Why do we prefer traditional to the inlines. Here are some of my reasons, I�m an older feller and when I got into M/L there were no inlines. I like to shoot a lot and assuming PRB or home cast conicals I can shoot a lot without breaking the bank. Using rear peep set up as ghost ring I feel pretty confident up to 100yd when my T/C Hawken is shooting right , at the moment there issues with that but I save for another post. I once had a bad experience which caused me to switch to non traditional powder. First M/L hunt 25 or so years ago just got on the farm and saw a big doe on the hill above me shot at it and watched doe run away. Quickly reloaded 70gr ffg and maxi ball. Went to make sure I had missed. Got back in truck and drove to other side of farm. Started to walk up a hill and upon looking behind me I saw a beded deer on hill behind me in a ravine after stalking to 100yds I took a rest of f a small tree and took the shot, deer rolled over and appeared to be dead so I didn�t bother reloading. As I stood watching the deer recovered and stood up but didn�t seam to realize what had happened. Now I needed to load fast I was partly screened by the tree dumped the speed loader down barrel and tried ramming the m-ball down it stuck because of the powder fowling from last 2 shots the deer stood there looking around for the sound I was making trying to get the maxie down. I took many loud thumps of the ramrod but some how the deer failed to spot me my good luck changed as I slipped the cap on. The deer bolted and ran to the top of the bank, fortunately for me it stopped and looked back, bang flop, the first shot had grazed the spine. Obviously I hadn�t taken time to swab between shots because of the need to load fast. Thus my reason for going to something other than black powder for hunting. Now I use 777 for all hunting. One of my buddy�s uses scoped inline with maxi hunter bullet so he can also shoot fairly cheap but I have noticed I can shoot groups at least as tight as his at least to 100yds, using my sight set up. In open farm country shooting hill to hill the 200yd + of the inlines would be a great advantage when using the powerbelt or sabot set up but I still greatly prefer my side hammer and open sights. My sons insist on black powder only and for my younger son flintlock so there more old-fashioned then ole dad.

I prefer the traditional muzzle loader as well. The looks and feel of the "old" type rifle is part of what attracted me to hunting with a muzzle loader in the first place. My T-C has done just fine for me afield.

Really though, I've nothing against those who use the modern in-line rifles, they're just not for me.

Guy

It ain't just my Sharps that rings my bells!!!

I kinda split the difference. Being an Olde Pharte, I can't see the sights good enough in low light to be fair to the deer. I do have a couple of open sighted sidelocks, but my go to rifles have offset mounts and scopes. (they are sidelocks too) Most of the inlines have a faster twist and shallower rifling for sabots, and most sidelocks have a 1:48 or slower. Of course, barrels are available for whatever you need. Actually, with a good set trigger, and stiffer barrel, I think my sidelocks are capable of at least as good of accuracy as an inline. My rifle that gets the most use is a left hand Cabela's Sporterized Hawken, .50, with a 4x Nikon. I use a 240gr. XTP over 100gr. 777. Great success with that combo out to 150yds, so far. Don't need many second shots, and I shoot a lot of deer - usually 10 - 12 a year.

I like both...Modern is easier to clean and more accurate at long distance....Traditional is...well...traditional.

I've got a flintlock Pennsylvania Long Rifle and two percussion cap Hawken rifles... all are .50 caliber with double-set triggers. I use the same 177 grain Hornady swagged, round, patched ball in all of 'em and accuracy is very good in all of 'em as well.

Of the two older CVA caplocks, one is a standard Hawken (28" barrel, 1:48, 7� lbs), the other is a Hawken CARBINE (6� lbs, 39" long overall) with a 26" barrel which is my primary HUNTING rifle. It carries handily in the woods and with it's relatively light weight, it is a pleasant little rifle with which to hunt all day long.

Maybe I'm being naive, but I don't feel at any great disadvantage hunting with either of my CVA Hawken cap-locks compared to any in-line.

Yes, with the flinter, there are some "issues" vs. an in-line, but even with the Long Rifle, anything within 80-90 yards is "freezer venison" as far as I'm concerned IF I do my "job"... plus the FACT that most deer in Ohio are shot at less than 60 yards, so where's the "big disadvantage"?!?

I use "real" black powder (FFFg Swiss) because I love the aroma and it just seems "right" to use REAL black powder together with a round, patched ball.

I believe they should have a "Special Season" for flintlocks ONLY in mid-to-late October when the woods is showing its beautiful colors and the weather is truly fine for a man to be in the woods.

Jus' my 2�...


Strength & Honor...

Ron T.

I agree with Ron. I have never even had an itch for an in-line.
I consider them to be plastic zip guns. The only reason for them to be called a muzzleloader is because they do load from the muzzle. They are as close to center fore single shot as you can get without a primed brass case. And I think; IMHO, that a muzzleloader season should be for traditional muzzleloaders and not "zip guns". Problem is the industry is pushing them so I don't think that will ever happen. Maybe I'm just a n old crank; but I think longbows and recurves are bows and compounds are "devices". Like putting a motor on ice skates.

Qtip
Soli Deo Gloria!

I have both and switch off, but prefer the traditional.

Don't feel bad 270.Years ago when just starting ML hunting I was hunting elk. It was late in the week and I had gotten up early for quite a few days and was feeling the drowsiness. I was set up on the top of a small ravine and I had halfway dosed off as I was sitting aginst a tree. I heard some foot steps behind me and thought it was my brother. I half way turned around to ask if he had seen anything and there was a 6x bull elk, not 5 feet from me with it's head down looking at me.

My ML was leaning against the next tree.Forgettting about moving slow, I grabbed it and the elk wheeled and took a few steps. First I forgot to cock it and almost pulled the triiger guard off trying to fire it. After finally getting it cocked,I swung on the elk which was leisurely walking broadside to me, at about 15 feet and let the hammer drop.Problem was,there was about a 6 " pine tree, not 3 ft from the front of my barrel, which I hit dead center.Smoke and tree bark was flying eveywhere, and once it cleared, the damn elk was standing there about 30 ft away looking at all the commotion. I drop a powder charge down the barrel,seated a maxi-ball at the muzzle and tried to ram it home.It stuck halfway down the barrel and the wooden ram rod snapped in two.

The elk walked off down over the hill and I heard a shot not 2 minutes later. My brother saw it coming, and instead of just shooting it, he tried to use the set triger and fired one off straight up in the air. He later told me the elk just walked off agiain.Not once did the elk actually run.

It must have had a good laugh that night, I know we sure did.
Later that year, my dentist wanted to go elk hunting with a rifle. I put an X on the map and told him what tree to sit at. Darn if that bull did not walk up close to him and he shot it.

Honest to God a true story.

I don't find my traditional rifles difficult to clean. I fail to see why an inline would be any easier. I also fail to see what would make an inline more accurate at longer ranges. Maybe I'm missin' something. That said, I say whatever floats yer boat is okay. Personally, I like the feel and fit, as well as what I perceive to be a better design for offhand shooting, of a traditional rifle. Now, to be fair, I do have a scope on my sidelock, and am no particular stickler for "traditional" in an historically accurate sense.

Traditional only...cuz...I'm traditional! I've used flntlocks only for so long sometimes I don't remember using cap locks. Real black powder only in my rifles cuz most fakes won't ignite in a flinter unless you lead with a small charge of black and that isn't worth the effort. I want my powder made of charcoal, sulphur and saltpetre. I haven't taken a head of game with smokeless powder in over 18 years...maybe longer. I do confess to using one of my BPC rifles during regular rifle season...but how can you not use a Sharps, Ballard or vintage double rifle?

I agree with Qtip that there should be a season for traditional, side lock, open sighted rifles restricted to PRB and that a compound is a "cam actuated arrow launching device", not a bow.

You don't even have to clean a modern muzzleloader. You can use BH209 or just remove the breech plug and remove the charge at the end of the day or season. Sub-1" groups @ 100 yards are the norm for modern muzzleloaders.

I don't believe there should be any separate seasons for anything. There should just be hunting season, and let everyone hunt with whatever they want to hunt with.

I agree that there should be a separate season for primitive arms only. The modern inlines are ok, as are the guys who use them, but for pete's sake they aren't traditional by any stretch of the imagination and should be relegated to the regular firearms season. There. Rant over.

I like em both

I don't believe that bottom one qualifies for traditional. Something to do with the synthetic and stainless steel to say nothing of the sights. Side lock, yes. Traditional, no.

This would be traditional...



or this..

Beautiful rifle, Sharps.

250 years later they're called works of art. Do you suppose a plastic and stainless steel inline will be considered in the same light 250 years from now. I think not.

I have both, have hunted with both, and enjoy shooting both. They all have their place. My eyes aren't as good with iron sights as they used to be, so my acoped T/C Omega comes in handy for hunting. For just a fun day at the range, I prefer my Renegade flintlock and a patched round ball. If someone wants to get into muzzleloading and they want an inline, I'm all for it.

As many of you know , some of the first muzzle loading rifles I ever built were converted center fires and thus inline ignitions .
That being said . I have never owned a modern mass produced inline muzzle loading rifle . Nor do I ever plan to . They simply are not for me .

Myself the problem I have with modern muzzle loading , isn�t the rifles . it�s the push for acceptance .
On one hand you have those who on the forums spout how much more accurate the modern rifles are when compared to traditional . Which IMO is a line of BS but what ever floats your boat .
BUT then in the very next breath when confronted with restriction based of this so called higher accuracy . Those very same folks will stand in front of a commission and adamantly proclaim those same modern rifles to be no more accurate
Simply put , it cannot be both ways .
I also think there should be strict separations of season . Not just for the sake of the sport . But also for the safety of those participating as well as management needs .
I find ironic is that all to often seasons established as short range only ,allow modern un restricted modern muzzle loading . Yet at the same time disallow center fire of all calibers .
Case in point . Here locally we have a short range only hunt on the islands of the snake river . Its short range because of surrounding development .
The hunt is defined as bow , shotgun or muzzleloader . But because its NOT defined as a muzzleloader hunt , muzzleloader restrictions do not apply .
So a hunter can use a a muzzleloader or muzzle loading rifle design , shooting jacketed bullets of larger caliber then say a 30.30 . Yet be shooting at velocities = or greater then a 30.30 .
Yet a 30.30 , even in a single shot model , is disallowed because its not considered a short range weapon . .

Now if we had state wide traditional only hunts , would I participate. You bet I would .
But under the current system , the best opportunity is still in the general any weapons season . Thus that�s where I hunt with my flintlock . Sometimes its alittle scary out there.
But the whole state is open

captchee
It's even worse in CO. Muzzle loader season runs concurrently with archey season.If you are throwing sticks,you don't need hunter orange, yet in the same time period if you are a muzzle loader hunter,you have to wear hunter orange.Archers complain that the ML hunters spook thier elk but refuse to wear hunter orange for thier own safety

Well in MY EYS it is traditional, one quick look in my safe and you will not find blued steel or wooden stocks so with that thought to me yes it is traditional..
Now as to others, your right it would not be considered traditional.
I put in for a special draw hunt in KY every year for deer and one of the requirements for a "traditional hunt" is exactly what I have.
They require = no glass of any kind (no scope, no bino's)
They require gun to be Flintlock, Sidelock no inlines.
No electronics
Well anyway, with this gun I am elegible....so in their eyes it would qualify as a traditional hunting rifle.

Between your gun and my gun I agree yours is more traditional.

I'm always amazed at the way folks live in denial.

I like both neither is better or worse than the other.

Just tools to fill the freezer.

i like both.

Did the traditional clothing deal but as i grow older, certain things continue to hang lower and lower each year. The loin cloth was no use after that

I mainly shoot Inline now but own many sidelocks and a flinter.

then shortly followed by these words from the same person




that sure didnt take long

you still have to clean BH209 out of the barrel. Its a lot more forgiving than other subs but still contains sulfur and that is corrosive it self.

I'm sure it's a waste of time to ask, but did you have a point?

Traditionalist are always saying that traditional guns are just as accurate as inlines. Anyone that says this has no idea what they are talking about. Of course that goes without saying.

Educate me. Why are they more accurate? I guess you could talk about lock time being a factor, but depending on the shooter, this may or may not be an issue. Other than that, I don't see how the bullet reacts differently in an inline barrel vs. traditional. In any case, what accounts for the inherently more accurate rifle?

The way I've always viewed this debate is that inlines are strictly tools, cold, soul-less and impersonal in nature. An efficient device for the killing of game animals- nothing more, nothing less. A traditional muzzle loader on the other hand is an implement that captures the essence of nostalgia and grace of line, and is a tool to boot. The fact that they have been filling larders for the last 400 years means they have nothing to prove in that arena. You don't find many inline owners who cherish their guns as works of art, while the opposite is true in many instances of traditional gun owners.

Who gives a rat's ass if one system is more accurate than the other? It's a moot point. 95% of the guns of both types are more accurate than what their owners can do with them.

Swampman, you really don't have a clue, do you? I have read your posts over the last couple of years and shook my head in wonder but never publicly commented. Your combative, irritating, know-it-all, my-dick's-bigger-than-your-dick attitude gets in the way of people's accepting what otherwise might be useful information or interesting points of view from you. Like I said, you just don't get it.

arts of work arent always the best shooters.

I just shot a $170 cva wolf yesterday and shot a 7/8" group. Others with rifles 5x the cost struggle to do that.

gnoahhh
The best thing to do is ignore him the best you can . He will flip-flop around more the obama at a tea party meeting .


Very true
The thing is they have to be truly functional and not just working, works of art . There has to be quality under the cosmetics . If not . Then an average shooter isn�t going to be anymore accurate with a custom traditional gun then a higher quality production gun .
frankly even with quality if the shooter doesnt spend the time to learn the gun . he will never reach that guns potential . work of art or not

As was also mention accuracy has a whole lot to do with the shooter as well as the gun . doesn�t mater what gun it is .
IMO the large % of all shooters will never become capable of shooting any gun to the best of its capabilities . Especially when the cost of actual shooting is so greatly inflated .

I also think a lot of the divide comes from want and likes .
Basically no different then those who like lever actions , semi autos or bolts .
Those who prefer fully bedded systems to free floating systems .
Also as was mentioned . For some folks a gun is just a tool . Yet for others its more then just a tool .

Think about how some folks take care of their tools vs. how others who looks as there tools as something more .
isn�t it kind of funny how a mechanic who depends on and uses his tools every day . Counts on them to do their job , normally doesn�t buy cheep . Even though that cheep Chinese 1.00 wrench will turn a bolt many times just as well as a 25.00 quality wrench .
Why is that you think ?
Why is it that the same person will meticulously clean those tools after use . Gets completely bent when someone drops his tools ?
Yet the cheep tool for most of us . Myself included . Gets tossed in the box without a second thought

Kinda makes a fella wonder . At least it does me
Simply put , there are oh so many variables that go into just about everything . that�s just the way of things

Frankly though . I believe that people should at least have the fortitude and the character to make a stand on what they believe. Regardless of the situation .
If a person believes that modern designs are more accurate . Then fine . Stick to that opinion with sound reasoning . . . As long as your not comparing apples and oranges
When that reasoning becomes accepted . don�t back peddle . Stick to it .
I also think the same thing should go for those folks who do shoot both systems . If you don�t believe there is a difference in accuracy when comparing apples, then say so . Say it loud . When manufactures and writers try and scam the public . Hold them accountable for their opinions. The shooting public has a right to know the truth .


