I really do not care what people shoot. I know that a lot of people have bought and used various mass produced rifles and like them.
But I get somewhat jaded when someone asks what an original gun is supposed to be/if the mass produced "Hawkin" is correct and when told the TRUTH the whining starts in some quarters because someone is upset that they are shooting an ugly rifle that is reality is not traditional in one way or several.
So far as "heavy" guns.
I am sorry that original rifles are heavier than a LW Model 70 in 270. But thats not what they are. They are representative of their era. Reasonably accurate copies are of similar weight, they have to be to be correct.
Using one of these gives a the person an INSIGHT into the past.
However, if the only reason for having a ML rifle is to squeak by getting into some re-enactment, where the gun is just a prop to fill out a costume, or to take part in some "muzzleloader season" then how screwed up and ugly the thing is becomes irrelevant. I like the "American Rifle" from the 1700s onward. The good ones are works of art in form and decoration (or even if not decorated). So when some company makes a "muzzleloader" as cheap as possible with modernized stocks and assembly processes that are scary I am supposed to be all gaa-gaa because lots of people bought them?
I like the lines, I like the form, I like the shaping and contours of the "American rifle". But the mass produced guns simply cannot do this with off the street parts assemblers. Some buyers however, cannot tell a well shaped stock form a somewhat rounded 2x4 or don't want to. Trust me. So if someone states its poorly shaped or shaped as a modern rifle the owners of the things start whining or get huffy and attack.
Then there are the "experts". A friend and mentor who started making MLs before I was born was laughing about how he could hand a rifle to a customer and he would instantly know more about it than he who had MADE THE RIFLE.
So I get a little tired of the whining and "experts".
People want a "traditional rifle" but they don't know what it looks like, or they think its too heavy when its probably just right. But its heavier than their Ithaca or their bolt action "mountain rifle" so they whine about that.
Never mind they could loose 5 pounds of lard and it would more than make up the difference in weight.
Then the ones that can't tell a corner from a curve will get on a high horse and point out that THEIR misshapen MLer is not because after all THEY own it
In reality its just a cookie cutter gun and there are thousands just like generally designed to look like a modern rifle as much as possible so its familiar to the Wal-Mart customer. OR its supposedly a "tradtional" rifle but machine sanding or sanding with a drum or belt sander simply cannot reproduce the shape. I know I used to do this some years back on brass suppository guns and I hated it. But it paid the rent. It will work on some "modern" designs but not on a Kentucky or a Hawken. But there is no time or skill to properly shape a ML stock and then sell the gun at Wal-Mart.
THEN when it won't go off because the hammer is misaligned, they whine. Or the hammer blows off the nipple and it erodes before it should cause the lock is designed to sell CHEAP by someone with no idea of what its supposed REALLY do other than pop a cap. Then they whine when hammer goes to 1/2 cock when shot and put on a “vented” nipple
. A modern construct to "eliminate" a problem caused by locks designed to be cheap but not fully functional as a percussion lock is supposed to be. But since most buyers have no IDEA what is good or bad in a lock if the gun goes bang most of the time they can sell them by the thousands at less than what good set of parts costs. Besides some clueless gunwriter recommended the vented nipple. :rotf: Along with a lot of other "stuff" that is not needed or is even harmful, but they have these advertisers to keep happy...
So if someone points out any of this, which is irrefutable, the users get defensive and start making snide comments about things they have not taken the time to understand or about the character of the person pointing out the shortcommings.
When they commandeered the Hawken name when the gun looked nothing like a Hawken it irritated a lot of people who were shooting MLs at the time. (Kinda like the plastic stocked inline "MLs" taking over ML seasons that people had spent a lot of time on back in the 60s when they had to prove a traditional ML would kill a deer to get a season.) A friend of mine had written a number of magazine articles and published a book on the Hawken and the name was "hot" so it got slapped on for advertising purposes. Now if you mention "Hawken" here 1/2 the readers or more think its some mass produced POS. Its like rewriting history.
Anyway life is too short to shoot ugly guns. So I don't. Unless its a brass suppository gun many of these are SUPPOSED to be ugly.
Dan
