What makes a ML traditional to you?

[captchee]

WOW!!! Seems I missed a little over the last few weeks .
   As I recall Sams problem  with the TC was based more on the coil spring being used to fire the lock  instead of a leaf type spring . While it was true that  the TC was not a copy of any real rifle , neather were many of the  CVA, whitmar or Junkers of the time .
 Today we know this as the internet has made  information so much more available . Not to mention because of the computer  processing tons more correct information has been brought forward . We now know that  that coil springs were used by at least some makers as early as 1710 to fire different lock designs to include flintlock ignitions that were  inline with the center of the bore ..

 We also know no from  archeological digs that  elongated conical  that look  very much like the ballets  were also used in this country in combat as early as the revolutionary  war .
 For me a traditional weapon is any weapon of period design or  a reasonable facsimile of  that design .
A design mind you specifically intended to only be loaded from the muzzle and utilizing an ignition  of the same standing as its only source for ignition  .
 So fellas that mean no conversions  , no bolts using firing pins .
Plastic stocks , while  not appeasing to the eye , I look at not much different then  synthetic powder .
 Scopes ? Well I hate to disagree with grey beard but  I don’t think they belong unless they are of  low powder  and only of the early tube designs . Other then that open sights

 i would also like to point out that if we use the word traditional  by itself  without the word  muzzleloading . then we also have to understand that breech loading weapons have followed along the same evalutional lines as muzzleloaders .  this includes flintlock . in fact hall made , marketed and sold   sold in this country " USA" probably close to 100X the amount of  that design as Hawken would have been able to produce in the same time frame . weapon capable of both breech and muzzleloading . so we should be very carful with the wording of what is traditional and what isnt .
anyway , something to think on   

[sharps4590]

Wood stock, preferably maple then walnut, browned metal preferably but blue was known also.  Open sights, period scopes and peeps are fine.  PRB for projectile but I have no problem with conicals correct to pre Civil War...except that mostly they don't shoot worth spit, miltary rifled muskets and Minie's excepted....sometimes.  My Zouave doesn't like Minie's.  Flint or caplock ignition.

Plastic and stainless aren't traditional.  Personally I detest Pyrodex because of the lack of satisfactory performance I've had with it.  T-7 is a good powder but I only use it in my cartridge, double rifles so I can get enough velocity for them to regulate.  I don't use substitutes in my muzzleloaders but I understand the difficulty some folks have acquiring the real stuff so the imitations are OK.

Regarding real black powder, as rounball said, it's been listed as a Class A explosive for as long as I can remember.  Mostly because it is.  Pour a little black on a concrete surface and light it with a match then do the same thing with almost any smokelss powder......the difference doesn't need my explanation.  I defy you to get away from the black before it singes the hair off your fingers.  Smokeless allows plenty of time.  It's immediately apparant why one is classed as an explosive and one as a propellant.

Vic

[S.S.]

I think Traditional is more a state of the shooters mind-set than the actual weapon they use.
Trying to get as close to the basics of the weapon and the material (Possibles) that go along with it.
It really has nothing to do with when the weapon was designed or we would all have to use hand cannons. There was actually a Flint Fired inline that predated the percussion Cap !
So timeline  of the design would put in-lines first before percussion. I would have to get a mental picture of what a mountain man had in the early 1800's and use that as an example of what
Traditional should be. Although I think the word TRADITIONAL should be done away with in this respect and replaced with Time period or Period .. Saying Revolutionary Period, Mountain man period or Civil war period would be far more descriptive and accurate than simply saying TRADITIONAL.
This description is simply to vague to really be useful.

[roundball]

"...I think the word TRADITIONAL should be done away with in this respect and replaced with Time period or Period .. Saying Revolutionary Period, Mountain man period or Civil war period would be far more descriptive and accurate than simply saying TRADITIONAL.
This description is simply to vague to really be useful.

Just to offer a different view...while it's true there are variations under the term "Traditional", the term does serve a very useful pupose to make the initial distinction of which kind of muzzleloaders one is talking about in the first place...ie: a style that's "Traditional" in nature, and a style that's Modern" in nature.

Then once a category is selected...ie: Traditional...then yes, Traditional can be further broken down into other historical levels, styles, etc...New England, Southern Applachian, Plains, Mountain Man, etc, to name a few...they all spring from the "early American traditional muzzleloading era".

[captchee]

There was actually a Flint Fired inline that predated the percussion Cap !
So timeline  of the design would put in-lines first before percussion. I would have to get a mental picture of what a mountain man had in the early 1800's and use that as an example of what

 a correction  is needed here here .  inline ignitions predate percussion  that is true  and  were flint  as well a percussion . manton even produced an inline ignition  ona few SXS side hammer . these however have little to 0 in common with the modern bolt action inlines  which  we have  declared also as inlines  because  of how their ignition sets  in relation to the bore . doc whites is close but still   way off . even his Pauly design does not use the Pauly action . as its primary ignition . in fact it was  cosmetic only  on the one i  looked at   some time back while  doc was at a shoot i was participating in .

 the modern weapons base for design is squar with the evalution of the centerfire  breech loader  not in muzzleloading  design.  They are  backwards designed to achieve the required  muzzleloading only law ,  from breech loading center fires . That doesn’t make them bad or good . It however does not  give them a link to  traditional inline ignition muzzleloaders

 i would have no problems with  a traditional  inline weapon being clasified as Traditional or being legal in traditional weapons season

[Slamfire]

The inline flinter's I've seen, that were not one off prototypes have a nasty habit of spraying hot gas toward the shooter's face. I doubt we'll be seein' many of those at muzzleloadin' events. 

[S.S.]

The one I was referring to was from the early or mid 1700's
not anything recent .