My view on Traditional

[Douglas Blair]

This topic has come up more times than I can remember. Not just here but on several message boards and everyone has their own idea as to what is traditional and what is not.

To me traditional means any muzzleloader which is a sidelock, underhammer, mule ear, or any gun which was used in the muzzleloader's day. Round balls are traditional but the Lee REAL bullets are not. Some of the mine balls (copies of the old ones) are traditional. The T/C Maxi-Ball is not traditional. Powder horns, powder flasks made like the old ones are, but those new "quick loaders" made of plastic are not. Of course any original muzzleloader which was made say 100 years ago is about as traditional as you can get, but not all shooters can shell out several thousand dollars for one. By the same token not all shooters can afford a custom gun built either, so we do the best we can and may buy a T/C Renegade or Hawken. They may not look like anything which was made a century ago but for some they are as close as we can get depending on the size of our wallet.

What is definitely NOT traditional is: any inline (unless it is an original built in the muzzleloader's day), black mag powder, Pyrodex powder, Triple Seven powder, powder pellets, (and any other sub powder) plastic sabots, most if not all conical bullets, poly patches, 209 primers, and several other things I can't think of at the moment.

If it was in use in the muzzleloader's day it is traditional but if is wasn't it isn't traditional.

Now we know what to discuss on this forum and what to discuss on the modern inline muzzleloader forum. ;D

Anyone have any comments on this.

[Rifleman]

I bet old Davy Crockett would have traded his flinter for a Remington 700 if he had been given the chance !LOL

[harryo]

Rifleman said:

I bet old Davy Crockett would have traded his flinter for a Remington 700 if he had been given the chance !LOL

Rifleman, you really don't get it, do you? Your definition sounds fine to me, Doug.

[Douglas Blair]

Rifleman, I'm not sure if he would have traded or not.

When the percussion cap came out most switched from flint to caplock, BUT a lot if not most of the mountain men stayed with the flinter as they trusted it. They had good reason for this. A lot of the first caps were of poor quality and misfires were common also loose the caps and you are up you know what creek. ;D Also with a flintlock one could always find a stone which could be made to work in the lock.

In my opinion if you are out in the wilderness a flintlock is more reliable than a caplock just for this reason.

What I think gives the flintlock a bad rap these days are several. But the three worse ones are these. 1 People badmouthing them who don't know how to take care of one and how to "feed" one. 2 Shooters not knowing how to care for one and not taking the time to get to "know how to load one and protect it from bad weather. 3. Several flint lock locks of poor quality.

If you buy a flintlock make sure you get a high quality one and you will be surprised as how reliable they are.

[MarkKw]

Doug,

You definitely nailed it and this goes along with the point I was trying to make on the other post. There are so many alleged "experts" out there who know nothing about what they are supposedly an expert on.

Numerous article in gun magazines, as you say, badmouth flinters and other traditional arms because they simply don't know how to operate them. I can even go so far as to say that qualty matters less than operating techniques.

Example: Many years ago, dad bought a CVA kentucky kit for like 40 bucks. .45 cal, tiny little 1/2 frizzen and barrel with the touch hole drilled on a long angle to hit the bore. Of course the only reason for the purchase was to extend deer season. He played with this rifle for hour after hour doing nothing but cursing it because it would not fire properly or at all. The following year he got a T/C hawken kit and he got that one to work much better and was happy with it but still only using it to extend deer season.

I took the CVA out and with some trial and error figured out how to tune the lock so the flint would make contact with the frizzed to produce enough spark and also how to load it so it fired. After some time with this cheapie, I had her firing fast and every time and printing good groups. Now it took me several days to accomplish this feat but I really leared a lot from it without having the benefit of someone else showing me. Using what I learned so many years ago, I'll bet that if I was given the same rifle now, I could have her shooting well in a matter of a couple hours.

I see so many articles in centerfire dominent magazines that condemn anything but the in---- simply because they don't put any time into the flinters or make any reasonable effort to learn about them. These are the people who expect to buy a flinter, take it out, pour some powder in, ram a projo down and expect it to work the same as chambering a round in their .300WSM.....we all know it don't work that way.

This is why I stated earlier that those of us who love our flinters and even percussion guns, need to present a positive and educational image. The more people doing this, the better the chance we have to quell some of the negative that is coming from the CF'ers. I'm not saying that we should attempt to brainwash people who are not interested in traditional ML'ing, I'm saying that when we see a negative article in a magazine, we should take a few minutes and write a responce to the editor that does not condemn the writer but rather uses fact to counter the negative claims in a positive way.

Education & information presented in a positive way works far better than griping and negativeness.

[Gabby]

Not sure if this is 100% on topic for this thread, but based upon a couple of the above responses I thought I'd try to explain my rationale for keeping the traditional forum traditional.

When I visit the traditional forum I do so with certain expectations. I expect that discussion will be directed towards traditional muzzleloading weapons and traditional aspects of the sport. When the discussion deviates from this, I feel betrayed. I've heard most of the rationalizations and explanations why something that is definitely NOT traditional is OK for discussion on this forum. In my mind, these excuses do not hold up. While we may all have slightly different parameters on what we deem to be traditional, I think that good old common sense covers 95% of the definition.

Now I'd like to put this in a little perspective. People go to the rest room for a common purpose. But in most places open to the public or large numbers of people, there are at least two rest rooms. One for men and one for women. People go into their respective rest room with the expectation that others who enter will be appropriate for that room. (Kinda like going into a specified forum, huh?) Now occasionally someone may error and enter the wrong room. Accidents do happen and we should all be reasonably understanding.

On the other hand, someone who knowingly and purposefully enters the wrong rest room is violating a confidence. Especially when he or she continues to do so repeatedly after multiple requests not to. Those who are rightfully in that rest room have every reason to feel offended.

This is kind of how I feel when non-trational posts are made in the traditional forum, even when attempts are made to excuse them as acts of humor. I'm not sure, but I think my feelings on this may be shared by some of the other traditionalists.

Just my thoughts on this matter.

[edge]

Sounds like a good definition to me! As many of you know, most of my shooting is with a Savage, which is as modern as they come ;D

My question is what is the timeframe that is generally considered to be "traditional"? Is it based on a specific innovation( like the percussion cap), or is it more of a mindset based more on a way of life?

thanks, edge.

[RAF]

I come to this forun regularly to read. I should say I don't have a "Traditional" firearm and right now don't have an interest to buy one. I do enjoy reading the post and who knows, I might get converted. I do agree that traditional and modern be seperate.

[Gabby]

Please understand that it was not my intent to discourage non-traditional muzzleloaders from coming to the traditional forum. Quite the opposite. Nothing would please me more than helping spark an active traditional muzzleloading interest in someone. Only when posting please remember the nature of the forum and post accordingly.

[Douglas Blair]

Edge, anything that which looks like was used in the muzzleloaders day could be called traditional (as well as origional muzzleloaders, powder horns ect.) A T/C Hawken or Renegade could be loosely called traditional.

Anything which wasn't in existence or use in the day of the muzzleloader is not traditional, and this covers all the modern bullets, the modern inlines, and any of the substitute powders.

[Douglas Blair]

Gabby, I agree with you 100%. No one said anyone could not come read the posts but I for one don't want any modern posts on this board. I have another board for that.

I also would like to see more shooters take an interest in the traditional way of shooting and the traditional muzzleloaders in general.

I have had more pleasure out of shooting a flintlock than any gun, bar none.

And believe it or not I have NEVER had a misfire from a flintlock on the first shot out of a clean barrel. I can't say as much from a caplock or the "other" muzzleloaders.

[blade4f]

I originally came to Dougs Savage site and would read the traditional site. Then I went to a flinter and when I fired my first real BP load i was hooked. Before the Savage my experience was with a old cva kit and Pyrodex. There's nothing like the real thing. Give it a try!!!

[chuck]

I should just stay out of this but,,,,,,,,, in my oppinion no way should a inline be classified as traditional, in my area in Iowa a lot of guys, (shotgun hunters) went out and bought themselves a muzzleloader, ( at least thats what they called them) to get additional tags. They actually don't hunt any different than if they had a shotgun. I think most people get an inline because they expect immediate results, think they don't have to clean after shooting and so on. A lot of guys I know come up to me at a ball game or whereever and say, hey, I bought a muzzleloader the other day, I don't even have to ask what kind, or ask advice on what muzzleloader to get, when I start talking about getting started with a percussion, sidelock, I can tell they aren't interested. I am sure there are inline shooters who know a lot about their gun, and shoot them a lot, I just don't see them around here. All I hear during hunting season is, that buck was over 100 yards, put the crosshair behind the shoulder and squeezed the trigger. Now, to me, that is not what muzzleloader season is spose to be like. Might as well be using a centerfire. What the heck went wrong? Now days most muzzleloading gun companys promote their inlines, when was the last time you saw a hunting show on tv and the guy was using a sidelock? Can't say I am totally against inlines, (might sound like though) heck, I bought my daughter an inline a couple years ago, she is now 15, shoots the gun pretty good. Would just as soon she shoot a sidelock, but she wants to keep the inline. Also I think the inline is a real pain to clean. Don't even get me started on pyrodex or 777, or whatever. I guess to sum it up, most people buy an inline for more deer seasons, the gun is spose to be easy to shoot, maybe one practice session and your ready to hunt. chuck-ia

[DaveK]

I agree and that is why I don't even drop in the inline type of locations. They just hold no interest to me at all.

[roundball]

I continue to be amazed that the inline crowd doesn't start up their own inline web sites...instead, they climb into an existing site that was essentially set up as traditional, but then start spilling there views over into the traditional discussions, which is exactly what led to this latest tension here.

One poster summed it up perfectly...if a bunch of Harley-Davidson owners get together and start up a Harley-Davidson club, and the sign on the door says Harley-Davisson Club, don't show up riding a Suzuki...go start a Suzuki club, etc

[Triple Se7en]

Hello all

My thinking is having the love for ALL muzzleloaders... not taking sides period Nothing wrong with owning/using flintlocks, sidelocks & bolt-action inlines. Nothing wrong in saying that some regular posters on many forums I visit know more about muzzleloading than ML magazine writers or book authors.

Thank you Doug for the your definition of modern/traditional separation. I suggest when you read a post on the traditional forums that does not meet Doug's definitions, do not argue with poster. Instead, PM one of the moderators here. Let them correct the situation.

[Douglas Blair]

I agree Roundball. The only thing about this is there is a modern muzzleloader forum on this site already.

Traditional shooters don't go over there and post about traditional guns and I think they should respect the traditional shooters enough not to post about modern muzleloaders here.

[MarkKw]

What are the rules regarding the use of examples such as to explain something? What I mean is if you have an example of a problem cause and cure that relates to the traditional gun being discussed in which stating this information would assist in resolving the traditional arm issue at hand.

That sounds confusing and I wrote it.... what I mean is if someone asks a question and the answer directly relates to experience on a non-traditional arm and mention of the non-trad arm is necessary to explain the answer only not for discussion of the non-trad arm.

I'm not trying to split hairs here, just want to be sure if I answer a question and the answer reads something like: "I had the same problem with a .270 win and the cure was to...." I'm not going to be offending anyone.

[Douglas Blair]

MarkKw, if a situation would come up where you needed to use some sort of modern gun to explain a solution then I see no problem with it. Even though I can't see how this would work.

[MarkKw]

It's come up several times discussing rifling twists vs bullet length, crowns, groove depth & shape, ect. That sort of stuff which is directly related no matter what the form of propultion or physical operation may be.

[tg]

I would think that an exchange about twist rates and bullet lengths of traditinal type guns and projectiles ( Parker Hale, Whitworth, sugarloaf and such) would be in order but if the subject of Maxis and R.E.A.L., and Ball-ets came up it would be a different matter.....for general info on such a topic the term "conical" could be used for reference to which type of projectile works better in a fast twist as this is true with most styles, traditonal and modern alike, of course there are virtualy no traditional type available so it may not even be an issue on a traditional forum.

[Douglas Blair]

The only "conical" would be the mine ball which is a copy of one which was used in the Civil War.

Some of the "Pickett balls" might fall in this category to.

[DaltonBros]

I always thought Suzuki was that raw fish that the yuppies like. ;D

[Stumpkiller]

We've discussed this ad nauseum on another board.

Here's my personal take.

If the weapon is advertised with the words: "New", "Improved", "Radical", "Extreme" or "Innovative" in the write-up, it is likely not traditional.

If the words "Patent No." or "Patent Applied For" appear on any component it is suspect but may still be traditional in spirit. Maybe.

Weapons can be old without being traditional. The Hall Carbine was a radical departure from arms at the time it was introduced in 1814, and remains so.

Sometimes we confuse "Primative" with "Traditional" when it comes to muzzleloaders. In either case, part of the beauty and charm is that they present a challenge beyond modern weapons. There is no sence stepping back with an anacronistic weapon and then adding "cheats" to it for performance sake. The only reason for that is to extend a hunting season without embracing the challenge. That's just wrong; though legal in some states.

Embrace the shortcomings and limitations of a traditional firearm and you'll be a better person and hunter for it.

[tg]

Hey Stumpy, good to see ya here....I think if we looked at traditional and period correct or pritive as closely tied together there would be little arguement as to what is or isn't...it is when we try to cast a broad net to allow any and all that can connected to the past by the most extreme stretch in the door that things get odd....to put it kindly.. I guess if one opens the doors and widows and sets down to supper there will be all sorts of unwanted dinner guests at the table??

[roundball]

Stumpkiller said:

We've discussed this ad nauseum on another board.

Here's my personal take.

If the weapon is advertised with the words: "New", "Improved", "Radical", "Extreme" or "Innovative" in the write-up, it is likely not traditional.

If the words "Patent No." or "Patent Applied For" appear on any component it is suspect but may still be traditional in spirit. Maybe.

Weapons can be old without being traditional. The Hall Carbine was a radical departure from arms at the time it was introduced in 1814, and remains so.

Sometimes we confuse "Primative" with "Traditional" when it comes to muzzleloaders. In either case, part of the beauty and charm is that they present a challenge beyond modern weapons. There is no sence stepping back with an anacronistic weapon and then adding "cheats" to it for performance sake. The only reason for that is to extend a hunting season without embracing the challenge. That's just wrong; though legal in some states.

Embrace the shortcomings and limitations of a traditional firearm and you'll be a better person and hunter for it.

======================================

Well said...an example I saw recently was someone advocating the use of a 209 shotgun primer adapter on a traditional sidelock percussion.

To each their own of course...just puzzling to me why you'd invest in the traditional direction but at the same time start modifying the rifle to make it perform like a modern rifle as much as possible...simply my personal opinion...not talking down about what others do at all...I just puzzle over the 'why'.

Daniel Boone didn't use 209 primers, didn't weigh powder charges on a set of scales, didn't use synthetic flints, didn't weigh / cull cast balls...he learned to become proficient with the traditional items available at the time...so if one decides to go in that direction I'd think they'd want to at least stay with the basics of traditional muzzleloading...otherwise, what's the point.

Flintlocks, using real flints, real BP, and patched round balls have been the most fun and rewarding part of my entire shooting life of shotguns, rifles, handguns, inlines, percussions, and flintlocks...I really get a big sense of accomplishment out of taking deer, squirrels, etc, using a flintlock.

I agree even within the broad category of 'traditional' that a couple of sub-categories exist...'traditional' and 'purist'...(maybe purist is what you meant by primitive)...with 'purist'/primitive being someone who wants only precise pure period specifc designs...the category of modern inlines is very narrow, clear and sharp...but the 'traditional' category is very broad including periodic specific ML firearms as well as the TC Hawken Flintlocks I use, which have adjustable sights and internal coil mainsprings...we need TG to start a new movement that is purist only. ;D

[tg]

I think that is where the line is drawn in the sand.... how broad is the spectrum of stuff that can be called "traditional," My feeling is that many production level guns need some modification to be traditional, though they are not totaly modern as is, they fall short. I recall a time when a ML was a ML ....a gun of the type/style from the past, then TC and many others started adding modern sights, tinkering with conical designs, modernizing the stock design a bit to put the eye to the higher sights, then as time went on the Rem 700 was re-designed to load from the front, so we came up with a way to differentiate twixt the old guns and the modern stuff, (being traditional)many production guns are the first stage of the march towards the "inline". I think it would be refreshing to see a forum that stood by the old type gear when the word "traditional" appears at the top of the page, but in reality I doubt that there are enough people with such an interest to support it. The one thing that concerns me is that I think many newcommers who really want to step back in time may see all the post about conicals and adjustable sights and such on "traditional" boards and start out with a skewd lesson in gun history.

[roundball]

tg said:

I think that is where the line is drawn in the sand.... how broad is the spectrum of stuff that can be called "traditional," My feeling is that many production level guns need some modification to be traditional, though they are not totaly modern as is, they fall short. I recall a time when a ML was a ML ....a gun of the type/style from the past, then TC and many others started adding modern sights, tinkering with conical designs, modernizing the stock design a bit to put the eye to the higher sights, then as time went on the Rem 700 was re-designed to load from the front, so we came up with a way to differentiate twixt the old guns and the modern stuff, (being traditional)many production guns are the first stage of the march towards the "inline". I think it would be refreshing to see a forum that stood by the old type gear when the word "traditional" appears at the top of the page, but in reality I doubt that there are enough people with such an interest to support it. The one thing that concerns me is that I think many newcommers who really want to step back in time may see all the post about conicals and adjustable sights and such on "traditional" boards and start out with a skewd lesson in gun history.

I agree...I got caught up in the inline marketing hype of the mid 80's and got an MK85 for another week of deer hunting...thought "I was now a muzzleloader"...but then as time went on and I began reading / learning I realized I knew nothing about muzzleloading, and started going backwards in technology...it's been a lot of good learning, a lot of enjoyment...and I'm a better hunter/shooter today after getting away from high powered scopes and making the journey into flintlocks.

And I also agree, the number of actual purists would probably not be nearly enough support a completely separate movement...plus, there are already various sub-categories growing to match the various historical timeframes and I think they tend to get pretty close to actual within those timeframes...(Revolution, F&I, Mountain Man, etc)

(but those adjustable sights sure are nice ;D)

[DaveK]

I can agree that many of the "new" made production guns may be "borderline", but they are close enough to the orginal "intent" and very far away from modern style/type of the inline ML'er. I also feel that they are a very good reason to get a shooter "wet", into the idea of ML'ing without thinking that ML'ing is done with synthetic stocks and scopes. If the new shooter wants to go further back in time, the door is open, if not he is still not relying on c-fire technology to hunt. Heck Roundball, I took my adj. sights off so that I knew they wouldn't move! For many, the filling of a tag is the important part, for another grp. it is the experience that is important. Filling the tag is just the icing.

[MadIrishJack/PA]

Man I love this s....tuff. I can't believe the, "If they could have had it..." line never seems to go out of style.
In the mid 1700's if the French could have had the M-1 Garand they would have used it. Yeah, and then we say wee wee to our children we'd be agreeing , not peeing.
In the last quarter of the 1700's had the British had the M-16, we'd work on July 4 and the last Thursday in November and we'd now be in a period of National morning for our late Queen Mother.
I truly believe that had Davy Crockett been able to ride high in the saddle of the A-1 Abrams, the USA would be coast to coast and from the arctic to the equator. Man, if I ... wow the possibilities. And well, If you want to play my game, in my arena; You do it by my rule. Or, as previously state in a similar fashion; Go play in your special place with your rules and don't look for me to be there. I'll respect you and only want the same.