# Long Range Muzzy....



## crittergitter (Jun 9, 2005)

Anyone have a Johnsons Muzzleloader? Maybe I could fill a tag with one of these babies.

http://ultimatefirearms.com/


----------



## powerstrokin73 (May 21, 2008)

I would hate to pull the trigger with a 300gr. sabot and 200grs. of powder! OUCH!!


----------



## bkr43050 (Apr 5, 2004)

I am not sure what would hurt more after shooting that. My shoulder or my wallet. Prices in the $2,000-$4,500 range are well beyond my range.


----------



## crittergitter (Jun 9, 2005)

Lots of guns are expensive. Few are legal in Ohio and shoot out to 500 yards.


----------



## crappiedude (Mar 12, 2006)

crittergitter said:


> Lots of guns are expensive. Few are legal in Ohio and shoot out to 500 yards.


I don't think I can even see 500 yards


----------



## bkr43050 (Apr 5, 2004)

crittergitter said:


> Lots of guns are expensive. Few are legal in Ohio and shoot out to 500 yards.


So what would make these guns illegal in Ohio? I didn't see anything listing caliber but I would assume they are at least .38 caliber? They are shooting 275 grain bullets and larger so they have adequate energy I am sure.


----------



## M.Magis (Apr 5, 2004)

I think he&#8217;s saying that this would be one of the only guns legal in Ohio for deer that can shoot that sort of range.
I&#8217;m not sure I completely understand what makes this gun more capable at longer shots than others. Muzzleloaders have been shooting those same loads for quite a while. What makes this one different?


----------



## Parttime (May 4, 2012)

It is based off of a rem. 700 action and uses mag rifle primers in a 45cal. Casing. 


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## M.Magis (Apr 5, 2004)

I understand that part, but that wouldn&#8217;t cause the effective range to be double what other guns are shooting.


----------



## bkr43050 (Apr 5, 2004)

Aren't most of the muzzleloaders designed to a maximum of 150 grains of powder? I guess I am not that familiar with everything out there but it always seems to be the norm. The additional charge could help some but you still have to be able to burn it fast enough to make a difference, right? I found it interesting in looking at the linked ballistics that they had. I think the drop on a 500 yard shot was somewhere around 100". I guess one could take shots out to that range but that would certainly not qualify as a 500 yard hunting rifle to me. Fun to play with but not the type of shot I would advise.


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

Not a big advantage over what is available off of the shelf today, certainly not multiple thousands better.

200 yd zero, 17" low at 300 yds and 9-1/2 FEET low at 500 yds.

Nice gun but not what I would want. I already have MZ's that perform better and cost less.


----------



## M.Magis (Apr 5, 2004)

You may be right Brian. I was thinking that there were already muzzleloaders that handled 200 grain loads, but that might not be correct. That 50 grains, to me, isn&#8217;t enough to make the kind of difference they&#8217;re claiming. I don&#8217;t doubt that someone has made kill shots at 500 yards. There are people making 1000 yards shots with centerfire rifles too, but that doesn&#8217;t mean that it&#8217;s something that anybody can do. At least I know I can&#8217;t.


----------



## bkr43050 (Apr 5, 2004)

Kim,

You may be the one to answer this question, although I am sure there is no one exact answer. What type of energy numbers are needed to be effective? The two loads they cited had 711 and 886 ft.-lbs of energy at 500 yards. That sounds pretty low to me when targeting large game.


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

1000 ft lbs has been thrown around for as long as I can remember.

I'm sure a well placed shot with that energy at 500 yds would kill any deer.

The old foster slugs in a 12 ga. only gave 950 at 100 yds, a 20 ga foster 700ish and a .410 is only 350 at 50 yds


----------



## Fish-N-Fool (Apr 12, 2004)

I would NEVER argue ballistics with Kim, but 700 ft lbs has been the minimum standard for whitetail for years. A well placed shot will have no problems at this level.....but most prefer performance at more than the absolute minimum standards. A lot of shots we make aren't so well placed (things happen in the field) and you want a little extra in those instances.


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

Yes, we can debate numbers all day. I can find references from 600-1200 as the minimum acceptable number.

I'm sure that the numbers they show will kill any deer at 500 yds with a well placed shot. At 500 yds with a 9-1/2 ft drop I question if you can make a well placed shot in a hunting situation. That does not even take into account the 3' of wind drift with a light cross wind.

The reason so many use the 1000 lbs as a minimum threshold is because the retained energy is only one of many variables. Shot placement (bone or no bone), bullet construction, energy transfer all play roles in the effective killing of the animal. I do not want to be at the lowest edge of performance. Just leads to way too many bad outcomes.

Remember that the foster slugs in a 12 ga provided around 925 at 100 yds, and the 20 around 700 ish at 100. The .410 on gives you 350 at 50 yds and yet people hunt deer with them. They shouldn't but they do


----------



## bkr43050 (Apr 5, 2004)

Thanks guys! You just save me from going out and spending about $4,000.


----------



## jray (Jan 20, 2006)

target competitions with Rigby side lock guns go back more than a century and some were at up to 1500 yards. To some extent you can lob anything 500 yds doesn't make it good enough to hunt with. I have personally witnessed a 200 yd shot that dropped a buck with a hawken side lock with open sights and 90 grains of powder. I don't really see the great advancements with this gun. Besides the tests I've seen show that with a normal barrel length, i.e. less than 30 inches, any powder over about 120 grains max becomes more projectile not propellent.


----------



## No-Net (Jan 8, 2007)

The primer makes the difference, it burns 200 gr of powder in 9 inches of barrel travel?


----------



## M.Magis (Apr 5, 2004)

The primer can only ignite the powder charge, it can&#8217;t make it burn faster. I think they&#8217;re claiming the breech design is the secret, but I just can&#8217;t believe they found something there that no one else has in the last 50 years


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

No-Net said:


> The primer makes the difference, it burns 200 gr of powder in 9 inches of barrel travel?


I would like to see that data on that burn rate.

Everyone else needs 26-28" of barrel to burn just 3 pellets.

The ignition system they use with the large rifle primer is nice but is not unusual in the custom MZ arena.They obviously build a nice rifle and if I lived somewhere where I couldn't use smokeless powder it might be something worth considering. 

I am always a little concerned when a gun needs a muzzle brake I was shooting my 50 cal Savages with 300 Gr bullets at 2450 FPS and it would definitely let you know it was serious when I shot it. That is one of the reasons I converted to the 45 cal. A 195 gr Barnes at 2700 FPS shoots flatter and is a pleasure to shoot.


----------



## ezbite (May 25, 2006)

I'm not buying it, but I might buy a 20 pack of those 300 grain whitetail medicine bullets... 3 pellets and a 300 grain will pack a wallop


----------

