Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Muzzleloaders Getting tired of this

Captchee, thanks, now I need to dome some homework.

When you said this "IF there is a short coming its the material they use to bridle the tumbler . Its very thin, not very solid and thus on some weapons allow the sear to slide past the fly causing the lock to catch on the half cock at times"

Were you talking about the T/C lock or the Lyman?

PS, I'm no lawyer either, but hunting is not a right granted in the constitution. Sates can regulate it to the point of banning it if they so choose, unlike freedom of the press, religion, and speech, etc.

lyman

Tired of this...

beyond words.

Actually, Cap, about 4.7 million Americans are barred from voting because they have a felony conviction. Persons convicted of a felony also may lose the right to carry a gun despite the 2nd Amendment. Constitutional or not, our rights can be legally restricted. If you want to read case law, try Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago that reads:

"The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived."

We generally agree that for public good, one must have a driver's license to operate a motor vehicle on the road. We also generally agree that hunters must have a hunting license.

You are looking as this through the wrong end of the scope, Cap. Our democratic government derives all of its powers from the people. It helps to look at the natural rights theories of the Founding Fathers and the philosophical work of Locke, etc. The Framers of the Constitution considered freedom the natural and proper state of man. The primary purpose of government is to protect, not limit, our liberties. The burden of proof, so to speak, is not on the individual to justify a "right to hunt," but upon the state to demonstrate that hunting should be regulated and our freedoms limited. The Constitution does not mention anything about a right to grow potatoes in my back yard, or to eat a steak, or to have children. The Bill of Rights is not a laundry list. It simply reflects the experience of the Framers. They focused on rights that they had been denied by the crown.

While wise, the Framers were not omniscient. They didn't mention a right to farm, probably because they could not imagine a society without farming. I expect they felt the same way about hunting. So, yes, we have agreed as a nation of laws that wildlife is a public resource. We have further agreed we should manage this resource in cooperation with hunters. And, for the most part, hunters have generously sacrified a fundamental right voluntarily for good of the natural environment.

im sorry Hampstead we are just going to have to disagree .
the point is that hunting is not a fundamental right . this is why the states themselves must add it to their individual constitutions because its not given or implied by the federal constitution.
If it were and understood as such there would be no need to clarify it again

Disagree we will, Cap. Read the 10th Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The Constitution was meant to keep the powers of government, particularly the central government, narrow. Thus we have the 10th Amendment. Hunting was determined as not subject to the Interstate Commerce Clause, therefore, governance of hunting was rightly recognized as a state, not federal, function. That is why some states choose to recognize it in their Constitution.

We don't have rights, Cap, because they are listed in the Constitution. And just because a right is not enumerated in the Constitution does not mean it is not a fundamental right. Show me in the Bill of Rights your right to travel freely, or your right to marry who you wish, or to have children. I would argue that all of these are fundamental rights, echoes of the Declaration of Indepdence that recognizes the right of every person to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Governments don't give us rights. They simply recognize the rights we have. I was born with the right to hunt. I will die with the same right whether or not the government agrees with me or not.

I'm not Capchee, but I hope you and he won't mind me adding a comment or two.

With the Lyman GPR, which is the 1 in 60" twist version primarily for PRB shooting, you can buy the Great Plains Hunter barrel as an add-on, which is the 1 in 32" barrel for shooting conicals. Scroll down a bit on this link for a list of barrels you can buy:
http://lymanproducts.com/lymanproducts/rifles.htm

As far as the .50 vs .54 thing ... Sam Fadala, at least, says there's no great need to choose a .54 for conicals, but that the .54 is better for shooting PRBs. I shoot a .54 Lyman Deerstalker with that compromise 1 in 48" twist, and it happens to shoot both heavy conicals and PRBs very well.

If you really only want to shoot conicals, you could just get the Great Plains Hunter in .50, with the 1 in 32" twist barrel. Having both barrels sounds fun to me, but then I like shooting both balls and conicals. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

All the best,
Liam

well so there you have it , thanks Liam i wasnt awear of that option

Hampstead,
I'm not sure I agree with you or disagree....but intellectually you provide a very powerful argument........... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

edit....I agree

Ditto!!

If one were to analyze what has happened in the archery and muzzleloading industries since 1970, their respective equipment has changed dramatically...that is called "progress". The technological advancements of the modern muzzleloader and the bow have paralleled one another since that time.

Archery is nothing like it was back in the stick bow days and let me tell you, the traditionalists cried a river when bows manufactured under the Alllen patent hit the streets. Archery hunting rules were conceived in most states waaaay before 1970 and if anything, they have become MORE liberal, not less.

I lived that era in the very early 70's when inexpensive 4 wheel bows hit the market and license sales began to climb....and again when the movie Delieverance hit the screens...and again when the movie Rambo hit the screens. Guys like John Mussachia (founder of the PBS) were the worst loudmouths against new technology and having more hunters afield. I spoke directly with John and listened to his opinions. They were downright divisive and for that reason, I was against the man. Anyone against fellow hunters is no buddy of mine.

Clubs banned the use of compounds on their field courses, some clubs were "Instinctive Only" and so on. G Fred Asbell had a conniption fit when high let-off bows became available, Pope and Young banned deer from entry if bows had too much relaxation...and all manner of other uneccesary BS. Oh, did I mention that this very same John Mussachia invented and marketed the Muzzy Broadhead? Factamundo...and rather hypocritical in my view.

What drove the real interest in blackpowder hunting was the efforts of Thompson Center about 1970 with the introduction of their Hawken rifle, followed by the Cherokee and the Renegade..."Be a Two Season Hunter". This company put blackpowder hunting on the map. They also put money into lobbying for some states to even have a BP season. Those original rifles from T/C, the propellants, bullets, ignition systems, lubricants, sights, etc made a package that was effective in the hands of a reasonably skilled marksman out to about 100 yards.

If one compares where we are some 36 years later with bows, we have increased the effective range of the marksman of "better than average" skills from about 20 yards to somewhat beyond 30 yards. This is on average. Some will attempt 40 and even 50 yard shots, just as some ML shooters some 36 years later will attempt 150 and 200 yd shots.

When the fat is all boiled down to soap, in reality what we have is a bow today that is infinitely more effective at yesterday's distances and that can also be said of the muzzleloader. What once was a crapshoot at distances of 100 yards is now pretty much a certainly. That is exactly how I view each weapon...I am just that more lethal today at the distances I orginally began hunting at because of technology.

Viewed in that light, folks shouldn't get their undies in such a bundle over technology. Embrace it knowing that your peers are more effectively harvesting their animals and leaving less to linger.

The number of hunters in the field goes down every year because new ones aren't replacing the old ones. I wish they would do away with all special seasons and just let people use whatever they wish to hunt with for so many days a year.

I'm fond of most all guns, the 2nd Amendment and apple pie. I think special seasons divide the shooting fraternity deeply and this discussion illustrates that. I don't see a basis for giving one group or another special consideration.

-Bows and buckshot have about the same effective range
-PRB muzzleloaders are capable of distant shots in good hands. Ask the British about that.
-Revolvers can be just as deadly at range as inlines.
-Black powder cartridge rifles can Indian chiefs near a mile.

So, why the special seasons? Who's handicapped? Not a hunter.

PS: I don't care for inlines myself but I won't pee down your leg and call it rain if you use one. They aren't very handsome and life is short. Too, a good underhammer will run circles around them...as will a couple of side hammer sidelock designs.

Anyone else notice that this thread is from 2006?

Swampy, are ya gettin' bored? Why dontcha get out some, do some hunting or just walking around or something?

Agreed.....


maddog

I've been hunting and walking around. Right now I'm making a haversack for 19th c. reenacting.

No, as for "right now" that would have been "typing on a keyboard."

I also have a job for 10 hours a day.

Making haversacks, I'd bet.

Building the war machine.