That seems unlikely since the people driving it are the people buying the gear.
-
Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.
We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.
Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103
Correct period for gun?
- Thread starter mikegalante
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
- Status
That seems unlikely since the people driving it are the people buying the gear.
Ghost, You've made a very important distinction between reenactors and rendezvous, but you leave out other groups of ML shooters. Many of us don't fit in either of those categories. I think you make a mistake seeing this as a matter of whether a rifle is going to pass inspection at a reenactment.
I have known folks (I'm one of them) who spent a couple of weeks each year hunting in outfits and from camps which were as accurately "longhunter" as available documentation would allow, but who wouldn't carry a rifle to an event where someone passed judgment on their camp and gear. We were't interested in trying to show tourists what history looked like, we wanted to find out for ourselves what it felt like.
I've known others with an intense interest in the rifles, but no interest in historical costumes or gear. One of these boys was NC offhand flint champion a few years running, but he cared nothing for PC clothing or accoutrements, and said he'd had enough sleeping on the ground in Nam to last him a lifetime.
There are a lot of us who love the rifles as works of craftsmanship and art and a tangible link to our heritage.
We build a proper Hawken and after shooting it a few times we have a real respect for men who carried a 10 or 12 lb rifle, even on horseback. We shoot a longrifle with a swamped barrel and marvel at the graceful lines and perfect balance, and develop a love for men who built such things from raw materials with hand tools.
I haven't been to a reenactment in 15 years nor to a rendezvous in 10, but I don't have to attend those things to want to be as far away as possible from mass-produced, mass marketed, made to sell as cheaply as possible guns.
Those of you who have been in this for 30 years probably remember that John Baird got the same kind of reaction in the "Buckskin Report" when he told TC owners: "It's nothing personal, I just don't share your taste in firearms."
I have known folks (I'm one of them) who spent a couple of weeks each year hunting in outfits and from camps which were as accurately "longhunter" as available documentation would allow, but who wouldn't carry a rifle to an event where someone passed judgment on their camp and gear. We were't interested in trying to show tourists what history looked like, we wanted to find out for ourselves what it felt like.
I've known others with an intense interest in the rifles, but no interest in historical costumes or gear. One of these boys was NC offhand flint champion a few years running, but he cared nothing for PC clothing or accoutrements, and said he'd had enough sleeping on the ground in Nam to last him a lifetime.
There are a lot of us who love the rifles as works of craftsmanship and art and a tangible link to our heritage.
We build a proper Hawken and after shooting it a few times we have a real respect for men who carried a 10 or 12 lb rifle, even on horseback. We shoot a longrifle with a swamped barrel and marvel at the graceful lines and perfect balance, and develop a love for men who built such things from raw materials with hand tools.
I haven't been to a reenactment in 15 years nor to a rendezvous in 10, but I don't have to attend those things to want to be as far away as possible from mass-produced, mass marketed, made to sell as cheaply as possible guns.
Those of you who have been in this for 30 years probably remember that John Baird got the same kind of reaction in the "Buckskin Report" when he told TC owners: "It's nothing personal, I just don't share your taste in firearms."
It's certainly interesting to see the different points of view used as justification for passing judgement on this firearm or that firearm, etc.....I guess the bigger issue to me is why anybody is so presumptuous as to think they even have the right to pass such judgement.
I'll never forget when I announced I'd just bought and tried my first Flintlock...happened to be a TC Hawken...and at least 2:1 the responses were unfavorable:
"well, ya know that's not really a Hawken don't ya?"
"Well, ya know that's not really traditional don't ya"?
"Well, ya know them sights ain't traditional don't ya"?
"Well, ya know there's not enough drop on that stock don't ya?
"Well, ya know that brass really ought to be iron don't ya"?
"Well, ya know that patchbox isn't like they really were don't ya?"
And on and on adnauseum...it blows my mind that someone is so presumtuous as to assume they even know what an individual's interest is when getting into Flintlocks in the first place...and without question, the comments were said with a condescending, elitist attitude.
Fortunately it's not the majority of people, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it's only a tiny, tiny percentage...just amazes me
I'll never forget when I announced I'd just bought and tried my first Flintlock...happened to be a TC Hawken...and at least 2:1 the responses were unfavorable:
"well, ya know that's not really a Hawken don't ya?"
