Are there any purists here?
#31
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,181
Hey man - no offense meant but I feel the primitive season was created to put the hunter at a disadvantage. It's wet, it's windy, it's warm one season and cold the other... It's during rut in season 1 (here in PA) it's like giving out cross bows to anyone who wants to call themselves bowhunters. I think if you want to put fiber sights and pyrodex and scopes, all that stuff on your gun you shouldn't be in primitive season. I think you should show off your skills in regular season. Leave primitive to the primitives. Also, just because TC cranks out guns doesn't make these things "center fire reliable" Mine will have a misfire depending on weather and care and if you remember my original post I said I only colored an iron sight with paint and enlarged a touch hole. Somedays I can't get the thing to fire but when the stars align that's when it happens. When someone comes up with a compound crossbow with a computer scope that gives shooting solution, is that the object of the game? It's not always outcome but overcoming the obstacles that makes it enjoyable.
No offence taken. But your TC flint lock is not HC or PC. If you want a primitive season, and it sounds like your leaning to HC/PC type of season then your TC is not going to cut it.
Lets look at my rifle again. The overall sidelock of the TC Hawken or Renegade. These like I said are not PC/HC in any way. But the overall technology is still mid 1800's would you agree??? Yours is a TC and YOUS is in your opinion perfectly suitable would you say a Hawken or a Renegade is?
My barrels are fast twist. Yes fast twist was around in the mid 1800's in fact the Gibbs, and the whitworth were both fast twist guns.
The bullets. Mine are long paper patched bullets. That technology is also from the mid 1800's. The whitworth and the Gibbs were both shot to 1000 yards using that technology.
Lets look at my sights. Mine are Lyman 57 SML adjustable peeps. Vernier style peeps were the only sights used by the Whitworth, gibbs and others. They look a little different but they work the same. You raise the peep to shoot longer range. The original Vernier sights of the Gibbs and whitworth were superior in my opinion.
My front sight is a globe sight, the Lyman 17 AML. They are the same exact technology as the globe sight on the gibbs and the whitworth. There is NO fiber optic sights on any of my guns.
SO lets take a step back. Would you say that your gun is a reasonable likeness to a gun that would be areound in the mid 1800's?
I think mine are a reasonable likeness in both looks and technology, to the long range guns that were made in the mid 1800's mainly the Gibbs and the whitworth. No mine are not exact replicas by any means but they function exactly the same. Is yours an exact replica to ANY mid 1800's gun? NO! but it is a reasonable likeness, and function for a factory gun.
I mean no disrespect but your just as far away from HC/PC as I am. Now if you want to step off the high horse, and look at what my rifles are as far as technology and look at what the technology was in the mid 1800's you will see that while mine are Hot Rods compared to most side lock rifles of today, the guys that first started to shoot Whitworths and Gibbs in the mid 1800's were probably cussed by the guys that couldn't keep up with them too.
What you should be worrying about is more ML opportunity for all. If you go about setting this group against that group your going to lose opportunity. I saw this happen here in Idaho.
Our F&G went to a PRB only rule and sidle lock only. When that happened fewer guys hunted. But since fewer guys hunted the ML season the ML guys got crappy hunts. Doe deer and cow elk were all that were offered. Soon the whole "primitive" hunt went to the way side and it was opened up to inlines that have the cap exposed to the weather. We also can't use primers only #11 caps.
Would I like to see a side lock only rule back in place. Yes but I don't want to give up my bullets for PRB's, and I don't want to lose the ability to hunt for bucks and bulls. We can't have everything the way we want like spoiled children. If we want ML opportunity we are going to have to suck it up and hunt with others. In my case I developed a gun and load that surpasses most if not all inlines that are legal in our hunts. So I don't feel like I am the one that is being picked on. I just went back to mid 1800 technology to surpass anything that is offered today. Ron
Last edited by idahoron; 10-21-2013 at 06:22 PM.
#32
Ron.........I'd say his gun is closer to replicating a real gun of early 1800's. That being the Hawken which had a 1-48 twist, and some were as short as a 30" barrel.
Your gun is a mixture of many guns, and your sight is far advance to peep sights back then.
Having just a primitive ML season isn't the total answer. Two ML seasons is the answer to satisfy everybody. One primitive, and one we can call modern ML season. Colorado doesn't seen interested in the idea. I've asked, and still think it would be popular. It wouldn't take money for the DOW, but add it.
Your gun is a mixture of many guns, and your sight is far advance to peep sights back then.
Having just a primitive ML season isn't the total answer. Two ML seasons is the answer to satisfy everybody. One primitive, and one we can call modern ML season. Colorado doesn't seen interested in the idea. I've asked, and still think it would be popular. It wouldn't take money for the DOW, but add it.
#33
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,181
Ron.........I'd say his gun is closer to replicating a real gun of early 1800's. That being the Hawken which had a 1-48 twist, and some were as short as a 30" barrel.
Your gun is a mixture of many guns, and your sight is far advance to peep sights back then.
Having just a primitive ML season isn't the total answer. Two ML seasons is the answer to satisfy everybody. One primitive, and one we can call modern ML season. Colorado doesn't seen interested in the idea. I've asked, and still think it would be popular. It wouldn't take money for the DOW, but add it.
Your gun is a mixture of many guns, and your sight is far advance to peep sights back then.
Having just a primitive ML season isn't the total answer. Two ML seasons is the answer to satisfy everybody. One primitive, and one we can call modern ML season. Colorado doesn't seen interested in the idea. I've asked, and still think it would be popular. It wouldn't take money for the DOW, but add it.
Yes mine is a mixture but the over all "technology" is the same. If your talking HC/PC his gun is wrong and mine is wrong too. But if your talking are they a reasonable likeness in technology they are both in the ball park but for different venues. As far as my peep, your wrong. The Gibbs and Whitworth sights were far superior they went out to and over 1000 yards. A lyman 57 sml is not going to get you to 1000 yards. But they both work the exact same way.
Two hunts didn't work in Idaho either. There is not enough support. Who would get the buck tags? It pitted one group against another. This type of splitting hair's for hunts is not the answer at all. Who would want their own hunt next cowboy action shooters?
I still say if a person wants to be PC/HC they do that for them self's. That is something they strive to do on their own. They have the satisfaction of doing it. The only problem is once most guys go PC/HC they insist that everyone should be like them. Then they pick those guys apart that try to be HC/PC. I know I have been in those clubs and they suck.
Ron
#34
I agree about HC/PC. I went to one rendezvous that was pretty strict about it. Turned me off completely.
I wasn't going that far though. I wasn't talking about primitive hunting. Which I put at pre 1840.
I forgot his gun was a flintlock. As far as I know. All Hawken flintlocks were full stocks. Not the half stock TC made.
The GPR is a better choice for getting close to the real Hawken for a modest price.
I still think there's a place for a primitive season in Colorado. No idea about your state. We have more hunters to work with here.
I wasn't going that far though. I wasn't talking about primitive hunting. Which I put at pre 1840.
I forgot his gun was a flintlock. As far as I know. All Hawken flintlocks were full stocks. Not the half stock TC made.
The GPR is a better choice for getting close to the real Hawken for a modest price.
I still think there's a place for a primitive season in Colorado. No idea about your state. We have more hunters to work with here.
#35
Like I said, being reasonable with mild modern advantages. I think as far as that goes, modern machining and twist is about all the advantage over the 1800's and maybe more reliable powder mixes. After that, I'm lost. open iron sights, flint and pan, round ball, I'm ok with synthetic patching but when it starts with the sabots and pyrodex wafers, and anything other than iron open sights I oppose. If you want all that stuff prove your worth with it in regular season. My exBIL used to do that because like me he thinks primitive should be (with-in reason) primitive. If you were to find yourself outside a delorean in the 1800's with your setup, you should be welcomed not burned at the stake for being a witch.
#36
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,181
Some guys use a game camera, a 4 wheeler, Gortex clothes, Binoculars, spotting scope and a flint lock and think they are kicking it old school.
I don't use a Camera but I would. But for argument sake I would think that if a guy used a production flintlock and game cameras then he can't be that serious about being a " purist "
I would say he just doesn't want anyone to compete with. That is too bad because it is the man that kills the game not the gun. Ron
I don't use a Camera but I would. But for argument sake I would think that if a guy used a production flintlock and game cameras then he can't be that serious about being a " purist "
I would say he just doesn't want anyone to compete with. That is too bad because it is the man that kills the game not the gun. Ron
#37
Fork Horn
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 468
Primitive hunting in PA flintlock season is totally different than Colorado muzzleloader due to conditions. First I don't care what sight you use it takes practice to get used to the flash of a flintlock. Without practice your going to cripple more animals than kill. In Colorado I am glad it isn't just flintlock or way to many animals would end up crippled. In PA most years there is snow on the ground during flintlock season. If a deer is hit just follow the tracks. Colorado in September if you see snow on the ground your lucky. This year I used a in-line just because I didn't get practice with my flintlock. Being a good hunter is being a good hunter. Being a flintlock hunter isn't bad no matter how your weapon is set up. It's a challenge.
#39
Yes, and you certainly don't need to be HC/PC to be primitive hunting. In my view that would mean using primitive sights too. I'm sure that's what the mountain man used back in the days.
This is not pointed at you Ron. Just the rules I set on myself when i'm primitive hunting. I like to use a GPR, PRB, BP, and primitive sights. Not perfect, but close. I'd also love to wear buckskins, but putting blaze orange over it spoils the mood.
Of course, i'm no where near primitive now with an inline. My old broken back can't handle a 10lb gun. Maybe in the future i'll get another GPR.
This is not pointed at you Ron. Just the rules I set on myself when i'm primitive hunting. I like to use a GPR, PRB, BP, and primitive sights. Not perfect, but close. I'd also love to wear buckskins, but putting blaze orange over it spoils the mood.
Of course, i'm no where near primitive now with an inline. My old broken back can't handle a 10lb gun. Maybe in the future i'll get another GPR.
#40
I got up early this morning but not with the intention of hunting as I had an appt. scheduled for vehicle inspection at 8:30 am. Shortly after 7:00, I looked out on my little food plot and there were two deer standing there feeding. Being an opportunist, I thought... HMMM...that Scout is loaded (but unprimed) and ready to go, I can take a deer now if I want. I slipped on my muck shoes and threw on a jacket, grabbed the rifle and capper and headed out the back door. I walked from the back door to the back side of my garage, eased on out to the corner and peeked out. There stood Mama and a yearling nonchalantly feeding about 50 yds. from me. I stepped back, eased the hammer back and capped the rifle. A minute or so later they stepped out into plain view now at about 40 yds. and I had my pick of which one I wanted. I leveled the crosshairs on the yearling, as I would rather leave Mama alone to breed again and hopefully make it through this season's gauntlet. Finger on the trigger and ready to fire, I hesitated long enough to think about it and then decided not to shoot. Why you might ask? Well, it just didn't feel right. I wasn't holding a rifle I would normally hunt with and it just didn't seem ethical because as far as I'm concerned it wasn't "fair chase" so to speak. I eased the hammer back down and slipped back around the corner of the garage to uncap the rifle.
I went around to the front of the house and went back in so the deer could continue feeding unmolested. When I got inside my wife asked, "why didn't you shoot"? I told her "not with this gun and not from the yard".
Maybe I'm just getting soft in my later years, when I was a kid I wouldn't have hesitated for a second. Had I been sitting in the treestand beyond the brush lot this morning holding my flintlock, I'm sure the outcome would have been quite different. We watched Mama and her yearling disappear into the brush lot about fifteen minutes later.
BPS