How correct is correct?

[kodiakmarine]

A forum member recently asked for advice on building an Early Virginia rifle from a TVM kit. He received more advice than he needed or wanted. He decided, wisely, to build the kit as it was originally intended. This leads me to ask, how correct is correct? At what point do we cease to offer useful suggestions, and merely throw up obstacles, discouraging a once enthusiastic would be builder?

Most of us start out with a factory made "Kentucky" or "Hawken" rifle, an often old and well worn specimen. We then become hopeless addicts, getting high on bp smoke at the range, and stalking the forum, desperate and bleary eyed, until the wee hours of the morning, trying to satisfy our craving until the next shoot or rendezvous. We have then begun our tortuous journey up the ML food chain. At the bottom is our third hand factory cast off. At the top is the exact replica of a Dickert, Haines, or Verner, intricately carved and engraved, with every part hand forged down to the last screw by Wallace Gusler. In between is a vast array of choices with varying degrees of authenticity, each a new challenge as we gain in knowledge and skill.

I want to emphasize, for those who might be unaware,
that our community is graying. Participation is declining, especially among the younger folks who are essential to preserving this glorious part of our heritage for future generations.

We need to be more encouraging and less demanding. Using brass or iron furniture, a Siler lock, or a straight octagon barrel does not make someone stupid, incompetent, or subversive. It is often simply the reality faced by someone who is trying to
support a wife and children, with a TVM kit being affordable, while the Chambers or Klein kit is just more than his budget can handle. He should be congratulated and encouraged as he takes an important step in his journey. Beating him over the head with PC/HC and saying "That's not good enough" might be personally satisfying, but it is counter productive to demand that someone go beyond his budget and skill level.

Speaking of PC/HC (or is it HC/PC?) I would like to offer a few observations of my own. Regarding the brass mounted "Hawkens", they are obviously not replicas of Hawken rifles, but they do bear a reasonable resemblance to some of the many and varied half stock trade rifles that were made in many states by small makers trying, often unsuccessfully, to get a share of the trade rifle business during the Rocky Mountain era. A little time searching the web will show photos of such guns.

Another bone of contention I have is the straight octagon barrel, :stir: . Peter Alexander, in The Gunsmith of Grenville County, says that John Armstrong was a journeyman gunsmith by l790. Alexander also states that Armstrong used "parallel
sided" barrels exclusively. This means that straight octagon barrels were available as early as l790. Alexander also shows a rifle by Virginia maker Simon Lauck that he dates as having been made between l787 and l790. This rifle also has a straight octagon barrel. These makers were real, and these rifles still exist. The notion that an accomplished barrel smith could hammer out a perfectly shaped swamped octagon barrel but could not manage a straight one is incorrect. I don't know how many of these barrels were made or used, but they were available, at least by l790.

Please, fellow ML addicts, let us take a little more tolerant view of the limitations that many of us face. Those who can produce museum quality replicas of the work of the old masters can be justifiably proud of their accomplishments :hatsoff: , without denegrating the lesser achievements of others. This is, after all, a journey, with many steps to be taken before reaching true enlightenment . - John

 

[Vaino]

Not being facetious...please elaborate....Fred

 

[coloradoclyde]

There are many levels of "correctness" ......but ultimately it comes down to your own preference.

Just like the TVM kit builder in your scenario.
We choose what we want.

 

[galamb]

I participated in that thread and have read it over and don't see anywhere where anyone "denigrated" what the individual was building.

A lot of the issue comes in how the question is asked.

And when asked bluntly, does rifle A resemble a rifle that would have been in Area A during time period B you can't answer YES if it really doesn't.

It's not about not hurting someones feelings, it's answering their question. What they choose to to with that information is up to them.

And yes we are getting "older" as a crowd but that still doesn't change the answer.

We are old enough to remember those Rolls Royce kits for Volkswagon Beetles.

Although that was years ago if someone asks today, is that what a Rolls looked like the answer is still NO - yes, it shared "some attributes" and yes, they both had wheels, doors, windows a motor etc etc but it's still just a "bug", it's not a Rolls.

Likewise, if a shop wants to put together a collection of parts with a somewhat generic piece of architecture and call it a "Bedford". If it only "resembles" a Bedford in the most rudimentary sense - and then someone asks "does that look like a Bedford", if you or I know the difference well enough to offer an opinion, we shouldn't lie to protect "feelings".

That doesn't mean the rifle doesn't look good, well made, functional etc etc, but none of those things make it a Bedford.

To put it another way. If Rifle A (the Bedford) was laying on a table without a little card telling you what it was "supposed to be" and you couldn't recognize it as such (assuming you could recognize a Bedford in the first place), then maybe it just doesn't resemble what it purports to be.

As I often say, I can call my pick-up a Corvette if it makes me "feel better", but anyone who sees it and has seen a Vette knows it isn't. That doesn't mean I can't drive it to work.

So please, don't misinterpret pointing out "differences" between the "tag" hung on the rifle and what it's purporting to be with "disparaging" the owner/builder - they are not the same...

If someone says "hey I'm building a rifle what do you think?"

Then the comments may be something like "you might want to slim the wrist so you can grip it better".

But if you say I'm building an early JP Beck then the focus on the small details increases dramatically.

If someone is not concerned with "correctness" then why ask about it in the first place?

 

[biliff]

I wasn't following the Virginia Rifle thread, but after this post I looked it up to see all the nasty, denigrating, intolerant comments. What I found was a post full of people trying to help each other out. The OP seemed fine with all the advice, direction and references. Not sure what the problem is.

 

[FishDFly]

"We then become hopeless addicts, getting high on bp smoke at the range, and stalking the forum, desperate and bleary eyed, until the wee hours of the morning, trying to satisfy our craving until the next shoot or rendezvous. We have then begun our tortuous journey up the ML food chain."

?????????????

 

[pondoro]

I also went and read the Virginia rifle thread and it seemed genuinely helpful.

There is a problem, someone who is not an aficionado often wants something "better" than the average T/C, CVA or Traditions gun. The GPR is a step above those and the Pedersolis seem to be a step above that. Often the newcomer would be happy with a GPR or a Pedersoli. But they don't really know "what" they want. This person wanted to build a high quality gun from a more intricate set of parts, but did not really sound like he wanted to reenact a specific era or area.

This time he asked great questions and got great answers, but other times the person gets waaaay more information than they truly want. Part of that is their fault - they went to a fine French restaurant and asked if the medium rare hamburger was "pink" or "red." Other times the thread gets hijacked by someone who is already angry about GPRs or Pedersolis because someone tried to use one in an inappropriate venue.

It might be nice to have a "newbie" part of the forum, where newcomers can ask their honest questions. Someone some day will use "flintlock" as a generic term for "old rifle" - we want him or her to be educated without getting embarrassed. A ukulele board I go to has a newbie area, to keep the music majors from getting irritated with with the same naive questions.

I repeat - the Virginia rifle poster knew his stuff and asked great questions. But some people do not, yet we need to be patient with them.

 

[nchawkeye]

The fellow came on here and asked advice and he got it...What do you want us to do, lie to him???

The vast majority of rifle guns made prior to 1770 were made with imported locks and barrels, the furniture was brass and the barrels were swamped...

Sorry, a factory gun does not come close to looking like the originals...

Not all of us started with factory guns, I grew up visiting Williamsburg and with a love of history...I never could make myself buy a factory made gun...My first came at the ripe old age of 23 and it was a flintlock, never cared for percussion guns...This was in 1977...

If you want to learn about the old ways and the old guns, this is a great site...

 

[kodiakmarine]

Graham and Bill, the thread on the Virginia rifle was civil, and all advice was well intentioned. It seemed to me that some members were trying to push prospective builder into an increasingly complex project. This reminded me of some previous threads where some members were unkind in their comments toward those who weren't going all out for a golden age rifle. I should have stated that clearly. I did not mean to insult those who participated in the thread. I offer my apology to anyone I might have mischaracterized. - John

 

[kodiakmarine]

I tried to seek treatment, but the shrinks just laughed. :rotf: - John

 

[necchi]

I want to emphasize, for those who might be unaware,
that our community is graying. Participation is declining, especially among the younger folks who are essential to preserving this glorious part of our heritage for future generations.

That's only partially true also,,
Sure there's old grey folks, but the `vous around here are loaded with young folks and families.
We've always been a small group, and simply continue to be a small group.
There's no decline, it is what it's been for at least the last 20yrs. There's no great surge like the was for the bi-centennial that's for sure but it's status queue around here.

 

[kodiakmarine]

I guess that varies from one place to another. It has been a concern of mine as well as others, but perhaps I am being a little pessimistic. I got involved back when you could buy a CVA or TC kit in a craft shop, and a finished gun in a hardware store. Now, it's hard to find an ML, other than inline, in a gun shop. Times sure do change! - John

 

[mooman76]

That and when you do find one, it's usually wrapped in plastic too.

 

[coloradoclyde]

I'm ok with our sport shrinking, it will concentrate it and make it sweeter.

When muzzleloaders got to their peak in the late 80's-early 90's that popularity gave birth to those modern abominations.

Maybe shrinking interest will cause modern muzzleloaders to go the way of the Dodo bird so traditional ones can shine again.

 

[galamb]

Stand by.

I have heard there is another Mountain Man movie on the horizon with Leonardo DiCaprio in the lead role (Hugh Glass).

Glass was the "dude" that got mauled by a Griz and the story goes that Jim Bridger and a buddy took his rifle when they thought he wouldn't survive.

He did and tracked them down.

So "round two" might be mere months away

Can't you see it now - the factories will open again turning out Hugh's rifle which was carried by Bridger, plus Bridger's rifle of course...

 

[BigBoreBLR]

I am the TVM guy. I wasn't offended.

I am interested in the history, but know little of it. I am very interested in making almost everything I own myself. Even more so a muzzleloader I enjoy in my favorite kind of shooting. Offhand on realistic targets in realistic situations.

I got to admit it might be frustrating for someone who can make such fine art to see question after question about a CVA hawken.

Actually, I made this gun because it was a real build, not a paint by numbers kit so to speak. Also my errors would be less costly.

thanks for the advice. I got tough skin. Honest criticism will make my next build even better.

I got to pick a style I really like. I really like them all equally, that's my problem.

 

[Elnathan]

Another bone of contention I have is the straight octagon barrel, :stir: . Peter Alexander, in The Gunsmith of Grenville County, says that John Armstrong was a journeyman gunsmith by l790. Alexander also states that Armstrong used "parallel
sided" barrels exclusively. This means that straight octagon barrels were available as early as l790. Alexander also shows a rifle by Virginia maker Simon Lauck that he dates as having been made between l787 and l790. This rifle also has a straight octagon barrel. These makers were real, and these rifles still exist. The notion that an accomplished barrel smith could hammer out a perfectly shaped swamped octagon barrel but could not manage a straight one is incorrect. I don't know how many of these barrels were made or used, but they were available, at least by l790.

Since you bring that up, I'd like to see that verified. Alexander makes a couple of other statements that should be taken with a grain of salt - his statement that the sideplate panel should be parallel with the bore, not the side of the barrel, was pretty widely disagreed with when it was brought up on another forum with a number of very knowledgable people and a quick check with a ruler, a set of dividers, and a copy of Rifles of Colonial America suggests that in the very least it is not universal (There are a couple that do look like the panel is not parallel with the barrel flat, but that may be due to photographic distortion or a function of cast-off).

 

[Adui]

I'm ok with our sport shrinking, it will concentrate it and make it sweeter.

When muzzleloaders got to their peak in the late 80's-early 90's that popularity gave birth to those modern abominations.

Maybe shrinking interest will cause modern muzzleloaders to go the way of the Dodo bird so traditional ones can shine again.

The trouble with this theory is there are already too few venues to buy equipment and guns in this sport. As a sport shrinks, so does the demand for its equipment. If a company isn't making enough profit to justify a line of goods it eliminates that line all together. We need the sport to grow, not shrink. So that more good companies will offer kits, and entry level guns to bring in new enthusiasts who will eventually buy or build the craftsman guns that cost so much, but are generally worth every penny.

Take me for instance, my only gun is a Traditions Hawken percussion lock. I bought it because it was neat, and because I had some minor experience from my younger days when I'd purchased a CVA navy colt kit because I was home on leave and couldn't wait the 7 days for the background check on a modern gun. (yea I was young and way too impatient, but it did result in another muzzle stuffer so is it really a bad thing?)

Put simply, if the equipment is too hard to find the average person wont bother. If the average person doesn't bother the sport will die out completely and the muzzle loader will be relegated once again to the history books from whence we took them.

 

[coloradoclyde]

While I will agree that we have a big problem with monopolies in this country; Thanks to the Internet we have more options/accessibility today than we did 30 years ago.

30 years ago if you wanted to discuss muzzleloaders with someone it was done over the shooting bench or around the campfire, now we have discussions with people from all over the world.

 

[coloradoclyde]

Stand by.

I have heard there is another Mountain Man movie on the horizon with Leonardo DiCaprio in the lead role (Hugh Glass).

Glass was the "dude" that got mauled by a Griz and the story goes that Jim Bridger and a buddy took his rifle when they thought he wouldn't survive.

He did and tracked them down.

So "round two" might be mere months away

Can't you see it now - the factories will open again turning out Hugh's rifle which was carried by Bridger, plus Bridger's rifle of course...

I still remember the original movie but can't remember the title.