I am new to this site, I introduce myself here http://www.modernmuzzleloader.com/phpBB ... php?t=8344 . Also, the quote copied late 2007, and referred to below is at that link too. If anyone runs into Toby's anti-roundball argument anywhere, I would like you to know the following:
Toby Bridges has advocated that States should adopt energy limits on MLs that would preclude legal use of most roundball guns for deer hunting. I took him to task for this and he has taken this commentary history down off his site, but I have a copy of the quotes I refer to. In response to his advocacy, and during the course of a back and forth discussion at his website blog I claimed that roundballs are consistent killers within their reasonable range, and that 90yds was about the maximum for a .50cal. Toby described this as ?irresponsible.? I also claimed that roundballs at their maximum range will create wounds comparable to modern ML bullets at the extreme of their range (which is much further?.maybe 2 to 3 times as far, depending). Tony decried this claim as well, using defamatory and derogatory language. He finally disabled the feedback/comment on his site, and has also written a new article where he inflates and misquotes my claim to become something different than what I said (http://www.hpmuzzleloading.com/Technical2.html ). I am the ?RW? he refers to.
So, generally it is not hard to catch a fool in the act because it is so impossible to keep track of all the foolhardy claims and maintain consistency over the years?.. here is evidence of Toby?s foolishness:
1) Here is something Toby Bridges wrote and published in 2004 in ?High Performance Muzzleloader Big Game Rifles,? Stoeger Publishing Co., Chapter 1 entitled ?The Evolution of Firepower,? page 15:
?Out of this need to conserve [lead and powder, as compared to large caliber German jaeger rifles] came the long-barreled rifles that became distinctively American in design. Often referred to as Pennsylvania or Kentucky rifles, the new domestically built front-loaders often sported barrels that were 40 to 44 inches in length, and bore sizes had shrunk to .40 to .44caliber. While these rifles still would not produce the same energy levels as a .62 German jaeger loaded with 120grains of blackpowder behind a 325 to 340grain soft lead ball, the smaller bored American long-rifles shot a lighter 90 to 130 grain ball at much higher velocities. And in the hands of an expert rifleman, the rifles would deliver all the knockdown power needed to take even deer-sized game at 100 yards ? or drop an enemy at that distance.? [emphasis mine.]
And on pg 17:
?During the early 1800s it was easier and less costly to have an older original flintlock rifle converted [to percussion and to larger caliber]??Many rifles that started as a .40 to .44 caliber ended up as rifles of .47 to .52 caliber. And when hunters began to stoke the rifles with heavier powder charges and heavier larger diameter roundballs, they also realized how much more effective the guns were on big game.? (presumably the guns became even better for ?knock-down power? at the 100yd deer he referred to above.)
2) And here are statements Toby Bridges made on his ?Muzzlehead? blogsite (http://www.hpmuzzleloading.com/ ) between Jan7 and Jan27, 2008. He later took all this down off his site, as far as I can tell, and no longer allows readers to log their comments online:
?Anyone who would attempt a 90 yard shot on deer with a .50 caliber patched round ball rifle and load is nothing short of irresponsible.?
?It is you who contends that a puny 178-181 grain .50 caliber round ball, with a retained velocity of 1,100 f.p.s. at 90 yards and about 485 f.p.e. of remaining energy, is such a great deer killer.?
?And that is what I say BS to...because that's exaclty what it is?.Defend it all you want with all of the b#llsh*t nonesense (that does not relate to ML projectiles) that you want.?
?You cannot rommance big game to death just because you want to hunt with a tradtional patched round ball rifle and projectile - no matter how much you try to justify and defend it with all of you b#llsh*t nonesense.?
?Roger, you are what's wrong with muzzleloading today, certainly not what's right with it.?
I cannot judge for sure what Toby?s motives are, though I have my suspicions. I can tell you for a fact that experts in the field of Wound Ballistics do not accept the notion that wound trauma incapacitation of a live target is a function of energy only (or even at all, as it turns out), as Toby claims and fixes at 800fpe for a deer (article referenced with link above, many other references too); and it is totally invalid to assume that a bullet of one construction and shape needs the same energy as a bullet of another construction and shape. This is established science which can be demstrated with credible references to scientific work by professionals in the field of wound ballistics. How it applies to roundballs vs modern bullets is still tbd. I am working on that problem, and making some progress. Don't let anyone tell you there is some required energy level....it depends on mass, velocity, shape, construction, and size of the bullet (assuming good shot placement). Some projectiles are more energy-efficient than others in terms of fatally wounding, as a matter of fact. (Do not confuse efficiency with effectiveness.....a higher energy but less energy-efficient bullet might easily be more effective. But that does not make the more efficient but less energetic bullet ineffective either.)
Whether a roundball rifle can kill a deer cleanly at 90 yds is for everyone to judge for himself I guess. I only shot one once at 90yds with a flintlock, and the buck (not doe as TB said) went 30yds and piled up. And the .50cal ball passed thru, just as I would much prefer it to do. The nearest I have come to that was a 70yd shot where the deer went down where it stood, passthru too. All other shots within 50yds or so, and I have had every reaction you can name, just like anyone else who has hunted game very much.
YHS,
rogerw
Toby Bridges has advocated that States should adopt energy limits on MLs that would preclude legal use of most roundball guns for deer hunting. I took him to task for this and he has taken this commentary history down off his site, but I have a copy of the quotes I refer to. In response to his advocacy, and during the course of a back and forth discussion at his website blog I claimed that roundballs are consistent killers within their reasonable range, and that 90yds was about the maximum for a .50cal. Toby described this as ?irresponsible.? I also claimed that roundballs at their maximum range will create wounds comparable to modern ML bullets at the extreme of their range (which is much further?.maybe 2 to 3 times as far, depending). Tony decried this claim as well, using defamatory and derogatory language. He finally disabled the feedback/comment on his site, and has also written a new article where he inflates and misquotes my claim to become something different than what I said (http://www.hpmuzzleloading.com/Technical2.html ). I am the ?RW? he refers to.
So, generally it is not hard to catch a fool in the act because it is so impossible to keep track of all the foolhardy claims and maintain consistency over the years?.. here is evidence of Toby?s foolishness:
1) Here is something Toby Bridges wrote and published in 2004 in ?High Performance Muzzleloader Big Game Rifles,? Stoeger Publishing Co., Chapter 1 entitled ?The Evolution of Firepower,? page 15:
?Out of this need to conserve [lead and powder, as compared to large caliber German jaeger rifles] came the long-barreled rifles that became distinctively American in design. Often referred to as Pennsylvania or Kentucky rifles, the new domestically built front-loaders often sported barrels that were 40 to 44 inches in length, and bore sizes had shrunk to .40 to .44caliber. While these rifles still would not produce the same energy levels as a .62 German jaeger loaded with 120grains of blackpowder behind a 325 to 340grain soft lead ball, the smaller bored American long-rifles shot a lighter 90 to 130 grain ball at much higher velocities. And in the hands of an expert rifleman, the rifles would deliver all the knockdown power needed to take even deer-sized game at 100 yards ? or drop an enemy at that distance.? [emphasis mine.]
And on pg 17:
?During the early 1800s it was easier and less costly to have an older original flintlock rifle converted [to percussion and to larger caliber]??Many rifles that started as a .40 to .44 caliber ended up as rifles of .47 to .52 caliber. And when hunters began to stoke the rifles with heavier powder charges and heavier larger diameter roundballs, they also realized how much more effective the guns were on big game.? (presumably the guns became even better for ?knock-down power? at the 100yd deer he referred to above.)
2) And here are statements Toby Bridges made on his ?Muzzlehead? blogsite (http://www.hpmuzzleloading.com/ ) between Jan7 and Jan27, 2008. He later took all this down off his site, as far as I can tell, and no longer allows readers to log their comments online:
?Anyone who would attempt a 90 yard shot on deer with a .50 caliber patched round ball rifle and load is nothing short of irresponsible.?
?It is you who contends that a puny 178-181 grain .50 caliber round ball, with a retained velocity of 1,100 f.p.s. at 90 yards and about 485 f.p.e. of remaining energy, is such a great deer killer.?
?And that is what I say BS to...because that's exaclty what it is?.Defend it all you want with all of the b#llsh*t nonesense (that does not relate to ML projectiles) that you want.?
?You cannot rommance big game to death just because you want to hunt with a tradtional patched round ball rifle and projectile - no matter how much you try to justify and defend it with all of you b#llsh*t nonesense.?
?Roger, you are what's wrong with muzzleloading today, certainly not what's right with it.?
I cannot judge for sure what Toby?s motives are, though I have my suspicions. I can tell you for a fact that experts in the field of Wound Ballistics do not accept the notion that wound trauma incapacitation of a live target is a function of energy only (or even at all, as it turns out), as Toby claims and fixes at 800fpe for a deer (article referenced with link above, many other references too); and it is totally invalid to assume that a bullet of one construction and shape needs the same energy as a bullet of another construction and shape. This is established science which can be demstrated with credible references to scientific work by professionals in the field of wound ballistics. How it applies to roundballs vs modern bullets is still tbd. I am working on that problem, and making some progress. Don't let anyone tell you there is some required energy level....it depends on mass, velocity, shape, construction, and size of the bullet (assuming good shot placement). Some projectiles are more energy-efficient than others in terms of fatally wounding, as a matter of fact. (Do not confuse efficiency with effectiveness.....a higher energy but less energy-efficient bullet might easily be more effective. But that does not make the more efficient but less energetic bullet ineffective either.)
Whether a roundball rifle can kill a deer cleanly at 90 yds is for everyone to judge for himself I guess. I only shot one once at 90yds with a flintlock, and the buck (not doe as TB said) went 30yds and piled up. And the .50cal ball passed thru, just as I would much prefer it to do. The nearest I have come to that was a 70yd shot where the deer went down where it stood, passthru too. All other shots within 50yds or so, and I have had every reaction you can name, just like anyone else who has hunted game very much.
YHS,
rogerw
