In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
? traditional muzzle loaders
wtroper
Member Posts: 736 ✭✭
I posted another question below. Refer to it for the background. However, assuming that I do not elect to hunt with a muzzle loading handgun, I would prefer a traditional rifle over an inline, but I would want a "good one." Since I am not at all knowledgeable of the differences between the various makers of traditional rifles, I would welcome an experienced person's thoughts on the various alternatives.
Thanks.
Thanks.
Comments
Just check the bore carefully and make sure it isn't rusted up.
If it is rusted, like handgunhtr said, then you get a BIG discount, and you just buy a Green Mountain barrel for it. Takes about 45 seconds to change barrels.
Tim
Ever think a custom made muzzleloader would fit the bill? T/C's are just ok in my books.You get 'em cheap but that's what they are.You sell them cheap.JMHO tho.It depends on how much you want to spend.For me,I need a well made rifle that fits me.Nothing more frustrating then shooting an ill fit gun.If she don't fit,she won't shoot to full potentcial(sp).As with anything,you get what you pay for.An old friend told me once,"the cost is long forgotten when the value is still present."
You do know that inlines pre date sidelocks don't cha?
Care to elaborate??
http://www.cabelas.com/story-123/sigler_inline_muzz/10527/In-Line%2BMuzzleloaders%2BBuyer%27s%2BGuide.shtml
The idea of the in-line wasn't new though. The basic concept has been around since the 1800's. Why it took so long for the idea to make it into the market is unknown. With the introduction of that first Knight rifle, many other companies soon followed with their own versions and a willing public readily accepted most.
I'll keep looking. I've read somewhere back in the day, the first muzzleloaders were in-line. you ran a smoldering wick in the back of a rifle, "in-line" with the charge. Mr Knight just improved on it.. I'll keep looking.
thanks
You're right about the early firearms -- it was basically a system of touching a wick or heated wire to the touchhole, much the same as firing a cannon. Then there was a sort-of prototype of the wheellock that is referred to as the "tannenbusche" (I think; my reference books are packed and I'm going on memory, always a dangerous path for me). The firing mechanism of this gun consisted of a serrated bar pulled out the rear of the breech, by hand, with a piece of pyrites rasping against it, creating sparks and igniting the powder. Both systems pre-date the first sidelocks, which were matchlocks fitted with a rudimentary hammer-and-trigger combo that was nothing more than a lever -- pull the trigger, lower the hammer, in one arcing motion.
The irony of this sequence is that these early "in-lines" were very poor systems, impossible to aim and highly unreliable, and they were fairly quickly improved on and then replaced by the sidelock concept. My sidelock flinters, and the flinters and caplocks of the guys I shoot with, aren't going anywhere, so to say they'll be "replaced" by in-lines is far from true. The greater popularity of the in-line system is beyond dispute, though, so in a very real sense muzzleloaders have come full-circle.
I do realize that modern in line guns aren't the same. But the modern in line did get it's start in the 1800's. If that isn't old enough then I don't know what is.
I was making the point that the idea is very, very old -- not arguing with you.
I was making the point that the idea is very, very old -- not arguing with you.
[/quote]
I agree with you. Didn't think you were. Sorry if it sounded another way. Accually, I was just babbling I guess and not even directed to you.