- Joined
- Oct 31, 2004
- Messages
- 1,495
- Reaction score
- 10
:hmm: Yep!! Trollin for in-liners.. I guess every so often, ya got to purge and clense the system, ta keep things runnin shoooth. 
Traditional Hunters?
- Thread starter Claude Mathis
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
I want everyone to understand that I'm on the verge of laughing as I write this, and that I have no intentions of responding if someone takes offense to what I'm about to write. I was under the impression that this topic was verboten, but, since Claude himself opened the door (or is running the trolling motor, if you like), I'll say a few things that have been on my mind since long before I even knew this site existed.
I'm not an inline shooter or owner, and never will be, so please don't interpret my remarks as cheerleading for that particular style of gun. I find it ironic, though, that on a site whose members rely as heavily on documented evidence as do the participants, here, so much of what slides in under the radar, inline-wise, seems to be based on prejudice (in which I basically share) or misinformation (which does no one any good).
Roughly a couple of years back, Muzzle Blasts did an article in which three T/C rifles (a flint and a percussion Grey Hawk, I believe, and some model of inline), all with 24" barrels and either 1-32 or 1-24 rifling, were put in machine rests and fired under what passes for scientific conditions in the shooting world -- chronographs, timers, etc. The results showed what I've always known to be true -- no form of ignition, in and of itself, provides a discernable advantage (let alone the near-magical superiority advertised by inline makers and subscribed to by both inline shooters and those who loathe them) in terms of ballistics or accuracy. In short -- minus a scope, no inline is inherently superior in any regard to a sidelock percussion rifle shooting conicals or sabots through a fast-twist barrel. I'd venture to guess that this would include most guns with 1-48 twist, and it definitely includes such (more-or-less) historically-correct rifles such as the Lyman Great Plains Hunter. And, with a decent peep sight arrangement, which was historically rare but not completely unknown prior to the Civil War, the scope's advantage is cut way down, particularly when you consider that even a big conical with 73,000 grains of Pyrodex behind it is seriously losing its poop about the time that the scope really outclasses the peep. I base my assessment of the peep sight's capability, by the way, on witnessing a shooting match at increasingly longer ranges between a scoped, bolt-action Remington 700, and an M-1 Garand, equipped with its standard-issue aperture sight -- both rifles being fed from the same lot of .30-06 ammo. Obviously, any centerfire round is a whole different breed of cat than even the finest muzzleloader -- but that's just my point. I have to stray outside the realm of that which can be proven (or that has been proven, anyhow) to say this, but, in my opinion, all other factors being equal, a scope on a muzzleloading rifle doesn't equal the near-supernatural superiority that the makers and users of such guns seem to believe.
The problem I have with inlines, in regard to their performance, is exactly what I've just mentioned: their reputation for near-magical performance. It's way overhyped and exaggerated, and the end result is precisely the same as what happens when a similarly ill-informed yahoo gets his hands on a scoped centerfire rifle: too-long shots taken at game that ends up wounded and lost, due to the fact that the range the shot was taken at far exceeded the weapon's capability (as well as that of the shooter), and that it takes two days for the hunter to cover the ground between him and the dim speck at which he aimed and fired. I do not, however, buy into the claims of magic, myself, in the sense of feeling threatened by the performance of either inline rifles or their shooters.
Now, if you want to talk about inlines being soulless, ugly machines, with actions that are essentially improvements on the zip-gun concept, I'm with you there. And, yeah, a lot of inline owners are simply taking advantage of the extra season (read: opportunity to kill more deer) without having to (in their minds) be handicapped by an "unreliable" traditional sidelock, either flint or percussion. However, they're dead-wrong about the reliability and most any other criticism they express in regard to traditional guns, just as we traditionalists are dead-wrong to dismiss inlines as somehow not being muzzleloaders. They are -- ugly, soulless, stamped-out mass-production muzzleloaders, but still muzzleloaders.
There, I've said it. I may get in deep fecal matter for having done so, but the topic seems to have been brought up and allowed to pass, already. All the same, no offense is intended; other opinions or interpretations of the evidence may differ radically from mine, and that's fine by me; and I apologize in advance (well, actually, after the fact, since this comes at the end of the post) for ruffled feathers. I also appreciate the patience of anyone who's waded through to this point. So, please, no torches, tar-and-feathers, nooses, or whips, okay? :v
I'm not an inline shooter or owner, and never will be, so please don't interpret my remarks as cheerleading for that particular style of gun. I find it ironic, though, that on a site whose members rely as heavily on documented evidence as do the participants, here, so much of what slides in under the radar, inline-wise, seems to be based on prejudice (in which I basically share) or misinformation (which does no one any good).
Roughly a couple of years back, Muzzle Blasts did an article in which three T/C rifles (a flint and a percussion Grey Hawk, I believe, and some model of inline), all with 24" barrels and either 1-32 or 1-24 rifling, were put in machine rests and fired under what passes for scientific conditions in the shooting world -- chronographs, timers, etc. The results showed what I've always known to be true -- no form of ignition, in and of itself, provides a discernable advantage (let alone the near-magical superiority advertised by inline makers and subscribed to by both inline shooters and those who loathe them) in terms of ballistics or accuracy. In short -- minus a scope, no inline is inherently superior in any regard to a sidelock percussion rifle shooting conicals or sabots through a fast-twist barrel. I'd venture to guess that this would include most guns with 1-48 twist, and it definitely includes such (more-or-less) historically-correct rifles such as the Lyman Great Plains Hunter. And, with a decent peep sight arrangement, which was historically rare but not completely unknown prior to the Civil War, the scope's advantage is cut way down, particularly when you consider that even a big conical with 73,000 grains of Pyrodex behind it is seriously losing its poop about the time that the scope really outclasses the peep. I base my assessment of the peep sight's capability, by the way, on witnessing a shooting match at increasingly longer ranges between a scoped, bolt-action Remington 700, and an M-1 Garand, equipped with its standard-issue aperture sight -- both rifles being fed from the same lot of .30-06 ammo. Obviously, any centerfire round is a whole different breed of cat than even the finest muzzleloader -- but that's just my point. I have to stray outside the realm of that which can be proven (or that has been proven, anyhow) to say this, but, in my opinion, all other factors being equal, a scope on a muzzleloading rifle doesn't equal the near-supernatural superiority that the makers and users of such guns seem to believe.
The problem I have with inlines, in regard to their performance, is exactly what I've just mentioned: their reputation for near-magical performance. It's way overhyped and exaggerated, and the end result is precisely the same as what happens when a similarly ill-informed yahoo gets his hands on a scoped centerfire rifle: too-long shots taken at game that ends up wounded and lost, due to the fact that the range the shot was taken at far exceeded the weapon's capability (as well as that of the shooter), and that it takes two days for the hunter to cover the ground between him and the dim speck at which he aimed and fired. I do not, however, buy into the claims of magic, myself, in the sense of feeling threatened by the performance of either inline rifles or their shooters.
Now, if you want to talk about inlines being soulless, ugly machines, with actions that are essentially improvements on the zip-gun concept, I'm with you there. And, yeah, a lot of inline owners are simply taking advantage of the extra season (read: opportunity to kill more deer) without having to (in their minds) be handicapped by an "unreliable" traditional sidelock, either flint or percussion. However, they're dead-wrong about the reliability and most any other criticism they express in regard to traditional guns, just as we traditionalists are dead-wrong to dismiss inlines as somehow not being muzzleloaders. They are -- ugly, soulless, stamped-out mass-production muzzleloaders, but still muzzleloaders.
There, I've said it. I may get in deep fecal matter for having done so, but the topic seems to have been brought up and allowed to pass, already. All the same, no offense is intended; other opinions or interpretations of the evidence may differ radically from mine, and that's fine by me; and I apologize in advance (well, actually, after the fact, since this comes at the end of the post) for ruffled feathers. I also appreciate the patience of anyone who's waded through to this point. So, please, no torches, tar-and-feathers, nooses, or whips, okay? :v
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2005
- Messages
- 1,344
- Reaction score
- 39
I smelt the chum on the water before I ever clicked on this thread. :grin:
We're gonna need a bigger boat. :rotf:
We're gonna need a bigger boat. :rotf:
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2005
- Messages
- 1,344
- Reaction score
- 39
I like all guns but this site is dedicated to shooting traditional guns.
That's why we are here.
19?
That's why we are here.
19?
they are ML's by definition, but are designed to use modern projectiles and sights which increase the range over the ML's of the pre-cartridge era, wherein the rub cometh, you could design a 30-06 to load from the front and it would technicaly be a ML, trying to compare the bullets and sights of the 1840's with the modern ones and saying "see they are all the same" is not comparing apples and oranges.I'm done Claude I have been down this road to many times, if someone don't get it by now it ain't gonna happen...
20 words or less?
Don't like 'em. Won't shoot 'em. Just don't have much against 'em.
Counting contractions, that's 15.
That said -- I get it. I know what this forum's about, and I like the fact that the rules are clearly defined. I don't intend to ever bring it up again, and I'm going to apologize, again, to anyone who took offense. Also to everyone who had to slog their way through that lo-o-o-ong post. Brevity ain't my strong point, more so when I'm trying to make myself very clear -- and walking on eggs at the same time.
Don't like 'em. Won't shoot 'em. Just don't have much against 'em.
Counting contractions, that's 15.
That said -- I get it. I know what this forum's about, and I like the fact that the rules are clearly defined. I don't intend to ever bring it up again, and I'm going to apologize, again, to anyone who took offense. Also to everyone who had to slog their way through that lo-o-o-ong post. Brevity ain't my strong point, more so when I'm trying to make myself very clear -- and walking on eggs at the same time.
Guest
I hear you, and totally agree.
My issue is not that they have an advantage (which they do, but it is limited as you stated in your post), but simply that they are not traditional, and lumping them in with firearms that are traditional and equating someone who hunts with them to a "longhunter" seems silly to me. That's all.
(Don't hurt me Claude... :yakyak: )
My issue is not that they have an advantage (which they do, but it is limited as you stated in your post), but simply that they are not traditional, and lumping them in with firearms that are traditional and equating someone who hunts with them to a "longhunter" seems silly to me. That's all.
(Don't hurt me Claude... :yakyak: )
Might I suggest to any NMLRA member that you have the opportunity to select NMLRA BOD that will support traditional ML. The time to act is now. End the banter and review the candidates to see who you think will support your cause.
Respectfully
Old Salt
Respectfully
Old Salt
IMO, the direction of the NMLRA has been clear for at least 2-3 years...looking at the slippery slope it's already headed down, traditional ML within the NMLRA will shrink to an after thought during the next decade as the dedicated elders die off...all the attention is being focused on the new technology, the new money...
:v
:v
Roundball,
I think if the NMLRA membership votes for the dedicated elders now and shows the corporate inline candidates the way to the door then the traditional cause will stand a better chance in the coming years.
Actions speak louder than words in an election. No battle was ever won by giving in to what seems obvious.
Old Salt
I think if the NMLRA membership votes for the dedicated elders now and shows the corporate inline candidates the way to the door then the traditional cause will stand a better chance in the coming years.
Actions speak louder than words in an election. No battle was ever won by giving in to what seems obvious.
Old Salt
The Ultimate Inline is claiming over 2500 fps with a five pellet load under a 300 grain saboted bullet. Owners are claiming 2700 fps. The Savage is using smokeless and accurate loads are being reported in the 2400 fps range with a 300 grain bullet. Knight has built a gun that will shoot accurately at 2300 fps with a 300 grain bullet. That is so far outside the envelope that there is no comparing that to a real muzzleloader.
In a rest, an inline may not have an action based advantage, but off hand it certainly does. The lock time is quicker. The movement in the weapon is inline with the bullets path on many of them. They are a more stable platform that fires quicker, making it easier to get good accuracy out of them. They also uses shallow groove fast twist rifling so that they can use long for caliber bullets that extend range and increase energy at long range.
I don't care if someone uses the action. When they put a scope on it, load it with plastic, and in general pile every cheat they can get away with on the gun so that they never have to meet the muzzleloading challenge, and then they climb over the fence and tresspass on us during the muzzleloading season, well, I have a problem. Modern high tech belongs in the modern season, not the muzzleloader season.
By the way, a NMLRA champion shooter told me the other day online that if she had to wear dead men's clothes to participate in the NMLRA State championship shoots, that she would not participate at all. That is where the new NMLRA is at. Tradition means nothing there.
In a rest, an inline may not have an action based advantage, but off hand it certainly does. The lock time is quicker. The movement in the weapon is inline with the bullets path on many of them. They are a more stable platform that fires quicker, making it easier to get good accuracy out of them. They also uses shallow groove fast twist rifling so that they can use long for caliber bullets that extend range and increase energy at long range.
I don't care if someone uses the action. When they put a scope on it, load it with plastic, and in general pile every cheat they can get away with on the gun so that they never have to meet the muzzleloading challenge, and then they climb over the fence and tresspass on us during the muzzleloading season, well, I have a problem. Modern high tech belongs in the modern season, not the muzzleloader season.
By the way, a NMLRA champion shooter told me the other day online that if she had to wear dead men's clothes to participate in the NMLRA State championship shoots, that she would not participate at all. That is where the new NMLRA is at. Tradition means nothing there.
kentucky bucky
45 Cal.
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2004
- Messages
- 586
- Reaction score
- 1
How can they use the term "longhunter" and "inline" in the same sentence and not be telling a joke? :shake:
