Answer:

Posted by Don Million on 4/19/2004, 11:31 am, in reply to "What is a Traditional Muzzleloader ?" User logged in as: dmillion/co

My definition... Appearance, "technology" (whatever that means), and materials that would have been used in the days before brass cartridges became commonplace.

Posted by GEJ/TN on 4/19/2004, 12:52 pm, in reply to "Re: What is a Traditional Muzzleloader?" User logged in as: GEJ/TN

From what I can tell over the years here, any gun that sports any of the following characteristics - stainless steel, synthetic stock, centerfire style bolt, 209 style caps, fiber optic or glass enhanced sites (scope or red dot, for example) - is not going to be considered traditional. All the debates about when the inline ignition system was invented, and similar, are just wasted air.

One of the other posters said he would know it when he saw it. I agree. If the ramrod were removed and a casual observer could be fooled into thinking it was a centerfire or rimfire rifle, it wouldn't pass the "traditional" test.

Posted by KRM/NY on 4/19/2004, 11:53 am, in reply to "What is a Traditional Muzzleloader?" User logged in as: KRM/NY

Here I go, feeding the troll.

I can only answer for myself - the folks who run the board have the last say in what they view as acceptable here.

A traditional muzzleloader is a "historicaly inspired" creation in the spirit of original frontloaders of the 18th and 19th centuries. The loading proceedure includes the projectiles historically intended to be used with the arm in question, i.e. round ball, mini ball, sugar loaf etc, etc, and REAL black powder. Black powder substitutes, plastic sabots and other "modernisms" are beyond the pale.

The materials used in creating a this firearm would be historic materials, or as near as possible modern materials. Modern magna flux alloy steel would be acceptable where iron would be on orginals, stainless steel would not be acceptable. Wood, bone, brass and I am sure other period materials were used for stocks and would be acceptable on a "tradtional" muzzleloader. Plastics, fiberglass and other "space age" materials would not be acceptable stock material.

While certainly debateable, some modern materials and processes may be used in the creation of a "tradtional" muzzleloader, e.i. powder tools, epoxy bedding etc., but if the results are "in the spirit" it is a traditional muzzleloader.

While I prefer an arm based closely on a historic original, I would recognize a T/C Renegade or similar as a "traditional muzzleloader"

And just to completely beat the dead horse;

"Well, I seemed to stir up a bit of controversy in previous posts by stating I thought cap locks were inherently more accurate than flintlocks.."

My understanding of the ORIGINAL point had to do with how rapidly caplocks came into general military and semi-military use in the 19th century. That caplocks are "more accurate" or not was not relevant to any argument I made.

Posted by Walksalone/AZ on 4/19/2004, 12:05 pm, in reply to "What is a Traditional Muzzleloader?" User logged in as: Walksalone/AZ

Non-traditional is like porn, I know it when I see it.

And to post controversial subjects that will knowingly cause friction and dissent, is to, "troll".

Go to a certain un-named traditional muzzleloading site. It was destroyed because of the so called traditional debate. Now everything goes there, sabots, fiber optics, modern scopes & mounts, modern adjustable peeps, stainless steel, modern primers, &c, &c, &c, &c, &c, ad nauseam. The disrupter's theory was/is, if D. Boone and others in the days of yore would have had all the modern gee gaws, they would have used them. Some of the disrupters there have went so far as to call the HIDE people a bunch of "Nazis" for limiting membership and even making an attempt to keep our site traditional.

So, the disrupters got what they wanted with a everything goes policy, now the only thing that doesn't go there is "people". For the most part the former disrupters now post to each other every few days, while the ones whom tried to make it traditional but left under constant harassment are blamed for the site's demise.