|
Post by 10ga on Mar 4, 2010 21:07:32 GMT -5
There is a new anti-inline/smokeless post over on Castboolits castboolits.gunloads.com/in the MUZZLELOADING forum. Same stuff getting spread around. Some people obviously don't do their homework. Probably the same ones that got all D in school, and couldn't even get interested in shop. Just thought I'd pass the info along. 10 ga
|
|
|
Post by lwh723 on Mar 6, 2010 18:03:36 GMT -5
There is a new anti-inline/smokeless post over on Castboolits castboolits.gunloads.com/in the MUZZLELOADING forum. Same stuff getting spread around. Some people obviously don't do their homework. Probably the same ones that got all D in school, and couldn't even get interested in shop. Just thought I'd pass the info along. 10 ga I sure hope I never talk out of my butt about something like some of the people are doing in that thread.
|
|
|
Post by artjr338wm on May 21, 2010 17:57:48 GMT -5
I do not even have to link there and read it, let me guess, inlines and smokeless inlines are to advanced, are = to rifles, will hurt us, yada, yada, yada.
The fact is the concept and design of a "Inline ML are over 300 years old, so so much for "inlines" being a new state of the art ML design.
It is also fact that scopes first appeared on MLs over 100yrs ago.
During the Civil war there were confirmed sniper kills on both side well over 300yrds using scoped MLs, so if a well trained marksman with a scoped side hammer design ML can hit a man at 300yrds with regularity over 130yrs ago , what exactly then is the definition of a "Primitive Firearm"? Add to this debate the fact that snipers or sharp shooters as they were called then, back in our Revolutionary war of independence from England were hitting British officers again at distances of 200 to 300yrds with flintlocks no less and again I ask some one to define for me what exactly is a "Primitive Weapon" and by what or who's standards does one make such a firearms judgment or classification?
So given all the facts I listed above, I just love our fellow hunters who bash inlines as being to "advanced" when they first dress in 21st century technology clothing and boots to keep them worm and dry while hunting in harsh conditions, then get into their climate controlled, multi $1000 truck or SUV to drive to their hunting area, some more fortunate than I then use a ATV to drive to their actual hunting site, some even use trail cams to give them the heads up on what buck is where, others use GPS to get to their area, once there climb high above their quary into their ultra modern tree stand, in short make use of every other type of modern 21st century hunting spacific technology there is out there to maximize their chances of success only to hunt with what is in their definition a "primitive weapon".
Now I know what I describe does not apply evenly to all people who oppose inlines, but most of it it certainly applies to 50% or more that do. I mean after all how primitive is your hunt when the only piece of equipment your hunting with that is not state of the art is the ML your using? and even then to days MLs are manufactured to much higher standards than those of only 50yrs ago let alone 100.
I chose my first inline over a side hammer for cleaning connivance and ignition reliability and IMHO a stronger, safer design and the potential for better accuracy.
About 15-17yrs ago the first ML I ever shot was my friends T/C 50cal Hawken and after some instruction a little practice, with iron sights I was hitting a 9" paper plate at will at 150 yrds. Loved the DBL set triggers, but absolutely hated the PITA it was to clean. That more than anything is why when the time came I bought a inline.
Exactly, and by who's definition does one define a ML as primitive or not? I have seen .50cal Hawkens with excellent, fully adjustable iron sights with a 1:28 twist barrel that can shoot saboted bullets, would that still be considered by the self appointed ML police as a "Primitive ML"? I have also seen a T/C Hawken model called the IIRC "Fire Storm" that featured 209 ignition and able to shoot BP subs also with a 1:28 twist barrel meant to shoot saboted bullets, does this Hawken still qualify as a primitive weapon to the purists of our sport? Bottom line, you can not fight progress in technology, and firearm makers are going to give the hunting public what they want. And Inlines out sell all other ML types combined, and dramatically so. Weather or not our grand kids will get to enjoy hunting comes down to nothing more than a numbers game, and the more hunters we can get in the field spending more hours hunting the longer the numbers will remain in our favor. It is that simple. So to all you who oppose other wise legal means of hunting shut your God Da*mn mouths long enough to think and understand what I have said. Hunter numbers are the future of hunting.
Ignorance is not bliss, it's just ignorance.
|
|
|
Post by 1shot1kill on May 22, 2010 23:32:40 GMT -5
Bravo, artjr338wm, Bravo!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by deadeer on May 26, 2010 0:36:39 GMT -5
Somebody needs to link Art's post on their site. Good job Art, well put bud.
Jay
|
|
|
Post by Jon on May 26, 2010 7:55:17 GMT -5
Art could not be said better. Jon
|
|
|
Post by dougedwards on Jul 2, 2010 10:05:42 GMT -5
I did not even open the link because I know what it says. The same misconceptions exist in the archery forums concerning crossbows. It must be part of human nature to desire to denigrate something else. Having and stating an opinion is one thing.......but these types of attacks involve some character assassinations which of course will focus on the person and not the product.
My negative experiences in such forums has had an indirect positive affect in that I am slow to verbally attack the President and those who maintain the power in Congress but remember to rather focus on the policies, philosophies and viewpoints lest I become like those who appear childish and self serving in their approach to diplomatic conversation. (yes I know that some have no intention of any type of diplomacy or respect for the opinions of others)
Doug
|
|
|
Post by rjhans53 on Jul 2, 2010 18:32:48 GMT -5
Art you only left out one little item. They use modern barrels and not damascis twist barrels. They are loosing the excitement of every time they pull the trigger the gun might blow up on them. ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by Tarheel on Jul 6, 2010 10:35:29 GMT -5
I just read the responses and there are just a few "purists" that are anti-inlines. Most are attributing the accident to shooter error which is where it belongs
|
|
|
Post by wilmsmeyer on Jul 6, 2010 22:28:30 GMT -5
Art,
Very well said...lot's of logic there.
I was once one of the guys who thought crossbows were a nuisance to bowhunting. Although I still don't think I would use one, I have a respect that it's a valid implement. I think that my argument was that it's easier then a bow. One can sit there and wait forever with a drawn "bow"...aim it with a scope and keep the element of surprise. But what kind of bow? A compound is certainly easier then a recurve or long bow....A fixed 3 bladed broadhead is certainly easier to tune then flint.....plastic fletching is certainly more consistent then feathers...especially in the rain and wet snow....a carbon arrow is certainly more consistent then a cedar shaft....it never ends.
The over-riding principle is to keep hunting alive and well and however it's done is fine with me. I would like a stun bow where I could shoot, score the beast, and let him go if he were not big enough. A catch - and - release sort of weapon. ;D ;D One day.
Your comments make complete sense and there are a lot of wacky people out there. If one plays by the rules...even as they change in your state....using an allowed weapon with all the ethical standards of a sportsman....go forth and hunt.
I didn't bother to read the post in question, and after reading Art's response, I realized I didn't need to waste my time.
|
|
|
Post by cfvickers on Jul 10, 2010 17:33:51 GMT -5
Here is my take on MLs of ANY SORT. Everyone who shoots one likes it for their own reason. I like the idea of not having a terrible smelly mess and not having to clean my gun every three shots. But the point to me behind ML rifles is the point that they force you to become a better marksman because there is no option for a follow up shot and if you want to shoot 300 yards you better be a really good shot. My longest shot on a deer was 200 yards, I have done it twice, both times with black powder rifles, first when I was 16 with an 54 cal underhammer made by Danny Thomkins in Carlisle, Arkansas with 90 grains of FFF and a 240 grain XTP. My sight was an unmagnified aimpoint red dot. My second was with my black diamond XR Super 45. Both deer fell dead DRT. The 45 was loaded with a saboted 40 cal 180 grain Knight Red Hot. My point is that I have never seen any advantage or disadvantage from either the more primitive ML or the newer in line. The 45 gives me more range if I load it with a magnum charge but you can just as easily kill with a "primitive" ML at that range as long as it is capable of the kind of accuracy you would need. there are dozens of "Primitive" ML builders who can make a black powder gun shoot 1 inch groups at 100 yards, and if you hold right with a 100 grain charge of powder even an old buffalo bullet will kill at 300 yards. I think with our in lines loaded with smokeless powder we are still limited to just over 300 yards just like black powder and it is still an equally difficult shot. so the main difference is what powder the gun is loaded with. I can reload that underhammer quicker than my Savage or my Black diamond, but follow up shots are still voided. they just miss the point. If they want to get into that argument I would ask why they are not shooting a bow or a smooth bored single projectile ML with an old patched round ball. If the barrel was made in the last 40 years and it is rifled, then it is most likely just as capable as our in lines. Ours simply looks different. Like I said, the only advantage I can see is that we don't have to clean every three shots. It is personal choice but the advantage when in the woods is very small, almost nonexistent. i got the Black Diamond as a christmas gift and although gracious I didn't see any point in it. My dad simply thought I needed to keep up with the other hunters in camp and have something that looked cool. Nobody ever questioned the capability of my Lost Creek Underhammer. And I still take it from time to time, and deer still fall dead every time I pull the trigger. they think a traditional ML looks cool and we think a newer rifle looks cool, that is pretty much what it boils down too. We could make the argument that our rifles make us more capable of humane kills because people have killed more deer and had less that were hit and lost since the in lines came along, but I believe it is because many who never hunted with a ML started using one due to the more reliable appearance. But we all know that if our weapons get water in the action, we are screwed, and that has always been the case regardless of the style of ML.
|
|