What is a Traditional Weapon?

[roundball]

....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.

No way of knowing that of course, only speculating out loud...but in any case, the end results are not mutually exclusive...the real point of my post was simply the idea that it might be easier to identify what was traditional by first identifying what was not traditional...
eace:

 

[BLAHMAN]

As I read all these posts, I've noticed that the common thread is the discussion of "inlines". What I've noticed, and I may be wrong, is that the marketing of inlines was targeted to that person who wanted an alternative hunting weapon to use in the blackpowder season. This person really doesn't have the patience to learn how to shoot, load, clean, care for, work up loads, figure things out and put up with all the foibles that go along with what we term "traditional" muzzleloaders.
In my estimation, the inline shooter doesn't want to put up with the added work...they want it now, right now dammit! I want a gun that I don't need to think about, all I need to do is drop in pellets! Stick it in the closet when I'm done (don't need to clean it...it's stainless by Gawd!!!)
Of coarse when manufactureres know this, they cater to that, can ya blame them?
The inline muzzleloader is in my opinon the dumbing down of black powder shooters. I've witnessed this, and I bet all of you have as well. These guys expect to kill a deer at 300 yards with such knock down power as never before seen and they should be able to do it with the very minimum of practice!
How many times have we heard that????
I really think the "traditional" muzzleloader we all want to define is a backlash against the plastic stocked tasteless forms we see at every Walmart, Wanna Mart, this mart and that mart. And guess what? All them inlines look the same. I think we see that as losing our identity of us: guys (and gals) who love the blackpowder sport, be it percussion, flintlock, chunk guns, over-the-log-guns or what have you.
I can promise this, when I prop my gun up at a range, there is only one like it and I've got it (I made it) and that sets me apart from all the inliner's shooting that day.
I prefer to shoot flintlock and when these guys watch me pull my flinter out they talk. They mutter to each other and I can faintly here them say things like "Think that thing really works?", or "What a joke...he oughta get a real gun". I hear that crap, pay no attention and just start shooting. In about ten rounds they all shut up and want to know more about what I got. That's when the education begins. Hopefully, some might catch on.
But I really think the "traditional" question centers on our great dislike of formless, ugly, all the same color, shape, size and B.S. that we see in inlines. :m2c:

 

[jrdavis]

Which modern inline was in "steady use" in 1957?????

YMHS
rollingb

The H&R Huntsman I think

 

[Dave Poss]

What is Traditional....If it isn't an original, custom made copy or a reasonable facsimile of a muzzleloading rifle that was commonly used in the founding, exploration, or warfare of the United States prior to the advent of cartridges and smokeless powder....it ain't traditional!

 

[Huntinfool]

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.

Ok my personal opinion, I'm glad you made that clear cause I don't want anyone to think that I'm speaking for TMA or anyone else.

IMHO a traditional firearm is one made to the closest standards of old originals found commonly used or made in the Colonial and early Federal period of these United States.

My mentor has ingrained that in my mind. He tries to make his guns to be copies of certain styles of Longrifles and also some halfstock guns but he mostly makes full stock arms. My interest lies only in flintlocks I'm sure quite a few caplocks were made and several flintlock were converted to caplocks.

But if I'd have been alive during the 1830s and 1840s I would've kept a flintlock just as I feel most old sage mountain men did. I may be wrong but I'd trust flint over them new fangled things that could get wet and made unusable. Same thing with my firemakin' kit. I wouldn't take off for mountains putting my trust in Lucifers!

After all the caps were brand new and flintlocks were in the golden age after 200 plus years of trial and error to improve them! I also feel that caplocks were just a short stepping stone to cartridge guns! Therefore maybe a little less tradition!

Over the years I've seen and participated in many, many debates over Traditional Archery. Some want to divide at this junction in history and others at a different time in history.

The same can be done concerning firearms it's a very relative discussion. The title Claude used was "What is a traditional weapon." I'm assuming he means muzzleloading weapon since this is "The Muzzleloading Forum".

To me a Traditional Weapon has to resemble the weapons used during the time you consider traditional. Even though my longrifle had power tools used on it even if you take it apart you won't see tool marks because all final work was done with a chisel, files, and such hand tools that were used by old time gunsmiths.

Bob has several old originals many of which he has built exact copies. He even mics parts to make them as exact as humanly possible. You can lay them side by side and can't tell them apart aside from his signature. Now that is truly traditional to me! Until one has handled dozens and dozens of old original guns it's hard to imagine the geometry, form, and function built in these weapons. Many using the Golden Mean.

My first ML was TC Hawken back in the 70s if you'd have asked me this question then I'd have said it was a traditional weapon. Now I don't consider it an accurate copy of the original Hawken rifles to even be called Hawken.
I still think it's a nice rifle just not traditional to me!
:imo:

YMH&OS, :redthumb:
Chuck

 

[Claude Mathis]

My first ML was TC Hawken back in the 70s if you'd have asked me this question then I'd have said it was a traditional weapon. Now I don't consider it an accurate copy of the original Hawken rifles to even be called Hawken.

I can see how my question could be misinterporeted in a number of ways. I should have worded my question much more carefully.

I did not mean to ask, what is a "traditional replica" as much as "what is a tradition style of muzzleloading weapon".