"Well, ya know that's not really traditional don't ya"?
"Well, ya know them sights ain't traditional don't ya"?
"Well, ya know there's not enough drop on that stock don't ya?
"Well, ya know that brass really ought to be iron don't ya"?
"Well, ya know that patchbox isn't like they really were don't ya?"
And on and on adnauseum...it blows my mind that someone is so presumtuous as to assume they even know what an individual's interest is when getting into Flintlocks in the first place...and without question, the comments were said with a condescending, elitist attitude.
Fortunately it's not the majority of people, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it's only a tiny, tiny percentage...just amazes me
Guest
:haha: Thet sounds exactly like the things my "inner-voice" said to me after buy'n a production rifle and started do'n research of historical muzzleloaders back in the '70's. :haha:
Had I not been interested in history, I would probably have remained happy with my first muzzleloader, and most likely have missed out on some very interest'n stuff (at least to me) related to the world of muzzleloaders and ther influence/usage dur'n various periods of early american history.
YMHS
rollingb
Nothing wrong with that at all of course...many folks start new directions after their original entrance into a field.
However, years later, after you had "arrived" at what you deemed to be the acceptable period and style of muzzleloading as far as you were concerned...the question is this: Did you then start throwing non-PC statements at a newcomer when he/she began talking about their first new Flintlock purchase if it happened to be different from your view of proper equipment...
It seems nearly certain that Lewis' air rifle was manufactured by Isaiah Lukens in Philadelphia, PA, and that this arm is now part of the Henry M. Stewart Collection at the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) in Lexington, VA. It has a .31 caliber, rifled barrel and contains the air reservoir in the butt of the stock. Lewis used this rifle to impress a great many Native Americans.
The air rifle was tracked down by Henry M. Stewart after he found an old Auction Catalog, dated January 4, 1847, that contained items from the estate of Isaiah Lukens. A portion of that catalog is shown above. You can click here for the whole facsimile of this auction notice or see Jackson's Letters, for a mention of this document.
Isaiah Lukens
Dr. Robert Beeman, a noted air gun expert, has thoroughly researched the subject of the Lewis air rifle. He skeptically approached the hypothesis that the VMI / Stewart rifle is THE Lewis air rifle. Dr. Beeman told me that he; "worked in person with Henry Stewart, with his Lukens and Kunz airguns, and he [Stewart] was adamant, after a first burst of optimism, that he 'does not claim that this rifle [the VMI specimen] was the one carried by Capt. Lewis' and he said so in his talk to the L&C Trail Assoc. in the Philadelphia meeting when he addressed them. He [Stewart] also was strong in his repeated statements that a Lt. Peters took the air rifle in one of two boxes that Capt. Lewis, in the last weeks of 1806, sent to be taken from St. Louis to Washington."
However, after a careful and thorough study of the available evidence and candidate guns, Dr. Beeman has assembled a powerful argument supporting the belief that the VMI / Stewart air rifle is the actual rifle that was carried by Meriwether Lewis during the expedition. The most recent version of Dr. Beeman's definitive article on Lewis' air rifle is published in the Blue Books of Airguns, Second Edition. An addendum and list of errata for this latest article can be found at the bottom of a web page on Dr. Beeman's website. Other articles on this topic by Dr. Beeman include (newest to oldest):
The German magazine Visier published an article entitled Wohner der Wind weht in its April 2002 issue. Dr. Beeman provides an English translation of this article ( Whence the Wind Blows) on his website.
An addendum to the April 2000 article (see below) was published in theMay 2001 issue of Airgun Letter.
Airgun Revue, Volume 6 (April 2000), which can be ordered through the Airgun Letter website.
The following journal entries of Lewis & Clark (see Journals, Moulton) mention the air gun:
August 30, 1803 (Lewis notes that Mr. Blaze Cenas accidentally shoots a woman bystander in the head - see below)
August 3, 1804 (two drafts by Clark regarding a demonstration for the natives)
August 19, 1804 (Clark, demonstration for natives)
August 30, 1804 (Clark, a demonstration for the Sioux)
October 10, 1804 (Clark, a demonstration for the Mandan / Hidatsa)
October 29, 1804 (two drafts by Clark, a demonstration for the Arikara)
October 30, 1804 (Clark, a demonstration for the Wau te Soon chief)
January 16, 1805 (Clark, a demonstration for the big bell{i}es")
June 9, 1805 (Lewis, when the air gun's main spring was replaced)
June 10, 1805 (Lewis, again regarding the air gun's main spring being replaced)
August 7, 1805 (Lewis, sights fixed, gun regulated)
August 17, 1805 (Lewis demonstrates the air gun to Cameahwait)
January 24, 1806 (Lewis & Clark, a demonstration for the natives)
April 2, 1806 (Lewis, a demonstration for the natives)
April 3, 1806 (Clark, a demonstration for the natives)
April 18, 1806 (Lewis, a demonstration for the natives)
May 11, 1806 (Lewis & Clark, a demonstration for the natives)
August 11, 1806 (Lewis readies the air gun for his defense from imaginary Indians after being shot by expedition member Pierre Cruzatte).
Here's an excerpt from Lewis' first journal entry - hardly a stellar commencment to such an epic journey. Please note, although Lewis dated this journal entry as August 30, 1804, it was almost certainly August 31, 1804.
August 30, 1803 [Lewis]
"Left Pittsburgh this day at 11 ock with a party of 11 hands 7 of which are soldiers, a pilot and three young men on trial they having proposed to go with me throughout the voyage. Arrived at Bruno's Island 3 miles below halted a few minutes. went on shore and being invited on by some of the gentlemen present to try my airgun which I had purchased brought it on shore charged it and fired myself seven times fifty five yards with pretty good success; after which a Mr. Blaze Cenas being unacquainted with the management of the gun suffered her to discharge herself accedentaly the ball passed through the hat of a woman about 40 yards distanc cuting her temple about the fourth of the diameter of the ball; shee feel instantly and the blood gusing from her temple we were all in the greatest consternation supposed she was dead by [but] in a minute she revived to our enespressable satisfaction, and by examination we found the wound by no means mortal or even dangerous; . . ."
Moulton, "Journals"
In a memorandum, penned in St. Louis in 1806, William Clark notes a number of articles and contents of boxes being forwarded to Louisville [KY] in care of a Mr. Wolpards. Among the contents of Box No. 2 is listed "1 air gun" (see Journals, Moulton,Vol. 8, pg. 419).
An excerpt from Lewis' journal entry of August 7, 1805:
"my air gun was out of order and her sights had been removed by some accedent I put her in order and regulated her. She shot again as well as she ever did."
Moulton, "Journals"
The journals of John Ordway (see Journals, Moulton, Vol. 9) mention the air gun in the following passages:
August 31, 1804 (a demonstration)
September 25, 1804 (a demonstration)
October 10, 1804 (a demonstration)
October 29, 1804 (a demonstration)
March 8, 1805 (a demonstration)
June 10, 1805 (repair mainspring)
August 7, 1805 (a demonstration)
August 17, 1805 (a demonstration)
The journals of Joseph Whitehouse (see Journals, Moulton, Vol. 11) mention the air gun on:
August 30, 1804 (a demonstration)
June 10, 1805 (repair mainspring)
August 7, 1805 (gun fired)
There are no mentions of the air gun by either Gass or Floyd
Probably any original American or Austrian c.1800 air rifle of .31 to .38 caliber, or a modern copy of the gun in the VMI Museum, would be accepted at a L&C reenactment. ::
"The odds that the TC hawken is an almost exact replica of a gun that was made are a lot better than those that it is not,"
The point of studying and making accurate repros is not a game of "coulda been", but a study of that which we know and that which we learn as new things are discovered, and I see no personal hatred anywhere towards the production guns they are just in a different class as the ones that are supported by historical evidence, but I think a person deserves the right to make an informed decision if trying to sort out the difference between the two based on the facts we have and not an emotional defense of the choices made that do not follow historical evidence.
The point of studying and making accurate repros is not a game of "coulda been", but a study of that which we know and that which we learn as new things are discovered, and I see no personal hatred anywhere towards the production guns they are just in a different class as the ones that are supported by historical evidence, but I think a person deserves the right to make an informed decision if trying to sort out the difference between the two based on the facts we have and not an emotional defense of the choices made that do not follow historical evidence.
The most important part of this discussion is the fact that another person has entered our brotherhood of muzzleleoading.
Everybody makes a journey, they start at one place and by luck, chance meeting, a word or two here and there, they travel. They end up someplace else.
The most facinating aspect of muzzleloading is it's many variations of the same thing. There's something there for everyone: collector, shooter, builder, what have you...it's all there.
I think that's what Rich was refering to a few threads up. Basically, I'm delighted anytime somebody picks up a muzzleloader and shows interest.
Everybody makes a journey, they start at one place and by luck, chance meeting, a word or two here and there, they travel. They end up someplace else.
The most facinating aspect of muzzleloading is it's many variations of the same thing. There's something there for everyone: collector, shooter, builder, what have you...it's all there.
I think that's what Rich was refering to a few threads up. Basically, I'm delighted anytime somebody picks up a muzzleloader and shows interest.
Russ T Frizzen
70 Cal.
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2004
- Messages
- 5,007
- Reaction score
- 421
The simple truth is that an accurate reproduction has a lot of careful and skilled handwork in it. And that costs money. Machine made, mass produced guns are made in large numbers and can be produced for less, but the fit and finish aren't up to par. I consider T/C to be easily one of the best mass produced guns, but I have yet to examine one that didn't have bedding compound used as filler somewhere on it. Even with templates and machinery doing the work, the inletting still gets screwed up. The Seneca that I just refurbished had filler in the barrel channel, behind the lock and under the capbox.
When a custom or semicustom is made you don't find this kind of sloppy workmanship because the builder wouldn't last long if he produced poorly fitted guns. Add the cost of quality parts and forty hours of skilled work, and most customs are a bargain. That's why a nice, historically accurate handmade Hawken is $2000 and the T/C is a quarter of that amount. Most of us can't afford the high ticket guns, but that doesn't make them a rip off. The price is a reflection of quality and skilled labor, not the result of using PC gimmickery to inflate the selling price.
When a custom or semicustom is made you don't find this kind of sloppy workmanship because the builder wouldn't last long if he produced poorly fitted guns. Add the cost of quality parts and forty hours of skilled work, and most customs are a bargain. That's why a nice, historically accurate handmade Hawken is $2000 and the T/C is a quarter of that amount. Most of us can't afford the high ticket guns, but that doesn't make them a rip off. The price is a reflection of quality and skilled labor, not the result of using PC gimmickery to inflate the selling price.
Guest
I also agree that sometimes folks get upset when they hear what they don't want to hear, we all do it.
However, I think a lot of times it's all about the delivery of the answer. Seems like some folks go through this experience from greenhorn to full-on re-enactor who could step through a time machine into 1750 and wouldn't even be noticed, and they get cynical along the way. By the time they reach uber-reenactor status, they've heard and answered the same questions thousands of times, and it seems like they reach a point where they just don't want to answer what, to them, seems like something as obvious as chocolate syrup spilled on a white rug. So, they start getting kinda assinine about it, and making smart remarks, and that sort of thing, and it makes the newbie feel like he's dumber than a fence post.
Some of us are a little more thick-skinned than others, and it's really quite difficult to judge one's personality based on words typed in a forum post.
I would simply ask that folks try to remember that newbies are just that... and like someone else said in this thread, "Geez, the guy's just starting out. Cut him a break!" I have to do this every day when people ask me simple computer questions... I've been working with computers for 20+ years now, and I have to bite my tongue when someone finds out I'm a computer geek and asks me the same question I've heard a thousand times before, like, "Why does my computer run so slow?" It's difficult for me to not retort with something like, "Well gee, ya think the 1500 spyware programs you're running and the fact you haven't defragged your hard drive in the last 2 years might have something to do with it?" But, I try to bite my tongue and give them the same suggestions I give over and over and over again.
Well, sorry for the rant... I'll step off the soapbox now.
However, I think a lot of times it's all about the delivery of the answer. Seems like some folks go through this experience from greenhorn to full-on re-enactor who could step through a time machine into 1750 and wouldn't even be noticed, and they get cynical along the way. By the time they reach uber-reenactor status, they've heard and answered the same questions thousands of times, and it seems like they reach a point where they just don't want to answer what, to them, seems like something as obvious as chocolate syrup spilled on a white rug. So, they start getting kinda assinine about it, and making smart remarks, and that sort of thing, and it makes the newbie feel like he's dumber than a fence post.
Some of us are a little more thick-skinned than others, and it's really quite difficult to judge one's personality based on words typed in a forum post.
I would simply ask that folks try to remember that newbies are just that... and like someone else said in this thread, "Geez, the guy's just starting out. Cut him a break!" I have to do this every day when people ask me simple computer questions... I've been working with computers for 20+ years now, and I have to bite my tongue when someone finds out I'm a computer geek and asks me the same question I've heard a thousand times before, like, "Why does my computer run so slow?" It's difficult for me to not retort with something like, "Well gee, ya think the 1500 spyware programs you're running and the fact you haven't defragged your hard drive in the last 2 years might have something to do with it?" But, I try to bite my tongue and give them the same suggestions I give over and over and over again.
Well, sorry for the rant... I'll step off the soapbox now.
Guest
Not thet I recall, but I've always been a proponent of traditional blackpowder, sights, and projectiles in weapons thet claim to replicate muzzleloaders (wether mass-produced, or not, and no matter how historicaly slim the "claim" seems to be) from a particular "era" of muzzleloader history.
My main "peeve" is, I don't think the cost of produce'n something thet (closely) resembles an original Hawken (or, specific longrifle), can really cost the big companies more to produce, then what they are now offer'n under the "Hawken" moniker.
I realize the quality of the parts might differ from "custom parts", but alot of things related to quality reflects the "pride" a company has in it's product and most consumers realize thet.
T/C seems to take great pride in the quality of ther product, and I wish they would extent the same devotion to "architecture" when they call sumpthin a "Hawken"!!
YMHS
rollingb
Thanks for the air gun info! I have been thru all of it before and alot more than that. I had not seen the reference to the gun being sent to Kentucky before that I remember. The only gun of this type I know of that has been made in recent times would be the .45 that was made in Springfield Mo. by Dennis Quackenbush. He made a much older style of butt flask gun and then a full stock long rifle version with a ball flask. The older style was a tap loader with no fore stock and an external lock. The "Long Rifle" is a muzzleloader to satisfy state hunting regs that require at least a 45 and that it load from the muzzle. Last I knew, there were absolutely none for sale, altho Dennis did have one of the 45's still in stock that needed a repair. His modern guns are very nice. By the way, he builds a custom gun from end to end, including the barrels and walnut stocks for $6xx plus any extras.
The crack about archeology is funny guys. Aren't those the same folks who swore primitve man did not have the skill to smelt metals, at least until they found one with metal tools and smelting poisons in his blood? Now, they say that primitives in North America had no such knowledge while they ignore the evidense to the contrary as anomolous objects! Archeology is a garbage in, garbage out science that is heavily influenced by the beliefs of the observer. When the observer is right ahead of time with his guess work, good info flows. When not, often the same evidense is used to support just the opposite conclusion. The only thing all of the research into the different makers and guns has produced is a list of those that are known. It has not disproven anything, defined anything, or even excluded anything. I get tickled with some of the stuff you guys come up with sometimes so seriously. "Humm, that one must have been put together with parts from several others because it doesn't match what my book told me to look for!" Primitive man did not use metal tools either!
The simple fact is that while much is known, the sample is less than one in one thousand. It may be the best evidense you have access to, but it is still worth exactly that. At best it is horribly incomplete and only wrong in places! It is not compelling enough to convince me that any of them is an only solution. This stuff changes quick over time also.
When I bought my first gun, no one wanted that ugly Lyman rifle. I am not sure that TC had even released their version yet. They were all called Hawkens by the muzzleloading world, not the manufacturers. Those names came later, with Lyman and CVA staying with their original names on the original rifles. The muzzleloading world was entralled by them, but Dixie was the only other real choice at that time. Ok, my CVA Mountain rifle says made in America on it, and it means it. The barrel is the best made at the time. The nose cap is pewter and the front sight is German silver. The patch box which is a direct copy of an existing rifle, is silver. The furniture is steel. The lock plate is a direct copy off the original rifle with a couple of changes to make it not a copy. The Ramrod thimbles are six sided and are supposed to be a direct copy also. The stock was carved on a duplicator. It has two wedges because the original did. It does have a different drum/breech. The adjustable rear sight is a direct copy off an existing rifle, altho if I remember correctly, it was not the same rifle the Mountain rifle copied. Mountain rifle means something different today than it did then. Then if you said Mountain rifle, everyone knew what gun you were speaking of. No, the inletting was never talented custom build quality, but it was better than a lot of guns I see today that are supposed to be very good according to other folks. A few years later and the Lyman was the hot gun after CVA went over seas with their production. The GPR was considered to be top choice left because CVA was now "junk" The TC was definately in production by then. About this time, the military rifle craze started and some funny guy named DOC started talking about slip fit conicals and inlines. Right in the middle of the excitement, sabots arrived that next spring. Today, it is the PC craze. All of those old guns were wrong, and the only thing that is correct is what the latest book says is correct. Spare me.
The Old CVA had the original rifle the Mountian rifle was a faithful copy of. The main changes were Breech/drum, barrel size, and weight. The weight was not chjanged all that much. The barrel is slimmer but the same length. Everyone right down to the last man I have ever talked to about the original Mountain rifles says the same thing. I got stupid and traded it away. Wish I still had it.
Now, I ask you, what is not PC about my Mountain rifle? The Squirrel rifle I bought for 136$ new, I understand. The shotgun with the screw in choke tubes, I understand. My Traditions Deerhunter flintlock, I understand. My Hawken with the factory plastic looking finish, I understand. My Mountain rifle I don't understand. Now, you wrap your books around how a pretty faithful copy of an original is not good enough, and then explain it to me. I forget the name on the original rifle CVA used, but I think it was a Leman.
I watched a newcomer with a synthetic stocked Walmart rifle at a shoot a couple of springs back. I went out of my way to be friendly to him, just like folks are to me. When you get so PC that you can't see that, then you are way to PC for me! I hope he is still having as much fun with that gun as he was then, or has better today!
The crack about archeology is funny guys. Aren't those the same folks who swore primitve man did not have the skill to smelt metals, at least until they found one with metal tools and smelting poisons in his blood? Now, they say that primitives in North America had no such knowledge while they ignore the evidense to the contrary as anomolous objects! Archeology is a garbage in, garbage out science that is heavily influenced by the beliefs of the observer. When the observer is right ahead of time with his guess work, good info flows. When not, often the same evidense is used to support just the opposite conclusion. The only thing all of the research into the different makers and guns has produced is a list of those that are known. It has not disproven anything, defined anything, or even excluded anything. I get tickled with some of the stuff you guys come up with sometimes so seriously. "Humm, that one must have been put together with parts from several others because it doesn't match what my book told me to look for!" Primitive man did not use metal tools either!
The simple fact is that while much is known, the sample is less than one in one thousand. It may be the best evidense you have access to, but it is still worth exactly that. At best it is horribly incomplete and only wrong in places! It is not compelling enough to convince me that any of them is an only solution. This stuff changes quick over time also.
When I bought my first gun, no one wanted that ugly Lyman rifle. I am not sure that TC had even released their version yet. They were all called Hawkens by the muzzleloading world, not the manufacturers. Those names came later, with Lyman and CVA staying with their original names on the original rifles. The muzzleloading world was entralled by them, but Dixie was the only other real choice at that time. Ok, my CVA Mountain rifle says made in America on it, and it means it. The barrel is the best made at the time. The nose cap is pewter and the front sight is German silver. The patch box which is a direct copy of an existing rifle, is silver. The furniture is steel. The lock plate is a direct copy off the original rifle with a couple of changes to make it not a copy. The Ramrod thimbles are six sided and are supposed to be a direct copy also. The stock was carved on a duplicator. It has two wedges because the original did. It does have a different drum/breech. The adjustable rear sight is a direct copy off an existing rifle, altho if I remember correctly, it was not the same rifle the Mountain rifle copied. Mountain rifle means something different today than it did then. Then if you said Mountain rifle, everyone knew what gun you were speaking of. No, the inletting was never talented custom build quality, but it was better than a lot of guns I see today that are supposed to be very good according to other folks. A few years later and the Lyman was the hot gun after CVA went over seas with their production. The GPR was considered to be top choice left because CVA was now "junk" The TC was definately in production by then. About this time, the military rifle craze started and some funny guy named DOC started talking about slip fit conicals and inlines. Right in the middle of the excitement, sabots arrived that next spring. Today, it is the PC craze. All of those old guns were wrong, and the only thing that is correct is what the latest book says is correct. Spare me.
The Old CVA had the original rifle the Mountian rifle was a faithful copy of. The main changes were Breech/drum, barrel size, and weight. The weight was not chjanged all that much. The barrel is slimmer but the same length. Everyone right down to the last man I have ever talked to about the original Mountain rifles says the same thing. I got stupid and traded it away. Wish I still had it.
Now, I ask you, what is not PC about my Mountain rifle? The Squirrel rifle I bought for 136$ new, I understand. The shotgun with the screw in choke tubes, I understand. My Traditions Deerhunter flintlock, I understand. My Hawken with the factory plastic looking finish, I understand. My Mountain rifle I don't understand. Now, you wrap your books around how a pretty faithful copy of an original is not good enough, and then explain it to me. I forget the name on the original rifle CVA used, but I think it was a Leman.
I watched a newcomer with a synthetic stocked Walmart rifle at a shoot a couple of springs back. I went out of my way to be friendly to him, just like folks are to me. When you get so PC that you can't see that, then you are way to PC for me! I hope he is still having as much fun with that gun as he was then, or has better today!
I always thought the CVA Mountain rifle was one of the better production guns from an authenticity standpoint, TC started the Hawken in '71 before CVA and Lyman had the Plains rifle shortly after, the GPR came considerably later.
And the burden falls upon the maker to prove his product is correct not for one to disprove someones speculative interpretation, you cannot simply say "it might have been prove it wasn't"
And the burden falls upon the maker to prove his product is correct not for one to disprove someones speculative interpretation, you cannot simply say "it might have been prove it wasn't"
I remember when TC was about the only game in town for a production gun and they were considered pricey by most peoples standards, but they were and are a good reliable rifle. I also remember when CVA came on the scene they were very cheap dollar wise and cheaply made. As I recall you could buy the complete rifle for about $80.00 and the kit for about $50.00. The locks were so soft that they wouldn't stay cocked after firing 25 or 30 shots. That didn't mean they couldn't be accurate, I saw one after it was reworked that fired a .45 cal pistol bullet without a patch and 75 grains of 2F powder into a 4" group at 80 yards any time the owner wanted to. I know this because I worked in a gun shop at that time and reworked and hardened numerous CVA locks.
They were so bad that they were banned from the local muzzle loading gun club. It looked like CVA was going down the tubes when the company did a complete turn around sometime in the mid 70s and started making the necessary improvements to stay in business.
As to people starting out in muzzle loading the production guns are a great way to start out with , they can find out if muzzle loading is for them for a relatively small investment dollar wise. I know a couple of guys who tried it and decided muzzle loading wasn't for them, too much hassle cleaning and trying to work up loads, when they can buy a box of ammo off the shelf and the gun will shoot as good or better than they can hold.
For others it opens up a whole new world of shooting and getting interested in history ect..
I suspect from his comments that Runner is as deep into it as he wants to go, or can afford, and that is fine too.
I think there is a place for everyone that is shooting muzzle loaders, even those inlines I personally despise, at least they are shooting! That is good for all of us.
If a person asks about the period correctness of his gun he should expect a straight forward honest answer. If you want a period correct gun then a straight forward copy of an original guarantees that, anything else is speculative, it maybe, and probably is wrong.
One thing we all should keep in mind as we communicate through these computers is that without face to face contact we don't have the opportunity to see facial expressions and tonal inflections of the voice so that the written word can be misinterpreted as being harsh or arrogant ect. when that was not the intention at all, and then again some people are more blunt than others.
My best regards to all, Dave
They were so bad that they were banned from the local muzzle loading gun club. It looked like CVA was going down the tubes when the company did a complete turn around sometime in the mid 70s and started making the necessary improvements to stay in business.
As to people starting out in muzzle loading the production guns are a great way to start out with , they can find out if muzzle loading is for them for a relatively small investment dollar wise. I know a couple of guys who tried it and decided muzzle loading wasn't for them, too much hassle cleaning and trying to work up loads, when they can buy a box of ammo off the shelf and the gun will shoot as good or better than they can hold.
For others it opens up a whole new world of shooting and getting interested in history ect..
I suspect from his comments that Runner is as deep into it as he wants to go, or can afford, and that is fine too.
I think there is a place for everyone that is shooting muzzle loaders, even those inlines I personally despise, at least they are shooting! That is good for all of us.
If a person asks about the period correctness of his gun he should expect a straight forward honest answer. If you want a period correct gun then a straight forward copy of an original guarantees that, anything else is speculative, it maybe, and probably is wrong.
One thing we all should keep in mind as we communicate through these computers is that without face to face contact we don't have the opportunity to see facial expressions and tonal inflections of the voice so that the written word can be misinterpreted as being harsh or arrogant ect. when that was not the intention at all, and then again some people are more blunt than others.
My best regards to all, Dave
Tahquamenon
45 Cal.
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2005
- Messages
- 825
- Reaction score
- 3
I've come to the conclusion that perhaps becuase some folks devote so much time at at a given craft of endeavor, they might not easily remember when they started out and thus may be perceived as acting "elitist". Or some folks simply act like royal ashtabula's. But not for the most part.
The sad thing is for some folks is that they get a Flintlock or some other rifle only to find out that if they would have "done their homework or research' they would have realized that the investment they made was a poor one.
Really if you wish to be period correct with a rifle. Save at least 700-1000 if you are building adn several thousand if you are commissioning one built.
Roundball, my first flintlock is also a T/C Hawken (Earlier this year and still unfired). And I am just as happy with it as anything else I could have bought for the money. :thumbsup:
The biggest problem I have with Period Correct is why does it have to be so difficult to figure out that which is generally or most acceptable? I could not have been the case in the 17th-19th century could it? Or perhaps they were on quests to be PC to centuries previous to their own and had the same difficulties and questions.
I don't really mind rules so much as knowing what the rules are to begin with. I would think that many folks might feel this way as well.
My editorial thought is here as it relates to this thread also:
http://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/ubbthr...;gonew=1#UNREAD
The sad thing is for some folks is that they get a Flintlock or some other rifle only to find out that if they would have "done their homework or research' they would have realized that the investment they made was a poor one.
Really if you wish to be period correct with a rifle. Save at least 700-1000 if you are building adn several thousand if you are commissioning one built.
Roundball, my first flintlock is also a T/C Hawken (Earlier this year and still unfired). And I am just as happy with it as anything else I could have bought for the money. :thumbsup:
The biggest problem I have with Period Correct is why does it have to be so difficult to figure out that which is generally or most acceptable? I could not have been the case in the 17th-19th century could it? Or perhaps they were on quests to be PC to centuries previous to their own and had the same difficulties and questions.
I don't really mind rules so much as knowing what the rules are to begin with. I would think that many folks might feel this way as well.
My editorial thought is here as it relates to this thread also:
http://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/ubbthr...;gonew=1#UNREAD
:hmm: I think they just kind of went to the sutler or ye Olde Wal-Market and what was laid out was already period correct for them. Like if you wanted to reenact 2005 tomorrow.
Old Charlie
45 Cal.
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2004
- Messages
- 686
- Reaction score
- 1
Let the PC guys keep running off the new guys. CVA just droped all side-lock guns. Some others have cut way back on their side-locks. Soon it will be In-lines or high dollar customs and the sport is DEAD.
OLd Charlie
OLd Charlie
Guest
WOW!!
.... the "PC guys" are the cause of all thet???? :: :bull: :crackup:rollingb
Right on Old Charlie! Two kids in college and two more on the way I can't afford a custom as much as I would love to have one. I can still have fun with my GPR. Don't get worked up with all the different opinions on this forum. That's what makes America great!
- Status
Similar threads
