About myself: I live in Central Texas, Georgetown, I have hunted whitetail deer since about 1982 with first homebuilt caplocks and now flintlocks for the past 10 years or so. I use traditional patched roundballs and traditional guns by preference (though every once in a blue moon I have used my .30-06, etc). In my county of Texas there is no ML season so all gun hunting is done at the same season. In fact there is no ML seasons at all except in 23 out of 254 counties. I have hunted out-of-State in New Mexico for muledeer and Colorado for elk and the others in our camp either carried modern inlines MLs or modern cartridge guns while I carried either a percussion or flintlock ML. We here are not very affected as far as I know here in Texas by discussions of traditional versus modern inline since most hunting is done on private land, owned or leased and easily controlled as to how game may be taken. It is just a matter of choice. I own some land in San Saba County, and hunt there.
During December I began searching for online info about muzzleloading terminal ballistics and found and became very concerned after reading a recent (last year) Toby Bridges opinion article where this quote occurred:
"And if you, like me, have grown tired of Hollier-Than-Thou flintlock round ball shooters... TURN THE TABLES ON THEM AND BEGIN LOBBYING FOR ALLOWABLE MINIMUM ENERGY LEVELS. Even if a game department settles on 800 foot-pounds of energy at 50 yards...no .45 caliber round ball rifle and load would make the cut, and neither would the vast majority of .50 caliber round ball rifles."
This is overt political advocacy, with no valid basis in physics....I had a heated exchange with Toby over this quote, and with respect to some of the physics which are involved in demonstrating how invalid a proposal this is. I am an engineer, so physics is a reasonably natural subject for me.
I would like, with the permission of this site's moderators, to post a rebuttal to Toby's comments since Toby took down off his website the ability of a visitor to post there (he also removed the offending article, but I kept copies of the quotes I refer to).
I thank you for your consideration.
YHS,
rogerw
During December I began searching for online info about muzzleloading terminal ballistics and found and became very concerned after reading a recent (last year) Toby Bridges opinion article where this quote occurred:
"And if you, like me, have grown tired of Hollier-Than-Thou flintlock round ball shooters... TURN THE TABLES ON THEM AND BEGIN LOBBYING FOR ALLOWABLE MINIMUM ENERGY LEVELS. Even if a game department settles on 800 foot-pounds of energy at 50 yards...no .45 caliber round ball rifle and load would make the cut, and neither would the vast majority of .50 caliber round ball rifles."
This is overt political advocacy, with no valid basis in physics....I had a heated exchange with Toby over this quote, and with respect to some of the physics which are involved in demonstrating how invalid a proposal this is. I am an engineer, so physics is a reasonably natural subject for me.
I would like, with the permission of this site's moderators, to post a rebuttal to Toby's comments since Toby took down off his website the ability of a visitor to post there (he also removed the offending article, but I kept copies of the quotes I refer to).
I thank you for your consideration.
YHS,
rogerw
