Mike Nesbitt Article

[JackAubrey]

I have never met Mr. Nesbitt but would nonetheless offer my opinion, if I may.I have been a faithful reader of Muzzleloader Magazine for years and will continue to do so.I always enjoy Mr. Nesbitt's articles and have gone out and put into practice many of the things he has written about.I have learned much from this fine Gentleman.So if you may happen to read this Mr. Nesbitt,I tip my hat to you sir.I do agree that I owe it to the game I hunt to be as proficient as is humanly possible w/ my guns.Best regards,J.A.

 

[Greenmtnboy]

I have never understood why people bad mouth Mike Nesbitt. He is a nice guy. He is a knowledgeable guy on many aspects of this hobby. Maybe jealousy because he writes about it for a living? There is another ML site which I used to frequent which made a project out of bad mouthing Mike. If you want to actually "talk" with him, though, go to the Campfire on Muzzleloader Mags site. He is usually there, always helpful, always courteous, always a good guy.

I don't think disagreeing with somone is badmouthing thats like saying if you disagree with our president you are un american :cursing:
Knowing CoyoteJoe as well as I do I can't say I have ever heard him actually badmouth anyone. diserved or not. What CoyoteJoe is! is the same age as Mike Nibbits with as much experance if not more as mike. Because I am a young pup 40yrs I really look up to my elders who have far more experence than I ie CoyoteJoe and Mike nibbits. In fact Mike is the one reason I bought a 54cal TVM Leman. But when sombody writes an artical with less than decent results, well.... But I have read articles of mikes like when he got a new hawkin and had excelant off hand results with it. Joe and I are shooters and rondyvoorers :thumbsup: We take our shootin and back woods skills seriously. That is why we win shoots and are successful hunters. That is also why we really dig this forum.
I know Mike is out standing in his field. That is why I question his last article"not to techinicle"
I kinda thought it set a bad pressidents to young and lazy shooters. I know!! Mike is not lazy and shoots more than 90 percent of all the people who read these forums.
I will always read what mike Nibbits,CoyoteJoe,Mike brooks, and John hinnant have to say as should all muzzleloaders.
:bow:

 

[Swampman]

"That is why I question his last article"not to techinicle"
I kinda thought it set a bad pressidents to young and lazy shooters."

I think it will keep them from being duped into buying stuff they don't need, and help them understand that fantastic accuracy is found by practice and not by driving balls down the barrel with a hammer. Short starters aren't necessary and a tight fit isn't needed.

 

[CoyoteJoe]

Well, Swampman, it really comes back to the ongoing debate of how much accuracy do you really need. I don't think there is much disagreement as to the fact that top competitors load tight. They wouldn't do so if "easy loads" shot just as well. Your accuracy requirement depends on your uses.
I have a very accurate scope sighted .22 with which I wouldn't attempt an offhand shot at a squirrel's head beyond 25 yards because that is the limit of my offhand ability. But I love knowing I can make a head shot at 75 yards IF I have the opportunity to take a rested shot. I want the rifle to be that accurate. I prefer that "I" be the limiting factor, not my gun or load. I want to know that if I feel I could make the shot there will be no doubt as to the outcome.
That is just my perspective as best I can explain it. Some of us enjoy "getting technical" as much as we enjoy getting rowdy and we try to preach that you don't have to settle for just OK results from a muzzleloader.
I think there is room for more than one perspective even if it differs from that of some noted person. :grin:

 

There are certainly different degrees of accuracy and the bench shooters surely want to wring it all out. Some of us are more into 'period' stuff these days more so than tack-driving accuracy, even if we do compete in events now and then. I think the point of Nesbitt's article is that you can have fun, hit what your aiming at and not worry so much about weighing bullets and exact powder measures and tight fits. The bench shooters try for one hole and that is fine. I like accurate rifles myself--I want a miss to be my fault and not the rifles. Recently, however, I took out my old (1978) custom longrifle with its Green River .45 barrel and shot it at a turkey shoot and an offhand shoot for prizes. I was tired of having to pound the .445 ball down the bore, so I took along .440s instead--not being too serious about winning anything. I also experimented with a light load (50 gr fffg rather than the 65 gr I used with the .445 ball). I used the same patching as always. Mind you I had not used this combo before I shot at the meet. I won the one shot turkey shoot and then proceeded to win the three shot offhand shoot. Competition was not too stiff, but nonetheless my rifle/load combo was plenty accurate with a small ball. I don't recommend this (no practice with a new load), but it proved Mike's point about getting too technical IMHO.

 

Mike, I absolutely agree with you. If I can keep a 5 shot group with my 50 Hawken inside of 6 inches at 100 yards (which by the way I do) I'm satisfied. Were I shooting my National Match AR-15, I would settle for no less than 1 inch groups at that range. If I were shooting a Bench Rest Muzzleoader I would'nt settle for a 5 shot group at 100 yards either. But for hunting purposes you don't need benchrest accuracy.

 

Yes. I started out over 50 years ago as an offhand plinker and hunter with open sighted .22s. In college I shot on a small bore rifle team where the bullseye is a dot. I was raised around long range varmint shooters who demanded one hole groups and wanted heart shots at 600 yds. I easily shot expert rating in the Army with M1, M14 and M16. I demanded at least 1" groups from my deer rifles. No more. Don't care. I hit what I shoot at. There is a lot of art to offhand shooting--maybe more than accuracy. I have not even tried to fine-tune most of my current MLers. 1" group at 50 yds is fine with me. I am reminded of an old fellow I once met who had an old battered .30-30 Winchester and got his deer every year with it. He had never benched it or sighted it in. He shot it right from the mail order catalog (yes you could back then). Said he couldn't afford practice ammo. Another friend took the rifle to a bench and found it shot a foot off center! But the old man never missed with it. Art.

 

[Richard Allen]

flyboy I agree with all of your statements except "But for hunting purposes you don't need benchrest accuracy."

Most game animals have a kill zone that is larger than the ten rings on the targets we usually shoot at in competition. I carefully develop and use the most accurate high velocity loads for my rifles for one reason; to compensate for variables beyond my control. Those variables include be my inability to shoot as precisely as other folks and less than ideal shooting conditions I encounter during matches and hunting.

I firmly believe that when I'm using a rifle and load that is capable of one inch groups at fifty yards from the bench that I am three times more likely to hit where I'm aiming than I do when shooting a rifle and load that is only capable of three inch groups from the bench at the same distance.

Eliminating as many variables as possible that can contribute to my shot missing where I'm aiming just makes sense to me.

Richard/Ga.