Inlines

[Ajax]

Is it just me or does anyone else not understand how these are considered TRADITIONAL muzzleloaders. I understand they have their purpose but I feel they are more of a modern rifle than a muzzleloader. I am not trying to offend anyone, your preference doesn't matter to me just the nomenclature does.

Andy

[Sasquatch-1]

I understand how they are considered muzzle loaders but do not believe that they meet the true intent of a muzzle loader. I believe that a muzzle loading rifle should have an additional qualification of being a side lock system.

[dondiego]

In line technology is not new.

[CastingFool]

FWIW, the name muzzleloader itself denotes a firearm that is loaded from the muzzle, and says nothing about the ignition system. Therefore, in my thinking, both what we think as traditional muzzleloaders (which use a sidelock for ignition) and inlines are both muzzleloaders. You could say one is typical and the other non-typical.

[brtelec]

Anything that takes this long to reload and gets stuffed from the front is a muzzle loader. Whether or not it seems to fits another persons sense of tradition.

[ihuntbear]

IN-LINES
A plethora of designs for use with the new percussion principle appeared in the early 1800's. The
Swiss genius Pauley invented the paper cap, then invented a percussion muzzleloader in 1808 and
breech-loader in 1812. His 1808 patent was the first to design and patent a muzzleloading in-line action
in which the cock of the sidelock was replaced by a cylindrical hammer driven by a coil spring.
His in-line invention was capitalized on by Dreyse, who worked for Pauly between 1808-14 and
who used it as the basis for his 1838 turnbolt design which became the Prussian Needlegun of 1848.
Paul Mauser later used the Dreyse needlegun design as a basis for his tumbolt cartridge rifle of 1868,
first patented in the U.S., but adopted by the German military in 1871.

[C. Latch]

I consider anything that loads from the muzzle to be a muzzleloader and I consider people who obsess over silly stuff like this to be a little weird.

There. Now get over your weirdness.

[waksupi]

Well, they load from the front, so I guess they are muzzle loaders. Just not my cup of tea. Most who shoot them are either looking for the cheapest way to shoot, or were sold on the idea they are less maintenance. Yep, they are cheap, but take more maintenance, and repair.

[johnson1942]

i saw a picture in, of course a book that was not retured to me after borrowing, that showed a muzzle loader from the 1800s that was a type of inline. had a hammer in the back of the barrel and a nipple in back of the barrel. thats a inline. to me its not the gun it is what they shoot.the inline that shoots a cast or paperpatched bullet is in the tradition of a traditional muzzleloader. a muzzle loader is supposed to make you independent. the inline does when you cast for it and they also would work very well for home made black powder. also the 209 primer ignition came out as soon as the shot shell was invented. maybe a nine power modern scope is modern but lets face it a lot of us shooters are the elderly of america.also my son would not muzzle loader hunt with me if i didnt have a inline built for him. he is left eyed and right handed and a inline fits his needs very well. you still only get one shot and the bullet goes down the front so whats not a muzzleloader. i dont own one and and if i build one it will be for fun and long range target. i hunt with a pp sidelock and regular sights but im sure glad that the inline is out their and the cast and ppbullet shooters are useing them to keep it all alive. am i cheating when i use paperpatched bullets. i dont patch with cloth i patch with paper.

[Col4570]

Has it not got something to do with an extended season for Muzzleloading rifles?.

[mooman76]

Has it not got something to do with an extended season for Muzzleloading rifles?.

Yes and also in some cases hunting with less pressure from other (less)hunters. Each state has their own specific rules so it varies from state to state and each person has his own reason.

[johnson1942]

we need two areas on castboolits for muzzle loaders. one for the ultra purist and one for inlines and powder other than real black. no back and forth naysaying. i feel this way, if something isnt a sin against God, do it if you have a mind to. members have told me privately that they dont contribute here for fear of getting ripped. this limits postings to those who it doesnt bother. again lets get a purist section for muzzleshooters and for those who are not. then you will be on the area that you have no conflict with. even up on the swageing section i was told that even dumb a----- can swage pure lead and that spot was for the real swaggers. is the muzzle loading section for the real muzzleloaders? where do the rest of us go then? i guess delete cast boolits and never go on it again.

[starmac]

LOL I shoot left handed, so when I drew a NM muzzleloader elk permit the hunt was on for a left handed sidelock. Every shop owner I talked to tried to get me to go inline, but it wasn't what I wanted.
I have since picked up a couple of scouts, inlines for sure, but for some reason more acceptable to me. This of course is all in my head.
I also prefer lever actions and pumps to bolt actions, again just my prefference. Everyone of us is different, and has different ideas of what is what, but in the end Daniel Boone would probably have had the best most efficient scope mounted inline if it would have been available. lol

[roverboy]

[QUOTE=dondiego;2977761]In line technology is not new.[

Right, there has been inline ignition muzzleloaders for a long time.

[starmac]

I want to add too, that I am not fond of scopes, on Muzzies or levers either for that matter, but my eyes are changing my view of them (literally) The reason I picked up that second scout is too scope it and try the paper patch thing. I guess what I am saying is that even though inlines is not really my cup of tea, if they will keep me and others in the game I can live with it.

[rking22]

I voted who cares because they are actually "muzzle loaders", but don't fit with the tradition and intent of the seasons created. It's not the inline ignition, underhammers are probably actually better untill you get to fully enclosed ingnition for heavy powder loads with conicals. It's the scopeability (new word) that I think appeals to most. In my opinion they came about to sell to the general gun hunter who wanted to hunt the special season with a rifle that looks like his regular rifle , scope and all. For me they are just another modern throwaway plastic piece of marketing hype. Same for plastic sabots, folks are convinced they can't kill a deer without a jacketed bullet. We know better but that dosen't sell "stuff". I had one in 1984, got bored with it in less than a year and went back to sidelocks and flint. Most all my friends shoot them so I'm not opposed, just not interested.

[Maven]

"Do you consider inlines a muzzleloader in the traditional sense?" ...Ajax



I voted "no," even though I own one as well as several "traditional ML's. Although inline ignition isn't new, as has already been mentioned, and they do load from the muzzle, they are nontraditional. Here are some of the typical differences: materials used, e.g., often stainless steel or brushed chrome (?) bbls. + synthetic stocks; drilled & tapped for scopes; fiber optic sights; easily removable breech plugs (a good thing IMO); some use only #209 primers v. #10, #11, or even musket caps; typically have bbls. shorter than 32" and often shorter than 28"; fast twist bbls. are designed more with conicals or jacketed bullets + sabots in mind rather than RB's; can use huge powder charges, e.g., three 50 gr. pellets, in those short bbls.; entirely different firing and safety mechanisms; come with aluminum*, not hickory (or even wooden) ramrods. Also, many express the opinion that inlines are marketed as the latest, gee whiz, high tech way to exploit the muzzle loader season that many states have rather than a link to the past. Did I leave anything out? Btw, I have no dog in this race, but am merely trying to clarify and honestly answer the question posed by Ajax.


*not commercially used until after 1888

[starmac]

My 99 savage is not really what I call a traditional lever gun either, but it's original was on the market in 1895, not really long after the first lever actions.

It is different in the different states, but I am going to scope one for my own reasons. I won't be able to hunt the muzzle loader season with it, but can the general rifle season. Everybody has there own reasons to shoot what they do, and doesn't have to justify it to me.

[waksupi]

I have never seen a modern inline that had any relationship to the spirit of the old originals.

[koehlerrk]

I voted no, mainly due to the powder and projectile that inlines are required to use with their fast twist barrels. Don't like them, but that's me. You can make a similar argument in archery with recurred vs compound bows. Again, I like the traditional approach, but I won't tell someone they can't use something just because I won't.