I suppose this could have also gone under the percussion subforum, but for some reason it seemed to make a bit more sense for me to put it here.
I've long seen on this forum and others the criticism (not unwarranted) that factory produced sidelocks are seldom, if ever, historically accurate in their appearance.
I totally get that manufacturing methods are going to be different.
My question is this: does anyone have an insight into why the guns put out by the big manufacturers like Pedersoli, InvestArms, etc don't model their guns off of surviving examples, and not a vague nothing of what a sidekick is supposed to look like? I know that styles changed over time and geography so not every school could be represented. But that doesn't mean that the gun they do produce have to have no connection to any place/time in history.
I might be misunderstanding the criticism, but my impression has been that the combination of the shape of the stock, choice of furniture, and style of lock are not generally reflective of anything and even all those component pieces might not be as well.
If my takeaway is correct, what gives? Is the average consumer of these guns not going to care or notice? Is it a price point thing somehow? Ergonomics?
As for me, I'm not what the reenactment world terms a "stitch counter" but neither do I like to be farby, even when just out shooting by myself. I'd much prefer something that looks period correct over something that's not, but I'm still relatively new and while I can tell that such and such manufacturer's model X is wrong, I generally can't articulate how it is. They just look different to the originals I've seen in person and books/internet.
I would be very interested in hearing your thoughts.
Thanks,
-dgfd
I've long seen on this forum and others the criticism (not unwarranted) that factory produced sidelocks are seldom, if ever, historically accurate in their appearance.
I totally get that manufacturing methods are going to be different.
My question is this: does anyone have an insight into why the guns put out by the big manufacturers like Pedersoli, InvestArms, etc don't model their guns off of surviving examples, and not a vague nothing of what a sidekick is supposed to look like? I know that styles changed over time and geography so not every school could be represented. But that doesn't mean that the gun they do produce have to have no connection to any place/time in history.
I might be misunderstanding the criticism, but my impression has been that the combination of the shape of the stock, choice of furniture, and style of lock are not generally reflective of anything and even all those component pieces might not be as well.
If my takeaway is correct, what gives? Is the average consumer of these guns not going to care or notice? Is it a price point thing somehow? Ergonomics?
As for me, I'm not what the reenactment world terms a "stitch counter" but neither do I like to be farby, even when just out shooting by myself. I'd much prefer something that looks period correct over something that's not, but I'm still relatively new and while I can tell that such and such manufacturer's model X is wrong, I generally can't articulate how it is. They just look different to the originals I've seen in person and books/internet.
I would be very interested in hearing your thoughts.
Thanks,
-dgfd