For those of us who have been in this hunting game for more than a few years, we've seen this topic argued since we were old enough to read Outdoor Life, Sports Afield or Fur, Fish and Game. To say nothing of The American Rifleman or American Hunter or in the past 20+ years the North American Hunter. It's a never ending debate as to which is better; light projectiles at high velocity or heavy for caliber projectiles at moderate velocity. Indeed the same argument can go back to the late 1800's and one can study the British Express cartridges as opposed to the American Sharps, Ballard, Remington, Bullard, Springfield, ad infinitum, cartridges. At that time the British and Germans were using, and with very good effect, light projectiles at the highest velocity attainable with black powder. On this side of the pond we were shooting heavy for caliber projectiles at considerably greater distances with equally good effect. Both systems worked admirably within their parameters. A long shot in Africa and India was something less than 100 yards. On the Great Plains and in the Rocky Mountains that same shot was considered close. Now before I catch hell about 100 yds being a close shot in the Rockies and that X number of you have killed X number of game animals at 15 yards in the Rockies and on the Great Plains let me tell you I've done the same thing. However, by and large our shooting of game is longer range than Africa/India....with the possible exception of African plains game TODAY, not 100+ years ago. Anyway, the point is that both methods were and are effective. The end result is approached from the opposite end of the spectrum, the same as we are discussing here.....120+ years after the fact.
To be a complete hypocrite; I shoot nothing but PRB from my muzzleloaders and have had total success to date. I also love my Sharps and Ballard rifles and have nothing but praise for the way they put game down on the spot, period, no questions asked. I also dearly love my German and British double rifles and they do the same thing with equal aplomb.
For me, I want to take my game with a firearm of a given period used the way it was used in that era. I want my muzzleloaders to look, feel and perform as they did in days gone by and the same goes for my Sharps, Ballards and pre-1900 double rifles. Sure there were conicals available in the 1820's. But they were uncommon and almost definitely not used by the "average Joe" shooting game to feed the family. The run of the mill "buffler runner" didn't use a false muzzle and load from the front of his Sharps, Remington or Ballard either, as did a lot of the target shooters "back east". Nor did they breech seat as the Scheutzen riflemen did. The double rifles were always hunting arms and to my knowledge there was not the varied approach in their use as with the previously mentioned arms.
I suppose all of that was to say.....what difference does it make? Both methods are effective. Unless one is bound by tradition the legal taking of a game animal is as legal by one means as another, not that we're discussing legality. Personally, I prefer the "trditional" means of using any of the aforementioned weapons. To me, anything other than a PRB in a muzzleloader.....a real muzzleloader....simply isn't in the spirit of their intended use. I do not count bolt action, scoped in-lines as real muzzleloaders any more than I consider a compound arrow launching platform with peep sights and a mechanical release, ie, trigger, a bow. That is another discussion. Patched round balls out of a muzzleloader have taken every animal on the face of the earth and done it with supreme efficiency. Ain't no other projectile needed. In my Sharps I want almost the heaviest projectile available. In my doubles I'll sitck with the tried and true projectile weights for the given caliber. They are none wrong........
Vic