Cooper of Montana - Muzzleloader

[Montana Muzzleloader]

I was very adamant on the bore dimensions! :yeah:

 

[GM54-120]

While i think 1-24 has some advantages over a 1-28, Wilson is a good barrel and those dimensions are what i would prefer. My Douglas is pretty much spot on .500 but its a 1-32. I had some serious doubts about its twist. Those doubt vanished on the first range day.

 

[ENCORE50A]

I was very adamant on the bore dimensions! :yeah:

I'm old and sometimes forgetful but, I believe I asked this question once and didn't see a response...........

Why a new custom muzzleloader and only 150grs capable?

 

[sabotloader]

I was very adamant on the bore dimensions! :yeah:

I'm old and sometimes forgetful but, I believe I asked this question once and didn't see a response...........

Why a new custom muzzleloader and only 150grs capable?

I would venture a guess and maybe Glenn will get back here and tell you from their prospective...

From my perspective

1. Liability
2. Cost additions
3. 90% of ML shooters/hunters do not even shoot 150 grain loads
4. All powder Manufactures that I know say max powder loads are 120 grains, which I know some people exceed. Shooting more than a powder manufacturer suggests would increase the liability again.

Just some thoughts...

 

[WV Hunter]

You forgot one...

5. Who in their right mind wants to shoot more than 150 gains? :lol: :lol: :lol: oke:

JK Encore... I know you like that kind of punishment

 

[ENCORE50A]

I was very adamant on the bore dimensions! :yeah:

I'm old and sometimes forgetful but, I believe I asked this question once and didn't see a response...........

Why a new custom muzzleloader and only 150grs capable?

I would venture a guess and maybe Glenn will get back here and tell you from their prospective...

From my perspective

1. Liability
2. Cost additions
3. 90% of ML shooters/hunters do not even shoot 150 grain loads
4. All powder Manufactures that I know say max powder loads are 120 grains, which I know some people exceed. Shooting more than a powder manufacturer suggests would increase the liability again.

Just some thoughts...

Part makes sense, maybe 2 & 3. As for #4 & #1......... Some powder manufactures may say that, but its because common production muzzleloaders are only rated for a maximum of 150grs. If a manufacturer builds a rifle capable of 200grs, completes all the pressure testing using 200grs, why would liability be any different than building a 150gr max load barrel?

If Remington can put out a production barrel and rifle that's 200gr capable AND FOR $800.00, why couldn't a custom rifle maker? If the cost of the rifle is anywhere near what was suggested ($1,600 - $3000), they're looking at a VERY LIMITED market IMO. How many times have some posters made comments that they'd like to shoot a maximum charge, but everyone else talks them out of it stating, 'Most muzzleloaders won't shoot accurately with maximum charges. Drop it down to 100 or 110grs'??? That's more a bullet/sabot problem, than rather the barrel will burn it.
The interest in the Remington Ultimate went through the roof, a 200gr capable rifle. Now we all know Remington had some barrel problems to start and most likely rushed it to market to make last years seasons. However...... there are droves of shooters waiting and willing to purchase. Once Remington gets a few issues taken care of, that rifle is going to sell.

Yup, there'll still be the guys that only care about 60yd to 100, maybe 120yd shots, which they can do with a $300 rifle, but there is starting to be more interested in longer range shooting and accuracy. There's the new market! Like others have posted here and on many other forums, if the rifle is going to cost that much and only capable of 150gr maximum charge, they'll keep their T/C, CVA's and Knights. Maybe that's why I'm not a business owner, but if I were a firearm manufacturer, I'd be trying to take all the market share from T/C-CVA-Traditions and Knight that I could.

Now a couple of TOP NOTCH, long range target shooter have joined and may have a much different opinion and that's ok. Then there are some that think shooting heavy charges is punishment, when most shoot from a lead sled or other recoil absorbing rest. Its not that bad boys....... Just my 2¢

 

[Montana Muzzleloader]

I typed & posted a reply to the question about 200 grain charges earlier but it never popped up on the thread. I'll try to rewrite it without forgetting anything.

I personally agree with the above post by Sabotloader 100%. That being said, we are considering upping our max recommended charge to 200 grains. We need to complete some testing & then decide whether to do it or not.
I don't know how well received my opinions on 200 grain charges will be, but here goes. I do not believe that 200 grain charges can be burned efficiently regardless of barrel length or ignition source. I am very skeptical of velocity claims achieved by trying to do so. I should be up front about that. That being said, I am not the individual that will be buying all these rifles. The capability of using these large charges of powder is important to some folks & we may well change our max recommendation to accommodate them, we'll just have to see.
I firmly believe that most ML hunters are shooting between 90-120 grains of powder. I do not believe that this is because that's all their rifles are rated for. I have used the Cooper ML with 150 grains & for me the additional recoil, increased fouling, & excessive powder consumption were not worth the gains. I personally would not shoot 200 grains in anything. We also considered rating it for smokeless but decided against it because smokeless muzzleloading is a dying trend. I must stress that at this time our max recommended charge is 150 grains.
I have also been asked why we went with the #209 primer over a large rifle magnum primer. Using the large rifle primer is not a new thing. Ned Roberts wrote about it in his book on the muzzleloading cap lock rifle. Simply put, if the large rifle primer was going to become the "big thing", it would have done so already. The #209 is basically an industry standard. It is effective, inexpensive, & readily available. It requires no case head or module, no decapping, & no reloading. It was really a very easy choice for us.
I hope this post answers any questions about charges or ignition.

