We
-
Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.
We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.
Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103
What is a Traditional Weapon?
- Thread starter Claude Mathis
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
To me, a traditional weapon is relative to ones way of thinking, something that can also be verified through historic research...
How far back the required history goes is another issue, 200 years from now, inlines could be considered traditional weapons when pulse plasma lasers are the norm...
(relatively speaking)
As for whether or not a few short lived designs of long ago are traditional weapon, they are, they're just not popular traditional weapon...
How far back the required history goes is another issue, 200 years from now, inlines could be considered traditional weapons when pulse plasma lasers are the norm...
(relatively speaking)As for whether or not a few short lived designs of long ago are traditional weapon, they are, they're just not popular traditional weapon...
An added thought, and added word could be; "In the 'Spirit' of 'Traditional Styled' muzzleloaders." Referring to an 1840 Hawken, or 1780 Dickert...
I do not see one word defining a continuing history of any one firearm. Several words are need with the definition of the firearm being referred to as???
I see an 1867 Rigby Rifle being based if not accepted as a "Traditional Style Muzzleloading Rifle"... At this point in history, it has all the qualifications.
Individual things such as firearms must be defined by function, parts, and appearence, as I see it...
I do not see one word defining a continuing history of any one firearm. Several words are need with the definition of the firearm being referred to as???
I see an 1867 Rigby Rifle being based if not accepted as a "Traditional Style Muzzleloading Rifle"... At this point in history, it has all the qualifications.
Individual things such as firearms must be defined by function, parts, and appearence, as I see it...
Guest
hmmmmm, rather than offer an opinion, i'll add perhaps a few more ingredients to the pot that our fearless leader has so graciously handed us an oar with which to stir. Traditional, by the definition given by our good friends at webster, could, by now, very well include inlines.
Guest
"What is a Traditional Weapon"????
Thet's easy!! :crackup: :crackup:
A "Traditional Weapon" is,.... what's often "pictured" on a package/magazine/organization thet contains modern junk within it's wrapper!!
The correct term for such usage is,.... "eye-candy"!! (often used to "sell" something of lesser value than whats "pictured") ::
YMHS
rollingb
Thet's easy!! :crackup: :crackup:
A "Traditional Weapon" is,.... what's often "pictured" on a package/magazine/organization thet contains modern junk within it's wrapper!!
The correct term for such usage is,.... "eye-candy"!! (often used to "sell" something of lesser value than whats "pictured") ::
YMHS
rollingb
According to the strict definition of the word, certain period firearms might not be considered "traditional" if their design did not endure. By the same definition, modern inlines might be considered "traditional" by virtue of their having been in steady use since at least 1957. That allows for at least two generations to have adopted the use of that design. The book definition of traditional does not allow for a cut-off date. This leaves the use of the word open to broad interpretation and (from what I've read on this forum) some hard feelings between those who take a hard-line stance on "traditional" referring to pre-1860 firearms and those who use the textbook definition to include muzzleloaders designed after that period, but in common usage. Problem is, would a muzzleloader built on modern machinery or using tools, techniques, and chemicals not available to gun makers "back then" be considered "traditional" by the strict definition of the word? Do we need to start using the phrase "traditional appearing" to refer to modern reproductions? What do we call some of the guns which are not quite exact reproductions of real old-timey firearms, but use "traditional appearing" sidelock mechanisms? (i.e. the CVA Hawken and TC Hawken, as well as others.) Obviously each of us has his own idea of what "traditional" means, but I think this post provides an excellent opportunity to see that it has other potential interpretations. :m2c:
Guest
Which modern inline was in "steady use" in 1957?????
YMHS
rollingb
YMHS
rollingb
How do, Rollingb. A gentleman named Clark Frazier built and used in-lines in the '50's and won some matches with them. There's a picture of him and one of his guns on the cover of the November, 1957 Muzzle Blasts after he won the NMLRA Championship in Friendship, Indiana. The guns weren't common , but they were being used successfully in competition as far back as the 1950's and they have never fallen completely out of use in the intervening years. (Hence meeting the definition of "steady".) I still wouldn't refer to them as "traditional" guns...my only point was that they could be by virtue of strict interpretation of the definition. Please note that the definition also does not mention how large a segment of the population must be influenced by the customs or useages...only that it applies to a particular "culture" (in this case muzzleloader competitors). Mind you, I'm NOT arguing for the inclusion of any type of firearm under the "traditional" banner, nor arguing against others already there...just making observations about how the dictionary definition of something can fly in the face of our perceptions (or even common sense). eace:
Ohio, was kinda' wonderin' where it went...it's been pretty calm hereabouts. :haha:
eace:Ohio, was kinda' wonderin' where it went...it's been pretty calm hereabouts. :haha:
Guest
Noah,.... I agree,.... "nuthin" in rather isolated "use" could hardly be defined as "traditional"!!
The "conception" of the modern inline may have take'n place in 1957 (or, was it 'bout 200 years ago?),.... but,.... "common usage" didn't start until they were be'n mass-produced in the '80's.
YMHS
rollingb
The "conception" of the modern inline may have take'n place in 1957 (or, was it 'bout 200 years ago?),.... but,.... "common usage" didn't start until they were be'n mass-produced in the '80's.
YMHS
rollingb
Bushwhacker
40 Cal.
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2004
- Messages
- 146
- Reaction score
- 0
Traditional...Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Just my opinion. Pre 1840 Flintlock or percussion ignition. under hammer or side hammer OK. Patched roundball, black powder, fixed sights. No plastic stocks, stainless steel barrels, inlines, peep sights, pyrodex, sabots. Standard rules for most black powder shoots and rendezvous. :redthumb:
Guest
What about, Barnett, Derringer, Leman, Gemmer, J. Henry, and etc. thet continued to make "Trade Guns, and Plains Rifles" after 1840,.... wouldn't those guns also be considered "traditional muzzleloaders"????
YMHS
rollingb
:hmm: :hmm: :hmm:.....this question really seems in reference to setting up something like the TMA...and the point that began the thinking about a TMA was inlines.
Maybe it would be easier to identify what WOULD NOT be considered traditional for inclusion in the TMA...
My question has nothing to do with the TMA or any other organization. In fact, I would hope that the opinions expressed have nothing to do with the TMA or any organization. I was hoping for personal opinions, not organizational platforms.
I can't so much hit on what is traditional (to borrow from Satchmo: "Man, if you don't know I can't tell you"). But I can tell you why it's tough. No other single pursuit has evoked more change and innovation than weapons. Except maybe bass fishing.
And the military usually drags it's feet because of logistics and supply. Look how long the Bess and the M-16 have hung on as main battle weapons. It's the guy trying to change the mousetrap in his home workshop that creates innovation in early weapons development.
Maybe we need to limit ourselves to firearms created before the advent of the Patent Office?
And the military usually drags it's feet because of logistics and supply. Look how long the Bess and the M-16 have hung on as main battle weapons. It's the guy trying to change the mousetrap in his home workshop that creates innovation in early weapons development.
Maybe we need to limit ourselves to firearms created before the advent of the Patent Office?
