Mike, You are one of those people who have to try to criticize, even when you agree with me. I don't get it. I respect your work, and all the hours you have personally committed to learning the history of these guns. You are an outstanding gun builder. I just don't see why you have to think its important to take a shot everytime I write something.
Like most left-handers, I have been cursed my entire life with living in a RH world. I got into guns when I was a kid, when they stopped selling LH bows, began stocking only compound bows made to be shot right handed, and looked at me like I was from Mars because I asked if they had any bow for a left handed shooter. There were two companies making a few Left handed models. LH golf clubs were an expensive, custom order proposition. So, I went with guns. I looked into have my own large musket style military action lockplate. I was even going to have both a double throated cock, and an goose neck cock made for each lock, so the shooter could use whatever he needed for the gun he was building.
As for other guns made with LH Locks, I have previously commented on having the rare privilege to handle an original Tower build double barrel 12 ga. shotgun, sling swivel on the front of the trigger guard, the other attached to the barrel rib, European style, with 36 inch barrels, that balanced right where you hand naturally grasped the forend. The gun weighed about 9 lbs. but swung so effortless that you didn't notice the weight at all. It had a 12 1/2" LOP, but came to my face, with my eye looking down the rib at the front bead as if the gun had been made for my 6'1" frame, instead of the shorter man who owned it. This was obviously an officer's gun. It had matching large flintlocks on the gun. The internal parts were mirror images of each other. It clearly dated to the 1770s. So, yes, there are some guns made in that period with LH locks. But no brown bess, or harper's ferry or any other military rifle I know about. I have spent a life time looking. When I meet other LH NL shooters, we always compare notes on the subject of guns.
If some people had their way, I would never be allowed at their events with my LH guns at all. I learned a long time ago that those folks are not worth my concern, and they vanish with time, too. I don't need them to want me to feel good about myself, or enjoy this sport. Am I bitter? No, not really. But I am not going to pass up an opportunity to warn a new shooter, particularly a Left hander, of what prejudice he is going to encounter, even here. Back in the 1960's and 70s, there was an ardent battle going on in the gun magazines between ' Experts", self taught, and proud of all the hours they had put in learning their subject, about Hawken rifles. All the experts were adament that the brothers never made a Flintlock gun. Then, an authentic, real, flintlock Hawken showed up. People swallowed hard. People back pedaled, refusing to change their minds, or apologize for their ignorance, no matter how innocent it was. People refused to others they had insulted and called bad names over the issue. Then, a second rifle showed up. The world grew silent. I feared some suicides might result. But, never fear, that crowd is so full of itself, they took it all in stride, and started mincing words, saying things,like, " Well, I was talking about Sam Hawkens in his early days. I always meant the period with his brother and he were in business together in St. Louis "
Like the rest of the world, I just saw the entire science of Astronomy stood on its head by Hubble Telescope, and some of the newer scopes that are using various wave lengths of light to peer further in to the universe than ever before. The science as it was taught 40 years ago is changed by what we have found in the past 10 years. Things like this occur in the field of history, and antrhopology, all the time. About the best indicator of real ignorance is for someone to claim he knows everything about anything from history. I find all the parochialism about stock shape and design amusing at best, and a bore at worst. If it were possible to go back and find EVERY gun a single gun maker made 200 years ago, so we could see his complete record, then, and only, then , could solid conclusions be made about his artistry and design. That is rarely possible, as we have only a few examples among dozens or hundreds that a maker built during a working life.
Attempting to judge what is historically correct based on a few samples of guns known, is like determining the story in a book based on a few random pages that were removed from it. When someone here writes that a gun someone is buying , or making, is wrong because of some small change in the thickness or shape of the wrist, or width of the stock at the lock plates, or the angle of the lock plate to the barrel, All I think about is, " Yeah, that may be correct, ...... until the next gun is discovered that is not made that way. Then what are the critics going to say? " The reaoon we study history is so that we can learn from it. Some people insist on repeating history, and usually for no good earthly reason!
