The meaning of "Traditional"

[tg]

" don't consider things like inline Flintlocks, paper shot cups, to be traditional."

I am not sure when paper cups came into use, if theywere used at all in the per cartridge era and this has to be a ballpark time say pre1870 I think they would be traditional, and I have seen photos of a non-typical flintlock that could be called an inline (remember this is a term applied to modern guns likely not a "traditional" terminology, this old type of gun though not ever in common use would be traditional, it really goes back to "how many does there have to have been" if numbers matter and when not common the closer to the original something need be else we stray into the relm of conceptual items which opens the door to the "they coulda they woulda world" just my take on it,if some one goes to the time and expense to recreate an item that is documentable to the past I would call it traditional by the definition I have always held which is something from the ML era just the exsistance has always been the cruix of the issue as long as I can recall not the commonality, this same concept is used in re-enacting the less common the more need for exacting,specific, accurate usage of the who,where,and when. for the non re-enactor there is likely little calling for most of these uncommon items.

i do not know how many short barreled hawkens there were most likely those that were that way were cut off due to damage as the norm for the time was longer/heavier if one wanted to reproduce such a gun I would consider making it look like a gun with a cut down barrel, but againgoing to this level is purely a re-enactor thing for the average hunter/shooter make the barrel the length you want the production halfstocks are considered trdaitional for all but the re-enactor level.

 

[roundball]

If I had bought a Hawken in 1830, and decided the barrel was too long and brought it to a gunsmith to shorten. Would that gun be considered a traditional gun today?

This is why the original question has to keep being referred to.
The context of my question is based on "key words" like common, common-plce, wide spread, typical, representative of, etc.

Your example of a personal preference to have your barrel shortened would probably not have been a wide spread practice, therefore it would not be typical of or representative of the widespread general civilian population's practice back during that era.

 

[tg]

Roundball, I think the whole thing revolves around the level one is working with, whether garden variety traditional or re-enactment level with the modern tech evolution caveat in place always to keep that stuff from slipping in the back door.

 

[Pete Gaimari]

If I had bought a Hawken in 1830, and decided the barrel was too long and brought it to a gunsmith to shorten. Would that gun be considered a traditional gun today?

This is why the original question has to keep being referred to.
The context of my question is based on "key words" like common, common-plce, wide spread, typical, representative of, etc.

Your example of a personal preference to have your barrel shortened would probably not have been a wide spread practice, therefore it would not be typical of or representative of the widespread general civilian population's practice back during that era.

That's the problem with your question. Too much grey area. If in fact a short Hawken was made and found. Someone could make a replica and call it authentic. That would certainly be a traditional gun.

With that said. I know what you're asking. I think you want to know what you can use and stay true to traditional.
I'm headed in that direction myself. It can be difficult without making a compromise. My gun isn't even close. I'm trying to modify it to something I might have owned in 1830. I'm only trying to please myself, and i'm hard to please.

 

[roundball]

This is why the original question has to keep being referred to.
The context of my question is based on "key words" like common, common-plce, wide spread, typical, representative of, etc.[/quote]

That's the problem with your question. Too much grey area.

Actually there's no gray area...I accept that you're having problems understanding it so just re-read the original post and/or key words in red above.

With that said. I know what you're asking. I think you want to know what you can use and stay true to traditional.

Incorrect. I use what I want to use, period.
I've simply posted a philosophical question for discussion.

 

[Pete Gaimari]

From your first post.

"For example, my opinion / understanding of something in the muzzleloading world that can be referred to as "traditional"

So, you already have your answer, but want other opinions, but don't like them when you hear them.

I'm not biting into your argument.

 

[tg]

"So, you already have your answer, but want other opinions, but don't like them when you hear them."

I did not seee Rondball saying he did not like anything but just asked for other viewpoints and thoughts on his, anyway this is ridiculus that there are two hostile posts over this topic so soon, I posted a logical way of looking at the issue as food for though, folks can take it or leave it,I am not interested in playing games, so you folks work on this one, catch ya later.

 

[hanshi]

The term "traditional" sort of floats around like a spider web and can be hard to pin down even when we know what we mean. At least I have that trouble. My idea of traditional is fairly loose and encompasses wood stocks, steel/iron/brass/GS and side locks. Powder carry? As long as they're not plastic they are traditional to me. Copies and replicas are not necessary for my definition; as long as they look similar to what they portray, shoot rb with real black powder and rely on caps, matches or flints; I'm satisfied. This is even if you wear jeans, overalls or shorts! Your equipment and methods can be traditional without your dress being traditional. I guess traditional - within parameters mentioned - is in the mind of the bp burner. Just throwing this out and I can't always decide what's traditional and what might not be.

 

[Old Salt]

Let's say a guy wants to build a "traditional" Kentucky longrifle rifle but wants to include some features from his own experience that make the employment of said rifle more convenient for his personal use.

For example we add a nock style breech and a hooked breech/tang then we use wedge keys instead of pins. Chances are few people would notice unless allowed close inspection. If I'm not mistaken wedge pins were used on some long rifles.

I say go for it. I might call it a contemporary rifle but to the casual observer you have a traditional Kentucky rifle. You'll have a good rifle that's easy to clean. I don't see a down side.

I'm currently building an octagon to round .45 rifle. Looking in the books I don't see any. But I have seen one similar rifle at the Valley Forge Museum. The botom line is that's what I want to shoot.

Just so you know I have seen rifles in competition that would never have existed but are allowed in "traditional" events.

 

[mykeal]

I'm afraid I must agree with roundball's thesis. In my opinion, the meaning of 'traditional' must include an understanding of at least some significant usage. I don't know if 'common' or 'widespread' exactly apply, but in lieu of something better I think can use them.

Perhaps the 'solution' is to attempt to define things that existed in rare form during the time period considered 'traditional'. I'd call those things 'historical', not 'traditional'.

:surrender:

 

[ebiggs1]

My personal definition of “traditional” is;

If you walked out of the woods and into town with (insert item here), would everyone stare at you like you had three eyes? If the answer is, no one would even take notice, it is traditional. Even if you did walk into town with a TC Hawken, I doubt anyone would ask you if it was a gun or what.

But then again I ain't a big HC/PC kinda guy.

 

[Coot]

Traditional, defined by Webster's (I know, looking up the meaning takes the fun out of it) : " an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action or behavior .... characteristic manner, method or style".

To me, the term traditional must be used in context. To use a non muzzleloading example, Troika is a word sometimes used to describe a Russian sleigh drawn by three horses. A very traditional vehicle with a long history of common use; but not a traditional New England sleigh by any means. So a Troika is undoubtedly traditional IF we are talking about Russia or about sleighs in general but decidedly Not traditional if we are talking about sleighs in New England. Hard to escape the mantra of who, when, & where. If in common use for the time & area, its traditional. If not in common use, even if well documented to exist in period, not traditional.

 

[CaptainKirk]

Seems to me (prototypes notwithstanding) that any product which was manufactured or capable of being manufactured during a particular time period should be considered "traditional" whether there were 3 or 3,000 in production. As to cut-down barrels, well, why not? Gunsmiths certainly did custom work for folks back then. If it was historically impossible, then I would say it would not be traditional.
To each his own. America has never been a nation of cookie-cutter people.

 

[Tumblernotch]

"""For example, my opinion / understanding of something in the muzzleloading world that can be referred to as "traditional" is something that was commonly used by the civilian population back during the early american traditional muzzleloading era... and can therefore be recognized as being "representative" of that era in general."""

While I agree with what you mean in the above statement, I believe we are mis-using the word "traditional". Webster's Collegiate Dictionary decribes the word tradition as: 1: The handing down of information, beliefs and customs by word of mouth or by example from one generation to another without written instruction. 2: An inherited pattern of thought or action. (as a religious practice or social custom) 3: Cultural continuity in social attitudes and institutions.

It's obvious that all of us received most of our knowledge of MLs by written instruction along with modern visual means. There may be a few here that had some information passed down from older shooters or family members in an unbroken chain from those who built or used muzzleloaders back when they were all that was available. But otherwise, that takes care of No. 1. As for No. 2, I doubt that any of us were taught from birth or have a gene in us that leads us to shoot these things or have any interest in them. Now some of the younger shooters may have been raised around MLs and are following in other's footsteps, but is it an unbroken heritage? And No. 3 speaks for itself. How many of us live in communities that focus on the study or use of ML firearms? We're a very small percentage of the communities we live in. I will say that the second part of No. 3 may have some relevence. The word "institution". Old style or "traditional" MLs are an institution. But is there a "cultural continuity"? Aside from poor folks in the hills and a handful of gunmakers and shooters back in the first half of the 20th Century, the use of MLs ended when smokeless firearms made the scene. In fact, if it hadn't been for men like those that founded the NMLRA and a handful of gunmakers and researchers who found and preserved much of the information we use today, there would be no continuity at all.

Also, there has been so much evolution in MLs since the days of the hand cannon we would have to break it down into several traditions. The matchlock tradition, wheel lock, flintlock, percussion, see where I'm going with this? Each period started its own tradition. Heck, it appears there's even an i%$&ne tradition now.

So technically, I think the word traditional is a misnomer when describing the type of muzzleloading we enjoy. However, I can't think of any better word to describe it besides maybe "Old Style". (I've actually had to describe traditional muzzleloading as "Old Timey" to some people because they didn't understand when I said Traditional Muzzleloading). So I think we're probably stuck with it whether it's right or wrong.

There have been some good points made in this thread. There were a lot of "improvements" and changes made in ML firearms back in the day that were not "traditional" even to those who were living then. And there were guns that were only around a short time and had only a modest amount of usage. Do we discount them? Certainly not, as it was said, as long as they are used (in reenacting) as representing the period they were used in. Should we try to improve traditional arms by using bullets or improved sights? Some of the oldtimers did. That's what led to the development of the breechloaders and repeaters. There's nothing wrong with improving your muzzleloader up to a point. I believe a true traditionalist would want to stay with the limits of what was available in the time period of his weapon though.

I guess in a sense "Traditional" may be the best word for our generation of shooters and builders to use. As I've been typing this I thought of the past and all the changes made in the last few hundred years. With the exception of better steels and some super fast and slick locks, there have really been no improvements in muzzleloaders since at least 1870. We're carrying on with what those men started so many years ago. Maybe Webster didn't think to include what we have when he wrote his Dictionary.

I think if we keep it simple there should be no arguments about what is "traditional". Stick with the overall period that this forum covers. If we build, shoot or study a firearm or projectile that wasn't common but did exist, just keep in mind what time period or region it was used, especially if doing a historical representation.

Well, I've blathered on enough. :yakyak:

 

[Josh Smith]

Well, gents, looks like ya'll have pretty well covered it.

All I can add is that, if I were to show up at a rendezvous with one of these babies

http://patentpending.blogs.com/patent_pending_blog/2005/08/lewis_and_clark.html

then I would expect to be able to use it. Period correct rifle (or was it smooth? Don't remember) for Lewis and Clark and newer.

Josh

 

[nchawkeye]

For what purpose are we trying to be traditional??? Who is judging???

Is this for the purpose of trecking so we learn more how long hunters lived in the woods and used natural materias???

Or are we at a judged rondevous or reenactment???

Or giving talks to local middle schoolers on Colonial America???

Or just trying to taste a little of what it took to keep a flintlock shooting reliably???

 

[roundball]

Just for a mid-thread check-point summary:
This is not a question about the scope of dicsussions for the MLF...its simply a general philosophical question. If somebody listed 100 items and asked us to vote/decide whether or not they would be considered "traditional", what would be the criteria we'd use to decide??

Using a basic example...if a powder horn is considered "traditional" (assuming everyone agrees its traditional) the question about is:
"what is the criteria that makes us consider a powder horn to be a traditional item of the early american (civilian) traditional muzzleloading era" ??

Is it because it was typically found as a common item in widespread use among the civilian population at large during that era ??
Or if a powder horn had only been used at Lexington and Concord, would we identify it as an item traditionally used during the early american (civilian) muzzleloading era ??

Maybe there's no single answer...so everything ever invented / experimented with during that whole era would be considered "traditional muzzleloading items" even if only a few were made with limited use in a particular locale and never caught on ??

:hmm:

 

[Dave Rosenthal]

Roundball,

Your post is just like asking for the difference between Kosher and Kosher-style Jewish soul food. That's to say it tastes about the same and was made around the same time.........

Seriously though, this is one of those questions that begs to be answered by each & every one of us. I personally feel that IF it existed during the period, in more than an idea on paper, that it be allowed to exist at some form of HC re-enactment, in its correct context, not just strewn-about in some come-hither fashion. Take the Paterson Colts that date to 1836. Do they belong at pre-1840 Events? Some say yes, others no! My feeling is that since they existed, if someone wants to accurately depict in what form or manner they were used, that it be allowed. That doesn't mean that a hundred Paterson revolvers show-up at a single Rondy, because THAT in and of itself wouldn't be HC.

So I can see both sides of the issue. I guess it all boils down into what you want to perceive as what could have happened on any given day more than 170 years ago. Location has a lot to do with what may have been available as well....

Nice, thought-provoking post :thumbsup: .

Dave

So if 50 Mt. Men showed up at an 1830 gathering/reenactment at colonial Vicksberg it should not be allowed because there would be to many Mt. Men for a true reenactment? I agree with you if the item existed it should be allowed but how do you limit the number of personnas that wish to display that item? that would like saying that unless your personna is Hudson Bay or Brittish then no Brown bess or NW Trade gun. Bent

Re-enacting and reality often clash. Your example of too many Mountain Men huddled into one place is a good one. When this happens HC goes by the wayside so that everyone who paid to show-up can play at the games with all of their "Traditional" gear. If 100 Colt 1836 Paterson revolvers showed-up at a pre-1840 Event, chances are somebody would find a way to use them even though statistically that many huddled in one area would have NEVER happened.

Everybody should have fun and make smoke doing their "thing", whether the Corned Beef (equipment) is Kosher or not (Kosher-style). Continuing the tradition of "Traditional" shouldn't instigate the next Civil War......

Everyone here is an Ambassador to the Hobby. Being civil to each other is also a "Tradition".

Dave

 

[Capt. Jas.]

"traditional" is very subjective from the start but in my opinion the defining principles should always include who, what, when, where and why.

 

[Vaino]

For starters, I think "traditional" has different meanings to different people depending on each person's level of "knowledge" and concern....and besides, who's to be the judge of what's "traditional? So,....because most people who shoot MLers don't have historical knowledge of the technical aspects and dates of usage of "traditional" items and possibly don't even care, a philosophical discussion is mainly rife w/ personal opinions and subjective interpretations in lieu of historical "hard facts". But then again, even after an intense, lengthy research for "hard facts", one might find that opinions vary even among the chroniclers of history through whose eyes we see into the past and who more than likely had their own biases. Seeing I'm an agnostic and don't usually participate in discussions such as this, the responses to Roundball's queries have reinforced the above assumptions {wouldn't pretend to call them facts}....Fred