Does HC really matter?

[Robert Egler]

I don't understand. If historical correctness does not matter, then why fool with a flintlock at all? Get a good 30-06 and be done with it.

I'm not a HC-type person, that is my BP guns are not historically correct except in that they have wood stocks. Long (like 30 years) after I started shooting a flintlock (I actually learned to shoot with a flintlock as my first gun) I was briefly into HC-ness, but I just really didn't care, so that didn't last long.

I don't shoot a flintlock to be HC or find out how they used to do it, I shoot a flintlock because it's fun to shoot. Same reason I shoot an airsoft full auto M4.

 

[Birddog6]

You built the rifle how you wanted it, and you are the Most Important part of that gun. You. It should first & foremost please You... :idunno: Don't worry about the PC Police....

Now, If some Asked... me what lock to put on a SMR, I would tell them a Ketland or some type of English lock, because that is what they had. Whether they use that lock or another is not my say..... It is their rifle. :idunno:

Besides, if Mr. Bean could come back today & built one himself a Tennessee rifle, I guarantee that someone.. would tell him he was doing it wrong.... :rotf:

Keith Lisle

 

[azmntman]

Several would give him advise I'm sure! :blah:

 

[Col. Batguano]

Some things are really wrong, and some things are only a little bit wrong, and could easily be attributed to artistic license.

I bet if you looked over the whole portfolio of John Armstrong's work, some things would be consistent (like general stock shape and dimensioning), and there would be wide variation in others, such as engraving, and incised and raised carving.

In my current Stophill Long styled build, I'm using John Young and Peter Neidhart styled raised carving, John Moll styled patch box, and certain aspects of Nicholas Hawk's style of engraving blended with John Moll's. Since I don't have to make a living selling the finished product, I have all the time in the world to get it done, and done with as few mistakes that show. That said, I'm still learning, and getting better, and that's the real value in a completed build. Sure I could have had it done months and months ago had I elected to make a plain rifle just to have a gun, but then I wouldn't have learned about incise carving, raised carving, wire inlays, or engraving. Truth be told, a well executed plain rifle would probably be worth more as a resale item, but that is not the larger point of a self-built custom build.

 

[ratfacedmcdougal]

"I don't understand. If historical correctness does not matter, then why fool with a flintlock at all? Get a good 30-06 and be done with it."

What..?

 

[Grumpa]

I entered this thread expecting a real dogfight...I am pleasantly surprised to find an intelligent discussion among folks who know what they like, but can appreciate the other fellow's point of view.
I own two flintlocks, both 1803 Harpers Ferry. One is an early Italian repro, .58 caliber, and the other is a custom built "original", made by a friend now deceased. My period of interest lies in the F&I and Revolutionary wars. I just sort of ended up with the Harpers. If I had the money and the time., I might have a Jaeger, or an early PA rifle, or even a French musket or a Bess, and correct accoutrements...but that might never happen. But when I step into the woods, I'm back 250 years. I do appreciate the HC folks, who do it "right".

 

[Col. Batguano]

You have 2 entirely different types of arms. The 1803 is a "production gun", and the originals were all pretty much made the same.

The long rifle is the product of an individual artisan's work. When artists of today paint pictures, or make sculptures, no two works are ever identical. They may be stylistically similar (that's how artists establish a reputation) but no two are ever the same. Thus it is the same thing with long rifles, which have been called an American art form. Generally speaking, the areas that vary the most widely from a single period maker's piece to piece and from one period maker to another are the patchbox type, shape, and engraving, inlays, and stock carving. Most of the rest of it is dictated by function. With any one maker, they tended to have very similar looking parts and engraving from piece to piece, because they had to make a living at it. You can duplicate things in much less time than it takes to design and execute them for the very first time.

 

[Zonie]

What you say is right but I'm having a bit of a problem figuring out how it relates to whether HC really matters?

Anyway, Grumpa, just keep your eyes peeled.
A suitable F&I gun might show up.
Even a nice Indian Trade smoothbore you "found on a dead Indian." could work.

 

[ed zeransky]

I too, thought a dogfight was coming....I just dropped out of a facebook group because of the "Nazis"....now let me say first I personally TRY and be as HC-PC as I can....BUT I am in this because I enjoy shooting black powder and enjoy history. some of the folks I shoot at woods walks with wear 1970s knee high fringed moccasins....don't bother me at all. if I ask for your advise, then I expect your advise or opinion. if I don't ask....keep your opinions about my gear-clothes to yourself.....that's my two cents......

 

[dave_person]

Hi,
In my personal opinion, this is all very stupid. Historical correctness is only necessary if you intend to pass your work off as historically accurate or representative of the past. If you just like old ignition systems and muzzleloaders and want to build and shoot one, who cares if it is historically correct. Just don't try and pass off your creation as historically correct.

dave

 

[tenngun]

I think we should try to be HC when building a gun. Of corse its you gun and the most important person to plese with it is you. I built my SMR with a siler lock on it as every SMR I saw at the time had this non hc lock. Later I learned I had messed up. Its a lerning curve we are on. No one can have a real HC gun the best we can do is be as close as we can at the time we are doing it. I posted on a nother thread how uncomfortable I was when a non ML shooter was praising my 'kentucy rifle' I tried to tell him what i should have done. In an HC setting I point out mistakes on my guns if talking about styles with a tourest. My centermark TFC has its problems as does my NWG as I leave off the stamps and its on a plain maple stock.
Use your slighty non HC gun, carry it to an event if you want,admit its non HC parts. If you dont do histoic events then you have a 21st century flintlock styled after a traditional early 19th century piece.
The next SMR I plane will have a proper lock,but I am sure a few years in the future I will learn what new styling mistakes I have made.

 

[galamb]

Hi,
If you just like old ignition systems and muzzleloaders and want to build and shoot one, who cares if it is historically correct.
dave

I think this goes to the root of the question.

Like many I started off with an off the shelf (Lyman Trade Rifle) gun and thought it was about the coolest thing out there.

And for many that is as far as they want to take it. HC/PC, not really - almost a stretch to even consider it "representative".

Still fine guns, shoot great, hunt well, durable, fairly well built, economical etc etc and contrary to some opinions I see no reason not to consider them "traditional" muzzle loaders especially as it applies to "primitive hunts" that allow firearms.

But some of us get bitten differently and want something more HC/PC.

That leads to more "representative" guns from perhaps an era, area, school - maybe we acquire a "Lancaster".

It may not look like one from a specific builder but it will be a "collage" of essence of what makes a Lancaster a Lancaster.

I went that way myself with a run of Ohio rifles which took architecture and style from a half dozen different gunsmiths work over a 50 year or so period.

PC - maybe, at least mine represent a mish/mash of the 1830's-1880's Ohio percussion era. For some that "period" may be "too long" to be considered PC.

HC? - not a chance - all my parts are "modern" - no hand forged triggers on my guns.

OR to be HC is it "good enough" to use modern parts that are "representative" of the originals even though they were produced using modern tools/methods (that is a whole other discussion).

Putting aside how HC has to be to be HC some of use "thirst" for "more correct". We want a gun or a rifle representative of a specific maker.

This is where I am personally now. The one on my bench will be representative of Christian Hawken's Maryland rifles.

Not a specific rifle (not there yet) but rather features of 6 or 7 rifles that will result in a rifle representative of his work over a 20 or 30 year period.

HC/PC? again, depending on your definition - maybe.

I can see the day coming when I will want a specific rifle - sometimes called a "bench copy" that attempts to duplicate a specific rifle from a specific maker.

Why? because that is where MY interest is heading.

I don't see me ever hand welding a barrel and then rifling it by hand, but know the odd one who is going that route in their "quest" for HC complete with hand made screws.

So does HC really matter. Again, maybe. First you have to decide for yourself what it means to you and how far you are willing to go (or not go) if that is something you are after.

Because really, at the end of the day, unless your "early Virginia" came out of Haymaker's shop (or any other early gunsmith) it really is a MODERN rifle.

 

[tenngun]

Very good post.I do think another point is no two rifles were the same back in the day. Each was a one of a kind. The Hawkenshop years ago offered a hawkin rifle based on avrages in mesurements from 10 surviving hawkins. Is that an hc gun,open up the flood gates of argument. Gun builders back then recycled parts and used what was at hand. Miss-matched guns were to be found n the old days. Could some maker have made a SMR with a German lock,or an old fusil lock? Maybe, however I would like to see one befor I ever made one again with anything but an english lock on it.
The needs of modren manufactoring also raises its head. Old guns often came in one of a kind calibur..47,.53 19 gage or 21gage,today we stick to basic caliburs.
Unless you make your own or have made for you your triggergaurd,buttplate and thimbles will be 'represenitve' instead of being perfect. I recall seeing an original SMR with a buttplate that the top of extended over 1/2 the butt. Just this last weekend looked at an origanal that was all southren styled with 1/2 brass and 1/2 iron mountings.

 

[okawbow]

I've made guns that were put together with what parts I could find, based only on function, and shootability. I've also made guns trying to build a gun that a particular original gunsmith "might" have made. Currently, I'm making a "photograph" copy of an original colonial rifle.

As I get older, and have all the different guns I need for shooting and hunting; I am tending toward being as HC as possible. My ultimate goal would be to make true bench copies,(with an original gun on hand) using materials, tools, and methods of the original gunsmith.

So for me, at this stage of life; I think HC is important.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

Again a lot of this comes down to aesthetics and experience and the person's journey to gain some knowledge or insight...

I know guys who use rifles that are "documentary" pieces of originals (meaning that except for the lack of wear and tear they were made to be copies of an existing antique rifle), but they hunt in modern clothes.

I hunt in period style clothing, and use a rather generic pattern rifle...not from any specific school, and no special carving. Who is more HC? (Who cares?) We both get venison.

I know of a master rifle builder just outside of Lovettsville, VA who tries making different styles of guns and rifles, using original methods... he goes down to Colonial Williamsburg each year to take lessons from the gunsmith...hasn't gotten to making barrels all by himself from bar stock welded around a mandrel yet..., but intends to try that one day... Why does he do that? Well, Mike is interested in knowing what it's like to use these various techniques, not that he's dead-set on using all of those techniques for all of his rifles in the future..., but he'd like to know what it's like first hand. He then can pick and choose what he wants to use and what he doesn't. He is trying the HC stuff in his art, so he will then know about it, but not simply to say "this was done all historically correct".

There are painters who have done the same thing, by making their own brushes, their own paints, using hand woven canvas on hand made frames... not to brag about being HC but to know how the masters had to go about making art..., giving them deeper understanding... it doesn't mean an artist with modern brushes and acrylic paints can't paint a masterpiece...


Some people want to know what it's like to face the elements in a setting devoid of modern technological reminders (as far as they can), and they could do this, have done this, with "prop" guns that cannot fire though they weigh pretty close to what an actual gun weighs...., some places in the world really restrict any type of firearm folks... are they more HC or less HC? OR..., is it really up to them? :grin:

If you want to shoot with me at the match with your flinter while wearing a T-shirt, shorts, and a ball cap...OK fine, lets see if we can do well in the team events... who cares if you have a 30 year old CVA flintlock "long rifle" and you're in modern duds... Can you hit anything with your rifle? (OH and before you ask, yes It's hot in my clothes :haha: ) Yes, I'm a bit odd..., I choose to use a firearm for hunting and target shooting that needs a rock to make it go bang. I LIKE being odd..., it keeps the goofy neighbors at a distance that I can tolerate...your level of oddness is up to you...

So, bottom line as has been mentiond by many of the folks in this thread... It's all up to you; it's YOUR journey.

:thumbsup:

LD

 

[Billnpatti]

HC only matters if it matters to YOU. If you are into reenacting, it will most likely matter to those with whom you are doing your reenacting. Otherwise, it is strictly up to you. If you like your gun, that's ALL that matters. I don't know if some, most or any of my rifles would pass muster with the HC/PC crowd but since I don't care what anyone else thinks, they only have to please me......and they do. :hatsoff:

 

[Billnpatti]

Yes, a short time using cobs (ouch!) and/or leaves (Yuck) will cause one to depart from adhering to a strict HC interpretation. I know it did with me and I grew up using pieces of newspaper and catalog pages when I went to visit my grandparents. Thank you CHARMIN. :haha:

 

[hpdrifter]

Agree.

I'm not a gun builder per se. I've built, or pieced together, a few for myself, so don't know if I should be in this topic.

Sometimes I see completely misinterpreted creations at the hands of someone; the lock panels are raised from the main part of the rifle, like an afterthought and other parts surely do not resemble anything I've seen on an original, "school" correct or not.

Then I wonder; would my rendition of a longrifle look as hideous to someone trained in the differences as those I speak of looke to me?

Probably. Well, it really doesn't matter unless I'm trying to push it as a copy of originals.

Of course, if you build a "longrifle", it is supposed to be "like a longrifle", so it might seem that it matters to some degree. But who's to tell

 

[Stophel]

I find that there are a couple of groups of people, basically. Many (probably most) people are utterly oblivious to detail and unable to discern differences (even when they are pointed out to them) whether with guns or anything else. So for most people, a "historically correct" gun is simply a waste and something from Cabela's or Thompson Center is sufficient to provide them with an "olde timey" looking gun.

Some of us, however, can see discrepancies down to a thousandth of an inch and have to have everything just so. Differences and details SCREAM at us, the tiniest things are glaringly obvious, and we can sometimes feel a lot of frustration with the first group of people... :grin:

 

[tenngun]

I would be uncomfotable doing a copy of one gun. instead would gravitate to a genral type. One can make an exact copy of Jim Bridgers Hawkin, but only bridger carriered that rifle. My self I would rather see an avarage hawkin.Since all my guns have cosmetic problem I guess I'm more forgiving of other peoples coosmetic problems. I dont think a gun should be discarded because the builder did what I did when making a gun.
I have seen a NWG I think from an Italian maker that has a side plate unlike the side plate on old NWGs. Many of the TFDC guns are shorter and heaiver then the originals. Our quest to be as hc as possible runs in to road blocks of our own skill, finances,avaliblity,and our knowledge at the time.
Since I have a german style lock onmy SMR I can only say 'this is wrong' ,'I wish I had done it different' ect. I cant pick on some one eles gun. A misstyled lock should not keep one out of the stricktest juried event...but there is a slipery slope here. If my gun with its german lock is accepted then why not a TC hawken flint lock,then why not a precussion at a flint lock period,then why not an in line?
Do your best,recoognize your mistakes,move onto do better next gun, next year, next coat,
"next years wall that much stonger, next years ditchs that much longer,next years fields that much bigger"