The meaning of "Traditional"

[Pete Gaimari]

Traditional for me is what was used in the era i'm interested in.
In my case anything before 1850.

 

[Twice boom]

I think the use of the word traditional is a word that lends itself well if the intent is to deceive or mislead.. Try replacing "Traditional" with "Period correct".

Twice.

 

[RugerDog]

I think 'period correct' is the better term. I have a vision of people in 2150, referring to AR-15's as 'traditional'.

There'll probably be a forum with the heading:

"The Black Rifle Forum"
"Keeping Tradition Alive"

 

[roundball]

I think the use of the word traditional is a word that lends itself well if the intent is to deceive or mislead.

Interesting comment to make on an Internet forum with it's banner headline:

Keeping Tradition Alive

 

[Capt. Jas.]

I think the use of the word traditional is a word that lends itself well if the intent is to deceive or mislead.

Interesting comment to make on an Internet forum with it's banner headline:

Keeping Tradition Alive

I don't know how twice boom meant it and my comment has nothing to do with this website but the the statement holds much water. It CAN be used as a deceptive tool to draw masses that form their own mental picture of what it means. An even more abused term that IS successfully used is "early".

 

[Twice boom]

You have it pretty much right. :thumbsup:
Twice.

 

[roundball]

OK...based on the fact that no one can or has even answered the simplest question of the powder horn example, the conclusion is there is no concrete guideline / answer, therefore, the door is wide open for "anything goes".
Whether or not it was common-place everywhere, or just tried once and abandoned, if it happened at all / anywhere during the early american (civilian) traditional muzzleloading era, then its traditional.

 

[GreyWhiskers]

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.

While trying to answer your question and keep it simple - Traditional refers to something commonly used in the muzzleloading era.

But, as TG and others have mentioned, the level one is working on makes a big difference. Casual traditional shooter or re-enactment level.

GW

 

[buzz]

i myself is neither i shoot my period recreations both rifles and cannons using the muzzleloading accessories that work best for me i dont care if im HC/PC
although i think those reinacting should

 

[Twice boom]

I can’t imagine why you would want to turn such a simple thing in to a complication/ Traditions were not meant to be associated with material things in my opinion. Traditions are usually associated with customs, like Turkey on Thanks giving day and roasted Lamb for Greek Easter.

Your powder horn example does not hold water either because not all frontiersmen and hunters used them, anymore than all used Hawkins rifles west of St Lewis ..

The Forums banner as you called it is meant to associate a period and the way things were done and its intent was not to focus on any one particular item. IMO.
If you were to grasp that concept all matters pertaining to ML would become as clear as Black is from white.
Twice.

 

[jethro224]

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.

This is pretty much how I see things.
Same goes for accessories and accoutrements. There are modern plastic things,
traditional things made from materials that would have been available "back then" even if they are not documentable,
and period correct things of which there are documentable examples from a specific time and place.
In my opinion Ron hit the nail on the head when he said that "HC/PC" and "Traditional" are NOT the same thing.
To my mind there must be 3 different categories. A TC "Hawken" or a Lyman GPR are NOT "Period Correct", nor are they "Modern". If not "Traditional" what should we call them?
:v

 

[rabjr]

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.

This is pretty much how I see things.
Same goes for accessories and accoutrements. There are modern plastic things,
traditional things made from materials that would have been available "back then" even if they are not documentable,
and period correct things of which there are documentable examples from a specific time and place.
In my opinion Ron hit the nail on the head when he said that "HC/PC" and "Traditional" are NOT the same thing.
To my mind there must be 3 different categories. A TC "Hawken" or a Lyman GPR are NOT "Period Correct", nor are they "Modern". If not "Traditional" what should we call them?
:v

I'd have to say this is how I see things too.

 

[tg]

I will step back in long rnough t metion that no one answer will serve everyone for various reasons which I will not go into to avoid a flame war, as for HC/PC being different from traditional ...not so much just a more detailed level or else traditional has nothing to do with history, for decades the production level guns have been a mix of the old and new thus being hybrids of a sort, at the same time being accepted as the norm and as traditional and even historicaly correct at times while not exact copies, put primitive sights on a TC hawken or many others and one has a gun that could be as historically correct as most of the TVM/ERA and others, one really needs to examine the reason for calling an item traditional I often see the trend for what are usually a more detailed level of traditional guns that are to be taken for HC/PC that have traits that the owner wants but were not used in the past and it becomes "PC/HC enough for me" I really do not think there will surface a solid univerally accepted method of determining the definition, this is evident with the debates of many items/practices in the very structured re-enactment community,as a start for each individual it is likely best to put aside what one wants,likes or feels works better/best and apply resarch, logic and common sense often this will shed some light, but going in with a pre concieved notion based on preference one is off to a bad start. The form/function approach with the uncommon requiring a more detailed presentation to me is a solid consistant way to go,if one takes away the uncommon then there needs to be a "measure" of some sort for this which just raises more questions, many will not agree and it does limit many modern tech niceties, but if one HAS to have these
are they really into the traditional mindset?

 

[kelleyjk]

just clicking the last reply button...

I reckon it all depends on what you mean by traditional, I use the term to distinguish sidelock type weapons from that other-line type weapons for the most part.

Then again now if we're talking about showing up at an 1840 event carrying an 1836 weapon and having all the in-boys clique turn up their noses at you because youre not traditional enough to play with them, then thats just silly, I hope the rest of the shooting public that "might" become interested in muzzleloading dont read this thread :shake:

 

[longcruise]

OK...based on the fact that no one can or has even answered the simplest question of the powder horn example, the conclusion is there is no concrete guideline / answer, therefore, the door is wide open for "anything goes".

I think you may be introducing confusion to your own topic. The above quote would seem to suggest that you seek rules to be applied to the usage of the term "traditional". We are bouncing back and forth from the concept of rules for defining appropriate "traditional" items and the "philosophical" aspects of the usage of the term.

My view of the use of the term "traditional" is that it deserves no place in our sport (hobby? Insert word of choice). It is reactive terminology. When did the word come into use regarding the things that we employ in our hobby? I contend that it was back when things like in-lines and plastic stocks, etc., began to appear.

We see the same reactive use of the word in the archery world. When I was a kid there was no such thing as "traditional" archery. The term came into use as a reaction to the introduction of the compound bow along with other associated things used with them.

Same with muzzle loading. When I got started in the early '70's nobody talked about "traditional" muzzle loading. Just muzzle loading and muzzle loaders. Then as now there were those like myself that were clueless as to historical accuracy of what we used but OTOH we have always had true students of the history of muzzle loaders among us who could explain the difference to anyone who care(d)(s) to listen.

The real experts are students of history, not "tradition" as we seem to use the term.

Not only do we use the term "traditional" to exclude ourselves from the modern ML practicioners, but we use it to exclude ourselves from ourselves. So many of the "rendevous" in my area are exclusive to the 1800 to 1840 rocky mountain fur trade period. I have never understood why those who re-enact or develop a personna have to be in accord with a certain period being re-enacted at a get together. Seems like it would be far more educational for all in attendance if personas and periods were irrelevant and we all sought to broaden our knowledge of history through our associations with others who try to carry a true historically correct and period correct (to their own chosen period) representation of the life of that period in time. (wonder if anybody would show up with a stainless in-line, mossy oak cammo, etc to represent the early 21st century!! :shocked2: :haha: )

So, if there was an in-line flintlock and some hapless diverted soul chose to research it and the man who invented it and then accurately re-create the rifle and personna, would that be of historical interest and value? Or, would we apply "traditional" rules and eject this re-enactor. Maybe he/she could be allowed to stay but made to wear a scarlett letter "C" for "cheater". That way we could make a fine bad example of him/her. :rotf:

I therefore am going to resolve to never use the word "traditional" again to describe the equipment used in the muzzle loading "sport". That may make it harder to talk to some members of the forum, but everything worthwhile requires effort!

One question stands out in my mind. Why was the concept limited right of to "civilian" practices?

Sorry for the long rambling reply, but it was requested that the thread be "philisophical". :blah:

 

[Twice boom]

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.

This is pretty much how I see things.
Same goes for accessories and accoutrements. There are modern plastic things,
traditional things made from materials that would have been available "back then" even if they are not documentable,
and period correct things of which there are documentable examples from a specific time and place.
In my opinion Ron hit the nail on the head when he said that "HC/PC" and "Traditional" are NOT the same thing.
To my mind there must be 3 different categories. A TC "Hawken" or a Lyman GPR are NOT "Period Correct", nor are they "Modern". If not "Traditional" what should we call them?
:v

To most it is obvious what they are . Why do they need to be called anything, other than a close replica of a gun used at that particular time. The only tradition I see is what was forced on them and that is the guns back then where muzzle loaded but no gun style or loading devise can claim the Term traditional as it is being applied. The only worthy argument that can be made is if the gun or Item in question is truly correct for its intended use in period correct reenactment or event. Owning a muzzleloader that one chose to Bastardize for the sake of gaining advantages on game is not keeping up with the spirit of muzzle loading and most of all what brought us all to this forum. IMO.

Twice

 

[roundball]

Why was the concept limited right of to "civilian" practices?

Knowing these kinds of discussions usually wander, I tried to sharpen the focus / frame the discussion some by at least keeping the military aspects out of it due to some of their unique aspects...to really try to get some precision in the dialogue about what constituted traditional during that era.

> There have been a variety of opinions but not enough common ones to develop into a clear, strong trend in addressing the original question;
> And there were a couple of opinions that seemed to have some merit in addressing the original question;
> Then of course there were a few typical sarcastic replies which simply get discarded considering their source and lack of credibility;


So, just trying to see if a consensus could be reached even on that defined civilian landscape but it didn't happen...never-the-less, thanks to those who actually made positive efforts in trying to contribute.

:thumbsup:

 

[hanshi]

FWIW and speaking philosophically, The terms "traditional" and "old timey" are ALMOST synonymous to me. HC/PC and traditional are NOT. IMHO. If a builder creates a rifle similar to (very generic works too) an 1820 flintlock and it is clearly and admittedly a "fantasy" rifle, it is a traditional rifle IMO. Not HC/PC of course, but traditional and old timey. Same goes for accessories. I have a couple of powder horns with antler plugs, BUT, the plugs have short sections of bolts in the ends so they can screw into the tapped opening of the horn. I did this solely because I had lost powder from the horn before when a simple friction plug fell out. They're traditional but not HC. They're also old timey. I was born in the 20th century and I'm traditional and sorta "old timey" but I definitely am not a historically correct human; I've got teeth fillings, vaccinations, you name it. Philosophically then "traditional" is at least a little subjective and a little objective.

 

[DOUBLEDEUCE 1]

Wow, this is getting really long, but interesting. My compliments to everyone for being gentlemen.

How about considering something like Typical/ Traditional (insert HC/PC here if you like), and Non-Typical/ Traditional. And there could be a subset of Improved Typical/ Traditional, or Experimental/ Improved Non-Typical/ Traditional. My head is starting to spin... :rotf:

 

[Pete Gaimari]

Maybe we could call it the sidelock era, because that's the first thing I think of when I hear "traditional".