The point of hunting with a ML, to me, is to hunt with a firearm similar to those my forefathers used (my grandfather hunted with a ML as a boy), it allows me to experience things as my forefathers did. I get a higher level of satisfaction from shooting game with my flintlock than with a BPCR and far more than from hunting with a modern CF.
If the first shot is good reloading is irrelevant so lets dispense with that, reliability is not a factor either. So using a HV L.R. "ML" is just like using a modern CF. OK I guess, except in too many states the shooter can use the thing in a ML season.
As I recall all the ML big game seasons were set up through the efforts of people shooting traditional RB rifles. In many cases they had to PROVE the rifles they wanted to use were capable. Many of these seasons are now overrun with "moderns" hunting with the various plastic stocked monstrosities shooting solid copper bullets at 2200 fps with T7 lit with a shotgun primer that were not even a gleam in anyone's eye in 1965. So the ML shooters who got the season enacted to allow them to hunt with traditional ML rifles have lost their season to people who only see it as a way to hunt another season. The hunting pressure is higher, the game more spooked the guy hunting with the traditional ML gets screwed and is little or no better off than if he had no ML season and just hunted in the general season. The "modern ML hunter" could not care less about the history or tradition. They just want the ML to look like and perform as much as possible like their 30-06. So they can hunt the special season with as little inconvenience as possible. This has made a lot on money for the makers of "modern muzzleloaders", various moder bullets, poly sabots, solid copper bullets and semi-smokeless "ml" powders none of which have anything to do with traditional MLs.
How is a 400 gr PP in a ML different than the same bullet in the 45-70?
Its not.
The advantage is in the increased range, assuming the hunter can take advantage of it.
How is a "ML" with a plastic stock, a 4-12 scope and a plastic saboted jacketed bullet that will make 200 yards kills easy different than a 30-06? Its not really, especially from the standpoint of a guy hunting with an iron sighted 50 caliber flintlock. Most game is killed inside 200 yards unless the hunter is some "long range pursuit" Type so a 200-220 yard rifle 90% or more of a 30-06.
This is why ALL the ML seasons need to be primitive weapons,
TYPICAL OF 1830 seasons. PP bullets, even the cloth patched Picket was virtually unknown in 1830. People that want to shoot conicals from their ML are simply scamming the system, they want to use the ML season but they don't want to have to bother to stalk the animal to traditional ML range. Then when they cannot use their modern technology stuff they whine about it.
I hunt wide open country too but I am not hung up on how big the horns are. If I see a REALLY big one I shoot him if I can but I have passed old white faced 4 point mule deer to shoot the spike that was with him. I shoot a lot of does when the tags are available.
If I want to shoot something farther than I can with a traditional ML, 150 yards or so, I might use a 45-70 with smokeless but generally I use a Swedish Mauser or a 308 etc but its not really hunting as I hunt with a ML. Its getting the supplies in the freezer to the proper level. Its not the hunting I do for personal satisfaction.
Unless you are VERY good at range estimation, if you intend to shoot even elk at 300 with a BP load you best have a range finder. A big bull with the right lighting can look "300" and be closer to 450.
If someone can find me an account of the naked, paper patched or cloth patched elongated bullet being used for HUNTING GAME to any significant extent in the United States before the cartridge era I would love to see it.
We have letters written to the Sharps Rifle Co circa 1871. Stating how much easier it is to kill antelope and other such game that is hard to approach than it was with the rifles they had previously. Putting 400 gr bullet in a ML backed with 80-90 gr of powder makes it virtually identical to a large capacity 40 to 50 caliber Sharps. So its EASIER. It changes the ML into a breech loader in range performance. Its not traditional.
The simple fact is that the naked bullet is not usable in a ML HORSEBACK. The gun unless carried muzzle up will unload itself (this is documented). The same goes for the PP though it will have a little more bore friction. How did people often travel in the 19th century? How did they carry the rifle when horseback?
The cloth patched Picket bullet simply will not produce consistent or often ANY accuracy without a guide starter which generally adds about a pound the to weight the hunter has to carry and is very fragile, time comsuming and requires careful work on a lathe the replace when damaged.
I hunt with a ML a lot. If Montana were to consider adopting a ML season I would fight it tooth and nail unless the rules were written in a manner that excluded all elongated projectiles and required a rifle typical of 1830-35.
There are occasional rumbles about a ML season. Not surprisingly I understand this comes from the Modern ML makers hoping to open up a new market.
So... People who hunt with bulleted MLs are not shooting traditional muzzleloaders that would be typical of the era. It requires a level of delusional thinking to come to any other conclusion based on history. But since it loads from the muzzle people can pretend they are shooting a traditional ML, at least if it has a wooden stock.
"Conical" Cons? Higher breech pressure, greatly increases nipple erosion, excess gas escape at the nipple/vent, heavy recoil, stock damage if the shooter tries to make flat trajectory in some rifles. Less effective on game than a RB of the same weight marginal with RBs of the same caliber. Higher trajectory over normal hunting distances when shooting BP.
Advanatage? At 100-150 yards it will make a bigger hole in the hillside behind the animal it passes through than the round ball that passes through the same animal.
I suggest that people read "The Sporting Rifle and its Projectiles" by Forsythe.
Its free online. Its not much for science, internal ballistics etc. but his trajectories and effects on game are easily repeatable today.
His quotes of Sir Samuel Baker are good too.
This should talk the reader to a comparison table on pg 94.
http://archive.org/stream/sportingriflean00forsgoog#page/n113/mode/2up
People have to understand the the conical in several forms was being tried on game by 1850 and it was invariably found to at best be no better than a RB and often was seriously inferior especially for heavy game in Africa and Asia.
It has been shown in modern times that a 54 Maxi-Ball is inferior to the 54 rb even on large game like moose. This from hunters in Canada. But this is not something the bullet shooters care to hear.
Bottom line is this. If the RB don't work its either poorly placed or too small for the game being shot.
Dan
