sick of that jackass who writes for NMLRA

[BrownBear]

How true.

Up here the special muzzleloader season requires a class and both written and shooting tests. Inlines are used in the class, but along with the prohibition against scope use, it's not much of an incentive for hunters to go that route. It's a pretty easy thing after the fact for me to interest folks in sidelocks.

Most come out of the class and buy an inline, but if they're going to stick it out hunting with MLs, they're easy to show that sidelocks are no harder to clean, cheaper to shoot, and just as effective. I've had pretty good luck getting these folks to buy a sidelock as a "second" ML, but you never see any of them buying another inline as a second. And if they get into shooting outside of the season, you never see them using their inlines.

The moment they allow scopes in the special seasons up here, all that will go away though. That's why I'm willing to accept inlines for getting people interested, but I won't sit idle for proposals to allow scopes.

Fortunately all the folks I know administering the program and teaching the classes feel the same way. They'll work to close the seasons if scopes are wedged in. In fact none that I know hunt with inlines, using sidelocks or home-built longbows for the special season. Pretty traditional folks who are forced by pre-existance of a state-owned set of inlines for use in the classes.

That brings up an interesting question- Do any of the sidelock companies provide package deals to states for use in mandatory ML classes? Seems like a real shame that the inline companies are smart enough to do that, while the sidelock companies keep losing business. Kind of like the time Apple computer gave free computers to all the schools in Redmond, Washington, where the kids of all the Microsofters went to school. :thumbsup:

 

[tg]

I have a hard time seeing any difference between the inline with a modern peep and modern bullet and say a Renegade or any other sidelock thusly equipped, the type of ignition as long as it is open is really nothing that will give any type of advantgae of any sort, you can put one of those gizmos on a sidelock capper and make it weather proof, why is the ignition thing always the point of focus? it would seem like the items that create an inbalance of efficiency and range when comparing the two types of guns that would be the issue, what would be the problem with a bolt action, open ignition ML with buckhorn rear sights, blade front sight, rifled for and loaded with a PRB being used in a ML season?

 

[GreyWhiskers]

I've been following this thread since the start and have read some different ideas on how to fix the ML seasons, maybe even get rid of them. I think limiting the equipment such as sights and projectiles is the answer. Banning optics and sabots from ML seasons will keep it a short- range affair where hunting skills are more important.

IMHO, any advantage from peep sights or conicals will be small in a hunting situation. On the other hand, saboted bullets and scopes allow hunters to take shots on par with the centerfire guys.

I don't like the looks of inlines and would never own one, but if somebody wants to use one during a ML season without optics and saboted bullets I say go-ahead. GW

 

[tg]

"any advantage from peep sights or conicals will be small in a hunting situation."

I don't know, it is the range and efficiency that the &^%-lines are supposed to have that is the attraction and with out peeps and bullets there would be no advantage, like I said it can't just be the type of ignition if both types were good to 100 yds there would be no conflict, but the &^^%-lines are designed to shoot modern bullets to 200 yds which as I recall from my centerfire days is a doable deal with a good peep setup, so if the &&^-line can shoot a bullet out to 200 yds with a modern aperture sight, then it has at least a theoretical advantage over the...wait! what if you have a somewhat traditional styled sidelock with the same sight, barrel twist and bullet? what is the difference? just the ignition type which doesn't change the equation between the two at all, it really seems like you can't read this any other way.... the sights and the bullets are what distinguish the &&^%-line from the traditional type sidelock.. this can sound a bit confusing but it is really quite clear.There is no difference between a *&^%-line with a modern peep setup and a modern bulet shooting out to 200 yds than a traditional type gun with the same sight,barrel,bullet setup both guns will have the same potential efficiency/range so why are we against the use of *&^%-lines in ML seasons? is it the bolt action...the architecture..I'm so confused :shocked2:

 

[GreyWhiskers]

Well, I think we are saying the same thing. :hmm:

I don't have a problem with the firearm's action or lock.
I do think that scopes and saboted bullets are too much of an advantage for ML seasons.

I've talked to inl*ne shooters that use saboted bullets at ranges past 200yds with success. These are NOT the bore diameter, conical bullets that I'm familiar with. (Maxi-Ball, Maxi-Hunter, etc)I don't believe the conicals are practical much past 100yds. GW

 

[faw3]

Since this post went every place... I'm with you I've been writeing the NMLRA every put down hes run since 2001 didn't do much good BUT this 2000 person survey they took a few months ago I note they explain why they are running some none stuff of intrest like ads ect, so maybe they got a clue?? :rotf: Also they are putting up or have a web page that members can say what they want, was in small print pages in MB, NO ???oh NO JOKE, so any of ya that stayed in or the 75 yrs MB like me its time to let them know about it ( If this space is true ! Seems the NRA has taken a real inrest into all this so dont forget to ask for more old guns in NRA stuff too! Fred :hatsoff: Thought the Pro NMLRA guys wuld be alll over these pages.

 

[tg]

"with. (Maxi-Ball, Maxi-Hunter, etc)I don't believe the conicals are practical much past 100yds. GW"

I believe there are some modern ML bullets without sabots that are printing pretty good out to 200 yds, from what I have read on some inline forums these are likley used with a scope but a good aperture sight could put a guy in buisnes at that range as well, and they would likley work as well out of a sidelock with the right barrel as one of the other modern guns.Even some of the originals military conicals were used in sniper rifles in the civil war, it is unlikely that they have been made less effective.

 

[longcruise]

"with. (Maxi-Ball, Maxi-Hunter, etc)I don't believe the conicals are practical much past 100yds. GW"

I believe there are some modern ML bullets without sabots that are printing pretty good out to 200 yds, from what I have read on some inline forums these are likley used with a scope but a good aperture sight could put a guy in buisnes at that range as well, and they would likley work as well out of a sidelock with the right barrel as one of the other modern guns.Even some of the originals military conicals were used in sniper rifles in the civil war, it is unlikely that they have been made less effective

I agree with both of you (hows that for diplomacy?). :haha:

Indeed they can be shot with accuracy out to 200 yards and probably even further. But,... the fly in the ointment is, of course, the ability to estimate range in the field and place the shot. Ten or fifteen yards off can make a big diff in poi.

 

[Little Wattsy]

I have a hard time seeing any difference between the inline with a modern peep and modern bullet and say a Renegade or any other sidelock thusly equipped, the type of ignition as long as it is open is really nothing that will give any type of advantgae of any sort, you can put one of those gizmos on a sidelock capper and make it weather proof, why is the ignition thing always the point of focus? it would seem like the items that create an inbalance of efficiency and range when comparing the two types of guns that would be the issue, what would be the problem with a bolt action, open ignition ML with buckhorn rear sights, blade front sight, rifled for and loaded with a PRB being used in a ML season?

EXACTLY my point all along but SOMEONE or someone'ssss keeps yelling "PC", "It dosnt LOOK right", or "Its not traditional".
That being said I think that you are on to something here! :hmm:

 

[NHmsj]

After 13 pages of comments regards Traditional vs. Inline, I guess it's safe to say such is a hot topic. There has been a lot of good commentary - and some not so good - on both sides. There has been a lot of off topic discussion, too. So much so, I don't know if this reply is on or off topic (sick of that jackass who writes for NMLRA), nonetheless, here my thought on this Traditional/Inline thing.

As it has been pointed out by others here already, Traditional firearms and traditional hunting are here because there are people who want to do engage in something historical and/or a bit more challenging in the field. Inlines are here, and perhaps expanding in use, because there is an opportunity to hunt longer a longer season and/or bag more game. Period. Again, as it has been said, eliminate "primitive" hunting seasons and inlines will, for the most part, go the way of the Do-Do bird. It's just that simple. Primitive hunting seasons have been hijacked by folks with no interest in Traditional gear and/or hunting but who see the opportunity, if they acquire gear that fits the definition of muzzleloader to the slightest degree, to hunt more. I agree with many posters here. It doesn't matter to me if there are primitive seasons or not, I hunt with a flintlock because I choose to hunt with a flintlock, not because it's "in season." To be true, I have hunted with an inline too. It's not much different than hunting with my NEF single shot 30.06. In the field I guess I'd have to say the NEF 30.06 just loads much faster. 200 yard shots are not of my world. In my many, many years of hunting in New England and Pennsylvania I have NEVER shot a deer beyond 75 yards. Hell, don't know if I could ever get a clear shot that far (now-a-days, I doubt I could see good enough to shoot much farther, either.)

Bottom line: in my opinion I don't care what the other guy hunts with - as long as he doesn't shoot me, of course. (One reason why I'd support single shot, manually operated weapons while deer hunting.) I hunt traditional because I choose to, not because I must to meet some regulation.

Again, I am convinced if primitive seasons were eliminated, Inlines would fade. Traditional is here to stay.

msj

 

[tg]

"That being said I think that you are on to something here! '

I think the issue here as I see it is that the new modern type guns have an advantage at leasst on paper as to haveing a 200 yd range with modern bullets and sights, many think this is not right, we cannot talk about these guns on this forum, but many of those who don't think the modern guns should be used in ML seasons use a sidelock with the same sights and range potential,and we can talk about them here because they have a sidelock, I personaly think a bolt action open ignition ML with a buckhorn sight and loaded with a PRB is perfectly fine for a ML season, it is and never has been about what the gun looks like but about how the performance approaches that of centerfire guns, whether the gun was made by Mr Knight or Mr Dickert.

 

[akapennypincher]

Well with writers getting paid what they do :bull: to contribute to Muzzle Blast thing will never get any BETTER IMHO. :rotf:

 

[jethro224]

MuzzleBlasts is always asking for articles. Why don't traditional guys write some hunting stories up and send 'em in?

 

[Pork Chop]

MuzzleBlasts is always asking for articles. Why don't traditional guys write some hunting stories up and send 'em in?

That is the most intelligent post I have read in this thread!

 

[Rancocas]

MuzzleBlasts is always asking for articles. Why don't traditional guys write some hunting stories up and send 'em in?

That is the most intelligent post I have read in this thread!

I do a little writing, and soon will have an article published in MuzzleLoader magazine. However, I can't get current information on MuzzleBlasts. I keep coming up with an obsolete site that hasn't been updated since 2006.

 

[jethro224]

"For information on submitting articles, advertising rates, magazine mechanicals, and so forth, send for free brochure to NMLRA, P.O. Box 67, Friendship, IN 47021, or call (812) 667-5131."

There ya go. :hatsoff:

 

[Claude Mathis]

I do a little writing, and soon will have an article published in MuzzleLoader magazine. However, I can't get current information on MuzzleBlasts. I keep coming up with an obsolete site that hasn't been updated since 2006.

If you go to the NMLRA home page and click on "Muzzle Blasts", you'll see this...

For information on submitting articles, advertising rates, magazine mechanicals, and so forth, send for free brochure to NMLRA, P.O. Box 67, Friendship, IN 47021, or call (812) 667-5131.

Click here to submit Letter to the Editor.

Request Writer's Guidelines

The page has the current cover and link to obtain the "Writers Guidelines".

 

[akapennypincher]

I do a little writing, and soon will have an article published in MuzzleLoader magazine. However, I can't get current information on MuzzleBlasts. I keep coming up with an obsolete site that hasn't been updated since 2006.

If you go to the NMLRA home page and click on "Muzzle Blasts", you'll see this...

For information on submitting articles, advertising rates, magazine mechanicals, and so forth, send for free brochure to NMLRA, P.O. Box 67, Friendship, IN 47021, or call (812) 667-5131.

Click here to submit Letter to the Editor.

Request Writer's Guidelines

The page has the current cover and link to obtain the "Writers Guidelines".

Well everyone has the necessary link so you can get the "Writers Guidelines", and hopefully they have uped their per word rate, as it was not very good years ago.

Funny thing is many writers, and photographers, try and live off their ability to write, and create images for publication.

Sadly many publications do not appreciate that fact, and offer zero, or rates that do not even cover expenses, or time at a minimal wage.

I remember year ago getting a call from one of those afternoon Tabloid T.V. Show looking to use an IMAGE I owned of an Actor whom I had photographed after an motorcycle accident with a pin in his leg inthe hospital.

I ask what they would pay for use of the image, and when they told me I said sorry as that would not even cover my time to find the negative, and make a print.

I got some big song and dance how important this image was to their story, and I told the photo editor, than pay me like it is important. After all their show aired in over 100 markets in the U.S. Daily.

Needless to say I did not give them the image to use CHEAP, as they originally WANTED.

 

[Zonie]

There are some magazines that don't pay much if anything for stories.

I had a 2 page article with 3 photos published by Single Shot Exchange and received a grand total of 4 copies of the magazine with my story in it as payment.
Oh, I had to request the 4 copies after the article was published.

 

[tg]

I wrote a couple of ML hunting articles and a trapping article some 20 years ago but never polished them up or sent them in, I was thinking about Fur Fish and Game or Muzzleblasts but the price paid for articles at the time and my change of feelings abot Muzzleblasts and the politics of the NMLRA caused me to loose interest and not put any more time into the project, this was back in the typewriter and no spellcheck days, now writing is a bit more user friendly but I still haven't been able to get interested in it again.Maybe someday before I dissapear in a whisp of smoke one cool autumn morn' I may take a stab at it again, maybe I will write an article outlining all the positive factors envolved in useing a *&^%-line over a traditional ML...that would be more like a short story :shake: