Wednesday, July 20, 2011


You would think, given the photo on the masthead, that we here at the Alexandria Daily Poop might do a post or two on firearms from time to time.

Well. it's about time we did. So here goes.

We were in the bathroom the other day amusing ourselves with a back issue of a gun magazine while we dealt with our own "back issue" (if you know what we mean, and if y0u don't, then what we mean is we were reading while we were taking a shit, dumbass) when we ran into an ad that advertised a gun that embodied "The latest in muzzle-loading technology".

This is akin to offering an improved 8-track tape deck.

There is, to be certain, a special cachet attached to using original or replica versions of 18th century firearms to hunt and target-shoot. There are two systems currently in use for hunting and matches using muzzle loading firearms. Both have in common the necessity of loading the propellant and projectile by shoving them down the muzzle.

In a flintlock, the hammer holds a piece of sharpened flint that strikes a piece of steel in order to produce sparks to ignite the main charge.

In a percussion lock, a metal cap is placed over a nipple which directs the flame produced when the hammer strikes the cap so as to ignite the main charge.

This weapon touted as the "Latest muzzle-loading technology" has one refinement: the nipple for the cap is placed on the back of the barrel and is struck not by a hammer but by a spring-loaded bolt which travels straight forward instead of down.

Oh, yeah. And it has a polymer stock and fiberglass bedding for more accuracy.

Personally if I'm going to go hunting with a muzzle-loading black powder piece, I'll use a flintlock. If you're gonna go primitive, then go all the way.

I mean, you wouldn't try to prove Fermat's last theorem on a "modern" abacus, would you?

Or would you?

No comments:


Blog Archive