Traditionialst vs Inline ?

[deputydon]

Try it; you'll like it....................

[bounce]

jabba I belive your suspsions are wrong, everyone allmost starts with a cheap knockoff. I did and most that I know did. But I did find metors that coached me in the right directions, Though I was one that still needed to try most everything to verify that they were right all a long lol But really a cheap round ball rifle is useually for most a best start I belive. and everyone in muzzel loading I have knowen are pomotors of the sport and want peaple to join in. and like to save them the expence of going the wrong way for them if we can. and yes the right way can be differant depinding on what they want and to acheave. That said : Patched Round Ball Rifle would be best for most at any level they chose to aford.

[Bill]

;D Red, you been smoking something again??

As far as cheap traditional rifles go I do belive this. They are a huge part of the reason a lot of people went to inlines. Man they made some junk back then. A really decent rifle went for $600 plus and that was just a basic gun with a really good barrel and lock and triggers. A POS went for about $159 and the rifling would of been better if they had left it out completly and called it a smoothbore as it was almost non-existant. Heck at that time I really don't think a lot of the retail stores had any idea what a decent gun was supposed to look or shoot like.
Most thought like Red just did. 50 yd gun is all they are and if you put more powder in them then they don't shoot at all.
Part of the problem came from too shallow of rifling and if you put in too much powder it just blew the ball over the rifling and it went all over the place. Some of these barrels had as little as .004 rifling and for a rifle to really shoot a RB decently it needs .010.
If you go to a barrel that has say a 1-72 twist with a .54 cal ball and in 1 1/16" across the flats in size and you make it about 36" or more. You will have a pretty decent shooting rifle that can handle a really heavy load or a light load.
A 1 - 48 twist barrel won't shoot anything well unless its 50 cal or smaller.
Like I said, about 3/4 of the cheap rifles sold were crap. Don't make any differance wether its inline or tradit. Cheap ruined a lot of guys.

[klsm54]

It seems to me, JMHO, that most of the opponents of in-lines here on this forum, are from Nebraska, and are upset that the original law was poorly written, and that enforcement was nil to non-existant.

I started Muzzleloader hunting in Pennsylvania back in 1979, and our season had already been around a couple years. When the PA law was writen, even though modern in-lines were still a dream in Mr. Knights head, it was very specific. It allowed only Flintlock rifles manfactured before 1800, or replicas thereof. V-Groove or nothed open sights only. (That was later ammended to allow fiber optic inserts.) So there was never any question as to whether in-lines were legal when they came around. The origial law allowed only roundballs too, and companys like T/C and CVA were making "roundball" models of there guns to be sold in PA. These models typically replaced the compromise barrels of 1 in 48" twist with 1 in 66" twist barrels. And of course they also made models in Flintlock for sale in PA that were cap and ball elsewhere.

So we had some "decent" cheap rifles available when our season started. I bought a .54 T/C Renegade and it was very accurate with round balls, and with a pretty stout load, I always shot 110 grains of FF. I could hit a 3" bull consistently at 75 yards from the bench. Which is pretty good in my book when the front site covered probably 6" at that range.

Over the last 25 years there has been all kinds of fighting between archers and muzzleloaders, in-line proponents and traditionalists. But our primitive season remains. Although an early season was added a few years ago, antlerless deer only, and it was brought on in a large part by the personal lobbying of Mr. Knight. But, he is in business to make money, and a state with over a million hunters was a large untapped market for him. So I don't begrudge his efforts at all.

It just seems that you guys are shootin' the piano player. Poorly written laws and lackluster enforcement are no reason, IMHO, to hold a grudge against those who shoot, or those who sell, in-line muzzleloaders. In stead, I see your beef as being with your states DNR, or whoever writes and enforces these laws.

I understand your frustration after lobbying for a primitive season, then having law enforcement look the other way when new technology came along, but yours is a Nebraska issue, and maybe a few other states. In many states, especially the states that have too many deer in the East and South, the game departments have used muzzleloading seasons as a tool to harvest more deer, and have welcomed technology that made the sport more efficient.

Again, I just can't see the reason to begrudge a hunter of his legal way to take a deer, nor can I see the reason to begrudge a retailer or manufacturer for selling hunters what they desire.

I'm sorry that the work of those who lobbied for, what they thought was, a primitive firearm season and turned out to be a muzzleloader season just like many other states. But, unless another lobbying efort is put forth to ADD a primitive season, I don't see anything changing. Sorry...

One thing for sure though, this topic has sure encited a bunch of posts. I wonder what other topics could fire up so many people?.... ;D ;D

[Purebred Redneck]

How can missouri add a primative season?
Last weekend of oct is youth season
We do have a weekend (I think) before rifle season kicks in for two weeks...which then leads to two weeks of muzzleloader season...which leads to two weeks of more rifle season. Now we're at christmas.
And archery season closes jan 15.
There's just no room for another season b/c the archery hunters will have a heart attack.
There are some special drawing hunts that do and can take place that can be traditional only (though our "primitive hunts" include inlines and scopes.

And I'd never be caught dead with a CVA. I do have the next worst thing though - traditions.
It shoots balls best at 75 grains. Furthermore, I wouldn't intentionally take a shoulder shot. BUT if you guys can shoot them accuratly with 100+ grains of powder...then I'll eat my words.

[Jack]

Well, Red, I use a CVA- a traditional type 50 caliber caplock. Picked it up used, for, I think, $90.
Shoots roundballs decently with 105 grains of Pyrodex Select. But, the Minie ball from the Lee mold shoots ungodly well, with 90 grains of Pyrodex Select, FWIW. With the Minie ball, you can shoot thru both shoulders and get an exit wound- a big one.

[deputydon]

[quote author=admin board=muzzleloaders thread=1133621695 post=113417378


And I'd never be caught dead with a CVA. I do have the next worst thing though - traditions.
It shoots balls best at 75 grains. Furthermore, I wouldn't intentionally take a shoulder shot. BUT if you guys can shoot them accuratly with 100+ grains of powder...then I'll eat my words. [/quote] How would you like them there words Red........with sauce; or without sauce?

[Bill]

KLSM54, you always say it more eloquantly than I do. Pretty much what I was trying to say all along in a nutshell.
Give him Sauce D-D. LOL.
CVA made what they called the Mountian Rifle. Probably one of the better built Traditional style rifles that was on the market. 1-60 twist and with a decent lock and barrel. I bought one for my dad and it still shoots good with 90 grains of FFg and a .50 cal RB.

[klsm54]

I think what made a lot of guns "junk", especially shooting round balls, was their wrong twist and rifling depth, as others have stated. Some of the "Econo-Loader" manufacturers tried to bull sh*t the novice shooter with "compromise" twists. The slick marketing said that the guns would should conicals and round balls, when indeed, they were far from ideal for either.

I believe that every manufacturer, that made an effort, produced some good shootin' round ball guns. And from my experience, a good shooting round ball gun is NOT limited to lighter loads.

Now here I know Bill, along with others, will strongly disagree with me. I firmly believe that round balls are 100 yard projectiles, at best....

I base this opinion on simple ballistic FACTS, not opinion. A round ball is a terrible design as far as external ballistics are concerned. I can't recall what the ballistic coefficient is for a round ball, but I do know that it is poor enough that the ball sheds 2/3 of it's velocity in 100 yards. That's right...2/3. In other words, a round ball that leaves the muzzle at a blistering 2100 fps has slowed down to a lumbering 700 fps at 100 yards. Anything slower than that results in more cripples than kills, especially with 50 calibers and the woefully inept .45 caliber, a wounding creation if ever there was one.

Now before you bite my head completely off, I know that those big balls out of those magnum .58's that Two Moons builds will kill a lot farther than 100 yards. But I'm talking the average shooter with the average, .50 or .54 caliber, gun. I think that conicals of some sort are a better choice for the hunter who shoots an off the shelf rifle, of any style.

Okay, I'm ready for the assault to begin.... ;D ;D

[Purebred Redneck]

I'm going to keep my mouth shut and maybe everyone will forget about me...

[klsm54]

Come on Red, jump in the fray.... ;D.....

....I'm just echoing your sentiments about roundballs... ;D

[jimiowa]

I just sat down and read every post on 6 pages and am surprized, I had never posted.
In truth, I really don`t think this thread is about the gun.
I have known you all long enough to know that our Nebraska members are all more than traditionalists.
Your Buckskinners, which is a culture unto itself that in all things emulate the time period of the fur trappers.
I have hung on the fringes of that culture and can understand the romance of the lifestyle. I have many friends and family who also are Skinners.
I got involved in the early 80`s while more less between jobs(4 yrs of layoffs and a career change) and financing a persona took second fiddle to feeding the kids.
Hunting in the exact manner that ancestors did in the 1830-1860 era did is both romantic and fun.
It is certainly understandable that your irritated that something you worked hard to get the state to accept, has been so greatly altered.

On the otherhand, The average hunter does not have the time or inclination to devote the time and money
To learn and take on a whole new culture, lifestyle and persona to hunt deer.
Inlines are a way for those people to hunt the muzzleloader season. Yes there is a lot of junk out there, but it is guys like our friends from Nebraska that can educate those of us who know much less.

I see no reason they should be excluded. The numbers collectively are what bureaucrats and polititians look at. And the more votes both factions can put together collectively is the one thing that will keep the anti`s from stopping our hobby.

Finally I have only shot traditional, a CVA Hawken and one day hope to own a truly fine smokepole.

[deputydon]

klsm54 said:

I think what made a lot of guns "junk",

I believe that every manufacturer, that made an effort, produced some good shootin' round ball guns. And from my experience, a good shooting round ball gun is NOT limited to lighter loads.

Now here I know Bill, along with others, will strongly disagree with me. I firmly believe that round balls are 100 yard projectiles, at best....

I base this opinion on simple ballistic FACTS, not opinion. A round ball is a terrible design as far as external ballistics are concerned. I can't recall what the ballistic coefficient is for a round ball, but I do know that it is poor enough that the ball sheds 2/3 of it's velocity in 100 yards. That's right...2/3. In other words, a round ball that leaves the muzzle at a blistering 2100 fps has slowed down to a lumbering 700 fps at 100 yards. Anything slower than that results in more cripples than kills, especially with 50 calibers and the woefully inept .45 caliber, a wounding creation if ever there was one.

Now before you bite my head completely off, I know that those big balls out of those magnum .58's that Two Moons builds will kill a lot farther than 100 yards. But I'm talking the average shooter with the average, .50 or .54 caliber, gun. I think that conicals of some sort are a better choice for the hunter who shoots an off the shelf rifle, of any style.

Okay, I'm ready for the assault to begin.... ;D ;D

No assault, your right!! I have always said that most rifles are 100 yd. rifles and that I don't recomend people shoot past that w/o doing what Bounce,Bill TM's and myself have done. Shot thousands of rounds at various yards. We know what our rifles will do!!! As for loads I stress that I shoot these big loads in rifles made to handle them. Even then I have to have TM's do alittle work on Big Thunder (.62 Cal. rifled) every winter after I'm done for the year because of wear and tear of the loads. But w/ the heavy loads I have found accuracy @ longer yardages. I practiced till I found what load worked where. Besides most of the deer I've shot were under 100 yds. It's nice to know though that you can reach out and touch 'em when you want to.

[Bill]

I agree 100% D-D. One thing I found out a long time ago is very few people shoot guns like we do. Nor do a lot of them want to. Most just want a gun that will handle 100 yds and call it good but some of the guys that shoot inlines are going for all they can get and thus the reason you see what is called a magnum ML inline that can handle 150 grains of powder. One of those 50 cals with 150 grains of BP isn't much differant than a 50-140 and maybe even a bit more except that most of them get limited by barrel length and thus the reason that they still don't keep up with our guns.
Now on the topic of ML laws in the state of Nebraska I think we all got fooled. When they first came out and said Ok guys this is going to be what the law will be and it talked about Traditional styled rifles and only those we all celabrated. That is until we got the law that was put in place and this opened up a whole new bitch. Yup we got scr-w-d. I think there must of been a whole bunch of lobbying done real quick someplace along the line and some palms got greased. So like I said I have no problem with the inlines or the stores that sold them. I do have a huge problem with the lawmakers that made the law.

[bounce]

Well I'm not arguing the greasing & the screwing, But feel their was origanoly that 1st and perhapps the 2nd year a good law agreed on. Just know it was not inforced at all and bye the end of the 2nd year the DNR flatly stated to us that they never would. I allso remeber the big push on inline type guns all at that time, Extend Your Deer seasion for 89.95!!!