Traditional paper patched bullet hunting

[tg]

"logical terminus of the "traditional" era would be when it reached its highest artform. The .451 Henry, the .450 Rigby and so forth would be that highest artform."

One can draw the line where one wishes the scenario above is fine but still the projectile from those guns would not logicaly be a traditional projectile for a 1770 Lancaster flintlock,nor for a 1840 plains rifle, that is the point I am trying to make a bullet or sight type designed and developed in 1885 is not traditional equipment to a gun from the late 18th century kinda like keeping the square pegs out of the round holes and the bullets designed in the 1970's-90's would not be traditional components to a gun that is representative of the 1830-40 time period, if the guns and accesories are not kept together in the proper time line then there is no point in even having/using the term traditional, because a bullet is a bullet and a ML is a ML and the reason we have the term traditional is to seperate the old from the new and the late 19th cent. from the late 18th century
and the venerable Hawkin replica from the bubblepack modern ML, it follows the basic rule of re-enacting you can use a bullet from the time period of the gun or an earlier time period (up to a resonable point) but not a bullet from a later time which in theory has not been invented yet, this based on reasonable replicas of the guns and close reprodcutions of the bullets.

 

[Brent]

One can draw the line where one wishes the scenario above is fine but still the projectile from those guns would not logicaly be a traditional projectile for a 1770 Lancaster flintlock,nor for a 1840 plains rifle, that is the point I am trying to make a bullet or sight type designed and developed in 1885

Lets stop there for a minute. The bullets were developed long before 1885. Before the Civil War to be sure (Whitworths being one example).

You also equated my bullets with Doc White. I don't know who this guy is, but nothing I'm using is different than what was around in the pre Civil War. No, they didn't get shot out of Lancaster rifles or, perhaps, plains rifles, but is that your only viable yardstick? Would you also gun down all picket rifles too?

The sight, I grant you, is of more recent manufacture and to some degree more recent design, but so is a TC "Hawken" lock works, that I am pretty sure passes muster here. That sight is far inferior to what was available in the Civil War era. Far inferior being a real understatement (vernier and Soules being well known by then). It is no different in function than a folding lollipop sight on a mid19th Century rifle.

Earlier you equated my rifle with a modern inline. Either I don't know what modern inlines really are or you are not really seeing what I'm doing. My rifle is quite different and in most ways, pretty superior. Its 18" twist will work with much heavier and longer and more accurate bullets than the inlines that I know of, can use. Everyone I know of uses saboted, jacketed bullets in their inlines and their rifles have very slow twist relative to what I'm doing and what was done at the apex of the muzzleloader era. But then, maybe I am not up to date with modern inlines. In any event, it is clear to me that inlines are decendants of modern bolt rifles and NOT traditional rifles. That may not be an important to you, but it sure is to me.

is not traditional equipment to a gun from the late 18th century kinda like keeping the square pegs out of the round holes and the bullets designed in the 1970's-90's would not be traditional components to a gun that is representative of the 1830-40 time period,

Please, please, please do not confuse my bullets with anything to do with the 1900 anythings, much less the 1970s. They are not. I have entire webpages devoted to my bullets, which are direct recreations of mid to late 19th century bullets, my apologies to Doc White, but he has not yet outclassed the bullet makers of the 19th century.

If anything, my bullets and sights are more traditional than that particular action.

if the guns and accesories are not kept together in the proper time line then there is no point in even having/using the term traditional, because a bullet is a bullet and a ML is a ML and the reason we have the term traditional is to seperate the old from the new and the late 19th cent. from the late 18th century
and the venerable Hawkin replica from the bubblepack modern ML, it follows the basic rule of re-enacting you can use a bullet from the time period of the gun or an earlier time period (up to a resonable point) but not a bullet from a later time which in theory has not been invented yet, this based on reasonable replicas of the guns and close reprodcutions of the bullets.

I think you misrepresent my bullets in the extreme. A gross extreme in fact. If you look into the "theory" of bullets as you call it, you will learn that modern muzzleloading has a good ways to go to catch up to the 19th Century.

I think you want to draw a line in the sand that is really about roundball or short conicals and nothing else. I have no problem with that, but I hardly would consider that traditional - just good hunting management sense. I would love a roundball-only rule in particular, but I don't think this is a roundball only forum is it?

