Primitive seasons being revisited

Thanks for the great debate. I post because I am a minority viewpoint here, that's no secret and I am willing to discuss things that are not popular amongst the mass opinion.

I also thank you for this debate and the chance to express my opinions in regards to modern inlines. :thumbsup:

I'm not threatened by anything or anyone. Like I said, I've got plenty of options to hunt with. Change the law and I'll simply select a different weapon that's legal.
If you analyze the threads regarding the whole modern ML season issue, the scant few modern ML shooters are not the ones that appear "threatened".

First I must say, thet you almost had me convinced thet modern inlines "outnumbered" traditional muzzleloaders, but finished up with say'n inlines are in the "minority"!! :hmm:

Secondly, many traditionalists are "soley dedicated" to tradional muzzleloaders, and are will'n to work ther "butts off" in order to preserve our traditional "muzzleloading heritage" which probably confuses folks thet shoot modern inlines but who don't have a particular "fondness" for any particular "type" of firearm or the "history" in which it may have been involved.

Modern muzzleloaders are muzzleloading rifles whether you like them or not.
I guess that the founding fathers of the ML seasons did not have foresight that an ancient ML design would be revived, become wildly popular and yet offer such a partisan aspect to muzzleloading and the seasons for use.

In "what way" do modern inlines even remotely resemble any of the antique inlines, in either "ballistics" or "chactoristics" ????? :crackup: :crackup: :crackup:

So you are going to have to get more creative than just complaining if you wish them banned from the woods or from the seasons. I prefer to figure out how to live with the inevitable versus to try to do without or ban them from existence.

"Gee"!!,.... I had never considered try'n to git modern inlines "banned from existance",.. thanks for the "idea" :: :crackup: :applause:

FWIW, I introduce Modern ML folks along with new to ML's to sidelock percussions all the time.
The difference is I suppose, I treat them as a fellow enthusiast versus the "Enemy".

Please state wher I've refered to the "fellas" thet shoot inlines as "the enemy"!! (you will not find such a "statement" in any of my posts!!)

rollingb

 

I think some here miss the point .
I and others here in our local club worked hard in the late 1970s to get muzzleloaders aloud into out season .
We got turned down at most every turn . Then one day a member came and pointed out we may have been looking at things wrong . See we had been pushing for a new season when what we should have been doing is looking at one that already existed .
The snake river here in Idaho has lots of islands but to hunt them you needed a bow or a shotgun . This was called a short range weapons unit . We lobbied for muzzleloaders to be aloud in that unit . Part of that was to submit ballistics that showed muzzleloaders fit the bill.

Now our unit has been targeted by the inline lobby and the state has aloud it . This however is on appeal to the commission using the modern inline manufactures own print as proof of incompatibility with the reasons for the weapons description in the first place .

Or bow hunting friends are doing the same thing and many states now outlaw overdraws. Lighted sight , arrows with any electronics

 

[roundball]

Very, very well said...unemotional, unquestionably clear, and to the point...thank you !

:redthumb: :redthumb: :redthumb:

 

[Claude Mathis]

These folks want included and recognized as muzzleloaders when loading from the muzzle is the only thing they have in common.

Pardon my ignorance, as I've never seen an inline close up, but don't some inlines load the ball and powder from the rear?

 

[Huntinfool]

These folks want included and recognized as muzzleloaders when loading from the muzzle is the only thing they have in common.

Pardon my ignorance, as I've never seen an inline close up, but don't some inlines load the ball and powder from the rear?

None that I've seen Claude the Inline manufacturers are to smart for that they'd loose their ML status if they didn't front stuff them.

Chuck

 

[Huntinfool]

Very, very well said...unemotional, unquestionably clear, and to the point...thank you !

:redthumb: :redthumb: :redthumb:

:agree: :agree: :agree: :agree: :agree:

Chuck

 

Also, I'm sure folks would find disappointment to a degree if they have a rifle than ends up being dis-allowed during a particular season. I know I would if I did not already have an option that would be legal.

Or, you could just break the law like some of the other inline idiots! And these are the poeple were supposed to "stick together" with?

See this.........
http://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=96015

 

[roundball]

Encouraging news...I've seen a couple of other posts now where legislation is being introduced (New York and up in Canada) aimed at returning primitive muzzleloader seasons to what they were originally set up for in the first place...barring the use of modern inlines, scopes, etc...maybe there's hope after all.

I have a suggestion...let's keep discussions on the topic content, and avoid personal characterizations...name calling never helps, just throws gasoline on a fire, thanks
:redthumb:

 

Pardon my ignorance, as I've never seen an inline close up, but don't some inlines load the ball and powder from the rear?

===========================================================
the meaning of inline is an ignition system that is inline with the main charge, this system has been around in one form or another just as im sure you know for a long , long time . In fact I would doubt that any one of us here discussing this topic would have a problem if a person showed up at a local traditional shot with a 1740 designed rifle with an inline ignition be it a flint or a later 1800 cap design . Imo even some of the old sharps could be considered inline and they load from the muzzle or breach . The problem isn

 

[Tahquamenon]

Modern ML shooters are the minority here in this forum . I've no idea as to what the numbers are of folks across the country that now shoot modern ML's, but do you really believe that the numbers of modern ML shooters are diminishing in proportion to older style ML's? I'm no market analyst, but take a look at just about any local sporting goods store or gun shop and see what is on and has been on and flying off of the shelf for the past several years. It certainly is not older style designs.
Production manufacturers are dropping older style rifles. And for the time being, the imported sidelock model pricing is going up due to the weak US dollar which will make them even less appealing.

Unfortunately, the sidelock is being forced into more obscurity by market demand (which is fueled by marketing and a general lack of understanding) and economics which is a shame. Sidelocks were on the shelves for many, many years and obviously ended up sitting on the shelf too long causing dealers to take a lower return on sale, break even or loss just to move the sidelock from inventory.

I'm not saying it's right or that I agree with it because I don't. I love the sidelock and am very sorry to see it disappear from production inventories. I'm not a gun dealer now. I have several friends that are and the simple truth is "They just don't sell". Dealers are in business to make a living, not preserve nostalgia, history or to carry the overhead of items than hurt/hinder their business. Perhaps they should be.
New folks are coming to the older style ML's every day, but the proportion is lopsided compared to modern ML's.

This is reality folks. Again, I don't like it. Yes, this is largely due to marketing. Why not just market heavily the sidelock? Seems to me that was done for several years and sadly ended up losing consumer appeal to differently designed ML styles.

[/quote]
Please state wher I've refered to the "fellas" thet shoot inlines as "the enemy"!! (you will not find such a "statement" in any of my posts!!)
[/quote]

I know that, I was trying to tell you and the rest of the folks here that I am not an enemy. Not that you said anyone or anything was.

As far as the similarity between the modern ML and the older inline ignition designs, I happen to be an engineer and I see very distinct similarities almost to the point of exact similarities. Sure the materials in which they are made might be different in some cases. But I see this as astehtic versus functional. Steel is steel and wood is still wood and many modern rifles are constructed of both.

The safety and functional procedures for loading and shooting a modern ML and a caplock are identical. No difference what so ever.

Regarding ballistics. You can equip modern and older style rifles the same almost if not identically. A sidelock with a hotter musket cap (even a 209 primer), larger powder charges or pellets, conical or sabot if the rifling will stabilize it and even toss on optics. I'm not saying anyone should, but you can. You can also buy or build fast twist barreling that will stabilize the largest conical or sabot for very accurate and long range shooting out to and far beyond 200 yards. So just how different is that?

You can also shoot patch and ball, black powder and #11 caps and iron sights from Modern ML's just like an older style ML and the ballistics will be very close or the same. As for 209 primers, I really don't see any functional difference between the 209 and a percussion cap. It still a compression ignition. The 209 is hotter and more weather resistant. But does that make it so different?
If black powder continues to become a greater difficulty to obtain and storage for dealers, then substitute powders is all that will be commercially available. And a hotter ignition might be desirable for reliable functionality.

Not taking into consideration the historical and traditional aspects, which are very, very important even though I don't practice them. Just how much different are things functionally between modern and older style ML's if they are equipped essentially the same?

I don't see the DNR or legislatures enacting seasonal hunting activities based on the way someone "feels" or should feel about a particular method or manner of taking game (nostalgic, historical, traditional, etc), but rather the functional manner or implement and it's characteristics that is used in which game is taken. Perhaps they should. I don't have a clue as to how to accomplish this. We can possibly change the seasons based on the functional characteristics, but I seriously doubt we can alter existing or enact new seasons based on being traditional in spirit, feeling or practice.

eace:

 

[Stumpkiller]

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These folks want included and recognized as muzzleloaders when loading from the muzzle is the only thing they have in common.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Pardon my ignorance, as I've never seen an inline close up, but don't some inlines load the ball and powder from the rear?

Many of them have an easily and routinely removable breech plug. But, presumably, it is still more difficult to remove than loading from the muzzle. I'm not familiar with most of the in-lines, though. Just what I've seen on TV.

 

Not taking into consideration the historical and traditional aspects, which are very, very important even though I don't practice them. Just how much different are things functionally between modern and older style ML's if they are equipped essentially the same?

For some, there is no seperating the historical aspect of muzzleloaders. That may be what the inline folks will never understand.

The Historical aspects may be the crux of the whole debate and why sidelock shooters feel that they have nothing in common with inline shooters.

Here's the sense I get from some of my friends.

It's about the heritage and history. Without the heritage, inlines are just another modern gun (yes, there are a few historical examples, but not enough the alter the argument).

Many people don't separate the heritage from the muzzleloader. They aren't just guns, but rather a link to the past. When you see one, you're reminded of all the historical events and people that came before you. When you view an inline, what do you

 

[Claude Mathis]

Many people don't separate the heritage from the muzzleloader. They aren't just guns, but rather a link to the past. When you see one, you're reminded of all the historical events and people that came before you. When you view an inline, what do you

 

[musketman]

My fellow members, please resist the name calling and pointing of fingers or I will have no choise but to lock this thread in favor of good will...

Thanks...

 

[Huntinfool]

You said, "The 209 is hotter and more weather resistant. But does that make it so different?"

The truth of the matter is it's not that much hotter it's 10 times the volume of fire which is guaranteed to ignite any propelant.

Plus it's not "more weather resistant" it is completely waterproof and completely weather resistant. The 209 primer completely eliminates any wet weather concerns!

Knight has even done studies by completely submerging their weapon for up to one hour and it still fired.

That is the biggest difference as I see it in modern weapons as opposed to traditional. But that coupled with all the other modern advancements there is no comparison between the modern and traditional weapons.

As I said before I have nothing against modern inlines they are fine weapons. They're in the same class as any centerfire weapononry. As you will find out now that you own a flintlock you will see a big difference in the two.

Chuck

 

Modern ML shooters are the minority here in this forum . I've no idea as to what the numbers are of folks across the country that now shoot modern ML's, but do you really believe that the numbers of modern ML shooters are diminishing in proportion to older style ML's?

I jest seen thet the CVA forum has went "kapoot",.... wasn't thet forum made up of mostly inline posters????

I'm no market analyst, but take a look at just about any local sporting goods store or gun shop and see what is on and has been on and flying off of the shelf for the past several years. It certainly is not older style designs.

I think this is because ther is much more $$$$$ to be made from the "gadgits" related to modern inlines then traditional muzzleloaders, include'n everthing from scopes to fancy jacketed bullets. What shooting "accessories" do modern inline shooters " make themselves " to enjoy the sport of "inline shoot'n"?????
Whenever a shooter can cast his own balls, make his own powderhorns, make his own powder measures and "cappers", carve his own stocks for his rifle, and etc.,.... this is a $$$$$ deficit to "industry". The modern muzzleloader industry IS NOT in business to save YOU money!!

Production manufacturers are dropping older style rifles. And for the time being, the imported sidelock model pricing is going up due to the weak US dollar which will make them even less appealing.

Unfortunately, the sidelock is being forced into more obscurity by market demand (which is fueled by marketing and a general lack of understanding) and economics which is a shame. Sidelocks were on the shelves for many, many years and obviously ended up sitting on the shelf too long causing dealers to take a lower return on sale, break even or loss just to move the sidelock from inventory.

Hasn't Remington also quit make'n inlines????

From what I see of the modern inline shooters is, they all seem to have the "mind-set" thet more is better , so I'm not surprised thet Magnum modern inlines are sell'n so well, even tho those very same inline shooters soon find out thet more modest powder charges are more accurate,.... of course by then it's too late they've already been "suckered in" and have an inline in ther hands. Then along come the "Improved Utimate Magnum" and they gotta have thet too because marketing says it's better then the "old model" Magnum. :crackup: :crackup:

I'm not saying it's right or that I agree with it because I don't. I love the sidelock and am very sorry to see it disappear from production inventories. I'm not a gun dealer now. I have several friends that are and the simple truth is "They just don't sell". Dealers are in business to make a living, not preserve nostalgia, history or to carry the overhead of items than hurt/hinder their business. Perhaps they should be.

I've jest recently heard of a new national traditional muzzleloading association, thet plans to help git the "word out" in regards to preserve'n the "heritage" of traditional muzzleloaders!! :applause: :applause: ::

New folks are coming to the older style ML's every day, but the proportion is lopsided compared to modern ML's.

I hear more about inline shooters now buy'n traditional muzzleloaders, then traditional fellas buy'n modern inlines,.... I think we're gonna see a change in the current "trend" as more fellas become aware of the outlandish "advertise'n hype" put forth from the modern inline industry!!

..... or do you agree with those "claims" ?????

As far as the similarity between the modern ML and the older inline ignition designs, I happen to be an engineer and I see very distinct similarities almost to the point of exact similarities. Sure the materials in which they are made might be different in some cases. But I see this as astehtic versus functional. Steel is steel and wood is still wood and many modern rifles are constructed of both.

When can we expect to see the "new" modern flintlock inlines become available to the public,.... and will they also be offered in a "smokeless" model?????? :crackup:

Regarding ballistics. You can equip modern and older style rifles the same almost if not identically. A sidelock with a hotter musket cap (even a 209 primer), larger powder charges or pellets, conical or sabot if the rifling will stabilize it and even toss on optics. I'm not saying anyone should, but you can. You can also buy or build fast twist barreling that will stabilize the largest conical or sabot for very accurate and long range shooting out to and far beyond 200 yards. So just how different is that?

Sure you could,.... because the possiblities of modern technology is endless, so "where" do we draw the line to retain the purpose by which most special muzzleloader seasons were first developed because of the relative short distance limitations of traditional muzzleloaders????? If I had to hunt with a muzzleloader with the ballistics of a modern centerfire, I'd probaly give up hunt'n because of the "lack of skill" required by such long distance firearms.

You can also shoot patch and ball, black powder and #11 caps and iron sights from Modern ML's just like an older style ML and the ballistics will be very close or the same. As for 209 primers, I really don't see any functional difference between the 209 and a percussion cap. It still a compression ignition. The 209 is hotter and more weather resistant. But does that make it so different?

Then "WHY" is ther such an outcry from the modern inliner's when suggestions are made to "thet effect"???????

If black powder continues to become a greater difficulty to obtain and storage for dealers, then substitute powders is all that will be commercially available. And a hotter ignition might be desirable for reliable functionality.

The more blackpowder is used as a propellant, the more the manufactors of such powder can resist new "restrictions" placed upon it!! Thet's why I think everbuddy should shoot "blackpowder" ONLY , and it wouldn't be long before the modern muzzleloader industry would be "lobby'n" in favor of blackpowder!!

Not taking into consideration the historical and traditional aspects, which are very, very important even though I don't practice them. Just how much different are things functionally between modern and older style ML's if they are equipped essentially the same?

I suggest you read the modern inline advertisements for the answer to yore question!! ::

I don't see the DNR or legislatures enacting seasonal hunting activities based on the way someone "feels" or should feel about a particular method or manner of taking game (nostalgic, historical, traditional, etc), but rather the functional manner or implement and it's characteristics that is used in which game is taken. Perhaps they should. I don't have a clue as to how to accomplish this. We can possibly change the seasons based on the functional characteristics, but I seriously doubt we can alter existing or enact new seasons based on being traditional in spirit, feeling or practice.

I've been thru this before, and it DOES take some effort from fellas thet prefer traditional muzzleloaders over modern inlines by state'n "facts" about muzzleloaders of all kinds!!

:imo:It's also a fact, thet claims of "ballistics" made by the modern inline industry WILL effect the view of all muzzleloaders sooner or later!!
Then we'll all know "WHO" to thank for "more restrictions" be'n placed upon our favorite firearms!!

rollingb

 

[Tahquamenon]

Off topic.

I see a huge difference between flintlock and caplock/inline ignitions and function. Very much looking forward to Flintlock. Trying to round up all of the have to have's for flintlock shooting as I have nothing for flinting. :thumbsup:

209's get wet too. Perhaps more or less depending on the rifle. My bolt action inlines have acted a like water collection bucket sometimes.


Sure Knight has the DISC system which provides for a seal around a flashchannel post on the breech plug and the primer housing. But this is not fool proof, but it does seem to work pretty well. I would not trust any rifle regardless of what design after it was dropped under water without unloading it and detail cleaning it first. Done that a few times with both modern and older style rifles.

Only one side of the primer itself is actually weather proof (the end that is struck) exactly like a cap.

For caplocks in the rain, I use a very non-pc technique that involves a little square of cellophane and a rubber band holding it tight around a capped nipple. I've sat all day or hunted small game in the pouring rain without a cow's knee on many occasions. Perfect ignition every time. In fact, I've dropped one in a creek that fired afterwards with my cellophane gasket over the nipple/cap although I don' t recommend it.

