Maybe having their own section would be warranted.
Rule #7 Has Been Revised
- Thread starter Zonie
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
I think if it was limited to externally primed, pre -1865 firearms it would be fine. This would allow for guns like the Hall, the Sharps, the Burnside and others but would eliminate the self contained cartridge guns which mostly came along later and don't fit the time frame of the forum. And things like pinfires would be considered self contained so not eligible for discussion. I think there are a number of fans of the civil war era guns in particular that would enjoy being able to discuss them here without having to seek out another forum to talk about them on.
There are the English breech loading cannon of The Battle of Crecy in 1346! Basically take a coehorn, and load it. Jamb it into the back end of a tube set in a wooden frame on a wagon, said tube angled upward in the general direction of the enemy, and bang a wooden wedge in behind the coehorn to keep it snug into the back end of the tube...then fire the coehorn. :haha:
Also means the Fergusson rifle is now part of the mix.
Hey how about a new section, titled, "Innovative or Odd Black Powder Guns prior to 1865"...??? :wink:
Could include things like Leonardo's Organ gun, British breech loading cannon in the 14th century, the Royal Navy's Nock gun, black powder "spring guns", Peale's attempt to put a telescopic sight on a flintlock rifle in 1775..., as well as more mundane non-metallic breech loaders....although the metallic loaded Burnside DID use an externally fired cap to ignite the main charge....
LD
Zonie,
Not easy to drain the swamp. Let me tell you about my Grammy, quit school in the 7th grade but a very common sense person, she aways told me, David, if its not broken, don't fix it.
Not easy to drain the swamp. Let me tell you about my Grammy, quit school in the 7th grade but a very common sense person, she aways told me, David, if its not broken, don't fix it.
I believe some of the best target shooters during the U.S. matches in the 19th century used Sharps loaded not from the breech, but from the muzzle.
I, for one, am happy to have this change and it produces a warm tingling feeling in my heart which might be my angina acting up, or it could just be enjoyment.
I, for one, am happy to have this change and it produces a warm tingling feeling in my heart which might be my angina acting up, or it could just be enjoyment.
:shocked2: Yer 27, you should NOT have Angina :idunno: I believe you will need to get another smoothie to settle these things down :grin:
Can o worms. What does the fine gent that owns this place think Zonie?
B.
B.
For Schuetzen shooting BP cartridge guns, those most likely were Ballards, Borchardts, Stevens or Winchester high walls, that were indeed loaded by a false muzzle (to orient the bullet) at the muzzle. But there was a filled brass cartridge in the breech where the bullet was rammed down to be seated about 1/16” forward of the case.Smokey Plainsman said:
Sharps rifles are very nice, but are not considered a user friendly ”˜offhand’ rifle for extreme target shooting, like those of the late 1800s Schuetzen shooters ... of which some offhand target scores shot at 200-yrds whilst using black powdah, still stand to this day.
The owner agrees with making the change.Britsmoothy said:
There is no way I would do this without his agreeing to it.
As for the cartridge guns used for long range shooting and Schuetzen matches, discussion of them will not be allowed because they all used primed cases.
I am currently in the process of writing up some guidelines (rules) to clarify what is or is not allowed.
A rough draft of the rules is shown below.
Any suggestions or comments for improvement or clarification will be considered.
The following is a list of requirements for posts dealing with breech loading firearms on the Muzzleloading Forum.
Would this very early example be allowed?Zonie said:
From The British Royal Archaeological Institute, The Archaeological Journal Volume 24, 1867
"Curious breech-loading smooth-bored matchlock harquebus, not later than 1547, from the Tower, class 12, No. 3. It is thus described in the catalogue:--- harquebus, with fluted barrel, of same period as the preceding. Among the carvings of the stock are the rose and fleur de lis. It is a breech-loading arm, and it is remarkable that the moveable chamber which carries the cartridge has exactly the form of that in vogue at the present day: length of barrel, 6 ft. 6 in. This is probably the arm attributed to King Henry VIII. under No. 1_ the “fowling piece” of the monarch. Both of these arms are remarkable for the resemblance of the breech mechanism in principle, to what has been lately introduced under the name of the “Snider” system, the moveable iron charge chamber being represented in the modern example by a metallic cartridge."
Spence
The gun mentioned is a matchlock.
From what I see, its cartridge does not contain a lit smoldering match to fire the gun so IMO, the cartridge has no primer in it.
That gun easily fits into the acceptable category.
Note: My term "primer" means something like a percussion primer.
It does not mean priming powder like a flintlock or matchlock uses so, if the gun is pre-percussion and the "cartridge" holding the powder and ball has a feature to hold priming powder as well, that is acceptable.
From what I see, its cartridge does not contain a lit smoldering match to fire the gun so IMO, the cartridge has no primer in it.
That gun easily fits into the acceptable category.
Note: My term "primer" means something like a percussion primer.
It does not mean priming powder like a flintlock or matchlock uses so, if the gun is pre-percussion and the "cartridge" holding the powder and ball has a feature to hold priming powder as well, that is acceptable.
I've revised the area in blue to cover pre-percussion guns cartridges to allow priming pans.
Brokennock
Cannon
Please reconsider giving them their own subforym. If we have one for preflintlock, flintlock, and caplocks, why not one for the stuff in between? Rather than muddy the water in the other subforums.
I agree. I have little to no interest and would have to "weed" them out otherwise. :idunno:
Any rules seem to have exceptions. When we talk about historic arms we have all sorts of guns that fail a strict interpretation of the rules. The first lever action comes to mind. It’s not a muzzleloader but it’s a wheel lock. The Pauli arms also come to mind as they used a copper cartridge.
Yes, there are always some things that don't quite fit the written rules.
That's when a moderator will need to use their best judgement and figure out if it is acceptable or not.
If it is acceptable we'll let it ride. If it isn't we'll blow the topic away.
It ain't easy being a moderator. :rotf:
That's when a moderator will need to use their best judgement and figure out if it is acceptable or not.
If it is acceptable we'll let it ride. If it isn't we'll blow the topic away.
It ain't easy being a moderator. :rotf:
