I sometimes wonder if current inline muzzleloading shooters have become somewhat jaded as EVERYBODY expects sub-M.O.A. accuracy from EVERY rifle in their gun safe/stable. The same as they have come to expect; have come to DEMAND from ANY centerfire rifle that they purchase.
Regardless of the propellant of choice; regardless of what material the projectile is made of; regardless of whether a sabot is being used, or not; regardless of whether a sub-base, or a wad of some type is being used; etc , etc., etc., on down the line.
My take on things is somewhat different, I believe, then most of my fellow forum members. Blessed/cursed with terrible eyesight from a very early age. NEVER being able to shoot as well as most of my contemporaries. Although, all three of my flint longrifles (.45, .50, & .62 caliber) were capable of M.O.A. accuracy at 100 yards, both from the bench, and occasionally offhand (when GOD decided to bless me with a good day).
Most of my shooting life I have been disappointed with accuracy, because my eyesight seldom allowed for me to bask in the glory of the "MAGICAL M.O.A". That's what everyone was searching for back in the 50's, 60's, 70's, & 80's. My flintlocks all had that magical M.O.A. accuracy right from the beginning of my shooting muzzleloaders. For me, easy to do off of a bench. Very hard for me to do offhand, maybe once a year.
Since I hated bench rest shooting, I seldom participated in it, unless I was breaking in a new rifle. Once I found the mildest load that gave me a silver dollar size group at 100 yards, I stopped searching for better accuracy. Because, with my eyes, anything better was a pipe dream, and a waste of time.
Since I couldn't see well enough at 100 yards at anytime in my life to ethically kill a deer with iron sights, I early on made a pledge to myself NOT TO EXCEED 60-75 yards with ANY shot on ANY size game animal. From an ant to an elephant.
Most of my life I have had to "settle" for what Col. Jeff Cooper termed Scout Rifle level accuracy. Which is 2 M.O.A. out to whatever is the limiting factor for the rifle in question. For me the limiting factor has always been my eyes, NOT MY RIFLE'S ability to place shot, after shot into the same small space.
My .45 caliber flint longrifle was capable of killing deer in out to 100 yards with 70 grains of fffg black powder, and a 0.445" diameter ball (132.1 grains/pure lead).
My .50 caliber flint longrifle was capable of killing elk out to 100 yards, easily (no through the shoulder blade shots), with 75 grains of fffg black powder, and a 0.495" diameter ball (181.8 grains/pure lead).
My .62 caliber flint longrifle was capable of killing anything in North America, including the big bears that will kill you right back, out to 100 yards with 75-120 grains of fffg black powder, and a 0.615" diameter ball (348.7 grains/pure lead). My east of the Mississippi River powder charge was 75 grains of fffg black powder, which gave me those magical silver dollar size groups of 5 shots at 100 yards. If I had ever hunted west of the Mississippi River, out in the Rocky Mountains, the Sierras, or the Cascades; I probably would have gone looking for a stouter powder charge between 90-120 grains. Something that would have a chance of dropping a grizzly bear coming to a fresh elk kill in its tracks.
As I look back on 50 years of on again, off awhile, on again, muzzleloading shooting, I can see that my lousy eyesight was in its way a blessing of sorts.
GOD knows, I have all kinds of things I am addicted to, but chasing the elusive "Every Shot Through the Same Hole" combination of propellant, wad, patch, ball, lead conical, sabot, jacketed bullet, copper bullet, brass bullet, lead bullet, sub-base, lubricant, sizing die, bullet mold(s), lead alloy(s), etc. HAS NOT been one of them. Make NO MISTAKE about it, I can EASILY see myself going down that path had I just been able to see better as a youth. Or, been introduced to precision target shooting by someone similarly addicted at an age where shooting with a scope would have made some kind of sense to me.
None of those things happened to me. I stuck with iron sights, and flintlock longrifles. I accepted my limitations, especially the 2 M.O.A hunting accuracy limit for my longrifles. And, as a result, found out that a patched ball was a fine killer of thin-skinned, medium-sized game such as the whitetail deer. Even that 132 grain, 0.445" diameter patched ball in my 40" long Douglas GAA .45 caliber barrel.
It's a common myth that a bullet is MANDATORY in order to kill deer. If the double lung shot is made from any reasonable distance, even with the .45 caliber ball, you are almost certain to have both an entrance, and an exit hole on opposite sides of the deer.
If you want to punch through bones, then a .54, .58, .60, or .62 caliber patched ball rifle will be a better choice. Bigger is better, I say. Unless you go stupid crazy with big powder charges, recoil WILL NOT be anything like what most inline shooters are experiencing/have experienced with BH209 & saboted bullets.
On paper, and in ballistic tables lead balls look TERRIBLE. In the real world, they stack up quite well against bullets. Especially, if you find yourself killing most of your deer at ranges under 100 yards. Even more so if you are killing most of your deer at ranges under 75 yards.
