-
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
iS IT A Traditional RIFLE ?
- Thread starter ss1
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
It somewhat has the lines of a 1840-50 gun but I would not call it a traditional styled gun myself. most of the guns of that type are a mix of the old and new many will argue this but if you put the originals and these together and start the comparisons they miss the mark......not saying they are bad but just not particulary traditional in the sense that they are like the ones used in the past. you could re-design a mdl 700 to accept a side mounted flintlock and load from the front but it would not likely be considered traditional, and the very projectiles and sighting gear it is set up for are modern, you really have to stretch things to call one traditional, fire away all those from the anything goes, call it what you want camp.
ss1 said:
Looking at just one component, I believe stainless steel was "invented" after 1900, so the gun wouldn't be tradition for any date prior to that.
(Yes they dabbled in anti-corrosion metals in the late 1800's, but it wasn't quite SS)
ss1 said:
Yes, they can. The rules prohibit discussions of "in-line" firearms, but not traditional "style" muzzleloaders.
DanChamberlain
45 Cal.
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2007
- Messages
- 612
- Reaction score
- 10
Well, we can sure discuss it. Tell us all about it first so we have a frame of reference. How's it shoot?
Dan
Dan
"
Yes, they can. The rules prohibit discussions of "in-line" firearms, but not traditional "style" muzzleloaders.'
maybe "modern sidelock" might be a better term than a traditional styled ML for guns in this class, aceptable for forum discussion, along with their scopes and sabots but really different from truely traditional styled guns?...this is a bit of a grey area we are dancing on here.
Yes, they can. The rules prohibit discussions of "in-line" firearms, but not traditional "style" muzzleloaders.'
maybe "modern sidelock" might be a better term than a traditional styled ML for guns in this class, aceptable for forum discussion, along with their scopes and sabots but really different from truely traditional styled guns?...this is a bit of a grey area we are dancing on here.
RedFeather
50 Cal.
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2005
- Messages
- 1,306
- Reaction score
- 42
As I understand it, the rule is no discussion of modern in-lines. Insofar as traditional styles go, there were in-lines back in the day, although rare. I should think those would be allowed. Was looking in one of my books last night and saw a beautiful breech loading wheel lock that uses a metal cartridge. That's pre-Revolutionary and ought to be at home here.
While I don't care for the Firestorm type guns, at least they are traditional in the sense that they are side-locks of an old style. And I imagine you could use loose powder if you wanted to. Regarding the twist, there are plenty of folks here who have gone out and slapped a 1:28 GM barrel on their GPR's. And stainless, while modern, looks about like a gun that's been finished in the white. If we are going to limit the metallurgy, we had better be collecting nail stubs down at the stables. :haha:
While I don't care for the Firestorm type guns, at least they are traditional in the sense that they are side-locks of an old style. And I imagine you could use loose powder if you wanted to. Regarding the twist, there are plenty of folks here who have gone out and slapped a 1:28 GM barrel on their GPR's. And stainless, while modern, looks about like a gun that's been finished in the white. If we are going to limit the metallurgy, we had better be collecting nail stubs down at the stables. :haha:
I doubt that metalurgy is an issue most have accepted the fact the we are not going to have iron barrels , the traditional-nomn traditional thing also goes farther than just appearance, performance, practical range and intent of the developer might all figure in as well, there are many modern ML's we discuss here such as the first ones out ...the TC's which were modernized, short barrels, adjustable sights, and rifleing that suited a modern design conical, discussing these is one thing but totaly embracing them into the world of traditionl styled guns may be stretching things a bit as this acceptance is what opened the door for you know what, I would say talk about them but at the same time understand what they really are just for the sake of those who are trying to get a sound logical grip on what is traditional in the world of ML's and their acces.
Guest
:rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf:
We have around 7,000 members on this forum and probably 90% of them own and shoot in-line guns of one kind or another.
They keep their mouths shut so they won't draw fire. :surrender:
We have had numerous discussions of the Firestorm in the flintlock section. You can probably find them in the archives or post there and gain some information.
:hatsoff:
We have around 7,000 members on this forum and probably 90% of them own and shoot in-line guns of one kind or another.
They keep their mouths shut so they won't draw fire. :surrender:
We have had numerous discussions of the Firestorm in the flintlock section. You can probably find them in the archives or post there and gain some information.
:hatsoff:
cowpoke1955
58 Cal.
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2006
- Messages
- 2,090
- Reaction score
- 6
I guess that makes me a 10%er, unless you consider my 1858 Remington an inline :rotf: .
mark/wi
40 Cal.
It not so for me at least. I'am in the 10%. Mark/Wi :thumbsup:
paulvallandigham
Passed On
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2006
- Messages
- 17,537
- Reaction score
- 89
I have absolutely no interest in owning or shooting an in-@#$@% firarm. Nor do I care to shoot plastic shoes, or modern pistol bullets, or substitute powders, or pellets, or guano for that matter. I doubt very much if your estimate of 90% of the members here owning in-@#$$% rifles is even close to the true percentage. There are other sites for those folks. They are welcome to them.
I have modern cartridge rifles, shotguns, and handguns, in addition to my MLs. I enjoy shooting them. I have a couple of Modern rifles I could use to take any animal in N. America. MY shotguns are more than adequate for the game they can be used to hunt legally. I shoot Black Powder, only, because I like the smell, the care needed to load the gun properly, and to insure it will fire every time, the accuracy of the rifles when loaded properly, and the extra satisfaction I have when taking game using MLs. Why would I buy a gun that is a ML in name only? If you read this forum, there is no reason not to own a traditional, side, action, or underhammer action ML rifle or shotgun or pistol. Powder can be purchased in bulk for a substantial savings over the cost of the subs. Same with primers, and flints. Lead balls can be purchased as cast, or swaged, or you can mould your own, adding another level of satisfaction. All the side gear can be purchased by mail order, or at the larger rendezvous, and of course, at Friendship during the Spring and Fall shoots. And, of course, you can make much of the equipment your self, including patch knives, throwing knives, hawks, possible bags, ball bags, ball blocks, shirts, pants, loin clothes, leggings, moccasins, dresses, skirts, blouses, jewelry, etc. I have a couple of vent picks I made, along with a hand made patch knife, short starter, elkskin pants, and other gear I would have to do an inventory of my bags, and range box to recall. There is plenty of literature, including patterns for clothing, for you to read and use to make your own things.
there is so much to enjoy in this sport of traditonal MLs, I can't imagine what possibly attracts people to those rifles. It has to be just the price, and all the lies the clerks in those stores tell people.
I have modern cartridge rifles, shotguns, and handguns, in addition to my MLs. I enjoy shooting them. I have a couple of Modern rifles I could use to take any animal in N. America. MY shotguns are more than adequate for the game they can be used to hunt legally. I shoot Black Powder, only, because I like the smell, the care needed to load the gun properly, and to insure it will fire every time, the accuracy of the rifles when loaded properly, and the extra satisfaction I have when taking game using MLs. Why would I buy a gun that is a ML in name only? If you read this forum, there is no reason not to own a traditional, side, action, or underhammer action ML rifle or shotgun or pistol. Powder can be purchased in bulk for a substantial savings over the cost of the subs. Same with primers, and flints. Lead balls can be purchased as cast, or swaged, or you can mould your own, adding another level of satisfaction. All the side gear can be purchased by mail order, or at the larger rendezvous, and of course, at Friendship during the Spring and Fall shoots. And, of course, you can make much of the equipment your self, including patch knives, throwing knives, hawks, possible bags, ball bags, ball blocks, shirts, pants, loin clothes, leggings, moccasins, dresses, skirts, blouses, jewelry, etc. I have a couple of vent picks I made, along with a hand made patch knife, short starter, elkskin pants, and other gear I would have to do an inventory of my bags, and range box to recall. There is plenty of literature, including patterns for clothing, for you to read and use to make your own things.
there is so much to enjoy in this sport of traditonal MLs, I can't imagine what possibly attracts people to those rifles. It has to be just the price, and all the lies the clerks in those stores tell people.
Similar threads
