With leaves beginning to fall and hunting seasons upon us, I thought this to be a good time to briefly expound upon the subject of muzzleloading. I get a lot of correspondence on the subject, and within the shooting and hunting sports there seems to be more division amongst hunters on this subject than any other. While I claim no particular expertise on the subject of muzzleloading, I am very familiar with the principles involved, and have been a muzzleloading hunter for many years. I have also had the privilege of hearing arguments on the topic from hunters and from within the firearms industry. This is not going to be an authoritative thesis on muzzleloading, but as the title suggests, just a few of my thoughts and experiences on the matter.

Muzzleloading is one of the more basic forms of shooting, and has been around for centuries. Ever since someone figured out that pouring some powder into a tube that was sealed on one end and placing a heavier object upon that powder charge and lighting it, the expanding gasses of that exploding powder would propel that heavier object with great force from the tube. It must have brought a huge smile upon the face of that first successful shooter! From that time forward, shooters have been trying to improve the system. However, the newest firearms that we have today still operate upon that same basic principle of expanding gasses propelling an object from a tube. Projectiles have changed, powders have changed, and loads are now self-contained and fed from a magazine into the breech, but the principle remains unchanged.

The progress of the muzzleloading rifle is what causes the greatest disagreement among hunters. There are those who do not want other hunters to hunt if the other’s choice of armament differs from their own. Almost all states now have a special muzzleloading only season, and some hunters get all worked up over the use of weapons that seem more progressive than their own. Some hunters like to use a flintlock rifle with a patched round ball cast over an open fire and patched with nothing but pillow ticking and greased with bear fat. Using anything but genuine black powder is an abomination to these fellows, and I understand their position. It is indeed fulfilling to enjoy the hunt this way. It is a connection to our past.

Progressing a little further, many hunters, including myself, like to hunt with a Hawken style percussion fired rifle, using either patched round balls or some type of conical lead bullet. I currently have two different percussion rifles, both fifty-four caliber. One is a rifle that I built from a kit about thirty years ago. It started as a forty-five caliber, but I had it bored and rifled to fifty-four. It is set up to shoot patched round balls, and does this well. My other percussion gun is a Sile Hawken Carbine that I have owned for about twenty years, and is my primary hunting gun for ranges out to about 150 yards during muzzleloading season.

I should clarify the term "percussion". For our purposes here, percussion refers to a muzzleloader that uses a cup-formed percussion cap that is placed upon a nipple, that when smacked by the hammer sends the spark through a small passage into the breech of the weapon, igniting the charge. I clarified this to differentiate this system from the more progressive "inline" system. After all, even modern cartridge rifles use a percussion system to ignite the powder in the brass case, so technically, most all rifles are percussion arms, whether they use percussion caps or metallic primers.

Now we come to the muzzleloaders that comprise the majority of the muzzleloading rifles sold today for hunting; those being referred to as "inline muzzleloaders". Inlines take many forms, from those resembling a break-open single shot shotgun to weapons that are adaptations of a modern bolt action cartridge rifle, sans magazine. Most inlines have a removable breech plug to facilitate easy cleaning, and use shotgun primers as the source of ignition. Inline muzzleloaders also seem to be the guns that cause the most division among hunters. However, the inline system has been around for well over 150 years, and is simply another progression in the line of firearms development.

It seems that the flintlock hunter doesn’t want to hunt in the same area as the percussion hunter and the percussion hunter doesn’t want to hunt with the inline man. Then comes division over the choice of powder and bullets. I suppose that a hunter could show up with a matchlock rifle and look down upon the more-modern flintlock user. An archer doesn’t want to hunt in the same state as a user of any firearm. I suppose that a hunter with a rock and a stick could look down his nose at everyone. My point is that every form of firearm is simply a progression over another system, with no clear place to draw the line. A man’s choice of any legal hunting weapon should be his own, and there is room for everyone.

As for the choice of powders, most states allow the use of black powder substitutes, such as Pyrodex, Triple-Seven, Black Mag, Clean Shot, and others. Many hunters will use nothing but black powder, and don’t want anything else allowed. Savage really stirred up a hornet’s nest a few years ago with the introduction of their inline muzzleloader that uses modern smokeless powder, such as is used in cartridge firearms. They might as well have called the Pope a Godless sinner! There are more heated discussions over this new muzzleloader than with any other topic regarding muzzleloader hunting. We need to keep in mind, however, that smokeless powder is just another black powder substitute. It was invented, as the name implies, to fire without emitting a cloud of smoke. From a military standpoint, this is greatly advantageous, as it does not give away the position of the riflemen or artillery to the enemy. Smokeless powder also contains more energy per grain of powder than does black. If Savage had introduced this rifle with a new powder that was just as powerful, but emitted smoke and fouling upon firing, there would be less controversy.  The Savage system offers the great advantage of more power and minimal fouling, and some shooters will not accept this. Think about it, a muzzleloader is simply a rifle that uses no self-contained cartridge. The breech being sealed, no brass case is needed. Most black powder substitutes are formulated to measure like black powder, while offering improved burn characteristics. Smokeless is no different, except that it measures differently. Its advantages over other black powder substitutes are those of cleaner burning and more power. To a man, every critic, except one, of the Savage 10MLII smokeless muzzleloader has never fired one. Many have never seen one, but still offer criticism of the rifle based upon the powder that it uses. I want to emphasize that the Savage can use black powder and any substitute on the market as well as any rifle, but due to the fact that it can be used with smokeless powder, many hunters want it banned from use during muzzleloading season. Again, these are shooters who have never even fired the rifle. I like the Savage, and have purchased one. It offers greater range, flatter trajectory, more power, and less fouling than any other muzzleloader on the market. I love mine.

Now for the one and only critic of the Savage muzzleloader who has extensively used the rifle; that being Toby Bridges. I have never met Mr. Bridges, but have corresponded with him. He was for years the preeminent proponent of the Savage muzzleloader, and I mention him here only because of recent developments regarding his relationship with that firearm. Recently, Mr. Bridges experienced a catastrophic failure with a Savage muzzleloader using smokeless powder. This concerned me, because I own and use an identical rifle. Mr. Bridges has published this incident on the internet, and is now advising against the use of the Savage, after years of promoting the rifle.

I want to preface my following thoughts on this matter by stating that I have no dog in this fight, and this is just my opinion, after investigating this matter as best as I could. There are, however, a few facts that pertain to the relationship of Toby Bridges and Savage Arms. Mr. Bridges worked for Savage, with the job of testing and promoting the 10MLII muzzleloader. He has fired more rounds through Savage muzzleloaders than anyone to my knowledge. After a few incidents that are none of my business resulted in Mr. Bridges having a falling out with the inventor of the rifle and a run-in with the law, Mr. Bridges also was fired by Savage Arms, for failure to perform his job, and having a really poor attitude.  Shortly thereafter, Mr. Bridges suddenly had a 10ML blow up while he was supposedly testing it. The gun was utterly destroyed, but the shooter was not scratched.  He was supposedly shooting a safe load in the gun; one which in fact I have exceeded many times. Now Mr. Bridges declares the Savage unsafe. This is, keep in mind, after he was let go by Savage Arms. I have seen pictures of the destroyed rifle. There is no way short of a divine miracle that someone could have been sitting behind that rifle with his cheek pressed to the stock, and have not been seriously injured. My opinion, and it is worth what you paid for it, is that the gun was intentionally blown up.