PC correct gun

[Packdog]

Using the previous thread regarding PC guns as a launching pad. Maybe we can discuss "what is" rather than "what isn't".

I would like to ask the group..What it considers to be a PC gun?

PD

 

[Stumpkiller]

A gun made of materials, lock action and shape/style/topography similar or identical to those of known guns from the period in question.

Location may also be a factor. There weren't many Afghan jezails or Japansee matchlocks in the hands of Rocky Mt. fur trappers even though they existed elsewhere during the early 1800's.

 

[J.M.]

I was thinking the same thing after reading the other recent thread on this. Has anyone ever done an evaluation of current offerings from some of the more mid level
builders (Early Rustic Arms, TVM, Tip Curtis, etc)? As a newbie, I find it difficult to decide what to do. You can buy a TC/Lyman and then if you get the bug, upgrade to something more PC, which gets you into shooting for a small investment and no wait. You can also move up to makers like those I listed and see if you can find something that is close enough to PC to be used for treking, rondezvous etc. More investment upfront, longer wait to get one and start shooting, but might be cheaper in the long run . Tough call when trying to get the most from your hard earned cash. Is there a reasonable compromise in terms of cost, wait, and PC factor? Is this a niche that is overlooked by manufacturers/makers?

 

[Old Charlie]

Since our guns are made of steel and the orignals were made of iorn, none of the repos are PC.
Old Charlie

 

[Stumpkiller]

Since our guns are made of steel and the orignals were made of iorn, none of the repos are PC.

That's a cop out for those who don't want to try. How about the modern custom rifles made with iron barrels? If that is the part keeping you awake at night it can be eliminated.

Next you gonna claim that the growth rings in recently harvested maple don't match those of maple harvested 200 years ago? If you shape the stock properly, and finish it properly, it is close enough.

The originals were hammered iron formed as a skelp around a mandrel. Every time you fold, reheat and hammer iron you incorporate carbon into the matrix. Low carbon steel is iron with 0.05 to 0.30% (0.0005 to 0.0030 lbs of carbon per pound of steel). It don't take much carbon to make iron into steel.

12 L 14 steel (common for barrels) is .15% carbon, .9% manganese, .06% phosphorus and .3% sulphur. So, that's 98.59% pure iron. Pretty damn close. If I could get the rest of my gear 98.5% authentic I'd be a friggen national hero among reenactors.

I have a vaccination scar on my arm, does that mean I shouldn't bother trying to reenact because I can never remove that? It don't show. Neither do carbon molecules.

The problem is in their design, not their composition.

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

I've always felt the difference was that a so-called PC reproduction accurately copied the features of an historical firearm. Whether a Lancaster rifle or a Hawken or a Colt's Dragoon, it must display the characteristics of the original accurately.
To say that no reproduction is PC because it uses steel instead of iron is to miss the point and the spirit of the discussion. Perhaps this is intended as a humorous response?
That some folks are willing to go the extra distance and spend the extra money in their efforts to accurately portray a time period is laudable and it is completely unfair to chastise them for this pursuit. And a true recreation of an historical firearm is part of this activity. I'll probably never have a line for line copy of a Lancaster rifle, but I am happy that such guns are being made. I am also content that mass produced, generic guns are being made for folks who do not care about history and just want to use a muzzleloader.

 

[rich pierce]

Stumpkiller's views are pretty much mine except he's concise and I do go on!

It is difficult to make guns that are close replicas of existing period guns affordable unless they are made in large numbers. That is possible with replicas of muskets, which are in large demand. It's much harder to make a gun that is more "individual" at an affordable price. With everyone having greater interest in the F&I war period through the Revolutionary War period, there's demand for rifles and fusils that are correct for that timeframe. The best bet, dollar-wise, for someone wanting something "PC" is still a musket or a fusil. Just as it was more affordable then. Back in the day, if a man had to have a new rifle, he paid almost twice the price of a new fowler. And he probably paid for that new rifle, 6 times the price of the military surplus musket that the mother country dumped on the colonies in large numbers whenever they updated their line of muskets. Same is true today if a man has to have a new rifle with components and styling that are appropriate for pre-1790. The important question to ask is, "How important is that to you?" "What are you willing or able to afford?" If I had the strong desire and all the money to take care of everything that's more important, I'd get Eric Kettenberg to make me a rifle and Mike Brooks to make me a fowler. I can't do that, so I'll build two, sell one, keep the 'tother, and both'll be pretty good.

To give folks a chance to afford a rifle that looks about right for a given period without going the full custom route, excellent makers have good offerings that skimp a little here and there, to cut costs. That's OK! That's good! And a little marketing never hurt a sale, either. But for the customer thinking about buying gun X or gun Y, a personal conversation with a person who's done some research is a good idea. I think it would be a mistake for anyone to post that "Joe's guns are PC but Bill's are less so." A large company aimed at a wide audience, few of whom are seeking a PC gun, is probably fair game.

It's really difficult to have it all. If you want a modest price (under $1000), good availability (no waiting 6 months or longer), and "period correctness" in a rifle, you generally lose, because the three are seldom found in the same camp, and "PC" is kind of a loner among the three of them.

 

[roundball]

.....but I am happy that such guns are being made. I am also content that mass produced, generic guns are being made for folks who do not care about history and just want to use a muzzleloader.....

I'm assuming you didn't mean it this way, but IMO, even this statement can come across as condescending...sounds like "labeling" which is rarely ever a good thing, and being spoken as an absolute implies that people make one decision and forever more live at that plateau.

By and large, people are on the move in their respective "journey's" through various stages of interest in muzzleloading...because I or anyone happens to use a TC Hawken today certainly doesn't mean there's no interest in history...and it doesn't mean that an Issac Haines won't be bought next month, next year, etc.
:m2c:

 

[Packdog]

The important question to ask is, "How important is that to you?" "What are you willing or able to afford?"

Rich,
I think that is the key to it all. Iron vs steel was mentioned. While I personaly don't consider that :imo: to be a requiremnet for a gun to be PC, some do. Or there would not still be people making barrels the old way. I just finished a TN style gun which I consider to be fairley PC. :imo: The first thing mentioned is the wood is to fancy.
I post on another board where the discussion turned to the finish on the interior of the patchbox. Should it have the bit marks or not?
I used cast furniture rather than forge my own as I should have.
Straight barrel vs swamped. Well, probably neither are right. Should have been swamped but not as much as is commercially availible?
Germanic locks and short tangs on Southern gun reproductions are ubiqutous but seem to be acceptable to most and the gun is considered PC in some circles.

It all comes back to..."How important is that to you?" "What are you willing or able to afford?"

At a juried event, how do they determine what is a PC gun?

PD

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

I certainly did not mean to appear condescending. Simply put, I was pointing out that not everyone has an interest in being historically accurate and for those who do not the mass produced and much less expensive firearms are quite acceptable. It in no way is meant to be insulting or condescending. Different people have different requirements and the standard machine made guns serve a valid purpose. And so do the carefully crafted, handmade and more expensive pieces.

 

[Packdog]

I did not take it that way at all! I've agreed with about everything that has been said and enjoy reading the different opinions

Each person has their own level of what is PC but there has to be a standard that is used at re-enactments that are juried events.
PD

 

[Claude Mathis]

Since our guns are made of steel and the orignals were made of iron, none of the repos are PC.
Old Charlie

To strive to be historically accurate does not mean that you have take it to the most absurd level of reproduction.

Nobody is asking your to cook you food in tin pot containing lead for the sake of "authenticity".

Your cotton patches don't have to be woven by hand to be considered "historically accurate".

Your moccasins don't have to be made from a particular species of deer to be accepted as historically accurate in style and design.

A little common sense must be used when discussing what it historically accurate.

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

Amen. The re-enactors that I know strive to be correct to the highest degree possible, but use modern conveniences such as toilet paper, toothpaste and soap. Medications, if needed are acceptable, but all such items are kept out of sight when not needed. Health and hygiene considerations are not thought to be inappropriate. These are people with a deep love for history and respect for tradition and I believe them to be a valuable part of muzzleloading. When they say that a certain firelock is not acceptable at their re-enactment they are not being snobby or arrogant, they are simply trying to achieve an accurate portrayal of the time period. Most folks understand and appreciate this. It is a little sad that some for whatever reason, do not or cannot grasp this and take umbrage at imagined slights. But such is life.

 

Amen. The re-enactors that I know strive to be correct to the highest degree possible, but use modern conveniences such as toilet paper, toothpaste and soap. Medications, if needed are acceptable, but all such items are kept out of sight when not needed. Health and hygiene considerations are not thought to be inappropriate. These are people with a deep love for history and respect for tradition and I believe them to be a valuable part of muzzleloading. When they say that a certain firelock is not acceptable at their re-enactment they are not being snobby or arrogant, they are simply trying to achieve an accurate portrayal of the time period. Most folks understand and appreciate this. It is a little sad that some for whatever reason, do not or cannot grasp this and take umbrage at imagined slights. But such is life.

Russ,.... Very well stated!! :thumbsup: :redthumb: :applause:

YMHS
rollingb

 

[oomcurt]

I've always felt the difference was that a so-called PC reproduction accurately copied the features of an historical firearm. Whether a Lancaster rifle or a Hawken or a Colt's Dragoon, it must display the characteristics of the original accurately.
To say that no reproduction is PC because it uses steel instead of iron is to miss the point and the spirit of the discussion. Perhaps this is intended as a humorous response?
That some folks are willing to go the extra distance and spend the extra money in their efforts to accurately portray a time period is laudable and it is completely unfair to chastise them for this pursuit. And a true recreation of an historical firearm is part of this activity. I'll probably never have a line for line copy of a Lancaster rifle, but I am happy that such guns are being made. I am also content that mass produced, generic guns are being made for folks who do not care about history and just want to use a muzzleloader.

I think it is also completely unfair to chastise those that cannot afford or wish to go that far. Granted, a inline would be totally out of the question as far a rondevous...but if all one could afford was a Lyman or TC...lets get real here folks. Otherwise we are cutting out a lot of folks that would more than like to attend these things. Placing a dollar value by requiring expensive arms on this is nothing more than elitisim, IMO.

 

[mikee51848]

A gun made of materials, lock action and shape/style/topography similar or identical to those of known guns from the period in question.

If you're portraying a Rev War soldier or militia, and you are doing this for the general public's edification, they won't know/notice the difference between a Bess, French gun, or a PA long rifle. But put a TC Hawken in the mix and they would.
I think a lot of this arguement stems from our desire to have a PC gun and a suitable hunting rifle, since many can't afford to buy/maintain both.

 

I've always felt the difference was that a so-called PC reproduction accurately copied the features of an historical firearm. Whether a Lancaster rifle or a Hawken or a Colt's Dragoon, it must display the characteristics of the original accurately.
To say that no reproduction is PC because it uses steel instead of iron is to miss the point and the spirit of the discussion. Perhaps this is intended as a humorous response?
That some folks are willing to go the extra distance and spend the extra money in their efforts to accurately portray a time period is laudable and it is completely unfair to chastise them for this pursuit. And a true recreation of an historical firearm is part of this activity. I'll probably never have a line for line copy of a Lancaster rifle, but I am happy that such guns are being made. I am also content that mass produced, generic guns are being made for folks who do not care about history and just want to use a muzzleloader.

I think it is also completely unfair to chastise those that cannot afford or wish to go that far. Granted, a inline would be totally out of the question as far a rondevous...but if all one could afford was a Lyman or TC...lets get real here folks. Otherwise we are cutting out a lot of folks that would more than like to attend these things. Placing a dollar value by requiring expensive arms on this is nothing more than elitisim, IMO.

I don't see anyone git'n "chastised" for not being able to afford a more authentic muzzleloader, or who lack the desire to "go thet far" in being more historicaly correct.

What I do see is, some folks git'n bent out of shape because they might not have done enough research on historical muzzleloaders and wound up buy'n several massed produced rifles from companies with a (less than honest) "sales-pitch", followed by try'n to justify ther mistake by calling more knowledgeable folks "elitests".

Had the same money been spent on "parts", or a rifle "in the white", some folks wouldn't be attempt'n to justify ther lack of reasearch after a purchase was already made.

Now before everbuddy starts tear'n this post apart,.... let me say thet I have been "down this same road" years ago and I can see "both sides"!!
I got my first (used) Jacob Dickert rifle by selling a couple of massed produced muzzleloaders, and I've never had any regrets for thet decision because I wound up with a muzzleloader thet I was completely happy with and it filled the "niche" I was interested in.

All this doesn't pretain to jest muzzleloaders, but to all the other things in life as well and ranges from tools to various other equipage.
"Sales-pitchs" are terrible sources of honest information, and anybuddy who falls for marketing "mumbo jumbo" needn't git upset with those being honest on this forum when asked a question and who took the time to check more reliable sources of information pretain'n to historical muzzleloaders!!

Those not interested in history have no need to justify a muzzleloader lack'n "historical lines" and I hope they enjoy ther muzzleloaders as much as I do!!

YMHS
rollingb

 

[Claude Mathis]

I think it is also completely unfair to chastise those that cannot afford or wish to go that far.

Show me one example of someone saying they didn't want to do something where they were chastized. Please find the post and quote it to me.

Placing a dollar value by requiring expensive arms on this is nothing more than elitisim, IMO.

Please tell me who is "requiring" this?

Quite often people miss a very important aspect of all this "PC stuff"....

Nobody is "required" to participate in anything. If you have no interest in being "Historically Accurate" or attending an event where your equipment may be judged, that's fine. Do not participate. Do your own thing and let others do theirs.

If you do decide to become involved in historical reenacting, you will most likely have to accept a certain amount of constructive criticism.

This will be true when you get involved in many pursuits, not just historical reenacting. If you were to take singing, painting, tennis or piano lessons, you'll encounter the same situation. Eventually, someone will critique you. If a person can't handle that, they should rethink their involvement.

Personally, I don't offer much advice to those who don't ask. It's none of my business what they do or how they do it. But, if they do ask, I'll give them my honest opinion, even if they may not like it.

I am indebted to those that helped steer me in the right direction. I never took offense at their advice, because I was eager to learn. Yes, I've met rude, arrogant people, but I disregard them and I move on. Those kinds of people don't deserve my time, but I don't hold their actions against the entire reenacting community, as I see others doing.

:imo:

 

[loophole]

Roundball, I'm going to make one more attempt, in a spirit of harmony among shooters, to make this point. No one intends any personal insult when he acknowledges the very substantial differences between a hand made rifle and a factory mass produced gun. You sound like a member of some minority group complaining to a federal regulator when you accuse folks of being condescending just because they don't show your enthusiasm for TC's.
No one is passing judgment on you when they say a TC is not a reproduction of a historic firearm. If you have encountered condescension or snobbery from other shooters when you bring your TC to the range that is unfortunate. If what really happened is that you bought the thing and expected to be accepted among shooters whose interest is in historic firearms, then you made a serious error in judgment--sort of like a man showing up at a Harley rally on a Honda.

 

[Al Bateman 1]

::rollinb can see :: Guys, I don't own a PC weapon...yet. One day I sure hope to. One of the reasons I spend so much time reading this forum is to learn. Like most folks, I once thought I was pretty knowledgeable about our history. Now, I understand that I am just now scratching the surface. Ya'll have me researching to find just what is "right" for certain periods, and I'm loving it. Until I figure out just what I want...I will continue to enjoy my production weapons. I know where they are accepted, and where they are not. In the future, with the help of this forum, I hope to be able to pass muster at some of the stricter events...if I choose to go. I think that there is plenty of room for both sides of this road (that rollinb can see! : No one should have their feelings hurt or feel slighted...like one of my old pards always said..you is what you is. eace:

Al