I am pretty new to all this PC stuff. I hear about counting stitches in seams of pants and find this all a bit overwhelming. This whole Persona thing wants to make me say inappropriate things like "You really are serious!?". People give very definite answers as to what is PC and not PC for a certain rifle. To those of you who has handled or studied lots of original rifles I like to ask the above-mentioned question, how PC were original rifles? Surely guys did not all follow the same recipe, but incorporated stuff they liked in other rifles from earlier times and other regions in the rifles they build or just did something different? Or were the styles quite distinct and seperate?
-
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
How PC would original rifles be?
- Thread starter Boer
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
Mike Brooks
Cannon
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2005
- Messages
- 6,686
- Reaction score
- 33
For the most part styles were quite distict and Identifiable. You could have probably looked at a man carrying a rifle and identified where he lived by the style of his rifle.
A rifle that might have been "correct" in 1780 Philadelphia would not be "period correct" in the hands of a Bennington, VT militiaman or in the cabinet of a Charleston tobacco planter's den.
An original rifle can never be "not correct". The current person holding it may just be holding the wrong firelock for what he is portraying.
There are plenty unsigned rifles that are identifiable as to the maker based on what is known of him. They may have been close copies, or an apprentice continuing a design as he was taught. Within the sub-categories of Pennsylvania Long Rifles a given design can be specific to a 10 or 20 mile radius and a 10 or 15 year period just from what you can observe through a casual inspection from across the room.
They all look "about" the same to some folks, but are very unique and identifiable to others. What is amazing is how similar most really are. For 80 years the flintlock was cock with top jaw screw behind pan, which is covered by an "L" shaped frizzen, with an internal mainspring and external frizzen spring.
No other mechanical device remained so static for so long that I can think of off hand.
An original rifle can never be "not correct". The current person holding it may just be holding the wrong firelock for what he is portraying.
There are plenty unsigned rifles that are identifiable as to the maker based on what is known of him. They may have been close copies, or an apprentice continuing a design as he was taught. Within the sub-categories of Pennsylvania Long Rifles a given design can be specific to a 10 or 20 mile radius and a 10 or 15 year period just from what you can observe through a casual inspection from across the room.
They all look "about" the same to some folks, but are very unique and identifiable to others. What is amazing is how similar most really are. For 80 years the flintlock was cock with top jaw screw behind pan, which is covered by an "L" shaped frizzen, with an internal mainspring and external frizzen spring.
No other mechanical device remained so static for so long that I can think of off hand.
Mike Brooks
Cannon
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2005
- Messages
- 6,686
- Reaction score
- 33
More than 80 years Stump, More like 190 to 200 years the flintlock reigned supreme. The only one that can compare is possibly the match lock which still overlaps in time the mighty flint.
I've always considered these cartridge guns of today to be nothing more than a "flash in the pan" they too shall pass..... :winking:
I've always considered these cartridge guns of today to be nothing more than a "flash in the pan" they too shall pass..... :winking:
I was going with the "final" French lock of c.1740 with internal half-cock. Didn't we have a span there where some had doglocks and also seperate pan covers and frizzens up to then? And, granted, flintlocks didn't sieze up in 1820; but never did fully stop being made somewhere as far as I know. They just stopped being "state of the art".
Wonder when the last design element . . . heck, total firearm design. . . of John Moses Browning is going to stop production? :hatsoff: Browning designed the Winchester Models 1885, 1886, 1892, 1894, 1895, 1887, 1901 lever action rifles (I guess the '94 is still in production mostly intact). Semi-auto shotguns. 1911 for the .45 ACP, 1933 for the Ma Duce (M2 .50 HMG). I'd say they both go a full century of continuous production.
Wonder when the last design element . . . heck, total firearm design. . . of John Moses Browning is going to stop production? :hatsoff: Browning designed the Winchester Models 1885, 1886, 1892, 1894, 1895, 1887, 1901 lever action rifles (I guess the '94 is still in production mostly intact). Semi-auto shotguns. 1911 for the .45 ACP, 1933 for the Ma Duce (M2 .50 HMG). I'd say they both go a full century of continuous production.
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2004
- Messages
- 2,703
- Reaction score
- 2
I could very well be missing the point, :hmm: but lets say my dad owns that tobacco plantation. I'm his oldest son and when he goes to Philly on business, he brings me back a birthday (Christmas, graduation, etc.) present. I might hunt the SC woodlands for decades with that Pennsyslvania Rifle (be it Lancaster, Allentown,or whatever style). Let's take it a step further; Its decision time, and rather than remain loyal to the Crown, I join up with the "Swamp Fox" Francis Marion's band and carry my favorite rifle with me.
By today's standards, I wouldn't be PC. :haha:
I think most folks are missing the point with "PC". If you can make a story that does not involve time machines, you're just about 90% of the way to "Period Correct". Using an item, particularly a major visible identifying item (uniform, gun, etc.) that is later than the period depicted is what is not "PC". And using an item that requires a wild and improbable tale ("I was washed out to sea and ended up in west Africa and got my knife hand-forged there and then came back on a slave ship before heading to the west to trap beaver") is not advisable.
Example- what gun should someone portraying Jedediah Strong Smith carry?
Jedediah Strong Smith was born in 1798 in Bainbridge NY and ended up going west to join Ashley. If someone portrayed him as a young man in 1820 or so with a NY halfstock flintlock stocked in walnut or cherry, I'd be impressed. If someone was portraying him as a seasoned mountain man in the mid 1820's they might want to go with a standard trade rifle like the New English pattern.
A 7 pound "hawkins" with a 28" barrel might not seem as good a choice but what the hey.
The "PC Police" are largely myth- who here has been "busted" and told they could not attend an event?
The usual problem that always repeats itself is that someone shows their gun and asks, "when and where is it "PC"? Then folks who know explain the actual period and place in which such a gun fits, and the owner howls. Sometimes that time and place is, in reality, between 1970 and the present, anywhere Thompson Center or CVA guns could be bought. But saying so, even when it's the truth, seems to be the "wrong thing to do".
Most folks start out building up a set of gear and worry about where it all fits in much later. That's good, no problem. Plenty of events and rendezvous to attend. Knife, hawk, rifle, "skins"- good to go.
When that same person wants to portray a character in the French and Indian War, they should be genuinely interested in putting together a kit that fits, or maybe not ask, "does this fit?"
And of course, everyone is free to listen or not to the free advice given.
Example- what gun should someone portraying Jedediah Strong Smith carry?
Jedediah Strong Smith was born in 1798 in Bainbridge NY and ended up going west to join Ashley. If someone portrayed him as a young man in 1820 or so with a NY halfstock flintlock stocked in walnut or cherry, I'd be impressed. If someone was portraying him as a seasoned mountain man in the mid 1820's they might want to go with a standard trade rifle like the New English pattern.
A 7 pound "hawkins" with a 28" barrel might not seem as good a choice but what the hey.
The "PC Police" are largely myth- who here has been "busted" and told they could not attend an event?
The usual problem that always repeats itself is that someone shows their gun and asks, "when and where is it "PC"? Then folks who know explain the actual period and place in which such a gun fits, and the owner howls. Sometimes that time and place is, in reality, between 1970 and the present, anywhere Thompson Center or CVA guns could be bought. But saying so, even when it's the truth, seems to be the "wrong thing to do".
Most folks start out building up a set of gear and worry about where it all fits in much later. That's good, no problem. Plenty of events and rendezvous to attend. Knife, hawk, rifle, "skins"- good to go.
When that same person wants to portray a character in the French and Indian War, they should be genuinely interested in putting together a kit that fits, or maybe not ask, "does this fit?"
And of course, everyone is free to listen or not to the free advice given.
I think the idea is whether or not the item was common. Basically we want to carry the common items of the day.
That being said, if all any of us carry are the norms then we become cooker cutter reenactors. Everyone should have one item that was uncommon. An item that was available, not commonly seen, but doesn't require a half hour story to explain where you got it.
Example.......I have an olive wood noggin. My uncle is a sailor, he brought it back from the Mediteranean for me. Perfectly feasable, easily explainable.
That being said, if all any of us carry are the norms then we become cooker cutter reenactors. Everyone should have one item that was uncommon. An item that was available, not commonly seen, but doesn't require a half hour story to explain where you got it.
Example.......I have an olive wood noggin. My uncle is a sailor, he brought it back from the Mediteranean for me. Perfectly feasable, easily explainable.
Guest
rich pierce said:
I have witnessed persons being turned away or ejected from both Mansker's Station and Martin's Station as well as several National Park and State Park Historic site events. If you are not jurried you don't get in. If you break the rules you are asked to leave.
I have witnessed persons being told to put improper weapons out of sight many times. It happens on a regular basis. Usually they are farby looking production guns that no one even bothered to strip the poly finish from. Some times it is some "skinner" trying to carry a percussion gun through an 18th century historic site. Most of the club shooting matches south of the Ohio River are Flintlock only.
In reguard to the origional question: most of us would not be caught dead carrying what most of the early settlers had to use for food getting and protection. What one sees in the books, museums and collections is quite diferent from the discriptions available in many of the journals of that time.
Yes, at juried events, the goal is really living history and portraying it as well as possible. In those cases, there is plenty of fair warning, and folks just getting into the re-enactment scene probably should take heed.
I think that many people hear/read about such things and over time the stories are told out of context. This can lead to folks new to re-enacting expecting that at even at a simple primitive rendezvous, they will be accosted and strip-searched by "PC police" who trash everyone's outfits (except their own)as "not PC". That's unfortunate if it creates anxiety and tension, because we want folks to have fun, enjoying themselves and the company of like-minded people who find our past fascinating.
I think that many people hear/read about such things and over time the stories are told out of context. This can lead to folks new to re-enacting expecting that at even at a simple primitive rendezvous, they will be accosted and strip-searched by "PC police" who trash everyone's outfits (except their own)as "not PC". That's unfortunate if it creates anxiety and tension, because we want folks to have fun, enjoying themselves and the company of like-minded people who find our past fascinating.
I would just like to be the AMEN chorus to Rich Pierce's comments.
I have been involved with many different living history periods and they all echo the same problems with "PC" or "Authenticity" experienced here.
Living History periods that are group based ( like you are portraying a member of a 12 man WW2 82nd Airborne Squad circa 1944), you have to have some uniformity between what each of the members are wearing (Hell, they call it a UNIFORM for a reason!) When members stray from the norm, they dilute the overall impression. Somebody might really like the WW1 03 Springfield, and there may be even a picture of a GI carrying one, but since it is not what the Average 82nd soldier carried, it would be falsely represented with 3 out of 10 guys carrying it.
It even gets fuzzier with periods that are more individual based. Like trekking/mountain man periods. You represent an individual thus do not have the uniformity issues AS MUCH.
But you are still trying to represent a particular man during a particular time frame.
There is often a great disparity from what we think is "cool" and what is authentic to the period.
If an event is billed as a 1764 XYZ event, I would expect that the folks who went to it were prepared to have clothing and equipment that would have realistically existed in the context of that 1764 event.
For living historians, we are seeking a kind of a time travel experience where we can be immersed in (using the example above) a 1764 world. There are so few events in Any reenacting period that are “juried” or where authenticity is enforced that it would seem to be a small concession to make.
GOF
I have been involved with many different living history periods and they all echo the same problems with "PC" or "Authenticity" experienced here.
Living History periods that are group based ( like you are portraying a member of a 12 man WW2 82nd Airborne Squad circa 1944), you have to have some uniformity between what each of the members are wearing (Hell, they call it a UNIFORM for a reason!) When members stray from the norm, they dilute the overall impression. Somebody might really like the WW1 03 Springfield, and there may be even a picture of a GI carrying one, but since it is not what the Average 82nd soldier carried, it would be falsely represented with 3 out of 10 guys carrying it.
It even gets fuzzier with periods that are more individual based. Like trekking/mountain man periods. You represent an individual thus do not have the uniformity issues AS MUCH.
But you are still trying to represent a particular man during a particular time frame.
There is often a great disparity from what we think is "cool" and what is authentic to the period.
If an event is billed as a 1764 XYZ event, I would expect that the folks who went to it were prepared to have clothing and equipment that would have realistically existed in the context of that 1764 event.
For living historians, we are seeking a kind of a time travel experience where we can be immersed in (using the example above) a 1764 world. There are so few events in Any reenacting period that are “juried” or where authenticity is enforced that it would seem to be a small concession to make.
GOF
wwfeatherston
40 Cal.
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2005
- Messages
- 187
- Reaction score
- 2
Over here, Our Frontier & Western group has just a few definite exclusions, as we know people need time to find their period costumes and don't want to put new players off.
For instance, sports shoes may not be worn, nor 'baseball' caps or nylon gunrigs.
The emphasis is rewarding those who get it right with prizes, instead of penalising or ostracising those who make mistakes.
Often as not, new mwmbers only have some of the period gear, but I have never heard anyone taken to task for that.
You might get helpful advice on where to find the right stuff, or even offers to make it for you suggestions.
This should be covered under the 'spirit of the game' clause in SASS. Freemasonry also has something along the lines- Let no brother be excluded for want of attire.
Something worth taking note of in other organisations.
For instance, sports shoes may not be worn, nor 'baseball' caps or nylon gunrigs.
The emphasis is rewarding those who get it right with prizes, instead of penalising or ostracising those who make mistakes.
Often as not, new mwmbers only have some of the period gear, but I have never heard anyone taken to task for that.
You might get helpful advice on where to find the right stuff, or even offers to make it for you suggestions.
This should be covered under the 'spirit of the game' clause in SASS. Freemasonry also has something along the lines- Let no brother be excluded for want of attire.
Something worth taking note of in other organisations.
Boer said:
It can be difficult to understand. I'm compelled to say the same thing when I see people golfing. :haha:
Some people feel that if they are going to attempt to reenact or emulate a period of history, they may as well do it as accurately as possible. Others feel that a less strict attempt at accuracy works for them. To each his own.
It's no different than making a movie. Some producers research the details and try as much as possible to get the facts correct. Other producers settle for less accuracy. Both can make a great film.
There is no right or wrong, just different levels of commitment to a personal goal and those goals can be very different for each of us. They are all correct in their own context, so we have events around the country that meet these different needs. Some events are strict, some are less strict. We choose our nitch and let others choose theirs.
