That's a great comparison, Les. Guys spending big bucks for a thoroughly modern car so they can have that "early 911 experience".
So, there is one aspect of the patched round ball that its nay sayers never fail to point out. And, by golly, they are absolutely right when they do, there is no arguing physics. The round ball is, essentially, the absolutely worst projectile we have ever come up with, from an external ballistics perspective.
We are used to modern rifle bullets of spitzer and boat tailed spitzer designs that have G7 ballistic coefficients in the neighborhood of .400 to .600 or higher. These retain velocity to extreme ranges, minimizing bullet drop and wind drift while maximizing down range impact energies. The lowly round ball isn't even in the same league, with G1 ballistic coefficients in the neighborhood of .080 or worse. They shed velocity and energy like nobody's business.
A .535" diameter round ball, for example, has a ballistic coefficient of only .075. When started out at 2,000 fps (which is about average with a heavy hunting charge), it has dropped to only 1165 fps by just 100 yards. At 200 yards, it's all the way down to just 824 fps. Muzzle energy is 2042 foot pounds, but it's down to only 693 ft lbs by 100 yards, and a meager 347 ft lbs at 200 yards, or about what a .38 Special or 9mm will do at the muzzle. With a 125 yard zero (which is what Jacob and Samuel recommended), it drops about two feet at 200 yards.
These are truly pitiful ballistics by modern standards. There was an awareness already by the mid 19th century that we had to do, and could do, much better. I believe the term "point blank range" must have been coined during the round ball era, as its reduction in effectiveness as range increases is just so stark. Hunters must have pined for something better, and no small effort was put into developing just that.
So, today, in our "modern" era, it's not uncommon even in muzzle loading circles to deride the effectiveness of the round ball, and to label those who would continue to use it when "better" options exist as being somewhat "irresponsible". We are told that back when they were in common use, the attitude towards game was much different than today. Wounding and losing game was simply shrugged off as a part of it. Modern hunting ethos, of course, does not allow for that, and it shouldn't.
There is, of course, another answer to this. I'm reminded of the old adage "get as close as you can, son, then get a little closer". The round ball is, no doubt, effective within its range limitations. We have to know what those are, and accept them. When hunting with my .50 caliber flinter, I endeavored to never shoot past 50 yards. Bow hunters and handgun hunters accept similar range limitations. Anyone seeking to truly emulate our forefathers by way of hunting with muzzle loading rifles should probably do so as well.
Oh, a modern muzzle loader with a scope, loaded with a saboted spitzer bullet and three 50 grain Pyrodex pellets is entirely capable of cleanly taking game at 200 yards. No doubt about it. But claiming "success" as a "muzzle loader hunter" strikes me an awful lot like taking your Singer to a vintage race and claiming "victory"...