Is It Just Me?

[ppg1949]

Is it just me or does putting a modern scope on a sidelock seem an abomination? I see sidelocks on auction sites high lighting they come with a, fill in the blank, scope. It is disturbing to me. And if you don't use that scope you have to have screws fill in the scars left by the holes. Am I alone on this? Thanks

 

[Centurion]

Nope.

 

[Sparkitoff]

I don't have a problem with it. If a sidelock isn't historically correct or significant it can't be pushed further away with the addition of optics. There were Malcolm long tubed scopes in the mid to late 1800's on some longrifle, so they would be period correct to some extent. I would rather have younger folks, sight-impaired folks or other participants that need optics join the muzzleloader ranks and appreciate the sidelock (or flintlock for that matter) than to have them disinterested because "we" put down their need/desire to see the target clearly and be accurate. Some people are trying to comply with muzzleloader hunting regulations while maintaining a high level of effectiveness and efficiency. Another license or tag is money in the bank for Wildlife agencies (and might go towards some conservation). If it keeps hunter interest up or stable it is worth overlooking. In some environments and locales the traditions dictate a shot that will be 100 or even 150-yards. I'd rather see a person with a scope and know both them and the rifle are able to make those shots. A southern whitetail deer is pretty small at 150-yards over open sights. Stalk closer you say? On a Texas ranch, for instance, there are blinds on senderos and maybe a feeder at a pre-set distance of 100 or 150 yards. There is no "stalking closer" on those places. I can shoot my open sights 100-yards with plenty of accuracy for deer hunting, but I would be hard pressed to feel confident at 150-yards (same rifle and open sights). Do I pack up and go home, use a modern implement or keep my black powder and muzzleloader interest by adding a scope for that situation? I agree that a modern style scope looks funny on a sidelock, but I don't think it is an abomination nor does it disturb me. I get where you're coming from. I just don't think much of it and can appreciate why someone would put a scope on a replica/reproduction.

 

[user 31257]

I don’t care what other people choose to use for sights on their guns. Not everyone has the vision to use open sights forever.
If the screw holes disturb you, don’t buy it. It might be exactly what someone else has been looking for.

 

[zimmerstutzen]

Seems sort of inane to go hunting traditional with a plastic stocked sidelock, 4-12 x variable scope and day glo sights and bio-thane sling. I can hear Bubba Loco bragging about how he is going out in the "primitive season" next week." . Then again, seems the tide has turned agin us. Too many hunter's voting with their pocket books for unmentionables and demanding access to "primitive season" It falls quite short of their reasoning capacity that to gain admission to the party you need to obey the rules. I recently heard a goof ball rationalize that since cross bows have fancy sights and a stock, he should be permitted to shoot any single shot in archery season. And there has been a ridiculous move a foot to permit harpoon slinging "air bows" into archery season. I personally see little difference between those and tranquilizer guns. I want to knock em out first so I can make sure that is the one I want before I slit it's throat. If it isn't the one I want , I'll just let that one wake up and tranq another at the bait pile.

 

[poker]

Ive never seen an air bow, but thats how everything seems to progress. Bigger, better, faster, easier. And as far as the baiting goes, its the same thing. Up here, baiting is against the law, but landowners simply have 40 acre bait stations. It seems human nature is against keeping anything as it once was. Consider that humans were hunting and eating long before flintlocks were invented. Wheres your uproar that people arent limited to whatever was the first weapon?

 

[Kansas Jake]

I don't like the looks of a scope on a sidekick even if it is a TC Hawken or Traditions Hawken, but there are a lot out there on the second hand shelves from time to time. I understand where the state game departments are coming from in trying to keep as many people in the hunting sports as possible. It is revenue driven.

I choose to do what little hunting I do these days with open sights on a muzzleloader. I'm luck that at my age I can still see the sights fairly well with glasses. If my eyes were worse, I would probably need to do something different. Most of us here choose to use front stuffers for historical reasons. If glass on a gun keeps folks in the hunting game so be it.

 

[Col. Batguano]

Yes it looks out of place on a traditional gun. Just as synthetic stocks do. Both serve a utilitarian purpose though. Both would probably be better sited on a modern in-line, but some times game laws don't allow that. In a circumstance like that, the gun is just a tool used for harvesting game. So in that context, I'm ok with it---unless the guy uses it to shoot that B&C buck that was heading to MY stand that is.

