Mike Brooks
Cannon
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2005
- Messages
- 6,686
- Reaction score
- 33
I find the less information I give on this board the less I get in trouble. :idunno: :wink:
-
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
Dixie Jaeger rifle
- Thread starter Renegade Dan
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
Muskeg Stomper
50 Cal.
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2005
- Messages
- 1,044
- Reaction score
- 4
Unfortunate but true...
"TG, phrases such as "I'm not sure" and "I think" hardly sound like speaking with authority to me but in the presence of all these experts one probably shouldn't have any opinion but theirs"
Having opinions is fine it is what drives the study forward, the probelm often is that some who express strong opinons have little knowledge about the issue at hand this is usually quite obvious to those who have spent a lot of research time and may bring out comments pointing out the obvious, there are likely many lurkers who try to learn from this forum it is to them we owe it to stay within that which is known as much possible and to make very clear when we are tossing out things which have no basis in period evidence at all and even better to keep pure unsuported speculation out of the picture for the good of all.There are many things/practices that seem so simple and logical that they "must" be true but that is most often not the case and without evidence cannot be put forth as fact, there is a scientific evidenceiary procedure that is used when dealing with the past, it is best for all to stay within it, or at least very strongly make it known that ones theory does not follow it if one is compelled to put is forth.We are walking among giants of historical knowledge here so to speak it is much different than tossing ideas around the campfire possibly even from outdated sources.Many old waives tales die hard and are still being tossed around inspite of much refuting evidence, not long ago someone piped up with how guns were sold by the number of Beaver plews it took to reach the top of the barrel in the 18th century, it does little good to keep such things alive as we go forward and can be detrimental to those who truely look for the facts about history. Often it is better to present someof these things inthe from of questuns rather than statements of fact or strong opinions as to how/what was done, it generally works better for all when done in this manner.
Of the many shalow grove guns i had years ago i founsd accuracy to be ok but the range of powder charger was limited,
Hey Tom, I am giving up on Pearls and am going to toss painted peas, no one will know the difference anyway.
Having opinions is fine it is what drives the study forward, the probelm often is that some who express strong opinons have little knowledge about the issue at hand this is usually quite obvious to those who have spent a lot of research time and may bring out comments pointing out the obvious, there are likely many lurkers who try to learn from this forum it is to them we owe it to stay within that which is known as much possible and to make very clear when we are tossing out things which have no basis in period evidence at all and even better to keep pure unsuported speculation out of the picture for the good of all.There are many things/practices that seem so simple and logical that they "must" be true but that is most often not the case and without evidence cannot be put forth as fact, there is a scientific evidenceiary procedure that is used when dealing with the past, it is best for all to stay within it, or at least very strongly make it known that ones theory does not follow it if one is compelled to put is forth.We are walking among giants of historical knowledge here so to speak it is much different than tossing ideas around the campfire possibly even from outdated sources.Many old waives tales die hard and are still being tossed around inspite of much refuting evidence, not long ago someone piped up with how guns were sold by the number of Beaver plews it took to reach the top of the barrel in the 18th century, it does little good to keep such things alive as we go forward and can be detrimental to those who truely look for the facts about history. Often it is better to present someof these things inthe from of questuns rather than statements of fact or strong opinions as to how/what was done, it generally works better for all when done in this manner.
Of the many shalow grove guns i had years ago i founsd accuracy to be ok but the range of powder charger was limited,
Hey Tom, I am giving up on Pearls and am going to toss painted peas, no one will know the difference anyway.
Mike Brooks
Cannon
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2005
- Messages
- 6,686
- Reaction score
- 33
I don't think you even need to paint them..... :wink:
paulvallandigham
Passed On
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2006
- Messages
- 17,537
- Reaction score
- 89
It would be nice if all you experts on 18th century, and early arms would spend some time reading European sources, as Strophel has obviously done( and has Zonie.) The Dogmatic stances of some of our "experts" based on what they can find in American literature reaches the Absurd sometimes.
I find myself wondering if they actually think that guns were only developed in America, and that only Americans invented new techniques to shoot them, or in them.
We know that schooling was largely something reserved to the wealthy during the colonial period, and that the kind of men who made livings hunting, and fishing were not the most likely candidates to have attended any kind of formal schooling. The knowledge of what kind of guns and equipment to take on a long hunt was not something written down, but rather passed on from father to son, orally, and by example.
If folks living in what is now Germany back in the 16-1700s used leather or cloth patches in their rifles Jaegers, do we really think they left all that HOME when they immigrated to what is Now Pennsylvania?
Just because we don't find newspapers, or diaries published in Philadephia discussing these matters in those colonial times simply does NOT PROVE that they were not done. It only proves that No Surviving Literature confirms that these ideas were being used at the time. This is the proper assessment of researchers. When you reach this conclusion, you begin to look elsewhere for confirmation.
A while back Spence10 asked if anyone had any information to PROVE that Patched Round Balls were used in Smooth bores in the 18th century. Its highly unlikely that this occurred in AMERICA at this time, but with patched balls being used in rifles in Europe, I would not fall over if someone finds an obscure reference to the use of a patch of leather, or coarse fabric in a smooth bore barrel in the 17th or 18th century. That might cause heart attacks to some of the EXPERTS here, however.
America is called a "Melting pot" not because of the mix of races, languages and cultures, but because of the huge mix of IDEAS that peoples from all over Europe, Africa and Asia brought to this country. Guns have been the leading "cause" of more research in all cultures simply because they represent a known means to extend the POLITICAL POWER of countries' leaders( by force). Anything that has been designed to improve firearms technology has also been later extended to use in making more efficient machinery to manufacture goods. This is true in all countries where any kind of firearms research has occurred.
I am amused at reading the source that Zonie found about why rifling was "OK" in barrels. But, that was the problem of doing any scientific research during a period of history where the Church held such power over Europe, and when the Inquisition was used to question and punish anyone seen to deviate from Church Orthodoxy. To survive persecution for even something as little as putting grooves in a barrel to spin a single projectile, you had to come up with a religious reason to justify the invention( idea), even if the "reason" is totally wrong. Rene Descartes, a 17th century philosopher, wrote a long book to find scientific justification for the Existence of God, just to avoid being punished by the Church for his views.
Today, on this forum, we still find too many " experts" who are adamant about their own knowledge, and who feel too free to pillory dissenters by calling the poster bad names.
I personally BELIEVE, that RBS were loaded down muskets and other smoothbores using wadding, under and on top of the ball, in the early 18th century, and possibly on into the early 19th century. Until cheap cloth became available in the 19th century, and game became more scare, or wary, hunters did not need long range accuracy to hunt game, or defend their homes and forts from attackers. Speed of loading a smoothbore was much more important than accuracy, when fighting Indians, or other hostile forces.
BUT, I am open-minded on the subject as to whether ANYONE used a PRB in a smoothbore in this time period, believing, also, that someone may just find a diary someday from that period where the author describes using a PRB in a smoothbore. There is No point to setting yourself up to be publicly embarrassed by claiming you Absolutely KNOW the truth about such things.
I had College History Professors who were like that, and I had the good fortune to listen to one such pompous blowhard apologize to the entire class he was teaching on Constitutional History, because of new research found by his Graduate Students that contradicted his dogmatic claims in his early books on the Civil War. He was something Else, for sure!
He actually had the audacity to tell me in Class that I pronounced my surname incorrectly, to which I quoted a phrase ( Jingo) from 1864 that proved I was correct. I thought he was going to have a heart attack right there! An Undergrad Actually had the guts to challenge his opinion, and quote a "source" he knew but had forgotten! The more than 100 other students present just turned to me and smiled. :hmm: :thumbsup: :hatsoff:
It may be humiliating to some people to admit that they simply may NOT know everything based on their research, and reading, but experienced researchers always qualify their opinions as being based on what they know SO FAR( to date.)
How many of you were taught that George Rogers Clark sneaked into Kaskaskia Island with his men, and surprised the residents, and British officers in an early dawn raid, after a long march through swamps across Southern Illinois? I was. In history class after history class.
