What is an inline good for?

tachelberry said:

The inline feature is a far more reliable form of ignition.

Click to expand...

My experience is just the opposite. I believe inlines, with their hidden ignition systems, are far less reliable than traditional caplocks.

.38 Special said:

My experience is just the opposite. I believe inlines, with their hidden ignition systems, are far less reliable than traditional caplocks.

Click to expand...

I definitely disagree here. I used to shoot a cap lock T/C . Had lot's of miss fires with it, have had almost none with my inline..

brewer12345 said:

Wow, that is ridiculous.

Click to expand...

If you saw how overpopulated we are with deer here in West TN, you'd understand. Body shops are plentiful around here, probably a dozen deer/ car incidents a week just in the small town I live in. We can't hunt with break action singles yet, but very few here would be opposed to it, I know my insurance company would welcome it.

Hugger-4641 said:

I definitely disagree here. I used to shoot a cap lock T/C . Had lot's of miss fires with it, have had almost none with my inline..

Click to expand...

If a traditional caplock doesn't go off instantly, every time, something is wrong with it.

.38 Special said:

If a traditional caplock doesn't go off instantly, every time, something is wrong with it.

Click to expand...

I don't think there was anything wrong with the rifle. When the caps went off, it worked fine. I think the quality of the caps is/was not as good as the 209 primers I use in my inline.

brewer12345 said:

Lived in Ohio and other places overrun with deer, so I get the population issues. I was referring to the idea of cartridge rifles used in an allegedly primitive season.

Click to expand...

Why is that any different than a scoped, pellet burning inline shooting a modern polymer- tipped, sabot clad copper jacketed bullet and using 209 shotgun primers for ignition?

All I can say is: I'm gonna shoot my inline and not really worry about what you or anyone else is shooting. Use a blunderbuss if you want, doesn't affect me one way or the other.

For me it's the attitude that goes with the inline crowd, not saying all of them, stick 3 Pyrodex pellets down the barrel, a pointy modern bullet, shoot at game animals with no accuracy testing and think wow I've got the greatest thing since toilet paper was invented. I used to advertise in a modern muzzleloaders magazine and read numerous articles on loading and hunting, the common thread was use strictly 50 grain pellets, never develop your load with loose powder, and no patched round ball. I found it irritating that these so called black powder gun experts writing these stories had no real concept of what the guns are truly capable of. I think the inlines themselves are well made pieces for the most part, I just have no desire to own one.

Everyone has a slightly different reason for shooting BP. Mine is to replicate and rely on historical methods and used to be to continue shooting through this extended ammo shortage (before everyone else got the same idea and manufacturers started playing the artificial scarcity game to jack up prices). So, I tend to be a snob about ahistorical guns. That said, I only actually get cranky when unscrupulous manufacturers make replicas, but fudge important details while retaining the name of the original. Lying to the customer is uncool, plus it renovates history so that replicas potentially get less faithful by degrees. I actually look favorably on brand new designs that market them accordingly, since it increases the number of people who use percussion and flintlock arms and drives the interest in historical designs for those who catch the bug.

My eyes are bad enough that I need glass on my gun to hunt. So I bought an inline to hunt deer.
The glass on it takes me from not being able to hit the target at 50yds to hitting bullseyes at 100yds.

Jackrabbit1957 said:

For me it's the attitude that goes with the inline crowd, not saying all of them, stick 3 Pyrodex pellets down the barrel, a pointy modern bullet, shoot at game animals with no accuracy testing and think wow I've got the greatest thing since toilet paper was invented. I used to advertise in a modern muzzleloaders magazine and read numerous articles on loading and hunting, the common thread was use strictly 50 grain pellets, never develop your load with loose powder, and no patched round ball. I found it irritating that these so called black powder gun experts writing these stories had no real concept of what the guns are truly capable of. I think the inlines themselves are well made pieces for the most part, I just have no desire to own one.

Click to expand...

Well, if it makes you feel better, I don't use pellets, I use pyrodex, but I don't play with the load much. 100gr seems to work fine for me. I do use ballistic tip sabots.