Brent

PS. At least this one should make you happy: The first rifle that I built, in my back yard.

 

[tg]

It sounds like your bullets and gun style match up historicaly, I just advocate that to have a traditional outfit the gun type and the bullet type should be from the same era/period, that is why I used the examples I did, obviously the ones designed in the 20th century don't fit the mold, nor would a bullet from the 1850/60 period be a logical choice for a 1830's style of gun, I would like to see more of the earlier bullet styles made available so folks could use a bullet and still have a traditional outfit, I may not have made my point clear in the previous post,I was useing genaralities not your particular gear, you have obviously done the homework and created a late ML period setup whereas most just use a modern design bullet with no basis in anything from the past(according to the manufactures) and shoot it in their early-mid 19th century styled gun and call it traditional because there were minnie balls in the civil war, with such a "correct by loose association" the whole traditional aspect of the game gets pretty wishwashy, as you said the research that is required to put the correct pieces together a big part of the enjoyment of the sport.

 

[Idaho Ron]

Brent,
This is the bullet I use in my Renegade. Ron http://www.trackofthewolf.com/(S(cbvgij45xjr4l0ao0v5ow1zd))/popUps/popSingle.aspx?partNum=LEE-90268

 

[Brent]

Ron,
What is the twist in your rifle?

That is a fine hunting bullet for sure. I like a heavier bullet, but I don't really know why. I don't need it. In my 18" twist, bullets shorter than the 450 gr flatnose are just not terribly accurate. I often use bullets in the 535 or 550 gr range for best accuracy.

There are any number of suppliers of old fashioned bullets (I'm dodging the t-word on purpose). But the real kicker is that the number of high quality custom mold makers out there has never been better. For really quite reasonable money, one can have a mould made to whatever your heart desires. True, one has to cast, but then if one wants the best in bullets, casting is a requirement.

FWIW, my bullets are swaged. It is a good bit more work but offers some flexibility over casting. Still, for what it cost me, I could have bought a small truck load of custom moulds. So, if there is a particular bullet you wish to recreate, have at it. I can give you the contacts for a number of really fine mould makers that can put a new mould in your hands in just couple of weeks time. - or shoot one of the very reliable old Lyman designs and never look back.

BTW, if you have a bullet you like but it is a shade too big, Lee Precision makes a very effective sizing die that works on a standard press to down size a bullet. It is quite easy to squeeze even a .458 or larger bullet down to .450" and not sacrifice accuracy (might even improve it). The last Lee sizing die I ordered cost me $29 delivered to my door.

Brent

 

[arw22lr]

I dug out Ned Roberts book on muzzleloaders. He states that the picket bullet was developed about 1835. The cylindro-conoidal bullet and false muzzle about 1840. Those English bullets during the 1840's.

 

[Idaho Ron]

Ron,
What is the twist in your rifle?

That is a fine hunting bullet for sure. I like a heavier bullet, but I don't really know why. I don't need it. In my 18" twist, bullets shorter than the 450 gr flatnose are just not terribly accurate. I often use bullets in the 535 or 550 gr range for best accuracy.

There are any number of suppliers of old fashioned bullets (I'm dodging the t-word on purpose). But the real kicker is that the number of high quality custom mold makers out there has never been better. For really quite reasonable money, one can have a mould made to whatever your heart desires. True, one has to cast, but then if one wants the best in bullets, casting is a requirement.

FWIW, my bullets are swaged. It is a good bit more work but offers some flexibility over casting. Still, for what it cost me, I could have bought a small truck load of custom moulds. So, if there is a particular bullet you wish to recreate, have at it. I can give you the contacts for a number of really fine mould makers that can put a new mould in your hands in just couple of weeks time. - or shoot one of the very reliable old Lyman designs and never look back.

BTW, if you have a bullet you like but it is a shade too big, Lee Precision makes a very effective sizing die that works on a standard press to down size a bullet. It is quite easy to squeeze even a .458 or larger bullet down to .450" and not sacrifice accuracy (might even improve it). The last Lee sizing die I ordered cost me $29 delivered to my door.

