PC Rifles

[John Wasmuth]

A work of art! PC enough for me also. My word, that sure is purdy!

 

[TN.Frank]

Just what I've seen in the Dixie catalog but I think that's a 1816 IIRC. I got on a musket bug about 3 years ago, wanted one so bad I couldn't see straight but I just couldn't afford it. Ended up with a nice Austin n' Halleck Flint Mt. Rifle. I'd still like a smooth bore someday. I think when the time comes I'll talk to Larry at Early Rustic Arms and have him make me up a Cumberland Fowler.

 

[Pittsburghunter]

Nope it's none of those it's a three band with a bayonet lug and is served up nice and pretty in the white. I don't have a scanner so I hope somewhere we can find a web shot of this thing. The only thing that bugs me is it is made in Italy with Euro walnut. Why can't one of our gun companies make these? Last time I checked Springfield themselves were still in business.

 

[TN.Frank]

I know, I was just showin' ya' what a Cumberland Fowler looked like. The 1795 looks more like a French Charleville IIRC.

 

[Pittsburghunter]

Exactly, I think the high price is because it is costing quite a bit to produce these and the collector value will go beyond reenactors to people who collect military arms of any type. DP makes some amazing guns so I am sure owners will be happy with them. I want one. lol, but will wait till I find one on the cheap.

 

[***Sean***]

I think that what they charge for a rifle in Colonial Williamsburg today (last I heard about 25,000) is about what they cost in 1780, factoring in inflation....about 6 months worth of wages!

Anyone have a link to where you check out those 25,000 dollar guns? I lived in Williamsburg for a couple of years. Toured Colonial Williamsburg one time. Cool place ..Its a must see if you are in the area.

 

[Mike Brooks]

I think I'll just stay out of this one. :shake:

 

[Cruzatte]

I think I'll just watch. :snore:

Cruzatte

 

[Okwaho]

Wise move there old friend.You won't be alone
Tom Patton

 

[oomcurt]

I'm just going to sit back and laugh. On and on and on! PC..no, it's not...Yes it is....measly 1000 dollars, Excuse me!?? I figure it this way. Ya buy, make what you want..if you want a 2500 dollar gun, fine, if you want a T/C hawken, that is fine also. But please, I would appreciate if this bull **** about something not being correct historically would quit. I cannot imagine someone involved with reenactments of living history showing up with a T/C, neither can I inagine someone who wants a flintlock or percussion for informal target or plinking as well as hunting dropping 2 1/2 grand just to be "correct". Sure, there are exceptions. But this thing of dunning this or that just because it is not what some folks think it should be....rediculous. The argument has been presented in the past "but if the person asks what is correct, is it not right to tell that person?" Certainly it is..but not everyone is asking that question. One thing is for sure..this "discussion" could go on from now through eternity. It does get a bit old though to keep on rehashing the same old thing.

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

But it is such a fascinating subject--and it brings out the best in everyone.

 

[CoyoteJoe]

Getting back to FLINT50's original post, guns were much more expensive in the past than the are now in terms of wages and most people in 1800 didn't get wages as we think of. Most were farmers who could barely feed the family and in a real good year might have a bit to sell or barter.
There were some factories which semi-mass produced guns to a standard pattern but most were built one at a time by hand. Maybe they had a water powered grinding wheel, that was a real labor saver, but most did it all with files.
The iron, copper, zink, lead, coal, & ect. all was mined by hand with very little labor saving equippment. When you bought a gun you were not just paying the gunsmith's wages but also the miners, teamsters, loggers, foundry workers and all.
Gunsmiths commonly carried accounts on the books for many years and accepted payment in corn, hides, smoked hams, whatever the customer could spare. The average guy just hoped he could pay off the gunsmith before his rifle needed to be "freshed out", which would put him back in debt. I think it is a reasonable analogy to say, as some have said here, that for the colonial American, buying a new gun was like buying a new car today, hope you can pay it off before it's worn out.
As for Lemans and Henrys and such rifles selling for twelve dollars, that is what the companies paid in "the states". What the mountainman paid at rendezvous was a years sweat, misery, and danger and that is if he had a real good year. :grin:

 

[tg]

" I would appreciate if this bull [censored] about something not being correct historically would quit"

You can always choose not to read the post on such topics, and if you would bother to read the first post on this thread the poster was "dunning" custom guns, with little or no knowledge about the subject of guns and gun costs to base his position.

 

[oomcurt]

Hi tg,

I was not looking to start an argument here. I know where you are coming from and I do respect your views. In this case...the discussion was not in the category of historically correct equipment so I see nothing wrong with presenting my view. It seems to me, that these discussions come up time after time..go away..and come back..probably always will come back. In short, I don't think there is a single definitive answer. As for not reading a post....I figure I have as much right to view any post on here...same as everyone else....and....give my view on it.

 

One reason these types of post arise over and over is that we continually get new members who have not the luxury of our past experiences in posts here, so we need a little patience with them. The man brought up the subject of PC guns and I see no reason why he shouldn't be answered. It does no good to simply (1) ignore it or (2) simply state that it is an old subject. For the poster neither choice is reasonable, no matter how you feel about it. Clearly we will reach no consensus on the viabilty of custom rifles because everyone is coming from different angles on this topic. Just as clearly, the original angle posted was incorrect and needed to be discussed--you don't have to be involved. Mike B. was smart enough to stay out, I was not.

 

[oomcurt]

Ok, just what is it with some of you people...Don't read this post...You don't have to get involved... Look...as I said...If I, You, or anyone else on this forum wishes to post an opinion or view the way I see it, it is their right, so to speak. As long as the posting is not denigrating or attacking anyone. Now...if that is not the case...maybe Claude should put up a posting that says one cannot post if that poster's views go contrary to what someone else may think.

 

[Mike Brooks]

There are certain subjects that I personally have posted on in the past and taken quite a beating over. I don't care to repeatedly take those beatings by people who havn't done their research and would rather believe "urban myth".

What I mean to say is before you slam me for shooting percussion, how many ol timers had $1500.00 custom flintlocks?

This is how the poster asked his question. There is no good way for a guy like me who makes a living building custom guns to answer a question stated in this manner. The poster obviously has an ax to grind with somebody, and it ain't going to be me. :winking:

 

Now that we hate inlines (I dont own one)and most here favor rock-locks over percussion rifles(I have a few), we come to whats PC. C'mon guys, you all shoot "custom rifles" . How PC is that? Dont think our forefathers in the intrest of food or protection compared stocks and ventliners.
What I mean to say is before you slam me for shooting percussion, how many ol timers had $1500.00 custom flintlocks?

oomcurt, this was the original question, and a few folks tried to respond. To be frank, I don't see where you are coming from on this and really don't understand your last comments to me. I think I kinda agree with most of what you are saying, but don't understand the 'anger' behind it?

 

[rich pierce]

This is pretty funny. Happens all the time here.
Guy 1 posts a question.
Guy 2 posts an answer.
Guy 3 isn't happy with Guy 2's post and says so.
Guy 2 defends or explains why he posted what he posted.
Guy 4 chimes in, not to answer the original question, but to weigh in on whether he things Guy 2 or Guy 3 are on the right track.
Guy 5 and Guy 6 say, "I'm staying clear".
Some other guys says, "You're either in or out- so tell us what you really think, Guys 5 and 6!"

Then you got the fool at the end who thinks it's funny. That's me.

 

[Claude Mathis]

But please, I would appreciate if this bull **** about something not being correct historically would quit. I cannot imagine someone involved with reenactments of living history showing up with a T/C, neither can I imagine someone who wants a flintlock or percussion for informal target or plinking as well as hunting dropping 2 1/2 grand just to be "correct".

The argument has been presented in the past "but if the person asks what is correct, is it not right to tell that person?" Certainly it is.. but not everyone is asking that question.

One thing is for sure..this "discussion" could go on from now through eternity. It does get a bit old though to keep on rehashing the same old thing.

You make three very good points that everyone would do well to try and remember.

One of the problems with this Forum, is that we have hardcore "reenactors" mixed in with "casual shooters". Both are admirable pursuits, but occasionally the discussions involve both "camps" and the discussions become confused.

Each person involved assumes the discussion revolves around their point of view. Nobody's right or wrong, we just loose sight of the goal, which is to answer the question, based on the point of view of the person asking it. Granted, sometimes the question is vague and then we have to sort out how much "PC" information the person wants, if any, but we do the best we can. :thumbsup: