Wildrangeringreen
40 Cal
The issue is when people try to enforce a "standard", but that standard isn't really a defined (or definable) standard; and so, oddly enough, it comes out to be identical to their personal preferences. There's a big difference between trying to force everyone to do things your personal way of doing/thinking, and trying to keep a forum roughly on-topic. Most people, particularly those of us under 35, generally view "traditional muzzle loaders" as muzzle loading guns of a type that was around when ML guns were pretty much all there was. Picking and choosing from history and locations and claiming "now this is a trad gun", while stating that a idea or item from somewhere else (not even necessarily from a different time frame) is "not a trad gun", is rather silly.
Unfortunately, I and a great many others have found that this scene (muzzle loading in general) is captivated by very vocal, small elements that Doc White called the "Traditional Extremists" (people obsessed with a couple types of guns built in "America" from 1770-1830, excluding all others; basically: "if you didn't spend $$$$ on a museum-grade forgery of someone else's work, from the Americas, and use American backwoods-style accoutrements, you are less than/should be excluded) and "Modernists (extremists)" (people who refuse to accept that their modern stuff isn't all that more effective than older ML's, and try to convince everyone that our more traditional guns suck; basically, "if you didn't buy the latest $$$$ knight rifle, you're a fool who just bought an inaccurate toy" lol). Most of us, particularly younger people, are somewhere in the middle, but "nobody puts Baby in a corner", and if you want traditional ML'ing to be around in 20 years, you're going to have to accept that, the harder you try to force us into your personal preferences (particularly ones not backed by history), the more people are going to buy into the Modernist's BS about how the old-style guns just "can't get it done" (which is absolutely not true, the only reason Samuel Baker switched to a breech loader was because he couldn't find reliable gun bearers when pursuing dangerous game, and wanted to be able to reload faster).
Then, as now, the world of Muzzle Loading (especially the "traditional" stuff) is quite broad, and every shooter out there is trying to get the most from their ML (most enjoyment from the sport). When ML's were all that was available, makers tried everything imaginable to "improve" the gun (and sell their "improvements" at a premium), and they basically had it at it's pinnacle by the time breach loaders became more popular (late 1860's, early 70's). You can't claim to be "traditional", all while disregarding the history of the very thing you are doing "traditionally".
Unfortunately, I and a great many others have found that this scene (muzzle loading in general) is captivated by very vocal, small elements that Doc White called the "Traditional Extremists" (people obsessed with a couple types of guns built in "America" from 1770-1830, excluding all others; basically: "if you didn't spend $$$$ on a museum-grade forgery of someone else's work, from the Americas, and use American backwoods-style accoutrements, you are less than/should be excluded) and "Modernists (extremists)" (people who refuse to accept that their modern stuff isn't all that more effective than older ML's, and try to convince everyone that our more traditional guns suck; basically, "if you didn't buy the latest $$$$ knight rifle, you're a fool who just bought an inaccurate toy" lol). Most of us, particularly younger people, are somewhere in the middle, but "nobody puts Baby in a corner", and if you want traditional ML'ing to be around in 20 years, you're going to have to accept that, the harder you try to force us into your personal preferences (particularly ones not backed by history), the more people are going to buy into the Modernist's BS about how the old-style guns just "can't get it done" (which is absolutely not true, the only reason Samuel Baker switched to a breech loader was because he couldn't find reliable gun bearers when pursuing dangerous game, and wanted to be able to reload faster).
Then, as now, the world of Muzzle Loading (especially the "traditional" stuff) is quite broad, and every shooter out there is trying to get the most from their ML (most enjoyment from the sport). When ML's were all that was available, makers tried everything imaginable to "improve" the gun (and sell their "improvements" at a premium), and they basically had it at it's pinnacle by the time breach loaders became more popular (late 1860's, early 70's). You can't claim to be "traditional", all while disregarding the history of the very thing you are doing "traditionally".
Last edited:
