- Joined
- Aug 6, 2005
- Messages
- 7,085
- Reaction score
- 5,379
He was indeed a Scot.that name sounds a lot like a SCOTSCH ONE to me?
He was indeed a Scot.that name sounds a lot like a SCOTSCH ONE to me?
Yes we do. A definition is absolutely required. There are already folks who want to circumvent that rule!Good grief! We’re sounding like a bunch of lawyers!
Do we really have to define what a breechloader is? Do we understand what is meant by “antique muzzleloader”? It just doesn’t sound that complicated.
Notchy Bob
That has already been covered in the general forum rules, #7 and #8.Yes we do. A definition is absolutely required. There are already folks who want to circumvent that rule!
Walk
My point exactly.That has already been covered in the general forum rules, #6 and #7.
Best answer yet, much better than mine!There is also the issue of lots of antique muzzle loading rifles that nobody can say for sure what year it was built. I see no point in being hung up on a certain timeline, as long as the spirit of the forum is respected.
As my friends have pointed out, we have established forum rules. You can find them right here: Forum Rules
Existing rules still apply:
1: The focus of this site is "Traditional Muzzleloading"; The history of muzzleloading weapons and battles, up to and including the American Civil War. (From the inception of firearms through 1865)
-and-
7: We do not discuss modern (in-line) muzzleloading firearms.
Early historic breech loading guns that do not use primed metallic or semi-metallic cartridges and meet the requirements of rule #1 are permitted for discussion.
See special rules at the bottom for posts about breech loading firearms.
8: Although not muzzleloaders, we do allow discussions of percussion revolvers.
9: We do not discuss copper and/or jacketed, plastic/polymer tipped bullets, sabots, power belts, or other 'plastic-wrapped' bullets. Smoothbores using plastic wads and steel shot are an exception to this rule.
10: We do not discuss conversion cylinders or anything to do with metal cartridges.
The "Special Rules" mentioned in #7 are these:
POSTS FOR BREECH LOADING GUNS:
Ӣ The firearm must have been made prior to 1865. Replicas of these guns are also acceptable.
Ӣ The firearm must utilize an ignition system which is separate from any form or type of cartridge that may have been used to seal the breech or load the powder or the projectile.
The "cartridge" may incorporate a pan or similar device to hold priming powder.
Ӣ Vent ignited guns, Matchlocks, Wheel-locks, any form of Flintlock and its predecessors, Percussion cap and its predecessors are all acceptable for discussion.
Ӣ Discussion of needle guns, pinfire, rim fire, center fire and any similar cartridges containing priming devices or the firearms that use them is not permitted.
Ӣ Posts may be made in a suitable section such as, smoothbore, cannon, handgun, flintlock rifle or percussion rifle, based on the type of gun.
Posts in the General Muzzleloading section is recommended.
_________________
A new forum, dedicated to antique muzzleloaders, is not intended to "open up" or relax any of the existing rules. The only salient change I can see to the existing rules would be deletion of the statement about replicas. A new "Antiques" forum would be for the folks who would like to present, view, or discuss old, original muzzleloaders without needing to wade through posts about modern production and reproduction guns. Respectfully, the topic of breechloaders did not need to be introduced into our current discussion... They are already prohibited. Any discussion of breechloaders would be a non-starter anywhere on the Muzzleloading Forum, and a new section dedicated to antiques would not change that. If a gun is allowed on the Muzzleloading Forum now, and it is a genuine antique from 1865 or earlier, it would be allowed in the "Antiques" section. If a gun is not allowed on the Muzzleloading Forum now, it would not be allowed in the "Antiques" section regardless of its age. If there is any question about a gun's appropriateness for an Antiques forum, it can still be posted and discussed elsewhere on the board (e.g. Flintlock Rifles, Percussion Rifles, General Muzzleloading, etc.)
The moderators on this forum have a big job, and they do it well. However, they are realistic, and I don't necessarily see them as hair-splitters. As an example, forum rule #3 says Posts must be in English. I've seen several posts written in other languages, usually in the "New Member" section. Nobody has a conniption about it. If somebody wants to post about a gun that is obviously an antique and meets all of the other criteria, but its actual date of manufacture is not known, I would have no problem with seeing it on the antiques forum.
I hope we can get the new Antiques forum off the table and online soon, and start seeing some more of those old-timers coming out of the cabinets!
Respectfully,
Notchy Bob
Meriwether,
I’ve been a moderator on other forums and I don’t envy you your job at all.
I originally opted for a later date but have come to like 1865.
Keep up the good work.
I am much in agreement as I have an1853 cape rifle by EM Reilly percussion of course. But if you google Reilly you will find much of his records and around 1865 he started making cartridge rifles , my cape rifle is listed.I have always maintained that 1860-65 is a safe cut off time for antique firearms in a muzzle loading forum, raising it to 1899 will surely cause problems it will open the door to breech loaders for which they are also classed has antique
Has the date at present is 1865 there were some breech loaders built prior to that date such has pinfire and underlever hammer guns, but they were not allowed in any forums so this rule should along with repros still stand
Feltwad
But that could include 1885 7.5-55 Swiss martini target rifles. And a whole bag of other modern type guns. We could say only Damascus barrels Or antique muzzle loaders. We cannot say BP only as cartridge double rifles came out around 1885. I would prefer to dump antique andMy vote goes for 1899 to include the muzzleloading target rifles.
That was interesting thanks for publishing it. So why do we even need “antiques”. Interesting thoughAs my friends have pointed out, we have established forum rules. You can find them right here: Forum Rules
Existing rules still apply:
1: The focus of this site is "Traditional Muzzleloading"; The history of muzzleloading weapons and battles, up to and including the American Civil War. (From the inception of firearms through 1865)
-and-
7: We do not discuss modern (in-line) muzzleloading firearms.
Early historic breech loading guns that do not use primed metallic or semi-metallic cartridges and meet the requirements of rule #1 are permitted for discussion.
See special rules at the bottom for posts about breech loading firearms.
8: Although not muzzleloaders, we do allow discussions of percussion revolvers.
9: We do not discuss copper and/or jacketed, plastic/polymer tipped bullets, sabots, power belts, or other 'plastic-wrapped' bullets. Smoothbores using plastic wads and steel shot are an exception to this rule.
10: We do not discuss conversion cylinders or anything to do with metal cartridges.
The "Special Rules" mentioned in #7 are these:
POSTS FOR BREECH LOADING GUNS:
Ӣ The firearm must have been made prior to 1865. Replicas of these guns are also acceptable.
Ӣ The firearm must utilize an ignition system which is separate from any form or type of cartridge that may have been used to seal the breech or load the powder or the projectile.
The "cartridge" may incorporate a pan or similar device to hold priming powder.
Ӣ Vent ignited guns, Matchlocks, Wheel-locks, any form of Flintlock and its predecessors, Percussion cap and its predecessors are all acceptable for discussion.
Ӣ Discussion of needle guns, pinfire, rim fire, center fire and any similar cartridges containing priming devices or the firearms that use them is not permitted.
Ӣ Posts may be made in a suitable section such as, smoothbore, cannon, handgun, flintlock rifle or percussion rifle, based on the type of gun.
Posts in the General Muzzleloading section is recommended.
_________________
A new forum, dedicated to antique muzzleloaders, is not intended to "open up" or relax any of the existing rules. The only salient change I can see to the existing rules would be deletion of the statement about replicas. A new "Antiques" forum would be for the folks who would like to present, view, or discuss old, original muzzleloaders without needing to wade through posts about modern production and reproduction guns. Respectfully, the topic of breechloaders did not need to be introduced into our current discussion... They are already prohibited. Any discussion of breechloaders would be a non-starter anywhere on the Muzzleloading Forum, and a new section dedicated to antiques would not change that. If a gun is allowed on the Muzzleloading Forum now, and it is a genuine antique from 1865 or earlier, it would be allowed in the "Antiques" section. If a gun is not allowed on the Muzzleloading Forum now, it would not be allowed in the "Antiques" section regardless of its age. If there is any question about a gun's appropriateness for an Antiques forum, it can still be posted and discussed elsewhere on the board (e.g. Flintlock Rifles, Percussion Rifles, General Muzzleloading, etc.)
The moderators on this forum have a big job, and they do it well. However, they are realistic, and I don't necessarily see them as hair-splitters. As an example, forum rule #3 says Posts must be in English. I've seen several posts written in other languages, usually in the "New Member" section. Nobody has a conniption about it. If somebody wants to post about a gun that is obviously an antique and meets all of the other criteria, but its actual date of manufacture is not known, I would have no problem with seeing it on the antiques forum.
I hope we can get the new Antiques forum off the table and online soon, and start seeing some more of those old-timers coming out of the cabinets!
Respectfully,
Notchy Bob
But that could include 1885 7.5-55 Swiss martini target rifles.
That was interesting thanks for publishing it. So why do we even need “antiques”. Interesting though
Enter your email address to join: