The newer muzzleloader handbooks are not as good as the older ones.

[Sixgun Symphony]

I have the first edition (1976) of the "Muzzle Loader Handbook" from Lyman. I also have the "Muzzleloading Notebook" (1985) and "Blackpowder Hunting" (1978) by Sam Fadala. I really like these older books over the updated books on muzzleloading that we have today.

[Maven]

What makes the older books so much better?

[Hellgate]

They show a much wider powder charge range, rifle barrel lengths as well as 3F & 4F loads in the handguns (Lyman manual). They just seem less inhibited in the loads compared to the more conservative recent manuals. I used to read all the time that you can't blow up a C&B revolver with an overload of BP. I believe that. Now you read where the max load in the manual that comes with the pistol shows max load of 20grs when the gun will easily hold 30.

[Sixgun Symphony]

That and the new books devote alot of space to the modern inlines where I can find much more information on the tradtional firearms in the older books.

BTW, The first edition (1976) Lyman Muzzleloaders Handbook has an article on how to assemble the CVA Napoleon III Cannon kit. This thing is really neat. It is a toy sized cannon that shoots a .69 caliber ball. How come you never see articles like this in today's gun magazines?

[451 Pete]

Sixgun,
I think what you are seeing is the end results of marketing stratagy and the grab for the almighty dollar.

The NRA did a survey of it's members a few years back and found that 25% owned muzzle loading rifles. The vast majority were guy's buying in-lines that were bought for hunting, and to extend the hunting season. These same fellows wanted something familiar and similar to the cartridge rifles they already understood so they quickly bought into the ideas of synthetic stocks, stainless steel barrels, pelletized powder's ect. Marketing strategy.

Over the years the ML Rifle manufacturers have advertised each years new in-line's as being the latest and greatest or newer and better to get these guy's to buy something new. Marketing strategy again.

Now, suppose that you want to sell a book. What market would you target and what content will you put in the book to attract interest from that market and to generate the highest profit on your book sales?
Just my thoughts ...... Pete

[subsonic]

I have to agree. I also have to say that the later and greater the ML product is, the more likely it is to not work as well as the thing it supercedes.

[1Shirt]

I agree that the older were better. More reality, more testing, more examples, less college journalism, and less emotion!
1Shirt!:coffee:

[451whitworth]

i really like "Complete Blackpowder Handbook" by Sam Fadala published 1979. He only covers blackpowder & Pyrodex (of course) and bore size conicals and PRB's. Lots of info about those projectiles that you don't see anymore. the only sabot is a Butler Creek "plastic patch" for round balls! it has buckskinning & rendezvous chapters which i don't care about but the rest of it is great.

[1Shirt]

Fadala is ok, and that book is ok, and not bad. However if you want to read a really GREAT book on muzzle loading, get "The Muzzle-Loading Cap Lock Rifle", by Ned H. Roberts. It is an absolute wealth of muzzle loading knowledge. Originaly published in 1940, it was republished in 1991 by Wolf Publishing Co. I was lucky enough to get a 91 cy. of same. You might be able to get a cy by contacting Wolf.
1Shirt!:coffeecom

[451whitworth]

i'll second that 1shirt. i have a copy from the NRA reprints. excellent read.

[451 Pete]

Ok, we generally agree that the older books maybe had a bit more in content that we enjoyed reading.

So I'm going to ask. What GOOD books do you think you would recommend reading or owning , either in or out of print, to someone who's interests have brought them here?

I will start you out. I bought this last spring " Understanding Firearm Ballistics" By Robert Rinker. Currently in print. A lot of very good information for the why's of what is happening for shooting both modern and muzzle loading rifles. The copy I have I highlighted from one end to the other.

Pete

[Alan]

Black Powder Bible, by George Nonte, the MLCLR by Ned roberts, and Muzzle loading Rifles, then and now, by Walter Cline. In that order.


They do contain some doozies, though. Like Walter Cline stating that the maximum accurate velocity for a PRB is around 1400 fps. I just laughed. He used WAY too loose patch combinations.

And compare the 1965 issue of the NRA Cast Bullet Handbook to the dreck that passes now for articles on bullet casting.

[waksupi]

I don't know if George Nonte revised his earlier book, but the old edition had some VERY dangerous loads listed.

[HARRYMPOPE]

Roberts book is pretty good but he has some stuff that i believe is bogus in his accuracy claims.Like Warner able to make groups in the "W" shape to match his last name initial at 40 rods.Also in his review of Norman Brockway he totally robs an earlier American Rifleman article by Walter Cline (July 1936) off and passes it off for his info.he may have had permission but it was fishy.I lost a lot of respect for Roberts when a friend showed me that!Sorry to bash Ned I do really like the book though.

George

[451 Pete]

Harrympope,
I will agree with your assesment of Roberts and his book " The Muzzle Loading Cap Lock Rifle". Although the book is fun reading and got a lot of interest started in muzzle loading, some of it's content is questionable or in error and I believe was included to enhance the book.

One example of this involves what very well might be the worlds longest running urban legend that still rears it's ugly head from time to time, this being the longest shot ever taken in the Civil War with a muzzle loader.

As the story go's as told by Roberts, a Capt. John Metcalf of the U.S. Army Engineer Corps picked off a Confederate General with the first shot at a distance of 1 mile 187 feet. Roberts references the account of this shot back to a book written earlier by Charles Winthrop Sawyer called "Our Rifles " which was printed in 1920 and then go's on to say that he saw the particular rifle that made this shot and the War Department record attesting to it. He also states that the rifle was made by Abe Williams, was a .50 cal. and weighed between 50 and 60 pounds.

Now I went along after reading this in Roberts book, being fat, dumb and happy with the knowledge that this had happened, until I came across another very good book "Civil War Guns " by William B. Edwards printed in 1962.

Under his chapter on "Sharpshooters", Edwards wrote of the " Metcalf Legend" . It seems that Edwards included this in his book as the old " True Magazine " had printed in January of 1961's issue the accounting of the " Mile Long Shot To Kill " further enhancing the story as was told by Sawyer in "Our Rifles" and reported and confirmed by Roberts accounting in the " Muzzle Loading Cap Lock Rifle". Edwards spent two pages of his book de-bunking this story using records from the Civil War showing that there was never any record of the shot being made or the Confederate General "Little George Lainhart" who was suppoositly killed by this shot.

In my recounting of what I had found to a friend he mentioned that he had in his library a copy of the book "Our Rifles" by Sawyer that gave the original story. I asked if I could borrow his book. Sure enough, in what is otherwise a good reference book, Sawyer takes off on a tangent with a tale of a fictional family of sharpshooters. It seems that others in retelling this tale gave life to it and made it a thing of fact, not fiction.

So the bottom line is that if it never happened then Ned Roberts account of seeing the record of it happening from the War Department and the rifle that made the shot has to be also fictional.

Pete:coffee:

[HARRYMPOPE]

thanks Pete i didn't know about that one.Old Harv Donaldson really ripped Roberts in his later years about being noting but a spectator with poor eyesight.I am beginning to think it was legitimate.

George

[451 Pete]

George,
Well, as old Paul Harvey would have said " Now you know the rest of the story. "

At one point, some years back and before coming across Edwards book, I was actually thinking of trying to locate the rifle's where abouts.

Sorting out some of the truth from the fiction does shed quite a different light on the accountings repoted in Roberts book.

Pete:coffeecom

[Alan]

Waksupi,

Which loads did you consider dangerous? I have 1st and 2nd editions of his book, and while the 2nd has new material, I didn't notice any difference in the data. Most of it looks fine. He does reference the fact (and I've seen it stated in Roberts' book too) that original Hawken owners considered a full charge to be around 200gr of FF for a .53 (now .54).

Alan