In-lines vs. "traditional" muzzleloaders?

[billc_sbio]

I posted this question under a different Topic then realized that some people wouldn't necessarily see it to respond, so I'm posting it as a stand alone topic.


So here's a question for all of you who are more "in the know" about in-lines than I...

I'm fairly knowledgeable with more traditional blackpowder guns...have shot lots of them.

With Oregon's various prohibitions on "modern" technological advancements for muzzleloaders, what, if any, advantages are there to using in-lines vs. more traditional designs?

[Lured In]

I'll throw my $.02 on this.

Inlines were largely developed to overcome some of the short comings in traditional muzzleloader design. Specifically having the priming charge run "inline" with the powder charge. As you know on most flint and cap guns, the pan or ****** sits on the bolster. This forces the priming charge to hang a 90 degree turn to make it into the chamber and ignite the charge. While this works, it is clearly not the most efficient means of delivering the priming charge.

Second is the development of the "bolt" style inline. This was intended to cover the cap, reducing the likelyhood of missfires due to a wet primer.

On a little more subjective side, I believe the stock styling is more confortable for some that are used to modern centerfire rifles.

Other developments coming out of the progress of inlines, were larger charges, pelletized powders and the advance of new primers, such as mag #11 caps, utilizing musket caps and 209 primers. These were all intended to provide a more reliable priming source, and be more effective in igniting the larger (150 grain) charges. The added benefit of the 209 is that it sits inside the chamber rather than on a ******, further improving the weather resistance.

Fiber optic sites also seem to stem from the development of inline muzzleloaders and can now be found on many production sidelock's as well.

So, with all that said what advantage is there? In Oregon, very little in my opinion. The only clear advantage would be that most legal inlines, still have the capability to shoot mag charges of 150 grains of FFg. The result is increasing the velocity of large grain conicals and the effective distance. Again though, this is tempered by the use of iron sites. Newer sidelocks; however, are also capable of handling this charge and can utilize #11, mag #11 and musket caps, also.

As I see it, inline development is constantly moving toward the most advance technology possible. Ideally, they have a closed ignition system (like the T/C omega), utilize a 209 primer, shoot 150 grain charge, and have a 1:28" twist to handle the advancing sabots. Keeping this in mind, the only part that is legal in Oregon is the charge.

This is one of the things I like about Oregon's muzzleloader rules. The playing field is pretty level among hunters. The only advantage comes from practice and tuning your charge/projectile combination.

My ideal legal muzzleloader would be a sidelock wtih a camo synthetic stock, camo'ed barrell, capable of handling 150 grain charge, utilizes musket caps and has a 1:36" twist. IMHO opinion a faster twist is not beneficial for conicals, but is for sabots. Additionally, anything faster than 1:36" twist is too fast for round balls, especially with large charges.

The only modification I would make for WA hunting, would be a 1:28" twist as non-jacketed sabots are legal up here.

Well...did I win? :grin:

[Wreckless]

[img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] What Lured In said.

I like the fact that I can put a piece of tape over the "chamber" of my Knight for some rain protection.

[HarpMan]

Lured In,

Is Oregon, Washington, and Idaho to restrictive on their muzzle loaders? You seem very knowledgable about the product. 77% of muzzle loader sales are in 14 states of which the NW is not one because of the restrictions....Just curious if the general muzzler loader hunter in Oregon would like to use a more modern muzzle loaders..ie scope, fiber optic, closed ignition, sabots, etc....

What do you see as the purpose of the restrictions?

Plunker

[Scaup]

My .02, Oregon put the limitations on primarily to restrict harvest and increase hunting opportunities for traditional muzzleloaders. If Oregon allowed the use of all the technology, muzzleloader participation and harvest would go up and muzzleloading seasons would be curtailed.

I don't know what the 14 states are that account for 77% of the muzzleloader sales, but I would guess that they are states mainly in the East and South with large deer populations, large human populations, and limited amounts of public land. Many states that meet these criteria have limits on the use of modern firearms for safety reasons in many areas, but put no limits on muzzleloader technology to increase the harvest. These states have many areas that are shotgun or muzzleloader only. No matter how much powder you pack into a muzzloader, the bullet still won't travel as far as any standard centerfire deer cartidge.
Being that you can buy a scoped inline muzzloader for less than a decent slug barrel and have better range and accuracy shooting pellets and powerbelts, these states encourage their use to maximize the deer harvest.

[ 12-17-2003, 01:12 PM: Message edited by: Scaup ]

[HarpMan]

Scaup, your reasoning on the heavy muzzle loader states is correct and well understood. Just trying to get a feel for if Oregon ML hunters would like more hunting opportunities and if the restrictions are validated by those hunters participating. The prior survey and its resolutions mentioned by Radke have not satisfied all ML hunters I don't think.

Is the balance of hunting opportunities and ML technology correct and are ML hunters happy with the current status....In my journies through out the NW I hear it is not...but do not have the desired solution either..

[Radke]

A little more information on the survey from a few years back.

ODFW sent the survey's to anyone who had applied for a muzzleloader tag in the prior three years. They asked about 40 questions, ranging from what type of equipment people were using at that time, to what they would like to use. They asked specifically, what was more important, reduced opportunity for a tag but allowing to hunt with more technical equipment, or increasing opportunity at the expense of the technical edge. As you can imagine, not everyone replied to the survey, but those that did, about 70% preferred opportunity over technology. Are there hunters out there that didn't get what they hoped for, of course! But the majority of those responding did get what they wanted. To their credit, ODFW asked the affected population what they preferred, the affected population had the opportunity for input, ODFW enacted regulations based on a preponderance of respondents desires. Is the survey results still valid three years later, who knows?

[Lured In]

Plunker...I think Radke pretty much some up the reason for the restictions. The intent is to keep the overall harvest down and still provide ample opportunity.

Personally, I really like the restrictions. (Actually I participated in the survey, and yes, I got everything I wanted. ) The challenge comes from folks who are trying to hunt deer or elk with a muzzleloader in the same way the do with a centerfire rifle. It doesn't work that way. They want to sit and glass clear cuts, draws, etc where they used to be able to shoot 150-300+ yards. They didn't have to worry about missfires, or being able to see their sites, or the fact that they were likely only going to get one shot. Not to mention if they are good they might be able shoot a group within 2-3" at 100 yards.

All of these things are the reason we have muzzleloader seasons. It is more difficult in many ways. (Not saying that rifle hunting isn't hard). The development of inlines and other technology, as Radke described, was intended to increase harvest in areas where shooting centerfire was impractical. Muzzleloader hunting in the NW in not about increasing harvest, its about increasing opportunity.

Oddly enough, I believe good muzzleloader hunters have a higher percentage chance of harvesting an animal than centerfire hunters. Keep in mind I am talking about folks who know their gun, know thier game, and hunt like they can only shoot 100 yards. We get longer seasons, seasons that are either in the rut(deer) or late season(elk in the snow). These conditions actually up your opportunity to see game. But then you have to be able to hunt them with your muzzleloader. Its not easy, but its not supposed to be. [img]graemlins/idea.gif[/img]

Inline technology is cool. But it is not practical for the game managment challenges we have in the NW. :smile:

Those who complain want muzzleloader hunting to be easier, or more effective. IMHO that is the the problem. They need to remember, if you are going to play the game, you have to get used to the rules.

[HarpMan]

Radke,

Sounds like ODFW did their due dilagence on the subject and I for the most part agree with how they proceeded. The only problem I have with the survey is that it took into account only those who applied for ML hunts previous, not considering the hunting population who might have applied if the restrictions and season were different, but were in fact interested. ML hunting is growing, its interest can not be measured only by tag applications. It might be time for another more wide spread survey. 2003 offered 34 ML crontrolled hunt opportunites for deer, elk, antelope combined.

[HarpMan]

Lured In,

Well stated and I agree...What new technologies/improvements can be applied/added to ML's that will fall under the current regulations in the NW in which ML manufacturers are not addressing and or need to address...

[billc_sbio]

Hehe...thanks guys!

It's pretty much WHAT I figured!

Now I don't feel so bad (not that I would have) about NOT having an inline. Guess I would if everybody else did and could use all the "new technology".

Yep, I got that survey too...answered it in favor of more opportunities vs. new technology.

The only thing that they adopted that I wasn't really excited about is limiting of LONG bullets.

I was wondering "What's this?! This is NOT new technology!"

While I didn't have a "high tech" gun, I did have a replica of an old gun that was "high tech" in the 1860! It's a "Volunteer Rifle" which was a "sleeper" target rifle made for military matches over in England about the same time as our Civil War. It LOOKS like a Rifle-Musket (built on the 1853 pattern Enfield) but actually is a bullet rifle, designed to shoot long, heavy, bullets...essentially a "caseless .45-70"!

The new Oregon rules excluded that rifle; at least using its intended projectiles...I can still use it, just gotta get some shorter (shorter range now) bullets!

I did manage to harvest a deer this year with a muzzleloader...and it did have the big charge...and it was shooting loose blackpowder, and it did have a musket cap...and it was a sidelock! Guess I can't complain too much?!!

Oh, BTW, I get more RELIABLE 1st shot ignitions with a .58 Cal. fullstock FLINTLOCK Hawken rifle than I do with my caplocks that have been "put up" for awhile! Even when firing 2-3 caps BEFORE loading! :shocked:

[Fishbone]

Astute observation, Plunker.

The results of the 1999 survey are informational, at best. Only muzzleloader hunt applicants were surveyed, and although the survey elicited a significant number of responses, the results are certainly not representative of the population of "Oregon hunters."

The survey was a part of a larger study on the subject. Check out the study here:

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/ODFWhtml/...ader_regs.html

[Lured In]

Fishbone...I realize you may not be implying this, but are suggesting that folks who don't muzzleloader hunt should be able to participate in the survey?

In reviewing the survey results, they seems to be a clear majority in most of the critical areas including ignition type, powder form, primer and sites. The only suprising statistic was the request for sabots. The obvious conclusion is that sabots can instantly add effective range to any gun, although those with faster twist would benefit more.

I highly doubt we will all agree on every aspect, but like voting, the majority rules. At some point when the majority shifts, its time for a new survey.

My question is if you could change anything about the regs, what would it be and why?

[salmurai]

My$.02. I'm new to muzzleloading this year. I hunted and came away empty but a little smarter. I bought a Ruger muzzleloader. I believe it is legal in Oregon for muzzleloader hunts. I personally like Oregon's restrictive laws regarding muzzleloader hunts. It keeps the "hunt" part in "muzzleloader hunts". I think the archery rules should be more restrictive as well. Too much crap on the bow and not enough practice.....

[Radke]

I would tend to agree with LI that the advantages are not too great, probably most pronounced in the area of miss-fires. I have both an in-line and side-lock. I have never had a miss-fire with my in-line, but usually do with my side-lock after 6-10 shots. Regarding the current trend in Oregon to shy away from the higher-end technology. The state was thoughtful enough a few years back to poll the affected population asking what they wanted to see in this sport regarding the advancements in technology. What we now have is a reflection of those who participated in the survey. The majority preferred to have a greater chance of drawing a tag and was willing to give up some of the edge in technology. The state did (imho) a great job of re-caping what they found in that survey. It seemed the only thing people did not want to outlaw that the state chose to, was the use of sabots. The reasoning was that people seemed to prefer to keep muzzleloaders a short range weapon, and banning sabots went a long way to do that.