I am a traditionalist but not at all offended by the inlines. It's an insecure and petite man who demands all others like what he likes and dislike what he dislikes.
As a full time gunsmith who makes about 90% of my living making muzzleloaders I am someone that can tell you a thing or 2 about what works and doesn't work.
#1. There is nothing new!
The Rigby, Whitworth, Enfield, Billinghurt,,Lewis, Hurst, Ferris and many others were making bullet firing muzzle loading rifles that were as accurate and in MANY cases more accurate then any of the modern inlines I have seen so far, and they were doing it over 150-160 years ago.
The principals of an accurate muzzleloader are not new, and they have not changed.
"New and improved" may be neither.
What is new is the plastic stocks replacing the wood stocks and the modern scope mounts.
Even the in-line striker for the cap is nothing new, but inline ignition was not favored in the old days because it offered no real advantage, and was slower to access. I may disagree with the opinion that it offers nothing. I do believe the covered inlines are likely to be more forgiving in foul weather, but having only hunting with a traditional rifle and never an inline, I can't say from personal experience.
I can say without ANY doubt that the new guns are NOT more accurate then the old ones, or the modern recreations of the old ones. But the traditional style guns do hold their value and often increase in value, and the modern inlines do not.
