Oh, I'm not saying that we should do away with catagorizing the different systems, weapons, &c. In fact, we should exert every power we have to understand each one and where they appear in firearms history.
I'm just saying that the makers and users of these weapons were not in the least concerned with making their identification real easy for collectors, builders and shooters two hundred years in the future. For instance, Ordnance Deptartment records found over the last 100 years or so are somewhat ambiguous (if that's the word) in the way they were written. That has led various famous writers on the subject to disagree on such points as Model years, patterns, &c. Gluckman and Fuller come up with completely different model years for Springfield pattern flint muskets for instance. Flayderman and others say there wasn't a "Model" musket until 1812. Others say not until the "M1816" (or M1822 depending on who you subscribe to). I personally believe the first musket designated with a model year was the 1816. Previous to this the War Department referred to the older muskets as "Charleville Patterns". (Actually, at least one contemporary writer referred to the M1816 as a Charleville pattern). So, we see how messed up this can be. But, I also believe that applying model years to those variants of the "Charleville Pattern" muskets helps us identify them and their chronological place in ordnance history. Just remember that the Ordnance Dept. wasn't concerned beyond parts and ammunition and their attempts at standardization.
When I started blacksmithing, I would read books written back when smithing was more than a hobby and would about go crazy when I was reading about a particular job or technique that I was wanting to use. The writer would describe part of the process in detail and then pass over another part saying,'as all smiths are familiar with the next step, we'll pass on to the finishing step'. Since I wasn't "familiar" with that second step, I was left in the dark as how to proceed to the third. I've come across similiar passages in several other blacksmithing and gunsmithing books, as well as numerous passages in Ordnance Dept. records. Like I said, they were not concerned about how well our generation understood their procedures. They had their hands full taking care of their own problems.
The saddest part of the story is, they did keep many records that may have clarified many of the mysteries of firearms development and manufacture, including detailed drawings of equipment, but many, including most of those at Harper's Ferry Armory, were destroyed by fire during the War, other fires at various depositories, careless handling by clerks, water damage and saddest of all by indifference.
We can leave much more to our following generation due to a vast ability communicate and save information. We also have a great responsibility to get it right. All we can do is use the information left to us and interpret it as accurately as possible. I'm a firm believer in using all the terms used in the past, but do the best we can to place them in the periods they belong, which is not always easy if you can't find reference to them in contemporary works. So I think that we should use all the material we can find to identify these weapons. We can always sort through the information at hand, use what is relevant and cull out the rest.
I didn't mean to ramble on when I started this reply, Sorry!
:grin:
