Historical accuracy in big manufacturers

Hi Guys,
We all have various reasons and attractions to shooting and building muzzleloaders. There is no one correct reason or motivation. What bothers me with respect to the big commercial makers is most have stuck with their historically dubious designs and models from the 1960s and 1970s without making any effort to upgrade them to better more historically accurate designs despite 50 more years of accumulated scholarship and knowledge. So we have Pedersoli "Pennsylvania" rifles that look like something that folks in the 1950s thought looked like long rifles, Blue Ridge rifles modeled after obscure "Hatfields" that don't represent any real group or school of long rifles and were pretty mediocre guns, Pedersoli Brown Besses that are kind of like pattern 1769s but have the wrong lock marks and other details, and then other makers with their "Hawken" rifles that are awkward blends of old and modern designs but nothing like any real "Hawken" rifles. It is like the name "Hawken rifle" has no meaning anymore, like the Hawken brothers have no meaning anymore. Over 30-50 years, upgrading any of those guns to more historically correct and/or more historically representative guns should not have cost that much to do. Little cosmetic changes and updated manufacturing processes should have made that possible but they did not bother to change and what's worse, we never demand that they do so.

dave

tenngun said:

I remember back when I first heard of the Hawken shop. Today they still get praises for their high quality. But,
They took ten originals and carefully measured then produced averages. So what you get from them is an average, not a copy.
Ok, take a perdisoli Bess, age it, throw it in with a stack of originals, take a black and white photo, even experts would have a hard time picking it out.
My brother used to show classic MGs. Everything had to be perfect to place, and his cars did well in shows. But 99% of the people who ohhed and ahhed over those cars couldn’t tell winner from the loser.
At some point even the most perfect repo breaks down.

Click to expand...

We've got to remember, the Hawken Brothers didn't have CNC machinery. I think that there are no Hawken rifles that are identical. I know that Bob Browner has a lot to do to keep the Hawken rifles he builds true to pattern. True to pattern means that they all may look alike, but there will be some measurements that are different from one example to another. Note that the Hawken shop measured 10 rifles to determine an average to base their pattern.

When I first got into muzzleloading (mid to late 70’s), I was captivated by the style and look of the guns that were commonly available. I knew next to nothing about historical accuracy, I just assumed that the guns that were available were in fact exact copies of original guns.

It would be decades later that my depth of knowledge and personal experience reached a point that historical accuracy stood at the forefront of my participation.

But yeah, it took time to get there....

OP here,
Thanks for all the great comments and insight they provode. You guys are awesome and never fail to disappoint.

-dgfd

Now let's talk about how to clean a muzzleloader....

Fly103 said:

I shoot a pedersoli Pennsylvania rifle. I chose it because it looks much more period correct than anything traditions makes but was stll at a price point i could afford. When I set out to buy my first flintlock I came up with a short list of requirements I wanted to meet.

Price- under $1000
Full stock with somewhat correct architecture when viewed from 15ft away.
I also wanted a 40" or greater barrel length for a true (in my eyes) "longrifle" look and feel.
.50 caliber since I already had a good stock of balls, patches for my traditions hawken.

I considered a pedersoli frontier which looks a little more correct I think but I couldnt find one in stock in .50cal and I absolutely despised that buckhorn sight. I also considered a Kibler kit and i will probably order one in the future but i wanted to be shooting this spring, not 6 months from now.

Chris

Click to expand...

Just finished a Kibler SMR You can build one in a week or less . Excellent shooters. Don't think you can go wrong if you can handle the price. Got mine in .36 cal.

Wonder what the Hawken boys would think of the rifles today that carry their name, I think of these type things sometimes when hunting, Like if I got caught up in a time warp and landed in the 1756 area of lets say the middle ground, with my what I feel is period correct weapons and clothing (gathered from re-search and discussion) would I pass muster. I believe the same sort of thinking goes for the weapons we now use either mass produced or custom built. ( not all have the extra money for a custom built weapon) I have never or will I speak poorly of another's choice it is the brotherhood that binds us not what we shoot or how much it cost. Like most I started with a C.V.A. kit, Then bought a what I thought represented a Hawken and as monetary and research got better started on the journey to custom weapons. For me it has been at a 45 year journey and I feel like I have just stared to scratch the surface.

Grenadier1758 said:

We've got to remember, the Hawken Brothers didn't have CNC machinery. I think that there are no Hawken rifles that are identical. I know that Bob Browner has a lot to do to keep the Hawken rifles he builds true to pattern. True to pattern means that they all may look alike, but there will be some measurements that are different from one example to another. Note that the Hawken shop measured 10 rifles to determine an average to base their pattern.

Click to expand...

That was my point, that even when you do all the work you still can’t get a perfect copy.
You can make a bench copy of a peculiar gun, but Hines and Henry and Leman or Hawken only made one such gun.
No matter what we do we’re going to miss. That doesn’t mean to stop trying, just know that our guns can never be exact copies of originals

MC One Shot said:

We have a winner. I believe that this statement is true for the majority of muzzleloaders and reenactors. I believe that the majority of us all started with Navy, Dixie, TC, Lyman etc in early years and then some of us have graduated to custom PC/HC muzzleloaders at a greater price. I know many people that are still shooting the same mass produced ML they bought in the 70's or 80's. People will generally start with something that they can get by on upgrade to a better quality factory ML or they save and scrimp for a few years and then get a PC/HC ML for their persona. Then there some of us who have changed their persona few times and have several custom built MLs. Again there are others that have done the same and are more than happy with their Pedersolies etc. I still have my kit built TC Hawken from the 70's and the Uberti kit built Santa Fe from the early 80's. WOW! I've been at this for this long... An my teacher told my parents I had no attention span...

Click to expand...

And then there are folks who fall in the category of not having a “persona” and who don’t reenact or do the whole outfit thing, but who still want an accurate copy of the original. I think we make too many assumptions tha the reenactors and the living history crowd are the only ones trying to be period correct in terms of arms and accouterments, and all the T-shirt shooters are running around with farby stuff.

I would imagine if I were to travel back in time to say 1850 and presented my T/C Hawken to someone without a rifle I doubt they would be too disappointed it wasn't quite a perfect copy of the rifle they saw in the Hawken brothers' shop window

Celticstoneman said:

I'm curious to know the ratio of folks that know the details of an original weapon to those that are quite satisfied with the items available to us today? I believe that, to me, the traditionalists are too few to change market drivers. JMO.

Click to expand...

The "traditionalists" are pretty heavily outnumbered even here.

The people who care at all about such things (or are even capable of discerning any of the details at all) are very few, and very far between.

Pedersoli doesn't have to update their Brown Bess or any other gun, because they can sell what they already have as fast as they can make them. Why bother spending one dime or one minute of labor changing things around when they don't have to?

Most consumers of sidelocks don't know the differences and to be honest, they don't care.

Just like 99.9% of those that view the rendezvous and CW reeinactments.

They don't know if a belt buckle or a button or if a article of clothing is machine sewn or hand sewn, or if a flintlock or percussion long gun is 100% historically accurate, or period correct. Nor do they care.
Why worry about it?

I know my (factory) .54 caliber TC Hawken isn't even a semi-accurate reproduction of any gun.
So what? I still enjoy shooting it.
(and out shooting the other guys at the range with the unmentionable here guns. )

When I went hunting with it, or the .45 caliber CVA "Kentucky" rifle I had, I didn't dress up in 1800's garb or buckskins, nor did I have a powder horn, or reproduction 1800's style powder flask, or possibles bag, either.

I was after meat; not to "impress" someone I wouldn't know from Adam, (other than Adam would be a few thousand years older.) and I will/would likely never see that person again, any way.

HA/PC I ain't. Especially at this time in my life .... seeing as how it was rare for someone back in the early/mid 1800's and earlier to reach my age and still be above/looking down at the grass ...

This is certainly a very interesting discussion and I am enjoying reading and thinking about the topic. Many of your comments remind me of my own evolution in muzzleloading. I started out with a TC "Hawken" back in the early '80s here in PA. I have had quite a few muzzleloaders since then. One of my first attempts at owning a more historical representation of muzzleloader was a Euroarms 1803. I still have that rifle, it's shot many deer- one just this late season. I wanted the 1803 because I had a fascination with the journeys of Lewis and Clark and read up on those journeys during the recent ( recent for me at 65 lol) bicentennial remembrance of it. Of course, the more you read and discover, the more you realize that you purchased a general facsimilie of a gun from that time...at best ...and numberous details on the gun are not correct. There are researchers who even say that this type of 1803 wasn't t even on that great journey. There are Type ones, Type twos, etc, etc. However, the gun has given me much pleasure over the years. I sent the lock to a gunsmith in New England for tuning, hardening and strengthening. It works wonderfully. I bought a back- up lock from Lodgewood and sent it away for the same upgrading. I bought a piece of sheet brass and had a machinist friend cut a higher front sight and installed it. I also got rid of the little nubby of a rear sight and installed a great long- base semi buckhorn and love it. This rifle is very accurate. Is is correct? Hardly. Do I wish it were? Sometimes. But this facsimile taught me a lot, encouraged me to study up on it's true prototypes, and gave me a greater appreciation of history, not to mention how wonderful it is to carry in deer season. For me, it serves it's pupose and it might come closer to an authentic looking gun than most...maybe....Hope you enjoy 3 pictures of it.

Simple basic fact. Most people who are interested in playing this game do not have extra money to spend on details. The mass produced guns are within the price range many can pay. While a true accurate reproduction will cost two to three times more. It takes the affordable guns to allow people to get started, once they smell the black powder smoke and get addicted then they can sacrifice to get the true accurate style guns.

As far as tbe cost of a muzzleloader rifle, the entry price is fairly low. The typical "flagship" compound bow is starting at $1200, with a full setup costing up to 2k. And... a nicely done Kibler just looks a lot better than any compound bow.

I try be practical with my thinking in regards to reproduction firearms. I own a 1763/66 Pedersoli /charleville which isn’t much like a 66 charleville but more like a 63 Charleville. I’ve had people tell me I need to defarb it, but for me I’m ok with it being a ‘pedersoli‘ charleville, because that’s what it essentially is and that’s what I paid for. Do I need to drop another $500 to say .... reduce the comb of the butt stock, add a rear band spring and remove the barrel markings.... No, I don’t feel the need to. In fact the only I did to it was change the top jaw because the one it came with was too short in the back And swapped out the sling swivels with 1777 model swivels so they dont clank around in the field.

Reinactors tend to go a little over the top when it comes to historical accuracy, when you can NEVER make a pedersoli Brown Bess completely accurate no matter what you do to it, it will always be a pedersoli bess, not a short land not a long land not a third model, but none the less a very fine brown bess esque musket

You’re always better off getting copied parts and building your own based own research.

If you want a historically accurate gun, it will cost a pretty penny and you still need to choose the right guy for the job, someone who is very knowledged on that particular model. I’ve made it a personal challenge to learn about the muskets their history and build them on my own For my own collection.

Hi,
These discussions often run down a rabbit hole where someone posts that he doesn't care that his gun is not HC, and it shoots just as well as any, and he is annoyed by anyone mentioning that his guns is not HC, and he feels so persecuted by the stitch counters. Of course, in this thread not a single post tried to shame anyone for not having a HC gun and that is almost always the case in every thread about historical consistency despite the reactions some people have to them. The OP's question was why don't mass producers copy historical guns more closely and the simple answer is they have no profit driven incentive to do so. With CNC machining, there is no technical reason they cannot do so.

dave

dave_person said:

Hi,
These discussions often run down a rabbit hole where someone posts that he doesn't care that his gun is not HC, and it shoots just as well as any, and he is annoyed by anyone mentioning that his guns is not HC, and he feels so persecuted by the stitch counters. Of course, in this thread not a single post tried to shame anyone for not having a HC gun and that is almost always the case in every thread about historical consistency despite the reactions some people have to them. The OP's question was why don't mass producers copy historical guns more closely and the simple answer is they have no profit driven incentive to do so. With CNC machining, there is no technical reason they cannot do so.

dave

Click to expand...

All you have to do is pick up a Kibler to confirm your final comment.

Nameless Hunter said:

As far as tbe cost of a muzzleloader rifle, the entry price is fairly low. The typical "flagship" compound bow is starting at $1200, with a full setup costing up to 2k. And... a nicely done Kibler just looks a lot better than any compound bow.

Click to expand...

Yup, to my eye, being a traditional archer, the compound bow looks like the results from a helicopter flying into a power line.