First in-line system?

[Egil]

Hi. :hatsoff:

On the one of the shooting forums I've recently found something strange (at least for me):





The only mark is "Billinghurst" on the scope. There is also a false muzzle to it.

Would it be possible that it is one of the first in-line rifles, made in XIX century?

Have you ever seen something like this?
(on the photo main spring is disconnected with the cock).

 

[WV MZL HUNTER]

Well you got my attention. :thumbsup:
Good looking gun :hatsoff:

 

[musketman]

I believe it is a target or parlor rifle, does it have a deep curved butt plate?

 

[Mulebrain]

Here is the link to an extensive thread on the same rifle!
http://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/fusionbb/showtopic.php?tid/222125/

 

[paulvallandigham]

It may be an early In-L*%* percussion rifle, but there were In-L*%* flintlocks centuries before.

Billinghurst is most know for his underhammer rifles.

 

[ohio ramrod]

I recall reading about and seeing pictures of a double barreled flitlock that had the cock and frizzen in the center between the barrels. and with pans for both barrels. And a sliding pan cover that would slide from one pan to the other to determine which barrel would fire. Since the pan and flash holes were at the back of the barrel it would have qualified as an in line.I wish I had saved that magazine article. I believe it was in either muzzle blasts or muzzle loader about twenty years or so back.

 

[paulvallandigham]

Someone here posted a picture from a museum in Europe of a single barrel smoothbore, with the flintlock hammer in the center of the gun. The pan was behind the breechplug, with an angled hole leading to the barrel drilled in the bottom of the pan. I believe it would have fired like a cannon, with the fuse effect, because of the need to have powder in the pan, to ignite, but which would of necessity cover up the vent hole. The vent then would be filled with priming powder, like a cannon, and the entire priming powder in the pan AND in the flash channel would have to burn before igniting the powder in the chamber. The gun pictured appeared to have never been fired, BTW. But it was a pretty piece, with engraving, and gold and silver inlays.

 

[dyemaker]

William Billinghurst also made a machine gun type contraption and a revolving rifle... and nice fly reels too! He made several experimental arms from what I was told. The man was creative. Alot of things were invented way before they were commonly used. Breechloaders go way back too but were mostly cannon experiments with little success.

Heres a link to some of his fly reels. Unrelated but interesting

Link

 

[bingo1952]

It may be an early In-L*%* percussion rifle, but there were In-L*%* flintlocks centuries before.

Billinghurst is most know for his underhammer rifles.

I don't have a problem with the In-*/$& as a system. The problem I have with them is when they are styled like a modern bolt action and sport high magnification optics. that one is a nice looking rifle.

 

[zimmerstutzen]

There have been other in-line designs throughout firearms history. The bolt action was originally invented in the late 1820's and in the early 1830's. It was applied to caseless cartridges for needle fire by an Englishman annd then adapted by another gunsmith named Dreyse and adopted by the Prussian Army in 1848. The jump past percussion from the 1820's to needle fire was to accomodate breech loading and rapid firepower.

There was an article in Muzzle Blasts back around 1978 to 1982 about a skeleton butt stock muzzleloader of unknown origination that used a striker that slid forward to hit a percussion cap at the barrel breech face. the gun was quite crude and looked like a home shop amateur product. In a way the early Colt Paterson was a type of box lock in line system.

I have an original Wurfflein in-line made in Philadelphia in the 1860's, that has double set triggers. Just like a single shot shotgun that has a box lock hammer to strike a firing pin that in turn strikes the primer, this has a box lock hammer that strikes a long rod that slides forward and in turn stikes a percussion cap screwed right into the brecch of the bore. access the the nipple is through a hollow in the bottom of the barrel shell. The gun is a "zimmerstutzen." in 28 caliber with what appears to be rachet style rifling.

It sort of depends on your definition of inline. does the nipple need to be in the breech of the barrel or does it involve a striker like a firing pin that slides back and forth in line with the bore.

I also have an inline built in the mid or late 1960's by a gunsmith in Annapolis Maryland. It uses a 22 rimfire single shot style bolt with a knob that is pulled back to cock the bolt.

