another: Picking my 1st Muzzleloader.

[utah400elk]

I figure I gave up 50-75 FPS for the three inch barrel difference. I took a shot at an elk in CO a couple years ago. Clean miss because of distance calculation and rangfinder issues. The cool thing was that I found where my bullet had hit a 6-8 inch diameter pine right in the middle. The 460 no excuse bullet being pushed by 80 grans of powder sailed right through the tree. The hit was about 150 yards from the shot. I really didn’t feel I needed a few extra FPS. I wish you the best of luck in whichever rifle you choose. Muzzleloading can be very addictive and it’s what my son and I have been doing lately.

 

[BrokenChicken]

thanks again for the follow up.
i'm not so much worried about few extra FPS's, but i want the gun to be as accurate as possible. this is where i figured 30" LR-x vs 26" MR-X may come out on top.

 

[BrentD]

thanks again for the follow up.
i'm not so much worried about few extra FPS's, but i want the gun to be as accurate as possible. this is where i figured 30" LR-x vs 26" MR-X may come out on top.

If accuracy is the priority, look no further than a 34", 18"- twist, .45 caliber, Rigby (~circa 1870s), or in modern day, off the rack rifles a .45 caliber Pedersoli Gibbs. Seriously, if accuracy is the priority, look for the most accurate rifles. Those are well known.

 

[BrokenChicken]

for CO needs to be .50cal for ELk,

 

[utah400elk]

For Colorado… my knight with a 24 inch barrel can hold a two inch group with open sights at 100 yards. Go with whichever you think will work best. I have a Knight Disk Extreme and a CVA Accura V2 Nitride both .50 caliber for me and my son elk hunting. My .50 muzzleloaders are good to 200 yards…my eyes not so much.

 

[lowpressure]

Killed a good bull with a cva mr-x this season. 2” groups at 100 with Williams front/rear sights. I still kill deer with my old hawkins with round balls but prefer the bigger conicals for elk.

 

[Chingon]

I have the LR-X in 45 cal, but now wish I had gone MR-X in 50cal due to component availability and length/weight. However, that's only because NM banned scopes out of the blue so the benefits of longer barrel and 45 cal accuracy vanished suddenly. Overall I really like the rifle and it seems like CVA ironed out the kinks (that were generally on the 45 cal's mostly I think).

My 45cal LR-X shot just under 1 MOA with no load workup, but I was running Parker bullets sized to bore, a muzzlebrake, and LRMP breech plug.

I'd recommend an MR-X with sized bullets (Thor, Parker), a muzzlebrake and Blackhorn 209 with hot primers (not sure if the Arrowhead LRMP is necessary, but won't hurt). I don't think twist rate will hurt you inside of 100 yards.

 

[utah400elk]

Not sure if you have purchased a new one yet…I now have a season with the CVA. I just purchased a Knight mountaineer action and plan on building a CO legal MZ with that. The fit and finish on the CVA is ok. The Knight rifles are really a significant step up. The CVA is good to 150 for me but I bought an arrowhead breech plug to help with the significant blow back. I will probably sell my CVA after his year. It is ok but not the great rifle I was looking for. I now have four muzzleloader for two people. Knight has sales a couple times a year and you might want to wait for their July 4th sale?

Best of luck with whichever MZ you decide to go with.

 

[David58]

Request permission to make the obligatory derogatory post about in-line muzzleloaders.

(Along the lines of "In-lines are the truck stop knives of muzzleloaders" or some such schtuff)

David
NM
You guessed it, a traditional ML shooter....

 

[Gravelyctry]

Barrel length is not quite as important, but I would opt for longer barrels in traditional rifles for several different reasons.

Brent, I’m interested in the reasons for a longer barrel. I’ve been considering a Kibler Woodsrunner flintlock over their Colonial American because it has a shorter barrel, so it weighs less, would be easier to carry and maneuver than a longer barrel, and likely balances better. Also reduced Time in the barrel would hopefully improve my shots. Those were the positives I was thinking of, but why do you suggest longer barrels are better?

Thanks, Neil

 

[BrentD]

Brent, I’m interested in the reasons for a longer barrel. I’ve been considering a Kibler Woodsrunner flintlock over their Colonial American because it has a shorter barrel, so it weighs less, would be easier to carry and maneuver than a longer barrel, and likely balances better. Also reduced Time in the barrel would hopefully improve my shots. Those were the positives I was thinking of, but why do you suggest longer barrels are better?

Thanks, Neil

Nothing that a Kibler sells would be considered short, as far as I know. I was referring to the inlines - all of which seem to have shorter barrels than the shortest common traditional rifles.
Advantages to the longer barrel are a longer sight radius and/or the ability to get the rear sight further away from your eye (as you get older, this will probably become more important).

Barrel time is certainly shorter with shorter barrels, but you will likely never be able to measure the difference. I would rate that and velocity differences as trivial and unimportant.

As for balance, that is a very personal thing, but my 42" flintlock .54 (swamped octagon) balances better than any of my shorter muzzleloaders. Yes, it is muzzle heavy. And because of that, I shoot it better. There are limits to how much more muzzleheavy is better, of course, but again, it's personal.

I do whack a lot of things with my flinter's barrel - but most of those things are in the basement, not in the woods. Overall, I do not find it hard or unpleasant to carry, even for a week in the North Woods chasing Bullwinkle.

You will love your gun. I've never heard anyone complain about a Kibler.