AK Hunter said:

My eyes are bad enough that I need glass on my gun to hunt. So I bought an inline to hunt deer.
The glass on it takes me from not being able to hit the target at 50yds to hitting bullseyes at 100yds.

Click to expand...

Sounds reasonable to me.

From a historical perspective, inlines are the next step of evolution from improving manufacturing methods. I don't want one, but I can see why some do.

As for being more reliable, I've found that's often a product of operator error or not. It's entirely possible to screw up an inline just as badly as a traditional sidelock. Many failures to fire in a traditional gun can be traced back directly to type of powder, care of bore, care of flash channel, lack of proper maintenance. My competition musket has had ZERO failures to fire in the past few years. Same with my 1863 Sharps and 1842 Macon. That said, the Macon did have one and it was because the guy I loaned it to dry balled it and that's not the guns fault. If you forget powder, there's no way a cap is going to do much.

There are also untold thousands of inlines out there in rusty crusty states that are a direct reflection of the people who buy them. People who want as little to do as possible with the muzzleloading process. Hence, they either don’t know how or don’t properly clean the gun and then it corrodes until next hunting season.

Granted this is likely an exception but if you look on GB you will see an alarming number of ads for multiple MLs that all have terrible bores and are being sold off for pennies on the dollar.

4v50 Gary said:

We had someone post an inline from the 1850s. The hammer was inside the frame (my word for tang and trigger guard like bar) and that part of the stock was exposed so you can see the hammer and the nipple.

It's the only inline I would own (or make for myself).

Click to expand...

I missed that! Is there a photo? For me the appeal of inlines is with percussion caps, not 209 primers. Id love to see an early version of the idea.

I have a Double Kodiak 58, FF Bp
I have a Encore Pro Hunter- Substitute Bp
I have a Cva Electra

Consider the low availability of Bp now, a Substitute Bp in-line would be a good idea

My Encore Stainless with a scope can be outfitted with a different barrel for whatever I’d like to use caliber wise.

Yet when I go hunting, don’t shoot, I can pop open the breech plug with my fingers, unload the Powder and push the Bullet back out. Clean the Chamber and swipe bore…..

Super clean process.

For me, as a "collector" (maybe someday I'll have the funds), I think an inline is interesting.

When it comes to firearms, ideally I'd like to have something from every generation. For example, I have an 1851 navy, sorta first gen revolver. So I'd like a percussion pistol (like a Kentucky pistol) as an example from the previous generation, and a single action army as the next generation. I think the inline is something akin to the next (or current ) black powder rifle.

But I do see everyone's points when it comes to hunting and all.

Eyrie G. Dogg said:

Inlines are a way to cheat the season. They have neither tradition nor honor.

Click to expand...

Money is also a factor. When I started muzzleloader hunting the only thing I could afford was a traditions inline.
Now I still have the traditions, a cva mag Hunter, a pedersoli Kentucky long rifle, a late 1800s squirrel rifle, and a Vincent rifle.
I hunt with the mag Hunter because I like the way it fits and handles. I only hunt 2 days of muzzleloader.

Several posts have tried to make the case for in-lines being the next evolutionary step for muzzle loading rifles. If you read a little history (I realize that's out of fashion and not even allowed in public schools these days) you will see that the "next evolution" in black powder firearms was black powder cartridge guns. Their ammo was manufactured well into the 20th Century because many folks were still using them.

Just sayin',
Dave

Dave T said:

Several posts have tried to make the case for in-lines being the next evolutionary step for muzzle loading rifles. If you read a little history (I realize that's out of fashion and not even allowed in public schools these days) you will see that the "next evolution" in black powder firearms was black powder cartridge guns. Their ammo was manufactured well into the 20th Century because many folks were still using them.

Just sayin',
Dave

Click to expand...

but black powder cartridge guns aren't muzzleloaders.
The continued development of muzzleloading technology went on parallel to the technology of cartridge guns. For that matter the same could be said for archery technology.

I'll also point out that black powder cartridges are still being manufactured today in the 21st century and so are muzzleloaders with many folks still using both of them.

Like it or not, inlines ARE muzzle loaders. I still have to load my powder and boolit from the muzzle, the only difference for me is I use a primer instead of flash pan, or cap, or flint, or fuse.