Fine looking shooter there!
I've had the urge for awhile but wind chill advisories for tonight and tomorrow until 2pm.! Temperatures to be 2º to -5º with a 10 to 15mph wind out of the north!

I hope to get my underhammer looking as nice as that!
Big John

Nothing fancy by any means, but some of you have mentioned in the past that you thought this would make a better Table Gun then a Chunk Gun, so I'm going to use this. (If the weather ever allows!) 

.40 caliber 1" x 42"  w/ 1in 48 twist  Green Mnt Brl

Oh, and Mike's rifle above, I would not have a problem with it. I leave this to be decided by you who will be shooting these matches at the National level.

Last edited by Candle Snuffer (2/22/2015 5:14 PM)

Mike,
I too am shooting a modified stock but, with all due respect, l would question the radical design of what you've created. I think it may be closer to bench than table. At the same time I am willing to have my rifle critiqued for conformance to the rules. Let's hear some other thoughts on this so we can all move forward.
Mark

Is there any advantage to Mike's rifle? I only ask as I see the NMLRA Rules state there will be no double rest allowed (and I don't know if Mike's rifle was designed by him for a double rest purpose, and if it were it couldn't be used)...

30 yards is 30 yards and truth be known there are many of non-builders using over the counter rifles that are capable of shooting some darn fine groups at that range whether they be short or long barreled.

Is the high cheek piece in a match like this an advantage or disadvantage. Each shooter will pick his/her hieght position on the blocks to shoot from and from which provides the best line of sighting for them.

Just throwing these thoughts out there.

I do understand in wanting to keep this table shooting a'long more earlier lines of thought of traditional muzzle loading, but in the same context, early muzzle loading (back in the day) just about every rifle to my knowledge carried a ramrod under its belly, however, I do believe there are provisions made for target shooting and not having to carry (or at least provide) as part of the rifle.

I just do not think it is what original intent of the folks who started this.

Hello everybody
Let me start out by saying I will guarantee you there was no malicious intent to circumvent the rules here. This discipline of shooting is in its infancy and is experiencing growing pains.
 
I spent most of the night of 22 February, awake thinking about the situation and since I couldn't sleep anyway, I did some research, as well as looking at research offered up by other folks via email and rather than to just tell you what my opinion.  I think you deserve to have a peek inside of the research that I did the pictures and wording was pretty massive to try to put on a form. Therefore, I have put them on a PDF at the link at the end of this post should you wish to see some of the things that I used to form an opinion.
 
The Reader's Digest version: Searching the Internet and some books that I have at home as well as consulting with some respected elder statesman in the muzzle loading community. I know earlier in the thread that it was mentioned that no mention was made of the stock only that it could not have a rubber recoil pad. I read this rule, as it was presented and accepted by the Association to find that there is mention of the rifle configuration, which would include the stock, is to be of a traditional hunting or traditional target style. The rub has been what is traditional, and that's where the research started. I could not find an example in a traditional hunting or target style rifle of a butt stock, such has been presented on this current rifle. It appears to me that a line needs to be drawn somewhere. I think this has presented us an excellent opportunity to do so.
 
With all that said, presuming that you have already looked at documentation at the link below. I do not believe this stock is in the "spirit of the shoot" nor do I believe that this stock is for the betterment of the shoot. Please understand I have no desire to squelch innovation, but I do have a very strong nearly insatiable desire to stay traditional. I do not believe this is the direction we should be going.
 
I just read the post by Kermit, which is post number 13 at 10:30 AM on 23 February, Kermit the question is about the ease-of-use at the table. The Monte Carlo style stock is found in a lesser fashion (the raised cheap peace being approximately 3/4 of an inch above the butt plate in some traditional, offhand rifles), I feel that this stock is designed to allow maximum stability by being close to the bench while lifting the shooter head to come in line with the site, which I do not believe to be a traditional target rifle. I don't know that I can't overuse the word traditional plain and simple. I think if we go this direction we will have many people that never want to compete, just simply because it appears to be another bench match. At first allowed the adjustable peep sights. Our hope was that shooters would go away from the adjustable peep sight, to use a low profile fixed peep sight. The adjustable allowed in the beginning so people could use equipment they already had. My burning desire is that people have enough respect for the intent of the founders to not turn this in to equipment race. The whole point of the match is to facilitate those who are physically challenged and put the shooter back in the game.
http://media.wix.com/ugd/7ff034_85a7c0ce835845b580d08fee4a32d39e.pdf

Robin,
I took a look at what you presented and it's obvious that you have thought this out pretty thoroughly. I both agree and disagree with your determination. I agree that the radical comb was not prevelant in the traditional match rifles and I do feel that they represent more of a dedicated "bench type" stock. With that in mind I agree with you on the elimination of a radically high comb configuration. I have to disagree regarding the elimination of the square or flat toe. As long as the shooters position does not bring his, or her, supporting hand in contact with the table top I do not see any advantage but possibly a dissadvantage to the shooter. If the toe were to be extended and shaped in a more or less traditional configuration it would give the shooter more surface to grip than the flat toe configuration, hence "possibly" more control. Just my humble opinion.
Mark

Mike,
I think what you have decided is truly in the best interest of the game and the spirit of sportsmanship that we all look forward to. I hope that non of the comments that have been made were taken personally as that was certainly not the intent. Per your advice, I'm thinking Spring.
Mark

I have not taken advantage of the position of moderator on the site but at this time I think we should consider this topic resolved and closed. Thank you all for your comments, it is this type of participation that will make us strong and keep our game moving forward in the direction that was originally intended.
Mark

personally i see nothing wrong with the rifle for the open class, it is very similar to many old target rifles.

Agree, Robin. We've seen exactly ONE table gun here. Now we need to see some others and expand the vision of what's used and maybe what's right or wrong about them.

BRW, Robin, I replied over on the ALR forum as well.



   
Re: Table gun architecture
« Reply #3 on: Today at 11:53:19 AM »        
Agree with Daryl. But let's remember, Robin has worked to get the NMLRA to give this game a try, and rules have been established for Friendship and other NMLRA events. Should a local club wish to engage in a modified form for their members/guests, they are certainly free to do so. I can see a club somewhere inviting the plastic/stainless/inline folks to join in, whether in open competition or a separate class would be their decision. Some other club might choose to only allow flintlocks and loading from the bag. Nobody is keeping you fron doing as you please, but rather setting clear limits for folks gathering from far and wide to shoot together and understanding what the playing field looks like. Shucks, the NFL tells everyone what air pressure must be in the leather spheroids they use.

Some may not be aware that there is also a hunter/traditional class as well. The restrictions there are even more specific.

Last edited by Kermit (2/24/2015 12:05 PM)

Oops, missed the second one--sorry 'bout that. I know we've seen others in other threads. It would be good to see them here for purposes of this discussion. I may get inspired to get a pic up of the one I'm contemplating. I could use some criticism. Or feedback?

Rich,
Saw your post re what your rifle looks like. Hope it doesn't shoot invisible balls, that would be hard to score.
Mark

That is a nice-looking piece, Richard, you should have a lot of fun with that. Can you give us a breakdown on who made barrel and a triggers and a lock that sort of stuff. If you and it get along well enough, you could be a force to be reckoned with in either class.

Rich,
Nice looking rifle, unusual to see a back action lock on a contemporary rifle. Did you build it?
Mark