Do You Doubt The PRB?
12-20-2015, 07:55 PM
#141
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 146
Marble Bullseye
No you can't. Wet newspaper is a torture test, and is not the same as what happens on an animal. The PRB expands just right at all the distances that I hunt. My limit is the open sights. Not the PRB. I've said all this already. Can't you read all the posts, and give one response? I've got stuff to do.
I'm gone.
I'm gone.
This sight is a forward mounted peep. I don't think it would be as good as a back-in-your-face regular peep, but its got to be an improvement on any open sight. The thing that I like is that it looks like a full buckhorn sight. Worth a shot.
OldBob
12-20-2015, 07:58 PM
#142
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Boncarbo,Colorado
Posts: 9,186
round balls expand extremely well in game. One that I removed was a .570" ball and when recovered, was well over 80cal in diameter. Well over 2 1/2 feet of penetration as well. Shot straight through the chest and recovered resting against the ham bone.
12-20-2015, 08:02 PM
#143
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Illinois
Posts: 3,695
AInt noone on here going to jump on you Mike. No reason to. You stated your opinion in such a way as to not be "preachy" nor condemn those that choose to use PRB equipment. You are actually 100% correct in your observation in my own little ignorant opinion. Bob, on the other hand, condemns all who choose to use this method. Like you, I prefer more modern bullets and platforms but am well versed in PRB usage (granted it's been many years) and have USED them on live game many times in the past. I just feel it is just ridiculous for someone with no experience with something to come along and condemn it just because they read a book or someone "told" them something.
12-20-2015, 08:15 PM
#144
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 146
You think?
well in the mountain man days they were still using old school technology Flintlock while percussions had been around for the quite a while. Why? That new fangled technology ran outta caps at some point while that flintlock could work with some sort of rock they could find. They were very slow at adapting to the percussion lock.
Check on the rarity of flintlock Hawken rifles. Although, we didn't have an army of trappers with Hawken rifles. Apparently the Leman rifle was a bit more common. I think the Lyman Trade Rifle is much more representative of what many people were using. Its a simple piece. Pictures I've seen seem to show a single wedge, single trigger design, with enough space in the guard for a gloved finger. Having to take your glove off to shoot could get downright painful, during a Rocky Mountain Winter.
Somewhere I read of the inventory of percussion caps at St. Lou. Bazzillions! I agree with your logic, and had I been alive then, I think I would have done exactly what you suggest. But ours would have been a minority opinion.
OldBob
12-20-2015, 08:20 PM
#145
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 146
I'm old!
No you can't. Wet newspaper is a torture test, and is not the same as what happens on an animal. The PRB expands just right at all the distances that I hunt. My limit is the open sights. Not the PRB. I've said all this already. Can't you read all the posts, and give one response? I've got stuff to do.
I'm gone.
I'm gone.
You're asking a lot of an old man's memory! Plus, I'm such a slow typist that by the time I get done with a long post, the thing asks me to log in. I've lost lengthy posts this way.
OldBob
12-20-2015, 08:56 PM
#146
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Boncarbo,Colorado
Posts: 9,186
MD54,
Check on the rarity of flintlock Hawken rifles. Although, we didn't have an army of trappers with Hawken rifles. Apparently the Leman rifle was a bit more common. I think the Lyman Trade Rifle is much more representative of what many people were using. Its a simple piece. Pictures I've seen seem to show a single wedge, single trigger design, with enough space in the guard for a gloved finger. Having to take your glove off to shoot could get downright painful, during a Rocky Mountain Winter.
Somewhere I read of the inventory of percussion caps at St. Lou. Bazzillions! I agree with your logic, and had I been alive then, I think I would have done exactly what you suggest. But ours would have been a minority opinion.
OldBob
Check on the rarity of flintlock Hawken rifles. Although, we didn't have an army of trappers with Hawken rifles. Apparently the Leman rifle was a bit more common. I think the Lyman Trade Rifle is much more representative of what many people were using. Its a simple piece. Pictures I've seen seem to show a single wedge, single trigger design, with enough space in the guard for a gloved finger. Having to take your glove off to shoot could get downright painful, during a Rocky Mountain Winter.
Somewhere I read of the inventory of percussion caps at St. Lou. Bazzillions! I agree with your logic, and had I been alive then, I think I would have done exactly what you suggest. But ours would have been a minority opinion.
OldBob
I live in the rockies and hunt the cold weather with a hawken. Hunting with gloves or mittens is very typical and pretty obvious what a hunter does in order to safely pull the trigger. Not sure what warm season you hunt where gloves are not needed.
12-20-2015, 09:04 PM
#147
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 146
Fmj
AInt noone on here going to jump on you Mike. No reason to. You stated your opinion in such a way as to not be "preachy" nor condemn those that choose to use PRB equipment. You are actually 100% correct in your observation in my own little ignorant opinion. Bob, on the other hand, condemns all who choose to use this method. Like you, I prefer more modern bullets and platforms but am well versed in PRB usage (granted it's been many years) and have USED them on live game many times in the past. I just feel it is just ridiculous for someone with no experience with something to come along and condemn it just because they read a book or someone "told" them something.
I would no more use a PBR than I would an FMJ on game. Now I know how an FMJ works, with its center of mass behind its center of form. Any deflection turns it into a buzzsaw, so the theory goes. And I know that every nation on Earth worked to perfect this action, once the Geneva Convention made expanding bullets illegal. And I know that this style of bullet killed a great many soldiers, perhaps millions. So it would be ridiculous to question the lethality of that bullet type. However, I think most if not all of the game commissions in the US have outlawed them for hunting. I don't know if their reasons are the same as my reasons, and my objections to them are different from my objections to the PRB. But I have never used them for hunting, and I never will.
To be polite, I have to tell tou that I am NOT trying to set you up. Say, if you reply, "I think FMJs should be outlawed for hunting." Then I say, "Why? you've never used them, but you don't question their lethality. Why should they be banned?" This line of reasoning could be extended to many things that are currently banned from our hunting fields.
As I've said before, you want to use a flint? Bravo! Its the longest-serving fire control system in the history of arms. You want to use a Matchlock? Its not for me, but I applaud you. The thing is, your choice of fire control system has scant effect on how humanely you can harvest game. The load you choose to send on its way has EVERYTHING to do with that. There's better things you can load that will probably be more effective than the PRB.
You cite my lack of experience with the PRB as a reason to dismiss my viewpoint about same, but if you know that I consider their use to be wrong, why would you ever expect me to use them? Do you think I would ever do or recommend to someone else that they use such a thing to harvest game? I can't imagine why you would think that.
OldBob
12-20-2015, 09:16 PM
#148
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 146
Indian Trade Rifle
the deal with every mountain man having a hawken is phoney. They were at the top after the era of the mountain men. Leman and many many many other rifles were used back in those days including british guns as well as french guns. A hawken cost double sometimes x3 as much as your typical rifle of the day.
I live in the rockies and hunt the cold weather with a hawken. Hunting with gloves or mittens is very typical and pretty obvious what a hunter does in order to safely pull the trigger. Not sure what warm season you hunt where gloves are not needed.
I live in the rockies and hunt the cold weather with a hawken. Hunting with gloves or mittens is very typical and pretty obvious what a hunter does in order to safely pull the trigger. Not sure what warm season you hunt where gloves are not needed.
Yeah, to me its very obvious. You buy a rifle with enough space in the trigger guard so that you do not have to remove your gloves to shoot. This was something I checked out when I bought my last crossbow. That's why I don't understand the double set triggers on the "Hawken" replicas. You can't get your gloved finger in the trigger guard, and if you remove your glove, in short order you won't be able to feel the set trigger. Makes no sense.
Ever see a set trigger on a crossbow? Even the most expensive ones? There's a reason for that . . .
OldBob
12-20-2015, 10:29 PM
#150
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Illinois
Posts: 3,695
SH54,
I would no more use a PBR than I would an FMJ on game. Now I know how an FMJ works, with its center of mass behind its center of form. Any deflection turns it into a buzzsaw, so the theory goes. And I know that every nation on Earth worked to perfect this action, once the Geneva Convention made expanding bullets illegal. And I know that this style of bullet killed a great many soldiers, perhaps millions. So it would be ridiculous to question the lethality of that bullet type. However, I think most if not all of the game commissions in the US have outlawed them for hunting. I don't know if their reasons are the same as my reasons, and my objections to them are different from my objections to the PRB. But I have never used them for hunting, and I never will.
To be polite, I have to tell tou that I am NOT trying to set you up. Say, if you reply, "I think FMJs should be outlawed for hunting." Then I say, "Why? you've never used them, but you don't question their lethality. Why should they be banned?" This line of reasoning could be extended to many things that are currently banned from our hunting fields.
As I've said before, you want to use a flint? Bravo! Its the longest-serving fire control system in the history of arms. You want to use a Matchlock? Its not for me, but I applaud you. The thing is, your choice of fire control system has scant effect on how humanely you can harvest game. The load you choose to send on its way has EVERYTHING to do with that. There's better things you can load that will probably be more effective than the PRB.
You cite my lack of experience with the PRB as a reason to dismiss my viewpoint about same, but if you know that I consider their use to be wrong, why would you ever expect me to use them? Do you think I would ever do or recommend to someone else that they use such a thing to harvest game? I can't imagine why you would think that.
OldBob
I would no more use a PBR than I would an FMJ on game. Now I know how an FMJ works, with its center of mass behind its center of form. Any deflection turns it into a buzzsaw, so the theory goes. And I know that every nation on Earth worked to perfect this action, once the Geneva Convention made expanding bullets illegal. And I know that this style of bullet killed a great many soldiers, perhaps millions. So it would be ridiculous to question the lethality of that bullet type. However, I think most if not all of the game commissions in the US have outlawed them for hunting. I don't know if their reasons are the same as my reasons, and my objections to them are different from my objections to the PRB. But I have never used them for hunting, and I never will.
To be polite, I have to tell tou that I am NOT trying to set you up. Say, if you reply, "I think FMJs should be outlawed for hunting." Then I say, "Why? you've never used them, but you don't question their lethality. Why should they be banned?" This line of reasoning could be extended to many things that are currently banned from our hunting fields.
As I've said before, you want to use a flint? Bravo! Its the longest-serving fire control system in the history of arms. You want to use a Matchlock? Its not for me, but I applaud you. The thing is, your choice of fire control system has scant effect on how humanely you can harvest game. The load you choose to send on its way has EVERYTHING to do with that. There's better things you can load that will probably be more effective than the PRB.
You cite my lack of experience with the PRB as a reason to dismiss my viewpoint about same, but if you know that I consider their use to be wrong, why would you ever expect me to use them? Do you think I would ever do or recommend to someone else that they use such a thing to harvest game? I can't imagine why you would think that.
OldBob