hanshi
Cannon
:thumbsup: Good post!
-
This community needs YOUR help today. We rely 100% on Supporting Memberships to fund our efforts. With the ever increasing fees of everything, we need help. We need more Supporting Members, today. Please invest back into this community. I will ship a few decals too in addition to all the account perks you get.
Sign up here: https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/account/upgrades -
Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.
We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.
Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103
Good looking or not?
- Thread starter ebiggs1
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2006
- Messages
- 3,884
- Reaction score
- 947
ebiggs said:
Inherent accuracy (what the gun is capable of) is based on the quality of the barrel, the lock & the trigger and the correct alignment of these parts to each other. Nothing to do with looks.
Achieved accuracy (what actually happens) is much more dependent on the shooter that the gun. Many guns can easily outshoot their owners. Helping with achieved accuracy are the fit of the gun to the shooter, the sight picture relative to the shooters eyesight and things that the shooter prefers such as the weight of the gun & the trigger pull. Still not anything to do with looks.
Looks do come into play with the mindset of the shooter. If the gun is a pleasure to take out & shoot, you will likely shoot it more than one that is not so much so & as a result of more shooting with that gun, you should do better than with a less familiar gun. Likewise, if you think that the gun is very accurate, you will likely be more careful with sighting & trigger control than with a gun that you expect to have poor accuracy - with the results that you shoot better with the gun that you believe to be more accurate than with one that may be just as accurate but with which a little less care was given in the shooting.
paulvallandigham
Passed On
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2006
- Messages
- 17,538
- Reaction score
- 80
Years ago, now, a Professor from a University in Texas exhaustedly studied wood from Strads using Electron microscopes to view the wood cells themselves. Others had already debunked the idea- long held, BTW-- that the unique sound was due to the components of the Varnish used on these wood instruments. The wood cells were from Strads that had been damaged in one way or another, and he was able to acquire small splinters of the wood to examine.
He found that what made Strads unique was the absence of much of the pectins in the cells, replaced by salt crystals- sea salt to be exact. Further investigation found that Stradivarious bought his wood from a warehouse that was built right on the shoreline of the Mediterranean sea, where the wood was received from mills in Eastern Europe, and then stored in the salt air for years before it was sold to woodshops. Stradivarious also made fine furniture, and other wood products when they didn't have orders for string instruments, BTW. Long time exposure to salt laden air allowed the salt to penetrate the lumber as it dried, replacing the pectins with salt.
The professor developed a process by which he replicated the salt carrying woods, and made " New" violins from the wood. He then asked Concert masters from famous orchestras from the USA, and abroad, to play HIS violins, and compare them to the sound and quality of the Strads they were playing( the instruments are "Loaned" to these musicians by museums, and private collectors). Hi instruments have gotten rave reviews from these accomplished performers.
The stock on a gun is merely there to hold the barrel and lock, and trigger together. Because of the large diameter of the barrels, the octagon shape of most of the large bench rest rifles, the wood of the stock, no matter its condition, usually hangs from the barrel, rather than supporting the barrel as occurs with modern rifles. For those reasons, the quality or condition of the wood does not have the same affect on MLers that it can have with some of the high power modern rifles.
Where poor wood and poor wood finish can adversely affect a MLer is when the gun is exposed to lots of rain, that is absorbed by the wood, causing the wood to swell and twist with its grain.
Today, laminated stocks, and stocks bedded with epoxy compounds have helped to eliminate these problems for target shooters and snipers. Synthetic stocks, and pillar bedding have also become additional ways to build gunstocks that are impervious to dramatic changes in weather conditions. STock finishes have also been improved over what was commonly used just 75 years ago.
And, don't forget that the industrial tools now available to make every part of any gun have caused huge improvements in the accuracy expected of rifles. For example, back in WWII, the Garand M-1 rifles were acceptable if they could shoot a 5" group at 100 yds! By the time the M-16 became the issue gun in Vietnam, the specs had been lowered to 3" groups. Today, I suspect that no one would be very impressed with any rifle that could not shoot groups under 2" at 100 yds.
Back in the 1950s, when I was growing up and drooling over rifles I wanted to own, a Winchester Model 70, or a Remington model 700 bolt action rifle that could shoot a 2" group was considered the top of the line. Today, those guns probably don't leave the factory if they can't shoot groups under 1". Certainly there are now many other factory made rifles that will shoot groups under 1" at 100 yds. And the quality of commercial cartridge ammunition has improved over the past 25 years to make it possible to shoot these small groups with guns right out of the box.
For muzzle loading rifle shooters, we now get quality barrels from some commercial makers that are every bit as accurate as those made one at a time by custom barrel makers. The equipment, and cutters have improved in quality that much. :hmm: :surrender:
He found that what made Strads unique was the absence of much of the pectins in the cells, replaced by salt crystals- sea salt to be exact. Further investigation found that Stradivarious bought his wood from a warehouse that was built right on the shoreline of the Mediterranean sea, where the wood was received from mills in Eastern Europe, and then stored in the salt air for years before it was sold to woodshops. Stradivarious also made fine furniture, and other wood products when they didn't have orders for string instruments, BTW. Long time exposure to salt laden air allowed the salt to penetrate the lumber as it dried, replacing the pectins with salt.
The professor developed a process by which he replicated the salt carrying woods, and made " New" violins from the wood. He then asked Concert masters from famous orchestras from the USA, and abroad, to play HIS violins, and compare them to the sound and quality of the Strads they were playing( the instruments are "Loaned" to these musicians by museums, and private collectors). Hi instruments have gotten rave reviews from these accomplished performers.
The stock on a gun is merely there to hold the barrel and lock, and trigger together. Because of the large diameter of the barrels, the octagon shape of most of the large bench rest rifles, the wood of the stock, no matter its condition, usually hangs from the barrel, rather than supporting the barrel as occurs with modern rifles. For those reasons, the quality or condition of the wood does not have the same affect on MLers that it can have with some of the high power modern rifles.
Where poor wood and poor wood finish can adversely affect a MLer is when the gun is exposed to lots of rain, that is absorbed by the wood, causing the wood to swell and twist with its grain.
Today, laminated stocks, and stocks bedded with epoxy compounds have helped to eliminate these problems for target shooters and snipers. Synthetic stocks, and pillar bedding have also become additional ways to build gunstocks that are impervious to dramatic changes in weather conditions. STock finishes have also been improved over what was commonly used just 75 years ago.
And, don't forget that the industrial tools now available to make every part of any gun have caused huge improvements in the accuracy expected of rifles. For example, back in WWII, the Garand M-1 rifles were acceptable if they could shoot a 5" group at 100 yds! By the time the M-16 became the issue gun in Vietnam, the specs had been lowered to 3" groups. Today, I suspect that no one would be very impressed with any rifle that could not shoot groups under 2" at 100 yds.
Back in the 1950s, when I was growing up and drooling over rifles I wanted to own, a Winchester Model 70, or a Remington model 700 bolt action rifle that could shoot a 2" group was considered the top of the line. Today, those guns probably don't leave the factory if they can't shoot groups under 1". Certainly there are now many other factory made rifles that will shoot groups under 1" at 100 yds. And the quality of commercial cartridge ammunition has improved over the past 25 years to make it possible to shoot these small groups with guns right out of the box.
For muzzle loading rifle shooters, we now get quality barrels from some commercial makers that are every bit as accurate as those made one at a time by custom barrel makers. The equipment, and cutters have improved in quality that much. :hmm: :surrender:
I got the point! Do I think if it looks like junk, will it shoot like junk? Yes. Lack of care in the appearance of the gun will probably carry over in the performance as well. There is the chance it might not but I don't want to waste my time finding out.
Actually this is the jest of the question and the answer I was looking for. It seems most folks did not understand or comprehend the original query.
Possibly my lack of communication skills?
The question is do you believe, before even touching the gun, a better looking gun is going to shoot better than a plain one? The question is not, does a pretty gun, or modern gun, shoot better but in your own mind does this play into the expectation? Just how much does the human emotion play into this? I suspect it is a great factor. Just like the Strad violins. They all expected them to be better but in fact they were not. :hmm:
Does a fat, ugly girl dance any worse than a thin, attractive one? Not necessarily.
But which one would you rather dance with?
But which one would you rather dance with?
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2008
- Messages
- 905
- Reaction score
- 20
depends on whether your a fat ugly man-----so in other words your saying if you cant afford a high end custom rifle dont expect to be accepted as a serious shooter hmmm this gives a new shooter something to think about :idunno:
Robert Egler
50 Cal.
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2007
- Messages
- 1,319
- Reaction score
- 26
To answer your question as I understand it, yes, when I see a fancy gun I do sort of assume it will shoot better than a plain one. Not necessarily true, obviously, but just a first impression expectation.
trucker said:
No, it means the target tells if the rifle is accurate while the eye tells whether it is pretty or not. You can't look at a rifle and tell how it shoots any more than you can look at an apple pie and tell how it tastes.
But I have looked at some I wouldn't put in my mouth so I can't say in those cases. :haha:
Many Klatch
69 Cal.
- Joined
- May 19, 2006
- Messages
- 3,498
- Reaction score
- 265
A friend of mine won a lot of matches and shot lots of game with his ugly guns. He built his .54 smoothbore at Friendship in a couple of hours because he wanted to shoot in a match and didn't have the correct type of gun. He bought a good barrel and lock and a precarved stock. The stock was too long and he didn't have a saw so he broke it off to the approximate right length. He didn't have time to mess with barrel pins and underbarrel lugs so he cut up a couple of snuff tins with his knife and nailed them to the stock to act as barrel straps. For a finish he used a can of black spray paint over the whole thing. It was butt-ugly, but he won the match and many more after that.
It was always fun to watch reactions of other shooters while we stood in line waiting to shoot. Some were quite contemptuous of the man with the ugly gun until they saw him shoot. He had a lot of fun sandbagging the competition with his ugly guns.
Anyway. Ugly guns or pretty ones can only shoot as well as the nut behind the butt plate.
Many Klatch
It was always fun to watch reactions of other shooters while we stood in line waiting to shoot. Some were quite contemptuous of the man with the ugly gun until they saw him shoot. He had a lot of fun sandbagging the competition with his ugly guns.
Anyway. Ugly guns or pretty ones can only shoot as well as the nut behind the butt plate.
Many Klatch
hanshi
Cannon
I have have also noticed that a butt-ugly dog start to look like a queen when she aces out a trial for 1st place. :thumbsup:
ebiggs, Simply, Yes. But, you add that the testers knew the violin makers and that changes the equation. Not having a trained ear, I would expect a violin to sound better to my ear if I was told, ahead of time, it was a Stradivarius or Amati, than a Yamaha or some fellows garage creation. At the same time I also believe that someone like Itzhak Perlman, or Charlie Daniels could make any of them sound good to me. So knowing the maker would have to play into it if I was looking at guns as you described it.
I think i understand. :idunno:
robby
I think i understand. :idunno:
robby
It is well to remember:
"Don't judge a book by its cover."
Also
"Beauty is skin deep. Ugly goes to the bone."
And, me Pap's favorite:
"Kissin wears out . . . cookin don't."
"Don't judge a book by its cover."
Also
"Beauty is skin deep. Ugly goes to the bone."
And, me Pap's favorite:
"Kissin wears out . . . cookin don't."
Sounds good to me! :thumbsup:
And always, Caveat emptor!
Robby
And always, Caveat emptor!
Robby
In my few years I have found everything to be subjective. With these guns you cannot make one and claim to be a master. With these guns you pay for the talent and skill of the builder. I built a gun, all parts except for the barrel. The gun was of a more complex yet crude archetecture. The reason being is that it was of an uncommon style that being a snaphaunce. I was offered $1500 for it and turned it down because I wanted to shoot it more since it was my first true build. Did I mention the stock was made from an old barn timber.
Now my stuff is crude but clean. Anyone can do that but blending it to the correct level takes a degree of artistry, talent, and skill to perfect the gun. Many builders focus on one or two types of guns to be able to depict what the origionals would have looked and felt like. This is why you pay more for the gun. After the builder is well known he can raise the price with the demand. All marketing is is supply and demand for artisan work and antiques.