 

[Montana Muzzleloader]

"If Remington can put out a production barrel and rifle that's 200gr capable AND FOR $800.00, why couldn't a custom rifle maker?"

It's not that we can't, it's that we didn't see a need to since the vast majority of ML hunters don't have any desire to burn charges that heavy. That being said, I am confident that testing will reveal that the rifle is PLENTY strong enough to handle it, & then we will decide whether or not to change our max recommendation.

 

[Montana Muzzleloader]

I found a pic of me with one of our rifles taken during last hunting season near Trapper Peak in the Bitterroots.

 

[long shot]

"If Remington can put out a production barrel and rifle that's 200gr capable AND FOR $800.00, why couldn't a custom rifle maker?"

It's not that we can't, it's that we didn't see a need to since the vast majority of ML hunters don't have any desire to burn charges that heavy. That being said, I am confident that testing will reveal that the rifle is PLENTY strong enough to handle it, & then we will decide whether or not to change our max recommendation.

You wouldn't happen to know a fellow named Fred Neal ? From Indiana

 

[Montana Muzzleloader]

Sorry I don't.

 

[ENCORE50A]

I typed & posted a reply to the question about 200 grain charges earlier but it never popped up on the thread. I'll try to rewrite it without forgetting anything.

I personally agree with the above post by Sabotloader 100%. That being said, we are considering upping our max recommended charge to 200 grains. We need to complete some testing & then decide whether to do it or not.
I don't know how well received my opinions on 200 grain charges will be, but here goes. I do not believe that 200 grain charges can be burned efficiently regardless of barrel length or ignition source. I am very skeptical of velocity claims achieved by trying to do so. I should be up front about that. That being said, I am not the individual that will be buying all these rifles. The capability of using these large charges of powder is important to some folks & we may well change our max recommendation to accommodate them, we'll just have to see.
I firmly believe that most ML hunters are shooting between 90-120 grains of powder. I do not believe that this is because that's all their rifles are rated for. I have used the Cooper ML with 150 grains & for me the additional recoil, increased fouling, & excessive powder consumption were not worth the gains. I personally would not shoot 200 grains in anything. We also considered rating it for smokeless but decided against it because smokeless muzzleloading is a dying trend. I must stress that at this time our max recommended charge is 150 grains.
I have also been asked why we went with the #209 primer over a large rifle magnum primer. Using the large rifle primer is not a new thing. Ned Roberts wrote about it in his book on the muzzleloading cap lock rifle. Simply put, if the large rifle primer was going to become the "big thing", it would have done so already. The #209 is basically an industry standard. It is effective, inexpensive, & readily available. It requires no case head or module, no decapping, & no reloading. It was really a very easy choice for us.
I hope this post answers any questions about charges or ignition.

Thank you.

No disrespect intended........... I burn 180grs, 3-T7M pellets in the first 9" of the barrel and do it so completely, the residue turns to a fine dust.

Most shooters are shooting the charges you indicated, 90 to 120grs, as most of those shooters are "extended season hunters". They're shooting merely basic production barrels, of which the quality of some can be questioned. Add to that inferior bullets and/or sabots with 60 to 100yd capabilities and it amounts to the average muzzleloader shooter or the "extended season hunter". However, muzzleloading is an extremely fast growing sport, where higher quality, better bullet/sabot combinations, accuracy of course and higher velocity is sought after.

Consider this........ In Michigan, where there are a lot of whitetail hunters, there have been two (2) polls concerning what whitetail hunters used as their PRIMARY firearm, all seasons. With zones where CF rifles can be used and the southern zone where its muzzleloader, shotgun and now 1.8" maximum straight walled cartridges only, 24% of Michigan whitetail use a muzzleloader throughout both the regular firearm seasons and dedicated muzzleloader season. That's almost 1/4 of whitetail hunters in Michigan that use a muzzleloader only. (712,000 - 2013 licensed hunters, includes archery)

Just because a rifle is 200gr capable, doesn't mean that the owner has to shoot 200grs. However for those who do? If its only a 150gr rifle, that's it.

I wish you and the company the greatest of luck with your new muzzleloader. I hope you do well.

My dad had a saying that he repeated many times to me: "If you don't have the money or time to do it right the first time, where will you get the money or time to have to do it over?"

 

[SCHUNTER]

I would disagree with the statement (Cooper Firearms) that smokeless muzzle loading is a dying trend. Spend some time on Dougs Message Board and you will see it is very much alive and well.

Good luck with the new rifle.

Scott

 

[SuperKirby]

I would disagree with the statement (Cooper Firearms) that smokeless muzzle loading is a dying trend. Spend some time on Dougs Message Board and you will see it is very much alive and well.

Same thing I was going to say. Seems at least weekly there's someone new asking how to get into smokeless.