I understand as best that I can the passion that traditional folks feel regarding muzzleloading. I love the older style weapons and shooting/hunting/'maintaining them. I appreciate the history very much (history channel is one of my favorites when I actually have time for TV) and deeply respect the folks that dedicate themselves to the art and craft of traditional ways. I would agree that likely many of the modern ML folks could care less about the cap or flintlock or the art and craft of traditional practices. This is also a shame. I am not skilled to teach these folks other than with the older style rifles and how to care for and shoot with them.

Traditional folks often consider the modern ML as a centerfire rifle. Good Golly!, I shoot a bunch of HP centerfire rifles and the modern ML is nothing like a centerfire other than perhaps ergonomics from the time you begin loading to right up to when the trigger is pulled and then the difference is clear. Getting anyone to sincerely and honestly buy that would be remarkable. I'm not buying it though. I've got enough beach front propery in the Rockies.

I'd suggest spending a day at the range with a modern ML rifle just for kicks without optics, just iron sights and you will quickly find that other than the ergonomics, there really is not much functionally different if the powder, projectile and sights are the same. I shoot PRB from inlines all the time. It's really a bunch of fun for targeting and for small game. You still need to work up specific loads. Once you have spent a day at the range loading and shooting a modern rifle, you may not like them, but should come to the conclusion that they are not that much different in function and operation.

 

[Huntinfool]

I'm sorry to be the one to point this out to you but again you are wrong on at least two accounts:

#1 209 shot shell primers are sealed they are impervious to water. If you don't believe me drop one in the water for a while then put it in your inline and test it for yourself!

And if the primer goes off even if the first little bit of powder or pellet is damp it'll still go Bang because of the 10 times more volume of fire!

Where as even percussion caps can and will draw moisture and become ineffective.

#2 You said, "I'd suggest spending a day at the range with a modern ML rifle just for kicks without optics, just iron sights and you will quickly find that other than the ergonomics, there really is not much functionally different if the powder, projectile and sights are the same. I shoot PRB from inlines all the time. It's really a bunch of fun for targeting and for small game. You still need to work up specific loads. Once you have spent a day at the range loading and shooting a modern rifle, you may not like them, but should come to the conclusion that they are not that much different in function and operation."

As I've said before many of my friends have them. I've owned and hunted for 2 years with an iron sighted Model 700 Rem. inline.

I know what I'm talking about! And there's no comparison between modern inlines and Traditional ML other than they both get loaded from the front!

Chuck

 

[Tahquamenon]

Mr. Huntinfool, I certainly don't agree with you and beyond the comfortable safety in numbers perhaps here at this forum, I don't know anyone that would agree with you either. I've owned both Modern and Older style ML's obviously much, much longer than yourself and I have and have had a wide varitey of mfg's over the years. My MK-85 Knight is the oldest modern ML I have and is coming up on 20 years old. As for 209's, let's just say that they are not quite as water tight as you seem to think.
But you are the expert.

I'll help you.
Ok, you are right.
You know what you are talking about.

:master:

I give up. :applause:

Now you can be happy.

:crackup:

eace: eace: eace:

 

I reckon it's time to present these questions to you,....

In yore opinion, why do fellas buy inlines when they could jest as well buy a traditional muzzleloader instead ????

I see many modern inlines priced higher then some excellent sidelock muzzleloaders,.... so thet elminates "price" as an issue. :hmm:

Also,.... how is the increased expense of popular modern components used in modern inlines justified when compared to blackpowder and patched home-cast roundballs, if they don't offer greater ballistics and reliability???? ::

How do you compare the ballistics of a modern inline and 150 grs. of powder behind a saboted jacketed bullet, with the 45-70, 45-90, 45-110, or the 45-120 cartridges, or the 50-70, 50-90, and even the great "power-house" 50-140/500 Nitro Express cartridges?????

What are the differences between these cartridges and the "loads" reccomended for modern inlines other than the inlines "load at the muzzle"????

And finally,........

Why is it,... thet the 50-90 is considered as one of the greatest "long-range" buffalo cartridges in America's history,.... yet a modern inline which is fully capable of be'n loaded to even "higher ballistics" is allowed in the "special muzzleloader" hunts in Michigan under the disguise of be'n a "short-range" weapon????? ::

If yore not comfortable answer'n this last question,.... I'll understand "why"!! :winking:

rollingb