Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Muzzleloaders Why Do You Muzzleload?

By the way Doc White of White Rifles fame wrote about a Swiss inventor named Pauley who developed an inline caplock in 1812 in London and was selling them there. Doc has built several ML rifles with the Pauley "action".

jim

Jim . Most of doc�s rifle don�t use the Perdy or Pauley ignition . He just makes them look that way .
Though he has made a couple that were correct and functionable . one of which I shot some years back at an event he and I were competing in with Crieg Kirkland .

Also it should be noted that inline ignition systems date very early . Some pre 1700 and thus flintlock . But for the most part those have little to do with today�s ignitions or designs. Of which those Doc made were the closest , actualy marketed, to some of the original late designs both working and cosmetic .
But sadly even white muzzleloaders have fallen to the more modern designs

For those who have taken the time to learn about muzzleloading history I doubt any are unaware of the early flint and percussion in-lines. They were very few, never popular and evidently not considered practical and to my knowledge only extant on the Continent. And, vastly different from in-lines of today.

I run a muzzleloader for the sole purpose of extending my hunting season by 10 days. Though I would love to play with the traditional stuff, my body count isn't high enough yet to ditch the scoped inlines. Same reason why I finally bought a bow. It is a Hoyt compound. I would like to play with longbows and make my own bow, I want to up my hunting ability first before worrying about doing it the old fashioned way. Then again, I am probably a few years younger than the brunt of the guys who post on this forum, so my hunting philosophy is a bit different than most.

another reason to be in the woods

that also depends on what a persons definition of inline is .
The early flints were pretty much as you say .
But there were yet others like the Hall rifles which were popular and produce in very large numbers .and produced in both flint and percussion models . Mind you those large numbers were far in excess of the small , possibly 300 a year of the Hawkens brothers
Off the top of my head I want to say total production was some 30,000 , Hall rifles in the same 1820-1840 time frame. Well before the mass production surrounding the civil war production runs .
. In fact it�s the only rifle to be converted from muzzle loading to cartridge and then converted back during a time of war .

Also remember if we are just talking about the ignition itself . Then those numbers grow even larger especially if we include hand guns
Less we forget the colt is an inline ignition
But as you say . Most of those designs only have a lose comparison to today�s models .
However the facts of the mater still cannot be changed . while they do appear to have been troublesome and costly ,they did exist just as did early cartridge applications .

speaking from memory here as it would take me some time to go through my boocks and find the actual name , discussion of this but . I have also read documentation surrounding a larger primer which was very much like the 209 . But not water proof . In fact if I recall , its recorded in the writings of discussions with the masters gun makers of the liege .
While these were somewhat different the late 19th century Boxer and Bearden primers.
The did exist but as I really mostly delineated to artillery pieces as it was thought that such a large primer would mover the charge off the breech during ignition .

I actually fired an original Hall breechloader. An old friend had a half dozen of them in his collection, both flint and percussion. A good idea but way ahead of it's time. We fired the tightest one he had (a cap gun) and it spit out of every nook and cranny. It was very accurate though as I recall. (It was never a ML gun converted to breech loading. It was a fresh design, produced at the Harper's Ferry Arsenal. I can't dispute that some were converted to ML (never say never) but I never heard or read of it. Growing up within spitting distance of Harper's Ferry and Sharpsburg you can imagine the amount of U.S. Martial ML lore I've been exposed to, and the number of guys I knew who collected this stuff in a very serious way. I can remember seeing Hall rifles in local antique shops priced at just a couple hundred dollars- within the last 20 years.

the Hall rifle can be both breech loaded , if you want to call it that but its not breech loading in the since of breech loaders today. its actually a breech block . Even though it is classified as a breech loader. In fact one can remove the breech section from the stock and fire it just as a muzzle loading pistol
it also can be loaded as a muzzleloader without opening the action . this was one of the + to the design as it didn�t require changes to the standard infantry loading procedures

As to converted

Pope , the forgotten rifles .
As such do to the lack of available parts the confederate held model 1819 Hall rifles to this day , hold the distinction of the only firearm to be converted from breech loading to muzzle loading during a time of war

Murphy
Confederate Rifles and muskets .
Model 1819 hall U.S. breech -loading flintlock rifle
Made by HFA under John Hall patent c. 1817, 1819,1823-24 and 1827-40
52 cal . Rifling extended to within 1 � � of the muzzle to allow muzzle loading when necessary .
Earliest production of the hall rifles was in Portland Maine . Hall is known to have supplied 100 of his improved flintlock rifles to the us government in 1817. No known example exists today . However it is thought that they were very similar to his sporting model then being produced in Yarmouth and Portland Maine.
His patented design became the first breech loading military arm in large quantities and adopted as regulation weapon nationally

Numerous variations appear
a large number of these are in southern arsenals at the out break of the civil war and were altered by confederate states to percussion..

The Hall model 1819 also bears the distinction of being the only gun presented by Act of Congress of the U.S. in lieu of a medal or other citation for gallantry in battle .
15 hall rifles , all of them 1824 production , were awarded to Americans who , ten years earlier, during the war of 1812, as school boys mostly 15 years of age , had volunteered and were accepted into service with the U.S. forces during the siege of Plattsburgh, NY, in 1814. They preformed heroically in the defense of a bridge against advancing British troops

good morning all .
sorry i had to run when i made the last post .

so ill try and finish .

So as was shown above . Not all Hall rifles were made at HFA.
Also while the earlier Hall rifles were flintlock . The l 1833, 1836 , 1840 type 1 and 2 1842, 1843 hall-North , were all percussion guns

Let me also exsplain something I said

.

Im not sure we could today yet pin down what rifle was the first to go from muzzleloader to breech loader , to cartridge and back to muzzleloader .
The reason being , by the end of the civil war , the confederates were trying to field as many rifles as possible .
Many of these has started life as muzzleloaders then were converted to breechloader . There were a whole lot of different people offering conversions but the most commonly know was the Linder and Merrill alterations .
Then out came the next conversions to cartridge. Both Springfield and harpers ferry were doing this to early muskets many of which were 1816 -1841 models�

Now why is this important . Well because if one even casually looks you see that the Hall design was the key to that evolution.
If you go back even farther . We see that what Hall actually did was build on the very old Breech block application which had been used Very early in artillery and in some case Gunne�s. in yet other cases that breech block . well its a cartradge .

Now this is where it gets kind of tricky concerning the Hall rifles .
See as time goes on and more and more information is found . Things change .
Not so long ago some of the J.B Barrett rifles were given their own distinct production
However we now know that at least some of these , were not Barrett rifles at all. Instead they were Hall rifles that Barrett converted and then put his name on
Madus writes :


So maybe POPE did know what he was talking about , because here we have yet another conversion happening to the Hall rifles .

So where am I going with all this .
Well while it doesn�t tie into the main topic here . It ties into what some folks believe and or have said .
See history is a strange thing . It gets even stranger when you define it down to American history . The reason is that we have a tendency to pick and chose the history we want to believe then define our choices as fact .
When in fact the truth is that there was a whole lot going on and what we want to believe isn�t always so cut and dried .

The fact is that from day one of firearms evalution , muzzle loading , breech loading and even cartridge evolution all were taking place at the very same times . not just in the 19 century as many would believe or have you believe .
Thus in many cases what we think as common really isn�t as common as we would like to think .

In this case we have the Hall Rifles which were produce in far greater numbers then Hawkens rifles . Which in fact were produced in far , FAR, lesser numbers then the Hennery , derringer and Leman . Even though they all were being produce at the very same time . Yet somehow we have grasp onto the Hawken rifle as being the weapon of choice . When in fact by the Hawkens own documentation , that could never have been the case do to shear numbers of firearms being manufactured in theta timefraim .
So we continue to bastardize and not give credit where credit is do . We continually try and proclaim something is the same when in fact it may or may not be .

Today most modern inline ignition designs have very little to nothing in common with original inline ignition designs . Simply put they have evolved to have far more in common with cartridge designs then the efficiency and reliability of the muzzle loading forerunners .
but We also have to realize that those cartridge designs , also had their applications in the evolution of the firearms as such we can some parts directly back to earlier designs and many times muzzle loading designs .

Same thing can be said about some mass produced traditional designs , which we all accept as traditional . While they are side locks and such what we chose to describe them as is all to often not even close . Do they function the same . Yes . But in some cases just like some of Doc whites Pauley replicas , its purely cosmetic .

Anyway . This is to long and I find myself writing a book that probably very few will understand .
Be safe and have a very good day

Cap,what you HAVE done is expand knowledge and some understanding,which the Campfire does with some verve!!! Where else could we go to get into insane political arguments and call each other names yet at the same rendezvous, get to see the type of input like you just gave us. Anytime you wanna do this, I am rivetted. Thanx Cap.

Well said cap....well said.

Vic

Josh,

I've been shooting modern MZ's for quite some time now. I really dig a removable plug and easy cleaning. Our season here starts the very next day that rifle season closes so all I need to do is swap out the tags, grab a different rifle and the beat goes on!

Well, not exactly. By that I mean it's not only my opinion, but also the opinion of the Colorado DOW, the Colorado State Muzzle Loaders Association, and the NMLRA, the latter two of course being oriented toward traditional rifles. When I interviewed representatives of all three organizations back in 2003 on this very subject, they were all of the opinion that an in-line rifle holds no significant advantage over a traditional rifle, excluding scopes, sabots, pellets, and smokeless. Which are all illegal in Colorado.

And as far as what you do on your own private property, that's really no one's business but your own.

I like the one shot, being able to hunt in mountains just as the leaves and weather start to change. Muzzleloading is a lot of fun with all the products out there that allow you to try new things just for the heck of it.

I like looks I get from other hunters. You see here there is no muzzleloader season you are in general rifle.

Ha, I like the looks I get from other hunters when I'm packing out a full load of meat on my back. Especially guys half my age.

It is refreshing not to have to trim brass and all the assorted chores.
I like to just pour powder and ram down the ball!
I got a mold with the gun that I bought used at a gun show.
I killed a deer with a 54 caliber Renegade with a Maxi Ball that I cast myself. Good Times!
whelennut

There is something wrong with that. I too own a 54 cal. Renegade.

because it gives me 7 more days of deer hunting!

Gives me time in the woods. Usually with some snow on the ground. And hardly another soul ever seen.