'm the other side of the coin Josh. I started hunting with a 270 and could make 200+ yard shots with little to no effort. (still can, shot a doe at 300 yards running this year). Then I wanted more of a challenge. So I bought a 1895 .450 Marlin Guide Gun. Limited my shots under 200 perferbly less than 150. Got really good at that. I did miss some big bucks because they were beyond the 200 range. But I still wanted more of a challenge. So what do I do? Bought an inline muzzleloader. Yes I still can get out there at 200 yards, but I got one shot and only one shot to do it in. I love my inline, but I can see myself in a few years or shorter wanting an .54 cal flint or percussion or both. Simply for the challenge. To be able to get that close to a deer/elk and pull the trigger. Thats the challenge for me. The hunt is an all day adventure. The time that we take to pull the trigger only last a second. So why would want to hurry the adventure? Get close, pull a sneak on them that the old mountian men would be proud of. Thats the adventure and challenge for me!

I still maintain the BC is not an upper most consideration in the selection of a ML bullet even a modern ML bullet. I can say that because I limit myself to a max 200 yard shot and even then the conditions need to be perfect. Bullets that have a BC of or near the .200 area work well in my world. The reason I say that is because i need a bullet that will perform equally well from 30 yard to 200 yards... A lot of the pointy high BC bullets do not exactly do that. They certainly perform well in the longer ranges but tend be pencils at the closer ranges. The bullet no mater what the BC must be accurate from 30 to 200 yards. If that is the case using a 'point blank rabge' calculation can easy take care of drop. Wind is still the biggest factor shooting ML's long distance.

I am or was a 300 Win Mag shooter... using 200 grain Nosler Semi round Nose Partition bullets and 200 grain Sierra BTSP bullets. 200 yards shots were not that big of a deal and again using 'PBR' the 300/400 shots were not that difficult - considering only drop - but again adding in wind really increases the the calculations.

Yes, but know - i am shooting a poor bc .458/300 grain BC bullet for elk hunting or even a .503/460 grain lead conical and shooting 200 is not a big deal at all if you have done your part...

The .458/300 grain is sited in to zero at 150 yards which makes it 2.5" high @ 100 and 7.3" down at 200. I can easily make those adjustments.

Even the 460 lead conical is sighted in to zero at 135 yards can be extendend to 175 yards very easily.

In all of this I have not even mentioned 'bullet drop compensating' scopes that make it even easier.

In my world - my biggest fear about shooting 200 yards with a ML is not elevation accuracy, the bigger concern are the different wind influences on the way to the target and the energy that remains at thos distances - especially if you are shooting a light weight bullet.

I would certainly agree with this statement... My only point is do not shoot a bullet that will not perform, because there are bullets out there will perform equally well from short yardage to long yardage. You just gotta find them.

I would disagree to a point... i am not willing to give up energy for light bullets that can not maintain velocity at longer ranges or the ability to fight wind movements over the longer ranges.

I can only speak for myself but I am not really interested in the smaller caliber bullets in a big game hunting ML. I am shooting a .40/200 grain Lehigh HP from either a 45 cal ML or a 50 cal ML @ 22/2300 fps and even at 200 yards it is losing to much energy and suffers wind drift at a greater rate than i would like.

Can not comment on this one - I do not have enough personal information although Lehigh Dave has Discussed this a bit and even suggested that his new Knight breech plug might offer a little bit of the 'bottle neck' theory.

At what point do we reach to far and might as well just shoot a center fire. If you want the 'one shot' thought just get a Ruger #1 and shoot a 308 shell.

I personally gave up shooting centerfire to shoot ML's, actually i started shooting a ML to extend my hunting season - then at some point the disease took over. I no longer shoot centerfire as ML shooting is less expensive and I do not have time or the urge to reload anymore.... I like the thought of reloading and then pulling the trigger. Plus the CHALLENGE to shoot my ML as well as I can shoot my centerfires.

Manufactures are going to push the envelope - they have to - to continue to sell rifles... sorta like the advent of the 'short mag' for a lot of folks it is a new gun abd they gotta have one.

My fear - we are going to push it to far...

You are already seeing an advancement in the development of bullets. Brass ones, Copper ones, even fake roundballs. All of them are going to push these front loaders to places we only dreamed would be 30 years ago. Also the development of powders. Cleaner, more powerful, and it will only get better. But the one thing I have seen is optics. Before I mounted a magnification scope on my rifles, 100 yards was it for this fellow. And I was and still am happy with that.

Wisconsin is still one state that does not allow magnification on muzzleloaders. Some people hate the idea. I say what's the difference. Let them hunt with what they want. If they want to set up and take 200 yard shots, so be it. The southern and middle of the state would benefit a great deal with optics. But where I hunt, 75 yards is a long shot. Unless your hunting a hay field. And if I hunted a hay field, I guess if legal I would have my optics and fancy bullets to do the job. I like to harvest an animal clean. If that means I have to have good because I have bad eye sight... so be it.

There are very fast twist muzzleloaders. Look at some of the Whitworth, Gibbs, and such. They have 1-18 I believe, like the Sharps rifles. And with the rifle conical bullet they can shoot some extreme distances. Even with just a peep sight.

There are a couple of schools of thought about where MZ shooting should go. However the art of long distance MZ shooting has been around for a long time. It was just lost to the modern hunter. There are already bullets and rifles that are designed for 600 yard+ shooting. However hunting is a different game than target shooting. And shooting long range MZ's is a life long commitment to learn, while shooting a 300 magnum at 400 yards is a relatively simple thing to do.

MZ hunting made its come back in this country because most people think of an MZ as a "primitive weapon". Now most of us know that an MZ is not a "primitive weapon". But this is lost on the general public.

There are always going to be arguments amongst hunters. Should we stay FL and open sights only?? Or do we go to the latest whiz-bang shoot em farther product. Personally I like to do both. Sometimes I take my FL with a round ball and open sights and sometimes I take my Knight LRH with a VXIII Leupold. I like being able to hunt with both. But when a traditionalist sees my Knight rifle he "has a kitten".

I say do both. And respect the people who do both. And lets keep an open mind. However I do believe that the more modern the weapon gets,the less we can call it primitive hunting. And we may loose some privileges because of that. Tom.