Waterfowling with a muzzleloader
#1
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Troy MI
Posts: 44
Waterfowling with a muzzleloader
Greetings;
I was wondering if there is anyone out there who hunts ducks with a muzzleloader and black powder. I was thinking of trying it with a .60 caliber trade musket (flintlock). Since the days of using lead for waterfowl are long gone, can anyone out there tell me how much bismuth shot to load for an equivalent charge of lead? Also, how much black powder to get it going. Thanks in advance.
I was wondering if there is anyone out there who hunts ducks with a muzzleloader and black powder. I was thinking of trying it with a .60 caliber trade musket (flintlock). Since the days of using lead for waterfowl are long gone, can anyone out there tell me how much bismuth shot to load for an equivalent charge of lead? Also, how much black powder to get it going. Thanks in advance.
#2
RE: Waterfowling with a muzzleloader
I do the traditionalist thing. I use flintlocks for all my hunting & shooting, with the exception of one .45 cal percussion colonial pistol. I hunt my small game with a .62 caliber french Tulle de Chase and have had enough success to tick off my hunting buddies. I've harvested everything from ringnecks to doves & woodcocks, rabbits to squirrel, etc. I use the volumn measure method of 1 powder by X 1.5 shot. I personally use 80 grains of FFg Goex to 120 gr of shot (size makes no difference). I use wads and cards as well as bee and wasp nest material for wadding. I also use the same powder charge with a .600 roundball in a .015 cotton patch for deer.
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols and guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilage." Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols and guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilage." Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878