A couple years back I sat in on a closed door F&G meeting . The night before at the public meeting I listened to a regional big game supervisor go on and on about how his modern muzzleloader was far more accurate then his traditional rifle . Thus it was far more humane
Yet behind those close doors he testified that he had just a month before killed an antelope at 120 yards . How his traditional rifle, shooting a lead ball ,had place the ball right through the hart and lungs .
Thus in his opinion , neither system was any more accurate then the other .
So what had changed in 24 hours.
Well to put it bluntly he found out that the commission was about to place restrictions on modern designs based on his statement and supporting articles written by many modern manufactures and so called modern muzzle loading experts .
So what was the real truth ?
I cant say .
But if shooting a jacketed conical then his modern rifle was probably far more accurate with that round then his traditional one .
But the opposite is also probably true if you tried to shoot the same load that the traditional rifle shot most accurately in that same modern gun .
IE apples an oranges

Inlines are more accurate because the firing pin travels in a straight line, the lock time is at least a million times faster, and they are normally scoped. I like traditional guns and have shot them since the 1970s. I still hunt with them and use them for living histories. They are not as accurate as a modern muzzleloader. They are not as easy to clean. They are fun and cool. They got a special season because the hunter is handicapped by using one. The hunter using a modern muzzleloader is also handicapped but not quite as badly.

All are tools do you prefer a fiberglass handle or a hickory handle...just tools, nothing more nor less.

Actually, the point is whether or not one's rifle... be it a "traditional" sidelock rifle or an in-line... is accurate ENOUGH to put it's projectile into a 9-inch paper-plate sized target at whatever range the hunter chooses to shoot.

Since the average whitetail deer has a "vital zone" of about 9-inches, depending on the size of the deer, a white paper plate is an excellent example of the size of a deer's "kill zone" which is why I use a paper plate with a bright orange target paster in its center for an aiming point.

Doing this makes it very easy to determine if the shot(s) fired at the paper plate would have killed an average sized whitetail deer which is the game a great many of us hunt with our muzzleloaders.

Using this "specification", I would think that BOTH our "traditional" muzzle loaders AND the in-line muzzle loaders are pretty much on "equal ground" as far as successfully hunting big game with a muzzleloader.

While we "traditionalists" admit a modern in-line muzzle loader has some distinct advantages over our rifles of an older design, so what? Let's examine the truly USEFUL "advantages" an in-line actually has and how important and/or useful those "advantages" really are.

CLAIM #1
The modern in-line muzzleloading rifle is more accurate.

So what? If the traditional muzzleloading rifle can put its projectile within the 9" kill zone at whatever range the projectile is fired, there IS NO "ADVANTAGE".

CLAIM #2
The modern in-line muzzleloading rifle fires a heavier projectile at a much higher muzzle velocity thus giving it a "great effective range" advantage.

Again, so what? Since most whitetail deer are killed within 60 yards of the end of the muzzle, longer range capability is kinda meaningless since one's "range" only needs to be as far from the muzzle as the shot is taken... and 'most all traditional sidelock rifles will shoot out to 80 yards with more-than-enough-accuracy to bring down a deer. If your's doesn't, then you need to re-define your load or find out what's wrong with your rifle or its shooter/owner.

And there are "other issues" concerning speed of loading, ease of cleaning, etc., etc., etc.... these are a moot point to traditionalists since those who are "traditionalists" love the additional tasks that traditional muzzle loading rifles cause their shooter/owners to have. And if the traditionalist gets tired of the extra "tasks" or wants a longer effective range, then they can always buy & use an in-line.

