Trying to stay out of trouble, here!

Danny Ray Milligan said:

Really have no intention of pushing any boundaries, but was trying to find out what they are, lol!

Click to expand...

Trigger said:

Is more a historic reenacting group.

I'm a modern person and I'm not reenacting. I'm not the only one.

You might not find much here.

Your not a troll no.. but you are a younge adult that might need to learn.

It's not easy to get banned here. You've been told that.

Click to expand...

Loyalist Dave said:

Good Morning Danny, thanks for asking.

YES your inline is a "muzzleloader" by legal definition in most if not all states. It is NOT a "traditional muzzleloader" by definition here. (Another interesting side topic..., all of what we classify here as "traditional" muzzleloading firearms are considered "antiques in most states, but that is based on their design being "copied" from an actual antique. I can't begin to tell you how many guys pull the 209 primer from their inlines in my state and drive home thinking they are in compliance with Maryland law, when Maryland Law does not -or didn't until recently- recognize an inline as an antique muzzleloader. So it was supposed to be fully unloaded when placed into the car and driven on the highway.)

The discussion cutoff date is 1865, not pre-1865, PLUS the ignition for the firearm must be from a an exterior source, not an internal primer from a cartridge. So certain breech loaders that load a cartridge BUT use an external cap, i.e. the [original] Sharps, The Burnside carbine, The Gallagher carbine, The Hall rifle, The Smith carbine, The Ferguson rifle, are all open for discussion, but the Spencer and the Henry, made for rimfire cartridges or modern cartridges today, are not, and neither are inline rifles.

We also don't discuss converted rifles like a Snider converted Enfield, etc.

The cap-n-ball revolvers are one of the minor exceptions to the overall rule. However, one may find SA Army 1873 revolvers, made with cap-n-ball cylinders to get around some European laws, and these, although cap-n-ball, are too modern of a design (1873)

You may discuss making of caps, and molding bullets, but may not discuss sabot ammunition nor jacketed bullets, nor may these be offered for sale in Classified ads, nor may the sale of black powder or caps be done (including "throwing them in to sweeten a sale").

OF course what you discuss with another member via PM is your business

Mostly this is for liability. The admin does not wish for the forum to become embroiled in some case where a prohibited adult person, or minor, got hold of a converted to modern use firearm, or blew themselves or others up, based on openly shared information gleaned from this site. There are plenty of other sites out there that have this information, let them deal with such risks.

LD

Click to expand...

Danny Ray Milligan said:

Thank you for the "young adult" remark, although I doubt you'd get my 7 grandchildren to go along with that, lol!

Click to expand...

Danny Ray Milligan said:

Just signed up, and read through the rules list. Most of them are common sense and self-explanatory, but there are a few that I have questions about, mainly so I don't get in trouble with the moderators.

My understanding of the term Muzzle Loader means a weapon based upon antique firearms, pre-1865, where you have to push a powder charge, wad, and bullet down the barrel, then load a primer or cap that can be ignited by the hammer.
What exactly constitutes an "in-line"? I have two Tradition buckstalkers that are break-barrel with 209 breech-loaders, are these, or are they NOT... muzzle loaders? I have to muscle a charge, wad and ball down the muzzle to load it, what is changed that makes such a thing "not a muzzle loader"?

I also noted that civil war era revolvers (such as my CVA 1858 Army) are not considered actual muzzle loaders, but are permitted to be discussed. I presume this is because most of them have a built-in ramrod under the barrel that loads each chamber of the cylinder. My response would be that, theoretically, you can still muzzle load each chamber, even though that would seem to be defeating the purpose of the built-in ramrod, wouldn't it? If you so wished, you could shove a charge, wad, and bullet down the barrel with a separate ramrod, then rotate the cylinder so that you can access the next empty chamber, right?

I note that discussion of making explosive devices is prohibited, as is manufacture of black powder. Does this include the discussion of molding your own bullets, fabricating or reloading your own percussion caps to overcome the current and chronic shortage of available caps like #10 or #11 caps in the marketplace?

Again, these are just honest questions, so the moderators won't see a necessity to take me out to the woodshed for crossing into a topic that I wasn't aware was forbidden.

Final question: is discussion and advice about building your own muzzle loader (whether from a kit or from scratch) a permitted topic?

Thanks guys, with an apology in advance if I ruffled any feathers with these questions...

-Danny

Click to expand...

Danny Ray Milligan said:

I already said I wasn't trolling, nor was I being condescending or snotty. I said that apparently a muzzle loader could fit perfectly into the definition, but if it didn't look exactly like the ones from 170 years ago, then somehow it wasn't a real muzzle loader. As I said, I could take an authentic antique flintlock actually MADE in the 1850's, and glue pieces to it to make it look like a space gun from the movies, and everyone would act like I just desecrated the flag or something.
Let's put it this way: if I paid $20,000 for an original ML from 1835, and then strapped a scope on it, how many of you would fall out of your tree and demand that I get banned???

Click to expand...

Loyalist Dave said:

NOBODY....,
In the first place it's your property.
Yes, there are a few who for some reason assume that optics are banned, but this is not so. Not to mention that a telescopic sight with cross hairs was invented in 1776..., YES 1776, and here in America, but the maker didn't understand optics well enough to have enough space between the aperture and the shooter's eye, and thus the inventor got a LOT of black eyes and dropped the project...,
You will note NOTHING in the rules concerning optics being prohibited. In fact these days it would be foolish as sooo many of our membership have aging eyes.

LD

Click to expand...

Ponderosaman said:

Welcome to the forum Danny. For the record, I didn’t read your responses as trolling. Settle in, find yourself a beverage of your choice and enjoy yourself.

Click to expand...

Trigger said:

There's a difference between scopes.

They had them yea.. the length of the gun..

Like yea that's a weird one.. it's not a modern scope.

Leopold on tc hawken is not.. look at one that looks normal.

Modern telescope

Click to expand...

Trigger said:

There's a difference between scopes.

They had them yea.. the length of the gun..

Like yea that's a weird one.. it's not a modern scope.

Leopold on tc hawken is not.. look at one that looks normal.

Modern telescope

Click to expand...