Lets see some of those Long Rifles!

[George]

You certainly do have an impressive collection.

Well, no, I don't, and I think you know it. The two rifles are from the 1970s, and we all know what a poor job the people back then did of building guns. They are generic guns with a mishmash of parts and styles, built just any old way at the whim of the builders, who weren't very well educated about the history of longrifles. There's not a lick of carving on either of them, what more needs be said about that? One of them even has a Douglas barrel, probably will rupture the next time I fire it.

Of the smoothbores, one has been declared by the experts on this forum to be a thrown-together piece of junk, poorly styled and poorly built. It has a DOM barrel which other experts on the board have assured me is a lethal danger to me, the shooter, and to any innocent bystanders within 100 yards, and that down to the third generation, as it is sold to unsuspecting innocents after my demise. And, ye Gods, no one in the 18th century would ever finish one in that garish way. No carving, of course.

The other is, once again, put together with mismatched parts, is iron mounted, which we know they never were, and even if they were, the iron is wrong. Built well, but has a choked barrel, not at all HC/PC.

The only saving grace about any of them is that they have given me from 15-40 years of untroubled service, have put a ton of meat on my table and have been the source of quite a deal of pleasure. Not much to be proud of, but at least enough that I no longer resent the need to shut my eyes and turn my head whenever I shoot, just in case the experts know what they are talking about.

Spence

 

[roundball]

:grin:

 

[jdkerstetter]

The only saving grace about any of them is that they have given me from 15-40 years of untroubled service, have put a ton of meat on my table and have been the source of quite a deal of pleasure. Not much to be proud of...

Isn't that enough? I suspect it is.

I sense a little tounge-in-cheek there but one can never be sure in print. I don't know you but you don't strike me as someone who puts much stock in "experts".

J.D.

 

[hanshi]

I was already acquainted with the history of that song and knew the term "Kentucky rifle" was coined then. Most people who see my, or any other rifle for that matter, they will invariably say "nice Kentucky rifle". So I guess I answered my own question; longrifle=Kentucky rifle. :thumbsup:

 

[hanshi]

Oh, and nice eye candy. Keep it coming.

 

[Robby]

Ok, this is a question for everyone with knowledge beyond my own, and since all of you are older and wiser than myself, i hold your advice and opinions high. So if i wanted to get a "Kentucky" Style longrifle that was the closest to appearance and style of around 1750-1780s what would be the closest resembling rifle out there, or maybe one pictured in this topic????

think.......Simon Kenton :wink:

Frontiersman, I don't know what, or how many different guns Simon Kenton carried, but this gun was made with the earlier end of that time frame in mind. You may call it what you wish, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, EL, EV, BVD, I call it a Moravian. :grin:

Robby

 

[roundball]

Pretty wood, nice rifle-like lines for my interests.

 

[Sunkmanitu Tanka]

Stunning gun - really beautifull!

 

[tg]

It is a nice looking gun, to me the bow on the tg looks a bit narrow for a an early revwar gun, most use a deeper bow, not that it is absolutely wrong just maybe not the norm for an early type application from what I recall.

 

[Robby]

Thanks Roundball, the wood is from a tree I had milled up. There's more where that came from! :grin: And I will try to do it justice! I was out shooting it this afternoon. Its A .60cal., and even with 110gr. 2f, it purrs like a kitten!
tg, Since the gun is shown in profile only I have to interpret your term 'narrow' as meaning the space that houses the trigger itself. I cannot see any proportional difference when compared to a typical Antes, Albrecht, or V. Beck, based on The book "Moravian Gun Making, Of the American Revolution". :idunno:
Great book!!
Robby

 

[roundball]

Thanks Roundball, the wood is from a tree I had milled up. There's more where that came from! :grin: And I will try to do it justice!

Didn't know you had also built it...double wow, nice !

 

[tg]

I was refering to the open space behind the trigger space this opening on early rifles is often long and deep where one can nearly put their fingers in it it was three to grip a hold of with the non trigger fingers, it is genrely refered to as the "bow", in later guns I think it became shorter and less distance from stock to botom of tg, Rich or JD or Capt Jas. may be able to explain and even answer this better, I do not have a gun library anylonger so I cannot consult it for comparison to known examples. No big deal just somethimg from memory which is not as good as it once was.Not trying toshooot down the gun in flame just wondering about the time period of this detail and the dating associated with it.

 

[Robby]

Well, I am always open to constructive criticism, but, it has to be relative. I have the book in front of me and don't see or understand your comment regarding the bow. If it is so noticeable that you would comment, I would think that even I would be able to pick up on it , but alas, I cannot.
Robby

 

[tg]

It may well be that a narrow tg bow was used on some early guns about what date does that gun represent? It may be easily be that do not recall or have not seen much of this type of gun.

 

[Robby]

tg, Reference to date and style have already been posted. Read
Robby

 

[tg]

This might be easier, the gun below is an Early maybe 1765-70 give or take maybe earlier by somes opinion based pretty much on an existing Southern gun. Notice the large "deep"space in the tg behind the area the trigger occupies, this may not be at all relevant to your style of gun but the large deep "bow" is fairy common to the earlier guns as I recall, one of the "traits" often used to suggest an early date

 

[roundball]

:thumbsup:

 

[Robby]

That picture does not help one bit. It is someones interpretation. What exactly is your point? To your admittedly faulty memory, is it .015, .030. .062, .125, .250, .500, or 1mm, 2mm, or even a cm. too small? Are you trolling? I'm too old to play some stupid game. Get specific and I'll address the issue. Your being nonsensical! Reference your criticism with real world material. Southern gun, who says, your dates(?) so what! Apples and oranges.
Find some one else to play with. I guess I was mistaken.
Robby

 

[tg]

I was just comparing the size/style of tgs when I saw you it seemed considerably smaler than most earlu ones I recalled so I asked about that style and the style of gun as I said maybe that style of gun had the smaller tg, I told you I was not flaming your gun, I only posted a photo of a gun based on the faber gun which is thought by most to be a fairly early Virginia style to show what feature I was talking about. I thought we were having an intellignet exchange about a gun feature, tg detail to be specific, but I guess I was mistaken, maybe Rich or JD or someone else can, put my question in a manner that will be better understood as to the comparitive sizes/shapes of the early Morovian tgs and those of the early guns of other areas such as Lancaster/York of Virginia, maybe the tg Bow is not the correct term I should be using, there is certainly no reason to get upset as there is a huge difference in the two tgs on the two guns and I find this intersting on two early guns, I have also seen large ones on Lancaster guns but as I said this may not be relevant to your style of gun, I certainly do not see any reason for an attitude, it does nothing for the potential for either of us to learn anything aabout the question I raised.

 

[Robby]

tg, I apologize for being short with you, but I did give a time frame and references to the type of gun I was using as an example of what I was trying to achieve. I guess I didn't, and still don't understand your issue with the trigger guard. You can post all the guns you wish, but I referenced the book, makers, dates, and general style, and until I see something specifically relating to those parameters, I don't know what you are taking issue with. I'll not go round and round with you on this. If you think something is wrong, be specific with more something more than a vague referral of some nebulous memory.

Frontiersman, It was my intention to give you something addressing your request directly. Sometimes these things do go astray, and many times there are things to be learned from those tangents. The first, I hope so, the second, probably not so much.
Robby