AR15.Com Archives
 Flintlock rifle for loooonnnnng term survival use?
ZenEngineer  [Member]
5/15/2009 2:04:14 PM
It seems to me that any post apocalyptic world scenario that runs long enough is going to deplete the world's supply of ammunition, and reduce the industrial capability to provide reload materials (brass, smokeless powder, primers). So before descending down to the level of crossbows and machetes, the flintlock rifle will once again be the main battle rifle and hunting rifle. Flints can be found. Lead can be scavenged from car batteries. Black powder can be made with available materials. Someone truly thinking ahead should include a flintlock rifle and accessories in their armory.

My question is about the flintlock rifle itself. Is a reproduction (like the Cabela's kit above) of a 200 year old design the very best that can be had today? Is this the epitome of the design? Has no one tried to use today's materials and manufacturing techniques to improve the design?
Paid Advertisement
--
gordo99  [Member]
5/15/2009 2:13:53 PM
I am the proud owner of a repro Kentucky flintlock in .45. Although I absolutely love the rifle, I can't imagine thinking about depending on it more than I would my .22 magnum. For the cost of good flintlock rifle, you can get a quality Marlin 22 mag and a decent supply of ammo. Also, you have to consider spare parts. There aren't that many on a flintlock but the internals of the lock aren't simple to make and can break.
jhlewis10  [Member]
5/15/2009 3:00:34 PM
I think I would rather build up my supply of .22 LR.

5000 rnds for under $200.
druid223  [Member]
5/15/2009 3:18:17 PM
I guess some of these would be in order too.

ZenEngineer  [Member]
5/15/2009 3:21:21 PM
Originally Posted By jhlewis10:
I think I would rather build up my supply of .22 LR.

5000 rnds for under $200.


And after several years, when that supply has been used up or bartered for other necessities?
PolyTechKID  [Team Member]
5/15/2009 3:52:53 PM
Originally Posted By ZenEngineer:
Originally Posted By jhlewis10:
I think I would rather build up my supply of .22 LR.

5000 rnds for under $200.


And after several years, when that supply has been used up or bartered for other necessities?


....and if I've managed to live that long, I'll probably be able to find another type of weapon if I run out of .22's, I won't be trading away all of my ammo no matter what.

Justin-Kase  [Team Member]
5/15/2009 3:58:16 PM
Get one if you want, but if it's so bad for so long that you actually need to scrounge lead, make flints and create blackpowder from scratch to hunt, then $200 worth of traps, snares, and fishing hooks will put far more meat on your table.

As far as using a flintlock for self defense, pray it doesn't rain when you need it and that you don't run into someone armed with a $75 Mosin and $125 worth of 7.62 x 54.
Speaking of which a Mosin would be an excellent choice for your scenario.
cml2501  [Member]
5/15/2009 4:03:44 PM
Honestly I think a good bow and some basic low-maintenance heads are more practical option for self-defense or larger game hunting.

For varmint hunting a spring powered pellet rifle is going to be much easier to sustain than making your own powder and flints.


Of course the best thing to do would be to keep a lifetime supply of ammo for your chosen rifle handy.
Mannlicher  [Team Member]
5/15/2009 7:35:45 PM
what an imagination!
SteelonSteel  [Team Member]
5/15/2009 7:48:30 PM
I was just thinking of this exact scenario today. As i drove around I saw a lot of mattresses out on the curbs for the rubbish man.

You could swipe the material off of them and swing by those low budget motels when they swap out the mattresses and pillows and cut up the material for patches. Just cut around the stained areas.
Country_Boy  [Team Member]
5/15/2009 8:10:47 PM
I think having one as a pattern for making more might be valuable. A precussion rife probally more so. But as an individual, for a $300 rifle, I could buy 600-1000 rounds of quality ammo. If I run out of ammo, would I rather have a flintlock or 700 rounds of .308 or 7.64x54R, the latter being more powerful and reliable. Or would I rather have a boat load of primers and make my own bullets and blackpowder. (I have both a 45-70 and a 458 SOCOM AR which should make good black power guns (not to imply the AR will cycle.)

If we were talking chainsaw vs crosscut saw, I'd say buy both (and I did). Ditto for Dewalt cordless vs brace and bit and breast drill.
Dedhorse  [Member]
5/15/2009 9:22:56 PM
The rifle shown appears to me to be a cheap lower quality gun and probably not to dependable....If you know what you are doing you could work on it like the one guy in the review apparently did to get it to be a little bit more reliable but certainly would not be my choice if I wanted a flint lock.
It is cheap guns like this that causes many people to think things like they won't work in the rain or fail to go off more then they fire....Sort of like me taking a Cheap RG pistol to the range and then judging all hand guns from it.
A quality flintlock properly loaded is a very reliable gun. I've hunted for years with a 200 year old english double flint shotgun made by Manton and I'm having a hard time thinking of one time it didn't go off ...something I can't say about some AR15s and Colt 1911s I have had by the way. I shot plenty of water fowl in the rain too . Many modern better quality flint locks are just as dependable.

A good shot with a good flintlock rifle at 150 -200 yards I would expect would hit you everytime and you would be just as dead as if he shot you with a .308 M1A....Yes he will only have one shot befor reloading but that is only important if he misses or gets in a fire fight with a group. I think to many people get caught up in some fantasy of being in firefights with gangs of assault rifle armed thugs where they will be shooting dozens if not hundreds of rounds but Is this really realistic? I think more likely in some end of the world situation is of people shooting one shot from ambush while hidden.

... Actually I think a good flint lock smoothbore would be a better choice then a fkint lock rifle for a survival arm. Allows you to shoot either bird shot, buck shot or a patched round ball. I have a modern 20 ga [62 cal] flint that I have shot lots of round ball out of it and it is about as accurate as a rifle up to around 50 yards and if you do your part is accurate enough at 100 yards to shoot a deer.Around here where most deer are shot with in 50- 75 yards I would choose it over any AR15 that I own if I had to choose between the two guns for deer hunting.
In my experance smooth bore fowlers and muskets are often more reliable then flint lock rifles probably because of larger locks. Are faster and easier to reload too

Im NOT saying that a flintlock can replace your cartridge gun, if I had to go in harms way I would want a modern cartridge gun and hard to disagree with owning a .22 with lots of ammo. All I'm saying a flintlock might have it's place and are much more efective then most people give them credit for. Have to remember lots of people and game were killed very dead with them for many years and they will still work .....T
kevthebassman  [Team Member]
5/15/2009 9:34:41 PM
Fantasy land thinking.

Any kind of decent flintlock rifle will set you back $400. Accoutrement, shot, powder, patching, cleaning materials will set you back another $200 at least if you plan on stocking anything for it.

Then you'll still face the reality that for that amount of money, you've only bought enough powder and ball for a few hundred shots before you have to take valuable time out of your day to gather saltpeter from a bat cave, make and grind charcoal, and pick up some sulfur at the local volcano. Mix them together and you've got black powder. Of course you'll need to corn your powder for protection from humidity, and you'll need screens to process it. Fact is, powder making is a very time consuming, complicated, and dangerous process. People die in powder factories even in this day and age. To produce usable powder in a TEOTWAWKI scenario is, in my opinion, a fantasy.

For that kind of money, you could put away 20,000 rounds of .22 long rifle. That's enough for a shot per day for a half century. That's a whole lot of meals for very little effort, as compared to manufacturing your own munitions. By that time, you ought to be quite handy with a sling and a bow anyway.
MrHunterAZ  [Team Member]
5/15/2009 10:21:45 PM
I like the idea. You can never have too many rifles or too much ammo.

Something is better than nothing and when we all are paying thousands of dollars a year on guns and ammo spending a few hundred dollars on a unique and very interesting rifle isn't too much of a burden.

KD5TXX  [Member]
5/15/2009 10:46:26 PM
I have flintlocks.. Don't use batteries for casting. The fumes may kill you sooner than the MBZ. Use wheel weights or something else.
sjohnny  [Member]
5/15/2009 11:23:51 PM
Originally Posted By kevthebassman:
To produce usable powder in a TEOTWAWKI scenario is, in my opinion, a fantasy.


Captain Kirk did it when he had to fight that alien on that planet where it was just the two of them. In less than an hour he found all the components and mixed them up to make a little cannon or grenade or something (I can't exactly remember, it's been 20 years since I've seen that episode).
Philadelphia_GunMan  [Member]
5/16/2009 12:03:57 AM
I don't see what 22s have to do with the op of getting a flintlock. 22s are not going to take down a deer or a person.

Also I think it makes sense to have a flintlock in case you ever did have the need to make your own powder and projectiles. Sure it is not as easy as stockpiling ammo,but it never hurts to have the option.
TexasLoneGunman  [Member]
5/16/2009 12:26:54 AM
I don't think this is really a great idea. Have you considered an air rifle? Cheap ammo and very stealthy.
Coolrunnings  [Team Member]
5/16/2009 12:46:38 AM
Originally Posted By druid223:
I guess some of these would be in order too.

http://www.youthwork-practice.com/adventure-camps-events-programs/camps/stone-age/stone-axe.jpg


Damn straight, Did you see Patriot ..get the Blu Ray version, lol.
kevthebassman  [Team Member]
5/16/2009 1:08:58 AM
Originally Posted By Philadelphia_GunMan:
I don't see what 22s have to do with the op of getting a flintlock. 22s are not going to take down a deer or a person.

Also I think it makes sense to have a flintlock in case you ever did have the need to make your own powder and projectiles. Sure it is not as easy as stockpiling ammo,but it never hurts to have the option.


A .22 isn't going to take down a deer or person? Not to sound like a dick, but I call bullshit on both points. Deer have been poached with .22's since forever, and FBI statistics show that the lowly .22 has ended the lives of tens of thousands of people over the years.

Now, I own a flintlock. I shoot it quite often and take it hunting. The effort and expense that goes into simply owning and shooting one is considerable. The logistics of powder manufacture alone are beyond ridiculous to even think about.

Flintlocks are a fun toy, but adding one to your arsenal because you think you'll need to make your own powder someday is, in my opinion at least, ludicrous. 20,000 rounds of .22 will get you through to the other side of TEOTWAWKI. A flintlock and a high school chemistry book won't put any meals in the pot without a whole lot of know-how, hard work, and plain dumb luck.
phideaux  [Member]
5/16/2009 3:27:05 AM
Originally Posted By Philadelphia_GunMan:
I don't see what 22s have to do with the op of getting a flintlock. 22s are not going to take down a deer or a person.

Also I think it makes sense to have a flintlock in case you ever did have the need to make your own powder and projectiles. Sure it is not as easy as stockpiling ammo,but it never hurts to have the option.


a .22 will kill a deer or person very dead.....i've seen many deer dropped in their tracks with a single shot from a .22 rimfire. but on the topic of the flintlock rifle, i see it more as "fluff". you'll be travelling long and hard to find all the right crap to make your powder. i agree with the 20K of .22 rimfire, that will feed you for a very long time.
lumper  [Team Member]
5/16/2009 3:37:38 AM
Originally Posted By Philadelphia_GunMan:
I don't see what 22s have to do with the op of getting a flintlock. 22s are not going to take down a deer or a person.

Also I think it makes sense to have a flintlock in case you ever did have the need to make your own powder and projectiles. Sure it is not as easy as stockpiling ammo,but it never hurts to have the option.


You are incorrect about a 22 killing deer and people. I have killed many cows, and hogs with a 22 it is rare that a second shot is needed if shot placement is correct.. 22's have been used for deer for many years also. I have not killed one with a 22, but I have no doubt that it would.

Another thing to consider, is medical attention may not be available. A little 22 hole could become infected easily, and while not causing immediate death, could cause death later.

If you want a flintlock, and can afford it, get one. I have several, but I think it would be better for me to store up a few extra boxes of ammo for my center fire and rim fire firearms if I was depending on them in a survival situation.
skunkwerx  [Member]
5/16/2009 4:12:11 AM
As already mentioned, making black powder is quite a task. I have done so using a modern ball mill and good clean components. Even with all that, the quality can be marginal.

I agree with the others, for the money spent on the flintlock rifle, the supplies, the lead mold, etc. You could buy a cheap shooter and enough modern cartridge ammo to last 2 lifetimes.

Flintlocks and percussion cap rifles are fine to own and use, but during TEOTWAWKI , the modern black powder components are all going to be gone, and you'd need to be quite the chemist just to purify the sulphur to better than 95% pure.

Pathfinder1  [Member]
5/16/2009 7:15:29 AM
Originally Posted By Philadelphia_GunMan:
I don't see what 22s have to do with the op of getting a flintlock. 22s are not going to take down a deer or a person.

Also I think it makes sense to have a flintlock in case you ever did have the need to make your own powder and projectiles. Sure it is not as easy as stockpiling ammo,but it never hurts to have the option.


I beg to differ!!!! I know plenty of people that have used a .22lr to take deer (illegaly- AND I do NOT condone their actions!) and have known that in WWII, OSS operatives have used the supressed Hi-Standard Model "A" (which I have... but not suppressed ), I also have a Model "B")) to kill Nazi's.

A .22lr is plenty powerful enough & a .22mag is more than sufficiant. Makes me want to re-stock & use my .22's more than my AR...

Pathfinder
Philadelphia_GunMan  [Member]
5/16/2009 9:35:51 AM
So to kill a deer or person with a 22, do you have to pretty much hit them in the brain ?
GOBLIN1  [Team Member]
5/16/2009 9:44:13 AM
I would be quite comfortable with a Savage 24c in 22mag\20ga as my looooonnnnnnggggg term foraging weapon. Much easier than a flintlock to use.
Pathfinder1cav  [Member]
5/16/2009 10:25:51 AM
Even though I have a couple of nice ones- one has an interchangeable percussion lock, they would be strictly for a situation that we have been cast back into an 1700-1800's lifestyle. NOT very likely IMHO...

If you have an interest in shooting muzzle loaders as a hobby- getting a feel for how it was done back in the day, then certainly give it a try. As mentioned before, you will have much better results with a quality rifle- particularly a GOOD lock! They can be faster & more reliable in bad conditions than you would think!

Also a lot of good basic primative survival skills can be learned attending a muzzle loading "Rendevous"!

As mentioned before, a good .22 or two & 5-10K rds. would be more my choice for very long term survival.. there are a lot more small animals out there than big! But for bigger stuff or bad guys, it's all about 1st round bullet PLACEMENT!
Taft  [Team Member]
5/16/2009 12:14:37 PM
...............thinking......um.......no.

If things get that bad, then your rifle will not be the biggest problem to over come.

cml2501  [Member]
5/16/2009 12:24:17 PM
Keep in mind that while not as cool, a .22 pellet rifle can kill pretty much anything a .22 LR can. (roughly 900FPS vs 1050FPS)

I'd rather have a semi-auto .22LR rifle and ammo, but the .22 pellet you could make yourself.
TomJefferson  [Site Staff]
5/16/2009 12:44:47 PM
Today's muzzle loader is made by modern standards which has it pluses and minuses. The plus side is it is much better more consistent steels and the parts are made to interchange. The minus is that the older rifles which took a lot longer to build were hand matched parts and could be a far more precision instrument.

By far, the advantages of the muzzle loader in survival should not be ignored.

Top of that list is the political correctness of the weapon system. While some people think its silly because taking it to war facing modern firearms would be a silly idea, others see the possibility of going to war a silly idea or that all gun related survival issues are war is a silly idea. They are fine hunting weapons that without a doubt will be last on the political ban list, grab this guy out of the crowd list, and on absolutely no government tracking list, and yes making a crude gun powder is not only not rocket science but materials found naturally in nature that are not even subject to supply lines dependent on where you live, or course.

Probably next in line for the attractiveness of this platform is unlike a modern firearm, a muzzle loader will literally shoot about anything you can stick down that barrel functioning both as a rifle and a shotgun. That includes many bullet types that can not be traced back to the gun.

Anyone trying to buy ammunition right now or into reloading scrambling to find small rifle primers ought to appreciate a renewable ammunition source.

The survival logistical aspects of a muzzle loader right now has increased ten fold since October of 2008. There's no shortage of bullets or powder right now. You can go to the range every day with a muzzle loader right now and not have to worry you won't be able to replenish your ammunition stock, save on your factory or reloading components, fire for a much less cost per round, and still be able use a gun as sport or a source of obtaining food. Of course, that would become even more attractive come some sort of SHTF with no hope of replenishing ammunition supplies.

If anything has been driven home to me by this current shortage of ammunition supplies, it is we should not take for granted we can always run to Walmart and buy a white box. Let's face it, we may be able to laugh at how crude this weapon is compared to modern weapons but it isn't the muzzle loading guys cutting back on their shooting right now due to the shortages.

Tj
kevthebassman  [Team Member]
5/16/2009 1:47:34 PM
Originally Posted By Philadelphia_GunMan:
So to kill a deer or person with a 22, do you have to pretty much hit them in the brain ?


So first, you state with absolute authority that a .22lr cannot possibly ever in a million years kill a person or a deer, and now you're asking a question like this?

You're on here spouting bullshit that you heard in a gun shop somewhere as if it was holy gospel, without having any first-hand experience to back it up.

No, you don't have to hit a person or a deer in the brain to kill them with a .22. A single shot from a .22 to the chest will kill either animal stone dead in a matter of minutes. It depends on the bullet and distance, of course, but to give you an example:

Years ago on my grandparent's farm, there got to be a serious feral dog problem. Rufus wouldn't stop pissing on the rug, so people brought their dog out to the "country" and dumped them. The dogs packed up and started killing livestock and smaller pets. Nobody in county government seemed interested in the problem, so the few people who lived in the area came up with a system. They put orange collars on their dogs, and shot anything that didn't have an orange collar. Now, when you're 16 and you've got a couple of friends, a 12 pack of beer, a car, a .22 rifle and no adult supervision, this is great sport. We shot many dogs.

Using hollowpoints, you never got passthroughs, but even big dogs died quickly from solid chest hits. Of course we rarely shot them just once, usually three or four times. Round nose bullets would usually pass through on broadside shots. Head shots were of course instant kills. When the bullet made a solid "thump" when it hit, you knew you had a good chest hit.

Now, a dog is not as big as a deer, but deer are not bulletproof. Put one or more round nose bullets into the boiler room, and that deer has got very little time to live. Likewise for a human being.

Of course, all this talk of killing deer is wholly irrelevant as it relates to a TEOTWAWKI scenario, because there won't be any deer by the time your average arfcommer is out of centerfire ammunition. People are much easier to put out of action than deer.
dimtim  [Member]
5/16/2009 2:27:26 PM
I think everybody missed a point here with this thread. A good flintlock is STILL a good item to have for continued survival in the LLLLLLLong run.
Spare part, no matter what, can still be fabricated by a metal working shop or a blacksmith with the right tools.
Flints can still be found that will work.
Bullets can still be melted from old batteries and old tire weights.
Gunpowder can still be made from charcoal, sulfer, and saltpeter.
A broken stock can be repaired or replaced if need be.

But, if you do decide to go with a flintlock, remember that two is one and one is none. If you can afford to always get two or more for long term logistics as you would with any long term survival or preparedness item.

Same goes for crossbows, hatchets, clubs, knives, swords, spears, mosin nagant rifles, .22 rifles, etc. If you are buying for survival, always buy A FEW. Extra weapons to help you keep what is yours, are always a god thing to have.
lostangel  [Team Member]
5/16/2009 3:58:54 PM
Originally Posted By Philadelphia_GunMan:
I don't see what 22s have to do with the op of getting a flintlock. 22s are not going to take down a deer or a person.

Also I think it makes sense to have a flintlock in case you ever did have the need to make your own powder and projectiles. Sure it is not as easy as stockpiling ammo,but it never hurts to have the option.




Huh?

More deer have been killed in Texas with a .22 than any other caliber weapon. And I can bet you my next paycheck that at 50 yards I can kill you very dead with a .22 l/r.
Shot placement is key.
nihilsum  [Member]
5/16/2009 6:21:45 PM
Who cares about SHTF use, get one because hawken type rifles are a blast to shoot!
banjo1302  [Member]
5/16/2009 6:33:13 PM
I am a avid flintlocker, I reenact and hunt with gear that was available in the 18th century. If you are going to spend your money on a flintlock get a good one. The cabelas kits are not anywhere near correct reproductions. PM me if you would like to find some correct gunbuilders. Flintlocks area blast to shoot, (no pun intended) get a good one!!!
ZombieHuntClub  [Member]
5/16/2009 6:38:00 PM
Originally Posted By ZenEngineer:
Originally Posted By jhlewis10:
I think I would rather build up my supply of .22 LR.

