Traditional or Not?

My most used ML, the one I reach for when it's time to go hunting (and the source of my forum name), T/C GreyHawk, shooting patched round balls, and sometimes Maxi-Hunters with good ol' Goex ffg, and open sights.  Traditional or not?  What say you?

Jeff

Well, it is a sidelock, but it sort of ends there. I guess it's more traditional than an inline.

It's a side lock with no sabots. That says "traditional" to me.

Lots of guys use sabots in a 1-48 twist. You can't judge a gun by that.

Would you call an inline traditional if it shoots a PRB?

It's a combination of things. An inline is not traditional. A sidelock is. Sabots are not traditional but PRBs are. Black powder is traditional but subs are not. Open sights are traditional but scopes shorter than 2-3' are not.
Add them all up and see which way the scale tips .. except for an inline which cancels out everything because it is definitely not traditional.

Sidelock , most definitely traditional

Lets say you took a Renegade, and put a 1-28 twist barrel on it. Then changed the stock to plastic with a modern shape. You them mounted a modern scope on it. Your load was BH 209 and sabots with a mag spark to ignite it.

Traditional, or something else?

Now you took an inline, and put on a classic traditional wood stock on it. You had a barrel fitted to it with a 1-70 twist, and primitive sights. You shot BP and a PRB.

Traditional, or something else?


Where do you draw the line on when a gun is truly traditional, or not?

Inlines, stainless steel, sabots and subs were not available 140 years ago.

No inline is traditional .. just look at it. A stainless sidelock with plastic stock, recoil pad, copper bullets in sabots with phony BP and a 12" scope is just a hunting rig to keep from getting a ticket in muzzleloading season.   

You must be in an arguing mood today because I know that you agree with me.

You do realize the Grey Hawk has a plastic stock, and the barrel and hardware are SS?

Now, before you get all huffy on me. I did say he's shooting traditional, because it's a sidelock, but also his load.

However, I feel the gun itself is borderline.

Just my .02


Read post #17

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?189053-Came-across-a-Greyhawk-yesterday

fancy traditional. The rifle cant help that tc used a plastic stock.

NOT traditional. Tho some modern made traditionals have coil springs those are not seen and even the GPR hunters have 1-20 something rifling again not seen. 

Grey hawk w blue or brown steel (wouldn't be grey then??) and wood could be considered TML.

I lines are not TML .

Time period has a lot to do with it.
The Ned Roberts classic, The Muzzle Loading Caplock Rifle, hardly mentions the use of round balls, dealing instead with a lot of various slug style projectiles. It even mentions using sealed ignition with modern rifle primers on heavy target rifles. However, for the most part, the shooting discussed, both hunting and target, is post Civil War. So, in the case of later style sidelock or underhammer percussion rifles, yeah, a lead or lead alloy conical bullet can be traditional. On a hunting or offhand target rifle, I still think "traditional" should be exposed ignition using a percussion cap
When it gets to flintlocks... well there might have been a flintlock or two that did not shoot round balls. But I have never heard of one.
The rifle pictured will never be mistaken for an original. However, it is probably as close as my first caplock, a birthday present in 1968, even if that gun had a wood stock and regular steel barrel.
Someone mentioned coil springs. I doubt if any pre-1870 (or later) had 'em. But, I'll bet there were not any cast "vee" mainsprings and frizzen springs either. That is what is on the vast majority of locks sold today. 
If it is a sidelock with exposed ignition, iron sights, loose powder, (NOT pellets) and the projectile is lead or lead alloy patched with cloth or paper it is traditional. Some rifles like Civil War muskets or sporting rifles intended for conicals can skip the patching.

There certainly is a huge difference between being traditional, and being PC.

I've had thoughts of being PC in the past, but it's way to picky for me. Snobbish if you will.

 
Being new to shooting traditional rifles, my thoughts go a long this line. It loads from the muzzle. You have to push the ball or bullet down the barrel and you have to put a cap to it to make it go off.
IMHO, it's a traditional rifle   

Ray................ 

You do all that with Knight inlines too Ray.

I have my own rules.

It has to be a sidelock. Flintlock or Caplock.
Wood stock.
Blued or browned barrel and hardware. Brass if you must.
Hex barrel.

I can carry it a bit farther by adding.

PRB, or all lead conicals.
Real BP.

But do all those other rifles have a hammer on the side of the barrel  

Ray............ 

No, because the Knight is an inline.

My point was you need more that loading at the muzzle, and using caps to be traditional.

Plastic stocks, fiber optic sights are okay here though.


"The rules are simple, please keep the modern stuff out!

We understand that your "traditional" rifle may have come with a plastic stock, Fiber Optic Sights, Plastic ramrods, and that is fine. We are not that snobby!" Edit: Except for maybe Muley   

I didn't think we were talking about the forum, but in general.

Ahhhh okay, I figured we were talking about the forum LOL. I didn't want anyone to get offended due to the rules the way they are. As long as its got a side hammer, loads in the muzzle and has the traditional styling but uses different materials, its still a traditional gun IMO. Remember, a lot of the plastic guns the companies made due to the eastern laws that put hunting season in very poor winter weather and they wanted to market the Non swelling stock when it gets wet/won't rust up SS Barrel, etc.

I figured that was all part of hunting with a traditional rifle. If you're going to modernize it you might as well shoot a modern rifle.

This is what I was hoping to see - an honest discussion about a topic with no easily defined answers.
I often long to add a smoothbore trade gun to the collection, purely to satisfy my love of early American history, and it'd be a real hoot to take pheasant hunting.  But, for deer hunting in the often damp conditions here in the northeast, the Greyhawk fills the bill for me, in a traditional kind o' way.  

Jeff

Enjoy it. However, in damp conditions it's not so much the stock and barrel material that's the problem. It's the cap and powder.

Interesting discussion regarding traditional vs modern (in-lines).  I lean towards FG's version.  At a certain point TC decided to make "traditional" style rifles with different materials to broaden their appeal (market).  It probably also had to do with the bottom line, $$$$.  Synthetic stocks were easier/cheaper to produce than walnut.  It was harder to find the wood stocked guns.  We actually  should be happy that TC made these guns which allowed more people get into muzzlelloading.

It also didn't help that their stock suppliers kept burning down lol. Weather conditions is another deal but in the end, the true reason is in fact $$$.