[Bezoar]

Why is it that we need to get massive balistics from muzzleloaders these days? My "dinky old" inline can put a 300-310 grain sabot out at 1050 fps and 1100foot pounds of energy at the muzzle. Thats good enough for most deer type animals, maybe a small bear as well.

When did it become that we "needed" to have the balistics of a damned 44 magnum carbine? According to literature if i switched to a 296 grain powerbelt, i could put out 1825 foot pounds of energy at the muzzle, thats better then 90% of all shotgun slug loads i have read about. Thats better then the 30-30 if i recall correctly.

[Fast Frank]

This is America.

If a lot is good, then more must be better. At least some folks seem to think so.

Personally, I load 65GR behind a patched round ball because that's what my rifle shoots best.

Seems good enough for me.

[arcticap]

That's a really interesting question, and I suppose that the quest for more muzzle loading ballistic firepower isn't anything new.
In the early days they had very long barrels to develop more power and velocity. And they also had some huge calibers. Even today the traditionalists shoot smoothbores as large as 8 and 4 bores. Those 4 bore balls are 4 to the pound you know?
I recall reading about Val Forgget hunting just about every game animal in Africa with black powder, elephants and dangerous game using something like 600 grain monolithic (?) conicals. And those huge animals will just fall over and die. Can one ever have enough firepower if hunting dangerous wounded game in close cover? I wonder what it takes to stop a rhino! :D
And during the civil war, look at the long range rifles and what they were used by...snipers!
So I guess if we're invaded by Canadians, then our muzzle loaders will be that much more effective when they come across the Great Lakes in droves!
And when you see pictures of some of the diverse animal habitat in this country, the great plains, the deserts, the steep mountains and vast hillsides, I wonder how people can successfully hunt for animals, whether it's pronghorns, large bears, moose, elk, musk ox etc...in such vast openess. Sure they can sometimes be bushwacked around waterholes and such, but hunters don't always have a choice and more firepower increases the hunters odds, especially when it's a hunt of a lifetime. Hunters can come up empty shooting modern guns, sometimes they need all of the range & firepower they can get.
So a good shot is a good shot, and what if your life depended on it? Can we all say that we are equipped with enough firepower to shoot any animal on the continent or planet with our muzzle loader?
Most people want to put the animal down, or leave a heavy blood trail, and in the case of dangerous game, they want an instantaneous death and the bullet to travel from end to end if necessary, to put the dangerous animal to its end without any doubt if that's at all possible, to save life and limb, and to continue to be able to pursue life, liberty and happiness. ;)

[alsaqr]

"When did it become that we "needed" to have the balistics of a damned 44 magnum carbine?"

Oh, they are well above that. The muzzle velocity of my .44 magnum carbine with a 240 grain bullet is about 1,800 fps. With a modern inline muzzleloader it is possible to get about 2,150 fps or more with a 250 grain saboted bullet.

Used to load my inlines very heavily with 130-150 grains of Pyrodex until i found out that it is not necessary. Now i use 80-100 grains of Pyrodex, 777 or JSG. The biggest boar i ever killed weighed 365 pounds field dressed. My cheap old CVA Stag Horn and 100 grains of Pyrodex put a 250 grain SST bullet through both shoulders of that hog and left a 1.25" exit hole. That bullet went through 18" of bone and gristle.

[GunTech]

Another vote for 'reasonable' loads. I run 80gn of FFg under a patched 50 cal round ball. My 13 year old daughter loves to shoot this, and it does about 3 inches at 50 yards (I'm still working on my flinter technique).

The trend is for more and more powerful rifles, and I can't figure out why. Have deer gotten that much tougher in the last 50 years?

[alsaqr]

"Have deer gotten that much tougher in the last 50 years?"

They must have gotten much tougher. We have all these new center fire rifle bullets like Triple Shock, Scirroco and about ten dozen others. Gun writers claim that they are absolutely necessary to cleanly kill that deer. Then i see guys who are disappointed when they gut shoot an elk or deer with their magic bullet and the animal runs off.

Wonder how Lewis and Clark killed those buffalo, mule deer and plains grizzly bears with flintlocks?

[GunTech]

I had a neighbor who was in his eighties. He'd killed countless deer (over a hundred) with his 22 hornet. I enjoyed hearing people telling him 22 hornet wasn't adequate for deer hunting. I never saw him take more than one shot, and he killed everything he shot at.

His other deer rifle was a 32-20 Low Wall with irons, but it had been broken since WWII untill I fixed it for him. I understand it killed a lot of deer too.

Look up either caliber, and you'll see that they are both universally condemned as inadequate for deer.

Maybe the hunter has a lot to do with it.