• 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

For anyone considering an Indian manufactured Flintlock

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I could pick them out correctly every time.

Might ask Dave Person about the British ordnance standards and the overall quality of originals.
Maybe you could, but I doubt 95% of us could.
Can you show me a better wood to metal fit in an origanal, show me a tougher barrel
Back in the day it was written that a kings musket could hit the figure of a man at eighty yards ….if not exceedingly illy bored…. As many of them are.
It was commented tat as much as a ten percent failure to fire rate was common,
My Indian gun will hit the figure of a man at one hundred yards ever time and at a hundred and fifty half the time
I’m willing to bet my barrel is safer and better bored then a great portion of kings muskets
 
Maybe you could, but I doubt 95% of us could.
Can you show me a better wood to metal fit in an origanal, show me a tougher barrel
Back in the day it was written that a kings musket could hit the figure of a man at eighty yards ….if not exceedingly illy bored…. As many of them are.
It was commented tat as much as a ten percent failure to fire rate was common,
My Indian gun will hit the figure of a man at one hundred yards ever time and at a hundred and fifty half the time
I’m willing to bet my barrel is safer and better bored then a great portion of kings muskets
Well, there are a number of very excellent references that often enough get into the minutiae of probably the most popular musket ever devised. So go spend $70 combined and get Goldstein and Baileys last books. Then you tell me how the wood to metal finish is on many of the originals after 210-260ish years and real campaigns later.

And go run some .690” balls down your .77” barrel and tell me how many targets you hit at 150 yds.

Sitting and publicly admitting that you are toting around a grossly inaccurately built gun is not a good way to convince me that reenactors are usually quite farby.
 
Well, there are a number of very excellent references that often enough get into the minutiae of probably the most popular musket ever devised. So go spend $70 combined and get Goldstein and Baileys last books. Then you tell me how the wood to metal finish is on many of the originals after 210-260ish years and real campaigns later.

And go run some .690” balls down your .77” barrel and tell me how many targets you hit at 150 yds.

Sitting and publicly admitting that you are toting around a grossly inaccurately built gun is not a good way to convince me that reenactors are usually quite farby.
I think you missed the point. According to contemporary sources the originals were often illy bored. And MAY hit the figure of a man at eighty yards
And I’ve been around ml all my life, and not seen better metal to wood fit on any gun
Now Indian guns have too much wood, but and sometimes I understand sap wood is seen. It’s not on mine and an hour or so was all needed to bring my wood down
We’re all farby at some point
I’m less farby then thou is an attitude that just drives people away from the sport
You should be proud of your guns
But don’t look down your nose at others
 
And you last paragraph is just plain dumb. If I don’t know, I have no problems asking. And I know they had a lot of stuff we don’t commonly think of
So you admit that you do not know things....And they had a lot of stuff "we" don't commonly think of....

But you put down reenactors in general after admitting you do not know and they had stuff that you don't know....

I think you are one of those experts that add nothing to the conversation, and so I will not waste anymore time on you, another one into the lock box....
 
Last edited:
So you admit that you do not know things....And they had a lot of stuff "we" don't commonly think of....

But you put down reenactors in general after admitting you do not know and they had stuff that you don't know....

I think you are one of those experts that add nothing to the conversation, and so I will not waste anymore time on you, another one into the lock box....

Not trying to speak for someone else but the point he was making that if he doesn’t know he asks, he doesn’t just throw conjecture and assumptions out there like …. A regular person coudln't pick out an original Bess from a line up of 10 Indian repro’s.
 
If some want an Indian gun with a little elbow grease put into it why not?

No problem with people owning them.

But i do have a problem with the false assertions they make about them being historically accurate, and up to the quality of an original Bess (fresh off the rack) and some other reproduction guns such Japanese made and Italian made reproductions. They’re cheaper for a reason, and it’s not because of inflation has not hit the Indian economy.
 
Not trying to speak for someone else but the point he was making that if he doesn’t know he asks, he doesn’t just throw conjecture and assumptions out there like …. A regular person coudln't pick out an original Bess from a line up of 10 Indian repro’s.
If he asked, he would not have to assume..... and he would not assume that the majority of reenactors are campers in funny clothes. But maybe in the circles he travels in they are. But again, he should not paint with such a broad brush.

Getting back to Bess's..... I could not pick an original from an India repro...mostly because I do not care enough about them to bother to look.

I bought a Pedersoli Bess back in the dark ages and one of the best days I had with it was when I found someone that wanted to buy it, I could not sell it fast enough.
 
When I hear talk about differences in particular guns from original my eyes glaze over
Take a pedi bess and Indian and a custom made bench copy
Mix them with a half dozen originals and take a black and white photo so the difference in new and old wood aren’t seen
Then see if any expert can pick it out
I bet few can
And I’m willing to bet that the el cheapo Indian has comparable fit and finish compared to original. I know mine has fine inlets and well finished wood, and importantly shoots better and more reliably then the original
I have an original P59 Enfield made by Enfield. Barrel was toast and not able to be used for firing. I bought an Indian made barrel from Loyalist and it was pretty much a drop in. Fit the barrel channel perfectly, had to bend the tang and drill it. It has a rifle rear sight instead of a post which the musket originally had - now it looks like a P53 unless I want to replace the sight. All this to say that Indian arms are not always inaccurate and can sometimes best the Italian repros. No way an Italian barrel would have fit.
 
And it’s also true. As much as you harp about documenting everything, but you defend the “if they had it, they would use it” crowd. 90% of reenactors are farbs, and the more easily an era is to document the worst it gets.
If 90% of the reenactors you encounter are farbs, you’re doing the wrong events.
Jay
 
Back
Top