I'm beginning to think that the question is too subjective. Perhaps this can only be defined by a small group of individuals, for their own specific needs as in the case of a "club"?

 

[Huntinfool]

Claude said, "I did not mean to ask, what is a "traditional replica" as much as "what is a tradition style of muzzleloading weapon".

If you read through all the :bull: in my post I tried to say that I considered a flintlock longrifle type the most Tradidtional!

I think????????

YMH&OS, :redthumb:
Chuck

 

Not only do I dislike the "looks" of modern inlines, and the "jacketed bullets" they shoot, plus the "scopes" they wear,.... now I dislike'm even more 'cause they have us define'n what "traditional" is.

"Life" was sure simple, 'fore them "modern inlines" came along!! :curse: :curse: :bull: :curse: :curse:

"30 years ago",... we wouldn't be have'n this discussion!!

YMHS
rollingb

 

[Claude Mathis]

Claude said, "I did not mean to ask, what is a "traditional replica" as much as "what is a tradition style of muzzleloading weapon".

If you read through all the :bull: in my post I tried to say that I considered a flintlock longrifle type the most Tradidtional!

I think????????

I understood what you were saying, I was still trying to figure out what my question should have been. ::

 

Maybe we need to limit ourselves to firearms created before the advent of the Patent Office?

hmmmmmmmmmmm!!........ :hmm: :hmm:

YMHS
rollingb

 

[BLAHMAN]

I'm beginning to think that the question is too subjective. Perhaps this can only be defined by a small group of individuals, for their own specific needs as in the case of a "club"? [/quote]

Yep, it's very subjective, but it's a damn good question. I think the answer lies in in the way a person (through personal experiance) views their own muzzloader, their own muzzleloader experiances, the group or people they associate with and maybe even the location of where they live.

 

[Ohio Joe]

The answer to what is or isn't a traditional muzzleloader is very simple if anyone cares to take the time to look them up in books.

Then further add to what is available to the reader by stating; "Close facimialies to what is considered traditional muzzleloaders will be allowed in TMA", but, "no inlines", and "no modern products spawned from modern inlines". "No plastics", "no fiberglass"... "Muzzleloaders must be made of wood, and metal(s) only". "Stainless steel is not allowed".

All projectiles will be lead! TMA will allow the use of replica black powder. Percussion caps, flints, and fuse ignition igniters only.

All rules for muzzleloaders to be used in TMA events will be the resposability of the holder of said event to spell out the muzzleloaders allowed provided they meet the criteria or close facsimiale of said event(s).

Lyman GPR, T/C Hawkens, CVA Hawkens, are for example, close facsimialies...

TMA draws its conclusion of a traditional muzzleloader from the following books;

The Muzzle-Loading Rifle Then and Now, by Walter M. Cline

The Hawken Rifle: Its Place In History, by Charles E. Hanson, JR.

The Muzzle-Loading Cap Lock Rifle, by Ned Roberts

The Plains Rifle, by Charles E. Hanson, JR.

TMA should look to the NSSA for clarification on military muzzleloaders to be used in TMA events...

Comments??? :hmm:

 

[roundball]

Seems like things are coming into sharp focus

 

I'm wonder'n why things cain't be simplified to the point of define'n a "traditional muzzleloader" as,.....

........ "any muzzleloader of historical design prior to 1900".

YMHS
rollingb

 

[Ohio Joe]

At the very least, I feel that if a TMA was to form, it will be forming under the pretext of being an alternitive to the NMLRA which has failed its mission statement.

The NMLRA was formed in 1933 under the idea of traditional muzzleloaders. A TMA should be designed at the very least in that same spirit, and the cut off date should be 1933, the year the NMLRA said, "this is traditional muzzleloading.

I hope that sounds right?

 

Joe,.... I think the "founders" of the NMLRA would agree!!!! :thumbsup:

YMHS
rollingb

 

[Ohio Joe]

If a TMA formed, I would like to see it send that 1933 message. It's something that all of the potential members could rally around that was an historical event in the rebirth of traditional muzzleloading. I like it! :thumbsup:

I too think that those who found the NMLRA would like it as well! :thumbsup:

 

[Claude Mathis]

...."Close facimialies to what is considered traditional muzzleloaders will be allowed in TMA",...

...TMA will allow the use of replica black powder. Percussion caps, flints, and fuse ignition igniters only.

All rules for muzzleloaders to be used in TMA events...

...TMA draws its conclusion of a traditional muzzleloader from...

...TMA should look to the NSSA for clarification on military muzzleloaders to be used in TMA events...

Comments??? :hmm:

Comment: This thread is not about the TMA. I repeat my previous post... "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 was trying to solicit opinons from the public, not define a platform for an organization. Organizations are free to do as they wish. I'm looking for opinions, not "club rules".

I believe there in another thread addressing the TMA.
http://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=68177

 

[Ohio Joe]

My apologies. It won't happen again. eace:

 

[roundball]

If a TMA formed, I would like to see it send that 1933 message. It's something that all of the potential members could rally around that was an historical event in the rebirth of traditional muzzleloading. I like it! :thumbsup:

I too think that those who found the NMLRA would like it as well! :thumbsup:

And OJ...FWIW, I posted the 1933 NMLRA Platform Statement on a thread a few weeks ago so it's in the archives...and among other places, it's in the appendix of the 1975 Lyman Black Powder manual.