Traditional Vs Modern

[mlr1m]

Since I have recently decided to get back into the muzzleloader sport I have been reading up on the subject. Let me first say I bought my first flinchlock in 1968 or 69. So I remember when Traditional was all there was even though it was not common to see one in the field.

It seems that while I was away from the sport there has been a fight developing between the people involved.

How do y'all feel about it?

BTW I shoot real powder because I believe it to be less corrosive than the fakes an it smells better too.

In my Sharps and my Rolling block I shoot modern jacketed bullets which I cast myself and then applied the modern paper patch or jacket to it.
When I get my new flinchlock put together, if all turns out well, I will use sabots made out of pillow ticking on the ball.

Michael

[oneshooter]

Some states are making the in-lines illegal for hunting. Requiring a "exposed hammer and primer". As for me I am a rocklocker with a PRB and the "real stuff".

[Stickjockey]

I have nothing against those that go modern. I stick with PRB and BP, myself. Black powder tastes better.

[mlr1m]

Some states are making the in-lines illegal for hunting. Requiring a "exposed hammer and primer". As for me I am a rocklocker with a PRB and the "real stuff".

Should the wildlife dept take into account things other than resource management when developing the regulations? It has always been my understanding that seasons were made more open or further restricted to manage the wildlife population.

How do we satisfy those who believe that they should have their own special season? Or beyond that those who wish to ban the others altogether?
How is it that some people believe that they cannot use a flintlock during regular gun season? Where did this come from?
Isn't this a little like saying you cannot use a cane pole because the guy next to you has a spinning reel and graphite rod?

Michael

[Pat McCoy]

One of the things the wildlife commissions take into consideration is safety. That's why many areas are restricted to shotguns with slugs or muzzle loaders.

The new muzzle loaders may meet the definition of being loaded from the muzzle, but when finished loading they are more the equivalent of modern cartridge rifles.

I have no problem with inline actions, stainless barrels, plastic stocks, or black powder substitute propellants, but the line should be drawn at saboted modern bullets and anything other than iron sights.

[Old Grump]

Round ball in front of 90 gr of FFg doesn't travel any faster or hit any harder out of my inline than it does out of a flint lock or match lock. It does give me more chances of ignition in inclement weather, something us cheese heads here in Wisconsin are familiar with. It's still a muzzle loader and the action at the trigger end doesn't change that.

Inlines go back to 1808, how traditional do you have to be to be accepted.

http://www.whitemuzzleloading.com/hi...zleloading.htm

[mlr1m]

The new muzzle loaders may meet the definition of being loaded from the muzzle, but when finished loading they are more the equivalent of modern cartridge rifles.

Would you prefer to see a Primitive Arms season instead of the current muzzle-loader season? If so why. Where would the cut off be?

Would flints have to be hand napped instead of them new machine cut agates? Would caps have to be the traditionally used priming caps of the day and not modern primers?

Other than making the traditional shooters feel better what would be the reason? What would be the benefit of it? Would we lose or gain future hunters?

Inlines go back to 1808, how traditional do you have to be to be accepted.

True they are correct for the time period. They are in no way what was traditionally used. To say they are traditional is like saying you can enter a FA-18 in a crop duster race because it is traditional. Traditional would mean it was in common use I would think.

Michael

[Pat McCoy]

A "Traditional" isn't really the answer. Just eliminate optics and saboted projectiles. I prefer PRB, but some may want to use Minnie ball or slugs, but those using them will have to be specially aware of the longer ranges at which they are deadly, and the possibility of people, animals, or buildings beyond their target (just as we all should be).

[.38 Special]

I dislike modern stuff mostly on principle. That's not perfectly rational, though, so I don't try to defend it. I do have to admit I get kind of offended by the plastic and stainless contraptions with 10x scopes parading as "muzzleloaders", but again, that's just me and I would never criticize someone's choice of gun. At most, I'll offer to let the owner of such a rifle try one of mine, if for no other reason than to demonstrate to him that more traditional rifles really do work well.

The only times I do actually get my feathers ruffled are 1) when someone looks down on traditional guns and suggests that inlines are more reliable, accurate, powerful, or generally "better" than traditional guns, and 2) when some fool suggests that loading a gun with a bunch of rabbit pellets and a handgun bullet gives you a 300 yard deer rifle.

Otherwise, it's live and let live, as far as I'm concerned.

[heelerau]

Just a querie from Down Under, how popular are these inline rifles in the states? Were they developed to get around some of your hunting season regulations? We shoot quite a lot of black powder here in Australia, more on the rifle range, but there are a few like myself who hunt. I have a lovely Lancaster stlye rifle, .40, Colerain swamped barrel and Jim Chambers lock. It is pretty good at knocking down kangaroos. They don't taste as good as your elk do !!

cheers

heelerau

[Selena]

If you only hunt for show the exposed hammer and open to the wind cap is needed to follow the lead of Hollywood.

If you are hungry for venison it doesn't make a bit of difference.

[Omnivore]

This is an interesting discussion in that it involves several different influences all jumbled together.

heelerau; I get the impression that the modern in-lines are pretty popular in the U.S., being as there is on-going development and advertizing by several manufacturers. It is still something of a specialty industry however, compared to modern cartridge firearms.

I agree that the states' roll should be wildlife management only, assuming they're to be involved at all, which that's another subject, sort of. Instead they seem to be running the state hunting program more like a private theme park, in that they have all these different season designed around different weapons and different groups of people (youth, elderly, disabled and so on) to broaden the appeal. That makes more work for the state game departments, but it also means more license sales and more funding and so on. It's a business, essentially, but run by government, and as such they’ll always try to expand it as human nature dictates. Keep in mind that there have been significant lobbying efforts aimed at creating a lot of these special seasons and rules, and that it is on-going.

And so, we have the muzzleloader seasons. And so, there will always be people doing what people do, which is to try to maximize the performance of anything within a certain classification, hence the modern in-line with fast twist barrel, sabot rounds, optics and all the rest. It only makes sense from the point of view of maximum performance. It happens in racing, it happens in all sports, it happens in the alcoholic beverage industry, or anywhere else.

And so; I would classify the modern, high tech muzzleloader as being as much a political creation as anything else-- it fills a niche created by government-made distortions in the markets. You want to hunt muzzleloader season because you like the idea of having fewer hunters in the field, or as I do, because it means you can take a wider range of deer, which in turn means you have a better chance of taking home some meat. In that spirit, you go for the high tech ML rifle and that's perfectly logical (within the confines of the political system) and understandable.

I just happen to like the traditional rifles. Because I think they're cool. The history appeals to me and I'm curious about it, so I try it out. To each his own. I'm also a gear head, so the innovation and development of modern equipment also appeals to me.

ETA; as Officer's wife indicated, I don't really believe that there is very much real difference, as most of it comes down to the hunter's understanding of the equipment rather than the equipment itself, and to the level of practice, the observation of the animals' habits, and so on.