I have another inline, a 32, that looks just like a single shot 22 rim fire rifle. Instead of a rim fire firing pin, it has a big round slightly hollowed end that strikes the percussion cap. The breech looks just like somebody threaded a nipple where the chamber should be. It was made in Spain in the early 1980's. even has the grooves on the reciever for a 22 rim fire scope.

To some folks the early Maynard break open rifles were, in line. They used a box lock hammer to strike a percussion cap on a nipple that was in line with the bore. Just that they had a breech loaded cartridgee with a hole where the centerfire primer would other wise be. They were civil war era. During the transition from trraditional side lock Muzzleloaders to centerfire cartridge guns, there were probably hundreds of designs for the newer, faster, and allegedly better firearms.

 

[CoyoteJoe]

OK I have to confess, I invented the modern inline muzzleloader.
It was 1971 and a good friend wanted a muzzleloader to hunt with but lacked funds to buy one. I picked up a Stevens bolt action .22 singleshot rifle at a gun show for $15 and got a Numrich .50 caliber 32" barrel for $19.95. I was a student in a machinist school at the time so I took the Stevens barrel to school and cut it 5/8" ahead of the receiver and threaded that stub to serve as a breechplug for the .50 caliber barrel. I routed the Stevens stock to accept the octagon barrel and ramrod, mounted the Stevens sights on it, added one ramrod thimble directly to the bottom of the barrel and viola, we had an inline muzzleloader. We would pull the bullet from a .22 longrifle case and load the case into the .22 chamber, then load the .50 caliber with powder and patched ball. The .22 case served as the primer for the main charge and the durn thing shot very well. My friend moved away a couple of years later and I lost touch with him but the last I heard he was still hunting with that rifle and had taken several deer with it. :haha: :redface: :redface:

 

[paulvallandigham]

And, here I thought I had " invented" the modern In-line action when I made a zip gun out of a kids toy cap pistol, lining the "barrel" portion of the casting with a piece of car, radio antennae, taped into the casting, and then the two halves of the casting taped shut with electricians tape. Since the mainspring was broken, we commandeered some rubber bands to serve the purpose. I drilled the face of the hammer to put a cut off piece of carpenter's nail in it, and filed it to a single edge to serve as a firing pin. The gun shot .22 cartridges very well. We didn't have black powder on hand back then, or the gun would have easily been made into a BP in-liner. But what do you expect from an 8 year old kid???

These home-made "guns" were referred to in the press as " zip guns", and that is what I call these modern immitations today, also. I also don't disagree with the concept. I do disagree with allowing them to use modern components, and scope sights on the guns to give shooters an advantage over traditional side lock shooters in the deer seasons we lobbied to get for tradtional firearms hunting.

 

[doublesnider]

Hi,
I have digging old patents for a wile and I have found some interesting things.
How old is Mr Knight?
Could it be that he have an old patent for an InliXe? :grin:

There is an older patent about puting the nipple at the breech in line with the barrel axis too.

Martin

 

[paulvallandigham]

Patents are good only for 21 years, per Federal Law. Its highly irrelevant how old the inventor is, or would be. Virtually all the patents that Bill Ruger, for example, obtained on his designs have run out, or will in the next decade. The patent on the Colt Model 1911 and the AR-15 ran out years ago. That is how so many other companies are now in the business of making similar guns. Historically, Smith and Wesson had to wait for the Colt patent on revolvers to expire before coming out with their cartridge revolver in 1857. ( Colt's patent was issued in October, 1836, 7 months after the fall of the Alamo.)

A patent is a government granted monopoly given to the patent holder for a limited time, as a reward for making the nature of his invention public. The purpose was to encourage inventors to Invent new solutions to problems, and to thereby encourage commerce. The idea of a Patent is at the heart of our Capitalist system of commerce. Congress is invested with the power to regulate the issuance of patents, in the Constitution of the United States of 1787.

 

[Egil]

Paulvallandigham thanks for interesting lecture about US Patent Law.

