Does HC really matter?

[ed zeransky]

I understand about details, but why would what someone else wears or shoot bother YOU at all? :stir:

 

[vulture]

I am going to jump in here just for the fun of it. Some years ago there were a number of people building black powder rifles in our area, among them Dr. White of Green River Rifles fame. I was building a rifle with a friend of mine using a left over stock he had and I was just using what ever parts fit my fancy and I asked these folks at a shoot one day about style and such and they said just imagine that you contacted a builder in the far gone past and asked them to build a rifle to suit you, not something they turned out normally on their own but something you requested using your design and the style of parts you wanted. If they would have agreed to build the rifle for you then that is what you now hold in your hands today. It wouldn't actually follow any normal design as such, but would be your own personal rifle. It was a good enough answer for me, so when I want to put together a Leman style rifle I worry more about quality of the parts over the HC. What will work best for me, and function reliably, and most of all falls into my price restrictions. Hey, it's just my dimes worth here (inflation). There are purists and then there are just plain folks and the people I used to shoot with didn't care what you brought just so long as it loaded through the muzzle, had nonadjustable sights and you showed up, the more the merrier.

 

[Claude Mathis]

I understand about details, but why would what someone else wears or shoot bother YOU at all? :stir:

I've always wondered that myself. You hear it from both the pro-HC and non-HC crowd.

For such an independent, freedom loving bunch, we sure are critical of what others do sometimes. :wink:

 

[azmntman]

If I had the time and the resources to purse it as it deserves I would likely be doing it. I don't so I just shoot when I can and what I can afford. Those who have jumped deeper have my respect and I would hope they respect my "current" limitations.

Other of course others have no desire at all and wouldn't care to go deeper than they have. To each his/her own :v

 

[Vaino]

Yes...HC does matter to me, but what others do is their business. Yet...it takes so little "extra" to at least choose parts that will produce a generic MLer of the chosen "style" ....but, some are unwilling to even do a little research and that's their perogative.

I for one enjoy looking at various MLers that are HC or somewhat HC, but the MLers that have no semblance of what they're supposed to represent, I pay no heed.

But there again.....it doesn't concern me what others build, buy or shoot...just like to look at and handle Mlers that I can relate to......Fred

 

[ed zeransky]

very well said, Claude. :thumbsup:

 

[crockett]

A couple of more thoughts. I've re-stocked some rifles and used the $9.95 TOW sand cast butt plates, cap boxes, and trigger guards. Most of the other hardware I've made myself (nose cap, wedges, wedge plates, toe plates, inlays, etc.) What I have ended up with is a rifle that is a copy of nothing so in that respect it might be called "non-pc" but it has so much standardized hardware, etc. that I like to think that anyone of "the day" would not have noticed it was much different than anything else being used. I have tried to incorporate as much pc aspects as possible, such as a pinned trigger, pinned trigger guard, pinned/riveted nose cap. In other words, not a whole bunch of screws. The screws on the cap box- steel and slightly domed. I admire the exact copy type rifle but they often cost about $3,000. Such as an exact copy of a Henry trade rifle, etc. As long as the construction method is pc I'm in my comfort zone.

 

[gard72977]

YES !!!!

 

[PA16th]

H.C. matters to some degree more or less to those on this forum. In stating that the rifle is a So. Mt. rifle you yourself have a certain amount of H.C. even if you say you don't care about H.C. Also, most of us that responded to your post are over the age of 50, just an observation and do not know what it might mean. :hmm:
I can picture your rifle from your description and it sounds great. Enjoy. :thumbsup:
Don

 

[ratfacedmcdougal]

I guess I fit in age wise at 55. I posted some rather poor pictures of said rifle on the photo page. They were the best of 16. None do it any justice of how dainty and pretty it really is. I will refrain from calling it a So. Mt. in the future and call it a So. Mt. influenced rifle.
Cheers
RFMcD

 

[Wes/Tex]

I guess I fit in age wise at 55. I posted some rather poor pictures of said rifle on the photo page. They were the best of 16. None do it any justice of how dainty and pretty it really is. I will refrain from calling it a So. Mt. in the future and call it a So. Mt. influenced rifle.
Cheers
RFMcD

Or 'semi-sort'a-kinda' for short! :wink:

 

[Trench]

I would say HC matters, when it matters.

 

[Coot]

Does HC really matter? As with many questions, the answer is "it depends". I see four uses for muzzleloaders, with some people interested in only one use and others involved with multiple uses. As with everything, some people are more serious about what they do & some have more cash. That said, there are:

1) Hunters. And the deer, squirrel, turkey, etc are not HC minded.
2) Target shooters. As above, the paper, gongs, clays are not influenced by how HC the gun is.
3) Reenactors. Where a certain level of HC is required to participate at all.
4) Collectors. Where there is a range of interests from production guns to customs - HC may or may not be a critical thing.

All other things (caliber, condition, fit, eye appeal, etc) being equal, a HC gun is capable of being of interest to all four groups & should therefore be easier to sell/trade at a higher price than a non PC gun which appeals to some but not all groups. Each of us is free to participate or not in each of the activities and should choose guns based on how well they meet our personal desires (and budgets).

 

[Dphar]

I read on this forum and others how a Siler lock on a Southern Mt rifle is So Un-HC. Does it really matter to most folks? My So.Mt. is a gorgeous Iron mounted, birdseye, 13/16th x 42"straight oct..45 barrel(is the barrel un-hc also?) and very daintily built, LH Chambers' Large Siler flint lock. Maybe if Chambers built another in LH we would have gone different, I doubt it though. The Whole HC thing doesn't matter to me. I wanted and got the look of a So. Mt.and am quite proud of it and of the builder.

At the moment I have a N.E. Fowling gun being built and again with the same lock. And again HC doesn't matter. I know it will be a thing of great beauty and the lock style won't distract from that beauty.

What I want in a lock is reliability, and ease of replacement parts and a great guarantee. So Chambers' Siler it is.
Cheers
RFMcD

Only matters if you call it a SMR, because with a Siler its not. It's just another (name deleted in the interest of decorum) rifle made by a modern maker who wants it his way even if its not representative of what he SAYS he wants when in reality he just wants it "easy".
In most cases its no harder to make it right than it is to screw it up.
Chambers has locks that work just fine and are correct for a SMR. If you need a LH lock look until you find one. Or simply reshape the lock plate on something like a L&R 1700. Its a great lock with a little work by someone with the skill. Better than a Siler.

Here are a series of photos of converting a heavy match rifle with a somewhat huge home-made (I hesitate to call it "shop made") lock to a flintlock choosing a lock that had the right cock throw. Its a copy of a 1780ish English lock.

Is this rifle HC? Well kinda, there were similar rifles in the FL era. But its a 20th C match rifle converted to flint. The same process can be used to change the plate shape of any FL or percussion lock. Left or right hand. The PARTS are all readily available other than the plate.
But it requires WANTING it correct for what it supposed to be rather than just deciding right is too much trouble.
If you wanted the "look" then you missed the mark because with a Siler lock it does not have "the look" just a fact.
The most if not all SMR were built after JP Beck, for example, was gone. Even Beck, who made Rev War looking guns till he passed in 1811 was using locks that would work on a SMR at the end of his career. Because that was what was being imported by then. So using a Germanic lock on a SMR is a mistake. The basic Siler shape was 80+- years old by the time of the American Revolution, the plate shape dates to the late 17th or the very first of the 18th c. By 1800 the shape was largely dead. By 1820 the locks were almost all coming from Birmingham and the designs they were shipping here by that time were already 20-40 years old in England. Being waterproof or semi-waterproof locks.
Dan

 

[tenngun]

I would say I screwed up my SMR built in the 80s since 'I didn't know any better" Not to produce a fake style of rifle, or just put forth my ideas. Info was much harder to get then and I relied on other makers instead of surviving pieces.Today with the internet info is so much easier to find.
A right lock isnt more expensive or harder to find parts for then the right style.
'Live and learn or you dont live very long" But if your only Hc mistake is the wrong lock for your style of gun, your more then welcome in my camp,as we share simular screw ups.

 

[Dphar]

I understand about details, but why would what someone else wears or shoot bother YOU at all? :stir:

It depends ENTIRELY on the context. If I paint SMR on the side of an AR15 and take it to a reenactment it matters. If I go out and shoot rocks or Coyotes with it its meaningless what I want to call it.
If I put a Siler lock on rifle for a shooter its fine if the rifle is properly shaped. But don't pretend its a 1820-40s SMR rifle because its not.
I could not care less what lock someone uses in the context of a rifle to shoot. But if someone wants a Hawken or a SMR they cannot use a Siler and have it look right. The lock is simply wrong and cannot be made right even if reshaped. Thus the rifle is not a SMR or a Hawken for that reason. Now on even an 1800 or even somewhat later PA rifle by some makers or some Maryland rifles the pointed lock is still correct but "fading" as it were. Its perfect in a 1780 American rifle but it is far out of style for a 1780s English rifle. Since as I stated in a previous post the basic shape is already out dated for state of the art English locks by perhaps 1770 and certainly by 1780.

Dan

 

[ratfacedmcdougal]

I'll stick with the Siler on this rifle and the Fowler being built right now. I like it and wouldn't change it out if I could. Maybe I'll stick one on an Ohio just for fun.
Cheers
RFMcD

 

I'll stick with the Siler on this rifle and the Fowler being built right now. I like it and wouldn't change it out if I could. Maybe I'll stick one on an Ohio just for fun.

The truth is, unless you attend an event with rules, nobody cares what you do. :hatsoff:

 

[azmntman]

The truth is, unless you attend an event with rules, nobody cares what you do.

Agree with Jack :shocked2:

Just be happy! If and when you evolve to the point you are "policed" by anybody that matters (other than the wife) you can worry about the P/C H/C aspect. Till then lets just shoot!

And since yer here, you've already reached that point with the wife (at least 90% of us?). Keep checking back for some good ideas to smuggle in new items :grin: .

 

[rich pierce]

I think Dan has articulated why HC "matters" to some of us. It irks those who have studied a great deal in any field to hear things mis-named. The example here is the person who calls their rifle a Hawken or a Southern Mountain Rifle or a whatever when it does not closely resemble originals, while at the same time saying they don't care about HC.

It is akin to someone calling a Marlin lever action rifle a Winchester, or a fanny pack a shooting pouch. It's just not, and those who know the difference might be tempted to point that out.

It's a rare person who has the self confidence to say, "I was sure enough misinformed about that. I learned something today." Instead, when facing evidence that they have been operating under false assumptions, we usually hear, "Don't care", "you're wrong", "who asked you", etc.