Brent

The twist on my rifle is 1-18. I have had very good luck with this bullet paper patched. I have several Lee sizers. First I keep only bullets that are + or - .3 of a grain of he target weight.
I am sizing them to .451 in stages, then I wrap them and size them again dry to .451 If I do my part this rifle will shoot under 1" groups at 100 yards with Peep sights. I have a Lyman "whitworth" bullet mould, and many others. The lyman bullet shoots VERY good out of my gun but this rifle's purpose is to be a long range Antelope, and mule deer rifle. With my peep sight I could not get the distance with the 475 gr bullet that I can with the 385 gr bullet. My Lee 459-405-HB only throws 385 to 386 grains with lead that is between 5 and 7 BHN.
I have been very interested in the swaging process. I have looked into getting dies and doing it with my RCBS press. I know that swaging makes a better bullet at least that is what I think. But would the swaged bullet be so much better that I would see a difference? Like I said I am getting amazing groups with the rifle now. Ron

 

[Brent]

Swaging has advantages and it does make a fine bullet, but it will not necessarily make a better one than you can cast. In an RCBS press, you would be pretty limited in what you could make for bullets using the VERY expensive Dave Corbin proswage dies. For much less money, you could get a custom die or two and do just as well, and make them faster. The quality of work that the better mould makers put out these days is just phenomenal.

If you go to www.buffaloarms.com you will find some off-the-shelf moulds of very good quality that they make in-house. The cast at .443" or so and would work well for you but they are target bullets. I think a good flat nosed, or blunt roundnosed bullet would require a custom mould, but still relatively cheap compared to dies.

Brent

 

[longcruise]

Brent have you tried or do you have any observational info on the Mountai Moulds?

 

[Brent]

I have heard good things about them a couple of times, but never seen or used one.

If I was ordering a mould, I would probably use Steve Brooks or Paul Jones. But there are other good ones out there.

Brent

 

[Brent]

Mr. Rockchuck...
Reports on this mould maker have been good. http://kal.castpics.net/

The adjustable mould would do 95% of that a swaging set up can do.

I might opt for a flat base however. But that really isn't a major issue. I would stick with the nontapered versions for sure.

Brent

 

[tg]

"I dug out Ned Roberts book on muzzleloaders. He states that the picket bullet was developed about 1835. The cylindro-conoidal bullet and false muzzle about 1840. Those English bullets during the 1840's"

I have researched these a bit, there was also the lozenge bulet and the sugarloaf probably a few others as well during this time bullet developement started taking off, though the ball was still the ptiome projectile for general all purpose load in the Americals particularlu westard
I do not dislike bullets, just don't care for trying to classify those of the late 20th century as traditional for guns of a much earlier time, it really sets a low standard for the ML hunters to come who want to use traditional gear.

 

[Brent]

I guess you would call pistol bullets, sabots, and scoped in-lines (in combination) "traditional".

I would have no problem if they made everything but roundballs illegal for deer hunting, but until they do, I can hang with whatever and still stay within the bounds of what I consider traditional.

All it takes is homework and practice.

Brent

 

[tg]

"I guess you would call pistol bullets, sabots, and scoped in-lines (in combination) "traditional"

It sounds like a traditional late 20th century outfit,or a reconfiguration of modern gun design and components to circumvent the spirit of the ML hunting seasons.

my point is that when using the three main elements gun.projectile and sights to be a traditional outfit they should all be from the same era in time,match the style/timeframe of a gun to the style of bullets and sights offered in that time period same for projectiles with one thing to consider, if someone developed a scope in Germany circa 1850and it never saw use in America it would not likely be a traditional scope to use on a circa 1850 gun, somethings were invented or in limited use but did not see widespread usage, it is really a pretty simple concept the type of gun one chooses pretty much sets the time period as that is usually the first purchase a person makes then if the PRB or type of sights common to this gun are not sufficient find something that is from that time period, rather than leapfrogging into the 21st century for after market/modern accesories, I don't know how to put it any more user fiendly.It is basical what you have done with your late ML era outfit, the same thing can be done with an 1830-40 halfstock of the type that went west or a Rev war flintlock of a Dickert or Beck flavor, the farther back in gun styles one goes the fewer choices there will be, and whether you have noticed of not I have basicaly been agreeing with you for the past several posts.

 

[longcruise]

Reports on this mould maker have been good. http://kal.castpics.net/[/quote]

Thanks, interesting link.