HOME
ABOUT
OTHMAR
EVENT
SCHEDULE
TESTIMONIALS
PHOTO
ALBUM
FIELD NOTES
PRESS RELEASES
ARTICLE
INDEX
SPONSORS
OUTFITTERS
BLOGS
ASK OTHMAR
SPONSOR
INFO
PRODUCT REVIEW
POLICY
LINKS
|
ARTICLES
A muzzleloader by any name is still a
muzzleloader
January,
2009
©
By
Othmar Vohringer
This
is the 21st century
and we’re faced with huge problems that could end the hunting
and shooting
tradition for the next generation if we do not wake up to the
challenges we
face.
Yesterday
my wife and I drove to the Lower Mainland
to visit with friends and family. Apart from the Coquihalla summit
where it was
icy and slushy the drive went smooth.
On
arrival
in Langley my wife attended to family
matters and I meet up with a member of a gun club who had previously
asked me
for my opinion on a muzzleloader shooting program. Apparently the club
wants to
get more members involved in muzzleloader shooting and the man wanted
my input
on how to achieve that. “What do you think Othmar”
he
asked, “Should we make
two programs, one for traditional flint and cap lock muzzleloaders and
one for
modern in-line muzzleloaders? The way he said “in-line
muzzleloader” gave me
the impression that he was not thinking very highly of them.
Since I was asked for my opinion I gave it to him regardless of his
feelings he
might harbor against in-line muzzleloaders. “If you want to
make
the front
stuffer shooting program popular then why not include in-line
muzzleloaders too
instead of making two different programs. After all a muzzleloader is a
muzzleloader and there are more people shooting in-lines these days
then other
types of front stuffers.” I had a fair hunch of what the guy
was
about to say
before he opened his mouth. The look in his eyes was telling me what
was about
to come.
Sure enough, as suspected, I was subjected to a lengthy monologue of
the usual
in-line rhetoric. I am not going to bore you with its entirety. Suffice
to say
it ended with, “…and they just don’t
look like
muzzleloaders.” Other key
phrases where “unfair advantage” and,
“Inline
muzzleloaders are unethical.”
Hang on a minute, what exactly did the guy mean with “unfair
advantage”? Well
here is the narrated explanation. An in-line uses a different ignition
system
and uses the much hotter shot shell primers, rather then the slower
burning
ignition of flint or percussion cap. This means the likelihood of
failing to
fire or delayed ignition is reduced to almost zero in an in-line
muzzleloader.
Maybe I am missing the point but to me that is a good thing.
So what’s up with the argument that modern in-line
muzzleloaders
are unethical?
There is no such thing as an unethical hunting tool. Guns are tools
without a
brain and without feelings. It’s the person using that tool
that
makes the
decision to act ethically or not. You can use a hammer for what it is
intended
and drive a nail into the wall or what it is not intended and smash
someone’s
skull with it. Does that make the hammer an unethical tool? Not likely.
It’s
the same with a hunting tool.
Another argument that came up was that in-line muzzleloaders hit the
targets,
made for the softer impact of traditional muzzleloaders, too hard.
That’s easy
to fix. In that case you either build stronger targets or make a
stipulation
that in-line muzzleloaders can’t use high powered loads when
the
shooter uses
the traditional muzzleloader shooting trail. The good thing
about
muzzleloaders is that you can up- and download the load to your exact
needs.
You're not reliant on factory loads like the ones used for bolt-action
rifles.
Before I moved to Canada I owned and shot a Thomson Center Renegade
with cap
lock ignition, shooting round balls and lead conical bullets. I also
owned and
shot a Thomson Center Black Diamond in-line muzzleloader loaded with
saboted
pistol bullet, pushed out the barrel at lightening speeds and power by
150
grain of Pirotex pellets. Unfortunately I ended up selling them both,
along
with all my other firearms because I couldn’t be bothered to
get
involved with
the endless and expensive paper trail to get all my firearms across the
border
into Canada.
In the near future I am going to buy new muzzleloaders. I have set my
eyes on a
Thomson Center Triumph Bone Collector. Sadly Thomson Center doesn't
make the
Renegade anymore. The next best choice to the Renegade in my opinion is
the
Lyman Deerstalker. Why two different muzzleloaders you may ask? Simply
because
I can and because I like to shoot and hunt with both types. For me
hunting and
shooting is all about having fun and not about fitting into a category.
But I
digress.
Having experience with both types of muzzleloaders qualifies me to give
my
unbiased opinion on the matter of traditional v. modern front loaders.
I have
shot round lead balls pushed by 50 grain of black powder from my Black
Diamond
gun and I have shot sabots with pistol bullets pushed by 150 grains of
Pirotex
from the Renegade. While it is true that the Black Diamond, with a
faster rate
of twist, was less accurate with a slow load and the Renegade was
equally less
accurate with a fast load pushed through a barrel with a slow rate of
twist the
difference was minimal. What I am trying to say with that is that both
types of
firearms can be up-loaded and downloaded and still maintain acceptable
accuracy. With that said, an inline muzzleloader could be used on a
target
trail built for traditional black powder guns without destroying the
targets
designed for slow and soft loads.
As for the argument that a modern Inline looks like a center fire
rifle, you’re
right it looks like a center fire rifle but that is where the
similarity ends.
A modern inline is still a traditional muzzleloader because the shooter
still
has to build each load individually and push it from the front down the
barrel.
The only difference is that due to a better ignition and the capability
of
handling bigger loads you’re able to shoot a bit further with
it
then with a
cap lock or flint muzzleloader. Mind you, I tweaked the Renegade and
built up a
load using a conical bullet that retained enough power and accuracy to
take any
deer sized game out to 85 yards without any problems.
This is the 21st century and we’re faced with huge problems
that
could end the
hunting and shooting tradition for the next generation if we do not
wake up to
the challenges we face. I am glad that with sound reasoning and
knowledge I was
able to convince my hunting club acquaintance that with a little good
will and
respect all types of muzzleloaders can be combined into one. I am also
pleased
to see that the guy realized that we’re faced with more
important
issues then
who shoots what. It is my hope that in the future we can concentrate
more on
what unites us all and less on what divides us. We’re all in
the
same boat and
the sooner we realize that the better our future will look.
----------------------------------
Authors
comment: this column created quite the buzz
on the Internet and received rave reviews. Dayne Shuda editor of
Hunting
Business Marketing wrote:
“Othmar
always has a great
talent for writing, which makes this post excellent and easy to follow.
He
had many great
characteristics of remarkable blog posts in his article. He took a
controversial topic and used his great opinion to provide value to his
readers.
He used a real life story and ended with a positive message.
All
of these things made the
story relatable.
Great
job Othmar.”
Read
more testimonials.
Please
note
that the content on
this site is protected from plagiarism by Copyscape.
Unauthorized use will be detected. Any
reproduction of this work, in whole
or part, in any media is prohibited unless expressly granted by the
author.
For more
information,
see the copyright
notice.
Contact the Author.
I welcome assignments from hunting
magazines,
newspapers and outdoor product manufactures. Send for queries and
requests by email.
|
|
