on 'thread counters', etc....

well, Runner, I am still confused as to how that ERA post affected your building of the gun, so I guess I cannot help you. As for conflicting views and references presented: that is the nature of research and one has to either learn to sort through to the good stuff, do your own research or find those that you trust to listen to. I make my living in science (geology) and for many years my main job was research. So I am used to sifting through conflicting data and 'facts' that turn out not to be facts. Surely you understand that knowledge advances. Because one book says something does not make it correct in itself. Another author might have more correct data and reach a better conclusion. If the discussion did not affect the building of your rifle/gun, no harm done? If you are mainly interested in shooting and hunting then all the PC BS shouldn't bother you at all. You are in 'group (1)' and can just ignore us group (2) guys. I think when Mr Geraths posted his very nice ERA gun he opened himself to PC discussion by describing it as 1750s (according to the maker). The other Mike was just trying to be helpful and it deteriorated from there. What kind of gun are you building? You can get all kinds of helpful advice here--just make it plain you don't give a hoot about historical accuracy and we'll support you.

 

[bnail]

Runner, Mike has taken a very reasonable stance on this subject. Granted the ERA thread was high-jacked, and that's unfortunate, but I'm not laying blame for that. All Mike wants here is a non confrontational discussion on what we can do to avoid this conflict in the future. After considering this, I've concluded that there are three groups in this mix: the Buckskinners, the Shooters, and the Reenactors. Our orientations are what's dividing us. For buckskinners, If close enough is good enough, then fine; and for the shooters, if you take the SASS approach(which is fine)that all you want is an outfit to complement your shooting so you can satisfy the spirit of the game, then that too is fine, but understand that enough evidence exists that Reenactores do have a wornder resource bank up which to draw, and we will back up out positions (hopefully) with soid citations (Turabian preferably :haha. There are shoots, and there are rendezvous and there are reenactments, we all have our venues so we need not argue about each others back yards. Your input is valued, and hopefully we can establish a neutral language for debating our differences; until then I don't want to see a flame war erupt over this as it's topic that concerns my core interests. Also, If I'm forced to take sides, I'll choose documentary/artifact evidence and historical extrapolation any day of the week. :m2c:

 

[adbranaman]

Twenty years ago I'd had called ya a lair if ya told me I'd own a puter.I'm otta here. :hatsoff:

 

[Runner]

The peaceful discussion between groups is also my goal. That is why I suggested a forum where those wishing to go thru the squabble could go to argue.

The discussion of the gun I am building is outside of this discussion, but I would be willing to discuss it in private.

 

[roundball]

.........so........does all this mean.......er,uh.....in other words....are you really saying..........what I mean is.......is it true that........oh no........my TC Hawkens aren't really copies of the Hawkens they built in the 1800's after all.........???????????.......an I have a book too...authored by Thompson/Center telling me it's reminiscent of the Hawkens carried in wagon trains and all that........that's it......I'm sellin!

 

The peaceful discussion between groups is also my goal. That is why I suggested a forum where those wishing to go thru the squabble could go to argue.

The discussion of the gun I am building is outside of this discussion, but I would be willing to discuss it in private.

Sorry, I must have misread your posts above about the ERA 'discussion' upsetting you plans in building your gun--I thought the subject of your gun was part of this discussion. Sorry. I am really confused now. Can't help you if I don't know the problem. I personally was trying to avoid a forum where we could go "argue". I prefer reasonable discussion. There are a lot of reasonable people here (most of whom have been smart enough to stay out of this). My bad for trying a 'fix'. I'm through. "Bye."

 

[lockjaw]

...it's a condition that has swept the nation...no facts, no science, no research...after 5 years of the B.(u)S.(h) administration mob rule wins...

 

[Runner]

No Mike, it was another discussion like it that stopped me from trying to find out more info. It was about iron versus brass furniture. It just turned into the same thing as the ERA one did. At that time I just started building the gun to suit me and to fit my frame. Like I said, if you wish to discuss that, it is a different topic.

 

[robinghewitt]

Too late, he's gone ::

 

[bnail]

Too late, he's gone.

:crackup:. . . :hmm:. . . :crackup:

 

MIKE!!
you dirty low down dirt eatin cur dog LMAO

i think the problem is this .
many today want instant this or instant that . history isn

 

[Claude Mathis]

For those that ask. Most that get told did not.

I'm trying so hard to stay out of this, but must offer a comment.

This Forum exists to share information. It can, and should, be assumed that when someone posts something, they want a response. Many of the problems seem to stem from people not receiving the response they were looking for.

Example (extreme analog):
If you post a photo of your new car and say, "Look at my Ford", and the photo is of a Chevy, chances are someone is going to tell you either the photo is mis-labled or you don't know what you have. Or, they could do you the disservice of saying nothing.

The point? If you post a photo of a rifle and say, "Look at my French and Indian era rifle", and it's obvious that the gun is of a later period, the community owes it to you to tell you the truth about the weapon. Now, that may hurt your feelings and it may not be what you hoped to hear, but that is the nature of making a public statement in a room full of gun enthusiasts.

Obviously there will be disagreements on the smaller details of things that nobody can prove beyond a doubt. That's where we can "agree to disagree" and move on. The problem seems to be in the "moving on" part.

Knowledge about a subject is obtained by sharing facts, presenting evidence and voicing opinions. Scholars would never get anywhere if they approached everything with a chip on their shoulder and walked out every time they disagreed on something. You plug away and help each other achieve your common goal, which is to obtain the truth.

I encourage the members to post their opinions and share their ideas. I want to know what they think about all aspects of history and muzzleloading.
If you see something wrong with my "outfit", please let me know. It could save me considerable embarrassment down the road. eace:

 

[oomcurt]

Hardball...this is not a direct reply to you..but a reply in general. Our group had its monthly shoot last Sunday..and I either had some sort of epiphany or something of the kind. I came to the conclusion, and I[url] admit..in[/url] the past..I was one of those that couldn't see the forest for the trees as far as PC goes. Well..to make a long story short we were having a conversation as to what attracted us to the "fur trade era". Well...it almost borders on a sort of spritual journey...that is a step backwards in time to where we would have wanted to be/live. That said..I can now see where the "thread counters" are coming from..I hope. I have also gotten the common sense to try and see thier side of things. This is not to say I would want to be that "correct" or proper as that is not me. But...it is them. Methinks if one looked at any reply in that light..be it something that one agrees with or not..relations between the PC bunch and the well...not to PC bunch would be greatly improved and with that real learning and understanding would prosper.

 

I was gone, but this post by oomcurt is a welcome and refreshing one and points out the journey that I think all of us "thread counters" (I am not really one)have gone through. Most of us (me anyway) started out with a specific interest--for me it was guns and a general interest in the fur trade era. I resisted 'dressing up', thought I had outgrown such foolishness, I just wanted to own and shoot old type MLers. My first gun was a H&A underhammer and my second was a percussion late period longrifle that I built myself because I couldn't afford a custom rifle from a real builder...Eventually I met some local buckskinners and admired their guts in going out in public dressed that way--plus they had nice guns and knew how to shoot them well! It took me a long time to get to the outfit stage and by then my interests shifted back towards the F&I War and Rev War periods. I was offended by the stitch counters and PC nazis, especially a few I met who criticized my outfit that I was starting to put together--they bad mouthed it but did not tell my why it was wrong or how to fix it. I did research and many people that post here and on other boards helped me out with their collective knowledge. I did more research, I read every book I could find. I always liked history anyway: reenacting is history in depth. I slowly became more PC, etc, etc....But I have not forgotten my roots in this activity. I belong to a local buckskinner club whose membership is 90% blue collar guys, a couple of blue collar retired guys--and I may be the only white collar guy. Most of these guys are typical buckskinners, many don't have all the duds, most tote CVAs and TC guns (although one of our members is a fine ML gunmaker and has made several rifles and smoothbores for members at essentially cost of materials). A few of us are now doing F&I War period, but our club president usually shows up at our events in jeans, combat boots, more or less period calico shirt, headband (he is part Indian), modern hunting knife on his belt and toting some ugly import percussion piece or a really ugly underhammer he cobbed together himself and we all would scatter if he ever chose to actually shoot it! NO ONE badmouths him or anyone else. We are a family of buckskinners. This board could be too, if we tried a little harder. :yakyak:

 

I can see both sides of this issue. I have been doing historical research for many a year. One of my favorite religious authors said it best, I can't quote him verbatium, but this is roughly what he said, " What I write today is based on the facts as I know them. This does not mean that new discoveries tomorrow won't change those facts and prove me in error."

Stealing from another author, Marion Zimmer Bradley in this case, I quote, "Leave to others their otherness."

Be civil, agree that you disagree and let it go at that. That's what early gun makers in America, why do you think there's different schools of rifle making?

I've been a member of the SCA, the Society for Creative Anachronism, off and on for some years. Much of the goods I sold there required proof of their use in these time periods from 600ad to 1600ad in order to be declared authentic for use. But even so, the bottom line is as long as you at least attempt to fit in, you are welcome to join in. The Pansic War event starts turning people away at 10,000 and has to do so every year. Ponder on that!

Just :m2c:

 

[Rebel]

This is directed to everyone, not anyone in particular. Why is it that we can't discuss something without someone getting all bent out of shape. If you don't agree with a persons response, fine, either ignore it, or discuss it with them civilly. This is supposed to be a place to come and have fun, learn, make friends, discuss the thing we all have in common,MLer's. Whether you do rondys, F&I, American Revolution, or just take your T/C or Lyman and enjoy hunting and shooting, we are all doing what we enjoy, so why can't we discuss those things here without all the BS?JMO

 

[tg]

I think Claude has a solid handle on this whole issue, once a person makes a claim of any kind about anything there will be the chance that others with differing opinions or many times facts when dealing with original guns may question the claims, this is how we learn and more important than #1 who thinks his gun is from 1730 and argues it with out data or # 2 who tries to provide info based on what we do know, is #3 who may be in the wings trying to learn something in order to make an educated choice in the future.
The best advise I can think of is if you are really interested in period correct replicas do a lot of homework, do not rely on a single builder or supplier for documentation, and milk these forums for the wealth of info that is openly shared BEFORE the purchase, or one might find the response not quite what was expected.

 

[Runner]

Rebel, I get bent when someone asks them to step off and they refuse to do so, time after time after time. It always ends up in name calling and insults. If they offered their help and stepped off when it is not recieved well, that would be one thing. When they start thumping their chest about who they are and telling people they need to listen to them, I reach a BS point in there somewhere. Go read the thread in question. I never did care about the controversy they were discussing and did not participate. It was what happened in the discussion that bothered me. Rich nailed it when he said he took his gun to get it looked at. The guy critiquing it kept stopping and looking up to see if his message was welcome and being recieved. Rich asked more questions designed to draw more fire because he wanted to know. That is how it is supposed to be. It is not supposed to be about guys tearing up others guns that did not ask and sending them away wondering why they bought the gun in the first place. Many go and sell the guns after this kind of stuff because they don't like them anymore. I have seen the same stuff drive people completely out of the hobby. I hate it. Claude has stated that they do not need to ask and that people are welcome to jump in with opinions. That is the end of the discussion. The final word. It really does not matter what I think. I will behave as Claude has directed. No more problems out of me.

 

[tg]

". You can't brown a gun in a certain time period even tho there are printed ads for browning from that time period and personal records showing requests to have it done"

This is an interesting topic, what are the earliest records you know of for browning as a true gun finnish Runner? I have seen it taken back on other forums to 1775-1780 I believe.

 

[Claude Mathis]

". You can't brown a gun in a certain time period even tho there are printed ads for browning from that time period and personal records showing requests to have it done"

This is an interesting topic, what are the earliest records you know of for browning as a true gun finnish Runner? I have seen it taken back on other forums to 1775-1780 I believe.

Great question... Possible new thread?