The meaning of "Traditional"

[roundball]

Curious what the consenus is about whether or not something is traditional.

For example, my opinion / understanding of something in the muzzleloading world that can be referred to as "traditional" is something that was commonly used by the civilian population back during the early american traditional muzzleloading era... and can therefore be recognized as being "representative" of that era in general.


We know there are occasional references to paper shot cups, candle cartridges, wire mesh enclosed shot cartridges, lead flint wraps, even inline SxS smoothbore Flintlocks...yet it seems to me that since none of these things became established as successful permanent parts of the early american traditional muzzleloading (civilian) culture, they therefore really don't meet the test for being considered "traditional"...like blackpowder, powder horns, pouches, etc, would be considered traditional.

BUT...I'm curious to know if this is considered an accurate sort of summary of how to view something as being traditional or not...or if anything devised / experimented with during that era is considered traditional because at least it occurred during that period?

:hmm:

 

[Dave Rosenthal]

Roundball,

Your post is just like asking for the difference between Kosher and Kosher-style Jewish soul food. That's to say it tastes about the same and was made around the same time.........

Seriously though, this is one of those questions that begs to be answered by each & every one of us. I personally feel that IF it existed during the period, in more than an idea on paper, that it be allowed to exist at some form of HC re-enactment, in its correct context, not just strewn-about in some come-hither fashion. Take the Paterson Colts that date to 1836. Do they belong at pre-1840 Events? Some say yes, others no! My feeling is that since they existed, if someone wants to accurately depict in what form or manner they were used, that it be allowed. That doesn't mean that a hundred Paterson revolvers show-up at a single Rondy, because THAT in and of itself wouldn't be HC.

So I can see both sides of the issue. I guess it all boils down into what you want to perceive as what could have happened on any given day more than 170 years ago. Location has a lot to do with what may have been available as well....

Nice, thought-provoking post :thumbsup: .

Dave

 

[oldude]

Roundball,

Your post is just like asking for the difference between Kosher and Kosher-style Jewish soul food. That's to say it tastes about the same and was made around the same time.........

Seriously though, this is one of those questions that begs to be answered by each & every one of us. I personally feel that IF it existed during the period, in more than an idea on paper, that it be allowed to exist at some form of HC re-enactment, in its correct context, not just strewn-about in some come-hither fashion. Take the Paterson Colts that date to 1836. Do they belong at pre-1840 Events? Some say yes, others no! My feeling is that since they existed, if someone wants to accurately depict in what form or manner they were used, that it be allowed. That doesn't mean that a hundred Paterson revolvers show-up at a single Rondy, because THAT in and of itself wouldn't be HC.

So I can see both sides of the issue. I guess it all boils down into what you want to perceive as what could have happened on any given day more than 170 years ago. Location has a lot to do with what may have been available as well....

Nice, thought-provoking post :thumbsup: .

Dave

So if 50 Mt. Men showed up at an 1830 gathering/reenactment at colonial Vicksberg it should not be allowed because there would be to many Mt. Men for a true reenactment? I agree with you if the item existed it should be allowed but how do you limit the number of personnas that wish to display that item? that would like saying that unless your personna is Hudson Bay or Brittish then no Brown bess or NW Trade gun. Bent

 

[Pete Gaimari]

This is an honest question, and not meant to start trouble.

Haven't I read that there was some form of an inline back then?

 

[tg]

What I find the most offensive and missdirecting to newcommers is the "Traditional by association" syndrome often touted to call a modern high tech version of an earler item or concept, bullets that are a result of modern R&D and high tech peep sights that offer advantages over the originals are two that often are mentioned, steel barrels, furniture and the use of electrical tools to make guns do not offer any advantage but make the sport more affordable to all and are at times used to try and offset this line of thought but if looked at closely the comparison does not hold up.What is really puzzling is why it is so hard for soe to simply accept that what they are using is not "traditional" we all have or do so with one thing or another, if the term is likened to a badge of accomplishment should it not be earned using older technology rather than its modern evolutionary extrapulation? a traditional sidelock shooting a modern bullet with high tech sights is ballisticaly the same as a #1 Ruger 45/70 minus the brass, there are other examples this is just the most common, again why not use the real McCoy if one is to claim ot as such? I sense ego is a big part of the answer.

The original *&^-lines were not MDL 700's retooled to load from the front so to be classified as ML's and skirt the intent and definitions of ML guns/hunting seasons.

 

[Pete Gaimari]

Wow! Have you been waiting to say that, or did you sit on a thorn? :wink:

 

[tg]

I have said it for a long time and if you find fault in the logic please explain, it was not meant to be aggressive or as an attack, if there is a logical reason to allow the items I mentioned to be considered traditional then the same reasoning should apply to the retooled MDL 700 because some form of such a gun existed in the 18th century?Again no attack, just talking about logical definitions based on what was and what was not around in the past.To be traditional should it not be a close representitive item reflecting the technology of the time?

 

[necchi]

Well Bill ya can't really use a word to describe itself.
You simply can't say the meaning of Traditional is traditional.
I think it's;
"The history of the people, the muzzleloading weapons and battles, up to and including the American Civil War. (From the inception of firearms through 1865)"

Anything after that it's modern, anything before that is ancient.

that's all I'm gunna add to this thread and it's worth every bit of what ya paid for it.

 

[ol vern]

I have said it for a long time and if you find fault in the logic please explain, it was not meant to be aggressive or as an attack, if there is a logical reason to allow the items I mentioned to be considered traditional then the same reasoning should apply to the retooled MDL 700 because some form of such a gun existed in the 18th century?Again no attack, just talking about logical definitions based on what was and what was not around in the past.To be traditional should it not be a close representitive item reflecting the technology of the time?

.


Yes :bow: :bow:

 

[roundball]

Tried to make the essence of the question clear, my apologies if it was not. The focus is simply on key words / thoughts like: common, representative, typical of, etc.

For example, I assume everyone of us would agree that a powder horn is thought to be traditional because it was obviously a commonly used item, clearly representative of and typically found / used by civilians during that era, representative of that era, etc.

What is not so clear to me at least, are the items that might be called prototypes, experiments, short lived trials, during that era like the examples in my original post.
My current thinking is that they should not be considered traditional because they never achieved widespread commonplace use and were not fundamentally representative of the era...like a powder horn obviously is.

Hope this helps...

 

[Idaho Ron]

Fish and Game departments have defined "traditional" in one way. This site defines "traditional" another way. A lot of people think historically correct, period correct, and "traditional" are all the same. they are not the same. My rifles are the hot rod Renegades that one person loves to hate. I don't care if he hates them or not. This site allows them, Lyman peeps, and globe front sights. This site also allows conicals another thing that greatly saddens him. Oh well. Every time defining "traditional" gets brought up there is a big fight and a bunch of guys including me get a talking to including me. Not this time I am done with this fight. Ron

 

[texcl]

I classify ML's in three basic categories. Modern, to include inlines and plastic stocked ML's, traditional to include side locks like GPR's and t/c hawkin types that aren't truely PC and Period Correct which while you can usually find something wrong with are 90% correct and are basically custom guns. This is completely subjective of course and is just the way I categorize them.

 

[roundball]

This is an honest question, and not meant to start trouble.

Haven't I read that there was some form of an inline back then?

Yes, and I actually used that as an example in my original post.

ie: If an item "like that" (because that was probably not actually built here in america) was built and experimented with back during the early american (civilian) muzzleloading era but never caught on to become commonly used among the civilian population and quietly faded away...my personal view to date has been that it would not be considered an object that was representative of that era...thereby not traditional...whereas something like a powder horn would be.

So again...just searching for the consensus on even just this one example...would an item "like that" be considered traditional because it "surfaced" during that era even if only briefly, or not traditional since it wasn't commonly 'used' during that era?
:idunno:

 

[tg]

I am not sure that an item would need to be "common" to be traditional it would just require more carefully thought usage if to be used in a perioc correct context of re-enacment and at times might need to be an pretty exact copy "Fergunson Rifle" if you want an 18thcentury breechloader, for the general usage that most 'Vous folks and hunters use the term I have always looked to form and function where it needs to look like or closely like an item from the ML era and function the same offering no advantage in performance or usage of materials of construction the latter exception could be subject to where the different material is for practicality (steel over iron) or for convenience
(plastic over wood for stocks) or does it "need" to be different or is just easier to use/maintain if it is.Many will see this differntly but if the form and function approach is used and accepting that the early technology is part of the game it seemsto me that most things are self descriptive.Often folks look for the rareity or obscure item/concept to try and derail this approach but it will generally serve as a a good guide, if one has to counter with "do you ride a horse to a 'vous" then the whole idea has been missed.

I think a reasonable replica of an early so called non-typical ignition would be traditional with the but not common caveat, else one must find a measure of how long, how many, and on and on for every item made in the past to determine if it is or isn't.

 

[Zonie]

So far I don't see where this topic is a fight.

The crux of this topic the way I see it is, does something have to be something that was used by a lot of people during some period in order to be called "Traditional"?

If one or two of something existed say, in 1835 can it be called Traditional?

For instance there were about 240 Colt Whitneyville Walkers made in 1847 and none made after that date. Is this gun Traditional?

There were fewer than 200 Allen & Thurber Sidehammer Target pistols made between 1840 and 1850. This pistol was recreated by Hoppe's in the 1970's and I'm sure Hoppe's made more of them than Allen & Thurber did in the 1840's. Is it Traditional?
Going a step further with this gun, does the fact that there were many makers making similar sidehammer pistols during those years allow people to consider it Traditional?

If not, how many people had to use something before it can be considered Traditional?

There is little doubt that powder horns were commonly used by almost everyone who used a muzzleloading gun but what about those who used one of the metal flasks? Are metal flasks Traditional?

As for the items that we can talk about on this forum I can't speak for others but IMO if the item existed before 1865 I consider it fair game for discussion.
As for the modern powders, some peep sights and modern versions of solid lead bullets there are enough people using these things on/in their sidelock guns that I allow discussions about them. I also allow folks to point out that these things were either uncommon or non-existant prior to 1865 as long as it doesn't get into a heated debate.

Anyway, back to the subject at hand.

 

[roundball]

My apologies but I'm trying to understand all the reply text...given my professed understanding based upon the definition I mentioned above, help me understand better by looking at more specific examples such as:

I consider things like black powder, powder horns, and black english flints to be 'traditional' items.

I don't consider things like inline Flintlocks, paper shot cups, to be traditional.

Yes? No? Maybe?

 

[roundball]

So far I don't see where this topic is a fight.

The crux of this topic the way I see it is, does something have to be something that was used by a lot of people during some period in order to be called "Traditional"?

If one or two of something existed say, in 1835 can it be called Traditional?

Thank you...100% correct...has nothing to do with the scope of the MLF forum, etc...philosophical discussion only.

 

[tg]

I am really sorry Zonie if my abrasive attack has caused trouble again, I will try to tone it down.
I think that part of my point was confirmed to some degree however, rationalization can have and maintain a powerfull grip at times, and I do not think that any Game Depts definitions or even the forums guidelines alter the logical use of the term, as you have pointed out due to extensive useage some things that are not traditional are allowed to be disscussed here,these factors do not change the definitional concepts we are mulling over though.

 

[Pete Gaimari]

A lot of the C&B revolvers were brought to gunsmiths to have the barrels shortened.

I can't help but believe that it was done for rifles too. I have a habit of making my guns suit me. If I had lived in 1830. I'm sure i'd still be that way.
If I had bought a Hawken in 1830, and decided the barrel was too long and brought it to a gunsmith to shorten. Would that gun be considered a traditional gun today? Would it be right to copy it today and call it authentic?

 

[Pete Gaimari]

My apologies but I'm trying to understand all the reply text...given my professed understanding based upon the definition I mentioned above, help me understand better by looking at more specific examples such as:

I consider things like black powder, powder horns, and black english flints to be 'traditional' items.

I don't consider things like inline Flintlocks, paper shot cups, to be traditional.

Yes? No? Maybe?

My opinion only.

I consider anything from that era as traditional. You really can't pick and choose what suits you.