Muzzleloading in the new era.

[crow_feather]

Watching a huntin show where a guy with a scoped Thompsoon Center inline shoots a big buck.  As the scene fades to black, the last words outta his mouth - "my first deer with a muzzleloader". 

Do you know why no one says, when the scene fades to black,"my first deer with a 30-30"?   Cause it don't mean a whole heck of a lot!  Yet these yahoos will use a rifle more accurate than a 30-30, flatter shooting than a 30-30, and scoped -  to take a deer -  and then brag about their great feat.

No, I don't think we all have to get along.
Yes, I know that I don't have to watch the show.
Lotta nice people shoot those new fangled rifles.
Only problem is, they think they are doing something special.

I feel better now.

C F

[lostid]

Ya the view of ML sports is getting blurry isn't it. 

Watching a huntin show where a guy with a scoped Thompsoon Center inline shoots a big buck. 

 The sad part about most of those shows is they keep the camera close in,,,if they'd pan back too much, you'd actually see the 12' chain link fence around the "pen" and the pellet feeders just under the stand

[quickdtoo]

I gotta agree with ya CF, I'm always disappointed when they talk muzzleloader and then use a modern stainless, scoped inline, some even with smokless powder, not much "primitive" in them.

It's all relative to how we were rasied/taught by our elders/peers, what is an accomplishment to one is just routine for others, just as taking game with a flinter compared to a persuction is a bit more of a challenge. Add to that the effort and knowledge needed to sucessfully hunt and take game in inclement weather with trully traditional firearms is an accomplishment in itself. Doing it with a firearm that is immune to the affects of nature isn't really much to brag on and doing it in fair weather is not much different than hunting with a cartridge gun.

Thanks for sharing,

Tim

[Biff Mayhem]

Watching a huntin show where a guy with a scoped Thompsoon Center inline shoots a big buck.  As the scene fades to black, the last words outta his mouth - "my first deer with a muzzleloader". 

Do you know why no one says, when the scene fades to black,"my first deer with a 30-30"?   Cause it don't mean a whole heck of a lot!  Yet these yahoos will use a rifle more accurate than a 30-30, flatter shooting than a 30-30, and scoped -  to take a deer -  and then brag about their great feat.

No, I don't think we all have to get along.
Yes, I know that I don't have to watch the show.
Lotta nice people shoot those new fangled rifles.
Only problem is, they think their doing something special.

I feel better now.

C F

He didn't brag.... just proud of his first feat.  Every muzzleloader hunter will tell you that it takes a ton of more work to get that T/C to shoot better than that 30-30. No 2nd shot available too - unlike the 30-30.

So yes... it is "special". No Yahoo required!

[KW]

My wife and I had this same conversation not 2 days ago. She wants to get into bow hunting and was asking me my opinions on if she should get a recurve or a compound. This eventually led her into asking me my opinions about modern in-line bpr and the more traditional side-lock pbr and which one I was thinking about getting. There is a place for both. Although I hate to admit it, the in-line craze exploded if not saved the role of the muzzleloading hunter in todays society.

In-lines brought the everyday hunter into the mystique of blackpowder hunting by letting them use the same look and feel of a modern bolt. Letting people find out for themselves that it is a safe, accurate and reliable type of firearm that wouldn't blow up if you ram the powder to hard. Those of us who have been raised by the smoke pole know all this, but I have seen the fear in the eyes of people when I pour powder from my horn into the measure and then the rifle, ridiculous, yes, but still very real even today. In-lines expanded technology and quality in blackpowder rifles and the accessories that are required to use them that filtered down to the side-lock world. One example is the removable breech plug, very handy. Even though I am a round ball shooter the vast array if projectiles available now is nice and they work in side-lock just as well as in-lines.

It's a topic that individual states have addressed to. Colorado has a law that the bullet of a muzzleloader can't be longer than twice the caliber. So for us 50 cal shooters you can pretty much kiss most of the sabots goodbye. Here in MT we can only use lead projectiles and loose powder, no pellets. Of course when the rifle season starts then all rules are off and in come the pellets and highpower sabots.

I agree that when I am watching a hunting show and they take a moose with an encore that a part of me winces when they call that a muzzleloader, but it did give that person a taste of our great blackpowder world and when you are interested in something and have fun doing it, that interests only grows. No I will never own a in-line. To me they are ugly, awkward and fake, but I would never discourage someone who wanted to get into muzzleloading from getting one, if they were unsure of the side-lock. As for my wife she is getting a compound and I am now looking at a RMC AccuSport LTD to replace my 21 year old CVA St. Louis Hawken. Why should she be the only one to get a new toy    

[lostid]

I think this should be removed from the "Traditonal Muzzle loading Rifles & Shotguns" forum!!

 There was trouble before that made seperation possible,,,,now it happens again???

 Traditional is traditional--------in-line is in-line!!!!!!!!!

This topic is "traditional".. I don't go over to the in-line forum and tell them folks what they have is bad or mine is better! I don't want to read here,,,the same olde arguments... is this bias?? Selective moderation??

[quickdtoo]

Lostid, it's only trouble when someone makes a big stink over it, if you don't care for the topic, which it is more traditional than it is modern, please don't respond to it, just ignore it!! As you said...

Ya the view of ML sports is getting blurry isn't it.

Tim

[flintlock]

Crowfeather...These guys don't know what they are missing...They didn't get in to muzzleloading (if you can call it that) for the same reasons alot of us older guys did...They just want to kill another deer..(As if that's a big challenge)...

Ignorance is bless...

[lostid]

Thank you flintlock and Crowfeather.
 seem's our Traditional Muzzle Loading Rifles & Shotguns forum moderator quickdtoo want's to beat me up,he don't like what is said.he wants documentation from the past.he want's the trad forum to be a "grey" area, sumpthing like trad and kinda in-line,,maybe in-line kinda trad thing mixed together... I would like to keep the Trad. forum traditional...

 Are scopes on Thompson Center Hawkins traditional? Is this a place to disscuss if scopes on T/C Hawkins are trad? ( I mean, really disscuss if their trad?)

[Wolfhound]

Are scopes on Thompson Center Hawkins traditional? Is this a place to disscuss if scopes on T/C Hawkins are trad? ( I mean, really disscuss if their trad?)

http://www.gmriflebarrel.com/

I'd like to put one of these combo's on my Hawken. I don't have $600 though. It'd make a nice deer rifle. If I ever get the .32 or .40 barrel on it I'd love to put get just the scope for it. The scope itself retails for $400.
 

[jgalar]

I don't have a problem with  having a more traditional side of muzzleloaders and a modern/inline side. I have both. I don't have a problem with more traditional archery equipment and modern compounds - again I have both. The only objection I have to the modern archery and muzzleloading equipment is the lack of available more traditional equipment. New technological marvels come out every year, but the more traditional stuff gets harder to find.

I call it "more traditional" because unless your muzzleloader/bow is made from all handmade parts is it really traditional? Face it, most bows and firearm parts are designed on computers and manufactured using CADCAM technology. Unless every screw on your firearm is handmade does that throw it out of the the traditional catagory? If your bow isn't made from a single piece of wood by an expert bowyer does that eliminate it from being traditional?

I like the modern idea of interchangeable parts on my firearms. I like the use of modern technologies like dacron and fiberglass in my traditional archery equipment.

What we are really talking about is traditional in spirit.

[crow_feather]

What bothered me was that it appeared that he was trying to make the public believe he was doing something more than sitting in a blind - waiting for a deer to come walking by - and then blasting it with a scoped rifle more acccurate and more powerful than a common hunting rifle.  These shows are scripted for the most part.  For him to say "My first muzzleloader deer" is an attempt for the show to imply that his hunt was more difficult than darned easy because he was shooting a "muzzleloader". That show and that statement are as fake as those rifles that show up in muzzleloading hunts designed for rifles that are not the equals of a modern deer rifle. 

Muzzloading hunts are viewed by those carrying inlines as a chance to get an extra deer.  But muzzleloading hunts were not created for that reason.  And those inlines are dedsigned for blond hunters, don't have to know horse dung about anything.  Just shove three pellets down the hole up front, push down a bullet thingie, push it all to the bottom and pull the curved doodad that has the loop around it.  How do you tune a power pellet?


It is not the same as archery.  A compound might let you hold it drawn longer and shoot faster, but the range did not increase any great distance.  A compound does not exceed a 30-30 in power or range.

And lostid, it does have to do with traditional. I'm a traditional shooter and it quotes like "my first muzzleloader deer" make me want to puke.  If fish and game wad any gonies, the modern in-line section would be with thw modern rifle section where it belongs.

[quickdtoo]

Lostid

I'm not wanting to beat you up, if I did, you'd most likely be sitting this one out, at least for a while. You're becoming more or a troublemaker all the time and this is no place for that nonsense.

My mama taught me something when I was a little fella...

God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change.

Courage to change the things I can.

And the wisdom to know the difference.

Maybe it's time to be a little moderate your self.


Tim

[flintlock]

lostid...Its not quicks call on what is/isn't considered Traditional on here...Graybeard settled that a few years ago...If I remember correctly, the gun had to basically resemble Traditional....That means:

Sabots are OK
Pyrodex/Triple 7 etc are OK
Scopes are OK
1/28 barrels on T/Cs etc are OK
Stainless steel barrels are OK
Fiber optic sights are OK
Plastic stocks are OK....In other words as long as its not an inline, its OK to discuss here on the Traditional Forum....

I'm a little more "traditional" than most guys....I have 2 flintlocks...one a .40 caliber that I bought from Bob Watts in '77...Another that I finished in '90...Its a .54 flinter...My version of what might have been built around 1770 in the Piedmont area of NC....I only shoot Goex black powder, only use English flints and cast my own balls with traditional styled molds.....But...I don't wear buckskins...and take binos when I hunt....

For the past 20 years or so, I have given talks at the local schools to mainly 5th and 6th graders...That's when they study American History here in NC....In fact last year I was featured on the front page of the local paper two days before Thanksgiving showing the my .54....Artical explained that I was showing them an example of a American Longrifle....I'm hoping some of these kids take up an interest as they get older.....We had one of our HS seniors make a .40 caliber flintlock last year for his senior project...He was in one of my talks when in the 5th grade and that started his interest...

Jgaler....One thing you might not realize....Practically all longrifles made before the American Revolution had English or German locks and barrels that were NOT made locally....They were imported and stocked over here....So it is actually historically correct for a maker today to order a barrel and a lock and stock himself.....

In the mid 1750s Moravians (from Germany) bought almost 100,000 acres from the Colonial governer
of NC....They named the area Wachovia (yep, that's where the Bank got its name)....By 1760-1765 they had a gunsmith in Salem (which became Winston-Salem)....Now he was German...But they traded in Charleston which was primarily English...as it was easier to float up and down the Pee Deer river than go overland back to PA, where Moravians had established Bethlehem and Christian Springs....So what we had were German gunsmiths (who started rifling barrels in the mid 1500s) using English barrels made to their specs and English locks (instead of German locks and barrels)....

My point to all this....This forum is not about what any ONE of us wants it to be...It is a place to come and share ideas on the art of muzzleloading...We all have different interests and skills that we bring to the forum...There could easily be someone out there reading that is a inline shooter that decides maybe its time to put a little more challange into their hunting experience....Hopefully they can pick up a few good pointers on here....When I started hunting with a flintlock in 1977 the locals thought I was plumb crazy...I remember the first deer that I killed with a flintlock...I stopped at the service station to grab a drink and a bite to eat....The guy saw my flintlock in the front seat and just had to get me to show him how the thing worked....You just never know...

[quickdtoo]

Flintlock, great post, thanks for sharing.

You're bringing back some fond memories!! My huntin/shootin partner and I used to be state certified Hunter Ed instructors, we'd teach the muzzleloading portion of the class, showed up in buckskins, mocs and show em how it was done, the kids really liked that, one of the other instructors would show em an inline, but it held little interest to them, their attention was to the flintlocks and to a lesser degree, the persuction sidelocks. A very rewarding experience teaching new shooters a somewhat lost aspect of hunting/shooting.

Tim

[flintlock]

quick...When NC made it a requirement I also went through training to be an instructor...
When the NC Wildlife agents got to muzzleloaders it was obvious that they hadn't been around them...Pretty much the same with most of the instructors that I helped...When they learned that I had actually built one, I was the muzzleloader guy...I am fortunate that my dad (who was a WW-II vet and a market hunter in the late 30s) took the time to teach me how to hunt...Most of the younger students we had come through were from single parent homes and didn't know one end of a gun from the other...I was always glad when mom or dad took the time to come with their kids, even if they had no intentions on actually hunting...

[lakota]

Although I dont like in-lines, I think that we side-lock people need to embrace those who would hunt with an in-line, just as the traditional archery floks should embrace those who would use compound bows or crossbows. We are all fellow hunters regardless of our equipment choice, as long as that choice is within the law.

We need united numbers to save our sport from the repeated attacks of these leftist whack job animal rights groups.

[dodd3]

 well said lakota  and who noes ithis post could just swing anouther in line shooter to have a go with a side lock.
bernie

[captchee]

  there are a number of traditional location to get parts , guns  and such . you just have to look . as to the rest . this is why i support the traditional muzzle loading association .
  if you want information  or to read just about traditional muzzle loading of all types ,  they are IMO the place to go .
as to getting along , i would agree  but keep traditional hunting traditional and the modern  muzzle loading where it belongs in the modern any weapons season  where they allow the modern guys to use the full  ability of their weapon.
 I see no difference with the fella in this example taking a deer with a 30.30 or a 30.06 that had been loaded from the muzzle and using a caped empty primer to set the charge off.

 His statement should have read .
 My first deer with a modern muzzle loading firearm   other wise IMO he is ashamed of what he shouts and has to compare it to a weapon that is much more complicated to learn to shoot adequately or for that mater hunt with .

[Wolfhound]

His statement should have read .
 My first deer with a modern muzzle loading firearm   other wise IMO he is ashamed of what he shouts and has to compare it to a weapon that is much more complicated to learn to shoot adequately or for that mater hunt with .

As long as it loads from the muzzle it's a muzzleloader. I own and shoot both types and there's not as much difference as you guys would have folks believe. It's still one shot with no fast reload.

[captchee]

  sorry wolf hound i have to disagree .
 a muzzleloader is any complete  weapon specifically designed to be loaded from the muzzle.

 any modern cartridge weapon . rifle , shotgun  can be loaded from the muzzle . this does not mean they should be considered a muzzleloader .  does simply breeching a modern center fire make it  a muzzleloader “ with few acceptations ,no . the basic design ,” ignition systems “,   are not nor were they ever based on a muzzleloader design .
 hence they are muzzle loading not a muzzleloader .

 we have stretched this  through the last few years to define  muzzleloaders to be anything capable of only being loaded from the muzzle .
however  many manufactures still push this legality . savage for instance  had to re design their action  on their smokeless weapon as  the one  originally used  restricted its sale under the FFA.

 without  correcting this problem  the rifle was no longer considered a muzzleloader that was not regulated by the FFA  but  a firearm that was . hence  the term  modern muzzle loading firearm .

 knight also had this problem with the original design of his 85 . because the base was around a modern cartridge frame  his  acceptance for use into muzzle loading seasons was turned down at first   .as i understand it,  until he met the conditions of  the game commission and modified some aspects of his design to gain acceptance .
 gradually as things have relaxed  concerning the laws  these manufactures have slowly , one step at a time  drawn closer to their original intent  IMO a converted center fire  weapon . Some have even gone so far as selling interchangeable barrels systems so as to  convert back and forth  between breech loading and muzzle loading . This was very popular with shotguns some time back .

 I would also say this.   In-lines ignitions  have been around along time  the earliest I have documented  is 1710 and is a SXS flintlock .. These have however  really nothing  comparable  with the modern  in-lines of today .
 There ignition systems  while inline are completely different . IMO the closest to  a truly muzzleloader design would be those of doc white . It is however mu understanding that even White is moving away from this in favor of a newer bolt action design

 So you see the  saying, if it looks like a duck but barks like a dog ,there for it must be a dog Does not always work as it could  ,as in this case just be a duck   who is impersonating a  dog ,  for no other reason then to get at the food bowl.

 For the record , I have no problem with modern  muzzle loading firearms being discussed on this forum . I think we can all get along . However   both sides have to understand there are fundamental differences between traditional and modern systems and shooters . If a person does not wish to  read about modern weapons then ,,, simply don’t read  the thread .
 If modern shooters don’t wish to read someone’s BLA BLA about their chosen  weapon then  understand fully that the person writing it  simply has a different point of view . dont read the thread

 I don’t think anyone is telling  anyone else  they have to agree or for that mater disagree 

[Wolfhound]

a muzzleloader is any complete  weapon specifically designed to be loaded from the muzzle.

I agree with this but disagree on any action restrictions. Whether or not an action is specifically designed for a muzzleloader is irrelevant. As long as a muzzleloader is designed to be a muzzleloader then it is a muzzleloader. I see why people buy barrels for Encores to muzzleload as it reduces the initial expendeture. Some states already don't allow these during muzzleloader seasons and the States have that right as they are not designed as muzzleloaders. You mention the Savage muzzleloader, even though is is based on their model 10 short action it is designed as a muzzleloader and is incapable of shooting cartridges without heavy modification by a gunsmith. This makes it a muzzleloader.

without  correcting this problem  the rifle was no longer considered a muzzleloader that was not regulated by the FFA  but  a firearm that was . hence  the term  modern muzzle loading firearm .

Here's a bit of information for you that you are ignoring, all muzzleloaders are firearms. They are classified as antique firearms and are outside the restriction imposed on firearms by the federal regulations. State regs are even more restrictive. Here in Illinois you have to go through the same process to buy a flintlock that you go through to buy a 30-30 all the way to the background check. Illinois is not alone either. Possesion of any muzzleloading firearm without a FOID card is a felony, the same as possesion of a 30-30 without a FOID card.

So you see the  saying, if it looks like a duck but barks like a dog ,there for it must be a dog Does not always work as it could  ,as in this case just be a duck   who is impersonating a  dog ,  for no other reason then to get at the food bowl.

No. It's more akin to an alaskan malemute and a pit bull. They share the same characteristics and yet are vastly different in appearance but both are dogs.

For the record , I have no problem with modern  muzzle loading firearms being discussed on this forum . I think we can all get along . However   both sides have to understand there are fundamental differences between traditional and modern systems and shooters .

I believe I said "I own and shoot both types and there's not as much difference as you guys would have folks believe" (emphasis added). I didn't say that they weren't different, just that they werent as different as traditionalists think. Sidelocks can be made to perform as inlines and inlines can be made to perform as sidelocks. It's all in how you go about it. The only real differences in the guns themselves are ignition and appearance.

The differences between modern and traditional shooters are more than there are in the guns themselves. Many modern hunters hunt with them for an extra season and quickly discard them for a regular firearm during the firearm season. Some traditionalists do the same but some prefer their traditional firerarms for all the seasons. There are some modern hunters that use only muzzleloaders. There's also hunters who own and shoot both. I am one of these and really make no distinction between the types. I own both and hunt with both and will regardless of what anyone else thinks. I resent people who accuse me of "cheating" because I also use a modern muzzleloader. I know you didn't but many traditionalists would and have. Things like that get my dander up.

[captchee]

The differences between modern and traditional shooters are more than there are in the guns themselves. Many modern hunters hunt with them for an extra season and quickly discard them for a regular firearm during the firearm season. Some traditionalists do the same but some prefer their traditional firerarms for all the seasons. There are some modern hunters that use only muzzleloaders. There's also hunters who own and shoot both. I am one of these and really make no distinction between the types. I own both and hunt with both and will regardless of what anyone else thinks. I resent people who accuse me of "cheating" because I also use a modern muzzleloader. I know you didn't but many traditionalists would and have. Things like that get my dander up.

 and there you have it . I think you made a lot of people points there .
 That the manufacture advertising in in no way accurate in most cases is true .
 i dont know how a person would cheat while hunting
 That a modern inline  muzzle loading firearms  with all its  modern accouterment may be more then  a common muzzleloader and reaches into the   realm of other  weapons is no doubt  . If one is to believe the manufactures of these weapons then even the modern shooter must agree with that .
 However when confined to a PRB  or conical of no smaller then bore  diameter then most certainly the only difference is in fact the  ignition . When that is confined to #11 caps and exposed to the elements then IMO the modern muzzleloader is in fact  “NOT “ comparable   to a traditional muzzleloader   as “Imo” the traditional with open sites is far superior  even in the hands of a new shooter who  is properly mentored   .  There is no doubt that the traditional side lock in flint or percussion does not lend well to the want it now crowd  hunting means allot to allot of different people

 as to the savage and others  and their  original actions and recievers. what you see now is most time not what  originally  submitted for marketing . With the savage 10MLII  I believe you will find that the original receiver was indeed a forward locking  bolt design   and would  with little modification be capable of simple swapping barrels

 Yes muzzleloader are also firearms in that they propel a projectile  however  for many reasons they are not covered under the FFA and are considered curious . Even the modern reproductions .
 The simple fact however is that  none of these are of converted designs  or designs taken specifically from   center fire designs .
 evealution of the  savage 10MLII

We spent the next few years building these custom smokeless muzzleloaders for customers, in just about every design you can think of, Remington #2 Rolling Blocks, Ruger #1's, H&R break open's, Martini's, many different bolt designs, and even Winchester M-94's.

Savage sent us a 10FP Tactical in .308 Win to convert to a muzzleloader. We got the 10FP in April 1999, made the conversion and tested it. IMR-4227 and the .452 300gr XTP performed the best, so that is what we carried to Savage in July 1999 for the demonstration. Savage conducted testing for the next few months and began tooling up. The contract was signed in February 2000. The first 10ML's hit the market in July 2000. But there was still 2 major hurdles to overcome. The first was the BATF, concluded that this what not a true muzzleloader and gave Savage an exemption of the BATF form 4473 requirement, till March 2001. Back to the drawing board. The other major hurdle was that Savage was having difficulty keeping the modules within tolerance. The new design did away with the modules, the bolt face, and locking lugs. This design was approved by BATF as a muzzleloader and total exemption of the 4473 form requirement. Thus the 10ML-II was born.The original 10ML that first hit the market in the fall of 1999, did not fully comply with the BATFs' criteria for a muzzleloader. Savage submitted a 10ML to the BATF in the summer of 199 for evaluation and determination as to whether it was a muzzleloader and exempt from the ATF form 4473, whether it was a muzzleloader yet still required the AFT form 4473, or as to whether it was a modern firearm.

The BATF ruled that it was a true muzzleloader and did not require the ATF form 4473. A few months later, under pressure from other muzzleloader manufactures, the BATF reversed themselves. They stated, that because the receiver and the barrel are threaded, eventhough with a bastard thread, and had a bolt head that would accept .222 Rem, .222 Rem. Mag, and the .223 Rem case heads, it could possibly be converted back to a centerfire rifle by a gunsmtith, eventhough they admitted it was most unlikely it would ever happen. But despite that reversal, they gave the Savage 10ML a 1 year exemption of the requirement of the ATF form 4473.

This 1 year exemption was to allow us and Savage to modify the 10ML slightly to fully and completely comply with the BATF's criteria of a muzzleloading firearm. We started immediately working on making it fully and completely BATF compliant, yet maintain the strength and saftey, with no loss of performance. We did away with the percussion module, thus redesigned the breech plug to accept and contain the 209 primer only, the centerfire rifle bolt head was replaced with a solid round bolt head designed to hold a 209 primer (the interior of the receiver is round with no bolt locking lug rails), and instead of having locking lugs on the bolt head, the new redesigned 10ML used the bolt handle as the locking lug. Thus the Savage 10ML-II was designed.

This design was submitted to the BATF in early spring 2000 for evaluation and determination. The BATF ruled it was a fully and completely a true muzzlelaoding fiream, and exempt from the ATF form 4473 and any/all registration.

 savage is not alone in this  knight went through much the same desgn problem becouse of their intent to convert  instead of creating a new complete design .
 while it may have turned out a new design  that basicly came about from modifications  not from intent .

 here is  a picture of the new H&H . while they state it to be a  completely new design  they have sure gon about it the hard way  any bets that they went through the same problems as savage did ?





 as i said , i have no problem with the modern muzzle loading firearms  when confined to seasons  that already allow modern center fire weapons  OR  confined to  PRB or solid conical of  no more then 2 times the bore diameter  in length. of no less then bore diameter  and loaded with lose powder .

 However this to creates a problem in comparison  to  the traditional muzzleloader  as I alluded to above . Many of the modern designs  have barrels that have been designed to  take advantage of  modern  bullets , sabots  or jacketed rounds  and set amounts of pellets  or in some case not designed for pellets at all . when  excluded from these their accuracy falls .  Not many manufactures will tell you that .
 it’s a complicated web that’s for sure.
  for if you believe 100% of the manufactures hype then most certainly the modern  subject is far superior and simply does not fit where   they push for acceptations. However if you  set back and listen to those who shoot them “ Im not one  though I have tried to study up as much as I can and have converted a few center fires to muzzle loading   “  you start to see  that in many cases the consistency   that is so appealing to  many simply isn’t there .

 Im afraid we will probably not agree with  where the modern  muzzle loading firearms should be classified or placed   . I simple don’t see an extra season  as a reason for their use  when all one needs to get that exstra  time in the field is learn a new weapon , its expected in archery , it should be that way for muzzleloader as well . That my opinion I don’t expect others to agree with it 

[Smokepole cowboy]

Where can I find information on this new H & H?

[captchee]

here you go smoke pole
http://www.austinhalleck.com/AHPR17.html

[Wolfhound]

as to the savage and others  and their  original actions and recievers. what you see now is most time not what  originally  submitted for marketing . With the savage 10MLII  I believe you will find that the original receiver was indeed a forward locking  bolt design   and would  with little modification be capable of simple swapping barrels

Yeah I know that Savage's original muzzleloader was classified as a firearm.

for if you believe 100% of the manufactures hype then most certainly the modern  subject is far superior and simply does not fit where   they push for acceptations.

I've never bought into the hype. That's just companies trying to sell guns. It's harder to sell guns that aren't any improvement over a previous model.

[sharps4590]

The fact remains that the vast majority of modern muzzleloader users are not in it for the privelege to take a head of game the way our forefathers did.  Not any more than compound or cross bow users are in it for the privelege of using a recurve or long bow.  They are in it to kill another deer no matter how it's done.  It's a legal season and that's what they are there to take advantage of.  That's fine....jsut don't try to blow smoke up anyones skirt and say they are the same....I'll say it, that is a bold faced lie.

There is no way, absolutely no way, it can be construed that shooting an open sighted, patched round ball using, side lock, whether flint or percussion, can be equated with using a scope sighted, sabot using, enclosed ignition system modern muzzleloader.  Not one bit more than saying a mechanical released, front and rear sighted compound or crossbow can be equated to a bare longbow or recurve.  They ain't the same!  To say they are is again, a bold faced lie.

To say that one is using a legal method to kill another deer is fine......I have no problem with that.  To say that modern muzzleloaders, compound bows and crossbows are on the same footing as traditional muzzleloaders, bare longbows and recurves is a bold faced lie. 

Anyone trying to convince themselves as such is merely lying to themselves.

Most states muzzleloading and bow seasons were predicated on using a "primitive weapon" to take a deer.  Neither the modern muzzleloader or the compound bow are very primitive.  Indeed, they are modern inventions....well within my lifetime.  The seasons have been bastardized by greed and both weapons.

Vic

[Smokepole cowboy]

Thanks captchee. 
A&H makes more sense. 
I was wondering why I had not heard of H&H. 

[captchee]

Thanks captchee. 
A&H makes more sense. 
I was wondering why I had not heard of H&H. 

lol may spelling really sucks  my head gets  ahead of my two finger typing lol 

[crow_feather]

Lakota,

I was reading another story the other day about how nice it was to shoot a 20" barrelled T/C out to 150 yards.  But if longer ranges were necessary, a 26" barrel should be used to reach out that extra 100 yards.

I will not kiss some in-liners butt and agree that his long range, sabot shooting, pellet powdered, scope sighted, imitation of a 30-30, including a lever, is a muzzle loader. If they want to get along with traditional black powder hunters, they can keep their "rifles designed for the inept" out of traditional rifle seasons.  And if they do, then what I write is not for them.

These special hunts were not intended for this type of weapon.  They were intended for short range weapons and Buster Billie with his ramrod equiped bolt action sporter has pretty well closed any additional extra seasons for muzzle loaders.   I should sit back, join hands with my handicapped fellow hunters who can't get the hang of pouring powder, and sing happy hunting songs?

I have never shot a trophy animal, never expect to, and don't really care if I do.  But when I see most muzzleloading records going to long range, scope sighted, butt ugly rifles, it really bothers me.  Over brandy in the trophy rooms, these people can point out an animal, and claim they shot it with a muzzle loader, but in all reality the rifles are as fake as they are.

C F

ps........... I guess I feel somewhat strongly about this.