I think that people in the 18th century had the same basic nature of people today. Go back further than that and my reading about the British longbow tells me that one theory about the proliferation of the weapon starting about the 14th century was that is a fad that spread rapidly.
As with most military forces, the British found out that in the hands of a skilled archer the longbow was a formidable weapon. So the military took advantage of this simple weapon.
When you look at the elegant workmanship that went into rifles, fowling pieces and dueling pistols of the 18th and early 19th centuries it doesn't take much guess work to know that the end users of those products liked their guns.
From a cultural standpoint the 13 colonies weren't that much different than mother England. Being that the colonists were basically on the frontier of the British empire necessitated the possession and development of the skill-sets for firearms.
However, that wasn't the sole reason. Our forefathers could rightly be classified as gun-nuts; to use the modern vernacular. Morgan's riflemen were no doubt, the long range shooting enthusiasts of the day just like the archers of the 15th century who fought at Agincourt.
I have some very expensive firearms that some people are aghast at the fact that I shoot them. I could afford them and I bought them to shoot not just to look at.
Am I little disappointed in the quality of the Pedersoli product. Yes, just a little. But looking at the overall pistol, I have to say that I like the way it points, the single-set trigger, the checkering on the grips, the German silver finish and the accuracy.
I have to qualify my statement about the accuracy. Some of you may have seen my target in an earlier posting. There were a lot of fliers in that target. Those errant holes were my fault. It's been a while since I shot a flintlock pistol and I'm getting reuse to doing things with them again. That's my best excuse and I'm sticking to it.
So when I analyze the target, I see a fairly tight clusters of bullet holes about 1 1/2 inches to the 3 O'clock of the bulls-eye. That tells me that there is some potential with this pistol. I've seen other postings about the accuracy of the cap lock versions. So there is some hope for my flintlocks.
I haven't been able to find too many articles on the Charles Moore pistols but there is one that made me think that their might be a good reason for the gap between the underlug and the ram rod.
The photo below is from this article:
https://jasonclarkeantiques.co.uk/p...lock-duelling-pistols-by-charles-moore-london
Take a close look at the ramrods in the above photo. They are tapered. So when you look at the pistol with the ramrods installed there isn't the gap like there is on mine.
To say this another way; the thicker part of the ramrod takes up a lot of room in the forward thimble.
With my pistols, there is a lot of wiggle room in that forward thimble but fits very snugly in the rear most thimble.
This got me to thinking. Could Pedersoli have copied a Charles Moore pistol with the enlarged forward thimble (to the original dimensions) but not used a tapered ramrod? Well, it certainly looks like the answer is yes.
Look again at the two original pistols. The horn-tipped end of the ramrod comes pretty close to the end of the underlug, whereas my ramrods sit farther back.
So rather than spend a lot of time trying to re-inlet the reproduction pistols, I might be better off if I fabricate a tapered ramrod like the original pistols. I may experiment with a dowel rod before using a walnut shaft and trying to shape some horn tips. If a cheap, sanded dowel rod fits then a nicely tapered walnut shaft may give these pistols that original look.
BTW, I talked with the gunsmith at DGW about the issue with the flint and scarred frizzen on my new pistol. He told me that Pedersoli now ships the guns with a flint installed and they do strike the frizzen. So I'm going to keep the pistol, start working on new ramrods and shoot the heck out of them.
Smiley Face! Human nature remains the same. A man, well to do, or otherwise would enjoy shooting his pistol. People enjoyed shooting a pistol for fun...are we going to get into another "this never happened" discussion? Do we have a time machine? "Rules"?? Rules? We don't got no stinking rules!! I am not "applying" rules. I don't think people were anymore constrained by rules then, as we are now. If a man wanted to go out back, sit down, and shoot his dueling pistol that would be his business. And generally speaking, people did, absolutely, shoot guns for fun, practice, and socializing. Absolutely.