Where I DO draw a line is in ML'er matches, when a guy with a scoped in-line (or anything else) is allowed to compete on an even footing with a guy shooting a flint smoothie at the same target.

 

[Spikebuck]

While some people may use a scope because they have visual issues such that they absolutely have to have an optic to see a target, I would venture a guess that the vast majority of scope toting side lock folks are simply using it to take much of the work out of learning to shoot well without optics. A simple traditional peep would fix the deteriorating eyesight problem for the vast majority of aging eyes but what these folks really want is to get a gun that meets the minimum legal requirements while having as much modern stuff on it as possible to make it easier.

Those of us that are traditionalists at heart "abuse" ourselves by spending countless hours learning how to do things the old ways...and actually enjoy it!!! I think there is a term for that....masochism. It's hard for us to understand or accept that others don't want to spend the time to do it that way.

In my own state the late muzzleloading season was fought for many years ago by traditionalists that just wanted a separate season for "their passion" and were even willing to accept a time slot after all the modern gunners already had their fun, and the bowhunters too. But those that did not want to "pay the price" just had to ***** that they were being cheated because they wanted to use something not "traditional," but still wanted in on the bonus late season. An exception for scopes was set up so that a person could apply and get a special permit to be able to use optics with a doctor's statement (just like guys could do in bow season if they really had to use a crossbow). Of course inlines came into the mix, but they still had to use open sights or a peep. Then the push was on that anyone 60+ should be able to use optics. And then it quickly went from there to anyone could use optics. So now we have a late season that was originally for traditionalists who simply wanted a special quiet time to be the only ones in the woods for a brief period to basically a season that allows scoped modern inline rifles using plastic capped pistol bullets and perhaps even smokeless powder loaded directly into the breech with electronic ignition. Might as well just allow any modern single-shot cartridge rifle...pretty much the same difference.

 

[ppg1949]

I guess it is the aesthetics. I don't have a problem with Malcomb scopes or other similar styles. I understand that some people may need a scope for long shots or just to see but why not put it on an inliner. I suppose I'm just an old beauty is in the eye of the beholder snob.

 

[ppg1949]

While some people may use a scope because they have visual issues such that they absolutely have to have an optic to see a target, I would venture a guess that the vast majority of scope toting side lock folks are simply using it to take much of the work out of learning to shoot well without optics. A simple traditional peep would fix the deteriorating eyesight problem for the vast majority of aging eyes but what these folks really want is to get a gun that meets the minimum legal requirements while having as much modern stuff on it as possible to make it easier.

Those of us that are traditionalists at heart "abuse" ourselves by spending countless hours learning how to do things the old ways...and actually enjoy it!!! I think there is a term for that....masochism. It's hard for us to understand or accept that others don't want to spend the time to do it that way.

In my own state the late muzzleloading season was fought for many years ago by traditionalists that just wanted a separate season for "their passion" and were even willing to accept a time slot after all the modern gunners already had their fun, and the bowhunters too. But those that did not want to "pay the price" just had to ***** that they were being cheated because they wanted to use something not "traditional," but still wanted in on the bonus late season. An exception for scopes was set up so that a person could apply and get a special permit to be able to use optics with a doctor's statement (just like guys could do in bow season if they really had to use a crossbow). Of course inlines came into the mix, but they still had to use open sights or a peep. Then the push was on that anyone 60+ should be able to use optics. And then it quickly went from there to anyone could use optics. So now we have a late season that was originally for traditionalists who simply wanted a special quiet time to be the only ones in the woods for a brief period to basically a season that allows scoped modern inline rifles using plastic capped pistol bullets and perhaps even smokeless powder loaded directly into the breech and perhaps even electronic ignition. Might as well just allow any modern single-shot cartridge rifle...pretty much the same difference.

Spikebuck, I feel the same way. My home state of Indiana finally got a muzzleloader season I think back in the early 80's. Me and my buddies were jumping with excitement. Then the same thing happened. At the time Indiana only had a shotgun slug season. The only inlines were the old H&R's. All of a sudden the shotgunners were buying ML's and scoping them. Then came the inlines. The whole idea of a loose powder PRB went out the window. I had a nephew barrow one of my ML's a couple of years ago. He got a deer but he didn't like the loose powder and PRB. The next season he had a scoped pellet pushing saboted bullet electric ignition inliner. How can a traditionalist compete?

 

[Sun City]

Traditionalist are a 'Lonely Lot'! Glad I am! Most of the poor souls using those morphodykes don't have a clue as to how to use barrel sights and understand marksmanship about as well as I know how to perform a lobotomy on a demented pigmy!!

 

[Pete G]

In my state a single shot .35 Whelen or 45-70 with scope is a "primative" weapon.
I personally prefer a flintlock longrifle.

 

[azmntman]

"about as well as I know how to perform a lobotomy on a demented pigmy!!"

KISS duh?? same as a holy Pigmy, just dont have to sterilize the hatchets.

 

[Col. Batguano]

The way I look at it, as the laws are written, the existing technology establishes the baseline for the equipment, and you can do anything you want so long as it is within the law, and your personal capabilities.

Many people with superior eyesight and athletic abilities can actually shoot iron sights better than they do optical ones, but the majority of us do not. If we choose to hunt with a stick bow during rifle season we certainly can do that, but we have voluntarily handicapped ourselves relative to the average hunter out there with modern firearms. The same is true if we choose to hunt with a traditional ML'er. We're less handicapped than with a bow, but still handicapped relative to more modern equipment.

Once the gun is loaded, it really isn't (functionally) that much different than a modern single-shot gun, save for the constraints of the propellant and projectile. There are people out there (and there used to be a commercial company) that make muzzle loaders designed to fire smokeless powder, so even those limitations are neutered.

Once a technology that gives you an advantage is invented, it's usually pretty expensive, hence, not common. Only super techie or rich guys would use it. Take night and thermal imaging equipment for instance. 30 years ago It cost $4000-$5000+ for that stuff. Nobody had it so no game laws were written to limit the use. Now it's <$1000, and much more commonly owned, so laws were written to limit its' use, and keep things "sporting" for the game. Subsistence hunters don't care that much about game laws anyway, so they are always going to be operating outside the law.

 

[tenngun]

I’m inside my tent at an event. I draw my flint and steel, bit of fluff and a ‘match stick” . I strike a light and then use the stick to light a candle. I put out the match stick to use later.
No one sees me, I cloud flick my bic and I alone would know.
My bed is wool blankets. I could have a sleeping bag, it’s inside my tent, no one would know. Except me.
But my blankets are not fully correct either. My trousers or breeches are hand sewn but cotton cloth. My tent is fire resistant my glasses look good, but mostly out of time.
I would not want a scope on a ml, but right now I don’t need one.
How many of us have a tin box with b/p pills or eye drops.
We need to enjoy our sport.

 

[Just-a-hunter]

We are all in this together. Do you and what you enjoy. If something bothers you, ignore it. No need to look down your nose and speak with a fake British accent about it.

I’m in the market for a new .50. I’ve found a few in my price range with holes drilled in the barrel. I chose to pass on those. It wasn’t hard to do. A click on my mouse pad solved my “problem”.

Todd

 

[ppg1949]

I apologize to all for being to old and to old school to change. I am what am and I think muzzleloaders should have iron sights or peeps/tang sights. It looks natural.

 

[Walkingeagle]

I apologize to all for being to old and to old school to change. I am what am and I think muzzleloaders should have iron sights or peeps/tang sights. It looks natural.

So, if someone’s eyes no longer allow traditional sights, that someone should hang up the traditional muzzleloader and take up an “unmentionable” of some sort?
Walk

 

[Loyalist Dave]

I apologize to all for being to old and to old school to change. I am what am and I think muzzleloaders should have iron sights or peeps/tang sights. It looks natural.

NAH,

...Don't worry about it. It's odd, that's all. What it shows though, is the desire of the shooter to continue to use "the old sidelock", while making an ethical shot, even though the eyes are "dimming" a bit. You just haven't seen it enough rifles so outfitted, for it to look "alright" to you.

A while back I saw a stainless sidelock, I think it was a TC product, with a black plastic stock, and a nice 2x shotgun scope applied to it..... I thought it was weird but I'm not being asked to spend money on it either...

LD