5000 rnds for under $200.


And after several years, when that supply has been used up or bartered for other necessities?


rocks
Dedhorse  [Member]
5/16/2009 10:18:01 PM
Dont forget flintlock pistols too....



Heres some of the old originals I own ...and all of them still will shoot fine !.....T
kevthebassman  [Team Member]
5/17/2009 12:35:49 AM
I think you'd get more mileage out of a good recurve bow. It's a damn sight easier to make usable arrows than it is to make usable gunpowder.
lumper  [Team Member]
5/17/2009 1:53:01 AM
Originally Posted By Philadelphia_GunMan:
So to kill a deer or person with a 22, do you have to pretty much hit them in the brain ?



Head shots are preferred for quick kills. You want the bullet to strike the target at as close to a 90 degree impact as you can. 22 bullets do have a tendency to glance off of bone if they impact at a small degree of difference between the bullet path and the angle of which the bullet strikes the skull.

The .22 will kill if other vital organs are hit, but not as quickly. This matters if you are trying to track an animal. Deer run quickly, and you may loose sight of them in the woods (or at night if this is when you were hunting). The small entrance hole and probably no exit makes for a very scant blood trail. Unless you have snow to track the animal (and show the blood drops easier) you are not going to find some of the animals you shoot.

I always shot the cattle and hogs in the head, but that was so we didn't waste any meat, and keeps everything as clean as possible for butchering. Since I don't hunt for mounts, I shoot most of my other game in the head or neck also.
lumper  [Team Member]
5/17/2009 2:25:28 AM
Originally Posted By cml2501:
Keep in mind that while not as cool, a .22 pellet rifle can kill pretty much anything a .22 LR can. (roughly 900FPS vs 1050FPS)

I'd rather have a semi-auto .22LR rifle and ammo, but the .22 pellet you could make yourself.


I am not sure that you are going to penetrate a deer skull with an .22 pellet. I thought a pellet was normally a soft lead so that the skirt of the pellet would expand to the diameter of the barrel to get a good air seal? Also, the weight of a .22 caliber pellet is about 2/5 to 1/3 that of the average 22 long rifle bullet at 15 or so grains compared to 38 or 40 grains for the 22 long rifle.

Secondly, a 22 long rifle is often several hundred feet per second faster than your estimated 1050 (a standard or subsonic velocity). As you may be aware, most 22 caliber hunting ammunition falls into the high velocity category (usually 1200+ feet per second). Also, I think your estimated velocity of 900 feet per second out of a 22 caliber air gun is on the high side.

I have never hunted with a 22 or larger bore air gun, so I do not know for sure, but I do not believe that even with perfect shot placement you are going to have a reliable deer killer. I just don't think you are going to reliably penetrate the skull.

Ammo expense is going to be about the same, quality wise. Fed bulk pack for about $15 for 550 for the 22, compared to between 2 and 3 dollars per hundred for the inexpensive air gun ammo. You can of course pay a lot more for either type if you so choose.

In noise the pellet gun has the clear advantage unless the .22 is subsonic and suppressed, than it gets a lot closer, with some 22's making less noise in some cases (you don't get the "sprong" noise).

The pellet gun should be fine for squirrel, rabbits, small birds and such though.

Anyone know differently?
mecoastie  [Member]
5/18/2009 8:13:32 AM
I think if you are buying this for a true long term survival use you need to source your raw materials first. Do you have a place that you can get sulfur locally? What about flint? Do you have the necessary equipment to manufacture the powder? The key there is that you produce a consistent product. If you cant say yes to all of those then I would look at a .22 or a Mosin. Stock up on primers, powder and a mold and you will have ammo for a long time. You can even drill out the Berdan primed cases, use a shotgun primer and create nice cheap loads to shoot cast bullets forever. I would also look at buying traps and snares.
Papabri  [Team Member]
5/18/2009 8:30:25 AM
Originally Posted By ZenEngineer:
It seems to me that any post apocalyptic world scenario that runs long enough is going to deplete the world's supply of ammunition, and reduce the industrial capability to provide reload materials (brass, smokeless powder, primers). So before descending down to the level of crossbows and machetes, the flintlock rifle will once again be the main battle rifle and hunting rifle. Flints can be found. Lead can be scavenged from car batteries. Black powder can be made with available materials. Someone truly thinking ahead should include a flintlock rifle and accessories in their armory.
http://www.cabelas.com/cabelas/en/content/Item/21/45/87/i214587sn02.jpg
My question is about the flintlock rifle itself. Is a reproduction (like the Cabela's kit above) of a 200 year old design the very best that can be had today? Is this the epitome of the design? Has no one tried to use today's materials and manufacturing techniques to improve the design?

Not by a long shot. Check out the custom flints foe sale here.

Bladeswitcher  [Team Member]
5/18/2009 8:42:03 AM
I say if a TEOTWAWKI scenario is what it takes to convince you to buy a rifle you want, then more power to you. But please, before you plop down $250 on a budget flintlock, take time to educate yourself about your options. Take a look at the Track of the Wolf web site or catalog and see what you can build. If you're capable of scrounging lead from car batteries and making your own car batteries, surely you can build a rifle.
TomJefferson  [Site Staff]
5/18/2009 9:22:27 AM
Originally Posted By ZombieHuntClub:
Originally Posted By ZenEngineer:
Originally Posted By jhlewis10:
I think I would rather build up my supply of .22 LR.

5000 rnds for under $200.


And after several years, when that supply has been used up or bartered for other necessities?


rocks


LOL, That's the impression I get from many of these posts.

Its either that or they think he's going to sell all his guns and ammo to buy a flintlock.
SteelonSteel  [Team Member]
5/18/2009 9:27:08 AM
Originally Posted By TomJefferson:
Today's muzzle loader is made by modern standards which has it pluses and minuses. The plus side is it is much better more consistent steels and the parts are made to interchange. The minus is that the older rifles which took a lot longer to build were hand matched parts and could be a far more precision instrument.

By far, the advantages of the muzzle loader in survival should not be ignored.

Top of that list is the political correctness of the weapon system. While some people think its silly because taking it to war facing modern firearms would be a silly idea, others see the possibility of going to war a silly idea or that all gun related survival issues are war is a silly idea. They are fine hunting weapons that without a doubt will be last on the political ban list, grab this guy out of the crowd list, and on absolutely no government tracking list, and yes making a crude gun powder is not only not rocket science but materials found naturally in nature that are not even subject to supply lines dependent on where you live, or course.

Probably next in line for the attractiveness of this platform is unlike a modern firearm, a muzzle loader will literally shoot about anything you can stick down that barrel functioning both as a rifle and a shotgun. That includes many bullet types that can not be traced back to the gun.

Anyone trying to buy ammunition right now or into reloading scrambling to find small rifle primers ought to appreciate a renewable ammunition source.

The survival logistical aspects of a muzzle loader right now has increased ten fold since October of 2008. There's no shortage of bullets or powder right now. You can go to the range every day with a muzzle loader right now and not have to worry you won't be able to replenish your ammunition stock, save on your factory or reloading components, fire for a much less cost per round, and still be able use a gun as sport or a source of obtaining food. Of course, that would become even more attractive come some sort of SHTF with no hope of replenishing ammunition supplies.

If anything has been driven home to me by this current shortage of ammunition supplies, it is we should not take for granted we can always run to Walmart and buy a white box. Let's face it, we may be able to laugh at how crude this weapon is compared to modern weapons but it isn't the muzzle loading guys cutting back on their shooting right now due to the shortages.

Tj



good freaking job TJ...........


































You personally just started the run on black powder components.
sjohnny  [Member]
5/18/2009 11:13:42 AM
Years ago my aunt used to shoot deer with a .22 LR (she normally used a bigger gun but when that was all she had that's what she used). She would shoot them in the eye or in the ear (depending on which presented itself). She never missed and they always dropped where they were hit. I wouldn't try it but she was probably one of the best shots I've ever known.
mcnielsen  [Team Member]
5/18/2009 11:24:49 AM
My long term SHTF weapon preps are only 100 year old techs. Surplus mausers and tins of 8mm ammo.
mcnielsen  [Team Member]
5/18/2009 11:26:20 AM
On the plus side, the libs have a harder argument to ban muzzleloading muskets since that's obviously what the founding fathers meant when they wrote the 2nd Amendment!
Paid Advertisement
--