Bohemian in-line flintlock action by Stanislaus Paczelt, 1738. All flintlock parts are contained within the enclosed action behind the barrel. The touch-hole fires through the breech plug in classic in-line fashion.
German double barreled flintlock in-line gun in the Munich National Museum.
That horse has been beaten to mush
WOW and a flinter too.
The Dreyse needle gun of 1848. It was so advanced that any soldier who lost one paid with his life for his carelessness
heres an inline that anyone has to admit is just Beautiful http://www.swinglock.net/traditional.html
Last edited by Squeeze; 10-24-2014 at 07:25 PM.
That swinglock is nice, and within the spirit of things. Now that 308 smokeless at 3000fps is exactly what I don't feel is within the spirit. It is a rule beater pure and simple, intended to give all the (percieved) advantages of a M70 300Win Mag but legal in the special muzzle loader seasons of many states. Interesting from an engineering perspective but the whole intent is to make it "easier" for the hunter. Lots of us like the challenge of getting the most out of the more primitive hunting tools. The objection traditional archers have with crossbows is the exact "selling point", buy it , sight it in and go shoot a deer. If I do not shoot my longbow regularly and train hard, I do not perform well enough to hunt. Having not shot a compound in over 10 years, I put 3 arrows in a row touching at 20 yards with a friends bow. draw length too short and all. I could have moved the sight shot 3 more arrows and gone hunting confidently with 2 to 3 times the max ethical range as my long bow. And I'm sure everyone knows it's way easier to get within 45 yards of a deer than 15 yards, especially on the ground! I feel the issue many have with "hi tech premitive " is just that ,sold as an easy way to short cut the (enjoyable) work to be competent with primitive equipment. I think the marketing people are cheating lots of people out of the real experience. Folks can hunt with whatever they want ,far as I care, just agravating to see the advertizing/marketing approach of "buy this and you don't have to put in the effort". Not the buyers /users that bother me, it's the companies that push it. It's all about "selling stuff", not about the experience anymore. Pretty Swing lock muzzleloader, I won't buy from them because of the rest of their product line. Just me , and as I said, as long as folks are hunting, I don't care what they chose to use.
Well that works both ways, if a company doesn't push their products, they cease to be a company.
Truth be told at the ranges most deer are shot in a big part of the country, a 300 mag actually doesn't have an advantage over a traditional sidelock.
I voted no, because I think the idea of powder pellets is silly, and scopes on muzzies just make them a modern hi power rifle. Just my opinion ,nothing more, and worth exactly what you paid for it.
]Why does anyone need an assault rifle? My first need is articulated in the US v Miller 1939 decision: every citizen eligible for volunteer or conscript military service, every member of the unorganized militia, should be familiar with his nation's military service rifle, and the service rifles of potential allies and foes as well, to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.
I hunt bow with both recurve and compound. and my front stuffer collection runs the gamut from Swinglock, and a few smokeless capable customs that I can confidently ring gongs at 600+ with,( I shoot black subs much more than smokeless in most, as my in state hunting is black only) right on down to several sidelocks. All have harvested game. I enjoy it all, and will use whatever strikes my fancy for that particular day. Just like the signature above, We dont need assault rifles ( modern inline muzzleloaders) But I in no way favor any additional rules or regulations for hunting/shooting sports whatsoever. As of now, I choose not to use a crossbow, BUT I also know (If I make it far enough) there will probably come a day I will, If it enables me to stay afield a while longer. Granted, apples and oranges, but each has its place. And you can be sure, If a modern inline was available to Daniel boone, Jeremiah Johnson, and the like, they surely would have carried one
I voted Yes. Because that's my opinion. What is traditional?
tra·di·tion·al
trəˈdiSH(ə)n(ə)l/
adjective
adjective: traditional
- existing in or as part of a tradition; long-established.
"the traditional festivities of the church year"
synonyms: long-established, customary, time-honored, established, classic, accustomed, standard, regular, normal, conventional, usual, orthodox, habitual, set, fixed, routine, ritual; Moreold, age-old, ancestral
"traditional Christmas fare"
handed-down, folk, unwritten, oral
"traditional beliefs"
- produced, done, or used in accordance with tradition.
"a traditional fish soup"- habitually done, used, or found.
"the traditional drinks in the clubhouse"
According to the definition, the inline's are traditional now. Sure, they may not have the long running aspect that sidelocks have, but if you are talking about only longvevity of a particular thing as defining its "traditional" status, then you have to throw out anything but flintlocks. Those are the ones that have been around the longest.
