"TRADITIONAL"....

[rollingb]

I always did like thet "word"!!

But I'm always amazed when some folks try to "re-define" it's mean'n.
And "wher" do we draw tha line!! For example,......

1. Jacketed bullets

2. Plastic sabots

3. Plastic speed-loaders

4. Plastic fiber-optic sights

5. Recoil pads

6. "Cut" flints

7. "Fast-twist" barrels

8. Tang-sights

9. Globe-sights

10. Alumium rifle "hardware"  

11. Fiberglass or synthetic ramrods

12. Plastic see-thru cappers

13. Modern "concoctions" of patch-lube

14. Modern "concoctions" of bore cleaners

15. Modern "concoctions" of fake blackpowder

and,..... etc.!!

Does the "use" of the above mentioned "modern things" honestly fit the description of "TRADITIONAL" in yore opinions?

To me, the word "TRADITIONAL" means ONLY the "types" of powder and components AVAILABLE dur'n the "time in history" most closely associated with the riflegun in my hands!!

I readyly admit to give'n "hot shot" nipples a try. (nuthin gained when use'n REAL blackpowder!)

I also admit to use'n a "synthetic ramrod" at home fer "final" clean'n. (never when "use'n" the riflegun!)

And,.... I can unnerstand "fake" blackpowder for those of you who claim thet you cain't git the "REAL" stuff. (however, I'm not aware of ANY place in the "lower 48" states,... thet "real" blackpowder cain't be sent by UPS!)

Shouldn't shoot'n TRADITIONAL muzzleloaders,.... (with TRADITIONAL "components" ONLY,...) be the "GOAL" thet we as "traditional shooters" ought'a be strive'n for?

Or,..... is my unnerstand'n of the word "TRADITIONAL" wrong?

(OK!!.... I'm "braced",... now let me "have it"   !!)

[Thomas Krupinski]

It's strictly in the mind of the beholder and how far they want streach the envelope.  Some folks like to to try and mimic the historical pieces and there is a whole lot of enjoyment doing it.  More power to that endeavor.

However I don't think anyone should get upset as others decide to differ from what would be considered obvious.  I like both the Encore and the Hawken/Renegade rifles.  Each has their place and I could really care less if anyone wants to mix the stuff.

Now you also end up with some folks that get so involved with reanacting historical lifestyles that it becomes a religion to them.  But that's their choice and if that's what they want to call traditional, I am sure the lack of underwear with leather britches will please them to no end.

[Roger_Dailey]

I always did like thet "word"!!

I like the word also.  It always brings up sweet memories.

But I'm always amazed when some folks try to "re-define" it's mean'n.

Traditional relates to tradition and tradition is not a fixed entity.  Traditions can have a lifespan.   They start and they may end.  I have seen the 30-30 referenced as a traditional deer cartridge.  At one time it was probably referenced as a modern deer cartridge.  

And "wher" do we draw tha line!!

Wherever the person drawing the line wants.  In Graybeard's playhouse, we have two choices: 1) TRADITIONAL Muzzleloading Rifles & Shotguns 2) MODERN Inline Muzzleloading Rifles & Shotguns.  

For me, it is using equipment that does not require post industrial revolution materials and processes.  The plastic speed loader is a good example.  The function of a plastic speed loader can be duplicated in several materials (wood, horn, brass, leather).  So is it "plastic" or is it "speed loader" that should not be considered traditional.  If it is "plastic" then we have to also exclude modern steels.  

For some it is equipment representative of pre-1840.  

We all choose our battles.  If I want to disagree with someone, there is nothing they can say or do that will cause me to agree.

[rollingb]

Thomas,.... I agree thet some folks are strech'n the envelope in regards to the word "traditional",.... however, I believe it's the folks thet use the things I listed thet are do'n the "strech'n"!!

I'm not sure how you see folks involved in real history, can be comparable to a "religion", I see it rather as a "basis" for a true unnerstand'n of the rifleguns we like so much!! (anythin else is a "watered-down" version, and has no "traditional value" at all!)

In other words,.... whats the "difference" 'tween shoot'n an "inline" with, fake powder, jacketed bullets, fiber-optic sights, recoil pad, and scope,....... compared to a "newer" traditional-style muzzleloader thet shoots the SAME thing?

"NONE",.... of the components are "traditional" at all!!... thus the "traditional value" of such a riflegun is "non-existant", but rather a "modern-abnormality"!!

[Thomas Krupinski]

RB, I am not comparing it to a religion, what I am saying is that they actually turn it into a religion for themselves.  They get so preoccupied with a dogma that they attribute to it, that they can't even consider the possibility of enjoyment in doing something else.

I am agreeing with you that there is value and enjoyment in pursuit of things using traditional ways and I find it fun.  But so are a whole lot of other things and will still use a lighter or matches when available and I am cold to start my fire, or much rather sleep in my motorhome than on the ground under a tarp like I used to.  There was a reason why the lifespan was shorter during the "traditional" days.

[rollingb]

I have seen the 30-30 referenced as a traditional deer cartridge.  At one time it was probably referenced as a modern deer cartridge.

I fail to see any "difference" in cartridges thet shoot jacketed bullets and smokeless powder,.... in regards to "tradition"!!
Ain't the new SAUM's, and etc.... follow'n the same "tradition" as the 30-30 with, brass cases, jacketed bullets, smokeless powder, and primers??  

And "wher" do we draw tha line!!

Wherever the person drawing the line wants.  In Graybeard's playhouse, we have two choices: 1) TRADITIONAL Muzzleloading Rifles & Shotguns 2) MODERN Inline Muzzleloading Rifles & Shotguns.

I would think thet as much as the "MODERN inlines" are strive'n to be more like MODERN CARTRIDGE RIFLES,.... thet the "TRADITIONAL rifleguns" should be strive'n to be more like the "ORIGINAL MUZZLELOADERS"! (same goes for the "components" they shoot!)  

For me, it is using equipment that does not require post industrial revolution materials and processes.  The plastic speed loader is a good example.  The function of a plastic speed loader can be duplicated in several materials (wood, horn, brass, leather).  So is it "plastic" or is it "speed loader" that should not be considered traditional.  If it is "plastic" then we have to also exclude modern steels.

Not everbuddy studies "metalography", so I find the above comparison less then creditable!!  

For some it is equipment representative of pre-1840.

I agree,... BUT!,... It wasn't until the introduction of smokeless powder (50 years later) thet jacketed bullets were developed. Which brings me back to ask "how" can shoot'n jacketed bullets be justified in (pre-1840) "traditional-style" rifleguns??
The arguement thet jacketed bullets "kill" better doesn't hold water neither, 'cause traditional roundballs had been do'n the same thing for several centurys  

We all choose our battles.  If I want to disagree with someone, there is nothing they can say or do that will cause me to agree.

I agree,... but, be honest and tell me "what" pops into yore mind when the words "traditional muzzleloader" are mentioned!!

[rollingb]

Well it's obvious thet I ain't got this "qoute" stuff figgered out yet!!    

[rollingb]

RB, I am not comparing it to a religion, what I am saying is that they actually turn it into a religion for themselves.  They get so preoccupied with a dogma that they attribute to it, that they can't even consider the possibility of enjoyment in doing something else.

Thomas,.... I could just as easyly say, thet some folks attribute a preoccupied dogma to "modern technology",..... thus it has become, for them, the "NEW religion"!!

[1860]

It's a state of mind, the equipment used or time frame one trys to emulate has little to do with it.  A guy who uses a nice old 1911 to shoot along side of guys using Kimbers or Glocks, is traditional. The ammo used might be the same but the 1911 guy is "Old school".  I wouldn't look down my nose at a fellow using cut flints or plastic speed loaders for hunting, at least his gun doesn't have a Red Dot sight and a removable breach plug that makes cleaning easier-(Ha).  Heck, I kind of favor precut and lubed patches for a couple of my guns :wink: .

1860

[Thomas Krupinski]

Your right RB, there are a bunch who do that, they have to have the latest, greatest, most improved gizmos in just about everything.  Electronics, optics, vehicles, and all sort of other things.  More power to them if they have the funds and desire to constantly upgrade.  What I like about it is they usually have their "old" stuff for sale and makes it reasonable for me to keep updated, even if it's only a couple of generations behind.

[filmokentucky]

Never thought about it before but I don't have a single bit of non-traditional gear.  Never even used fake black powder. I didn't think of myself as a traditionalist, but I guess that I am.I just don't have any interest in the modern stuff. For me, the fun is in using the traditional guns in the traditional ways, learning their unique traits and personalities. I like my guns to have real wood grips and stocks and blued  (or browned or polished) steel. Case hardening is nice too. Just can't get worked up over black plastic or stainless steel.
  Truthfully, I don't feel at a disadvantage compared to folks using modern muzzleloaders during hunting season. Firstly, it's not a competition. And I don't think the modern gun offers that much of an advantage, maybe a little extra range. Woodscraft still counts for a lot.
  Besides, I like the smell of real black powder smoke-it smells  of days long ago, the birth of our nation and a simpler, more honorable time.

[Ramrod]

I couldn't care less what some other guy shoots, but it does bother me when he's allowed to hunt in a special muzzleloader season with his cheater rifle, smokeless powder, and scope, because some greedy Game Departments are more interested in liscence sales than in the original intentions of the special season. (It was supposed to be hard, thats why they let you go EARLY). They keep easing the regs to allow any dumbass with the money for an inline and pyro-poop pellets, and no hunting skills to get in on these special seasons for one reason only--$$$$

[rollingb]

I guess I ain't make'n myself very plain, concern'n my veiw of "traditional",.... so here are some examples of what I consider "UN-traditional",.....

(Historical copy of a) 16th. century cross-bow, shoot'n alumium arrows,...

1928 Model T fueled with "nitro",....

Colt "Peace Maker" with modified clyinder for 45 ACP,...

Brown Bess musket shoot'n jacketed bullets,....

Faux-fur buffalo robes,....

Buffalo hunt'n on ATV's,.....

Side-lock plain's rifles shoot'n jacketed bullets,.....

Brown Bess with scope,.....

Charleyville musket with fiber optic sights,....

I'm have'n truble unnerstand'n the "state of mind" description, as if folks would even consider any of the above as "traditional"!!

I'm not try'n to start any "flame wars", but I am try'n to unnerstand "why" some folks attempt to "blend together" traditional rifleguns and modern components,.... and still consider it "traditional", but NOT "modern" :?:  :?:  :?:  :?:

[rollingb]

Thomas, and Filmokentucky,..... Thank you!!... now I'm feel'n a liddle better and maybe a liddle less confused.

I was begin'n to think I was 'bout the only one innerested in use'n "truely" traditional rifleguns AND traditional components (even if they are "reproductions")!!
By do'n so, I feel as if I can git a better unnerstand'n of "days gone by",.... and, 'sides it's a fun way to hunt and feed tha family!!

I don't think I could git the same "feel'n" use'n sumpthin thet looked traditional but shot modern high-tech components!! (Now thet's what I call a "state of mind"!!)  

[filmokentucky]

As I write this I'm looking at my new 1842 Springfield musket. It is a symphony in polished steel and black walnut. A joy to behold. But, it is also a natural pointer and is nicely balanced. I knew it was a keeper as soon as I saw it at the gun show last Saturday. It's going to make a great turkey gun and I can see myself using it during deer season as well. I seriously doubt that an in-line would provide more reliable ignition and no in-line will look as good hanging on my wall. I value functionality in my guns, but I want 'em pretty, too.
     I have to say that every one is entitled to make their own choices, and what someone else shoots doesn't affect me. It just seems that an important part of muzzleloading is the aesthetic experience- the classic guns, the gear, the whole ritual of loading-the return to the old ways. In-liners don't seem to care about this-the few  that I know just want to extend their hunting seasons. I think it's their loss. And, they seem to miss the fact that my hunting time is just as long as theirs is! And you can't do much re-enacting with an in-line. Oh,well. To each his own.

[Wolfhound]

First off, I shoot both inlines and sidelocks. I enjoy shooting both styles. I also only hunt the general firearm season with my ml's. Now for me "traditional" means using period style arms with period syle ammo. My GPR, despite being caplock, shoots roundballs. The only nontradional thing I use is my powder which is 777 which I use in all my muzzleloaders. The nearest place carring real blackpowder is a 2+ hour drive and I can't afford to order blackpowder due to the minimum amount you have to order. For me 777 is the closest I can get to it reasonably. So that makes me non-tradional in your eyes. I can live with that as I'm the only person I have to make happy. I shoot what I want to shoot and what I enjoy shooting. I could care less whether you shoot a brand new 7mm mag or an original Brown bess. Both the same thing to me, a way to enjoy the sport of hunting/shooting. That's what it all comes to anyway isn't it? If not, perhaps you should reevaluate why you shoot or hunt.

[Roger_Dailey]

I fail to see any "difference" in cartridges thet shoot jacketed bullets and smokeless powder,.... in regards to "tradition"!!
Ain't the new SAUM's, and etc.... follow'n the same "tradition" as the 30-30 with, brass cases, jacketed bullets, smokeless powder, and primers??

And some people fail to see any difference between pushing a machine swaged roundball wrapped in a pre-cut wonder lubed patch down the muzzle of a rifle and pushing a jacketed bullet wrapped in a plastic sabot down the muzzle of the same rifle.  Aren't they following the same "tradition" of pushing in what comes out?  

I would think thet as much as the "MODERN inlines" are strive'n to be more like MODERN CARTRIDGE RIFLES,.... thet the "TRADITIONAL rifleguns" should be strive'n to be more like the "ORIGINAL MUZZLELOADERS"! (same goes for the "components" they shoot!)

That sounds good to me, at first.  but I'm not sure what the "ORIGINAL MUZZLELOADERS" were.  I'm guessing some sort of matchlock.  I think I'll have to stick with my modern flintlocks.  

Not everbuddy studies "metalography", so I find the above comparison less then creditable!!

It has nothing to do with "metalography", it has to do with honesty.  What part of a "plastic speed loader" do you find offensive.  Is it the "plastic" part or is it the "speed loader" part?

The arguement thet jacketed bullets "kill" better doesn't hold water neither, 'cause traditional roundballs had been do'n the same thing for several centurys

As you say, roundballs work very well.  So why would I be concerned if someone uses a jacketed bullet.  

I agree,... but, be honest and tell me "what" pops into yore mind when the words "traditional muzzleloader" are mentione

Internet arguments.  Its about the only place I see or hear any discussions of what traditional muzzleloader means.

[rollingb]

Now for me "traditional" means using period style arms with period syle ammo. My GPR, despite being caplock, shoots roundballs.

Wolfhound,.... The first sentence is exactly what I'm talk'n about,.... and I agree! 100%!!

The next sentence has me a liddle confused,... it sounds as if you are surprised thet the "caplock" and the "roundball" are a good combo in the the GPR,... or,.... thet you think the GPR isn't "period correct" with a "caplock".

The Lyman GPR is a purty good reproduction of the late Hawkens (least as far as commercial-production rifles go), which were predominately "caplocks"!!

[filmokentucky]

The original muzzle loaders were called "hand gonnes". They were a bit awkward to use but they certainly are traditional.
    To strictly define a traditional muzzle loader can be tricky, but here goes: A muzzle loading firearm of a pattern in use during the accepted period when the muzzle loader was the common weapon available-say until the end of the Civil War. Ignition forms vary, but would include matchlocks, wheel locks. the various forms of the flintlock, and percussion ignition(various sidelocks and underhammers for example). Projectiles would include round balls(patched and not) shot, and minie balls. I'm sure there are other characteristics as well.
     While I don't have a problem with someone ramming home a sabot round, I do have to say that it is in no way as traditional as seating a patched round ball over a charge of real black powder.
     Perhaps the biggest difference between "traditionalists" and "modernists" is a philosophical one---a gap that we may never bridge.

[Thomas Krupinski]

Filmokentucky, actually that can be bridged if you can just live long enough for the modern muzzleloaders to become traditional muzzleloaders.

I am sure that what we not think of as traditional was at one time modern and probably subject to criticism as well.  Just imagine what it was like then and the mismatched kits that people came up with to accomodate changing technology.  

No matter what it is, I think it's fun to explore them all!

[crow_feather]

It seems to me that common sense is ignored these days.  You pour a hot cup of coffee on yourself and get a zillion dollars.  You burgle a house, slip on a toy in the hall and sue the house owner.  You shoot at a police officer and your family sues because the police shot back too many times and over killed you.

Thus it is with the sport we are discussing here.  We get so involved with definitions that we get burried in words when common sense is all that is necessary.  

Could or would a person in the period you are trying to copy have or use what you are using?  And if you are using it, is it made out of the same materials?  Simple.

I don't believe people in the 1830's had jocky shorts, leather or cotton.

C F

[rollingb]

Roger wrote:

And some people fail to see any difference between pushing a machine swaged roundball wrapped in a pre-cut wonder lubed patch down the muzzle of a rifle and pushing a jacketed bullet wrapped in a plastic sabot down the muzzle of the same rifle. Aren't they following the same "tradition" of pushing in what comes out?

Some people must be "blind" not to see tha difference 'tween a patched roundball (swaged or otherwise), and a jacketed bullet with plastic sabot.

The roundball is traditional for thet time-period,.... or, are you say'n thet push'n a jacketed bullet down the bore of a muzzleloader is traditional for a "time" in history when jacketed bullets didn't exist !!

Roger wrote:

That sounds good to me, at first. but I'm not sure what the "ORIGINAL MUZZLELOADERS" were. I'm guessing some sort of matchlock. I think I'll have to stick with my modern flintlocks.

My personal opinion of "original muzzleloaders" are the ones made before commercial production muzzleloaders were available. This time period would extend from the 16th century until close to the middle of the 19th. century even tho people like Gemmer, Derringer, Leman, and a few others built rifles for a few years after the Civil War!!

Roger wrote:

It has nothing to do with "metalography", it has to do with honesty. What part of a "plastic speed loader" do you find offensive. Is it the "plastic" part or is it the "speed loader" part?

I naturaly find plastic very offensive when talk'n traditional  accoutrements , and etc.
Now I ask you which you find most similar,... plastic/wood,.... or,... steel/wrought iron??
Wouldn't you agree thet in order to tell the difference 'tween steel and wrought iron, thet it would take much more then a "casual glance"?? (which BTW, is all thet's needed to see tha difference 'tween plastic and wood!)
At least steel and wrought iron still have "iron" in ther make-up!! (how much "wood" is in plastic,... or, how much "plastic" is ther in a wood load'n block?)

(Somehow I git tha feel'n yore pull'n my leg on some of this discussion!!   )

Roger wrote:
 

Internet arguments. Its about the only place I see or hear any discussions of what traditional muzzleloader means.

The "arguements" most generaly start by fellas try'n to justify ther "less than traditional", jacketed bullets, plastic sabots, and etc.,.... to the fellas thet do study history and do have a purty good "grip" on what's traditional!!
Personaly I couldn't care less "what" they shoot,.... as long as they don't try'n tell me thet 20th. century jacketed bullets (or, etc.) were used before they were even "INVENTED"!!
I do find it sad, thet some folks shoot'n traditional-style rifleguns, don't think enough of'em to use traditional components!!
Which brings me back to the "original intent" of this subject,.... shouldn't we all strive to be a liddle more TRADITIONAL with our "components", when shoot'n/talk'n TRADITIONAL "muzzleloaders"? :toast:

[Cuts Crooked]

<Scritch scritch....sound of Ol Cuts scratchin' hhis scalp>

OK! I got it! Steel has the same basic componant as iron! Right? But plastic is made frum petroleum products 'n wood is frum trees! So they's different!