Either way, beautiful rifle. I'd buy one if I had the cash.

 

[Montana Muzzleloader]

After re reading my previous posts it occurs to me that they could be taken as "snarky", that was not my intention & I apologize if anyone took them as such.

Regarding smokeless muzzle loading, perhaps "dying" wasn't the best word. That being said, it does not hold a significant portion of the market & has other drawbacks as well for a manufacturer. All reasons we decided not to pursue it.

Regarding 200 grain powder charges, I personally (just my personal opinion) see no need & have very real doubts about the performance gains that are claimed. That being said, not everyone sees things like I do & we are going to consider upping our max recommended charge. I'm sure the rifle will do it but the formal testing still needs to be done before we can have the option of upping it. It will likely happen. We considered smokeless too & had no doubts about the strength, but decided against it for the above reasons. So again, for now, keep it to 150 grains. If this changes, the readership here will very likely be the first to know. I know that Remington is marketing their 200 grain charge rifle & I hope they sell a pile of them. The more muzzleloaders built & sold the better! Their being successful in that venture can only be good for the industry as a whole.

Our rifle was not intended to revolutionize the modern muzzle loading industry. It was not intended to increase the performance envelope of the inline muzzleloader. It was intended to take time proven features & technology and incorporate them into a very classy American made rifle that could pass for a work of art. We hope these become heirlooms that are passed down from father to son. There is much more to a rifle than performance alone.

 

[Montana Muzzleloader]

sorry accidental double post

 

[GM54-120]

After re reading my previous posts it occurs to me that they could be taken as "snarky", that was not my intention & I apologize if anyone took them as such.

Actually i did not take it that way at all and i own two SMLs. My NULA and a Savage with a 45cal barrel. They certainly are not for everyone but pretty much everyone who has tried one is hooked on the advantages. Mine will burn subs with no problem although i pretty much avoid them in the NULA. The Savage 45 though i do like to "tinker" with very high end BH209 sabotless loads and even conicals.

One of the problems (as i see it), you can buy a NULA for $1800. Its a sub 5lb rifle with a complete custom action, Timney or Jewel trigger and a Kevlar stock. Not very pretty but a joy to carry. Its quite capable of shooting 300 yards effectively. The Douglas barrel is butter smooth. Fit and finish is exceptional excluding the ram rod which sucks IMO.

Savage and Rem 700ML owners learned years ago, you can turn that "average" 50 into a wonderful 45cal for well under $500. Sabotless 45 is the rage atm and performance is crazy fast. 2500fps and a 300gr bullet is a walk in the park. Even BH209 has no problem breaking 2200fps in these conversions.

You are up against some stiff competition with a larger selection of powders and higher muzzle velocity.

 

[Montana Muzzleloader]

I like the NULA rifle. Originally being from West Virginia, I also have a soft spot for NULA & Douglas barrels. That being said, our rifle also boasts a full custom action, a Timney trigger (Jewell will likely become an option), a very classy glass bedded walnut (or exotic) stock with a hand rubbed finish & hand cut checkering, & Wilson barrels are easily the equal or better than Douglas. The only advantages that the NULA has are only advantages if someone specifically wants to shoot smokeless or wants a sub five pound rifle.

We've already discussed how little of the market that smokeless muzzleloading holds & a sub five pound rifle is certainly not for everyone. You were spot on about the cosmetics of the NULA rifle & that could be called a disadvantage.

Our rifle, like the NULA, is certainly not for everyone but both have their place & I hope Melvin sells a bunch of them :yeah:

PS
I will likely buy one of his someday simply because I've always been a fan.

 

[GM54-120]

I do love wood stocks and yours are quite nice. I have one for my Green Mountain 54-120 but when i hunt, i use a composite. Mainly because that stock is somewhat unique and would be difficult to replace. The rifle was a very limited production.

I have very limited experience with Wilson barrels but i do know Doc White used them and on some of his newer traditional rifles he also used Douglas.

Doc is not known for being wrong in his choice of quality components.

 

[long shot]

I like the NULA rifle. Originally being from West Virginia, I also have a soft spot for NULA & Douglas barrels. That being said, our rifle also boasts a full custom action, a Timney trigger (Jewell will likely become an option), a very classy glass bedded walnut (or exotic) stock with a hand rubbed finish & hand cut checkering, & Wilson barrels are easily the equal or better than Douglas. The only advantages that the NULA has are only advantages if someone specifically wants to shoot smokeless or wants a sub five pound rifle.

We've already discussed how little of the market that smokeless muzzleloading holds & a sub five pound rifle is certainly not for everyone. You were spot on about the cosmetics of the NULA rifle & that could be called a disadvantage.

Our rifle, like the NULA, is certainly not for everyone but both have their place & I hope Melvin sells a bunch of them :yeah:

PS
I will likely buy one of his someday simply because I've always been a fan.

I own one of Coopers early .22. I know from quality of this Rifle that Cooper won't put an inferior Rifle on the Market. Just as you said , no gimmick just a sound Muzzle Loader that can be passed on. Gimmicks come and go but Quality stays. It very pleasing to know someone is building such a Muzzle Loader