So, why then aren't in-lines considered traditional....
You know I can understand all the arguement over why people should be allowed to use in-lines, but for the life of me I cannot understand how people actually consider them "traditional".
I guess I always consider "traditional" as an attempt to recreate something from the past. The T/C Hawken, although it doesn't duplicate any particular gun from the past, the attempt to make it "fit in" with the past is clear. The T/C Hawken is clearly an attempt at making a gun that looks like it came from the 1840s. It's an attempt to make a gun look more primitive that it really is. It's a loose rendition of a real Hawken,
with no actual performance advantage. The only reason for buying a T/C Hawken is because you can't afford a genuine Hawken.
Most modern in-lines are an attempt to look more state-of-the-art than they really are. They are at the very least contemporary, and at most futuristic. Not traditional. You're taking a muzzle loader and attempting to make it look like a Model 70.
That said, I don't see "traditional" as any qualification for a hunt. It's the performance advantages that are worth regulating.
Let's examine muzzle loading. There are 3 challenges inherent to muzzle loading that are probably paramount in justifying an extra season. 1) is the challenge of slow reloading. 2) is the challenge of reliable ignition 3) is the challenge of reduced effective range.
1) As long as powder and projectile have to rammed down the muzzle, the reloading process will always take several seconds. This will prevent most follow up shots at game since wild game tends to flee once it hears the gun's report. So it can be said that taking this limitation on is a considerable challenge, and any hunter who can succeed with this handicap is a better hunter than one who needs a quick follow up shot (all other challenges being equal). To date, all three muzzle loading categories, flintlock, caplock, and in-line are about equal with respect to this handicap.
2) Because all muzzle loaders require the propellant to be dropped from the muzzle the propellant has an inherent risk of contamination by water due to it's inevitable exposure to the elements. All three categories of ML's share this risk. But there are other factors that greatly affect the reliability of ignition. And not all ML categories are the same with this respect. The most vulnerable ML category to ignition problems is the flintlock. The shooter is responsible for keeping the pan charge dry, the flint in good condition, and the discipline to hold steady in spite of the fire-flash 4 inches from his shooting eye. The hunter who succeeds under these handicaps has indeed accomplished something noteworthy. The next most vulnerable ML category is the side-lock caplock. The shooter need only to assure that the cap is dry which is considerably easier than a flintlock. There is little flash in the face, and the hammer and nipple seldom wear out. But, in inclement weather that tiny cap is vulnerable to dampness and a fouled flash channel will cause problems. The in-line has some vulnerability to ignition problems, but that can vary depending on the style. Generally speaking there is more difference between the flintlock and the caplocks than the caplocks and in-lines.
3) Because of the caliber minimums often written into the game laws and the limitation of Black powder and its substitutes, velocities and ballistic coefficients have governed the effective range of all muzzle loader categories. The methods employed to gain advantages in effective range have all been in the area of projectile and propellant development. A bullet is not going to shoot flatter or farther based simply on how the powder charge was ignited. Instead what really wins advantages in effective range is muzzle velocity and ballistic coefficient. To gain superior ballistic coefficient a longer bullet is needed. But ballistic coefficient will not help unless the bullet starts out with some velocity. To get superior velocity either more powder, a better powder, or a lighter bullet must be used. But using a lighter bullet means reducing the length and therefore the ballistic coefficient. To reduce bullet weight while maintaining decent ballistic coefficient one needs to reduce the caliber, but state game laws require a minimum bore diameter. To get around this, people employed sabots, which seal the gap between a small diameter bullet and a large diameter bore. This allows a shooter to fire a .43 caliber, 240 grain bullet at 2000 fps from a .50 caliber bore. To get the same trajectory from a caliber-sized bullet the bullet would weigh almost twice as much and recoil would be excruciating (driving a 420 grain maxi at 2000 fps!). Incidentally, there are large-bore (.69 and up) rifles that will shoot roundballs weighing 400+ grains at near 1800 fps.
So it would seem to me that if you really wanted to regulate the ML season based on real-life handicaps rather than just a persons personal tastes you should set the restrictions based on the three major factors 1)reloading speed 2)reliable ignition 3)effective range. If you think that factor number one is a sufficient handicap to justify an extra week of hunting then pretty much any muzzle loader has that handicap. If you think the reliability of ignition is what really poses the challenge then you ought to draw the line between flintlocks and caplocks. If you think that effective range is what make muzzleloading worthwhile, then restrict the projectile/sabot designs. When you think about it, in-lines per se are nothing more than an ugly gun. It's the advance from flint to cap and the sabot that have made the real differences.