After I had graduated law school some 10 years past, a retired History Professor gave a talk about that raid to a service club in Urbana, and told us of her research in the Archives IN FRANCE, where she found multiple documents that included letters from french speaking settlers on Kaskaskia, begging the Governor of Virginia( which claimed all the land west to the Mississippi River) to send a force to Kaskaskia to throw the British out, and gain control of the upper Mississippi. Other letters indicated the time and date of arrival, and plans to provide enough canoes on the Easter shore for Roger's troops to be able to cross the river to the island to conduct the raid. And, the french residents arranged a "party" for the British commander and his troops to celebrate Christmas, where they got all the soldiers drunk the night of the raid.
That is the true story of the raid. Just a little different than what is in most history books, no? :hmm:
I find myself wondering if they actually think that guns were only developed in America, and that only Americans invented new techniques to shoot them, or in them.
We know that schooling was largely something reserved to the wealthy during the colonial period, and that the kind of men who made livings hunting, and fishing were not the most likely candidates to have attended any kind of formal schooling. The knowledge of what kind of guns and equipment to take on a long hunt was not something written down, but rather passed on from father to son, orally, and by example.
If folks living in what is now Germany back in the 16-1700s used leather or cloth patches in their rifles Jaegers, do we really think they left all that HOME when they immigrated to what is Now Pennsylvania?
Just because we don't find newspapers, or diaries published in Philadephia discussing these matters in those colonial times simply does NOT PROVE that they were not done. It only proves that No Surviving Literature confirms that these ideas were being used at the time. This is the proper assessment of researchers. When you reach this conclusion, you begin to look elsewhere for confirmation.
A while back Spence10 asked if anyone had any information to PROVE that Patched Round Balls were used in Smooth bores in the 18th century. Its highly unlikely that this occurred in AMERICA at this time, but with patched balls being used in rifles in Europe, I would not fall over if someone finds an obscure reference to the use of a patch of leather, or coarse fabric in a smooth bore barrel in the 17th or 18th century. That might cause heart attacks to some of the EXPERTS here, however.
America is called a "Melting pot" not because of the mix of races, languages and cultures, but because of the huge mix of IDEAS that peoples from all over Europe, Africa and Asia brought to this country. Guns have been the leading "cause" of more research in all cultures simply because they represent a known means to extend the POLITICAL POWER of countries' leaders( by force). Anything that has been designed to improve firearms technology has also been later extended to use in making more efficient machinery to manufacture goods. This is true in all countries where any kind of firearms research has occurred.
I am amused at reading the source that Zonie found about why rifling was "OK" in barrels. But, that was the problem of doing any scientific research during a period of history where the Church held such power over Europe, and when the Inquisition was used to question and punish anyone seen to deviate from Church Orthodoxy. To survive persecution for even something as little as putting grooves in a barrel to spin a single projectile, you had to come up with a religious reason to justify the invention( idea), even if the "reason" is totally wrong. Rene Descartes, a 17th century philosopher, wrote a long book to find scientific justification for the Existence of God, just to avoid being punished by the Church for his views.
Today, on this forum, we still find too many " experts" who are adamant about their own knowledge, and who feel too free to pillory dissenters by calling the poster bad names.
I personally BELIEVE, that RBS were loaded down muskets and other smoothbores using wadding, under and on top of the ball, in the early 18th century, and possibly on into the early 19th century. Until cheap cloth became available in the 19th century, and game became more scare, or wary, hunters did not need long range accuracy to hunt game, or defend their homes and forts from attackers. Speed of loading a smoothbore was much more important than accuracy, when fighting Indians, or other hostile forces.
BUT, I am open-minded on the subject as to whether ANYONE used a PRB in a smoothbore in this time period, believing, also, that someone may just find a diary someday from that period where the author describes using a PRB in a smoothbore. There is No point to setting yourself up to be publicly embarrassed by claiming you Absolutely KNOW the truth about such things.
I had College History Professors who were like that, and I had the good fortune to listen to one such pompous blowhard apologize to the entire class he was teaching on Constitutional History, because of new research found by his Graduate Students that contradicted his dogmatic claims in his early books on the Civil War. He was something Else, for sure!
He actually had the audacity to tell me in Class that I pronounced my surname incorrectly, to which I quoted a phrase ( Jingo) from 1864 that proved I was correct. I thought he was going to have a heart attack right there! An Undergrad Actually had the guts to challenge his opinion, and quote a "source" he knew but had forgotten! The more than 100 other students present just turned to me and smiled. :hmm: :thumbsup: :hatsoff:
It may be humiliating to some people to admit that they simply may NOT know everything based on their research, and reading, but experienced researchers always qualify their opinions as being based on what they know SO FAR( to date.)
How many of you were taught that George Rogers Clark sneaked into Kaskaskia Island with his men, and surprised the residents, and British officers in an early dawn raid, after a long march through swamps across Southern Illinois? I was. In history class after history class.
After I had graduated law school some 10 years past, a retired History Professor gave a talk about that raid to a service club in Urbana, and told us of her research in the Archives IN FRANCE, where she found multiple documents that included letters from french speaking settlers on Kaskaskia, begging the Governor of Virginia( which claimed all the land west to the Mississippi River) to send a force to Kaskaskia to throw the British out, and gain control of the upper Mississippi. Other letters indicated the time and date of arrival, and plans to provide enough canoes on the Easter shore for Roger's troops to be able to cross the river to the island to conduct the raid. And, the french residents arranged a "party" for the British commander and his troops to celebrate Christmas, where they got all the soldiers drunk the night of the raid.
That is the true story of the raid. Just a little different than what is in most history books, no? :hmm:
". Then when I get some smart comments by self-appointed experts, I get my back up"
there were no smart comments just cynical due to a long string of statments put forth strongly as opinion with nothing to support the theory/opinion this also can get the backs up of those who have studied for years to try and stay within what is known and leave speculation out of the picture, particularly whan one challenges someone else to proove thye are wrong that is not how it works one making a claim is responsible for supplying the evidence to support it this is just how it works, and I am but a novice gun history student and any level of knowledge some may have attributed to me is not from my selfjudgement and likley over stated when compared to scores of others here, there are many here who I would consider very close if not experts on gun history and have learned a lot from many of them, I also do not mince words or go out of my way to be "accepting" and "gracious" in the taking in of some folks opinions when the presentations tells the story of no research or study just wild arrse speculation that will not stop inspite of evidence provided to the contary,quite often a little information is a dangerous thing and can lead to rather unpleasant threads,one post is one thing but when a person continues the same theme for several pages, any credibility and chance of a kind and calm response is gone,many just quit responding I chose to continue,there is a weath of solid informatiomn here, the key is how to go about recieveing it and insisting on unsupported ideas/opinions with nothing behind them is not a way of getting the real story.I gotta get a bigger lead box.
there were no smart comments just cynical due to a long string of statments put forth strongly as opinion with nothing to support the theory/opinion this also can get the backs up of those who have studied for years to try and stay within what is known and leave speculation out of the picture, particularly whan one challenges someone else to proove thye are wrong that is not how it works one making a claim is responsible for supplying the evidence to support it this is just how it works, and I am but a novice gun history student and any level of knowledge some may have attributed to me is not from my selfjudgement and likley over stated when compared to scores of others here, there are many here who I would consider very close if not experts on gun history and have learned a lot from many of them, I also do not mince words or go out of my way to be "accepting" and "gracious" in the taking in of some folks opinions when the presentations tells the story of no research or study just wild arrse speculation that will not stop inspite of evidence provided to the contary,quite often a little information is a dangerous thing and can lead to rather unpleasant threads,one post is one thing but when a person continues the same theme for several pages, any credibility and chance of a kind and calm response is gone,many just quit responding I chose to continue,there is a weath of solid informatiomn here, the key is how to go about recieveing it and insisting on unsupported ideas/opinions with nothing behind them is not a way of getting the real story.I gotta get a bigger lead box.
hanshi
Cannon
"Absence of proof is not proof of absence".
Special Agent Scully
Special Agent Scully
I think calling someone a "self appointed expert" is unfair to the person being charged and to the rest of the members.
There are people on the forum who have spent many hours reading the accounts written by people who lived in the past. They have also studied as many original firearms as they could looking far deeper into the design and architecture of the gun than the average person would.
They do this to gain an understanding of the truth, and the truth is often difficult to pin down.
Just like on this forum, different people saw the same thing differently and each had their own ideas about the significance of it.
The writers of the original information back in the day often have conflicting information and only when the various bits of history are put together and given due consideration is any information that seems to be accurate gained. In other words, there are no true "experts" and there is no one source of information that explains everything.
To make matters even more difficult for the person seeking the true answers, many of the things that were "common knowledge" at the time are not even mentioned.
Many of these missing bits of "common knowledge" would give great insight if only they existed.
Anyway, when someone has spent days and countless hours researching our history and then decides to share the learned knowledge with others on the forum their comments should be read without lambasting them.
Few if any of them would say the information they have given is infallible and they would be the first to say, "Read what I've learned and passed on to you. Add it to the knowledge you possess and come to your own conclusions. Hopefully you will be a wiser when this is done."
There are people on the forum who have spent many hours reading the accounts written by people who lived in the past. They have also studied as many original firearms as they could looking far deeper into the design and architecture of the gun than the average person would.
They do this to gain an understanding of the truth, and the truth is often difficult to pin down.
Just like on this forum, different people saw the same thing differently and each had their own ideas about the significance of it.
The writers of the original information back in the day often have conflicting information and only when the various bits of history are put together and given due consideration is any information that seems to be accurate gained. In other words, there are no true "experts" and there is no one source of information that explains everything.
To make matters even more difficult for the person seeking the true answers, many of the things that were "common knowledge" at the time are not even mentioned.
Many of these missing bits of "common knowledge" would give great insight if only they existed.
Anyway, when someone has spent days and countless hours researching our history and then decides to share the learned knowledge with others on the forum their comments should be read without lambasting them.
Few if any of them would say the information they have given is infallible and they would be the first to say, "Read what I've learned and passed on to you. Add it to the knowledge you possess and come to your own conclusions. Hopefully you will be a wiser when this is done."
Well put Zonie, I stand buy my position that one must have a basic understanding and some knowledge of ANY topic in order to have an opinion about the topic, I would certainly not try and express any opinion of quantum physics based on a couple of Sciense channel episodes I have seen not even knowing if the info is still considered valid by the physics community, this sort of thing is a regular thing at times here mostly driven by he fact the some folks own a particular item and try to validate it by unfounded opinion even after evidence pointing the other direction is provided, this is the sort of thing that brings out the less than pleasant replys, I make them under such situations and will not appologize for it,there is a time for polite kind responses and a time for stiff, factual, "wake 'em up remarks" as it becomes obvious that nothing else will get their attention, this post is of a general nature and not aimed at anyone in particular.
Everyone that owns and shoots a flintlock is HC. So the only variable is, how HC/PC that person is.
Obliviously you would tend to go to the person that is more HC, than less, for the answer to a period question. But still the more HC/PC guys seem to get hard jaws when their suggestions or advice is not taken. I have felt that sting myself on this forum. Nevertheless the effort put forth by those individuals is appreciated and a big thanx.
Obliviously you would tend to go to the person that is more HC, than less, for the answer to a period question. But still the more HC/PC guys seem to get hard jaws when their suggestions or advice is not taken. I have felt that sting myself on this forum. Nevertheless the effort put forth by those individuals is appreciated and a big thanx.
hanshi
Cannon
I mostly agree with you, ebiggs, but you are extremely cordial and forgiving of others bad behavior. A number of us have been targets for the fury of certain egos. I'm not bothered by that any more than I'd be bothered by the ravings of a spoiled child. But like you I learn something from most of this.
Renegade Dan
50 Cal.
Ditto :thumbsup:hanshi said:
Muskeg Stomper
50 Cal.
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2005
- Messages
- 1,044
- Reaction score
- 4
So Dan, did you buy the rifle yet and if so, how's she spark and shoot?
Sharps1863
40 Cal.
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2007
- Messages
- 230
- Reaction score
- 1
So Dan Please tell us you bought that rifle!!!!!!
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2009
- Messages
- 424
- Reaction score
- 656
So did you buy it? I have one, learned from Paul V how to load and shoot it so that it is reliable for me. I use a patched .530 ball or a .54 Lee R.E.A.L. and accuracy is fine for me with either.
In short, I like mine.
The Doc is out now. :hatsoff:
In short, I like mine.
The Doc is out now. :hatsoff:
Similar threads
- Locked
