why aren't the cabelas kentucky pc

[pghrich]

or are they? i believe when i got mine the paper work that came with it said they were reinactment approved.mine is a flintlock by the way. i really dont care ,just curious...

 

[tg]

Any group can stamp any approvement on any thing it may or may not be accurate, thses guns like most production guns are similar to guns from the past bu usualy lack in any specific architecture of the time often due to a narrow stock blank which puts the comb higher than it should be and there are other differences they are entry level tpe guns if you compare them closely with originals the differences become quite obvious, they will fit into most events that are not juried and are usually servicable guns though at times the locks can be picky anothe such gun is the Frontier or Blue ridge one add says it is good for the F&I to the Alamo in fact it is at best a late flint period gun maybe as early as 1810 or so, you can't always believ what they tell you, they are looking for a large market share and tweeking history is one way to do it, enjoy the gun it will serve for most needs you will be involved in for the most part.

 

[Donny]

The guys I know with these guns like them.
I am a long long way from being any kind of expert, but this is just an opinion. Thousands of guys made rifles in all kinds of styles, so somewhere someone made a rifle with similar features to the Cabelas? That makes it pass the muster?
I am curious about the shape of the wood at the nose. There is no nose cap, lots of rifles were born without. I have never seen a rifle or pic of one with that shape of nose. How common was this shape on originals?

 

[mmahlock]

As can be seen from the replies so far getting an adequate response requires some more specifics on your part.

What period and location are you trying to fit in to?

 

[tg]

"Thousands of guys made rifles in all kinds of styles, so somewhere someone made a rifle with similar features to the Cabelas? That makes it pass the muster? "


No, we do not use the "it could have been done" theory to determine the authenticity of a gun or gun style, any gun from that period would also have a swamped barrel.They are not bad guns just not accurate replicas of any originals but resemble them enough to get by in most liberal circles, I don't recall if that gun has a cheekpiece this is another must for a gun of that time, use them, enjoy them but accept them for what the are a generic quasi replica of a general gun type or combination of gun types from the past, but not really PC/HC by the standard definitions.

 

[Stumpkiller]

or are they? i believe when i got mine the paper work that came with it said they were reinactment approved.mine is a flintlock by the way. i really dont care ,just curious...

Your paperwork probably mentioned a specific group. (Like the NSSA for Civil War or the AMM for Mountain Men - check out their cut for membership! Menhttp://www.xmission.com/~drudy/amm/bosloper.html ).

Think of it this way. Say you want to compete at the Watkins Glen Vintage Grand Prix Race Reenactment. You see the brochure says: "stock models of 1930 to 1950 era." So you bop down to the U-Pull-it lot and grab some items off the wrecks and racks and come up with a running vehicle. At the gate the race director asks: "What is that?" You say "a little this, a little that - front ends's a '35 Cord and the tranny is an Edsel with a Lotus Formula 1 differential and a Fiat 124 engine; but all the parts are old except for the fuel injector module."

Same thing with the Cabela's/Pedersoli. It isn't a copy of a particlar known or recognized model. It's a conglomeration of various styles. It may run well, but it ain't "stock" for the period.

But it may be fine for most events, shoots and get togethers. If you have something particular in mind you want to participate in it's best to ask ahead of time. If you're hoping to be part of a Rev War Hessian Jager company and show up with that you may get some bad news. On the other hand a snowshoe biathlon may be happy as a pig in mud to have you shoot the course with it.

 

[faw3]

Stumpkiller ...Ya is close! I'm thinking all the supercharged Cord front end and the rest a old Super 7 :rotf: you haven't rode in a car till you been in a org Super 7, 2" of the geound sounds like all the cars at LeMan's. Ya let'em eat dust! Fred :hatsoff:

 

[Runner]

Take a look at Joe Meeks's "Sally". I have not seen the gun, but I have been told it is a two piece stock gun very similar to the Traditions/CVA/Jukar Kentucky with the two piece stock. This particualar gun does have an example you can point to.
I don't know about the Cabela's version.
I believe PC is about using the tech of the times, and has nothing to do with artistic reproduction of ever detail of a certain piece. A guy on a trek with a CVA Kentucky is using a tool very similar to what they used back then, and if he is shooting pyrodex that doesn't change a thing. He is still walking in their footsteps as close as he is able. A perfect copy gun does not enhance that, for me.
HC is about copies of what already happened. It is about copies of other peoples art and about being detail oriented about items. It has nothing to do with survival skills, treks, hunts, or any other part of the hobby I enjoy except sitting around BS'ing. It doesn't make the guns easier to fire, maintain, more accurate, or even more pleasant to carry. It doesn't help you collect dinner or defend yourself. It is simply there so guys can get together at gatherings and put down everyone else's gear. It serves no other purpose that I have been able to find so far.
Those are my thoughts, today.

 

[Elnathan]

Runner,
Actually, depending on what exactly we are talking about, historical correctness can have a heck of an effect on the performance of the weapon. Have you ever handled an original 18th century firearm? There is a vast difference between a close copy with a swamped barrel and hand-made/finished stock with proper architecture (very thin, machines can't do it), and a slap-sided factory-made gun with a straight barrel. Bear in mind that the whole inline mess started because Knight didn't like his "clumsy, unreliable" rifle - I don't know what exactly he was using, but somehow I doubt it was a close-copy of an original.

Yes, some aspects of HC/PC-ness are merely cosmetic rather than functional. The problem is, you can't know what will make a difference until you actually try it.

 

[tg]

The details od a particular type of gun make it ewhat it is, PC/HC is the study of what we know of the history of the guns and a modern made replica by most standards accepted by those interested in history must adhere to many of these standards in order to pass muster, and saying a gun is not PC/HC is not a put down just designating a particular level of authenticity. In the 18th cent a gun without a swamped barrel and no cheekpiece for example would be completely out of the box so to speak, those who do not grasp the concept of the study of gun history and its application towards classifying modern replicas and semi replicas (which does not mean exact copies) would do well to heed the advise of some here who do, though many have grown weary of the battle to educate and post little anymore.

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

"Old Sally" looks nothing like the generic mass produced rifles you cite. The old girl is of stout build and carries a back action lock. Her trigger guard is similar to the ones Dimmick used and the barrel used keys instead of pins. The barrel is of much greater heft and the two piece stock appears to be a take-down type rather than an attempt to save money on stock wood. In other words, it's not even a remotely similar rifle in either quality or appearance.

 

[Claude Mathis]

Thousands of guys made rifles in all kinds of styles, so somewhere someone made a rifle with similar features to the Cabelas?

That could be said about anything, but it is not what reenactors use as criteria.

Example: Daniel Boone could have carried a Roman short sword, because they did exist at the time - you can't prove that he didn't. :wink:

 

[Coot]

PC is NOT just about using the technology of the times. Denim and copper rivets existed in the 18th c but Levis did not. WWI combat boots could have easily been copied by an 18th c shoemaker but there weren't any around to copy. Everyone has to decide for themselves on how far to go in terms of historical accuracy. What is far enough for one is not far enough for another - just like the level of accuracy in shooting skills. You cannot tell a bench rest shooter that a one shot kill at 100 yards is "plenty good enough for anyone" - they are looking for one hole groups & keeping a 4" group is not considered serious. If hunting is your only focus, you certainly do not need to invest the study and cash for a PC gun - you should put your study and cash into tracking skills and float plane trips. But on the other hand, if you want to be considered seriously by reenactors, you have to work within what was actually used and done - not what could have been if they had somehow had access to all that we know today. Now if there was just enough cash to have custom guns and float plane trips.................... :wink:

 

[tg]

I hope this does not turn into another squirting match as the factual ground work has been set for the comparison between originals and many repros, once again this is not meant to take anything away from many of todays production guns they are mostly similar enough that most consider them in the traditional vein and one should carry them and hunt/shoot them with pride in the contiunation of the old ways, some will continue to ignore the facts for whatever selvserving reasons but the loss is theirs and nothing will be gained but hard feelings and possible perpetuation of bad information, this topic is nothing to fight about but a chance to learn about gun history and what made the originals what they were and also to accept the new versions of ML's loosely based on the originals and enjoy them with no shame or feeling of inadequacy I would pick up another old Navy Arms Kentucky and drop in a .40 barrel in a heart beat I had one and it was one of the best guns I ever owned, not PC but traditional and a great close range deer gun and Hell on squirrels, again let's not get into a brawl over what should be a lesson in we can all learn from...a note on vendors claims about the authenticity of their guns the following is a quote from the writeup on the Cabelas Kentucky and agian no slam intended but read it carefully it bears scrutiny " A true classic, it was also one of the few rifles to rival the famed "Brown Bess rifle" in both function and popularity. This detailed, authentic reproduction sports a deep-blued, 1-in 48" twist rifled barrel"" I have aways hoped someone would make a truely authentic version of the famed "Brown Bess Rifle" but alas no one has made one (tounge in cheek)but the point is made.

 

[Donny]

about the wood nose shape, how common was this style now used on the Cabelas guns?

 

[bioprof]

I was looking at the Cabela's rifles the other day in one of their stores and they were sitting right next to the Lyman Great Plains rifle. One thing that struck me was how much thicker the stock was on the Cabela's Hawken rifle. It seemed to be almost twice as thick as the GPR. For me personally, I like the slimmer profile much better.

As for the nose cap, I have never seen one like it on an original rifle, but then again, I haven't seen many originals.

 

[tg]

"about the wood nose shape, how common was this style now used on the Cabelas guns?"

If this is refering to the ones that lack a brass nose cap the shape is probably as good as any, this likely varied from gun builder to builder on the relitive few guns that had no nose cap in the past, I think these guns from cabelas with no cap have the two deep moldings on the sides like the old Hatfield, I have not seenthis on pics of originals but I have not looked at a lot of late period original pics so it may be a valid feature, I worked the (extra ramrod channels)down to my liking on one I had.

 

[Leatherbark]

I think most if not all of us hope to have HC equipment someday and the only way to learn about what is HC or not is at a place like here. I know my Blue Ridge isnt a copy of anything, but 99% of the shooters at my range dont know that. But I do and that sort of fuels the fire to get a HC gun someday. So until that day if you squint your eyes, a Cabela's Kentucky or Blue Ridge will look HC......................Bob

 

[Black Hand]

We all need to start somewhere. I started with a Cabelas hawken and eventually built myself a Early English Tradegun. Now I built a Chambers "Mark Silver" Virginia gun. It wouldn't have made much sense to start with the high-end gun, as I had NO idea if I was going to stay with it. Welcome to the club.

 

[Mike Brooks]

I might suggest you go to a gunshow where there are original on display. It will instantly become painfully obvious how far short these Cabella's guns fall away from an old gun.