Muzzleloader Builder Supply Dragoons

[Russ T Frizzen]

Being a little bit traditional is like being a little bit pregnant.

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

Did you have a chance to read some of the responses regarding your fowler before the server went down? That fowler's date is somewhat questionable. And what looks like iron to you may very well be heavily patinated brass. That gun looks like the one I saw a little while back at Old Deerfield and if so the furniture is definitely well patinated brass. You asked folks on the forum for help with a personna to match an unlikely firelock you wanted to build and when you didn't like the answers, you surfed the web until you found a gun that you hope legitimizes your desires. Not the first time this has happened. Good luck with your personna, whatever you do decide on. A well armed deaf mute might work well for you. That way you could pretend not to hear any annoying questions about your fowler and you won't be able to answer them anyway. :thumbsup:

 

[oldarmy]

Thanks Mike,
I will call up Caywoods on Monday about their French pistol lock.
Can build something else with the L%R classic/Siler that came with the kit.

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

Any comment about Toby is bound to be harsh--though that was a fairly mild one. I'd guess that a more accurate lock could be made using one of Jim Chamber's gun maker's locks. Or one from the Rifle Shoppe. Or there are the locks on Danny Caywood's French pistols--maybe from Mike Rowe? But you have to care enough to want to use the correct parts to begin with. It seems that for a certain few members, that is asking too much.

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

Let me offer a hearfelt apology to you. After reading your last post and rereading your previous posts, I realize that you have no idea what Period Correct or Historically Correct means. These are not terms that can be diluted to suit the needs of an individual. Fine craftsmanship will always be fine craftsmanship, but that alone is not enough to make it HC or PC or traditional. Those who scoff at these things cheat others of their heritage.
You are planning to make a traditional Lakota deerskin shirt and moccasins and then wear them with Levis. That says a lot. Instead of making these items to preserve a heritage, after all that work, you will use them as a fashion statement.
There is nothing wrong with enjoying something because it is beautiful and elegant. Just don't confuse it with being HC or PC or traditional. And don't knock the folks who care about such things. The heritage they are protecting is yours.

 

[jimmytheshank]

:rotf: LOL. Well La Longue Carabine. I hope somewhere in here your answer to whether European buttcaps are hard to inlet was answered. it would appear that the subject has been sidetracked.......slightly. I meant only to compliment those who's work was not PC or HC or "a work inappropriate to a given time period or era" the kudos they deserve for their hard work. And while perhaps the parts or weapon was not period correct, they were no less beautiful. However , it appears compliments are not appreciated by all. Ah well. Just for the record, living in a historically diverse city as San Antonio. I have come to obtain a fair amount of knowledge of what is historically correct in some things and some that are not. Much of my knowledge I admit, comes from the Alamo battle. I am no expert, I admit. But then I never claimed to be. Nor have I slandered anyones beliefs here in the forums, nor have I been rude or sarcastic to any of my fellow members. In fact, when it comes down to it, I think I've been pretty polite, and taking all this in stride. Or at least Ive tried to. When it comes to tradition, my occupation is tradition rich, so I see no reason for anyone to say I dont appreciate tradition. Especially since I live by it. Anyhoo, one last thing. My choice of dress is the same as it was for the Lakota people many years ago.Nescessity, as well as appreciation for the culture. Yes, I love the culture, hence the reason for the choice of dress. But being as I live in South Texas its rather warm down here. So while a deerskin shirt and moccasins are good for stealth and hunting. Levi's are much better for the thorns and brush growing here. I could be historically accurate and wear a breechclout. But I think I'll spare the world and the wildlife that image. So if it's all the same to you Russ. Fashion statement or no, I think I'll keep my pants on. :blah:

 

[Robert Egler]

Being a little bit traditional is like being a little bit pregnant.

Well, I disagree with that. A production half stock flintlock “Hawken” with all brass hardware and shooting a patched round ball is not historically accurate, but it is more traditional as far as muzzleloading goes that an electronic ignition synthetic-stock inline shooting plastic sabot copper plated bullets. And it is less traditional that a fine custom-made fowler carefully constructed to have all its parts historically accurate for a specific time and place. So I still think there is a range of being “traditional”. But neither of us is going to change the other's mind, I think.

But “traditional” and “Historically Accurate/Period Correct” are not exactly the same things.

Things like this argument, which I find almost constantly being waged in one form or another, in one topic or another, on this forum, at various levels of civility, lead me to believe that there are almost two separate groups who use the forum. As far as I can see the principle problem comes when someone in my group, the “I shoot a (non-inline) muzzleloader and have some stuff I like whether it’s historically accurate or not” group tries to cross over into the “I want everything to be as historically accurate as possible” group.

Personally, I really don’t care in any great depth about whether what I shoot/make/use is historically accurate or not. And I’ll admit that I don’t exactly understand the drive to make everything you use/make/shoot as historically accurate as it can be. BUT the fact that you DO want to do that with your stuff doesn’t bother me, even if I don’t quite get it.

And I think a lot of the people in the “Historically Accurate” group don’t care that I’m not making sure everything I use is Historically Accurate, AS LONG AS I don’t try and claim it is. Which I never do. Stating it plainly: My stuff is not historically accurate, and I don’t care, and I will never try and claim it is. (And I don't think I'm somehow inferior because I don't care about HA.)

The problems come from two areas, the first being as I mentioned above, when someone without historically accurate stuff tries to push a claim that their stuff IS historically accurate without documentation, or even counter to existing documentation. The historically accurate crowd gets upset about that, and rightly so.

The second problem arises from a smaller group, a subset of the “historically accurate” group, namely those few who insist that everything be historically accurate, including everything other people use, even if those other people never claim historical accuracy. The “My way is the only way” subgroup. These are the guys that will criticize a beautiful firearm, which no one ever claimed to be Historically Accurate, just because it isn’t. I REALLY don’t understand this attitude.

The solution for the first of these problems is for people to stop trying and force the stuff they like into being historically accurate when it's not. As much as I wish this would happen, it’s not likely.

There is no solution to the second problem.

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

I think that you do understand about the importance of historical accuracy. In your profile you state that your interest is in Mediaeval History (academic history, not the Ren Fair type). The first is the real thing and the second is a show for the public, a mix of fantasy and fact stirred together to create an image that will draw customers.
When you dilute tradition to any degree, you create a false image of what was. If, for example, we are discussing a rifle that only resembles an historical firearm, it is a pseudo traditional rifle. There are all too many people out there who think that the mountain men went trapping with a T/C "Hawken" in the crook of their arm. I have a book around here somewhere that contains stories of some of these mountain men--these are true stories. The dust jacket photo is of a gentleman in questionable dress carrying a T/C Hawken. To a person with little knowledge of the true history of the mountains, thinking that this is a work of fact, his joy will be unbounded when he discovers that he can buy the same exact rifle that Bridger and Carson carried. Tradition and history both become diluted and distorted in this way.
I think that there is a sort of "good ole boy", the hell with tradition and historical correctness attitude that pops up from time to time. They denigrate anything they they think is HC because they don't understand it. To say that too much effort is spent making a gun HC and that that is just copying a previously made gun completely misses the point. I don't know if they are being willfully obtuse or if they truly don't get the point, but in the end it is their own history and tradition that they are disrespecting.
I don't care if someone shoots a thirty year old CVA rifle or a T/C Renegade as long as he doesn't tell me it is an accurate copy of Grandpa's rifle from the Battle of New Orleans. I'd rather see these guns being used than an in-line any day of the week.
I suppose that there will always be those that care deeply about history and tradition and the old ways and those that don't. And as the years roll by the number of people who don't give a damn seems to be increasing.

 

[Robert Egler]

Russ,

private email sent.

-Squirrel tail

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

Sorry it took so long to get back to you. I think we understand each other perfectly. :thumbsup: