Looking for Advice on a First Blackpowder Rifle

[Dadof8]

You're right, Musketman.

I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but one thing I've picked up on is that muzzleloading is about much more than stuffing powder, cloth, and lead down the front end of a firearm. It's much more than a gun, but stepping back in history. I see with some of you that it is a way of life.

I hate to say this as it may start something, but I feel for those who opt for the clinical convenience of in-line systems. It seems they are missing out on a lot even though it is probably a good muzzleloading starting point. I've found in my 45 years of life that if all hunting entailed was shooting an animal, it would lose it's thrill pretty fast.

Bowhunting took me back to where our forefathers had to get close. Once you get close, flinging bullets from 200 yards is no longer the same. I was once there and I hope countless others also start there, but I also hope they progress past that stage.

Dadof8

 

quote:Originally posted by Dadof8:
You're right, Musketman.

I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but one thing I've picked up on is that muzzleloading is about much more than stuffing powder, cloth, and lead down the front end of a firearm. It's much more than a gun, but stepping back in history. I see with some of you that it is a way of life.

I hate to say this as it may start something, but I feel for those who opt for the clinical convenience of in-line systems. It seems they are missing out on a lot even though it is probably a good muzzleloading starting point. I've found in my 45 years of life that if all hunting entailed was shooting an animal, it would lose it's thrill pretty fast.

Bowhunting took me back to where our forefathers had to get close. Once you get close, flinging bullets from 200 yards is no longer the same. I was once there and I hope countless others also start there, but I also hope they progress past that stage. What can I say but, AMEN!

It is about history, not just an additional hunting season like the in-line crowd.

In-lines have their place, but that place isn't about history or reenacting. It just another modern firearm and that's about all.

I have no problem with in-lines or the folks that use them, or any modern firearm. They are what they are.

 

[Darkhorse]

I'm probably starting something, but, I DO have a problem with inlines. The only place they have is in regular rifle season.
If not for the inlines using sabots and in some states scopes then we would have more prime seasons available to primitive weapons hunters.
Many top whitetail states have ML season after the rut.
Also the western states put a lower quota on their limited licences due to the effectiveness of inlines.
IF, primitive weapons seasons were limited to the bow and arrow, percussion or flintlock, with open sights, the way they were originally set up, then we would have a much greater opportunity for quality hunts. And, no, I do not consider an inline percussion.
Other than that, the only feelings I have for those that use them is pity.

 

[2172]

Enjoyed all of the comments, and agreed enough with the advice that I wasn't going to chime in, till the topic turned to education. Last Saturday at our club meeting, one of the members produced over 100 "thank you" letters from kids in the 5th and 6th grade at a local county school. He, and two other club members, had gone to the school in costume (Rev. war) and given a lecture on the Long Hunter, his equipment, and the time period in general....I've volunteered to go the next time. This arose because a teacher at the school knew the re-enactor, and asked for his help. I know about all of the objections from the "Establishment" to our doing this, but I urge all to look for chances to do this when they can. I did it once for a scout troop that moved its meeting site from a public school to a local church basement, just for that meeting, since the school authorities wouldn't let me bring a flinter on to the premises...we need to make sure the kids get some idea of our country's history, and maybe strike an interest to give our sport a next generation. A merry Christmas..Hank

 

[musketman]

quote:Originally posted by hank:
Since the school authorities wouldn't let me bring a flinter on to the premises...What you can do is to remove the lock and take it into the school, along with pictures of various flintlocks...

You can manually work the lock's action and show the kids how it creates sparks and sets off the priming powder...

This would not be a firearm, and would not violate any school gun laws or ethics...

 

[Zonie]

Musketman: Your idea might work but some of the school staff in the schools around here wouldn't know or care if the gun had a lock or not, nor would they know the siginificiance of its absence. They would call the law. Also, all it takes is one little child in an anti-gunners house going home and saying they saw a gun at school for all hell to break loose.

I much prefer the "field trip" method where there can be no political anti-gun backlash. Besides, kids always think of a field trip as fun before it starts so they will might associate seeing a real gun with good things.

 

[musketman]

quote:Originally posted by roundball:
I had read that the curve was a design to enable the butt to be rested down in a stirrup while reloading seated on a horse.The curved butt plate could also serve as a weapon, when the mountain man was in close combat they could, and did use their guns as clubs...

The curved butt plate would make an extreamly nasty wound compaired to that of a flat butt muzzleloader.

Both styles would mess up your whole day if you got hit in the head with, but I think the curved butt plate would be more lethal.

 

[Deadeye]

Whatever the original reason for the cresent buttplate, it continued to be popular for many yrs. after the switch to breechloaders even .22 rifles had them. I prefer the Colonial Virginia style rifles that have the almost flat butt.
Re the shorter barrels, my understanding is it was a weight thing, making the barrel diameter thicker to take heavy charges for western game and bears just made a long barrel too heavy.
Deadeye

 

[tg]

I think you are on the right wave length there Deadeye, and there may have been a better understanding of ballistics developing and a feeling that maybe a 44" barrel was not really any advantage over a shorter one.

 

[LRB]

TG, Wasn't the quality of powder greatly improved in the early 19th century, giving it a better burn and greater pressures which allowed shorter barrels to be as efficient as the longer ones?

 

[tg]

I suspect there may be something to that also Wick, one thing to consider is that from the beginning of gun history that there were short and long barrels made in most areas, Germans made long barreled guns as well as short Jaegers in the early 1700's There is an English rifle circa 1740 with a 28" barrel and during the hey day of the longrifle in America we find 37" and shorter barrels by some makers and as BP burns at a constant rate there is a question of how much does one gain with a long barrel and at what point is it just extra iron? bore size and powder quality would be a factor but the long guns may have been spawned more from fancy than fact from the beginning.

 

[LRB]

TG, just as a thought, you are much more knowledgable on these subjects than I, I have seen references to powder being made in the colonies due to cost or availability of English or other imported powders. My thought is that these powders would be quite inferior in comprarison, if this is true. Maybe some of the smiths answered this problem with longer barrels and began a trend. The military guns were long, but large bored, and I read where the french loaded very heavy charges for theirs. As for fowlers, even today there are people who still believe, the longer the barrel, the better the pattern. Maybe this belief was also applied to rifles or the idea that the longer the sight radius the better the accuracy, which is true to a point. Just rambling thoughts, I'm probably full of it.

 

[RJR]

Hey ramling thoughts is where we come up with new improvements.

 

[tg]

Barrel length and the reasons for it have always been an interesting subject. There were some 50"+ trade guns with .55 bores and some .58 rifles with less than 30" bores and visa versa the quality of powder could very well have had an impact at local levels, the key point is that the "American Longrifle" was not the first long barreled gun to be around, they were there 100 years earlier in the late 17th century. I think sometimes we get to caught up in the generalized statement we always have heard that the American longrifle developed from the short German Jaeger, which is a bit of a missconception. When comparing guns from the 18th and 17th century long and short barrels are quite well represented, the changes that defines the American longrifle go well beyond the length of barrel which has become so much a part of its identity, and with a foggy at best understanding of this we may find it hard to define why guns were generaly shorter in the 1830's, and likewise, mostly rambling thoughts

 

[musketman]

Maybe the iron supply could have determend the barrel length too, shorter barrels will conserve iron.

Just a thought...