Imagine folks, that according to weapon regulations of some European countries, muzzleloaders are divided for "historical" (include originals and replicas)and "modern". These "modern" muzzleloaders are in-line constructions and kind of gun license is needed to buy them.

In the light of facts showed above in-lines are also "historical" and people who passed this bill were as thick as a brick. :grin:

Could you place more photos and pictures showed in-lines constructed in XIXth century and before?
Please!

 

Paulvallandigham thanks for interesting lecture about US Patent Law.

Imagine folks, that according to weapon regulations of some European countries, muzzleloaders are divided for "historical" (include originals and replicas)and "modern". These "modern" muzzleloaders are in-line constructions and kind of gun license is needed to buy them.

In the light of facts showed above in-lines are also "historical" and people who passed this bill were as thick as a brick. :grin:

That's a good law. There is nothing "historic" about the modern in-lines and we don't discuss them here.

 

[tg]

" There is nothing "historic" about the modern in-lines and we don't discuss them here."

True, and the ame can be sxaid for modern design bulets and peep sights except we can talk about them
, likely because to eliminate them from the forums list of does and don't would cut the membership considerably, a great number of people use modern bullets and sights and call the traditional due to the fact that something "sim ilar" was used in the past, this weak line of definition/acceptance does not extend to the guns however, probably a bit confussing to some of the new ML hunters/shooters.

 

[Egil]

That's a good law. There is nothing "historic" about the modern in-lines and we don't discuss them here.

Firstly, the law is idiotic. Lots of modern inlines work on the same principles as the ancient ones. They are muzzleloaders with a nipple
in the axis of the barrel, cups are fired by outside hammer. So, these guns should be treated like other replicas.

Secondly, I have no intention to discuss modern inlines. If you read my post to the end you would find that I asked about pics and info of ancient rifles.Can you help me or you simply like talking nineteen to the dozen?

 

That's a good law. There is nothing "historic" about the modern in-lines and we don't discuss them here.

Firstly, the law is idiotic. Lots of modern inlines work on the same principles as the ancient ones. They are muzzleloaders with a nipple
in the axis of the barrel, cups are fired by outside hammer. So, these guns should be treated like other replicas.

Modern in-lines are not replicas. You may treat them as you wish, you just can't do it here. :haha:

 

[Dphar]

Hi. :hatsoff:

On the one of the shooting forums I've recently found something strange (at least for me):





The only mark is "Billinghurst" on the scope. There is also a false muzzle to it.

Would it be possible that it is one of the first in-line rifles, made in XIX century?

Have you ever seen something like this?
(on the photo main spring is disconnected with the cock).

First this rifle is not a true "inline". It has a hammer.
Second true inlines be they made in the 17th-19th century were not TYPICAL OF THE ERA.
They were impractical, especially for the flintlocks. The European versions were generally one offs made to sell to Royalty OR as "bragging right" pieces by masters or journeymen wanting to be masters in the Guild.
Most are impractical.
The rifle pictured here is going to be hard to clean compared to a typical of the era rifle circa 1840.
Its more difficult to use, its more difficult to cap. The working parts are more likely to get gummed up since they are exposed. Its a failed design surely used as a match rifle probably in an attempt the get more accuracy by experimenting with how the powder was ignited. If it worked the target shooters of the mid-late 19th century would have adopted it. That they did not means it did not work all that well.

The rule for not discussing modern MLs here is a good one. These are made simply to sell to people with no real interest in MLs or history. They give the modern hunter something he can use in a "ML" season that looks more like his 270 than a typical of the era ML.
If you feel compelled to discuss "inlines" there are several websites that specialize in "high performance muzzleloaders" where it this is done.
Here we try to stay with traditional, typical of the era, MLs. I see no problem with a passing discussion of oddball *historical* ML firearms. But the existence of these one offs and oddballs does not require us to allow threads on modern inlines, shotgun primers, sabots etc. All attempts to link the modern ML with these historical MLing odd balls is simply wishful thinking on the part of the proponents of the "modern MLs". They were never in general use as much as the "high performance" ML crowd would like them to seem to be.

Dan