New "Fusil de Chasse" from Loyalist Arms

[Java Man]

Yes, we have several forum members who are more than willing to remind us what the historic guns actually looked like, and materials used to make them. And I am glad we have them, or most of us would not know the difference.

Hardly any of us are tactful all the time either. I think Mike has spent a lot of money and time researching historically correct firearms. He's sharing that knowledge for free.

Here's a pic of my new French Fusil. Its not perfectly HC. It should have a longer barrel than 42", should have a walnut stock, and probably brass furniture, and maybe a little diff lock. I'm OK with that. And I understand the diff, thanks to Mike and others.

If I could not have afforded this, I would be looking at one of the India made guns.

 

[Mike Brooks]

Mike,
As a loyal Forum member, you might enlighten your fellows as to what is so incorrect about this piece. That would be of much greater value to newbies, novices, and those who are not expert in the nuances and details of French firearms, than nonspecific condemnations and wisecracks.

Personally, I'm not interested in the gun (I carry a Jim Chambers long fowler), but posted the link because the attractive price would be of interest to members here. I hate to think I'd be leading someone to a lousy gun, so maybe you can kindly educate us....

Instead of "enlightening" everyone, I'll suggest homework instead. Buy and read all of these books,go to gunshows and museums, then we'll all be on the same page, and can discuss this subject rationally.
THE FUSIL DE TULLE IN NEW FRANCE 1691-1741 by Russel Bouchard
FIREARMS ON THE FRONTIER; GUNS AT FORT MICHILIMACKINAC 1715-1781 by T.M. Hamilton
EARLY INDIAN TREDE GUNS: 1625-1775 by T.M. Hamilton
PROCEDINGS OF THE 1984 TRADE GUN CONFERENCE PART I & II published by the Rochester Mueseum & Science center
THE FLINTLOCK, IT'S ORIGINS AND DEVELOPMENT by Torsten lenk
FLINTLOCK FOWLERS, THE FIST GUNS MADE IN AMERICA by Tom Grinslade
MUSKETS OF THE REVOLUTION AND THE FRENCH AND INDIAN WARS by Bill Ahearn
That ought to keep the curious busy for several evenings..... :winking: I'm sure Tom Patton or TG can recommend even more reading.
I would critique this "thing" in detail, but there are a couple reasons I won't.Mainly, everytime I'm asked to point out the problems with any of the Indian made guns, I get jumped on and called an elitist snob, gun peddler, arrogant jerk.....well, you get the idea :haha:
I also know that the guys that run these businesses that import these things read this board. I'll be damned if I'll do THEIR homework for them anylonger :shake: If these guys want to perpetuate slave labor like conditions in India so Americans can buy cheap junk cartoon guns that's fine by me, I'm just not going to help them out by telling them how to improve their product, at the same time theoretically shooting myself in the foot.
Here's the problem with these India/Paki guns in a nutshell, they look like something Elmer Fudd carries in the cartoons. Although they look vagely similar to what they are supposed to represent, in actuality all they are more of a cartoon charicture. The only thing I can figure out is someone is sending a few dimensions and a blurry picture of whatever gun they want reproduced over to these guys to copy.....what they get back is gun that is a copy of the blurry picture, which unfortunatly, they copy the blurriness to a T. :haha:
I understand the economics of the issue, they are cheap. But, I'd be embarrased to be seen at a decent event with one of these. I know in the circles I camp with I'd be laughed out of camp.
I'll add, there is absolutly no way this french gun can be made to look like it's suppossed to, it's just too far off to be saved. :shake:

 

[Mike Brooks]

who cares what anyone thinks if you like it buy it if it works fine if not have it fixed but dont listen,or care what the self centered upper crust wanna-be~s has to say about it opinions are like_(a--h----) some just stink more than others : :nono: :shake: buy what you want, ive noticed almost every post that deals with non-custom firearms ,gets slammed this is not right! a picture of a 500 dollar gun , should have the same respect as a picture of a 5000dollar gun i appoligise in advance, for i know i will offend someone but this just my opinion, and im sure it stinks to some :thumbsup:

I just don't see it the same way. Commercially made guns are fine, I've owned some, they serve a particular need and are important in the muzzleloading game. Just don't post pictures of a $500 turd and expect me to sing it's praises.

but dont listen,or care what the self centered upper crust wanna-be~s has to say about it opinions are like_(a--h----) some just stink more than others

Comments like these aren't helpfull. If nobody points out the fact that these India made guns aren't quite what they are supposed to be then somebody is going to buy one because he's heard "they are a great buy for the money and take it to an event where he gets laughed out of camp. He'll then realise that he's wasted his money and is going to be looking for a more historically correct gun.

 

[dlemaster]

I guess I don't understand why every time Mike B., or others, make a post about the quality of the cheap guns offered that it becomes a personal attack. These guns do have place as M. Roberts has pointed out. They would be just fine if someone just wanted to experience shooting a flintlock muzzle loader or to find out if they would enjoy shooting one enough to justify spending more on a better gun. The fear is that a newly interested person may fall for the advertisement that it represents a particular original style of gun accurately. To use the examples given by others, they may find that they have bought a Yugo when they believed they were getting the Chevy or Rolls on the cheap.

Regards, Dave

 

[CoyoteJoe]

I agree. When someone posts photos of a new item on the market it is open to criticism. I have nothing like the historical knowledge of Mike Brooks nor of TG and I think we rely on their judgement as to what is or is not right for a specific time period.
I'm a shooter and do no re-enactment and thus have no great concern as to period details, I want to know how they shoot. With that said, the pictured gun appears to have greatly excessive drop at the butt. I doubt I could even keep it to my shoulder and I'm sure recoil would drive the comb into my cheek bone.
Like everyone else, I'd like to have a fusil for cheap, but $600 for a misshapen clunker is no bargain. You can get a very nice and easy to build kit for the same money or add another hundred for a gun in the white from TVM or Tip Curtis. And you'll have something with quality components and no doubt safe to fire. Those guns from India may or may not work right out of the box and if it works today it may not do so tomorrow. I think they are very good for their intended purpose, to hang on the wall. :haha:

 

[paulvallandigham]

It seems to me that there are two problems festering here. One is the sale of inaccurate replicas that are falsely advertised as being copies of a period correct firearm. The second is the snobbery of some groups of men who would refuse to allow someone to participate in their event because he is using one of these replicas.

The first Amendment guarantees the Right To Freedom of Assembly, but the behavior of those who would exclude someone from their camps, and activities for using a badly made replica firearm is pretty disgusting. We all had to learn to crawl before we learned to walk and then run. We all get into this sport with the limited funds we have, not wanting to spend our life savings before we know just how interested we will be in the sport, and if we will want to continue with it. Cheap, commercially made guns let us do that. Once we get into a group, and learn from others what is wrong with our new gun and equipment, we begin the process of making, and acquiring correct stuff, from clothing to horns, to correct jags, and sights.

When some people close the door to new shooters who bought something that was misrepresented to them as correct, when they didn't know, they make an enemy where they had an engraved invitation to make a new friend. And they make an enemy to our sport, and shooting sports in general. No one likes to be snubbed!

There was a black powder club east of me about 25 years ago that decided that it would be a buckskinners-ONLY club, and you had to have a complete set of hand made leather buckskins, a period correct tent, cooking and eating materials, and a semi- or custom made gun before you were allowed to join the club.

It took about 5 years for the club to fold up. Men moved to find work elsewhere when the local steel mill cut back. Some of the older men died. After 5 years the group consisted of 4 friends who camped out one weekend a month, but there was hardly any reason to call themselves a club, or to hold regular shoots. I heard years later that some of the survivors joined a group over in Indiana, but that groups was also infected with the " buckskin only " fever, and was going no where.

When you are in a hole, stop digging.

Mark is in a difficult position. He has made a living for years building correct replicas of old guns. He has had to buy the books and do the research to maintain his reputation as a gun builder. There is no way he can make a correct replica for the money charged for these import guns. All he can hope for is that people who start out with those guns will get educated, be interested enough to continue with our sport, and save their money to hire someone like him to build them a correct " French Fusil".

I don't blame Mark for taking offense at these imports, nor at people who refuse to do the reading needed to learn about these guns. We all get lazy, or, at the very least, we busy ourselves with so many other things, that we prefer to get information second hand from people who HAVE done the work.

Like lawyers, all Mark has to sell is his education, time, and talent. No one should expect him to like giving all that away for free. If you want a detailed critique of a gun from Mark, or anyone, contact them privately and offer to pay them for the time involved in answering that question. He may simply offer the information for free, and refuse your kind offer to pay him, but give him that choice.

 

[Jon in MI]

:applause: Well said!!

From someone who is as we speak finishing his Fusil kit. I couldn't afford to buy a finished one so I did the next best thing for me and built one from a kit.

Jon

 

[Java Man]

Paul,

A usual, you well state your point. But at least call Mike....Mike. Not Mark.

Mark was the guy who called our locks "pot metal".

 

[Alberta Black]

Mike

thanks for the list of reference books.

Richard

 

[BCarp]

Lordy! Who ever suggested that a $600 factory-produced gun is 100% "historically correct"? Neither is a $2,000 custom piece unless it has a forged barrel, hand-filed screws and lock parts, etc. The fact is, the former type gun fills a niche for those who can't afford the latter. Such folk should not be targets of contempt.
As for these imports being worthless wall-hangers, my brother has an Indian-made 1st model "Bess" from LA that I've never seen misfire once during 3 years of reenactment use in all manner of weather.
Finally, I'm thankful I don't belong to a snobby little coterie that would "laugh someone out of camp." I suppose all of the "historically accurate" stalwarts in this camp have 100% hand-sewn period garments of proper material, completely hand-stitched shoes, hand-sewn linen canvas tents, properly configured and constructed tinware & flatware, don't drink beer out of cans and 12 oz. bottles, and certainly don't have pot-bellies, or facial hair, or are over 35 years of age...!

 

[tg]

" Neither is a $2,000 custom piece unless it has a forged barrel, hand-filed screws and lock parts, etc."
This is an over the top reaction/statement that usually comes up when we talk of PC gus, a PC REPLICA does not need a hand forged barrel and all the original means and materials, but it should be as close as what is practical, and not a ficticious conglomeration out of someone dreams, having said that I have nothing against these guns as long as they are not misrepresentedas more than they are from a historical standpoint, I will offer a critique on that aspect for the sake of those who have not studied these guns and may have an interest in purchasing a gun that closely follows the originals, if this upsets some folks I guess they will have to get over it, spittin' venom at those who point out the guns pros and cons will not bother me nor will it change the facts about some of the guns out there that fall short in the PC area, and it probably does not reflect very positivly on the spitter either.

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

Well said, tg. I've pretty much stopped responding to these threads due to the predictable and sophomoric nature of some of the posts. I don't have a problem with someone who has a non PC gun and enjoys shooting it, but the gun will never fit into any historic period. I once was asked what period a friend's stainless steel in-line represented. He was a bit upset when told the truth.

 

[tom hargrove]

i with draw all my statements and remarks that i made in this discussion ,one in paticular was out of line and if i offended any one i appoligise, :redface:

 

[musketman]

i with draw all my statements and remarks that i made in this discussion ,one in paticular was out of line and if i offended any one i appoligise, :redface:

This has happened before, especially with French guns, the time spent researching and the passion for historically correct guns along with mass produced India guns seems to not mix well...

Not that nothing is wrong with India's offerings per sé, they just seem to a ballpark attempt at what their designer's think is historically correct...

These topics always spark a few things besides frizzens...

 

[BCarp]

I apologize as well. I realize Mike is one of the most talented and knowledgeable builders out there, and we are fortunate that he and others like him share their knowledge here!

It was the notion of "laughing someone out of camp" that set me off, not the PC or non-PCness of some silly gun. I can be an authenticity-nazi myself at times, but as Living History hobbyists that's not what we should be about....

 

[Mike Brooks]