Waidda minute! About a zipzillion years ago oil WUZ wood! (give 'r take a few bazillion years) Leastwise dat's wat them schoolmarms usta tell us. They says that alla them years ago a bunch of plants 'n stuff got buried 'n turned ta oil!  So.....plastic IS traditional, on accounta it usta wuz wood! :-D

(Sorry Pards, couldn't resist it! Ah'm  sucha  low brow!! )

[ogemakw]

Traditional to me means pre 1840 technology.(not necessarily pre 1840 materials) That means no inlines. Nothing wrong with inlines and all that goes along with them, but they are a part of modern muzzleloading.

[PowderFlask2]

wolfhound and other interested parties

Powder Inc.
http://www.powderinc.com/

Will ship you any quantity of Goex Swiss etc that you want and are absolutely great people to deal with, they have bent over backwards for me when they didn't have to and I for one will make an effort to do business with them.

There is no reason to shoot that new fangled stuff that is unnatural and is probably the reason for global warming.
 
Wake up America!!!  Shoot the REAL stuff!

You guys want to really get upset?
I personnally will not own any of the TC, CVA etc. crap that is out there.
The closest thing to a production gun that meets my sensabilities is a Caywood.
The time frame that interests me most is the mid 1700's and Caywoods and flintlocks inc. guns are closer to being correct for the time frame than anything else I can find.
I will not use a short starter until some one can prove to me that they actually had them and for that matter I am close to giving up my priming horns as I believe they came along when people started loading at the bench and then priming at the line.
I have seen people use guns that they put little copper things on "nipples" but am sure it is a passing fad.

If I ever did decide to get "modern" I suppose I could live with a Hawken but would probably have to have it made cause I am not aware of a production model that looks like an original. (Ihave been known to shoot the original guns I own but with light loads and just for fun)

Do not own a mold for a muzzleloader that is not a roundball and why would I? I suppose if you are going to shoot plastic stuff I could loan you some plastic wrap and you could patch your stuff with that.

I think you guys get where I am coming from.

I fail to see why any one who is interested in old stuff tries to mix in new stuff.

OK I'm done rip in to me!

[rollingb]

Powderflask2,.... You'll git no "rip'n" from me!!  

I don't build my traditional style rifleguns to shoot modern high-tech jacketed bullets'n stuff!! :eek:  :grin:

[Roger_Dailey]

Some people must be "blind" not to see tha difference 'tween a patched roundball (swaged or otherwise), and a jacketed bullet with plastic sabot.

The roundball is traditional for thet time-period,.... or, are you say'n thet push'n a jacketed bullet down the bore of a muzzleloader is traditional for a "time" in history when jacketed bullets didn't exist !!

I can see a difference, I'm just saying that some people don't.  I can see a diffierence between a cast ball and a swaged one, some people might not see the difference.  

My personal opinion of "original muzzleloaders" are the ones made before commercial production muzzleloaders were available.

I am guessing that you allow deviations for things like the commercial produced muzzleloaders used during the revolutionary war.

I naturaly find plastic very offensive when talk'n traditional  accoutrements , and etc.
Now I ask you which you find most similar,... plastic/wood,.... or,... steel/wrought iron??
Wouldn't you agree thet in order to tell the difference 'tween steel and wrought iron, thet it would take much more then a "casual glance"?? (which BTW, is all thet's needed to see tha difference 'tween plastic and wood!)
At least steel and wrought iron still have "iron" in ther make-up!! (how much "wood" is in plastic,... or, how much "plastic" is ther in a wood load'n block?)

(Somehow I git tha feel'n yore pull'n my leg on some of this discussion!!   )

Nope, no leg pulling at all.  I was trying to find out if it was materials, processes or looks that you find offensive.  You have answered that very clearly.  Thank you.

Personaly I couldn't care less "what" they shoot,.... as long as they don't try'n tell me thet 20th. century jacketed bullets (or, etc.) were used before they were even "INVENTED"!!

I am in total agreement with that statement.  My time is limited, so I tend just ignore and pass by those people and statements.  They don't have anything I want.

Which brings me back to the "original intent" of this subject,.... shouldn't we all strive to be a liddle more TRADITIONAL with our "components", when shoot'n/talk'n TRADITIONAL "muzzleloaders"? :toast:

For sure, that is up to the individual.  In my personal experience, I'm more of a primitive muzzleloader than a traditional one.  For example, I use 3/8" copper tubing flare nuts for ramrod bore guides.  They do a nice job of protecting the muzzle and they are cheap and easy to get.  I used a gas torch to weld and heat treat a broken frizzen spring.  I have fabricated sear springs from binder clamps (office supplies).  None of the above is traditional.  I shoot roundballs cast at home (on a gas stove).  I also shoot roundballs made by big machines in a big factory.   After looking at what I've just written, I see that I'm not a traditional muzzleloader.  So, I don't have any business trying to answer your question.  I apologize for taking your time.  But I want to thank you for helping me to better understand why I get so frustrated with these discussions.  Roger slipping away to put lurking hat on.....
Take care, have fun.

[Dutch/AL]

When it comes to limiting our choices in equipment, or limiting ourselves with our chosen methods of hunting, what it basically comes down to is "personal satisfaction."

One fella may be using a 300 Magnum and shooting a deer from a heated shooting house. If he is successful and is happy using that particular method, then he has achieved personal satisfaction.

Another fellow might take a deer with a selfbow that he whittled out by hand, and cringe at the thought of taking a deer with any type "gun" because he feels no personal satisfaction is doing so.

The people I wonder about are the ones who are not just satisfied doing things that provide themselves with personal satisfaction, but rather feel the need to restrict other peoples choices in what equipment to use, even if it's legal. Their personal satisfaction seems to lie in belittling others because of their choices in equipment. I guess that could be a rewarding hobby, if they derive a lot of personal satisfaction in doing so. It just seems to me to be an all consuming obsession for some people, and IMO quite boring to discuss over and over and over again.

Whadda ya say we go out and stuff a few plastic saboted bullets down a 1 in 66 inch twist flintlock, and make a few people roll over in thier graves who aren't even dead yet.  :shock:  

[PowderFlask2]

Look out where you point that thing

I don't think any one wants to limit what other people shoot with.

But you tell me if an inline muzzleloader with a scope and plastic sabots and jacketed bullets has more in common with a modern bolt gun or a flintlock with spit patch & ball.

I want every one in this country to own and shoot every time they want to and God bless every one who stands up for our second amendment rights.

But when I tell you your inline doesn't doesn't fit with your tricorn, knee breeches, weskit and hand made linen shirt why do you get so pissy about it.

[rollingb]

I'm sorry if I offended anyone, by suggest'n thet, ther might be more thot give'n to traditional components be'n used in traditional muzzleloaders.

I didn't realize thet this topic would vary so much in extremes, such as "cast vs swaged" roundballs!!
Hell!!.. ther BOTH "round",.... and neither of'em justify shoot'n "jacketed bullets" in a traditional rifle!!

Anuther extreme is thet of "personal satisfaction",..... what tha heck do people buy or build "TRADITIONAL MUZZLELOADERS" for,.... if they AIN'T plan'n to shoot "traditional components" in'em?? (Ain't "thet" what modern in-lines are for??)

The last time I looked at the "name" of this forum, it said,... TRADITIONAL Muzzleloading Rifles & Shotguns,.... so, please excuse me for suggest'n thet we put any effort into use'n components with the same first "NAME"!!!!

(Guess I was jest be'n "UN-REALISTIC" agin!!   )