Why the hatred for CVA?

[necchi]

Thanks for the reply but you still didn’t answer the question.

As said it's what you want to do, most typical vous', just show up an shoot, have some fun.

But some folks truley enjoy actuall historical re-enactment, and/or what's called living history and living archeology, and Yes, you need to hand stitch your underware.
Folks can put $1000's into gear and years into study of a specific period, usually a ten year spread, and someone without proper PC gear can ruin the event as presented to the public.

As a small example we have near a fort built during the NDN uprising in 1862, the camp the past few years has become a freeforall, 70 camps with folks doing whatever they want, even soda cans an bottled water in camp.
This year it's invite only, 40 camps, but with people that will portray the distress and and concern of the actuall event, there were towns burnt to the ground with 900 settlers and 100's of NDN killed.(there is no known actuall #'s for either "side")
Another is Grand Portage, a juried Voyagaur event, better not show up with a Hawkin there, or even a butcher knife, a roach belly is much better for the period. Even facial hair, beard or not, can be PC/HC.

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

Due to the technologies available at the time and the designs common in the period, it would be difficult, even impossible, for someone in the 18th or 19th Century to have built anything that remotely resembles many of the characteristics seen in the modern products made by TC, CVA, Lyman, etc, even most Pedersoli products.

Mr. Va.Manuf.06 ,
I think I was following all this until this statement. I have seen pictures of guns that resemble a TC Hawken. I think Zonie or one of the Moderators even posted one. The sights being one problem.
But even closer is the Lyman GPR. It does ”˜resemble’ an early real Hawken. I can see they are not exact but there is that “resemble” thing again. Perhaps we should install a point system to rate the facsimile of any repo flintlock to an original known example.
Like they do at car shows.

Point system? Not at all necessary but some may want to give it a try. However, the level of agreement or disagreement will probably stay about the same.

Take a look at my phrase highlighted in red. While there can be said to be similarities in shape, the obvious differences that will never be disposed of are machine-made straight lines on all modern factory made guns and stocks that are simply too course, or thick - that is "heavy". Also the added weight from overly large barrels and the poor quality of most factory made locks used on modern factory made muzzleloaders. Now, some of these "problems" can be fixed if someone wants to go to the trouble - locks can be adjusted with a few hours of work, internal parts and frizzens properly hardened and, most importantly, new springs can be made or if not to badly out of whack the ones on the lock can be re-tempered. Wooden stocks can have excess material removed and a good finish applied and proper hardware (patch box, trigger guard, butt plates, pipes, etc.) can be acquired and substituted. Barrels? They will have to be left alone and will work just fine as is.

The gun shown by Zonie (or whoever) above was similar in some ways to some of the modern guns and could be used as an example to do the work I mentioned above to get something reasonably close to a correct period rifle for someone who wants to reenact or do living history of life and experience somewhere in California during the mid to late 19th Century.

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

Something I should add, if someone likes blackpowder shooting just for the experience and is not bothered by a rifle or smoothbore that is not what many, including myself, will call historically correct or period correct, more power to them. The experience is still good and should be enjoyed in the way that you want. If the extra expense or effort seems unnecessary, than do without it and have a good time, that's what we all enjoy when it comes right down to it. :thumbsup:

 

[R.M.]

Something I should add, if someone likes blackpowder shooting just for the experience and is not bothered by a rifle or smoothbore that is not what many, including myself, will call historically correct or period correct, more power to them. The experience is still good and should be enjoyed in the way that you want. If the extra expense or effort seems unnecessary, than do without it and have a good time, that's what we all enjoy when it comes right down to it. :thumbsup:

:applause: :applause: :applause:
Right On!!!!

 

[J.D.]

Something I should add, if someone likes blackpowder shooting just for the experience and is not bothered by a rifle or smoothbore that is not what many, including myself, will call historically correct or period correct, more power to them. The experience is still good and should be enjoyed in the way that you want. If the extra expense or effort seems unnecessary, than do without it and have a good time, that's what we all enjoy when it comes right down to it. :thumbsup:

Agreed. That has been my perspective all along, however, I draw the line at the point where the folks who are enjoying the experience begin to claim that their CVA, Traditions, etal, rifle is "authentic" to the period.

If you are one of those who just enjoy the experience of shooting black powder, that's great. I have no problem with that. Just enjoy the experience without making false claims, as some do.

God bless

 

[BadHeart]

I cut my teeth with a CVA bobcat. It was cheap price wise that it, I think I paid $55.00 at wal mart. It has went off everytime I pulled the trigger. and fairly accurate, if I did my part. I then got a CVA .50 cal hawkin. It is still one of my best shooting rifles. I have since passed it to my son and he is hitting clay birds at 100 steps off hand. I think that for some one that wants to try the black powder way of life. a CVA is a good choice to to start with in my mind. Yes they are cheap in price, but if you take the time to work a load and learn your gun it is a heck of a shooter. at least mine is. and i wouldn't trade them.....I love the 3 I have..

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

Something I should add, if someone likes blackpowder shooting just for the experience and is not bothered by a rifle or smoothbore that is not what many, including myself, will call historically correct or period correct, more power to them. The experience is still good and should be enjoyed in the way that you want. If the extra expense or effort seems unnecessary, than do without it and have a good time, that's what we all enjoy when it comes right down to it. :thumbsup:

Agreed. That has been my perspective all along, however, I draw the line at the point where the folks who are enjoying the experience begin to claim that their CVA, Traditions, etal, rifle is "authentic" to the period.

Absolutely correct. They can not be considered HC/PC to any time before 1965 but as long as this is realized and no out of line claims are made, they certainly can be enjoyed as what they are.

 

[ebiggs1]

Something I should add, if someone likes blackpowder shooting just for the experience and is not bothered by a rifle or smoothbore that is not what many, including myself, will call historically correct or period correct, more power to them. The experience is still good and should be enjoyed in the way that you want. If the extra expense or effort seems unnecessary, than do without it and have a good time, that's what we all enjoy when it comes right down to it. :thumbsup:

Agreed. That has been my perspective all along, however, I draw the line at the point where the folks who are enjoying the experience begin to claim that their CVA, Traditions, etal, rifle is "authentic" to the period.

If you are one of those who just enjoy the experience of shooting black powder, that's great. I have no problem with that. Just enjoy the experience without making false claims, as some do.

God bless

Mr. J. D.
This simply isn’t true on this forum, anyway. I have never claimed my guns
were HC/PC or any other C. I have never claimed there were anything except
what they are. Yet folks point out all the time how incorrect they are. I wish posters would just let it be.

God bless you, too.

 

[Little Wattsy]

Something I should add, if someone likes blackpowder shooting just for the experience and is not bothered by a rifle or smoothbore that is not what many, including myself, will call historically correct or period correct, more power to them. The experience is still good and should be enjoyed in the way that you want. If the extra expense or effort seems unnecessary, than do without it and have a good time, that's what we all enjoy when it comes right down to it. :thumbsup:

Agreed. That has been my perspective all along, however, I draw the line at the point where the folks who are enjoying the experience begin to claim that their CVA, Traditions, etal, rifle is "authentic" to the period.

If you are one of those who just enjoy the experience of shooting black powder, that's great. I have no problem with that. Just enjoy the experience without making false claims, as some do.

God bless

Mr. J. D.
This simply isn’t true on this forum, anyway. I have never claimed my guns
were HC/PC or any other C. I have never claimed there were anything except
what they are. Yet folks point out all the time how incorrect they are. I wish posters would just let it be.

God bless you, too.

Im with EBIGGS here. The VERY Terms HC/PC are ONLY used by those practishioners of the concept.... When average (expecially new) ML-ers say they went "traditional" it can easilly be assumed/understood that they mean side lock NOT that they have an exact replica of a 200 to 300 year old tool/gun/outfit/hat/foot-wear/ETC....

Those of you's who are INTO HC/PC details know who you are and what group your in and we all understand that those traits are important to YOU.

The rest of us are into the sport of MLing for OTHER reasons and are quite happy with ourselves just like that. :wink:
For ME its sorta like when I talk to my accountant and I tells him... IF I wanna know more about what you do, did, and why..... ILL ASK. :2

 

[J.D.]

Mr. J. D.
This simply isn’t true on this forum, anyway. I have never claimed my guns
were HC/PC or any other C. I have never claimed there were anything except
what they are. Yet folks point out all the time how incorrect they are. I wish posters would just let it be.

God bless you, too.

In my experience, those who claim to have been singled out though they are completely innocent are neither.

I'm sure that if I go through all 500 of your posts I'll find something about how your production gun is PC, if you like, but you may not like what I find.

God bless

 

[Claude Mathis]

How about if we just get back to the original question? :wink:

"Why the hatred for CVA?"

 

[jeep44]

Because those "cheap junk" CVAs outshoot their high-dollar guns? :wink:

 

[arctichomesteader]

My Traditions flintlock "Hawken" shoots as well as some more expensive guns...I tuned the lock up some so it's reliable and quick. The only thing I haven't gotten worked out of it, is it eats flints.

Is it anything like a true Hawken? Nope, and I'll never claim that. However, I think it's passable as a 19th century style rifle, and it's not badly made overall. Not every gunmaker back then was a Hawken, etc., turning out top of the line, slender, perfectly balanced rifle. For every hawken made there were hundreds more, some by big makers, many by now unknown rural makers, some assembling old parts into something that'll simply shoot, others making a few parts themselves, buying others new, or using older parts. I've handled several original 19th century rifles, some were nicely made, slender, etc., some I've held were downright thick, clunky, clumsy, but as long as they killed the fox attacking the chickens, the farmer probably didn't care about what it looked or felt like.

And of course, it should be pointed out: the originals that have survived, are only a fraction of what was made. And all of this said, I prefer originals. I was a bit surprised when I started looking for them, that there's a lot of original percussion rifles out there that aren't any more expensive than the cheap Spanish guns, if you're in the right place at the right time. Just need to use your head if you plan to shoot one.

 

[ebiggs1]

Go for it!

 

[J.D.]

Go for it!

Post#848553

The thing of it is, is that if you walked out of the woods in 1800, into town with that Pedersoli in hand everyone would recognize you had a flintlock rifle in your hands.
And not look out of place like you had three eyeballs in your head.
Isn’t that HC/PC enough? It is for me.

I found this one in only a coupla minutes. Need I go on?

God bless

 

[rabjr]

We've been able to deal with this touchy subject for 135 posts, pretty civil. You two are only going to get this thread locked if you continue with this pissing match you got going on. :shake:

 

[tg]

Locking the post may be long over due Swampy, some folks just cannot accept the reality of the "historical aspect of the hoby" which causes friction with those who are learned and hold a high regaurd for that part of the hoby, it's like fire and water and is not likely to change, there is a strong desire at time to refer to something incorrectly, and a harsh attitude when this is pointed out, and the initial question usually is not generated by history students or longtime builders, but by someone trying to find a way to put a square peg in a round hole often due to buying first and studying last, and become upset when told it will not fit, at times the tone on both side could probably be better, but the end result is a simple reviewing of that which we know of histoty as a guideline to set the standards so complete chaos does not overcome the hoby, a good day to all whatever you shoot.

 

[arctichomesteader]

Though history isn't so clear-cut. http://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/fusionbb/showtopic.php?tid/248316/

BTW: square pegs in round holes actually work good for timber framing in some cases, they're less prone to working loose. :wink:

 

[J.D.]

Just keeping him honest, Swampy.

Well said tg.

IMHO, nothing more needs to be said about this topic.

God bless

 

[arcticap]

The US Code defining an antique firearm uses the word replica. That would seem to indicate that any antique firearm that wasn't manufactured in or before 1898 is by definition a replica under Federal law.

See also Title 18 USC, Sec. 921 (a)(1)(16) "The term 'antique firearm' means -

(A) any firearm (including any firearm with a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system) manufactured in or before 1898; or

(B) any replica of any firearm describe in subparagraph (A) if such replica -

(i) is....