Black powder cap and ball dumb questions...please help a dummy learn something

colonelchimp

colonelchimp

Member
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Location
nova scotia
Hi guys, you probably seen this question a millions times, but since i am a particularly dumb individual, i figured i'd ask for you guys to educate me....:dancingbanana:

i am looking to get into cap and ball as i have always loved the colt navy etc, i have my pal non restricted, but i got two different pieces of info from some buddies, so my poor brain cell is confused,
i was told by one, that black powder needs no licence, even pistols.....

second one said black powder needs no licence but pistols are restricted...

Question is this, which is right?? please explain to me in simple terms what do i need to do to get the cap and ball colt of my dreams!....:rolleyes::rolleyes:

thanks guys,
 
Original cap & ball pistol, 1897 and earlier. Exempt from licencing and registration.
Post 1897 cap & ball pistol, including current reproductions - restricted. Subject to registration, licencing, ATT.
 
Only certain antique pistols require no RPAL or PAL. The modern reproductions are not antique so you need an RPAL. The real antiques are generally not safe to shot or are very special collectables that should not be shot.
 
great , so i need my rpal after all, so basically they were both wrong hahaha, and i wouldnt feel safe using a hundred year old open frame pistol, probably couldnt afford one anyway haha, thanks guys
 
colonelchimp said:
great , so i need my rpal after all, so basically they were both wrong hahaha, and i wouldnt feel safe using a hundred year old open frame pistol, probably couldnt afford one anyway haha, thanks guys
Click to expand...

even though you do not need a license for an antique, in many cases it is store policy to ask for a PAL when you buy loading supplies

cheers mooncoon
 
mooncoon said:
even though you do not need a license for an antique, in many cases it is store policy to ask for a PAL when you buy loading supplies

cheers mooncoon
Click to expand...

...and even if you do not need a federal license to purchase a firearm, there will, most likely, be a provincial or municipal edict that you cannot shoot it. For example: matchlock and flintlock rifles are considered `primitive ignition systems` and can be bought without a PAL , even if it`s a reproduction that is of recent manufacture. However, if you try to take it hunting or want to shot it, here in NS, you need an outdoor card, which, you cannot get without a PAL (pretty sure this is also true in other provinces too). So buying a firearm and being able to use it, are 2 different problems in Canada and your place of residence.
 
Curly1 said:
The real antiques are generally not safe to shot or are very special collectables that should not be shot.
Click to expand...

I guess I'm playing with a time bomb by your standards. I regularly shoot an original Colt 1860 Army, an original Colt 1849 Pocket model, an original 1863 Wm Mason contract rifle-musket and an original Smith Carbine from the US Civil War, and an Ithaca Crass model SxS Damascus barrel shot gun. Would you like to explain why they're unsafe to shoot? Been shooting them for 40+ years. What am I missing here?
Jon
 
musketjon said:
I guess I'm playing with a time bomb by your standards. I regularly shoot an original Colt 1860 Army, an original Colt 1849 Pocket model, an original 1863 Wm Mason contract rifle-musket and an original Smith Carbine from the US Civil War, and an Ithaca Crass model SxS Damascus barrel shot gun. Would you like to explain why they're unsafe to shoot? Been shooting them for 40+ years. What am I missing here?
Jon
Click to expand...

You have inspected your toys and consider it safe, given your experience I see nothing wrong with your choice. As I said, not all antiques are shootable and some are very special and should not be shot to preserve them.
 
musketjon said:
I guess I'm playing with a time bomb by your standards. I regularly shoot an original Colt 1860 Army, an original Colt 1849 Pocket model, an original 1863 Wm Mason contract rifle-musket and an original Smith Carbine from the US Civil War, and an Ithaca Crass model SxS Damascus barrel shot gun. Would you like to explain why they're unsafe to shoot? Been shooting them for 40+ years. What am I missing here?
Jon
Click to expand...

What was the testing standards for barrels back in the day?I don't know but would like to know.In Europe there was testing with proof stamps on the steel and I assume that was the same here (North America) but how did the manufacturers test the metallurgy?
 
LouF said:
What was the testing standards for barrels back in the day?I don't know but would like to know.In Europe there was testing with proof stamps on the steel and I assume that was the same here (North America) but how did the manufacturers test the metallurgy?
Click to expand...

The US of A has NO Proof Houses, federal or otherwise, as are currently found in every European nation that makes and sells firearms for the home market of for export - Google CIP for details.

The US of A has an organisation of firearms manufacturing standards called SAAMI - it is NOT legally binding, as Proof Acts are everywhere else, but it does set certain standards that are closely adhered to by US manufacturers. Unlike CIP members' products, US-made firearms are tested in-house for safe functionability using standard ammunition from accredited manufacturers, not by an independent organisation like a Proof House. They are not tested, AFAIK, with Proof-level overloads as CIP firearms are. As for BP firearms, only the UK has a level of BP proof commensurate with the pressures involved in safe firing. The two other major nations who make BP firearms - mainly replicas - Italy and Spain - have lower levels of proof that are safe enough for sensible use, hence their rather low levels of loads described in their instructions.

AFAIK, Canada has similarly never had any kind of formal Proof House setup, and is not a CIP member. The CIP also governs the manufacture of all kinds of small arms ammunition - a fact that can be ascertained simply by reading the notes on the box.

Military manufacturing of small arms in Canada was covered by the manufacturer at the time, and firearms were tested at source. Any Long Branch firearms that you have ever seen with British Proof Marks were proofed in either Birmingham [mostly] or London [rarely] before being sold on the open market as milsurp firearms. I'm sorry to say that I don't know what arrangements were made for firearms made by Cooey. The only examples I've ever seen had UK Proofs, in accordance with UK Proof Act laws.

tac
 
Last edited:
Many Colt cylinders in the day burst. Colt's m,etallurgy was not up to par.

I have a Tranter .450 in pristine condition and I had the cylinder magnafluxed. It passed just fine. I still keep loads moderate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom