Russ T Frizzen said:
Period correctness (another term for historical correctness) is not a matter of personal opinion, but rather a matter of fact.
Your statement is true, but I never said that Period Correctness was a matter of personal opinion, although I see how what I said could be mis-interpreted as saying that. :redface: What I meant was that period "Appropriate", a term I personally use, and as far as I know not a standard term, is a matter of personal opinion.
"...be more or less period "appropriate" (not "PC" as someone else defines it, this is also a personal opinion)..." '
this' in this statement referring to my term period appropriate, not referring to PC. I didn’t intend for that statement to imply that PC was a matter of opinion.
PC is clearly a matter of documentation and a lot of careful research. However, period appropriate, as I use it, means "more or less roughly correct for the vague time period and location". Such a non-specific definition is, by its very nature, a matter of personal opinion.
I have no beef with those who wish their weapons, dress, and accouterments to be as accurate as possible for the time period they are attempting to recreate. I personally am not interested in that, but if you are, fine with me, as long as you don’t give me grief about the fact that I personally don’t care that much.
As far as being “easily pleased”, perhaps that’s true, although I wouldn’t necessarily agree with that assessment as a blanket statement.
I don’t go to rendezvous’ or shooting contests, or gatherings of any sort, so you can rest assured that I won’t be attempting to pass off my Traditions Hawken, or blanket coat made from an old army blanket, or any of the stuff I make for myself, as historically correct. They’re not. Never said they were. I like them. I honestly don’t care if other people like them or not. So since I pretty much don’t care about authenticity in the way you mean the term, you’re correct, I am easily pleased in that regard.
I am not, at least in my opinion, so easily pleased in the performance area. I expect my weapons to function reliably, and to be accurate.
“Reliably” could, I suppose, be a matter of opinion, but my Traditions flintlock has only had a single flash in the pan in about 300 shots since I got it about a year ago, which is firing about 99.7% of the time. My previous flintlocks, a T/C, and another the manufacturer of which I don’t remember as it was many years ago, all fired pretty much as reliably. I did have one very cheap kit gun where the lock broke after less than 50 shots, but I never had a problem with the others. To me, 99.7% reliability is satisfactory. Perhaps I could get a higher reliability with a $1000, or $1500 gun, but to me,
and this is just my personal view, doubling or tripling the price for what could be, at most, a 3 tenths of one percent increase in reliability, is simply not a reasonable expenditure of money. Of course I could have, by chance, received a good lock while the average lock from the same manufacturer is not as reliable, I couldn't say.
Almost all my hunting is done at a range of 50 yards or less. At 50 yards from a bench rest my Traditions usually puts a 3-shot group in a 4 inch diameter circle. That meets my needs as far as accuracy goes. Your requirements may be more stringent.
Aesthetics are by their nature a matter of opinion. I personally find the fore stocks of many original guns and “accurate” reproductions to look too thin, especially full stock guns, to my eye they look fragile and unbalanced. A swamped barrel looks odd to me, kind of silly looking actually. A personal opinion on the appearance, not a value statement about the tastes of the owner. They may be authentic, but I personally don’t like the looks of many of them. So this isn’t a question of having low standards, it’s a matter of having different aesthetic preferences.
SO, after that rather long-winded explanation (an occupational hazard among academics, I fear),
back to my original points, several posts ago. 1) If you replace 2 of the 3 major parts of a gun, the barrel and the lock, you can’t really say that the result is still the same gun as the original. A gun that has a Traditions stock but a GM barrel and a L&R lock cannot accurately be called a Traditions, any more than a car with a Chevy body shell on a Ford frame with a Chrysler engine could accurately be called a Chevy. Whether the result is better or worse than the original is not involved, and
2) If your primary concerns are not authenticity or style, but simply reliability and accuracy, you many find the factory guns to meet your needs, despite the fact that a few of those with more expensive guns, especially custom guns, will tend to disparage your choice. (This statement is not intended to refer to any specific person.)
As a last point on this topic, let me state that if
YOU feel that the extra money you pay for
your custom gun is worth it, in terms of quality, reliability, accuracy, authenticity, or whatever, I have no problem with that.
If you are happy with your gun, great! I’m not going to sit here and say you wasted your money. If none of the factory guns meet your needs, or desires, then it makes perfect sense to spend the money on a custom gun. However, those of us who find that a factory gun
does meet our needs or desires are not lesser for that fact, either.
Good shooting! :thumbsup:
