-
Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.
We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.
Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103
December Muzzleblasts
- Thread starter roundball
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
- Status
"Page 42 - "Longhunter Field Report"
Seven entries & photos:
Six = scoped inlines
One = TC Hawken "
______________________________________________________________
That DOES sound like a great conspiracy!! :curse:
I can see them now, looking at all of those photos of hunters with their Flintlocks and Sidelocks and throwing them on the floor and grinding them into pieces under the heels of their shoes!
Amazing that one TC Hawken got thru to the publishing house! :shocking:
Or......could it be.....that they didn't have over one picture which shows a sidelock gun? ::
Could it be that it was mainly hunters with scoped rifles that had the audacity to send their pictures into the NMLRA? ::
I know of a number of members on this forum who would be Dammed if THEY would send the traitors who publish "that rag" ANYTHING (except their resignation).
Of course that line of thinking doesn't get any Traditional Sidelock guns pictures published in the Hunting Section.
Yes, perhaps it would have been better for the magazine to just not show any pictures and only mention the hunters success (without divulging the type of rifles used) but then the NMLRA could be accused of a "cover up".
How about just not printing the whole section dealing with hunting? For the most part, that is the only place the magazine evens mentions the In-Line type guns. ::
Well, that would also go against part of their Mission Statement which says in part:
"...in the sport of muzzleloading through recreational, educational, historical, and cultural venues such as match competition, hunting, gun making and safety..."
It also goes against their Platform Statement #3 which says
"The recognition and support for the continuing and growing interest in the added challenge of hunting with muzzleloading firearm."
I guess their between a rock and a hard spot.
Seven entries & photos:
Six = scoped inlines
One = TC Hawken "
______________________________________________________________
That DOES sound like a great conspiracy!! :curse:
I can see them now, looking at all of those photos of hunters with their Flintlocks and Sidelocks and throwing them on the floor and grinding them into pieces under the heels of their shoes!
Amazing that one TC Hawken got thru to the publishing house! :shocking:
Or......could it be.....that they didn't have over one picture which shows a sidelock gun? ::
Could it be that it was mainly hunters with scoped rifles that had the audacity to send their pictures into the NMLRA? ::
I know of a number of members on this forum who would be Dammed if THEY would send the traitors who publish "that rag" ANYTHING (except their resignation).
Of course that line of thinking doesn't get any Traditional Sidelock guns pictures published in the Hunting Section.
Yes, perhaps it would have been better for the magazine to just not show any pictures and only mention the hunters success (without divulging the type of rifles used) but then the NMLRA could be accused of a "cover up".
How about just not printing the whole section dealing with hunting? For the most part, that is the only place the magazine evens mentions the In-Line type guns. ::
Well, that would also go against part of their Mission Statement which says in part:
"...in the sport of muzzleloading through recreational, educational, historical, and cultural venues such as match competition, hunting, gun making and safety..."
It also goes against their Platform Statement #3 which says
"The recognition and support for the continuing and growing interest in the added challenge of hunting with muzzleloading firearm."
I guess their between a rock and a hard spot.
Zonie, I simply posted what appears in their magazine that struck me as a concise way to sum up what many here have been saying...it is not anecdotal, it is not emotional, it is simply their own facts published in their own magazine.
I thought in a single stroke it very neatly summed up everything that's been thrashed about here lately, leaving nothing open to further speculation or arguement.
""LongHunter"" entries were 85% scoped inlines.
eace:
I thought in a single stroke it very neatly summed up everything that's been thrashed about here lately, leaving nothing open to further speculation or arguement.
""LongHunter"" entries were 85% scoped inlines.
eace:I doubt there is any way the membership of the NMLRA can control what goes into Muzzle Blast. I believe this is where big business takes over. You'll also note on page 43/44 the glorification of another modern firearm. (Muzzleloading Afield)
Here lately I have been on a rollercoaster of ups and downs, whether or not to remain with the NMLRA, or leave the NMLRA?
I am a member of the Unitied Nebraska Muzzleloading Association and as such recieve a quarterly from Powder Horn Press... No modern manure in this publication, only indorsements of traditionalism.
I really can not see throwing support to an Indiana organization any longer when I have what I want in my own back yard, and can also control what traditional muzzleloading is, and was meant to be, as the Muzzleloading Director of NNSA.
Muzzleloader Magazine, along with Buckskinner Magazine, will keep me up to date on the "National" traditional muzzleloading scene. I couple these two with NNSA, and UNMLA, I really can't see where the NMLRA is a worthwhile venture in the history of traditional muzzleloading any longer.
My membership in the NMLRA expires in March 2005... I expect at this point it will not be renewed. Time to throw additional support to the traditional home folks as I see it...
Here lately I have been on a rollercoaster of ups and downs, whether or not to remain with the NMLRA, or leave the NMLRA?
I am a member of the Unitied Nebraska Muzzleloading Association and as such recieve a quarterly from Powder Horn Press... No modern manure in this publication, only indorsements of traditionalism.
I really can not see throwing support to an Indiana organization any longer when I have what I want in my own back yard, and can also control what traditional muzzleloading is, and was meant to be, as the Muzzleloading Director of NNSA.
Muzzleloader Magazine, along with Buckskinner Magazine, will keep me up to date on the "National" traditional muzzleloading scene. I couple these two with NNSA, and UNMLA, I really can't see where the NMLRA is a worthwhile venture in the history of traditional muzzleloading any longer.
My membership in the NMLRA expires in March 2005... I expect at this point it will not be renewed. Time to throw additional support to the traditional home folks as I see it...
It is little wonder why in a single year the NMLRA lost 10k members.
Personally I'd rather see the Longhunter reports made into a bi-monthly feature. This would leave more space for articles appealling to the traditional folks. But hey, I'm not the editor.
Personally I'd rather see the Longhunter reports made into a bi-monthly feature. This would leave more space for articles appealling to the traditional folks. But hey, I'm not the editor.
Saw that too...it's a shame they didn't have the foresight to organize themselves in a way that would have created a separate "Inline Division" within the nmlra, which could have preserved the traditional side, and allowed a modern inline side to grow...might have been the best of both worlds.
And while we're on this, I really want to be clear about something...I have no problems with inlines as such...my concern is the mentality and hype that they're like any other muzzleloader, no different than traditional muzzleloaders from our country's "real muzzleloading era".
In fact, my own introduction to "muzzleloading" was exactly as that paragraph reads...with one of Knight's new .50cal MK85's in the late 80's...slapped a nice Leupold scope on it...took some deer with it, a couple close to 200 yds over a bean field...thought, wow, I'm a "muzzleloading enthusiast" but soon realized it was like shooting a Remington 700/.30-06, and that I really didn't know anything about "real muzzleloading" at all.
So the MK-85 has laid oiled in it's case for a number of years now as I've gone backwards through technology to side lock percussions, then finally to flintlocks...and even at that, I know TC Hawkens are not true replicas, but I'm a lot closer to what's meant by "real muzzleloading" today than I was when I got that MK85 15 years ago.
If the nmlra is concerned about declining membership, seems like it would be simple enough to reorganize, set up separate divisions, separate record books, separate activities, etc...but since that idea is so obvious, it surely has been thought of and apparently rejected by now.
And while we're on this, I really want to be clear about something...I have no problems with inlines as such...my concern is the mentality and hype that they're like any other muzzleloader, no different than traditional muzzleloaders from our country's "real muzzleloading era".
In fact, my own introduction to "muzzleloading" was exactly as that paragraph reads...with one of Knight's new .50cal MK85's in the late 80's...slapped a nice Leupold scope on it...took some deer with it, a couple close to 200 yds over a bean field...thought, wow, I'm a "muzzleloading enthusiast" but soon realized it was like shooting a Remington 700/.30-06, and that I really didn't know anything about "real muzzleloading" at all.
So the MK-85 has laid oiled in it's case for a number of years now as I've gone backwards through technology to side lock percussions, then finally to flintlocks...and even at that, I know TC Hawkens are not true replicas, but I'm a lot closer to what's meant by "real muzzleloading" today than I was when I got that MK85 15 years ago.
If the nmlra is concerned about declining membership, seems like it would be simple enough to reorganize, set up separate divisions, separate record books, separate activities, etc...but since that idea is so obvious, it surely has been thought of and apparently rejected by now.
I just sent the following to Eric Bye, editor of Muzzle Blasts:
Eric,
What is happening with the NMLRA and Muzzle Blasts? In the first paragraph on page 43 of the December'04 issue I read:
" . . . a muzzleloader of such revolutionary design that it would quickly rekindle America's love with muzzleloading and nearly eclipse the sidelock replicas popular on the market at the time."
I don't want revolutionary in my muzzleloading, and I don't think I am alone in that. I want tradition, historical integrity, beauty. The things that make muzzleloaders attractive to many is that they are primitive and challenging. Everything I need to be happy with in the designs of a muzzleloader was invented more than 180 years ago.
I am disappointed to see the Longhunter Society allowing, even embracing, scoped rifles shooting conical projectiles. Who cares if some hunter takes game with a centerfire but caseless modern rifle that happens to be loaded from the muzzle and firing jacketed projectiles. I'm more impressed with the hunters who overcome adversity with inefficient, old technology. Kind of like the longhunters the Society is named for actually used.
The Muzzle Blasts mission statement includes: "Material content of the publication relates only to the muzzleloading firearms, accoutrements, and historical data of that particular period." What "period" are in-lines with fiber-optic sights, variable scopes or synthetic stocks from in our history? Please review our mission statement, and motives.
May I point out the platform that our organizations is "dedicated to" has been undermined.
The NMLRA Platform lists as the #1 plank: "The understanding of, and ability in, marksmanship with early American muzzleloading firearms." I think we've lost touch with the concept of "early" as incorporated into that statement.
Or #3 plank: "The recognition and support for the continuing and growing interest in the added challenge of hunting with a muzzleloading firearm." Provided that "challenge" can be reduced with optical sights, waterproof priming enclosures, centerfire style primers and modern conical or even saboted projectiles. I suspect the appeal of modern muzzloaders is less challenge and more an effort to maximize performance while still sneaking under the muzzleloading requirements for an additional season without taking on the intended challenge. Their only self-imposed challenge is being limited to a single shot. That should be the goal with ANY hunting weapon, muzzleloader or no.
I am disappointed in that a voice as large and organized as the NMLRA could be swaying manufacturers to provide muzzleloaders which represent early American greatness, and not modern "revolutionary" weapons.
Charlie "Stumpkiller" Pearsall
Member #123708 (#43106 originally)
Eric,
What is happening with the NMLRA and Muzzle Blasts? In the first paragraph on page 43 of the December'04 issue I read:
" . . . a muzzleloader of such revolutionary design that it would quickly rekindle America's love with muzzleloading and nearly eclipse the sidelock replicas popular on the market at the time."
I don't want revolutionary in my muzzleloading, and I don't think I am alone in that. I want tradition, historical integrity, beauty. The things that make muzzleloaders attractive to many is that they are primitive and challenging. Everything I need to be happy with in the designs of a muzzleloader was invented more than 180 years ago.
I am disappointed to see the Longhunter Society allowing, even embracing, scoped rifles shooting conical projectiles. Who cares if some hunter takes game with a centerfire but caseless modern rifle that happens to be loaded from the muzzle and firing jacketed projectiles. I'm more impressed with the hunters who overcome adversity with inefficient, old technology. Kind of like the longhunters the Society is named for actually used.
The Muzzle Blasts mission statement includes: "Material content of the publication relates only to the muzzleloading firearms, accoutrements, and historical data of that particular period." What "period" are in-lines with fiber-optic sights, variable scopes or synthetic stocks from in our history? Please review our mission statement, and motives.
May I point out the platform that our organizations is "dedicated to" has been undermined.
The NMLRA Platform lists as the #1 plank: "The understanding of, and ability in, marksmanship with early American muzzleloading firearms." I think we've lost touch with the concept of "early" as incorporated into that statement.
Or #3 plank: "The recognition and support for the continuing and growing interest in the added challenge of hunting with a muzzleloading firearm." Provided that "challenge" can be reduced with optical sights, waterproof priming enclosures, centerfire style primers and modern conical or even saboted projectiles. I suspect the appeal of modern muzzloaders is less challenge and more an effort to maximize performance while still sneaking under the muzzleloading requirements for an additional season without taking on the intended challenge. Their only self-imposed challenge is being limited to a single shot. That should be the goal with ANY hunting weapon, muzzleloader or no.
I am disappointed in that a voice as large and organized as the NMLRA could be swaying manufacturers to provide muzzleloaders which represent early American greatness, and not modern "revolutionary" weapons.
Charlie "Stumpkiller" Pearsall
Member #123708 (#43106 originally)
Guest
Stumpkiller,.... Thet was an outstand'n letter!! :thumbsup:
I am really innerested in any reply Eric Bye sends back yore way,.... please keep us posted!!
YMHS
rollingb
I am really innerested in any reply Eric Bye sends back yore way,.... please keep us posted!!
YMHS
rollingb
Sure it can, BOYCOT!!!
Let them know without a doubt this is why you won't renew...
Hit them hard in the pocket, $$$$$ speaks very loud...
Sure, one person can't compete with big advertisements, but 500 members can, 1000 members can, ect...
The more that stand against this, the louder the voice will be...
Very well put, Stumpkiller. Feel free to use my NMLRA Membership Number, (#104277), as an indorsement if you would like on this letter.
May I be so bold as to suggest that anyone else who is a member of the NMLRA and on this Forum, indorse this letter Stumpkiller has written?
May I be so bold as to suggest that anyone else who is a member of the NMLRA and on this Forum, indorse this letter Stumpkiller has written?
Guest
well its kinda late for some of us with memberships a year or more over due. However i would say great letter and let us now what comes back
Then they'll raise their dues in order to make up the lost revenue..... thereby losing more members, then desolving, the those boys up there won't have their "pretty" range to shoot at....
Then Claude's/Our organization takes over and we do it right !!!! Viva La Revolution !!!!
WP
The NMLRA needs to take a hard look at who was shooting in support of the "National Range", and what type of muzzleloading firearms were being used to help fund the building of such a nice range. It was the Traditional Muzzleloading Shooters and Their Traditional Muzzleloading Rifles.
kentucky bucky
45 Cal.
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2004
- Messages
- 586
- Reaction score
- 1
Hey fellers!
Your preachin to the choir boys. I'm sure glad that I stumbled onto this part of the forum. I was close to joining the NMLRA...real close. I've been putting it off for years because I get other mags and I didn't need one more to pile up in the basement. My info was old, and the last Muzzleblasts that I saw was all traditional and historical. What a dissapointment. :curse: Is there a E-mail address or a snail mail address to send my "piece of mind" to? I can't believe they have embraced the "evil inline empire".I'm getting sick to my stomach of SELL,SELL,SELL!!!
Your preachin to the choir boys. I'm sure glad that I stumbled onto this part of the forum. I was close to joining the NMLRA...real close. I've been putting it off for years because I get other mags and I didn't need one more to pile up in the basement. My info was old, and the last Muzzleblasts that I saw was all traditional and historical. What a dissapointment. :curse: Is there a E-mail address or a snail mail address to send my "piece of mind" to? I can't believe they have embraced the "evil inline empire".I'm getting sick to my stomach of SELL,SELL,SELL!!!
[email protected]
This is from the "Letters to the Editor" page. They ask you to include your membership number and e-mail address.
Their website is; www.nmlra.org
There is a feed back section in there somewhere?
They don't seem to want to listen to what members are telling them. Maybe they will listen to potential new members?
In any event, tell them how you feel. I do!
This is from the "Letters to the Editor" page. They ask you to include your membership number and e-mail address.
Their website is; www.nmlra.org
There is a feed back section in there somewhere?
They don't seem to want to listen to what members are telling them. Maybe they will listen to potential new members?
In any event, tell them how you feel. I do!
kentucky bucky
45 Cal.
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2004
- Messages
- 586
- Reaction score
- 1
I just scalded them. :winking:
- Status
