Muzzle loader striking energy/effects question

I have sometimes wondered if the mountain men and people of that era would keep their rifles loaded with large charges of powder all the time. Given that powder was a precious commodity in those days, I would think a lot of their hunting would be done with reduced loads....or just as little as they could get away with for the task at hand. You could kill a deer with 30 or 40 grains at close range if need be....just might entail a little more tracking after the shot.
Even full charges of powder under a round ball is not going to do the internal damage a modern round would....just not enough energy there.
 
About the twist rate, I'm pretty sure my old Thompson is 1:48. I was thinking it might be too slow for the heavier Maxi projectiles, hence my giving the old round ball a try. But admittedly, I am no expert by any stretch in the area of twist rate and how it relates to bullet type and weight as far as calculating the best bullet for a given twist.

The year before I got my Renegade ('96 if I recall) I bought my Dad a New Englander. Same exact rifle except it has a round bbl and was available in left hand. Dad being a southpaw and the Renny only being offered in right handed the NE was the only choice. At the time that I got Dad his NE, only round ball was legal to hunt with in NY's muzzle loading season. I remember his NE being impressively accurate using the patch and round ball. The next year I got my Renny, and NY allowed for use of "modern" projectiles. I didn't even try round balls at that time, but I had noticed that the Maxi's I was shooting didn't shoot quite as well as Dads NE with round ball.

I'm sure that eventually I'll find a projectile and charge combination that I'm happy with. But I still refuse to jump into the in-lines. I just like my old school smoke-pole! :)
 
R R 350,

Back when I did a lot of competitive shooting with M.L.s, I had a fine shooting buddy who was the one to beat when he was at a match. He was a fine gun-builder, too, muzzleloaders or modern stuff; one of those guys who was just talented at no matter what he did. One day at a match we were standing together, leaning on our rifles waiting to take our shot at an iron buff or something made out of metal. Nobody was saying much as we watched each shooter take his shot. Out of the blue, my buddy just says to me. "Reinert, there just isn't anything better than shootin' the ol' patched round ball."

My buddy has since passed, and I've never forgotten that day and him saying that to me. That guy knew how to shoot any type of rifle (let alone build them), and did a lot of hunting with M.L.s, too. It's just this; he was absolutely right...

reinert
 
That is interesting...

If I am not mistaken, I believe the modern in-lines have different twist rates that make them quite a bit more accurate to greater distance than the old style like mine. Also, I am told they are designed for use with saboted projectiles as well where the old style like mine are not. Dad tried sabots in his NE at one time and accuracy was abysmal.

Anyway, thanks for the insight gentlemen. I will refrain from further sidetracking from the subject matter of this thread.
 
1:66 for patched ball

1:48 for a "compromise" (mine still prefers patched balls)

1:28 for conicals? Or was it 1:36? 1:36 I think. I can't remember because the modern stuff was never my thing.
 
It depends on the caliber. Large bores like slower rifling twists. In .36 caliber, Green Mountain rifles their round ball barrels with a 1 in 48 twist, in .50 caliber, their round ball barrels get a 1 in 72" twist.
The forward center of mass of the Minié ball meant it didn't need a fast twist and original .58 caliber rifled muskets had a fairly slow twist, somewhere on the order of 1 in 72 or even as slow as 1 in 120.
 
Have yet to see the film, I'll pick up the Blu Ray if I miss it in the theater, but if Jeremiah Johnson is any indication, expect a renewed interest in replica muzzleloading rifles of the era. That one film sparked a lot of interest, if it didn't create the market.
 
If you do see the movie, see it on the best, big screen available to you. It does make a difference for the experience. My wife and I saw it the first time at our local theatre, which has a smaller screen, and a smaller capacity for seating. Also, the sound wasn't the best.

Then we saw it again with some friends on a truly big screen with a great sound system. It was like seeing an altogether different movie. The bear scene is quite realistic (IMO), and God forbid anyone having to go through something like that. This movie has stirred more controversy than any I've seen in a long, long time, especially with the fur trade history/re-enacting folks. I believe this movie very well should give the traditional muzzle-loading sport a fair enough boost, and that's all right by me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top