Trying to stay out of trouble, here!

[Danny Ray Milligan]

Just signed up, and read through the rules list. Most of them are common sense and self-explanatory, but there are a few that I have questions about, mainly so I don't get in trouble with the moderators.

My understanding of the term Muzzle Loader means a weapon based upon antique firearms, pre-1865, where you have to push a powder charge, wad, and bullet down the barrel, then load a primer or cap that can be ignited by the hammer.
What exactly constitutes an "in-line"? I have two Tradition buckstalkers that are break-barrel with 209 breech-loaders, are these, or are they NOT... muzzle loaders? I have to muscle a charge, wad and ball down the muzzle to load it, what is changed that makes such a thing "not a muzzle loader"?

I also noted that civil war era revolvers (such as my CVA 1858 Army) are not considered actual muzzle loaders, but are permitted to be discussed. I presume this is because most of them have a built-in ramrod under the barrel that loads each chamber of the cylinder. My response would be that, theoretically, you can still muzzle load each chamber, even though that would seem to be defeating the purpose of the built-in ramrod, wouldn't it? If you so wished, you could shove a charge, wad, and bullet down the barrel with a separate ramrod, then rotate the cylinder so that you can access the next empty chamber, right?

I note that discussion of making explosive devices is prohibited, as is manufacture of black powder. Does this include the discussion of molding your own bullets, fabricating or reloading your own percussion caps to overcome the current and chronic shortage of available caps like #10 or #11 caps in the marketplace?

Again, these are just honest questions, so the moderators won't see a necessity to take me out to the woodshed for crossing into a topic that I wasn't aware was forbidden.

Final question: is discussion and advice about building your own muzzle loader (whether from a kit or from scratch) a permitted topic?

Thanks guys, with an apology in advance if I ruffled any feathers with these questions...

-Danny

 

[Brazos John]

In reverse order of your questions:

The are lots of discussions about building bp guns here, with comments from experienced builders. You can learn a lot, and share what you already know.

Lots of discussions about molding your own bullets. And making your own caps.
I won't try to answer about making your own powder. Some discussion, but I don't know the limits.

BP revolvers are discussed, cussed, and bought and sold here.

Inlines? What are these monstrosities of which you speak? 99% not allowed, except for certain small pistols that happen to have the nipple in-line with the barrel. But, nothing modern-looking.


I'll step aside to let others explain more.
Welcome to the Forum. Ask about anything, and share what you know.

And we love photos! Guns, scenery, shooting guns in pretty scenery, and if with grandkids, even better!

 

[snakebit]

John pretty much summed it up. If you need help/advice on the in-lines, there is a sister site, Modern Muzzleloading, that you can join also for that stuff. Legions of good folks one this sight, knowledgeable, helpful, etc.. there are several on here I am proud to call "friend", even though I have never met them in person. So again, welcome and enjoy learning, it's impossible not to.

 

[Danny Ray Milligan]

Thank you!!!

 

[Loyalist Dave]

Just signed up, and read through the rules list. Most of them are common sense and self-explanatory, but there are a few that I have questions about, mainly so I don't get in trouble with the moderators.

My understanding of the term Muzzle Loader means a weapon based upon antique firearms, pre-1865, where you have to push a powder charge, wad, and bullet down the barrel, then load a primer or cap that can be ignited by the hammer.
What exactly constitutes an "in-line"? I have two Tradition buckstalkers that are break-barrel with 209 breech-loaders, are these, or are they NOT... muzzle loaders? I have to muscle a charge, wad and ball down the muzzle to load it, what is changed that makes such a thing "not a muzzle loader"?

I also noted that civil war era revolvers (such as my CVA 1858 Army) are not considered actual muzzle loaders, but are permitted to be discussed. I presume this is because most of them have a built-in ramrod under the barrel that loads each chamber of the cylinder. My response would be that, theoretically, you can still muzzle load each chamber, even though that would seem to be defeating the purpose of the built-in ramrod, wouldn't it? If you so wished, you could shove a charge, wad, and bullet down the barrel with a separate ramrod, then rotate the cylinder so that you can access the next empty chamber, right?

I note that discussion of making explosive devices is prohibited, as is manufacture of black powder. Does this include the discussion of molding your own bullets, fabricating or reloading your own percussion caps to overcome the current and chronic shortage of available caps like #10 or #11 caps in the marketplace?

Again, these are just honest questions, so the moderators won't see a necessity to take me out to the woodshed for crossing into a topic that I wasn't aware was forbidden.

Final question: is discussion and advice about building your own muzzle loader (whether from a kit or from scratch) a permitted topic?

Thanks guys, with an apology in advance if I ruffled any feathers with these questions...

-Danny

Good Morning Danny, thanks for asking.

YES your inline is a "muzzleloader" by legal definition in most if not all states. It is NOT a "traditional muzzleloader" by definition here. (Another interesting side topic..., all of what we classify here as "traditional" muzzleloading firearms are considered "antiques in most states, but that is based on their design being "copied" from an actual antique. I can't begin to tell you how many guys pull the 209 primer from their inlines in my state and drive home thinking they are in compliance with Maryland law, when Maryland Law does not -or didn't until recently- recognize an inline as an antique muzzleloader. So it was supposed to be fully unloaded when placed into the car and driven on the highway.)

The discussion cutoff date is 1865, not pre-1865, PLUS the ignition for the firearm must be from a an exterior source, not an internal primer from a cartridge. So certain breech loaders that load a cartridge BUT use an external cap, i.e. the [original] Sharps, The Burnside carbine, The Gallagher carbine, The Hall rifle, The Smith carbine, The Ferguson rifle, are all open for discussion, but the Spencer and the Henry, made for rimfire cartridges or modern cartridges today, are not, and neither are inline rifles.

We also don't discuss converted rifles like a Snider converted Enfield, etc.

The cap-n-ball revolvers are one of the minor exceptions to the overall rule. However, one may find SA Army 1873 revolvers, made with cap-n-ball cylinders to get around some European laws, and these, although cap-n-ball, are too modern of a design (1873)

You may discuss making of caps, and molding bullets, but may not discuss sabot ammunition nor jacketed bullets, nor may these be offered for sale in Classified ads, nor may the sale of black powder or caps be done (including "throwing them in to sweeten a sale").

OF course what you discuss with another member via PM is your business

Mostly this is for liability. The admin does not wish for the forum to become embroiled in some case where a prohibited adult person, or minor, got hold of a converted to modern use firearm, or blew themselves or others up, based on openly shared information gleaned from this site. There are plenty of other sites out there that have this information, let them deal with such risks.

LD

 

[Danny Ray Milligan]

Good Morning Danny, thanks for asking.

YES your inline is a "muzzleloader" by legal definition in most if not all states. It is NOT a "traditional muzzleloader" by definition here. (Another interesting side topic..., all of what we classify here as "traditional" muzzleloading firearms are considered "antiques in most states, but that is based on their design being "copied" from an actual antique. I can't begin to tell you how many guys pull the 209 primer from their inlines in my state and drive home thinking they are in compliance with Maryland law, when Maryland Law does not -or didn't until recently- recognize an inline as an antique muzzleloader. So it was supposed to be fully unloaded when placed into the car and driven on the highway.)

The discussion cutoff date is 1865, not pre-1865, PLUS the ignition for the firearm must be from a an exterior source, not an internal primer from a cartridge. So certain breech loaders that load a cartridge BUT use an external cap, i.e. the [original] Sharps, The Burnside carbine, The Gallagher carbine, The Hall rifle, The Smith carbine, The Ferguson rifle, are all open for discussion, but the Spencer and the Henry, made for rimfire cartridges or modern cartridges today, are not, and neither are inline rifles.

We also don't discuss converted rifles like a Snider converted Enfield, etc.

The cap-n-ball revolvers are one of the minor exceptions to the overall rule. However, one may find SA Army 1873 revolvers, made with cap-n-ball cylinders to get around some European laws, and these, although cap-n-ball, are too modern of a design (1873)

You may discuss making of caps, and molding bullets, but may not discuss sabot ammunition nor jacketed bullets, nor may these be offered for sale in Classified ads, nor may the sale of black powder or caps be done (including "throwing them in to sweeten a sale").

OF course what you discuss with another member via PM is your business

Mostly this is for liability. The admin does not wish for the forum to become embroiled in some case where a prohibited adult person, or minor, got hold of a converted to modern use firearm, or blew themselves or others up, based on openly shared information gleaned from this site. There are plenty of other sites out there that have this information, let them deal with such risks.

LD

Ok, Dave, seeing the logic in all your points!
So the idea is TRADITIONAL muzzle loaders, or recreations of them that stick to the original design, am I right?
So, for example, I can make a note-for-note copy of an old Kentucky flintlock squirrel rife from the 1820's, with no issues, but if I make it look like an AR 15, even though it functions exactly like the 5 foot Kentucky rifle, that is crossing the line?

-Danny

 

[snakebit]

Ok, Dave, seeing the logic in all your points!
So the idea is TRADITIONAL muzzle loaders, or recreations of them that stick to the original design, am I right?
So, for example, I can make a note-for-note copy of an old Kentucky flintlock squirrel rife from the 1820's, with no issues, but if I make it look like an AR 15, even though it functions exactly like the 5 foot Kentucky rifle, that is crossing the line?

-Danny

Why do you have to be like that? He took the time to answer your question respectfully, and you come at him like this? Troll on.

 

[Danny Ray Milligan]

Why do you have to be like that? He took the time to answer your question respectfully, and you come at him like this? Troll on.

I honestly wasn't trying to troll, I was trying to clarify.
I perceived that the objection to in-lines was because they A) didn't exist in 1865, and B) look like modern cartridge rifles, even though they are muzzle loading.
After all, the title at the top of the page does include the tagline "Keeping Traditions Alive", I was simply trying to determine where the lines are drawn... no disrespect was intended.

 

[snakebit]

I honestly wasn't trying to troll, I was trying to clarify.
I perceived that the objection to in-lines was because they A) didn't exist in 1865, and B) look like modern cartridge rifles, even though they are muzzle loading.
After all, the title at the top of the page does include the tagline "Keeping Traditions Alive", I was simply trying to determine where the lines are drawn... no disrespect was intended.

LD is one of the more knowledge guys to post on here. He has also saved guys from scams on multiple occasions. He couldn't have explained it any clearer. The "AR-15" comment. Leads me to believe otherwise.

 

[Danny Ray Milligan]

I was, again, trying to determine where the lines were drawn.
I once saw a guy who took apart his 30-06 and made it look like a Kentucky long rifle. Maybe such things have their place among gun collectors and gun-avids, but even I understand such a thing would have no place in a muzzle-loader forum. My question is: WHERE is the line drawn at? If it fits every standard of muzzle-loaders, under the law, but it looks like a phaser from the Star Trek movies, is it something that would get me banned for even mentioning it? That was the title and point of this thread, after all, wasn't it? What can I talk about without getting things thrown at me, from the balcony?

 

[TNGhost]

I was, again, trying to determine where the lines were drawn.
I once saw a guy who took apart his 30-06 and made it look like a Kentucky long rifle. Maybe such things have their place among gun collectors and gun-avids, but even I understand such a thing would have no place in a muzzle-loader forum. My question is: WHERE is the line drawn at? If it fits every standard of muzzle-loaders, under the law, but it looks like a phaser from the Star Trek movies, is it something that would get me banned for even mentioning it? That was the title and point of this thread, after all, wasn't it? What can I talk about without getting things thrown at me, from the balcony?

Basically, we are talking about everything and anything historically traditional prior to any brass cartridge using arm, be it an original or copy.

So, no cartridges, no modern (post 1865) designs and no making black powder and that's about it. You will find some minor exceptions but that is it in a nutshell.

If you step out of bounds, they will caution you, if you do it repeatedly after warnings, they will bounce you.

The site is heavy on history up to the U.S. civil war so let that be your guide. Take a look around and check out ALL the subforums (there is one specifically on gun building) and you will get the drift. (I hope). The reenacting and historical ones are some of the best on the net.

Welcome aboard.

 

[Danny Ray Milligan]

Basically, we are talking about everything and anything historically traditional prior to any brass cartridge using arm, be it an original or copy.

So, no cartridges, no modern (post 1865) designs and no making black powder and that's about it. You will find some minor exceptions but that is it in a nutshell.

If you step out of bounds, they will caution you, if you do it repeatedly after warnings, they will bounce you.

The site is heavy on history up to the U.S. civil war so let that be your guide. Take a look around and check out ALL the subforums (there is one specifically on gun building) and you will get the drift. (I hope). The reenacting and historical ones are some of the best on the net.

Welcome aboard.

Thank you, already feeling welcomed!

 

[ETipp]

I was, again, trying to determine where the lines were drawn.
I once saw a guy who took apart his 30-06 and made it look like a Kentucky long rifle. Maybe such things have their place among gun collectors and gun-avids, but even I understand such a thing would have no place in a muzzle-loader forum. My question is: WHERE is the line drawn at? If it fits every standard of muzzle-loaders, under the law, but it looks like a phaser from the Star Trek movies, is it something that would get me banned for even mentioning it? That was the title and point of this thread, after all, wasn't it? What can I talk about without getting things thrown at me, from the balcony?

It still sounds like you’re trolling. Dave explained it well and is a great source of information.

This is real easy stuff. Traditional!

For rifles….. *Flintlocks* sidelocks or under hammers that uses *percussion*
caps. Matchlocks included. Exposed hammers. Basically, anything outside that, you be best suited to join the Modern Muzzleloader sister forum.

An AR15 and 30.06 have nothing to do with traditional muzzleloaders.

 

[Danny Ray Milligan]

I'm not trolling.
I did join the modern sister forum.
I simply asked questions to see what the safe boundaries were, which is the actual title of this thread, but instead I'm running into a lot of people who act like I dropped trou and took a dump on the flag.
I asked questions, guys, how am I to know if I don't?
I'll leave you to your echo chamber...

 

[ETipp]

I'm not trolling.
I did join the modern sister forum.
I simply asked questions to see what the safe boundaries were, which is the actual title of this thread, but instead I'm running into a lot of people who act like I dropped trou and took a dump on the flag.
I asked questions, guys, how am I to know if I don't?
I'll leave you to your echo chamber...

Right!

 

[Danny Ray Milligan]

Just signed up, and read through the rules list. Most of them are common sense and self-explanatory, but there are a few that I have questions about, mainly so I don't get in trouble with the moderators.

My understanding of the term Muzzle Loader means a weapon based upon antique firearms, pre-1865, where you have to push a powder charge, wad, and bullet down the barrel, then load a primer or cap that can be ignited by the hammer.
What exactly constitutes an "in-line"? I have two Tradition buckstalkers that are break-barrel with 209 breech-loaders, are these, or are they NOT... muzzle loaders? I have to muscle a charge, wad and ball down the muzzle to load it, what is changed that makes such a thing "not a muzzle loader"?

I also noted that civil war era revolvers (such as my CVA 1858 Army) are not considered actual muzzle loaders, but are permitted to be discussed. I presume this is because most of them have a built-in ramrod under the barrel that loads each chamber of the cylinder. My response would be that, theoretically, you can still muzzle load each chamber, even though that would seem to be defeating the purpose of the built-in ramrod, wouldn't it? If you so wished, you could shove a charge, wad, and bullet down the barrel with a separate ramrod, then rotate the cylinder so that you can access the next empty chamber, right?

I note that discussion of making explosive devices is prohibited, as is manufacture of black powder. Does this include the discussion of molding your own bullets, fabricating or reloading your own percussion caps to overcome the current and chronic shortage of available caps like #10 or #11 caps in the marketplace?

Again, these are just honest questions, so the moderators won't see a necessity to take me out to the woodshed for crossing into a topic that I wasn't aware was forbidden.

Final question: is discussion and advice about building your own muzzle loader (whether from a kit or from scratch) a permitted topic?

Thanks guys, with an apology in advance if I ruffled any feathers with these questions...

-Danny

Was there something ambiguous in all of this?
Jeez, sorry I didn't walk in an expert!

 

[snakebit]

Was there something ambiguous in all of this?
Jeez, sorry I didn't walk in an expert!

Nobody expects anyone to come in an expert. How about this, go back and read your post about the AR-15 flintlock. And read it objectively, AFTER you read @Brazos John's, and LD's. And let me know if it doesn't sound condescending.

Fair enough?

 

[Danny Ray Milligan]

I already said I wasn't trolling, nor was I being condescending or snotty. I said that apparently a muzzle loader could fit perfectly into the definition, but if it didn't look exactly like the ones from 170 years ago, then somehow it wasn't a real muzzle loader. As I said, I could take an authentic antique flintlock actually MADE in the 1850's, and glue pieces to it to make it look like a space gun from the movies, and everyone would act like I just desecrated the flag or something.
Let's put it this way: if I paid $20,000 for an original ML from 1835, and then strapped a scope on it, how many of you would fall out of your tree and demand that I get banned???

 

[Ed C.]

I already said I wasn't trolling, nor was I being condescending or snotty. I said that apparently a muzzle loader could fit perfectly into the definition, but if it didn't look exactly like the ones from 170 years ago, then somehow it wasn't a real muzzle loader. As I said, I could take an authentic antique flintlock actually MADE in the 1850's, and glue pieces to it to make it look like a space gun from the movies, and everyone would act like I just desecrated the flag or something.
Let's put it this way: if I paid $20,000 for an original ML from 1835, and then strapped a scope on it, how many of you would fall out of your tree and demand that I get banned???

It takes a lot to get banned. Not something to worry about unless you are a real jerk. If you step outside the lines somebody will say something or your post may be deleted. Learn as you go. Unless you are planning to push boundaries this is much ado about nothing.

 

[Danny Ray Milligan]

It takes a lot to get banned. Not something to worry about unless you are a real jerk. If you step outside the lines somebody will say something or your post may be deleted. Learn as you go. Unless you are planning to push boundaries this is much ado about nothing.

Really have no intention of pushing any boundaries, but was trying to find out what they are, lol!