This is a dead horse that is beaten to mush. Its one of those things I despise because all it does is put hunters against other hunters.
Inline's are still loaded from the muzzle. There is no way to not call them a muzzleloader. They do not have anymore of an advantage over other muzzleloaders except the ability to be scoped. But hey, there are ways to scope even flintlocks, so in that sense they are equal. Its just what a person wants. The gun itself does not have any more advantage over any other gun. Now, if you were to put robotics into them, and they were able to go hunting without the aid of a human, then they would have an advantage.....
I started with a sidelock. I was foolish, and did not keep it clean. I was young also, and afraid(don't know why now) that it has rusted too bad to use. So I tried taking out the breech to look at the barrel closer. I ended up ruining that gun needless to say. Years later, I got a cheap inline that had a sliding bolt ignition. It was the hardest thing in the world to clean. I despised cleaning it and traded it off. I then got quite a few sidelocks.
Love the sidelocks. Very easy to clean and take care of. My eyes are fine and I can shoot very well with them. Then I had some misshaps with a few of them and decided I wanted another inline. So I bought a "newer" one. It is even easier to clean than my sidelocks which I truly thought would have been impossible. But it is.
I'll keep my sidelocks, and I'll keep my iniline. And one day, I am sure I'll have a flinter to play with. But inlines have been around long enough, and used enough, to say that they are traditional in every sense of the word because they are loaded from the muzzle. There is no way to get around that. That's the key. When you have to stop after one shot, and put something into the end of the barrel, ram it down, and then put something for ignition onto it - it creates a challenge.
Sidelocks have some advantages over the other two guns, flintlocks also have theirs, and likewise so do the inlines. It just depends on what advantages you prefer to use over the others. How the powder gets ignited is just one little aspect that has gotten too much attention.
Last edited by newton; 10-28-2014 at 09:30 AM.
For the record, my objection is that they are designed to circumvent the spirit of primitive hunting laws by bluring the lines between muzzleloader and high powered rifle. Same with 35 cal and up single shots competing for the same space. all in an over-the-counter package that is just too easy to buy into. It would be like allowing only sidelock round ball shooters to hunt during archery season. Archers might get upset.Originally Posted by newton
At the range or during rifle season, knock yourself out. I've carried the handi-rifle inline I used to own during rifle general before. Complete with 120 grains of powder behind a sabot whizzbang conical.
I don't hold anything against people who hold dear to what they feel is traditional. But honestly, many times when we hold tight to something we are blinded by it.
Inline muzzleloaders cannot blur hunting laws one bit. The season/spirit was set up for shooting a gun which you had to load from the muzzle. That is what makes hunting a challenge. All the inlines do is have a different ignition system, and look different. That's it. There is nothing different about them. A RB shooter, even a flinter, can load his rifle just as fast as an inline. Sometimes, it is even easier to load a RB gun.
Inlines have nothing in common with centerfire rifles except for their look. Just because the hammer is "inline" with the barrel does not mean anything. It would be like saying a shotgun is like a rifle. They are not. They have different names for a reason. "Inline" simply refers to the placement of the source of ignition. They are as much a muzzleloader as any other gun you have to load from the muzzle.
I would argue against, even though it would be nice(lol), if my state allowed the centerfire "old time" rifles to be used during the muzzleloader season. They in fact have a distinct advantage as they are loaded from the breech. But there is no comparison between a inline muzzleloader/sidelock muzzleloader and a sidelock roundball shooting gun/archery shooting arrows.
If you are specifically talking about the use of breech loading guns during muzzleloading seasons, then yes that would be a good comparison because it is like allowing a gun during a season that was meant for only archery equipment.
What I do not understand is why people cannot see that a muzzleloader is a muzzleloader. There are no advantages via an ignition system when you are talking about strictly hunting wild game. The challenge is that a muzzleloader hunter generally has one shot to make it count, because subsequent shots take much more effort than breech loading rifles. That's the challenge. The challenge of a muzzleloader does not come from where I am going to put my ignition source.... Again, if that was the case then only flintlocks should be considered "true" traditional muzzleloaders and anything else, including sidelocks, should be considered modern.
Funny thing is I watched a video of a guy in pensivlania shooing a NICE flintlock rifle.....using saboted "non toxic" bullets. That was a laugh.
I think that is what people have the most problem with. Round balls versus other forms of projectiles. They blame the inline for the use of the "modern projectiles" but really all they are is the same thing as a round ball, just shaped different with different type of patching. Still has to be loaded from the muzzle.........
This makes no sense to me. A 140 grain berger 6.5 is the same as a 140 grain round ball. Just shaped different with a different type of patching.
Does one kill a deer deader than the other? Does one have some more of a power over another? Is the Berger heat seeking or able to jump around trees?
Yes, they are the same. They are both called projectiles. And that's all they are.
If I really and truly posit that that is true, then I have to withdraw my objection. There is no purpose to shotgun-only zones, archery season, and primitive weapons season. No need to separate any of them, because every sporting arm choice will as you say, kill dead. No advantage or disadvantage. So, no need to give archery shooters or muzzleloaders a more choice season, nor limit anyone to slug guns ever. Everyone gets lumped together in general rifle. To do otherwise would frankly be favoritism.
It pretty much is favoritism. We have a 350 mile corridor that is archery only, The caribou likes it. Modern slug guns are accurate at greater yardage than most deer is killed as is any muzzies built.
you left out a few things about the season/spirit. it was set up for shooting a gun which loads from the muzzle
and had a breech/ignition system exposed to the elements
and was aimed with iron sights
and had limited range using round balls or minie/maxi bullets
These were the points that muzzleloading organizations used in the 1970's to sell game dept.'s on the idea of a seperate season. The harvest, it was said, because of the weapon's limitations was to be so low as not to effect still recovering game populations. Inlines were kinda slow to catch on until the whitetail deer population explosion in the '90's and game dept.'s liberalized the bag limit. That's when a lot of the hunters who already used a ML traded in their side hammer gun for the inline and new ML'er hunters bought their first gun (an inline).
Me thinks they set the seasons up to give hunters something to bicker about, aaaaaaaand it's working.
I totally get why guys are into the traditional guns. We all get a history bug about something at some point, be it Garands, 1911's, Lugers, or charcoal-burners from anywhere in their 700-800-ish year development. If someone wants to do it like Dan'l Boone, I absolutely understand where they're coming from.
On the other hand, two years ago, I shelved my blued/wood hunting rifle in favor of a Remington 700 XCRII that is a synthetic-stocked, stainless rifle with a coating on the metal to make it EVEN MORE stainless. The logic behind this is that I want to HUNT, not baby my equipment. For a lot of folks, muzzleloading is simply another season to hunt, not reconnect with someone who's been dead for 250 years, and they don't want to deal with all the baggage a traditional frontstuffer and real black brings to the party. Time being the most valuable commodity of all, I totally understand these folks as well.
But do I consider their inlines "traditional"? Nope. I figure any muzzleloader that hit the market after about 1865 can't claim to be. But I don't think they should be banned from the ML season because they don't look like antiques.
WWJMBD?
In the Land of Oz, we cast with wheel weight and 2% Tin, Man.
I actually think that this is the way it should be. Give out a certain amount of liscenses for the amount of population/herd reduction, and let the person decide how they want to hunt it. But that's a different topic. Lol
Yes, I left out the open ignition. But that's a mute point. Most smart sidelock owners figured out that a leather wrap of some sort would protect their hunting gear. Besides, it only makes a difference in certain weather instances. Which, depending on where you live, only makes up a portion of the season. Therefore, it comes back to what separates a breech loader from a muzzleloader.
Iron on sights could be argued, but I would shoot an inline with them and know of several people who do. Which brings us back to the same point. Sidelocks, and even flintlocks, can have optics mounted.
And which iron sights should be used? Adjustable? Fixed? One may hold an advantage over the other. Even breech loading guns have iron sights..... Hmmmmm..... So what is it that separates breech loaders from muzzleloades?
Posting Permissions
| BP | Bronze Point | IMR | Improved Military Rifle | PTD | Pointed |
| BR | Bench Rest | M | Magnum | RN | Round Nose |
| BT | Boat Tail | PL | Power-Lokt | SP | Soft Point |
| C | Compressed Charge | PR | Primer | SPCL | Soft Point "Core-Lokt" |
| HP | Hollow Point | PSPCL | Pointed Soft Point "Core Lokt" | C.O.L. | Cartridge Overall Length |
| PSP | Pointed Soft Point | Spz | Spitzer Point | SBT | Spitzer Boat Tail |
| LRN | Lead Round Nose | LWC | Lead Wad Cutter | LSWC | Lead Semi Wad Cutter |
| GC | Gas Check |
Reply With Quote