Having been a participant in the hobby for the past twenty six years I've been through quite a progression in historical authenticity. I'm sure many on this board have traveled the same path. I started out with a TC and bright yellow chrome tanned buckskins and thought I was the coolest dude on the planet. With in about 15 years I had progressed to a pre Rev. war persona and gear. By that time 80% of all the events I did were by invitation only and you were required to have all your gear right as well as your gun or leave anything that wasn't right at home. The only way you joined our group was by invitation, and after three shoots we took a vote on you as to wether or not you got to stay. Pretty brutal, but our authenticity level was excellent and we had no goof balls in our midst. This was not a club for beguiners, but for like minded advanced folks that had put in a tremendous amount of time and money into this hobby.
Our small group of seasoned "eletists" weren't the only groups of seasoned 18th century shooters with these kinds of requirements that were/are in the midwest. Twice a year we'd put on shoots and invited three or four other "hard core" clubs to participate in a weekend encampment/shoot. We may have had twenty five people at the most at these events. That's not many, but we were after quality, not quantity. We also had 2 shoots per month, one smoothbore, the other rifle, dressed in proper 18th century garb.
It's at these advanced events that these cartoon India guns would be laughed at. At our place you would have been asked to leave these guns in the car.....
These guns would probably be fine for NWTA and BAR events and just about any rendezvous as their standards aren't as high as what some other events require.
Generally I don't even respond to these posts on India guns anymore, but this one is so incredibly ugly I finally caved in and commented. I'm not sure why people get so defensive when a poor quality product is pointed out for what it is, but it seems to happen every time.
There seems to be several different groups out there , each of them require different levels of authenticity. Everybody participates at what ever level of authenticity they feel comfortable with, which is how it's supposed to be. Some guys feel fine about spending the week end wearing blue jeans and shooting a cap lock hawken and figure that plenty authentic enough for them. That's all fine and dandy and I support those folks. But, on the other end of the scale there are other people thathave goals the have everything as authentic as possible and will except no half measures, and that's fine too. There's room for everyone at some level.
I'm not offended by any of the comments that were made, I've been playing on the internet long enough to have grown a pretty thick skin, and no appologies are needed.

 

[Mike Brooks]

The really sad thing about this is these guns could be done right just as easily and cheaply as they're being done wrong....
The cheap pennies a day laborers that put these things together obviously have the skills needed to build these things correctly, they just don't know what the original guns really looked like . It's really too bad. :shake:

 

[Roy]

I think a lot people have their priorities backwards when it comes to guns. To compare guns to cars is only about half right. Production guns are like cars and trucks, they usually do not hold their value.

I am not as well schooled as most here and still have a lifetime of learning to do on muzzleloaders. What I do know though is that most custom guns hold their value if not grow in value do to who built it being "used" or not. I have seen this too many times with my fathers rifles.

I'll get off of my soap box now. :v

 

[John Tice]

It was about twenty years ago when I got my first muzzleloader, a T/C .50 caliber Hawken, in flint. Dixie Gunworks offered a sale in their kits, and it seemed like a opportunity from Heaven. I was finally able to obtain my dream of shooting a flintlock which began by watching my hero Fess Parker. I was a poor student at the time and the landlord kindly let me put it together in his basement at his workbench. I was really proud of that gun and even put brass tacks in it to make it even more authentic! After I finished it I was invited by some local gunsmiths and craftsmen at the nearby living history museum to join them at their monthly get-together and shoot. These men were master builders and did make guns- lock, stock and barrel, just outstanding craftsmen and so knowledgeable. Never-the-less, they welcomed me to join in and they complimented me on my first project saying things like, “that’s a good first gun,” “that’s a sturdy gun,” and you’ll learn to shoot with that,” which was all true. They also pointed out some of its shortcomings when I asked (who knew coiled mainsprings weren't used :haha. I did learn a great deal and those men taught me about shooting, cleaning, and most importantly safety. There were no pretensions that my Hawken was historically accurate, by them or by me, but it did allow me to learn a lot about proper muzzleloading and I will always be very grateful for the help and encouragement they gave me. They were real gentlemen. Since then, I have long since sold that Hawken and have scrimped and saved to buy a couple of custom guns over the years that I really enjoy shooting, and are more in the area and time period where my interests lie. I guess the point I am trying make with this long-winded diatribe is that for me, it has been all about the journey, which still continues, and how much I have appreciated being to learn about muzzleloading, including the pleasure of handling and shooting a custom gun, from those who have shared their knowledge and experiences. Had I been ridiculed and mocked by those master gunsmiths years ago, rather than being taken under their wing, I may have given up shooting firelocks and would have missed out.

 

[Mike Brooks]

I completly agree. I belonged to more than one club. In the other club beginers were always welcomed and encouraged. I got many of the newbies pointed in the right directon and they are still shooting ML's 20 years later.
There are many different levels of participation. My point is there are a places for guys just starting out and other places for guys that want to take the hobby to the ultimate level. The starting level and the most historically correct level don't usually mix well. It seems there is a naturall progression from start thru each level of authenticity people want to progress thru. Many people stop some where along the way and say " this is just where I like it" and that's where they stay. That's cool too.
Generally you're most advanced people are more than eager to help a guy that's just starting out, especially if he's truely interested.