Define "Traditional" vs "Period Correct"

[DOUBLEDEUCE 1]

The heading asks the question. Just where do you draw the line ?

 

[JackAubrey]

I would think the term "traditional" is more about style,physical form and function,whereas "period correct" is seeking to portray an actual weapon in evidence during a particular historical event or era.As an example,a sidelock muzzleloader would generally be considered "traditional" as opposed to a modern inline.However,make that traditional style sidelock a T/C New Englander and take it to a RevWar or Civil War reenactment and it would be considered definitely not a period arm.Hope that helps,Best regards,J.A.

 

[tg]

That is a pretty good sumation, I would only add that the additional components will make or break the traditiobal mould, you can have a traditional gun like a styled Renagade or a LGP or a custom made traditional longrifle that is PC but not a copy of a particular gun, and modernize it with modern peep sights and bulets or a ecope that are superior to the type used in the past and you have something no different in performance than one of the bolt action ML's so the whole package needs looked at no just the surface appearance of the gun, but the form and function compared to the guns from the ML era, often late ML period items are used on earlier type ML guns with an attempt to hang the traditionbal label on them or strictly miitary innovations are used on civilian guns in the same manner and this is really a stretch by loose definition and association.You can basicly take a sidelock and modernize the traditional factor out of it like squeezing water from a sponge.

 

[Many Klatch]

I agree with what the others have said. Traditional is a modern gun based on older styles, usually that simply means that it uses a side lock. The Thompson Center Hawken is a good example of Traditional. It is a good solid gun with a sidelock, but it is basically an artistic interpretation of earlier gun styles.

Period Correct means that it is acceptable to people that reenact a particular era. For instance if you showed up at a F&I event (1750's) with an original Hawken made in 1820, it would not be period correct. If you showed up at a Rev War event with a match lock (1650's) it would not be period correct.

We have some leeway on Period Correct guns. Many of the surviving originals survived because they had lots of engraving and silver inlays. The guns that got used on a day to day basis got used, abused and destroyed over time. Those of us that portray more common folk couldn't have afforded one of the fancy guns, so our guns will have the same stock architecture, but not all the gewgaws. So a lot of Period Correct guns that are used today are not copies of a particular gun but are a respectful use of period styles and architecture in a new gun.

Many Klatch

 

[Mulebrain]

I think I might just sit back, and watch this thread potentially explode :grin:

 

[tg]

"I think I might just sit back, and watch this thread potentially explode"

With just a little logic and common sense it should only turn on some light bulbs.

 

[twotoescharlie]

yesterday is gone, enjoy today,and if tomorrow comes around try it again.

TTC

 

[tg]

"yesterday is gone"

Yep, but traditional ML's aren't and if we keep a logical reasonable definition of them in our minds they will always be here.

 

[Jumpshot]

With just a little logic and common sense it should only turn on some light bulbs.

But some people always forget to pay their electric bill. :grin:

 

[ApprenticeBuilder]

Personally, I am more of a traditionalist, I shoot, I hunt, and I rendezvous with a flint rifle I put together. I can appreciate the simplicity of an earlier time in this countrys existance and enjoy the frame of mind that it puts me into.

I try not to get to caught up in the exacting details of a particular time period, (period correct) as I have not the time or the inclination (as of yet) to do the amount of research it requires to do justice to that style.

I would be the last person to play down someone elses desire to be period correct though.

 

[Claude Mathis]

yesterday is gone, enjoy today,and if tomorrow comes around try it again.

TTC

Let's keep this discussion on topic.

This thread is not about whether an individual likes or dislikes "period correctness", "historical accuracy", history or reenacting. It's about the definitions, as interpreted by those that use them.

This is not a pro or con argument. It's about definitions.

 

[roundball]

The heading asks the question. Just where do you draw the line ?

For me personaly, I first make the cut in very simple terms that muzzleloaders fall into one of two categories...they are either:

A "modern" ML designed with obvious modern technology advancements built in;

Or thay have a "traditional" design in a fashion that harkens back to designs found throughout the early american traditional muzzleloading era.

Then, within the traditional oriented group, there are MLs like the TC Hawken that are general representations of a traditional style, and there are the "period correct" MLs which are designed as specific copies of a particular ML from a specific period back during the early american ML era.

At least that's how I break it down...

 

[Idaho Ron]

The heading asks the question. Just where do you draw the line ?

I guess it depends on who is asking. The Idaho Department of Fish and Game draws the line for me. They see a Hawken, or a Renegade, or a Lyman GPR as a "traditional" rifle as long as it has a side lock, and uses a open or Peep sight. They don't say a 19th century peep.
They also don't say anything about rate of twist or type of steel used in the barrel.
They also say "ANY" bullet that is made fully of lead, and is within .010 bore diameter is a "traditional bullet". Also traditional powder is ANY loose black powder or BP substitute, pyrodex and the others are fine as long as they are "loose" not in pellets or sticks.
They also say a #11 cap or a flint is "traditional" NO primers!
Others have given their ideas.
Period Correct to me is when a person goes the extra 10 miles to make sure every part of their gear all the way down to the laces in their shoes fit into the time range they are trying to recreate

While I operate under the guidelines of Idaho, Others do not. Some operate under their own definition of "traditional" some clubs have rules or even internet forums. SO the definition of "traditional" can mean many things. If someone asked in this web site what would be the best “traditional” gun for Idaho vs Pennsylvania you would get different answers.
Mostly because the hunting is different.
TG, went on about how a Renegade is nothing more than a centerfire rifle because he doesn’t like me. I can live with that, I think it is narrow minded but I don't hate him because of how he dresses or what he shoots. But comparing a Renegade to a cartridge rifle is off this discussion.
I respect guys that are PC. They are keeping the past alive. I conceder my self to be a hunter that uses "traditional" Rifles that are legal in the state I use them. Others on this list also conceder Renegades, Hawkens, and Lyman GPR, to be "traditional" even if they do have Lyman peeps, and shoot something other than a PRB.
Ron

 

[jethro224]

I break it down this way;

Historically Correct: Documentable for an exact place and time.

Period Correct: Documentable for a particular time.

Traditional: Anything pre-inline. No scopes, sabots, or pelletized powder. Up to @ the 1980's.

Modern: pretty self-explanatory.

 

[Idaho Ron]

I break it down this way;

Historically Correct: Documentable for an exact place and time.

Period Correct: Documentable for a particular time.

Traditional: Anything pre-inline. No scopes, sabots, or pelletized powder. Up to @ the 1980's.

Modern: pretty self-explanatory.

:hatsoff: :thumbsup: :applause:

 

[tg]

"TG, went on about how a Renegade is nothing more than a centerfire rifle because he doesn’t like me"

I have no ill feelings toward you Ron, I do however feel that by using such a loose definition of traditional that you call a gun traditional when it is ballistically the same as an &%&line or 45/70 it tarnishes the traditional sport and sets a badly skewed concept of traditional for upcomming ML hunters/shooters and FWIW I think a Renagade with primitive sights and PRB or an early type bullet is traditional, but this is lost when we start modernizing any ML to increase efficiency beyond that of the originals this has been happening for a long time and there is a need to start calling a spade a spade so to speak, the fact that many states have lost their way.
and lump anything that loads from the front into the traditional ML class of guns is really no justification for butchering the term. As I said before a side lock(not just a Renegade) that has the same modern sights and shoots the same bullet as one of the *&^% lines is no different except cosmeticaly and that is not the issue, it is in the perfomance which the seasons were originaly set up for...an earlier technology which offers a greater challenge at closer range with guns from an earlier time, this has all been twisted and tweaked till we are where we are, it will not likely change but it is not asking to much to ask that a disscussion about traditional ML shooting or hunting exclude the modernized sidelocks as well as the plastic bolt action guns.

 

[BrownBear]

So you have no problem at all with sidelocks shooting all-lead conicals?

For me the question of sights includes modern eyeglasses. They're about as period correct for muzzleloaders as the space shuttle.

I won't wear eyeglasses for hunting cuzz I don't like them in the field. I'll grant you eyeglasses if you'll grant me peep sights as an alternative.

 

[Idaho Ron]

TG why don't you re-read Claude's post.
Ron

 

[tg]

I believe that to be a traditional outfit sights and bullets need be of the type avaiable in the past, so my answer to your question is yes and no

an original early style bullet that was used in a civilian ML arm during the ML era is traditional the modern design ones are not, same for aperture sights, when you use the modern ones and modern sights you have increased the efficiency over the originals TC tried dozens of original molds for theri Hawken before settling on a new deign based on artiliary driving bands, the sights and projectiles are what define a traditional gun in the function department, the form is in the architecture, the projectile issue would be very difficult to implement a logistic nightmare so the easiest thing would be to limit to PRB this is for hunting and if in a trad forum or mag for the sake of discussin'(not a typo). The liberal definitions 30+ years ago were what lead to the new type of guns and a complete change in the world of ML hunting and when setting seasons for a simpler tech and reduced chance of sucess improving on the original concepts of gun and gear is a step back from hence it began.

"In-line muzzleloaders have no ballistic or overall range advantage over "side-lock" muzzleloaders"

The above is taken from the Idaho F&G website and it is quite correct, but wasn't when the sidelock was using open sights and prb and the *&^-line was using modern peeps and a modern conical, we have just made &@*&- lines out of sidelocks ballisticaly by allowing the modern accesories. just my thoughts and opinions but it does stand the test of logic and common sense.

 

[Idaho Ron]

TG, so in you time tested mind these two guns are the same?