Talk:Muzzle-loading rifle

Merging Rifled muzzle loader and Muzzle-loading rifle
These two articles were on the same subject, although I have now mentioned smaller muzzle loaded rifles, so perhaps they aren't really the same any more. However, the same information is still present in both articles so some sort of merge or split needs to be done. Incorporate Rifled muzzle loader within Muzzle-loading rifle, or move out artillery to Rifled muzzle loader? I would prefer merging as RML seems to have meant a modified smoothbore gun, at least in Britain. Jll 14:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * One is a naval weapon {Rifled muzzle loader} and the other is an infantry personal weapon. I am not convinced that the two will merge, or should.--Anthony.bradbury 23:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

In fortification circles, the abbreviation RML is used extensively, almost never MLR. The article cited is specific to 64 pounder guns becoming 8" RMLs, the larger guns were nearly all designed from scratch. With the existence of a separate Muzzleloading article which addresses the technology from the small arms perspective, I'd support merging the articles, but under the RML name. Jrbray 13:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I personally am very in favour of merging these two, after all very similar aticles. I believe it would benefit the two articles highly and provide an easier reference point for any researchers.

I thnk the artillery parts should be merged under the RML heading. G. Gaskill, 23 Apr 2008

Muzzle-loading artillery, smoothbore
First, I think merging "rifled muzzleloader" and "muzzle-loading rifle" is a bad idea, as "rifled muzzle-loader" is a official designation specifically referring to large, rifled muzzle-loading artillery pieces (i.e. a "rifle" being a term for a rifled artillery piece), while "muzzleloading rifle" refers to small, handheld rifled firearms. These are not really the same subject. If you insist on merging the two, the two topics should be dealt with differently, and clearly, not haphazardly, leaving you guessing about which is which.

Which brings me too my next point. "Muzzle-loader" only covers muzzle-loading small arms, for some reason. Why is there a page covering RIFLED muzzle-loading artillery, but nothing at all about the earlier smoothbore muzzleloading artillery? They made a lot more smoothbore muzzleloading guns than RMLs? First, there ought to be a page about smoothbore muzzleloaders. Second, by the justification you used for blending the articles about rifled artillery and rifled small arms, then "muzzle-loader" OUGHT to cover artillery as well as small arms, and there ought to be a dedicated page to SMOOTHBORE muzzleloaders as well, both artillery and small arms. Although personally I'd rather see a dedicated page for muzzleloading artillery covering both smoothbore and rifled guns, and onecovering both smoothbore and rifled small arms. That seems the most logical to me, since the ims and concerns for each are so vastly different, and when you blend the two topics together, you end up with people interested in small arms and vice versa coming in and making additions all over the page without saying whether they are referring to artillery or small arms, or neglecting to state whether it applies only to small arms, or to both. Often, they don't know, because they only know about one area. All good reasons NOT to merge the articles, unless you can write it and lay it out properly and keep people from messing it up. I already re-wrote a lot of this page to make it coherent; it's been a while though, so I don't recall how much I got finished or whether it's been ruined yet..45Colt 01:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * See Smoothbore and Cannon for smoothbore coverage. RobDuch (talk) 23:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)