Why In-Line Muzzleloaders?

Modern Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Modern Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
All I received on here as to why anyone uses an in-line, is they want modern technology. That doesn't make any sense to me. A muzzleloader is, by definition, an archaic firearm. So, if people want to mix an archaic firearm with modern technology, that's OK with me, I am not judging. I'm trying to understand. If you felt judged, I'm sorry you felt that way. I'm not used to people being so easily put off.

As far as politics & religion, they are my own beliefs and have no tie-in to this forum. I'm not sure why you brought that up. Unless you're trolling...
I understand that you do not understand ,so I assume you want to learn something beyond your limited
experience . . Congrats on your choice (a good one ) and then you go and lecture long time shooters with (LOADS) of info and experience that you need to know and screw it up big time by above statement . If you view the comments responding they all have a common theme ,not off putting just ( great) here's another know it all and doesn't understand . I take it back ,this just might not be the place for you /
I have 40 years of experience with Muzzleloaders. Although I no longer compete, I have experience shooting competition with with the North/South Skirmish Assn. I own over 20 sidelocks. Some were made purely for competition.
What I don't have, is experience with In-Lines. I never understood the fad or why Smith & Wesson took T/C and destroyed the company by going all in with In-Lines. To understand this, I need to know why shooters chose an in-line over a side lock in the first place. Unfortunately, people thought I was judging them. And maybe you are correct, maybe I don't belong here. I don't have the patience with thin skinned people who judge me without understanding what I'm trying to do.
With the exception of my CVA 50 cal Optima V2 pistol utilizing an after market stock adapter (AR 15) I can shoot 40/45 cal with sabots and full bore 50 cast and hold 4-5 inch @ 200 yds all day long (4x Leupold scope) . I do not have the skill to shoot yardage otherwise with a pistol . I hunt for meat and our area is not friendly to bows/hand guns / bows and other short range (rocks come to mind) . Least you think me ignorant I too hunt mostly side locks /Kibler SMR s and the above CVA Pocket Rocket but most of all I enjoy hunting /killing stuff on a regular basis (eat regular) its a habit .The difference is we both see a need to learn ,some day I'll get into inlines more but I don't think I'll do it by pissin people off . I can answer questions on casting /side locks and flint guns and learn about in lines/ sabots /primers not found on my choice of muzzy but I will end up there / Ed
 
I understand that you do not understand ,so I assume you want to learn something beyond your limited
experience . . Congrats on your choice (a good one ) and then you go and lecture long time shooters with (LOADS) of info and experience that you need to know and screw it up big time by above statement . If you view the comments responding they all have a common theme ,not off putting just ( great) here's another know it all and doesn't understand . I take it back ,this just might not be the place for you /

With the exception of my CVA 50 cal Optima V2 pistol utilizing an after market stock adapter (AR 15) I can shoot 40/45 cal with sabots and full bore 50 cast and hold 4-5 inch @ 200 yds all day long (4x Leupold scope) . I do not have the skill to shoot yardage otherwise with a pistol . I hunt for meat and our area is not friendly to bows/hand guns / bows and other short range (rocks come to mind) . Least you think me ignorant I too hunt mostly side locks /Kibler SMR s and the above CVA Pocket Rocket but most of all I enjoy hunting /killing stuff on a regular basis (eat regular) its a habit .The difference is we both see a need to learn ,some day I'll get into inlines more but I don't think I'll do it by pissin people off . I can answer questions on casting /side locks and flint guns and learn about in lines/ sabots /primers not found on my choice of muzzy but I will end up there / Ed
I'm an engineer, not a psychologist. So my questions may have had an edge on them. That said, I found my answer.
 
Last edited:
Just for general discussion and my edification, why do Muzzleloading enthusiasts use an in-line?
To me, it's no different than using a modern one-shot cartridge rifle. I live in Pennsylvania and true Muzzleloader Season still requires a Flintlock with open sights. I wholely embrace this. This is what muzzleloading is all about.

So please let me know why you prefer an inline and scoped rifles. I really want to understand.

To be clear, I bought a T/C Impact SB, because T/C stopped making rifles and I wanted a quality rifle at a low cost. I never shot it.
An answer to your question comes in the form of a question. Why do you use a flintlock when you should be using a wheel lock or a matchlock or a snap lock? Since you seem to consider the flintlock to be the epitome of the primitive rifle type, why would you decide to use the more modern flintlock over any of those even more primitive than your choice? For the same exact reason those of us use inlines...it's an improvement over previous designs or types.
 
Last edited:
drpatton..... you have a true love for the traditional smokers. We respect that. I know I do as I have a few but I choose to not shoot them so much, but its where my passion for the smoke got started. I would venture that 80% of the membership here got their beginnings the same way, but have opened up their opportunities by incorporating the inlines in with their more traditional guns. Over time they've decided that inlines offer more in the field for them.

I suggest you post in the Sidelock/Traditional forum here and maybe take a few minutes when you visit to read in the online forum to help grasp what so many here love. If you want to understand what we seem to relish in the inline world, you need to first read what we deal with, the successes, the failures, the frustrations. Nobody here is thin skinned. We just have as much passion about our guns as you do yours.

By the way, welcome to modern muzzleloader. Lets star over. I'm Tom and my welcome is sincere.
 
I simply like shooting them. I don't feel it compares well to a single shot rifle. A single shot 30-06 is a completely different rifle than my Knights. Despite what some of the great and dedicated shooters here can do, I am not a reliable 200 yard shooter of any muzzleloader on game animals. With that single shot 30-06, 200 yards is no big deal. With a little practice 300+ is easily approachable.

I also feel we need to look at inlines as the entry way into the sport. When I started you still had a choice of side hammer or inline at approachable prices. Right now, someone looking to try out muzzleloading will almost surely buy an inline. Even cheap side hammers are expensive compared to a perfectly serviceable CVA Wolf, as an example. I would wager the majority of "traditional" shooters are either old enough to have a gun in the safe or transitioning from Inlines as they try something different.
 
Last edited:
An answer to your question comes in the form of a question. Why do you use a flintlock when you should be using a wheel lock or a matchlock or a snap lock? Since you seem to consider the flintlock to be the epitome of the primitive rifle typon was all aboute, why would you decide to use the more modern flintlock over any of those even more primitive than your choice? For the same exact reason those of us use inlines...it's an improvement over previous designs or types.
Reproduction shooting all started out as fads. From what I read, it was the movie "Jeremiah Johnson" which started it. The in-line fad is more recent. I really wanted to know why people were drawn to in-lines. To me, it's no different than picking a sports car over a van.

Thompson Center was one of the best muzzleloader makes in business. I heard a long time ago, maybe 30 years or more, a stock Renegade was a MOA shooter out of the box. I recently saw a few videos, where one of the initial starters of this forum, consistently shot under MOA with a stock Renegade, with the exception of the sights. He used Peeps.

Smith & Wesson comes along and buys Thompson Center. S&W uses T/C to market a somewhat new fad in In-Line rifles. S&W must have seen huge profit potential with their T/C line; However, what S&W did was ruin T/C or at least placed them in a market where they couldn't compete with the quality T/C had always produced. Now, T/C is no longer in business and S&W can't sell them off.

I wanted to know as much about in-lines and the people who bought them. Why did they buy them? What attracted them to an in-line? What drew S&W to buy T/C and in the end, kill the company. And it's all about In-Lines.

That is what my question was all about.
 
Reproduction shooting all started out as fads. From what I read, it was the movie "Jeremiah Johnson" which started it. The in-line fad is more recent. I really wanted to know why people were drawn to in-lines. To me, it's no different than picking a sports car over a van.
Thompson Center was one of the best muzzleloader makes in business. I heard a long time ago, maybe 30 years or more, a stock Renegade was a MOA shooter out of the box. I recently saw a few videos, where one of the initial starters of this forum, consistently shot under MOA with a stock Renegade, with the exception of the sights. He used Peeps.
Smith & Wesson comes along and buys Thompson Center. S&W uses T/C to market a somewhat new fad in In-Line rifles. S&W must have seen huge profit potential with their T/C line; However, what S&W did was ruin T/C or at least placed them in a market where they couldn't compete with the quality T/C had always produced. Now, T/C is no longer in business and S&W can't sell them off.
I wanted to know as much about in-lines and the people who bought them. Why did they buy them? What attracted them to an in-line? What drew S&W to buy T/C and in the end, kill the company. And it's all about In-Lines.
That is what my question was all about.
 
Reproduction shooting all started out as fads. From what I read, it was the movie "Jeremiah Johnson" which started it. The in-line fad is more recent. I really wanted to know why people were drawn to in-lines. To me, it's no different than picking a sports car over a van.

Thompson Center was one of the best muzzleloader makes in business. I heard a long time ago, maybe 30 years or more, a stock Renegade was a MOA shooter out of the box. I recently saw a few videos, where one of the initial starters of this forum, consistently shot under MOA with a stock Renegade, with the exception of the sights. He used Peeps.

Smith & Wesson comes along and buys Thompson Center. S&W uses T/C to market a somewhat new fad in In-Line rifles. S&W must have seen huge profit potential with their T/C line; However, what S&W did was ruin T/C or at least placed them in a market where they couldn't compete with the quality T/C had always produced. Now, T/C is no longer in business and S&W can't sell them off.

I wanted to know as much about in-lines and the people who bought them. Why did they buy them? What attracted them to an in-line? What drew S&W to buy T/C and in the end, kill the company. And it's all about In-Lines.

That is what my question was all about.
That's an interesting reply. You quoted me then completely ignored the question posed to you and the answer I gave you at the end.
I suspect you're not looking for an answer at all but rather, your motives here are a bit darker. But I'll concede the possibility I might be wrong about you.
I reissue the question to you...why would you hold your flintlock as the standard by which primitive muzzleloaders are measured when there are even more primitive options available? Why are you not using the earliest representative of the muzzleloader as the standard by which all are measured if in fact the primitive nature is the standard by which all are judged?
The answer is obvious. The flintlock is a vast improvement in the field over it's predecessors. As is the inline in the field over the flintlock. Keep your powder dry sir.
 
Last edited:
I have 40 years of experience with Muzzleloaders. Although I no longer compete, I have experience shooting competition with with the North/South Skirmish Assn. I own over 20 sidelocks. Some were made purely for competition.
What I don't have, is experience with In-Lines. I never understood the fad or why Smith & Wesson took T/C and destroyed the company by going all in with In-Lines. To understand this, I need to know why shooters chose an in-line over a side lock in the first place. Unfortunately, people thought I was judging them. And maybe you are correct, maybe I don't belong here. I don't have the patience with thin skinned people who judge me without understanding what I'm trying to do.
Nothing to do with being thin skinned and everything to do with just being a generally irritable question. You wouldn’t go onto a Ford board and ask why people drove Fords when you thought Chevy’s were superior and expect a different answer.

Do you have a house built after 1875? Do you have electricity? Running water? What about heat and air conditioning of some form? Do your windows have glass in them? Where do you want to draw the line? You choose to use what you do in life because it meets a certain need. Sometimes that need is essential to life and sometimes convenience. And sometimes that need is a fulfilling hobby and inline muzzleloaders are what do it for most of us on this board.

The question may have been intended to gather information but unfortunately was phrased in a way that implies you think lesser of those that don’t do things your way. Anytime you approach someone in that way you should expect an equal response.
 
And just to answer your question, T/C was producing inlines long before S&W. The Contender and Encore were both offered as muzzleloaders, as was the Omega, one of the best ever made. All inlines.
When S&W bought T/C they said it was because they were looking to enter the long gun and hunting market. TC was an affordable way to get the machines, tooling, and employees to make it happen. I remember reading the press release in whatever magazine I was subscribed to at the time and thinking it was the beginning of the end for TC. I’m surprised they kept TC alive as long as they did. And just to cap off S&W ruining a good thing, it’s not that nobody wants to buy TC. I know of two companies for sure that have said they were interested. S&W isn’t selling. One company said they’ve asked for the sales folder several times with no response.


https://www.shootingtimes.com/editorial/swtc_121806/100372
 
It was pretty long ago that the TC inlines like the Thunderhawk came out. And i think the T/C sidelocks were out of production before S&W bought them too.

Wasnt there a fire that took out the tooling for the sidelock production or am i thinking about another company?
 
It was pretty long ago that the TC inlines like the Thunderhawk came out. And i think the T/C sidelocks were out of production before S&W bought them too.

Wasnt there a fire that took out the tooling for the sidelock production or am i thinking about another company?
I think the fire took out all the tooling involved in the production of Senecas, Cherokees and Patriot pistols, but not the rest. I’m not sure if production of the rest ended before or after the S&W purchase.
 
I used to hunt with side hammer Caprock and while living in PA I acquired 2 flintlock that I hunted with and both were a lot more expensive than any inline I know of. My favorite was the 60 cal fowler. With no rear sights and a smooth bore that was a very challenging endeavor. But I managed to taker a few deer with it. That was then, now is 15 years later and at 79 with eyes that aren't the best I find no joy attempting the same thing. I moved to VA where hunting regs allow me to still experience my favorite pastime using an inline to enjoy making smoke.

I know that PA has changed their game regs and now allow inlines with all the bells and whistles in the early muzzleload season but kept the "flintlock, patched round ball, open sights" limitations for the late muzzleload season. Seems even PA is trying to accommodate both worlds!
Thas what real freedom is all about Chundoo
 
many folks feel like something is being threatened by folks who don't do something the way they do .
it is what it is .
 
Just for general discussion and my edification, why do Muzzleloading enthusiasts use an in-line?
To me, it's no different than using a modern one-shot cartridge rifle. I live in Pennsylvania and true Muzzleloader Season still requires a Flintlock with open sights. I wholely embrace this. This is what muzzleloading is all about.

So please let me know why you prefer an inline and scoped rifles. I really want to understand.

To be clear, I bought a T/C Impact SB, because T/C stopped making rifles and I wanted a quality rifle at a low cost. I never shot it.
How long do you think that the "inline" design has been around? My brother-in-law built an inline .50 cal with a Douglas 1" hex 1-66 twist round ball barrel 40 years ago. Ken Johnston of Ultimate Firearms was building them in the early 60's. Some of the first truly functional inline rifles were developed just after the civil war. Further development was hindered due to the development of metalic cartridges. Percussion rifles became "old" technology. Now as far as being like a cartridge rife, I don't know how to break this to ya but all muzzleloading rifles load from the MUZZLE. You still have to pour powder, load a projectile, ad an ignition source and cock a hammer. Where you light the powder from really makes no difference. Telescopic sights (scopes) were developed in the mid 1830's.

I think maybe your question should be, why modern ML's over traditional new/old ML's.
 
Reproduction shooting all started out as fads. From what I read, it was the movie "Jeremiah Johnson" which started it. The in-line fad is more recent. I really wanted to know why people were drawn to in-lines. To me, it's no different than picking a sports car over a van.

Thompson Center was one of the best muzzleloader makes in business. I heard a long time ago, maybe 30 years or more, a stock Renegade was a MOA shooter out of the box. I recently saw a few videos, where one of the initial starters of this forum, consistently shot under MOA with a stock Renegade, with the exception of the sights. He used Peeps.

Smith & Wesson comes along and buys Thompson Center. S&W uses T/C to market a somewhat new fad in In-Line rifles. S&W must have seen huge profit potential with their T/C line; However, what S&W did was ruin T/C or at least placed them in a market where they couldn't compete with the quality T/C had always produced. Now, T/C is no longer in business and S&W can't sell them off.

I wanted to know as much about in-lines and the people who bought them. Why did they buy them? What attracted them to an in-line? What drew S&W to buy T/C and in the end, kill the company. And it's all about In-Lines.

That is what my question was all about.
It seems to me you and I share a common *****...big business meddling in small business to the point it disappears. One of things that made this country great was entrepreneurship. Genuine innovation born of a creative spirit and a desire to bring to market a product that no one ever did before. As an engineer I imagine your love of creative development drives you...have you and I struck a common bond? Because I absolutely HATE globalism...multi national conglomerates and the stifling affect they have on the creative process. What say you sir?
 
It seems to me you and I share a common *****...big business meddling in small business to the point it disappears. One of things that made this country great was entrepreneurship. Genuine innovation born of a creative spirit and a desire to bring to market a product that no one ever did before. As an engineer I imagine your love of creative development drives you...have you and I struck a common bond? Because I absolutely HATE globalism...multi national conglomerates and the stifling affect they have on the creative process. What say you sir?
Sorry, I don't engage in politics or religion here
 
Back
Top