platypus gun? I show, you tell...

Dave, I am only interested in finding out how the HC/PC bit works here in this forum. It's here that the wrangling occurs, insults are offered and feelings are hurt. As far as framing my question with specific content, that wouldn't match up with the situation on the ground.. It doesn't matter what style of gun is posted to the board, rifle or smoothbore, early or late, the chances are good that a flame war will break out. Trying to understand the reason for that situation, it occurred to me that there is a basic disconnect, somewhere, and that it might be possible to let in a little light if we all understood just a bit more clearly where everyone is coming from.

I offered my guns for "analysis" in an attempt to get people to explain how they came to their conclusions about guns posted on the forum, not to find out about those specific guns. I thought it might be possible for us all to gain by sharing what we each have to offer if the rules were more clearly understood and the methods of judging the guns explained by those who use them.

Spence

Perhaps we could attempt to define what is Historically or Period Correct.

It appears there isn't even agreement on that?

Somebody mentioned that in their deffinition of HC that the barrel must be made of the same material as the old ones...."iron". In my opion that's stretching it. (The problems with iron barrels would be good fodder for another post.)

How far do you go? Do you judge the completed gun on its own merits as to the way it's constructed and it's appearence?

It is documented that early PA smiths purchased barrels and locks....and even hardware. There were barrel mills all over early Eastern PA and locks were imported by the keg full.

So, if a gun is stocked today using hand tools with purcased components can it be PC/HC provided it turns out looking as it's supposed to? (And if judging the completed gun, who knows if only hand tools touched it?)

Again, there will be many opinions. I don't know that a definition could be reached that would appease everyone and if it were it would have to be posted or it would be worthless in later discussions.

J.D.

What I have noticed is that the flames only start when the poster puts up pictures of something and states that its a "insert county" rifle/smoothie, when in all actuality its an interpreted fantasy gun with very basic/generic architectual ties to said school, but misses the mark with respect to the details of said "county".

For me its less about the hc/pc aspect unless it is marketed as such, the schools are fairly defined and the differences are documented and do exist.

I have not done enough research to be able to debate the finer points of the schools so I don't get to heavy into the discussions in that aspect, thats when I do alot of reading such as this thread here. There are some heavy hitters in this thread and I appreciate the chance to read their input in this matter. I have a fairly substantial library but am self employed so don't get the time to devote to the books like I'd like to. I do have a working knowledge of how things should be put together as I have struggled thru some pre-carves, and still am, also I have been fortunate enough to handle and photograph several originals.

I am far from an authority but I do know some things about the firearms and how they should look for the most part.

What I key in on is the "pleasing to the eye" architecture of the rifle/smoothie. It is difficult to get the different parts to come together in a pleasing package. Some of the more prolific builders that are cranking them out at record paces are leaving far to much wood on the finished product.

ApprenticeBuilder said:

For me its less about the hc/pc aspect unless it is marketed as such.

Click to expand...

Me too.

Some of the more prolific builders that are cranking them out at record paces are leaving far to much wood on the finished product.

Click to expand...

And what's funny is there are some builders who are so talented that they can really crank 'em out and they turn out beautiful. Some of it is talent and some of it is the desire to create the best gun they can. They have to have both....but they have to "want to" most of all.

I know builders who will refuse work if what is requested is not what they consider "right"....they just don't want it out there, with or without their name on it. Integrity.

J.D.

jdkerstetter said:

Do you happen to know who made the lock?

Click to expand...

It looks very much like one that DGW sold in kit form as a "Southern mountain lock"
I bought my first handmade rifle (Freddie Harrison)when I stopped at DGW on my way home after being discharged from the Air Force in 1974. The gun was sold years ago, and the lock replaced sometime before that, but I'm 95% sure that the lock pictured is the same as the one that was on the Harrison rifle. The engraving, like the engraving on Hamm and Minton locks was cast in.
I may have the original lock lying around somewhere. If I can find it I'll post again.

That's what I suspected but don't have one to compare. There weren't many to choose from back then....from what I am told.

I'll take the choices we have today and be thankful.

What's funny is, all that time ago he was putting an English lock with a Southern rifle kit and with all the study that's been done since we still have people marketing Southern guns and kits inlet for a German style lock. Just seems backwards.

Thanks, J.D.

I don't know how it happens but it seems many people still use that darn Siler on Southern rifles. I made my 1st one in 1986. I went to the biggest muzzle loader shop in central Michigan (Bill Shellhorn's "Ye Olde Black Powder Shoppe") and started picking out pieces. I'd only even seen a few Hawken guns & TC's & CVAs & such but wanted a flint lock. I got a precarved "Armstrong" maple stock cut only for a 13/16" barrel & ramrod. It was totally a square gun. The epitome of slab sided and heavy lock panels. It shot great but was homely as all get out. I wish I had it back. I should have never sold it.

I'm beginning to think most any reasonable gun can be acceptable, even with some warts, so long as it isn't said to be in a certain school but is obviously not, and so long as the overall package is consistently of a certain time period, whether early or late. Am I getting warm?

Click to expand...

I think you got it Spence. There are a few specifics that can also be trouble such as Maple on a Fusil de Chase or most any other euro/english gun. Another is leaving too much wood on a gun, it just wasn't done in the 18th century. Also, iron mounts on PA. guns.

Been following this topic for a while and found it interesting. To me the overall style looks like a western Pa. (patchbox and inlays primarily), but the buttstock style is more of an earlier eastern Pa style, while the wire inlay is generally seen on guns more towards the south.

As far as the HC issue, I find that many of today's "super guns" are certainly not. 200 years ago guns were built for profit, not as a hobby to fill otherwise idle time. (There is a fine line between hobby and mental illness). This is not to imply that shortcuts were taken or that high quality pieces were not built, but the more time invested in building equates to a higher price, which in turn limits the market, so the builders did not spend a lot of time polishing the patchbox cavity or perfectly fitting the bottom of the barrel channel. I have even seen some pieces where the bottom of the barrel was left just as it came from the forge. I doubt any buyer today would ever be happy with that.

I know builders who will refuse work if what is requested is not what they consider "right"....they just don't want it out there, with or without their name on it. Integrity.

Click to expand...

You are right. I have known some also. They were nearly starving trying to do "right" at a price the customer was willing to pay. Two or three guns a year won't pay the bills. I know one who is, literally, surviving on donations from friends. Was a great-great builder in his time.

Hi Spence,
Despite many opinions, including mine, there is no logical "how HC works" on this forum because it is unlikely that there is any consensus about the universial meaning of the term without context as to period, region, maker, etc. I have a friend who wants me to build a Schroyer-like rifle with cast steel hardware. He does not like brass, which would be historically correct if I wanted the gun to represent Schroyer's period work. However, the rifle will be absolutely historically correct within the context of the history of American long rifle making, which is still happening today. Today the craft is carried on by a few full- and part-time makers and a lot of retired white guys. That is now its history.

dave

Agree on much (not all) that's been said. The rifle - good looking - doesn't look like any "style" I'm aware of. However there's no question it's HC/PC as are the vast majority of guns posted/discussed on this forum. A gun doesn't have to be a replica in order to be historically and period correct. Even "styles" are a vague, amorphous concept that only perhaps exists in varying degrees; i.e. step over a county line 10 feet and you have something else. Guns are like paintings; each one is a builder's interpretation, unlike a photo which is a copy/xerox/ with little subjective content. Both have their place. You don't insult a man's dog (dangerous to do) or his gun. Give credit where credit is due and point out anything in question.