Which Do You Prefer? - Page 2

Captchee · May 3, 2014, 08:42 PM

Well first and foremost I love my traditional muzzleloaders . that’s all I own .
A few corrections though . Tony Knight did not invent the inline muzzleloader
Not only were folks converting cartridge guns to muzzleloaders well before Tony came along . But the actual inline plunger ignition design dates to the very early 1700’s in flintlock and later cap lock before it morphed in to the needle gun and later center fire cartridge .
I myself built my first muzzleloader in 1977 . It was a converted O3A3
IE all I did was ,Breach the barrel and add a nipple to the center of the breech that was followed by spacing the bolt and firing pin .
Why ?/ well because i got the gun for 10.00 and I wanted a muzzleloader . since I was apprenticing I a gun shop at the time , the gunsmith taught me on that old 6 number Remington
What Tony did was apply a 280 year old ignition design to a modern stock that the public was familiar with . Then market and mass produce it as the MK 85 .

oh and the under hammer . its been around along time to , early part of the 1800's .
Texas put in orders for thier military , not long after becoming a republic . the design had been around for some time by them

B.L.E. · May 3, 2014, 09:24 PM

Yes underhammer locks are historically correct, it's just that we didn't see them in Davy Crockett movies.

It's an ingeniously simple lock that uses the trigger guard as the main spring.

You see a lot of underhammers on the bench rest guns at Friendship. The fire from the cap has a straight path to the powder charge, it doesn't have to make a 90 degree turn in the drum or patent breech.

Also authentic is the box lock, it's like a modern inline but uses a rotary hammer to hit the cap, revolvers use a box lock design.

Pahoo · May 5, 2014, 02:23 PM

Quote:

A few corrections though . Tony Knight did not invent the inline muzzleloader

I went back and reviewed all the replies and could not find where anyone, including myself, gave credit to Toney Knight for the invention of the In-Line. Most of us know that technically, there were In-Line designs invented a long time ago. So long that I have never seen credit given to anyone. ......

You obviously lost the spirit of what I was trying to communicate and that is that Toney Knight saw a need for his MML and did not appreciate what some folks were doing to their SideLocks, during the M/L renaissance period of the early 80's . Granted, he made money but give credit for his efforts, in regards to preserving traditional designs. ....

Be Safe !!!

bedbugbilly · May 8, 2014, 09:01 AM

Traditional all the way for me. I just don't care for the thought of "inlines" - - sort of takes away from the history of front stuffers for me.

But . . . to each their own . . . we're all different and like different things.

Captchee · May 8, 2014, 06:56 PM

I went back and reviewed all the replies and could not find where anyone, including myself, gave credit to Toney Knight for the invention of the In-Line
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
never said you did Pahoo now did i.
however i would agree with your point of knowing about the issue . Tony didnt build the 85 because he didn’t like folks adding scopes and such on a side lock . he built it because he and a group of friends couldn’t figure out how to make a traditional side lock fire in crappy weather , issues with the hammers missing the scopes ………

But anyway im not going to argue the point with you as regardless the reasoning , he wasn’t the first , it wasn’t a new idea and frankly in the beginning nothing more then a very good marketing ploy.
I just like you support muzzleloaders. We just have a different opinion as to what a muzzleloader is .
Ill leave it at that as I sure no one really wants to hear me go on a anti inline rant , which im well known for doing .
So you be safe

jeager106 · May 17, 2014, 09:30 PM

I vastly prefer trad & holy Black Powder!
I do own & understand the modern inline.
Ohio has been stuck with s.g. slugs, or muzzle loaders or handguns.
Lots of hunters went with inlines over the s.g. due to good accuracy, inexpensive ammo compared to sabot slugs, etc.
Ohio just allowed rifles in straight wall cgts, i.e. .357, .44 mag, .435 Colt,.444 Marlin, .45-70 7 so forth. Since I have Marlins in .357, .44 mag, .45 Colt & 45-70 I'll not need the inlines ever again so will sell 'em.
I'll be using my custom built flinters in muzzle loader late & early seasons.
I also have a Lyman cap lock in .54, a great trad rifle looking good enough to be an original. It's taken meat for me.
i'll be keeping my T/C Hawkens too as they serve my purposes just fine.

Buzzcook · May 19, 2014, 01:35 AM

I only have the one CVA kit from many years ago. It's loads of fun.

Can't imagine getting dressed up like a voyageur with a modern in line.

May 3, 2014, 09:24 PM	#27
B.L.E. Senior Member Join Date: December 20, 2008 Location: Somewhere on the Southern shore of Lake Travis, TX Posts: 2,603	Yes underhammer locks are historically correct, it's just that we didn't see them in Davy Crockett movies. It's an ingeniously simple lock that uses the trigger guard as the main spring. You see a lot of underhammers on the bench rest guns at Friendship. The fire from the cap has a straight path to the powder charge, it doesn't have to make a 90 degree turn in the drum or patent breech. Also authentic is the box lock, it's like a modern inline but uses a rotary hammer to hit the cap, revolvers use a box lock design. __________________ Hanlon's Razor "Do not invoke conspiracy as explanation when ignorance and incompetence will suffice, as conspiracy implies intelligence and organization."

May 8, 2014, 09:01 AM	#29
bedbugbilly Senior Member Join Date: November 19, 2009 Posts: 3,287	Traditional all the way for me. I just don't care for the thought of "inlines" - - sort of takes away from the history of front stuffers for me. But . . . to each their own . . . we're all different and like different things. __________________ If a pair of '51 Navies were good enough for Billy Hickok, then a single Navy on my right hip is good enough for me . . . besides . . . I'm probably only half as good as he was anyways. Hiram's Rangers Badge #63

May 8, 2014, 06:56 PM	#30
Captchee Senior Member Join Date: April 2, 2013 Posts: 439	I went back and reviewed all the replies and could not find where anyone, including myself, gave credit to Toney Knight for the invention of the In-Line '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' never said you did Pahoo now did i. however i would agree with your point of knowing about the issue . Tony didnt build the 85 because he didn’t like folks adding scopes and such on a side lock . he built it because he and a group of friends couldn’t figure out how to make a traditional side lock fire in crappy weather , issues with the hammers missing the scopes ……… But anyway im not going to argue the point with you as regardless the reasoning , he wasn’t the first , it wasn’t a new idea and frankly in the beginning nothing more then a very good marketing ploy. I just like you support muzzleloaders. We just have a different opinion as to what a muzzleloader is . Ill leave it at that as I sure no one really wants to hear me go on a anti inline rant , which im well known for doing . So you be safe Last edited by Captchee; May 8, 2014 at 07:12 PM.

May 3, 2014, 08:42 PM	#26
Captchee Senior Member Join Date: April 2, 2013 Posts: 439	Well first and foremost I love my traditional muzzleloaders . that’s all I own . A few corrections though . Tony Knight did not invent the inline muzzleloader Not only were folks converting cartridge guns to muzzleloaders well before Tony came along . But the actual inline plunger ignition design dates to the very early 1700’s in flintlock and later cap lock before it morphed in to the needle gun and later center fire cartridge . I myself built my first muzzleloader in 1977 . It was a converted O3A3 IE all I did was ,Breach the barrel and add a nipple to the center of the breech that was followed by spacing the bolt and firing pin . Why ?/ well because i got the gun for 10.00 and I wanted a muzzleloader . since I was apprenticing I a gun shop at the time , the gunsmith taught me on that old 6 number Remington What Tony did was apply a 280 year old ignition design to a modern stock that the public was familiar with . Then market and mass produce it as the MK 85 . oh and the under hammer . its been around along time to , early part of the 1800's . Texas put in orders for thier military , not long after becoming a republic . the design had been around for some time by them

May 17, 2014, 09:30 PM	#31
jeager106 Junior member Join Date: November 24, 2006 Location: N.E. Oh. Posts: 527	I vastly prefer trad & holy Black Powder! I do own & understand the modern inline. Ohio has been stuck with s.g. slugs, or muzzle loaders or handguns. Lots of hunters went with inlines over the s.g. due to good accuracy, inexpensive ammo compared to sabot slugs, etc. Ohio just allowed rifles in straight wall cgts, i.e. .357, .44 mag, .435 Colt,.444 Marlin, .45-70 7 so forth. Since I have Marlins in .357, .44 mag, .45 Colt & 45-70 I'll not need the inlines ever again so will sell 'em. I'll be using my custom built flinters in muzzle loader late & early seasons. I also have a Lyman cap lock in .54, a great trad rifle looking good enough to be an original. It's taken meat for me. i'll be keeping my T/C Hawkens too as they serve my purposes just fine.

May 19, 2014, 01:35 AM	#32
Buzzcook Senior Member Join Date: November 29, 2007 Location: Everett, WA Posts: 6,126	I only have the one CVA kit from many years ago. It's loads of fun. Can't imagine getting dressed up like a voyageur with a modern in line.