Just wondering

[solitare1340]

Has anyone ever thought about how our flintlock hunting ancestors welcomed the new modern percussion firearms. Do you think they forbid discussion of them like we do inlines? Or maybe couldn’t wait to save up some money to upgrade to the latest technology? I think there had to be a lot of old timers that refused to change, and just as many that couldn’t wait to get one of those high tech rifles. . Maybe they bought one and kept it hidden

 

[mushka]

I would suspect that some jumped right on the new technology, and some pooh-poohed it much like people in later years who said that men would never fly. People don't change much over time, do they.

 

[hanshi]

I'd say it was much like when the LEO outfits switched from revolvers to semi-autos, some jumped at the assumed advantages of the magazine gun while some "old timers" stuck with wheel guns.

 

[Zonie]

Has anyone ever thought about how our flintlock hunting ancestors welcomed the new modern percussion firearms. Do you think they forbid discussion of them like we do inlines? Or maybe couldn’t wait to save up some money to upgrade to the latest technology? I think there had to be a lot of old timers that refused to change, and just as many that couldn’t wait to get one of those high tech rifles. . Maybe they bought one and kept it hidden

We don't talk about modern in-line guns here because this forum is for Traditional Muzzleloading guns. That is the reason it says, "Keeping Tradition Alive" at the top of the page. It is also the reason we have the forum rules we have.

There are other forums that are for the in-line guns. Our sister forum, owned by the same person who owns this forum is called "Modern Muzzleloader".
Here is a link to it:
https://www.modernmuzzleloader.com/

 

[Kansas Jake]

I think Hanshi makes a good point regarding newer technology. We can see it in many examples of how new firearm technology was adopted. I suspect finances figured into it then as it does today. if you or your family had a decent flintlock and the new percussion cost several months total wages, the flintlock was good enough.

Look how slowly military is to adopt a new arm even when a new technology is developing. When the ball started rolling though it didn't take long for first the percussion technology and then relatively quickly cartridge guns to displace flint technology that had been around for several hundred years.

 

[solitare1340]

Totally agree , money vs necessity. No reason to upgrade something that already works fine. unlike today the common man didn’t have safes full of guns like most of us do.
Probably as the young man left home his first gun was the modern gun of the day, if he could afford it.
I know my first gun that I bought wasn’t the percussion rifle that I shoot more than any other of my firearms. It was a modern firearm, traditional rifles came a few years later.

 

[Rock Home Isle]

Has anyone ever thought about how our flintlock hunting ancestors welcomed the new modern percussion firearms. Do you think they forbid discussion of them like we do inlines? Or maybe couldn’t wait to save up some money to upgrade to the latest technology? I think there had to be a lot of old timers that refused to change, and just as many that couldn’t wait to get one of those high tech rifles. . Maybe they bought one and kept it hidden

People resist change...its probably part of our DNA. So innovation is always greeted with a certain amount of suspicion. As technology changes and advances, change tends to come quicker...people tend to adopt change easier, but in the norm...people are still resistant to change.

 

[Rifleman1776]

Back in the day, worrying about being 'hc' wasn't in their minds at all. A gun was a tool. Whatever worked for them at a price they could afford was what they had and used. We all know the advantages/disadvantages of flint over perc. and visa/versa. We are traditional here to preserve what was back then.

 

[Robby]

I don't know, but I think they may have a future.
Robby

 

[Sam squanch]

Once caps became more common and the price went down, I think more people switched over.

 

[Brokennock]

I wonder more about how many made the change to the caplock,,, and then regretted it. Fumbling with tiny little caps, running out of caps while out for extended time (maybe used up, maybe a bunch dropped from cold or old fingers), a more difficult flash channel to clear. Any of them have "buyer's remorse?"

 

[Henry Miles]

It's not the ease of use or efficiency of traditional MLing that we are drawn to. It's the uniqueness, the historical, the ingenuity, the personal connection, the imagination, the smoke and smell of burning powder or just the madness associated with pouring powder down a barrel and shoving a ball down on top of it. It's a primal attraction to an ancient way from past ages, still available and functional, rewarding to most. Just knowing nothing has really changed from the time of the first settlers is inspiring enough to stir interest. I'm hopelessly hooked and lovin' it every time I make smoke!

 

[Feltwad]

I wonder more about how many made the change to the caplock,,, and then regretted it. Fumbling with tiny little caps, running out of caps while out for extended time (maybe used up, maybe a bunch dropped from cold or old fingers), a more difficult flash channel to clear. Any of them have "buyer's remorse?"

I would say quite a lot with less misfires able to shoot in bad weather that's, why we see a lot of drum and nipples conversions on the market today a moleskin waistcoat pocket was ideal for keeping your percussion caps safe until needed
Feltwad

 

[appalichian hunter]

Change in technology is inevitable, The question is how do we change. Or how did the old guys change. A lot is involved such as financial ability, needed supplies to make the gun fire, Location all these I think would be a important factor. For example look at the current situation with the supplies we need to shoot the flintlocks, if black powder becomes a bit more difficult to obtain who will go with cap locks and the substitutes. Change do to external issues and ones ability to adapt to the situation is what determines if one is able to survive in there chosen shooting discipline.

 

[Crow-Feather]

Has anyone ever thought about how our flintlock hunting ancestors welcomed the new modern percussion firearms. Do you think they forbid discussion of them like we do inlines? Or maybe couldn’t wait to save up some money to upgrade to the latest technology? I think there had to be a lot of old timers that refused to change, and just as many that couldn’t wait to get one of those high tech rifles. . Maybe they bought one and kept it hidden

In this case, modern rifles had already been invented. The way I see this is that there were people that wanted to HUNT during muzzleloader season but wanted to circumvent the rules. The rules were established for the opportunity to hunt during the year when a traditional rifle hunter had a better chance for a shot at an animal. The caveat was that one had to practice hunting skills to get close enough to get that shot. But some hunters either weren't that good of a hunter or didn't want to go through the troubles of cleaning and fine tuning a muzzle loading rifle. So the modern muzzle loading rifle was born. Now most of the muzzle loading record books are filled with animals shot with scope sighted rifles and shot at or over 150 yards.

These seasons were adopted for traditional muzzle loading rifles. State game management agencies reacted after a length of time by changing the locations and times for muzzle loading hunting and tightening the rules. The states with intelligent fish and game agencies required flint lock only, God bless them.

And those that will gripe this rant to this post had best remember: Muzzle loader hunts were begun when there weren't any non-traditional rifles. Non-traditional rifles were invented for one reason, to give a hunter that didn't want to be limited by traditional rifles a better chance of filling their tag during traditional rifle season. Traditional rifle seasons were controlled or special hunts. The non traditional rifle hunter could then enter the drawings for these hunts. Not to go back to the days when their forefathers hunted, but to get an easy shot at a deer at over 150 yards and have a better chance to get their name in the record books. It is the dark side of being an American, if it's too hard, or you can't get it done, ......................................... cheat.

 

[coloradoclyde]

Has anyone ever thought about how our flintlock hunting ancestors welcomed the new modern percussion firearms. Do you think they forbid discussion of them like we do inlines? Or maybe couldn’t wait to save up some money to upgrade to the latest technology? I think there had to be a lot of old timers that refused to change, and just as many that couldn’t wait to get one of those high tech rifles. . Maybe they bought one and kept it hidden

It is today as it was then. There was acceptance and there was resistance. It took about 20 years for the majority to adopt percussion but even then flintlocks were still used some in the civil war by confederates, and flintlock muskets remained a trade item for decades. The transition to percussion and the introduction of the breech loading cartridge were almost simultaneous. So flintlock arms were competing against two changes not just one.

It's not fair to compare flint versus percussion preference today with that of the past. Today our preferences are purely self-indulging and recreational. None of us has to go to war with one, feed our family, or defend our home with one. Our preferences are purely a personal choice, as is any argument about which is better. "Better" is irrelevant today. It's all about enjoyment.

 

[billraby]

I have heard that soldiers have caught Taliban guys over in Afghanistan fighting with original Brown Bess muskets left there by the British. Its easy to find pictures from the 1930s of people in rural parts of USA still using flintlocks.

 

[Woody Morgan]

In this case, modern rifles had already been invented. The way I see this is that there were people that wanted to HUNT during muzzleloader season but wanted to circumvent the rules. The rules were established for the opportunity to hunt during the year when a traditional rifle hunter had a better chance for a shot at an animal. The caveat was that one had to practice hunting skills to get close enough to get that shot. But some hunters either weren't that good of a hunter or didn't want to go through the troubles of cleaning and fine tuning a muzzle loading rifle. So the modern muzzle loading rifle was born. Now most of the muzzle loading record books are filled with animals shot with scope sighted rifles and shot at or over 150 yards.

These seasons were adopted for traditional muzzle loading rifles. State game management agencies reacted after a length of time by changing the locations and times for muzzle loading hunting and tightening the rules. The states with intelligent fish and game agencies required flint lock only, God bless them.

And those that will gripe this rant to this post had best remember: Muzzle loader hunts were begun when there weren't any non-traditional rifles. Non-traditional rifles were invented for one reason, to give a hunter that didn't want to be limited by traditional rifles a better chance of filling their tag during traditional rifle season. Traditional rifle seasons were controlled or special hunts. The non traditional rifle hunter could then enter the drawings for these hunts. Not to go back to the days when their forefathers hunted, but to get an easy shot at a deer at over 150 yards and have a better chance to get their name in the record books. It is the dark side of being an American, if it's too hard, or you can't get it done, ......................................... cheat.

I agree to a point. That point is the very last word in the above missive. To cheat is "to deprive of something valuable by the use of deceit or fraud". I consider non-smokeless unmentionables (I don't use them, btw) a way to more game the system and get a bit of a leg up when one doesn't want to or can't hunt well with a true m/l. We Americans are famous for this type of behavior. If we get "discouraged" in doing something a certan way, we find a way around it. It drives innovation and is in line with our innate history in making things happen while giving a one-fingered salute to those doing the "discouraging".

wm

 

[Crow-Feather]

I agree to a point. That point is the very last word in the above missive. To cheat is "to deprive of something valuable by the use of deceit or fraud". I consider non-smokeless unmentionables (I don't use them, btw) a way to more game the system and get a bit of a leg up when one doesn't want to or can't hunt well with a true m/l. We Americans are famous for this type of behavior. If we get "discouraged" in doing something a certan way, we find a way around it. It drives innovation and is in line with our innate history in making things happen while giving a one-fingered salute to those doing the "discouraging".

wm

Muzzle loading hunts were initiated for those wishing to hunt with a traditional muzzle loading rifle. The deceit and fraud is taking advantage of the Fish and game agencies good will by using a rifle that is more powerful than a 30-30 and can shoot farther.
You might shout innovation, but the only reason for this "innovation" was to screw over those who worked hard to get a season so they could hunt as their g-g-g grandfathers did.

 

[Woody Morgan]

Muzzle loading hunts were initiated for those wishing to hunt with a traditional muzzle loading rifle. The deceit and fraud is taking advantage of the Fish and game agencies good will by using a rifle that is more powerful than a 30-30 and can shoot farther.
You might shout innovation, but the only reason for this "innovation" was to screw over those who worked hard to get a season so they could hunt as their g-g-g grandfathers did.

I won't necessarily argue with that. Welcome to being an American regardless. I'm more concerned with how I do things rather than worry about my fellow man whom I don't even know.

wm