Joined
·
435 Posts
Well is it creating a little buzz so thought I would bring some of the buzz over here....
[file]85064[/file]
[file]85064[/file]
New TC Explorer....
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Joined
·
2,237 Posts
I hate to say it, but including the QLA on that rifle was dern stupid.
Joined
·
435 Posts
UC
Sorta like Randy condemming all CVA's because a barrel blew up on a few of them... So does that make them all bad?
Personally, I do not mind the QLA when they get it right. Even you Accura has a form of a QLA...
You have to remember all of the last and current Hawkens they produced came with the QLA and they shoot conicals great.
Cayugad and a couple of my friends here in Idaho Black Diamonds with QLA's and they shoot the Bull Shop just great... even Bull Shop Dan has a 54 Hawhen with a QLA.
My Omega shoots a Bull Shop with the best of them - I have never tried the Triumph - I really should do that.
TC has said along time ago that they had a run of inline barrels that the QLA was off - center in and if you have one those to send it in.
In fact my grand father tells me back in the old days there were even ml's with a form of QLA - to make it easier to load a PRB... so the QLA is not new...
If you have a bad one you have a bad one, but the majority of them function well...
[Edited on 10/6/2008 by sabotloader]
That is your opinion and you get to have it, but there are a lot of other folks that like it.
Sorta like Randy condemming all CVA's because a barrel blew up on a few of them... So does that make them all bad?
Personally, I do not mind the QLA when they get it right. Even you Accura has a form of a QLA...
You have to remember all of the last and current Hawkens they produced came with the QLA and they shoot conicals great.
Cayugad and a couple of my friends here in Idaho Black Diamonds with QLA's and they shoot the Bull Shop just great... even Bull Shop Dan has a 54 Hawhen with a QLA.
My Omega shoots a Bull Shop with the best of them - I have never tried the Triumph - I really should do that.
TC has said along time ago that they had a run of inline barrels that the QLA was off - center in and if you have one those to send it in.
In fact my grand father tells me back in the old days there were even ml's with a form of QLA - to make it easier to load a PRB... so the QLA is not new...
If you have a bad one you have a bad one, but the majority of them function well...
[Edited on 10/6/2008 by sabotloader]
Joined
·
2,237 Posts
TC lover!! 
The QLA does NOTHING to enhance accuracy, in fact it can only detract from accuracy and, in the worst case, destroy accuracy. The Apex has a shallow easy load section (also unnecessary) but at least it is done correctly. Same is true of the Accura even though it has a slightly deeper easy load section.
Nothing beats a properly crowned barrel. TC popularized the fake false muzzle (QLA) to accommodate sabot loaders. False muzzles of olden days had one big advantage - they weren't there when you fired the rifle as they were not affixed to the barrel. There was a reason for that.
My opinion is not pulled from thin air, it comes as a result of an Encore barrel that wouldn't keep two consecutive shots inside a bushel basket at 50 yards. It also comes from reading a large number of similar woes from other user/owners and knowing that David White makes a good part of his living doing nothing but correcting (REMOVING) the QLA section on TC barrels.
Now I'll admit to having owned a blued Encore that shot everything I put down the barrel pretty well and I still own a G2 Contender with QLA that does the same. But I would still prefer that QLA section GONE.
Putting a QLA section on a rifle intended to shoot nothing but conicals is a stupid move. My opinion stands.
And don't bring Randy into this! I've actually been around awhile.
[Edited on 12-17-2009 by Underclocked]
The QLA does NOTHING to enhance accuracy, in fact it can only detract from accuracy and, in the worst case, destroy accuracy. The Apex has a shallow easy load section (also unnecessary) but at least it is done correctly. Same is true of the Accura even though it has a slightly deeper easy load section.
Nothing beats a properly crowned barrel. TC popularized the fake false muzzle (QLA) to accommodate sabot loaders.
False muzzles of olden days had one big advantage - they weren't there when you fired the rifle as they were not affixed to the barrel. There was a reason for that.My opinion is not pulled from thin air, it comes as a result of an Encore barrel that wouldn't keep two consecutive shots inside a bushel basket at 50 yards. It also comes from reading a large number of similar woes from other user/owners and knowing that David White makes a good part of his living doing nothing but correcting (REMOVING) the QLA section on TC barrels.
Now I'll admit to having owned a blued Encore that shot everything I put down the barrel pretty well and I still own a G2 Contender with QLA that does the same. But I would still prefer that QLA section GONE.
Putting a QLA section on a rifle intended to shoot nothing but conicals is a stupid move. My opinion stands.
And don't bring Randy into this! I've actually been around awhile.
[Edited on 12-17-2009 by Underclocked]
Joined
·
2,237 Posts
And I want to know how you edited your post above on 10/6/2008?
Joined
·
11,295 Posts
How much are these?
Joined
·
435 Posts
UC
[qoute]And I want to know how you edited your post above on 10/6/2008?[/quote]
I tried to fix spelling error, which I am good at making.
The QLA had nothing to with accuracy either sabot or conical - it was to ease the loading and allow a wider range of conicals to be loaded.
And yes, I agree it did cause an accuracy problem in a limited number of barrels, when you consider the number of TC barrels produced.
Sorry to tick you off if I did - but I do not think you know how big a hammer you carry.
[qoute]And I want to know how you edited your post above on 10/6/2008?[/quote]
I tried to fix spelling error, which I am good at making.
Not really I really prefer the Rem 700ml and the Knight DISC series better than any of the TC's - oops that not correct either I really do like TC Renegades...
The QLA had nothing to with accuracy either sabot or conical - it was to ease the loading and allow a wider range of conicals to be loaded.
And yes, I agree it did cause an accuracy problem in a limited number of barrels, when you consider the number of TC barrels produced.
I realize that - i know you had a bad experiance but that still does not make them all bad for everyone. You also do not like the red plastic jacket and often say so, but I and several others do - that is fine for you but do not condem the whole thing.
Because you as a major voice of ML's and your knowledge have declared them all bad. How many things have you seen declared bad by others that really are not?
Now see that statement is exactly how it should be made - not the whole gun condemed because you do not like it. I really prefer a solid reciever to barrel gun and I prefer a bolt - but I do not condem a break open or an exposed hammer that you must kock before you can shoot it. There is a reason the you do not find a lot of break open centerfire guns and the 30-30 hammer does not exist anymore.
But it was not designed to shoot just conicals or PRB's - It is a 1/48 so that it can shoot conicals, PRB's, and sabots, even PowerBelts... Sabots are legal in Washington during ML season. And you are certainly get to have your opinion - just remeber how many people you effect when you make a statement.
And that is exactly why I brought him into the conversation your stance parrallels his or even FG's one sided mind. And see, I think you are a bigger person than that.
Sorry to tick you off if I did - but I do not think you know how big a hammer you carry.
Joined
·
435 Posts
buckwacker181
I am not sure how much they are going to run - I do not even know if they are on the web-site yet.
Somebody will find out..
I am not sure how much they are going to run - I do not even know if they are on the web-site yet.
Somebody will find out..
Joined
·
4,091 Posts
OK stupid here-Whats a QLA?
Joined
·
917 Posts
I don't feel so bad now...had to look it up myself....
QLAâ„¢
Quick Load Accurizor (QLA™), is yet another T/C technology that is standard on all T/C muzzleloaders. QLA™ makes loading simple and fast. Unlike other muzzleloaders, QLA allows the hunter or shooter to quickly and easily load their muzzleloader by incorporating a false muzzle design into the end of the barrel. In the midst of the hunt T/C technology’s QLA can help save you precious time when loading that second shot .
However, that description from the T/C site tells me NOTHING about what it is or how it works. Maybe one of you guys can explain it in terms I can understand.....
[Edited on 12-17-2009 by atdalake]
QLAâ„¢
Quick Load Accurizor (QLA™), is yet another T/C technology that is standard on all T/C muzzleloaders. QLA™ makes loading simple and fast. Unlike other muzzleloaders, QLA allows the hunter or shooter to quickly and easily load their muzzleloader by incorporating a false muzzle design into the end of the barrel. In the midst of the hunt T/C technology’s QLA can help save you precious time when loading that second shot .
However, that description from the T/C site tells me NOTHING about what it is or how it works. Maybe one of you guys can explain it in terms I can understand.....
[Edited on 12-17-2009 by atdalake]
Joined
·
435 Posts
Bronco Brian
It is an area in the muzzle that has been opened up to allow you to set the conical or sabot down in side the bore, then either use a short starter or your thumb to push the projectile down onto the lands of the bore. It suppose to help you keep the projectile centered and ease loading.
For a lot of people it does exactly that.
This is a picture of a 460 grain Bull Shop sitting in the QLA - ready to be pushed down the bore...
[file]85109[/file]
[Edited on 10/6/2008 by sabotloader]
It is an area in the muzzle that has been opened up to allow you to set the conical or sabot down in side the bore, then either use a short starter or your thumb to push the projectile down onto the lands of the bore. It suppose to help you keep the projectile centered and ease loading.
For a lot of people it does exactly that.
This is a picture of a 460 grain Bull Shop sitting in the QLA - ready to be pushed down the bore...
[file]85109[/file]
[Edited on 10/6/2008 by sabotloader]
Joined
·
4,091 Posts
Does my 700 ML .54 have that?
Joined
·
435 Posts
atdalake
The QLA are is a larger diameter than the bore of the gun - it does not have any (or very little) lands and grooves in that area. It is larger than the conical you will be loading so the conical. sabot, or PRB goes down the first 3/4" of the bore very easily and sits on top of the lands and grooves of the bore. It will stay there while you get your short started and start the conical down or push it down with your thumb.
Remember that commercial concicals come in a taper - with the largest ring at the bottom of the conical - some are very difficult to get started and even at times you can start them crooked. The QLA is suppose to help this as well as provide some amount of protection to the internal crown in the bore.
Just my opinions...
The QLA are is a larger diameter than the bore of the gun - it does not have any (or very little) lands and grooves in that area. It is larger than the conical you will be loading so the conical. sabot, or PRB goes down the first 3/4" of the bore very easily and sits on top of the lands and grooves of the bore. It will stay there while you get your short started and start the conical down or push it down with your thumb.
Remember that commercial concicals come in a taper - with the largest ring at the bottom of the conical - some are very difficult to get started and even at times you can start them crooked. The QLA is suppose to help this as well as provide some amount of protection to the internal crown in the bore.
Just my opinions...
Joined
·
435 Posts
Bronco Brian
No, your Remington does not have any form of QLA. The lands and grooves come right to the end of the bore and end in a 'crowned' barrel.
No, your Remington does not have any form of QLA. The lands and grooves come right to the end of the bore and end in a 'crowned' barrel.
Joined
·
2,237 Posts
As are my statements, and I generally don't have to carry a hammer.
If someone can show me a test of multiple examples of QLA barrels compared to just a good crowned barrel where any real gain occurs toward accuracy from one or the other, we will have some basis for saying it's a good or bad thing beyond mine and your limited experience. Meanwhile, we are left with our opinions. It wasn't just a bad experience, it was a nightmare and a very costly nightmare and it was provided by a rifle that had nothing but problems right out of the box.
I'm not bashing TC for sport, nor do I think they make a bad product generally. I just blame them for introducing certain elements into the muzzleloader world (along with Hodgdon) that were never needed. Just as the Knight DISC was never needed although I agree some favor it. The best muzzleloaders start with a great barrel, then it's up to the manufacturers to see how badly they can mess it up or complicate it with gizmos.
I will note that Knight, even in their wildest bizarre designs, never used a QLA section or anything resembling one. At least they got that right and produced some excellent rifles anyway.
QLA or easy-load section of a barrel is simply an unrifled section of the barrel at the muzzle, hopefully of groove diameter, that allows the bullet or sabot to be set in place while you grab your ramrod or short starter. It can be anywhere from 1/4" to 3/4" or so in depth. A simple look at your muzzle will tell you if your barrel has one. It is in no way a funnel as it should be of consistent diameter throughout.
[file]85119[/file] TC's picture.
If done perfectly in alignment with the bore and completely concentric, it's a good idea on paper and sometimes in the real world. But it is not a necessary requirement to achieve great accuracy as evidenced by rifles from many gunmakers. It is a convenience thing that if done other than perfectly, will do nothing but detract from accuracy.
It just seems to me that when buying a rifle that costs $600 to $1000 retail, one shouldn't need worry whether that QLA was done correctly (among other common issues with certain popular brands). It also makes inspecting your barrel's crown a more difficult process and correcting crown damage a far more complex event. TC may have improved their track record since that "one run" of bad barrels, but there seems to continue to be numerous example of more recent rifles having accuracy greatly improved by the elimination of QLA and a proper recrowning job.
The Remington Genesis is one example where the barrel maker forgot something when they added the easy load section. The internal crown is very abrupt and sharp so rather than make loading easier, that particular setup made it more difficult.
Mike, my opinion is certainly worth no more than yours but on a few things we will differ. So far as I know, there isn't anyone out there that has EVERYTHING down pat. Your grandpa was probably describing a "coned" crown which again, if done exactly right, is an aid in loading. And, if you were fighting a battle, would probably have been a most welcome thing even if not done perfectly. Most of us don't carry our muzzleloaders into battle these days.
I was referring to the date on that edit??
[Edited on 12-17-2009 by Underclocked]
If someone can show me a test of multiple examples of QLA barrels compared to just a good crowned barrel where any real gain occurs toward accuracy from one or the other, we will have some basis for saying it's a good or bad thing beyond mine and your limited experience. Meanwhile, we are left with our opinions. It wasn't just a bad experience, it was a nightmare and a very costly nightmare and it was provided by a rifle that had nothing but problems right out of the box.
I'm not bashing TC for sport, nor do I think they make a bad product generally. I just blame them for introducing certain elements into the muzzleloader world (along with Hodgdon) that were never needed. Just as the Knight DISC was never needed although I agree some favor it. The best muzzleloaders start with a great barrel, then it's up to the manufacturers to see how badly they can mess it up or complicate it with gizmos.
I will note that Knight, even in their wildest bizarre designs, never used a QLA section or anything resembling one. At least they got that right and produced some excellent rifles anyway.
QLA or easy-load section of a barrel is simply an unrifled section of the barrel at the muzzle, hopefully of groove diameter, that allows the bullet or sabot to be set in place while you grab your ramrod or short starter. It can be anywhere from 1/4" to 3/4" or so in depth. A simple look at your muzzle will tell you if your barrel has one. It is in no way a funnel as it should be of consistent diameter throughout.
[file]85119[/file] TC's picture.
If done perfectly in alignment with the bore and completely concentric, it's a good idea on paper and sometimes in the real world. But it is not a necessary requirement to achieve great accuracy as evidenced by rifles from many gunmakers. It is a convenience thing that if done other than perfectly, will do nothing but detract from accuracy.
It just seems to me that when buying a rifle that costs $600 to $1000 retail, one shouldn't need worry whether that QLA was done correctly (among other common issues with certain popular brands). It also makes inspecting your barrel's crown a more difficult process and correcting crown damage a far more complex event. TC may have improved their track record since that "one run" of bad barrels, but there seems to continue to be numerous example of more recent rifles having accuracy greatly improved by the elimination of QLA and a proper recrowning job.
The Remington Genesis is one example where the barrel maker forgot something when they added the easy load section. The internal crown is very abrupt and sharp so rather than make loading easier, that particular setup made it more difficult.
Mike, my opinion is certainly worth no more than yours but on a few things we will differ. So far as I know, there isn't anyone out there that has EVERYTHING down pat. Your grandpa was probably describing a "coned" crown which again, if done exactly right, is an aid in loading. And, if you were fighting a battle, would probably have been a most welcome thing even if not done perfectly. Most of us don't carry our muzzleloaders into battle these days.
I was referring to the date on that edit??
[Edited on 12-17-2009 by Underclocked]
Joined
·
4,091 Posts
I suppose there would be and advantage to QLA, never tried anything other than Power Belts and large conicals. Threw the powerbelts in the garbage and have use conicals ever since.
Joined
·
2,237 Posts
We got 'er goin' now!!
Joined
·
435 Posts
UC
I never even noted the date - thought you meant that I went back and added something... I do not know how that happened I just checked my computer 0 it has the date correct...
Opinions are good, but I tell you right now your opinions carry far more weight than mine and a lot of others... It is like you are close to being the president of muzzleoading and a lot of these discuassion sights...
Look I edited again and it came out 10/6 - I wonder why...
Look at your last post - the posted date is 10/6
[Edited on 10/6/2008 by sabotloader]
I never even noted the date - thought you meant that I went back and added something... I do not know how that happened I just checked my computer 0 it has the date correct...
Opinions are good, but I tell you right now your opinions carry far more weight than mine and a lot of others... It is like you are close to being the president of muzzleoading and a lot of these discuassion sights...
Look I edited again and it came out 10/6 - I wonder why...
Look at your last post - the posted date is 10/6
[Edited on 10/6/2008 by sabotloader]
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
