Early Rustic Arms: Smoothbore Purchase

[Marc Adamchek]

Well, I'm looking and saving and dreaming about getting someone to start building a flintlock smoothbore for me. I must say, there are a couple that appeal to me on the Early Rustic Arms site. Does anyone have any experience with any of these guns? The workmanship looks good for the money. How about another builder? Any suggestions? The guns that have captured my fancy on the ERA site are the American Fowleer, The New England Club Foot fowler, and the Hudson Valley Fowler.

 

[DGeraths]

I own the ERA American Fowler. Here is a link to my review.

Read the review... pretty much ignore the rest of the thread. It got terribly off-topic and has really nothing to do with the review of the weapon.

Cheers!
[url] http://www.muzzleloadingforum.../169047/post/169047/hl/+DGeraths/#169047[/url]

 

[Marc Adamchek]

Thanks, DGeraths! Looks like a very nice gun. I have a couple questions I'd like to fire your way: How heavy would you say the piece is? Do you find the 46" barrel unwieldy? Finally, I'm really curious as to how the drop in the stock feels when you shoulder the gun. Can you mount it easily, and does it feel "right"? I'm quite interested in this fowling piece. The history points to it being based on a piece from Chapman in Windsor, CT. This town is about 25 miles south of where I live. I'm not sure about how far (how deep?) I'm going to go with the "persona" jazz, but basically I'm trying to get a kit together that would fairly be in line for a gentleman living exactly where I live, only 250 years earlier. I'm not sure how this will read in print, but my aspirations are modest. I just think there's something extremely cool about representing someone who may have/could have walked the same woods, hills and dales as I have my whole life.

 

Greetings:

Check out the smooth bores made by Danny Caywood. I have a Wilson 20ga smooth bore with a 41 inch barrel, and a Mike Rowe lock. It is super light and shoots darn good. They are very helpfull when you call and a lot quicker with the finished gun the most others. I got my rifle in about 4 months. Good luck

Rio

 

[bnail]

Until Caywood stops claiming that only exterior coned touch holes are proper, and liners are not, I'd stay the Hell away from that bunch.

 

Until Caywood stops claiming that only exterior coned touch holes are proper, and liners are not,

Skagun, can you elaborate some, are they claiming authenticity, or safety, please enlighten me Bill

 

[Wes/Tex]

Have talked with them about this very thing. Their contention is that touch-hole liners are absolutely unsafe and prone to fail and blow out the side of a muzzleloader causing injury or worse. They also insist that they will NOT touch any muzzleloader with one in it and anyone putting one in one of their guns voids all warranties immediately. I didn't get a straight answer as to what this is based on but they are very adamant about it. Since originals exist with gold or platinum liners, their ideas don't seem based on authenticity. I will state that I have never even heard of a failure of a touch-hole liner, let alone seen such a thing happening. It appears to be just one of those things.

 

[jim gray]

As sensitive as everyone is about legal liablity now especially in the firearms industry wouldn't touchhole liners quickly be history as soon as the first one failed.

I like the looks of the ERA smoothies as well, but I would have a hard time deciding between a trade gun and a smoothrifle if I were in a position to buy one of these right now. I would kind of lean toward the smoothrifle right now because I would like to use it for every hunting season that I can hunt in PA.

I guess I'll have to think it over until I can straighten out some other matters and maybe save up a few bucks for gun buying.

 

[bnail]

Wes/Tex pretty well summed it up for ya there. Check out their website. If you look at original examples, you'll not find many exterior coned touch holes; consequently, Caywood's insistance about this feature's authenticity worries me, it smacks of sloppy gunsmithing. There's a thread on this topic here, and some members have had luck with this feature, but it seems it was mostly employed as a corrective action after the gun was built to improve ignition and not as an original feature.
My worry about Caywood is their stubborness in these two areas; if I may butcher Shakespeare, "Me thinks [they] doth protest too much."
here's the article that convinced me I didn't want to deal with 'em: Caywood's anti-liner policy

 

[Mike Brooks]

Interesting, I've never read Danny's "anti" policy before....
I found the part about guns that have blown up in the past in the breech always have liners in them very interesting. That would make sense, since nearly EVERYBODY except Caywood put liners in their guns.... :youcrazy: That means 99% of all the guns that have been builtin the last 25 years have liners in them.
I have in fact blown up a flintlock rifle and it came apart at the breech. It had a .50 1" Douglas barrel. I had loaded it with a patched ball and 80gr. 2ff and like an idiot evidently short started another ball in the barrel. The barrel blew into three seperrate pieces, never did find the top flat. The short started ball was still in the barrel, and SO WAS THE VENT LINER! :shocked2:
You would think if the vent liner was the weak link it would have blown out before the barrel blew apart..... :youcrazy:
I do agree with one of his points. Constant removal and replacement of the liner will wear out the threads. I don't believe in removeable liners, once they're in they stay there. I have personally seen cap guns with drums blow out due to knuckle heads who remove their drums when they clean.
I suspect there is something larger at play here and I believe it has to do with legal liability. I think some lawyer or insurance person told the Caywoods that they'd get their butts sued off if they put liners in their barrels and had one fail.
I believe that all this smoke and anti vent liner propaganda is generated just to divert attention away from the fact that they can't/won't install liners in their barrels due to liability/legalities that are beyong their control..... just my guess of course. :winking:

 

[stewarttls]

I have a Caywood .45 cal. southern mountain rifle with a Mike Rowe lock and absolutely love it. I have had "NO" problems with ignition without the liner. Just thought I would throw that it. (First time to reply on forum-read it all the time) Tommy from east texas

 

[bnail]

Hey Tommy, Welcome aboard. :thumbsup:
To line, or not to line is an interesting issue for me. I, for one, am in the don't line "line," but have acquiesced to the more knowledgeable folks who swear by it; Frankly, it's not that big of a deal for me. I always thought that a liner was only a repair for a burned out touch hole, but that doesn't explain the gold and platinum liners found on high end originals.

 

[stewarttls]

Thanks for the welcome Skagun. This forum is fantastic. I have been reading for a long time. I agree about the liner being a fix for a problem (At least that is what I thought for a long time.) I have the 45 without the liner and my others have liners. Thanks to all for some really great info.
Tommy from east Texas

 

[TANSTAAFL]

You know, opinions are akin to a certain bodily orifice, we all have one.

I have seen a couple of the Caywood pieces, and they are very nice indeed.

 

[Mike Brooks]

You know, opinions are akin to a certain bodily orifice, we all have one.

I have seen a couple of the Caywood pieces, and they are very nice indeed.

I don't think anyone said anything bad about the Caywood guns, we were just discussing the "vent liner issue". :winking:
I've see lots of Caywood guns and found them ALL to be top quality guns.....I'd just put a vent liner in one if I had it though! :winking:

 

[tg]

I chose not to put a liner in the French fusil I finished last spring, I think a liner would be faster ignition wise but I wanted a gun that functioned/looked as close to the originals that I could make.

 

[akapennypincher]

the Caywood Product is FIRST CLASS. The Caywood company build their firearm with out VENT LINERS, and if you install a Vent Liner in one of their firearms it voids they WARRANTY.

I have seen many who own Caywood firearm, have ZERO Problems with their Caywood firearm. The Caywood products works well, is built well, and is Price Fair in proportion to what you get for Dollars Spent. :thumbsup:

 

[Mike Brooks]

You aren't by chance Danny Caywood in disguise are you? :winking: :rotf:

 

[jaguarxk120]

Was just wondering about the Warranty? 1: It broke "We build to the highest standards so it's your falt!" buy a new one!! 2: Sears Craftsman tools "It broke take it in and they give you a new one". Just wondering how they back up their products. TF

 

Well I must say I didn't expect to start such a big debate when I said to have a look at the Caywood guns. Great discussion though. I will tell you my 20ga Wilson fires every time with good ignition speed. It's light, shots great groups and looks great. In addition the folks at Caywood answer there phones when you call which is a great thing. The fact that it doesn't have a liner does not affect the ignition and the way I look at is it's one less thing to deal with.

To me it's just not that big an issue. I was in Cabelas a few weeks ago looking at one of their trade guns (probably a pederosoli), I've got to tell you, the Wilson I got was not much more in price and the workmanship is sooooo much better, it really isn't a comparison.

Anyhow I'm not trying to be a Caywood salesman I'll shoot and enjoy shooting just about anything. But I'm just to darn impatient to wait a whole year for a gun. I guess that makes me a typical American.

Rio