Wow, this old thread lives!
I could care less about In-lines as long as they don't continue to screw up hunting and/or gun laws for the rest of us.
Smokin Gun, I'm trying to understand your perspective, but I must say I'm having a hard time.
How is it again that inlines and/or inline hunters 'screw up' hunting and gun laws for the traditional sidelockers?
You also raise red herrings. If you don't like *seeing* inlines, then by all means, don't go to a camp with people who use them. Choose a new camp. Hunt solo. And as for re-classifying sidelock MLs into firearms, so that you have to register your sidelock? First, you don't register guns (in most states anyhow), you go through a background check. Second, that's simply a matter of politics and politicians you (we) vote for. Do you think that people who use inlines are actually going to vote for politicians who would want to extend gun restrictions & gun "control", in any way, let alone expanding background checks or registration to MLs? No, not any of us with any political conscience. So therefore it's no more likely to result in a change in those type of laws than if inlines did not exist and/or were not legal during ML season. One's got nothing to do with the other. And third, it's ONLY the smokeless powder ML (Savage 10) and the MLs that can accept other centerfire barrels that require a white form, not any other MLs. If the gov't doesn't even perform a check on inlines which are BP only, then they're surely not going to come after your precious sidelocks. And finally, what's stopping you from using completely traditional gear during ML season, regardless of the regs? Or for that matter, during regular gun season? Get over yourself, and like someone said, live and let live. I don't see how it's harming you in any way. But maybe I'm missing something; please explain if I am. Actually, I can see one valid point you may have here. *To the extent that* a state requires orange during primitive season *solely due to* the extended range capabilities of the 150 gr inlines, then I can see why that would irritate you if you want to wear buckskin with fringe and coonskin hat. BUT, many states may have come to the conclusion that orange should/ would be required for safety's sake regardless of ML equipment type allowed - after all, primitive MLs still have a MUCH longer and more deadly range than any archery equipment, and second, even if the state didn't mandate it, wearing orange would be a good idea, and I would probably still use it. Maybe an orange-banded buckskin outfit? When there's a bunch of people in the woods, on diminishing public hunting grounds and such, orange is just the smart thing to do.
Doubletaptap, I disagree - they are not two "completely" different animals (for those of us who use lighter loads, similar to BP charges). They are essentially exactly the same - the only differences are that (1) Traditional guns are pretty (for the most part); the inlines are ugly (for the most part), (2) the inlines have removable breech plugs, which makes cleaning easier & better, and (3) the primer is shielded from moisture, as WBB alluded to, unlike a caplock perc cap. It is specifically these last two things which make some of use choose them to carry over a sidelock, and thus sacrificing looks to get these two things. The other thing of more power, yes that's an issue to some people, but I think they're kidding themselves, because most of them don't know their holdovers past 150 yards anyway with a heavy .50 cal bullet, 150 gr of BP equiv. or not. But there's nothing about a sidelock that prevents its user from using (1) powder pellets, (2) scopes, (3) FO sights, (4) conical and/or saboted bullets, and (5) BP equivalent substitutes that are easier to clean up, like Pyrodex and 777. All these are "cheats" which are not necessarily exclusive to inliners.
I would have no problem if the state said that primitive must be primitive in all respects (sidelock, no scope, nothing but loose powder, no conical bullets; only patched balls, no removable breech plugs, no fiber optic sights, no smokeless powder, etc., etc.). In fact, I would probably get into it bigtime. But the state does allow this stuff, and since they do, most people like me DO end up viewing it as just a way to extend rifle season in order to make it more likely to fill the freezer. Plus, as it happens in this state, the ML season corresponds much better to the pre-rut phase than the later rifle season, and so there is a higher chance of success for both bucks and does, so we do want to be in the woods that week. But hey, actually for this very reason, I would still want to be in the woods during this time even if they went back to making primitive truly primitive. In fact, what would be very cool is if they went back to all primitive, round balls and all, AND then move the ML season one to two weeks later than it is, so that it corresponds to the peak of the rut! Right now, there's a two-week period between ML and rifle seasons which is archery only, and this is when the rut peaks.
Anyway, sidelocks are very cool. But inline users should not be looked on as some kind of lepers. I'd actually even support the wildlife department changing it's rules back to more traditional, at the very least no scopes allowed, as it is in Colo. primitive. But until then, I'm going to use every available legal advantage (except smokeless, which IS legal here) during ML season, to fill the freezer. Now, when my hunting skills increase, I can definitely see myself eschewing the inlines for more and more traditional, to make it more challenging. Caplock, no scope, no pellets, patched ball...
Oh, and Deserfox brings up an excellent point:
I purchased an IL muzzleloader last year and shot my first deer with open sights. Loved it!
Now I am wanting to build my own flintlock and harvest a deer with it.
If I didn't experience the IL muzzleloader hunting, I probably wouldn't be wanting to go more primative.
I'm basically the same way - I probably would not be interested as I am in the sidelocks had I not started with the inline with the initial thought of just extending rifle season.
Same thing for archery. I went to an archery tourney last year put on by a traditional archery club. I had the ONLY compound bow there. NOW, as a result of talking with them and seeing their recurves, longbows, and even one-piece self-bows, and hearing the stories of the game taken with them, now I want a traditional bow myself. And, I did not hear one disparaging word uttered about my compound bow. So that's a lot more than I can say for the elitist traditional BP shooters on these forums!
So, in reality, allowing more technology will lead to more people "going primitive" as time goes by, so it adds to the numbers on the traditional side of it - to YOUR sport, Smokin Gun and others. So, it seems to me that the only way you can be against it is if you're wanting to reduce or keep steady the numbers of people in your sport, instead of wanting to increase the numbers partaking of your sport. I don't know - are you wanting to increase or hold steady, if you had your druthers? I can see not wanting to increase the numbers, so that you have the woods more to yourself during primitive season, though. So in truth, I guess I must reluctantly admit you have a point.
To each his own, since what a man hunts WITH does not MAKE him a hunter. The ability to "Bring home the bacon", is what seperates the hunters from the vegetarians.