-
Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.
We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.
Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103
Anyone watch Top Shot tonight?
- Thread starter kugs91
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 15,602
- Reaction score
- 19
No, I think they proved you don't you need patches...for an import brand and no patches they did quite well although the targets weren't all that far away but still, accurate enough...Having said that, yes I thought it was a little on the crazy side. :youcrazy: I would have preferred a pair of custom jobs being used and the contestants actually taught to load ball/patch and really ring some accuracy out of them. Instead they chose to go cheapest and easiest way out. To bad... :shake:
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 15,602
- Reaction score
- 19
Btw, if you follow this show, they always looking for a challenging course and I think this whole patchless loading fit into what they are looking for. It forced them to be careful in aiming and they did get what they were looking for, a ball rolled out on one shooter that had to take time to reload the ball allowing the other team to possibly catch up. They didn't take advantage of it but it could have ment the difference in the out come. :idunno:
I noticed it too. Even if the reason they didn't use a patch is to make it more challenging, I think they should have shown correct procedure and patched the ball.
Maybe they didn't want a tight fit so the contestants couldn't blow up a gun by not having the ball seated well thus being an obstruction. :idunno:
I thought the British guy was pretty naive in that he didn't know people could even get these guns anymore except from museums! I would think anyone well-versed in the shooting sports would at least know that a significant black-powder contingent exists, even if they don't shoot it themselves.
That said, I was amazed at the accuracy attained with a ball so loose it would easily roll out the barrel! Even at close range!
Looking forward to seeing the Atlatl in use next week!
Maybe they didn't want a tight fit so the contestants couldn't blow up a gun by not having the ball seated well thus being an obstruction. :idunno:
I thought the British guy was pretty naive in that he didn't know people could even get these guns anymore except from museums! I would think anyone well-versed in the shooting sports would at least know that a significant black-powder contingent exists, even if they don't shoot it themselves.
That said, I was amazed at the accuracy attained with a ball so loose it would easily roll out the barrel! Even at close range!
Looking forward to seeing the Atlatl in use next week!
If these were smootyhbore pistols they may have been operating on the old theory that no patch was used only a tight fitting ball thta was hamered down and they forgot or did not read the last part. Tv and ML facts usually bump heads. I recall the great research into the killing of a werewolf with a Silver bullet so they used something like a 444 marlin or 30/30with a silver bullet and it did not perform well as the high velocity tore up the bullet. They showed a double barrel gun as what the guy used in the 17th century to kill the beastie as I fecall it did not look period to the time frame thye were working with. There was no kind of valid comparison of any type in their (controlled test) I suspect had they bothered to mould a silver ball and shot it with a smoothbore at typical smoothbore velocity they would have had more impressive results, and of course using a real werewolf would have been the only way to really prove the point.
It's hard to be sure of angles and depth perception on the tube. That said, I think at one point the expert leaned in front of a loaded pistol. That's generally frowned upon.
And when the ball rolled out of the pistol after the tall guy finally brought the pistol to full cock, he grabbed another ball, dropped it in, and rammed it home. With a primed pistol at full cock!!! That's also bad form.
And when the ball rolled out of the pistol after the tall guy finally brought the pistol to full cock, he grabbed another ball, dropped it in, and rammed it home. With a primed pistol at full cock!!! That's also bad form.
Yeah, I caught that part too, primed/cocked and a rod down the barrel with his hand over it to boot!!trent/OH said:
Len Graves
45 Cal.
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2008
- Messages
- 689
- Reaction score
- 5
I didn't catch that show but I generally watch the show because everything else on at that time is manure. I mostly watch for the slow motion views. I would like to know how they get some of those shots of bullets in flight. I like to see what firearms are going to be used. The rest of the show generally is not so interesting to me. As said before the flintlock rifle episode kind of killed that show for me.
I thought the British guy was pretty naive in that he didn't know people could even get these guns anymore except from museums! I would think anyone well-versed in the shooting sports would at least know that a significant black-powder contingent exists, even if they don't shoot it themselves.
Yeah - what's up with that??? Was he trying to just be funny, or is he genuinely a moron?
Yeah - what's up with that??? Was he trying to just be funny, or is he genuinely a moron?
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2008
- Messages
- 833
- Reaction score
- 14
What do you expect from the "History Channel"?
What you get is infotainment, which is the fusion of information and entertainment. This expression does not state that you get quality information, but more information that is entertaining.
I don't know where those morons hire their experts, but the archery episode was as bad as the flintlock episode. When it comes to decently researched TV, PBS still offers good programs. A lot of these good shows are financed by grants from foundations etc.. The History Channel is a private outfit that needs to generate advertisents to make profits. This does not allow to hire decent experts and definetely no chargable time to research for real experts.
I sometimes think these producers should watch a little more KY Afield on youtube, they may find better experts or at least someone who could recommend one.
Cable and Dish TV is a rip off and I don't know how the dish and cable providers make their customers pay money to watch 40% commercials per hour. I would not even think about paying $30+ a month just to get the opportunity to watch mostly useless commercials... Go figure....
I rather buy 2 pounds of powder and some lead for the money :grin:
What you get is infotainment, which is the fusion of information and entertainment. This expression does not state that you get quality information, but more information that is entertaining.
I don't know where those morons hire their experts, but the archery episode was as bad as the flintlock episode. When it comes to decently researched TV, PBS still offers good programs. A lot of these good shows are financed by grants from foundations etc.. The History Channel is a private outfit that needs to generate advertisents to make profits. This does not allow to hire decent experts and definetely no chargable time to research for real experts.
I sometimes think these producers should watch a little more KY Afield on youtube, they may find better experts or at least someone who could recommend one.
Cable and Dish TV is a rip off and I don't know how the dish and cable providers make their customers pay money to watch 40% commercials per hour. I would not even think about paying $30+ a month just to get the opportunity to watch mostly useless commercials... Go figure....
I rather buy 2 pounds of powder and some lead for the money :grin:
