How correct is correct?

[coloradoclyde]

Stand by.

I have heard there is another Mountain Man movie on the horizon with Leonardo DiCaprio in the lead role (Hugh Glass).

Glass was the "dude" that got mauled by a Griz and the story goes that Jim Bridger and a buddy took his rifle when they thought he wouldn't survive.

He did and tracked them down.

So "round two" might be mere months away

Can't you see it now - the factories will open again turning out Hugh's rifle which was carried by Bridger, plus Bridger's rifle of course...

 

[coloradoclyde]

Darn computers
Man in the wilderness 1971 was the movie.

 

[necchi]

Man in the Wilderness.

 

[coloradoclyde]

Ha! we posted at the same time :thumbsup:

 

[kodiakmarine]

I do not have the book with me at the moment, but I do remember somewhat his statement about the side plate. It seemed a little odd, but I figured he was probably referring to something unique about that particular school. Alexander showed photos of the Armstrong and Lauck rifles, and gave the barrel measurements, although he did not actually date the Armstrong rifle, but said that Armstrong used parallel sided barrels only. I will see what else I can find out. It should make for some interesting reading. It is something I brought up bec is use there were people on the Virginia rifle thread who claimed that only swamped barrels could be used on Virginias. One person claimed that straight octagon was only used on squirrel rifles of the 1840s, which is incorrect. - John

 

[kodiakmarine]

Was that the film with Richard Harris and John Houston? - John

 

[54ball]

yep

 

[galamb]

I am not going to try and defend all of Peter's statements. I have his book and I know the man (lives the next county over from me).

His work is truly outstanding as is his love of the history. He was a gun builder at Colonial Williamsburg (not a small feat for any builder, particularly a Canadian builder).

So his credentials are "up there". BUT, his book (Grenville) was originally a series of articles that appeared going back into the 60's. It was cobbled together and redone as a book.

So some of what he wrote may have been "what was known at the time" and some was probably guess work based on the limited examples that had been seen.

Which is why if you are truly on a quest for "correctness" you can never use a single source as the "bible".

Even years later examples are turning up where Shumway got it wrong (I know, blasphemy), but as more guns turn up and are better studied and the results "shared", some "cast in stone truths" are going to change.

One of the newer theories is that Armstrong not only made his own locks (widely accepted fact) but that he maybe/probably made his own barrels as well. (which would not have been typical when he was building) and I have personally seen an Armstrong rifle that absolutely, no doubt, the owner showed me with calipers that it had a "tapered" barrel, and not like those mild swamps that you need a straight edge to see, this was greater than a 1/4" taper from breech to muzzle.

(and if you read the part in Peters book where he quantifies "straight or parallel sided" he says less than 1/16" "doesn't count" - so in "his eyes" a mild taper or mild swamp would be passed off as just lack of precision by the builder as opposed to intentional - others would disagree)

And yet another somewhat supported story is that when Armstrong disappeared from Emmitsburg (which Peter and others suspected he may have gone bankrupt due to the recession) there is now fair evidence that he actually went to the Bedford area to teach gun building but more specifically lock making and that in fact the "bedford lock" is actually an Armstrong creation.

So "facts" and theories change along the way - and yes, the "grain of salt", with any "bible" is needed.

 

[hoochiepapa]

Not to anyone in particular.
This reinforces why I don't critique others' work.
Not being very tactful, I would say something hurtful. I just say, Nice work.

 

[coloradoclyde]

Considering that muzzleloaders have undergone a continual non-stop evolution since its inception.......The idea of "correctness" is extremely fluid.

 

[nchawkeye]

Dang, I can't believe those articles came out in the '60s, time does fly...

I have most, in the MuzzleBlasts mag...The wife keeps wanting me to throw them away!! :shocked2:

 

[kodiakmarine]

Thank you, Graham. I will trust your knowledge expertise and thank you for the clarification. I will translate Alexander's "parallel barrel" as "slightly swamped". It now seems that if I am to have one of my dream rifles I will have to learn how to inlet for a swamped barrel (screams and curses). I'm glad I have Alexander's book. He sure knows how to build a rifle. I just hope I understand his instructions on inletting. - John

 

[kodiakmarine]

You always make a lot of sense. - John

 

[galamb]

Well I am far from the final word.

Do follow your book best you can and do pick up another one.

Sometimes two different perspectives on how to do something suddenly will make a light turn on for you.

I would suggest that you read and re-read the part on using the (rails) to cut a swamped channel.

I did a couple by hand before trying that method and it works great.

If you search cutting a swamped channel on this site you will see a few discussions on it. It works well once you get it clear in your mind.

 

[54ball]

I'm sure Alexander is a great guy. He seems to have a sense of humor. The gunsmiths at Williamsburg told me they sent him a picture of them using his book in the shop. They were using it as shim under the bench leg.

I do not care for all of his opinions that come out in the book, mainly his distaste for post 1840 guns.

I understand the sentiment in the general sense but who can deny the architectural beauty of a Tennessee Soddy Daisy, a NC Gillespie or an Ohio Vincent. Maybe he was just speaking in general terms.

Also it's written in Canadian. For me at least it requires a read through of several times to get it.

 

[rich pierce]

Circling back to the original question. A guy asks for advice on building an early Virginia rifle. Different people hear this question differently, and he does not make it clear, because he doesn't know that outfits market kits that are poorly named.

Custom builders think he wants to build a rifle that would fit into what is known of early Virginia rifles. Since we know rifles were made there before the 1770s, students of originals think he wants to build something based on the earliest originals. Hence a lot of detailed advice about specific originals.

The O.P. and others who have experience with "early Virginia" kits offered by various outfits are speaking a different language. They are focusing on how to best finish or customize one of those kits named by that name (for marketing reasons).

Simple miscommunication, because the O.P. doesn't know that there is a difference between actual early Virginia rifles and the kits so named.

Specific questions usually get better results. If he had stated, "I have such and such kit. Looking for ideas on making this work for me. I'm not a student of originals, just want a good working gun", most of the people who are interested in historical examples never would have participated. I'm not blaming the guy at all, but saying the responses (including mine) were predictable based on the question asked.

A side-product of these discussions is that folks who have guns based on these "early Virginia" kits sometimes are offended, because after all, their guns are being critiqued at some level.

 

[Artificer]

WELL said, Rich! :hatsoff:

The more specific a question by an OP, the better answer can be provided. We all tend to forget (at times) something that is crystal clear in our own minds, may not be clear to others when a question is asked.

It was also not clear at first, at least to me, whether or not the OP had already purchased the kit. Though it can be disappointing to someone who thinks a kit can be made into a particular era/style rifle and then finds out it can not, is it not better the person find that out BEFORE he spends his hard earned money? I know I would rather be a little disappointed the kit would not have made an accurate reproduction of an Early Virginia rifle, but far better to learn it before I bought such a kit.

However, after finding out the OP had already purchased the kit, then we switched tack to suggest a style/s of rifle he could build with his kit.

Gus

 

[kodiakmarine]

Thank you, Graham. I can always use another book. - John

 

[kodiakmarine]

I see what you mean. I took "parallel sided" to mean straight octogon. Live and learn. - John

 

[kodiakmarine]

You are right about asking specitic questions. I should have been more specific in my OP. Thank you, and everyone who participated. I hope I'm not the only one who learned something. - John