Post by: irish on November 22, 2009, 09:26:32 AM
Post by: BEAVERMAN on November 22, 2009, 11:14:34 AM
Post by: mark davidson on December 01, 2009, 12:21:49 PM
Post by: Riley/MN on December 01, 2009, 12:42:51 PM
Quote from: "BEAVERMAN"
Not gonna happen here! try Wakemans site! talking about scopes on a sidelock here is like talking about those dam &^lines!
Yeah scopes were around in the 1850s. So were breech loaders, and we don't talk about them here either.
Post by: Riley/MN on December 01, 2009, 12:48:49 PM
But while things existed in a certain era, and yes we appreciate your intent to educate yourself more on the subject, this is not the place to garner that education nor to discus such non-traditional items. I am wlking gingerly here, not trying to offend, but this is the place where people come to discuss Traditional muzzleloading, not to push the envelope of what could possibly fit in to the same era as the traditional muzzleloaders.... I hope I said that in a way that makes sense...
Post by: mark davidson on December 01, 2009, 12:59:02 PM
Post by: PJC on December 01, 2009, 01:37:46 PM
PJC
Post by: rollingb on December 02, 2009, 11:49:13 PM
Malcolm scope replicas are made in a number of models and are sold by many reputable dealers. Leatherwood/Hi-Lux Optics offers three versions of Malcolm scopes that keep to the traditional design, but with modern optics. They have a 6x Long Malcolm Scope, a 6x Short Malcolm Scope and a 3x Short Malcolm Scope. These scopes all go perfectly with black powder cartridge rifles and combine the look of old with the function of modernity.
Please take special note of the last sentence in the above paragraph with particular reference to "black powder cartridge rifles".
Post by: Captchee on December 03, 2009, 09:02:52 AM
This could be a good topic that could be learned from , so lets turn it that way , shall we .
Now I don’t know about others here but I have found little documentation to support scopes like the Malcolm being in vogue.,. Really ever when it came to muzzleloading rifles .
Now that’s not to say they were not used . It just does not seem to be anywhere near the prevalence of todays scoped rifles .
Now where you do see them is in long range target shooting .
BUT again ,,,BUT,,,, when you get down to reading about some of those shoots , they also in some cases forbid the use of scopes .
Another thing I have noticed is sometimes what people assume to be a scope ,,, isn’t a scope but a Tube sight . IE no optics .
I had the privilege of inspecting an original Enfield that was mounted with a Malcolm back in the mid 1980s . This was a rifle in the national Infantry museum .
The scope had very little magnification and its field of view was very small . Literally one would have to search for the target .. My small 2x scope on my 22 has fare better optics and field of view .
It also appeared to me to be very week and easily knocked out of alignment .
The armor there told me that they also had a very bad habit of fogging up and in times of high humidity were about useless.
I was also told there were to different types of alignments .
There were early cross hairs and also posts . These were from what I was told , very easily knocked out of alignment
The reproductions today , are what RollingB stated . Basically nothing more then long brass tubes with modern components inside .
So again did they exsist , ya they did . Were they as common as some folks want them to be ??
No not that I have found .
In vogue ?? Sorry , that doesn’t seem to be the case if that comparison is even meant to be a comparable small% of what we see today
I would agree that they existed far more common on some of the early cartridge rifles but even then I have not found them to be very wide spread .
What I would recommend is posting this question in the long range shooting forum and see what hits you get .
A couple of those guys in there are very knowledgeable about the history of that sport
IMO your far more likly though to find suporting documentation for the use of tall post , Creedmoore or verner style peeps then the malcolm scope when it comes to muzzleloaders
Post by: mark davidson on December 03, 2009, 09:28:51 AM
Post by: rollingb on December 03, 2009, 10:16:31 AM
Quote from: "mark davidson"
Very Interesting! Thanks to Rolingb and Cap for two very well stated and patient and helpful posts of information. So let's throw out the words "in vogue." Now, if you had to answer (Yes or NO)....are the Malcolm scopes on a muzzle loader absolutely period INCORRECT or not? For example, flyfishing for trout with a flyrod and whole kernel corn is NOT correct! :-) Is a malcolm scope on a muzzle loader "THAT" incorrect as in just plain wrong and out of place or is it something that was in fact used but maybe just not that widespread?
I have never seen any historical references of Malcolm scopes being used on muzzleloaders shooting roundballs,... and only a few on traditional muzzleloading military arms shooting conical lead bullets during the Civil War.
No way, would I describe the use of ANY scope being used on a sidelock muzzleloader, as approaching the definition of "being traditional". :laffing
Post by: Two Steps on December 03, 2009, 10:31:11 AM
Quote
Is a malcolm scope on a muzzle loader "THAT" incorrect as in just plain wrong and out of place or is it something that was in fact used but maybe just not that widespread?
Mark...I think your last question/sentence pretty much covers it. We can't prove a negative (you can't prove that some ol boy didn't grab some table scraps and go fishing ;)
Keep your questions flowing...we all learn from others questions
Al
Post by: mark davidson on December 03, 2009, 11:12:26 AM
Post by: Riley/MN on December 03, 2009, 11:24:05 AM
Quote from: "mark davidson"
What could a Malcolm type scope be put on that actually WOULD be kinda period correct?
Nothing.
What would be period correct would be for your friend to retire to the front porch as his lights dim and leave the huntin ta younger fellas with younger eyes.
Is that what I suggest for your friend? ABSOLUTELY NOT. There are any of a number of options to correct his malady that would work. None of them would be period correct. None of the ones that could be affixed to his firearms could be made to resemble something that "looks correct".
This saddens me, as I start to face my own optical limitations (in other words, my eyes are gettin old). I imagine the day will come when I have to give up the iron sights and try to do something else to keep hunting. It won't be "period correct", but it will keep me hunting...
just my 2 cents
Post by: woodman on December 03, 2009, 11:33:28 AM
Now if your not into going to Historical type events Rifle Frolics, Rendezvous,Market Fairs etc . Then do what feels right for you because then what does it matter about it being P.C. or period correct.
Woodman
Post by: mark davidson on December 03, 2009, 12:23:57 PM
Post by: rollingb on December 03, 2009, 01:38:02 PM
Have you ever snuck up on a bedded muley doe, and touched her on the shoulder (from the back side) with the muzzle of your rifle? Talk about a "RUSH"!!!!!!!!!!! :shock: :clap :rt th
Post by: Gambia on December 03, 2009, 02:16:49 PM
Post by: biliff on December 03, 2009, 02:22:19 PM
Post by: irish on December 03, 2009, 02:25:01 PM
Post by: mark davidson on December 03, 2009, 02:26:27 PM
Now, here honestly is why my partner and I am more interested in longer shots. Iv'e been in traditional archery for many years and have killed many dozens and I mean dozens of deer with recurve and longbow inside 25 yards. When I shoot a deer with a gun at archery range it leaves me kinda hollow about the kill. It is hard to explain but I just do not normally enjoy blunderblasting a deer at 25 or 30 yards with a firearm of any kind cause I cannot help but think "dangit I could have killed that deer with a bow and arrow." The close up 9 yard shot combined with having to do it left handed made that kill exciting. Honestly if I had been able to shoot right handed I might not have even shot her at such close range. Now on the other hand I made a 90 yard shot last year from a solid rest on a decent buck with my old .54 flinter and that was to me at least quite an accomplishment to have developed the load and skill and to actually pull it off in the woods. Does any of this make any sense? Sorry to ramble. :-)
Post by: Puffer on December 03, 2009, 03:10:55 PM
Quote from: "irish"
i am no interloper. i sought advised from those who know much more than i about this subject. i did not intend to start a firestorm. for that i apologize. i am glad i threw my hat in first.........................irish
Irish, I for one, DID NOT take Offense & your ?? I also "understand you wanting to Assist Your Hunting Partner.
I can not address the ?? you asked, as I know nothing on the subject.
But if a 'scope" would assist your partner in continuing to enjoy the sport (in respect to Hunting) IMHO, GO FOR IT & PC be DARNED
Puffer
Post by: Captchee on December 03, 2009, 03:55:10 PM
See the thing about history is that there is no black and white , wet or dry .
In fact there simply is not one simple factual . This is how it was anywhere .
You simply cannot say NO did not happen because we don’t know . The best one can say is ; it was un common .
Where we run into issues is when people take history and twist the un common for their own benefit and thus try to make folks believe it was common .
That happens a lot in just about every subject mater .
Case in point . How did the idea that smooth bores carry no rear sights ever come about ? It most certainly cant be supported with documentation . In fact surviving examples for the most part complete disprove the notion . Yet time and time again people repeat it .
This same thing goes on and on . From inconsistencies of the flintlock ignitions , percussion ignitions , effectiveness of the RB .
IMO scopes also often fall into this category .
Why ?
Well I think its because folks want something so they find a picture and say LOOK here it is . But the never look past what they want to see .
Case in point . Pick up a copy of the muzzle loading Cap lock rifle by Ned Roberts
Open it up , thumb through it . At first glance a person wanting to justify early scopes on hawkens rifles would simply be falling all over themselves looking at example after example.
The simply is all kinds of scopes from those of Malcolm , Billing Hurst , to Brockway
But guess what , none of the rifles are any more hawkens then a TC or CVA hawkens is anything like a hawkens
We then could also look ,,,,,, in this one book ,,,,,, just alittle slower and come to the conclusion that all these rifles are small caliber target rifles and conclude they are conical rifles .
But again we would only be seeing part of the picture .
Because if we take the time to actual read the book we find that there are rifles in there that are dedicated RB rifles show . There are also rifles shown with scopes in calibers larger then 50 . In fact there are as I recall a number of 56 cal and a couple 58 cal .
Could these be used for hunting rifles ??? Yep any one of them .
But that’s not what this book is showing . Its showing information on dedicated target rifles . In order to get every day protection , / hunting / average . We have to make a conclusion, base in our own mind over what we are clearly being shown .
If we lean the other way and say that the book is proof that said rifles were not used for hunting or that every day protection , / hunting / average rifles did not carry scopes .
We have made the very same mistake .
So my thought is that if we ask
1) were there scopes during the muzzle loading eras
We have to say yes
2) if ask were they used on muzzle loading rifles
We have to say yes
3) were they used on everyday run of the mill personal rifles .
We simply have to say , we need more info , who ,what, were, when
Because frankly the supporting information is very limited
4) when approuched with the modern issues of scopes by the likes of TB .
we have to simply point out that the scopes of old , are not the scopes of today and if one wants to use those exsamples as proof of scopes , then they should be required to also US only scopes of that quality and technolgy .
Now past the historical issue and on to scopes .
Myself personally I have a real big issue with modern optics on muzzle loading rifles .
For every legitimate person who do to handycap , needs a scope . There are probably 100 other who say the need a scope but don’t
IMO muzzle loading season were brought about by people who wanted to experience a challenge that they could not safely get in a general season
It was different and it did not suit a vast majority of folks .
But today all that is forgotten . Instead the challenge must be modified to allow everyone vs. simply stating here is the opportunity . Maybe its for you , for any given number of reasons maybe its not .
I have no issues with someone who is truly and medically proven to be handicap who wants to experience the sport , being given a waver to allow them the equipment to do so .
However at the same time I expect people to have the mental aptitude to be able to stand back and say ; you know im just not as young as I used to be . Climbing that mountain at 3 am I just cant do anymore , I have to accept that .
But in todays works the government better come in and build a blood 4 lain highway with rest stations and handicap access , every 10 miles , all the way to the top .
I have told folks this time and time again . . Myself as I get older , I enjoy the hunt more and more . I also at the same time enjoy the killing less and less ..
Myself I cant see like I did when I was 20 . Im not as strong as I was when I was 30 .
My hold and accuracy with my rifles is getting weaker and weaker each year .
But that doesn’t stop me from going out sitting under a tree and if a deer or elk comes along that’s within my REALISTIC range , well then I might or might not take a shot .
If I see something that’s to far . Well I get off my dead A$$ and get closer . If it turns out I don’t get a shot . Well guess what , it still was a very good hunt .
So to your friend I would say this . If its aloud for him to get a scope , then get a scope . If the need is that great , don’t fool around . Get what is needed .
But as he is ploping the money down realize that its only a mater of time and that scope will no longer work for him . Or for that mater any of us .
We all must at some time succumb just as all those before us did and realize we are not as capable as we once was .
To close this very long post that im very sorry to have written I want to say this .
When it comes to topics like this it reminds me of the accounts of Daniel Boone in his later years when he was to weak to walk far and to blind to see .
They say he still enjoyed hunting .
Even though it was simply holding a rifle and setting under a tree not far from his home
Was that man enjoying the hunt or longing for past hunts . There was a time when I would have said the later . But as I get older and can look down and see what I very much remember my fathers hands looking like . I am more and more certain each day that old Daniel was enjoying the hunt in all it TRUE glory
Anyway that’s my thoughts on the mater . I hope you all get it figured out .
Be safe
Post by: IronDawg on December 03, 2009, 04:50:47 PM
This saddens me, as I start to face my own optical limitations (in other words, my eyes are gettin old). I imagine the day will come when I have to give up the iron sights and try to do something else to keep hunting. It won't be "period correct", but it will keep me hunting...
just my 2 cents[/quote]
I'm thinking really big smoothbore and buckshot.
Post by: Riley/MN on December 03, 2009, 08:42:27 PM
Quote from: "IronDawg"
Quote from: "Riley/MN"This saddens me, as I start to face my own optical limitations (in other words, my eyes are gettin old). I imagine the day will come when I have to give up the iron sights and try to do something else to keep hunting. It won't be "period correct", but it will keep me hunting...
just my 2 cents
I'm thinking really big smoothbore and buckshot. :roll eyes
Nope, no buckshot here in MN.... course now if'n a fella get hungry enuff...
Post by: Captchee on December 03, 2009, 08:49:56 PM
Post by: Riley/MN on December 03, 2009, 09:03:30 PM
Quote from: "Captchee"
but officer , no buck was shot ??? you can clearly see its a doe :lol:
Post by: Captchee on December 03, 2009, 09:21:05 PM
Post by: rickd on December 04, 2009, 06:54:12 AM
Post by: IronDawg on December 04, 2009, 07:18:19 AM
Post by: Riley/MN on December 04, 2009, 07:32:41 AM
Post by: mark davidson on December 04, 2009, 10:12:25 AM
It is hard to say now what choice I will make when I get older and cannot see. I am nearly 50 now and I at least have to wear reading glasses which I did not need just a year or so ago. If I have to go to a scope some day to stay in the game in the woods then I am pretty sure I will reluctantly embrace it. For now though, I am going to be pretty hard on um while I can still see!!!! :-)
Captchee, seriously I really liked the part about Daniel Boone.