Both of my sons are in their late 40's and both use in-lines with 3 powder pellets (150 grains) and a 295 grain sabotted hollow-point bullet in their scoped, .50 caliber in-lines. At the bench, I've watched as they fired shots while checking their rifle's scope to insure it was still properly aligned. The shot's recoil straightened-up BOTH of these hearty men quite SHARPLY (one a little over 200 lbs, one a little under 200 lbs.)... and their bullets chronographed on my chronograph at 2015 fps measured 15 feet from the muzzle.

While I didn't shoot their rifles with that heavy load (really didn't wanna)... the recoil looked pretty darned "healthy"... nothing like I get outta my more reasonable loads of 70 and 80 grains of FFFg Swiss in my .50 caliber Pennsylvania Long Rifle or my .50 caliber Hawken rifles.

BUTTTTTTTTT... in truth, it's "different strokes for different folks"... there is no "one-size-fits-all" in riflery or where men gather to discuss their preferences in rifles, calibers, loads or barrel lengths.

At least, that is how I see it... and, therefore, this is "my 2�"...


Strength & Honor...

Ron T.

I normally use 80 grains of fff Goex in an inline. Pellets never produce good accuracy.

One hole groups at 100 yards are the norm. Even an $89.00 CVA will do this if you're brave enough to pull the trigger on a CVA.

or we buy a traditional design that designed for longer range shooting . Or have one built specificly for heavy conical long range shooting .

if a person took a modern inline barrel and converted it to a traditional rifle with a good quality lock . i seriously doubt that the avrage shooting is going to be able to desern any notacable diffrence in lock times even if its 10/100ths of a second slower in the hammer fall .

I believe I'd put up a Billinghurst or Wesson 40 rod, cap lock rifle against any in-line provided the means of sighting were the same. Aperature sights or scoped. cap, Ron, ET and perhaps others probably know what I'm talking about.

Living in denial is a terrible thing.

so how about telling us all here swampman just why it is the lock time is faster .

dont just say it , prove it

bigblock
, can you tell me what the travil distance of your firing pin in your CVA is ?

Just so ya'all dont get confused, Swampman1 and Swampman700 are the same person so when you argue with one and the other chimes in to help the other you will know this.......

with the right loads my sidelocks shoot with my inlines. Just starting to get those damned black/fuzzy floaters in my eyes, mainly my left eye which thankfully is not my shooting eye.

traditional rifles to this still still shoot 650+ yards open sight " well mostly peep sights" in competition.

Just face it, a great deal simply just can not control either their nerves when the game animal they are seeking, shows up, or they just flat out can not shoot off hand. Plain and simple, the style of rifle means very little to me personally.

Killed a couple deer with a traditional ML but I sold them off as soon as I could get a removable breech plug. Right now, traditional ml's are just good to look at IMO.

im still waiting to hear the strait line distance while a sidelock hammer has a a 1 to 1 1/2 inch fall , reasoning

Straight line distance is less than .200. It's measures in miliseconds rather than 1/2 to 3/4s of a second. There is no comparison. The sidelocks hammer actually causes the gun to rotate to the right as it travels forward. This isn't rocket science.

A regular Sherlock Holmes.

There ain't none better.

lmao

I am a big fan of old school fintlocking... I love shooting them, and have harvested whitetails here in Pennsylvania as well. Alot of fun in our traditional after Christmas season.

i was actually asking someone , Who we could rely on to give an honest answer
But since you replied .
would that be for the Rem 700 ml which you friend and mentor RW if i recall correctly stated that a person would be better of buying a muzzleloader from a true muzzleloader company ?
But past that . let me get this right .
your claiming what you are because of strait line distance and your pin moving 1/4 of an inch . Correction, that would be just a hair under 1/4 inch . a red hair not a black one .
do you know what the rating for your spring is ?
i do . factory it lists 26 lbs new .
but they are also well know to be weak. so its probably more like 20lbs "reasonably" .

lets not even talk about the drag emparted by a dirty bolt . lets assume that the gun is clean. which problabl;y isnt the case since you feel you dont need to clean it after shooting . but lets give the benifit of the doubt shall we

How far do you think your side lock moves . 3x maybe 4 or 5 X that amount ?

Come on substantiate you claims of a million times faster .
Or at least so much faster that someone like you would actually notice the difference vs. thinking you feel a difference

+1 on that.

I'd likely argue that a Whitworth would stand up proud in that match as well.

"...one hole...", "...3/4 second...", yeah, right. Gotta thank ol' Swampy for that though. Having a point source of BS in a discussion makes separating wheat from chaff easy enough. Special in a lot of ways.

or a Stutzer or Rigby

I think that Swampy, in addition to his other personality issues, has a problem with masochism too. Why else would he be so combative? It would go a long way toward explaining why he keeps showing up in forums across the board and generating controversy. Everywhere he goes he picks fights by saying stupid things- obviously just to get people riled up and heap vitriol upon him. 'Taint normal behavior folks. I hope he's in some kind of therapy, or plans to get some. (Or at least I hope his "Master" gets him a less restrictive dog collar, a softer whip, or more loosely fitting leather gear. Perhaps all three. )

The Remington has a lock time of 3.0 milliseconds, according to the specs. 3.0 milliseconds times 1 million gives a lock time of 50 minutes for a sidelock. Seems a bit high, at least for my sidelocks. The other factor is the human pulling the trigger. Once you remove variables like reaction time, compression of tissue in the trigger finger, etc., there is not enough difference to make a lot of impact at the relatively short ranges we are talking about. 200 yards is not considered long range by a lot of shooters. If he can shoot one holers at 100 yards all the time with virtually any inline he picks up, I'd like to see it. My .17 won't do that, and neither will my .308. Maybe I just shoot bad.

now , now guys . lets forget about who is saying such things and discuss the reasoning .
isn�t that what this topic is about ?

After all what swampman/ Mark/swampman 1/swampman700 is saying isn�t anything new .
A whole lot of folks feel that a inline ignition is a whole lot faster because of the strait line distance of the bolt vs. what appears to be the large fall of a hammer on a side lock .
It is true that a side lock imparts some torque into a gun . But again this is nothing that an average or even above average shooter ever notices .
In fact beings it a constant , its remedied during the sighting in process .
Coil springs can also have their benefits . I don�t think anyone can disagree with that .

LMAo
Now bender lets not get to far ahead of things with facts LOL .
lets just work on the speed of the lock and how much faster one design really is when compared to another . assuming both are quality
there actually is a mathematical formula that will give us a speed . granted it will not take into account drag . but lets just keep feeding the rope out for alittle while longer LOL

then we can go into crappy trigger qualities

funny thought though . how much slower is a fat finger then a skinny one LOL

Gonna talk to my doc about replacing the bones in my trigger finger with titanium right away.

All this hoo-ha got me to pondering the original post is context of practical vs. the picking of nits. Not sure I figured anything out, but there's something I'll pass along for the heck of it.

50 yard groups: The first is a string of 11 shots, the top of the left target a fouler for the .45 flint lock. Otherwise, 5 shots per target, a single swab between the two groups. 50 grains of Goex 3f as I recall. .440 ball, .015" patch lubed with mink oil. The third group came from a .44 bolt gun using 300 grain paper patch exiting the muzzle at ~1600 fps, or generally in the same velocity range as the round balls. 3 MOA red dot sight on that one, standard period correct irons on the flinter. All offhand by the way.





The results of all this can be argued by opposite perspectives, none of which will convince anyone one way or the other, except possibly that as mentioned earlier, what standard of accuracy is required? I could have missed a ground squirrel with either and killed a deer out to 100 yards or perhaps better with all save for the fouling shot perhaps.

I'm thinking the myriad of things that influence accuracy are mostly something that folks adjust to, regardless of the platform. Too, the argument about one being more inherently accurate is specious at best. Few that make such arguments do so in an apples vs. apples comparison and thus falsely support their position. I can hear the PPC shooters groaning as I type this, but the question that follows of course is at what range and circumstances are we comparing things? 200 yards? 1,000 yards? 5 mph wind or 20 mph? When it's all distilled I'm pretty sure there is no significant advantage of one over the other in context of application. Technical advantage is nebulous at best. There is significant handicap imparted by some shooters, but not all.

An inline can shoot groups like this at 200 yards.

Offhand? The groups were shot offhand, and I don't think many people could shoot groups like that offhand at 200 with ANY hunting rifle.

Offhand groups don't prove much of anything except luck.

luck - skill - whats the difference. Just means someone may be able to do it more often than the other guy. In hunting situations its either off hand or off some shooting sticks. Hell, ive even leaned up against the side of a tree and took a shot.

Now thats a dumb statement!

Not that your others arent.

Hey Rainman Swampy, your meds need a refill? Sorry, that wasn't very nice were it? But, but....didja miss my point? With an inline? Fuggin' unbelievable! Was right there in front of ya, not 200 yards. Doooood!

Condolences,

Lucky Dan

PS: I've had reservations about the Remington Arms Co. in recent years. If you're their official customer relations pimp I'm gonna short hell out of the stock tomorrow.

That statement speaks volumes about you and your experience.

If a point is invalid I dismiss it. Offhand shooting is wonderful and I've done a lot of it (in matches) with flintlocks made by the best builders in the country. It doesn't prove anything.

Guessin' it does. In this case it provides the identify of the village idiot. "3/4 sec..." -kaff- "one hole..." -giggle- "sub MOA @ 100 yards..." -snicker-


Talk's cheap fella....

Got to call my broker....

Dan, you're forgetting that Swampy is a world-class firearms expert, graduate of several engineering schools, an accomplished national-level shooting competitor, and honored amongst his peers. (That or a world-class bullshitter.) How dare you question his authority?

Well hell's bells, I invented all that stuff...thas how I dare...

I was born about ten thousand years ago
There ain't nuthin' in this world that I don't know
I saw Peter Paul and Moses playin' ring-around-the-roses
And I'll whup the guy what says it isn't so
Well, I'm just a lonesome traveler, a great historical bum
Highly educated through history I have come
I built the Rock of Ages, it was in the year oh one
And that's about the biggest thing that Man has ever done
I saw Adam and Eve driven from the door
I'm the guy that picked the figleaves that they wore
And from behind the bushes peepin' saw the apple they was eatin'
And I swear that I'm the one that et the core
Now I built the garden of Eden, it was in the year oh two
Joined the apple-pickers union and I always paid my dues
I'm the man that signed the contract to raise the risin' sun
And that's about the biggest thing that Man has ever done
I taught Samson how to use his mighty hand
[ Find more Lyrics on http://mp3lyrics.org/BHj ]
I showed Columbus to this happy land
And for Pharaoh's little kiddies I built all the pyramiddies
And to the Sahara carried all the sand
Now I was strawboss on the pyramids and the tower of Babel too
I opened up the ocean, let the mighty children through
I fought a million battles and I never lost a one
And that's about the biggest thing that Man has ever done
I taught Solomon his little ABC's
I'm the first one to eat Limburger cheese
And while floating down the bay with Methuselah one day
I saw his whiskers floating in the breeze
Now I fought the revolution that set this country free
It was me and a couple of Indians that dumped the Boston tea
I won the battle of Valley Forge and the battle of Bully Run
And that's about the biggest thing that Man has ever done
Now Queen Elizabeth she fell in love with me
We were married in Milwaukee secretly
But I got tired of snooker and ran off with General Hooker
To go shootin' skeeters down in Tennessee

Apologies to Woodie Guthrie

I enjoy being proven right....Thanks!

Swamp, is that you?

Dan, was that said with a Brooklyn accent while nibbling on a carrot?!

Eh, yeth it waz. What's up Doc?

"I shoulda toined left at Albaqoiky!"