Post by LOVEMYLABXS on Jun 9, 2003 14:00:03 GMT -5
Not to start anything but what do you consider trraditional?? Does it have to be a flint lock shooting pillow ticking round balls? I consider my Hawkin percusion with buffalo balls a traditional but others don't. I'm not a big fan of inlines cause it just don't look like a smoke pole and I believe it hasn't got the classy lines of a Hawkin or Kentuck JMHO
He wags his tail, and the room looks as if a devasatating army had marched through it. - Jerome K. Jerome
I'm no expert by any means and I'm sure somebody more knowledgable than I will set us straight. I've always felt that if a gun was representitive of a gun from the 1840's (maybe 1870's) or prior it could be considered traditional. There are many guns on the market that have the basic lines, but not much more than that. Where is the cut-off line? I believe it is quite blurred, hence the fuel for many heated debates. Another thing, the types the traditional shooters eschew are nothing new. I don't recall the exact date, but they've been around as long as some traditional favorites. They sure didn't look like a bolt action with a ramrod under the barrel though. As to the projectile? A patch and ball gun is sure easy to clean, but only you knows whats in your barrel, right?
There is alot of opinions out there as to what it a traditional gun.some I agree with,some I dont.All i shoot is flint with round ball that was made for me(dont shoot off the shelf guns anymore), but my opinion is if it tries to follow the lines of the originals,than its traditional,some are just more so than others
In my opinion, I interpret the term 'traditional' as one of two high level categories that makes the basic separation of our muzzleloaders: 1) They either have or attempt to simulate some sort of "traditional" style and function; 2) Or they don't, and are clearly fashioned after some sort of obvious modern rifle style, ready for scopes, etc;
Then, as others far more knowledgeable than I know, after the first traditional category cut, the traditional category can then really be exploded down into many, many branches of the tree...ie, all the different types of traditional ignition, rifles vs. smoothbores, long rifles, half stocks, specific periods, specific styles, etc, etc, etc.
So at the high level of making the first selection, I categorize the TC Hawken in the 'traditional' category even thought its not period specific or an exact replica of a specific rifle.
And I think there have probably now been more TC Hawkens manufactured in the past 3-4 decades than all the half stock Hawkens that were ever carried out west.
And I also feel sure if a settler from that period saw a TC Hawken today, its close enough that he/she would immediately recognize it at least as a high quality, reasonable attempt to simuate one from that era.
I hope I'm right in my interpretation that would include the TC Hawkens in the traditional category because I shoot them all the time as "my choice" of a traditional style rifle.
The answeres to this question will vary, I have maintained theone uses the form and function method as a litmus test, The TC Hawken while not a true replica has the basic lines of a pre-1840 type gun... if you loose the modern sights, and leave the maxi balls at home you would have an outfit that would look pretty much like the old guns and "function" in the same manner, with the modern sights and bullets things change a bit. the architecture of the gun, the style of sights and the type of projectile are the big three when determining whether an outfit is traditional or a mix of old and new,I emphaise sights and projectiles because these are two things that modern styles are often used with an otherwise period type gun. most consider a bit of wiggle room allowable the "problem" arises when folks take a preference, and try to find a way to link it to history. REAL bullet, Lyman Peep for example and try to classify these or similar items as traditional because there were "conicals" and peeps, 200 years ago..true but todays offereing are not based upon or function with the same efficiency as the originals thus we have added modern advantages to a period type gun, this may seem to be nitpicking to some but when this line of thought is put forth as traditional what does it tell the newcommer who really wants to stick with period type gear, the bar has been lowered, I would be the first to say go for it if one came up with a documentable conical bullet of the 1830 era or a peep sight of the same time, but to take a peep off of a modern gun and shoot a modern style design bullet is horse of a different color and I am not saying it is wrong to do so ... only to try to call it "traditional" or period correct. As one makes the journey and expand their knowledge of what was and what wasn't the choice to go with the old ways may or maynot become an interest, but knowing the difference will go a long way in being able to communicate about the various aspects of the sport on a factual level, I've probably said enough and insulted or *%off a few but I do believe that logic and historical evidence support the thrust of my position, just remember it is not about what you use just what you call it,
I guess I'm in the wrong place then,sorry.I shoot a side lock with conical bullets and fiber optic sights.Why?I can't see the blade that came on it anymore(old eyes)and I bought it to hunt not to play Dan'lBoon.I guess I'll move to the other board.Again sorry.
;D I put a white dot on the tip of my front sight on my deer rifle, so dang it all I am not traditional any more.... but I ain't leaving here neither! ha ha ! It is a traditional dot, cause I traditionally put it on there ever year...... Kinda like a T/C Hawkin is a Traditional Hawkin ? says so right on the advertisement !
"If it Ain't a Smokin' & Stinkin', it is Merely an Imitation"
Post by Ridgerunner on Jun 11, 2003 6:47:21 GMT -5
Trapper is pretty much correct on this. But to be 100% traditional one would have to shoot an origional gun, wear traditional clothes ect. I think there are "degrees" in being traditional, and how far you want to be "traditional" is up to the shooter. ;D
I think we probably need to think in terms of "re-creating" history when we speak of traditional as there is not enough original stuff to go around so we are limited to "replicas" and you are very correct in stating that there are different levels of the "traditional" aspect of the sport for different people, but certain bench marks need be in place when we discuss what is or isn't or it will all run together, When I see a hunter with a gun that is basicly styles after a gun from the past TC Hawkin, LGP Cabelas Blue Ridge, using a patched RB and fixed sights I think he is pretty much going the traditional route maybe on the first or second rung of the ladder but on the way at any rate... now put a modern peep/scope and modern bullet or sabot in/on the gun and I see a fellow who is standing on the ground waiting to take the first step up the ladder, many stay there, some climb as far as they can toward the top if this is their goal. I see the biggest issue is trying to pass off modern stuff in a conversation that is meant to be traditional, it can present a skewed perception to those who may want to climb that laddder but do not have the knowledge to make the choices that will take them there. This may bring forth a debate on what is and isn't which is fine as the more info that is put forth the better one can make choices.I don't think one has to dress up like Crocket or Boone to be a traditional hunter, but a gun, with the general style, type of sights and projectile of the past is a real plus if the desire to hunt in the old ways and not mix the old and new is genuine.
It seems that IMHO that "Traditional" is a matter of opinion based on what you compare to. I hang out with several guys who shoot inlines and to them... I am "Traditional" maybe even down right primitive because I shoot a flintlock with primitve sights and patched ball. However: amoung other groups I have a modern style gun, use modern lubes, precut patches..... so I'm not "Traditional"? IMHO, Packdog
Post by mamaflinter on Jun 11, 2003 20:34:26 GMT -5
I have 3 bp rifles. Two of them would not technically be classified as traditional since they have no resemblence to original rifles of the times even though one of them is a flintlock. That's as close as they come to being traditional.
I think if you have a rifle that was built to resemble an original gun like Weasel was talking about that it could be considered traditional.
As far as lubes go, that's a whole new story. I guess if that was the case, I would be modern as well. I do not use "traditional" lube (I believe they used alot of bear grease or whale oil) and I use moose milk. Why? Because it works for me and it's readily available.
I would think that you have climbed a few steps up the ladder with a flinter that is similar to the guns of the 1830's loaded with patched ball, pre-cut patches are nothng new, there are few lubes made now that are chemicaly way out in left field from what was available in the past, either animal or vegetable based slippery stuff, you will at times find those who put "Historicaly correct" on the same level as "traditional" and I believe that the former is a quite a bit farther up the ladder. it is like the issue of making an authentic shirt, one level requires it to be patterned after the original and be visibly similar the other requires the same number of stitches per inch as an existing original, and there are many little things that we simply do not have a handle on what was or wasn't and often whether something was "common" or a rarity will enter the equation for some.I think if you stick to the forum and function when comparing what might or mightnot be considered traditional, in the sense of whether the item is similar in appearance and preformance you will see a pattern develope with all the stuff that is out there, many things are of a modern nature in order to give and advantage or make the task easier than the original style/type, compare the ballistics and loadeing ease of a modern maxi type bullet to the original 18th century solid , fllat based conical that may have even required a patch and maynot have been as accurate as a RB, or the primitive type adjustable sights or peeps with todays offerings ,all items can be compared in such a manner.... I think you be on the traditional path, even if you would not pass a juried event that set some tight historical standards, most of us wouldn't, as this is about the top of the ladder and most do not care to climb to that level.
Some folks look at it that way, others feel that if it loads from the front it is traditional because there were non-typical types of ignition in the 18th century most of the polls I have seen lean toward a more conservative definition of a "traditional" gun and include the main components, sights, architecture and projectiles all, of which need be based on or reasonably similar to something from the pre-cartridge era.I think the biggest factor in how people define traditional is the amount of time they have spent in the pursuit of the sport and whether an interest in history or the opportunity to fill an extra deer tag was tyhe motivating force tha got them started.
We have to make sure that traditional is really representive of what was available anywhere during the "traditional" period. The TC is a close copy of a "New England" style rifle of the early percussion period. If the early and late percussion period is, and I believe that it shoud be, included in the "traditional" era, then you need to also need to consider that the underhammer was used through New England and New your at the same time. The underhammer was not shown in movies and is not as well known as the "kentucky style" rifles. It was used during that period.
jeniffer123: Really nice post for dog lover and trainer.
Oct 11, 2017 12:28:22 GMT -5
rikus: Hi everyone we have a new hunting safari in South Africa please feel free to visit us at www.Savhs.co.za
Dec 9, 2017 9:00:11 GMT -5
madbeaver: This is a quiet forum....is anyone out there?
Dec 12, 2017 23:26:09 GMT -5
madbeaver: Just found a great podcast with Randy Newberg and the highlander hunting crew, for those of you that don't know how to podcast, the link is on this page: highlanderhunting.wordpress.com/
Jan 10, 2018 23:29:04 GMT -5
alberts: Hi, friends! was in Russia on hunting in this year. Used the Agency POWERINHUNT. No problem! I brought home a bear! Tell me, did someone address them?
Jun 9, 2018 4:41:01 GMT -5
souforce: Hi everyone I'm a beginner of hunting, can you give me some advice about hunting accessories? I plan to buy a riflescope from this website：https://www.souforce-hunting.com/c/riflescopes-0388
Apr 22, 2019 1:49:14 GMT -5
goodobjects: A newbie here. If you guys in need of hunting knives I have 2 up for grabs I would love to get your professional perspectives about hunting and would love sharing mine as well
May 6, 2019 8:47:56 GMT -5
gemihur: I have been in tombs that were more raucous than this forum.
Sept 10, 2019 16:24:47 GMT -5
gemihur: Seriously folks hunting season is on us. The allow 'urban archery' in my county! Does with bows, I call it. Let's stir up the old hunting excitement. Come On!
Sept 10, 2019 16:26:58 GMT -5
gemihur: Anyone planning to take down some whitetails this year?
Sept 10, 2019 16:27:48 GMT -5