inline flint lock?

[John Taylor]

In 1808, a French gunsmith living and working in England patented a "superior mechanism for the firing of firearms" called, for the lack of a better term, an "in-line" action. The patent is virtually the same as the "new" in-line actions that are on the market. Jean Samuel Pauley, the inventor, actually came up with the mechanism before the percussion cap came into common use. This was a couple of years after the percussion system was invented by the Scottish minister Forsyth. Pauley’s patent uses an in-line striker and many of the other things that so inflame the traditionalist. So the percussion in-line is certainly not new.

IBohemian in-line flintlock action by Stanislaus Paczelt, 1738. All flintlock parts are contained within the enclosed action behind the barrel. The touch-hole fires through the breech plug
more about it

 

[G. W. Gill]

I am reminded of the Hall's breachloader when seeing this. :hmm:

 

[musketman]

Yep, the inline is nothing new, just the materials used have changed...

However, in this day and age I feel they should be called Traditionally Challanged Guns instead of Inlines... :grin:

 

[musketman]

I am reminded of the Hall's breachloader when seeing this. :hmm:

Model 1819, Breach Loader, Total made 19,680

 

Does anyone know where to find a working drawing of an inline flinter?Please, Thanks Lonesome Bob :hmm:

 

I have a few questions:

Did it have a plastic stock?
Was it made out of stainless steel?
Did they load it with black powder substitutes in pellet form?
Did it use 209 shotgun primers?
Did they shoot plastic saboted handgun bullets out of it?
Did they put a 3-9x variable scope and fiber-optic sights on it?

These are usually the things that inflame traditionalists, not the fact that the action is inline with the bore.

Not trying to get into or start an argument, just throwing out some food for thought.

 

[Roy]

what kind Musketman's pics or John's (if John's, no). :v

 

[Leonredbeard]

Bob,
I, too, remember seeing this in the American Rifleman maybe a dozen years or so ago. I thought about making one. I haven't, at least not yet. If you want to build one, just think it thru. Mechanics of the the material, the limitations of the space on a gonne, etc. will lead you to build something similar to the original. I know it is easier to follow drawings and I have done so myself. Some devices would defy building for the average dude without drawings or looking at the original, but I think this one is simple enough that even I could do it.
Just give it a try.
God bless.
volatpluvia

 

[CoyoteJoe]

But what would be the point, other than novelty? It still depends on a sharp flint to throw sparks into a priming charge which still must burn through a touch hole to ignite the main charge. It would still be subject to moisture and fouling. It looks like changing or knapping the flint would be rather awkward. It appears to add about six inches of mechanism to the length of the gun. I think I'd rather have the touch hole blast to the side than to the rear. I'd say there are good reasons why it never caught on! :grin:
I built an "inline" for a friend back in the early 70's before I'd ever heard that term. He wanted a cheap muzzle loader, so I picked up a battered Stevens single shot bolt action .22 for a few bucks. Cut the barrel 3/4" ahead of the receiver and turned and threaded it to 5/8x18 to serve as the breechplug for a Numrich Arms .50 caliber barrel which we inletted to the original Stevens stock. We'd pull the bullets from .22 long rifle cases and use the cases as primers for the muzzle-loaded powder and patched ball. Even re-used the Stevens rear sight with a front sight from my "junk parts box". Darn thing out shot my T/C Hawkens with anything he rammed down it. He moved to Alaska and I lost contact with him and that gun. :shake:

 

[tg]

There were many non typical types of ignition in the past which are very interesting, but these have nothing to do with the modern ML's which atre just modified centerfires, so it might be best to discuss the old types independently and not try and connect the dots to justify the new stuff.

 

[Slake]

I ran into an old fella at a gun store yesterday that brought in a Kentucky rifle just like mine and he wanted to buy a fiber optic sight for it. It was a beautiful rifle. The gun store I was in wasn't one of my regular haunts. They didn't know what to make of the guy or the gun. I gave the guy Deer Creeks number

 

[Roy]

But what would be the point, other than novelty?

novelty? Pretty much explains most flintlocks today, and anything else that goes with them.

 

Does anyone know where to find a working drawing of an inline flinter?Please, Thanks Lonesome Bob :hmm:

Cody

 

[CoyoteJoe]

novelty? Pretty much explains most flintlocks today, and anything else that goes with them.

:hmm: --You got a point there ROY, guess I was thinking in the flintlock era. :grin:

 

[CoyoteJoe]

There were many non typical types of ignition in the past which are very interesting, but these have nothing to do with the modern ML's which atre just modified centerfires, so it might be best to discuss the old types independently and not try and connect the dots to justify the new stuff.

I agree! There as a move some years ago to outlaw inlines in Colorado. They were out for a season or two but finally the DOW gave in to pressure from manufacturers and local outfitters and only outlawed scopes, sabots, and smokeless powder. That period of pro and con arguing pretty much eliminated any chance that the issue will ever be revisited by the DOW. I doubt that Colorado will ever have a season for "real muzzleloaders".

 

[JOHN L. HINNANT]

Good Morning StaticXDOOd,

Does your post mean that my;

Original 1975 Ten-Ring Precision Inline,

With a nice Walnut traditional style half-stock,

H & H (Hopkins 50 caliber barrel, 1-66" rifling,
.011" groove depth, no false muzzle,

Shooting my cast .500 diameter lead balls only,

With Y-C 103 Lube or Teflon coated cotton patch

Goex 3FFF Blackpowder,

RWS or CCI No. 11 standard rifle caps

Equipped with Open sights and/or Double apertute sights,

The very one used to win the John Mench Match (100 yard, offhand) at the 1983 NMLRA CHAMPIONSHIPS and the 1989 TMLRA STATE CHAMPIONSHIP,

Will not inflame the "Traditionalist"?

If so, that is definately good news.

Best regards and good shooting,

John L. Hinnant

If you are not an NRA or NMLRA Member, why not? I am carrying your load.

 

[Roy]

Thanks Cody. :thumbsup: :hmm:

 

Perhaps. I personally have no problem with any of them... I love my flintlocks, but I still shoot suppository guns too. I was just pointing out that it's not necessarily the style of the action alone that gets a traditionalist to dislike a particular muzzleloader.

 

[Halftail]

Perhaps. I personally have no problem with any of them... I love my flintlocks, but I still shoot suppository guns too. I was just pointing out that it's not necessarily the style of the action alone that gets a traditionalist to dislike a particular muzzleloader.

How true,
Sometimes just the mention of a certain Manufacturer or a Twist will set off tempers. :youcrazy:

 

[John Taylor]

That looks like some one has their under hammer upside down. I didn't know that this post would get so many responses.
I had build many inlines years ago, then Idaho changed their law and I didn't have anymore orders for them. Now they are all over the place