Now my stuff is crude but clean. Anyone can do that but blending it to the correct level takes a degree of artistry, talent, and skill to perfect the gun. Many builders focus on one or two types of guns to be able to depict what the origionals would have looked and felt like. This is why you pay more for the gun. After the builder is well known he can raise the price with the demand. All marketing is is supply and demand for artisan work and antiques.
paulvallandigham
Passed On
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2006
- Messages
- 17,538
- Reaction score
- 80
Obviously, not a "man of a thousand kisses".
If all you can cook is bacon and eggs, that wears thin pretty quickly, too.
"Variety IS the spice of life." Couples could put divorce lawyers out of business remembering this Adage. :hmm: :hatsoff: :grin:
It would be nice if Ernie Did shoot a CVA, just to be able to compare that rifle to his beloved T/C collection. :surrender: :thumbsup:
If all you can cook is bacon and eggs, that wears thin pretty quickly, too.
"Variety IS the spice of life." Couples could put divorce lawyers out of business remembering this Adage. :hmm: :hatsoff: :grin:
It would be nice if Ernie Did shoot a CVA, just to be able to compare that rifle to his beloved T/C collection. :surrender: :thumbsup:
flintriflesmith
40 Cal.
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2005
- Messages
- 284
- Reaction score
- 0
ebiggs said:
I just went back to the original post and I think it actually contains two different questions. See red text above. By asking both together the answer has been somewhat predetermined.
"is the best?" is a very open ended question and the answer is "start be defining best."
"how good a flintlock shoots and performs" is one of several answers to how to define what is best. If you posted the same question (start by defining best) on a board devoted to traditional hunting, treking, or re-enacting a particular period in history the answers would be entirely different! From reading the pages of responses here it appears that this message board leans toward defining "best" as a rifle that can win matches.
I my opinion that is just one of the possible answers. Let me propose a question to all of you. If you could walk into any gunshow or gunshop in the country and walk out with ANY new rifle there absolutely free, which would you take home. The only stipulation is that you (or your heirs)can never sell or trade the rifle.
Think about it and post your choice and the reason.
Gary
There is also a lot of space between the uprights when you say "a flintlock". A flintlock for what purpose? To some a Bess that is spot-on the Tower First Land Pattern measurements and might make a F&I War reenactor salivate will be set back in the rack by an upland game hunter with a "that's nice" as he wipes his hands off and shudders. A .32 that dances like a fencing foil may thrill a squirrel hunter but will not make a long range target shooter happy at 100 yards.
Some guns look great in the dark. They feel right, there is no wasted metal or slabs of wood where it's not needed, they fit your frame. And sometimes it is what isn't there: I look at the only kit I ever attempted and, while it shoots great, I now see I should have spent three more days with a rasp to trim it down. It's frumpy.
Some guns look great in the dark. They feel right, there is no wasted metal or slabs of wood where it's not needed, they fit your frame. And sometimes it is what isn't there: I look at the only kit I ever attempted and, while it shoots great, I now see I should have spent three more days with a rasp to trim it down. It's frumpy.
Black Hand
Cannon
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,348
- Reaction score
- 893
Long and sleek, a polished beauty that is functional.
Flintlocks are much like women:
-Some are beautiful to look at but you wouldn't want to have a conversation with them or take them home to Mom.
-Others have a "great personality", but you don't find them attractive.
-And then others steal your heart and mind, making them the best....
Flintlocks are much like women:
-Some are beautiful to look at but you wouldn't want to have a conversation with them or take them home to Mom.
-Others have a "great personality", but you don't find them attractive.
-And then others steal your heart and mind, making them the best....
Not a response to anyone in particular...just "my opinion" based on only my own experiences:
There's a TV advertisement which shows a couple sitting down with a home designer/builder...they place a nice looking kitchen sink faucet assembly on the desk, and say: "Build us a house around this"
Essentially took that same approach over the past 3 years with some Early Virgina and Late Lancaster builds...settled on choosing quality components from Rice/Chambers/Davis and had Matt Avance build beautiful SP++ stocks around them with my dimensions.
So while they're beautiful pieces of wood, I already assumed / expected they would shoot well based on the components I selected...not because the stocks would be far prettier than the houseful of T/C Hawkens I'd previously accumulated
I will say that about 20 years ago I would have assumed by seeing a beautiful long rifle that it would automatically shoot better.
But fast forward 17 years and while I've come to like my recent few long rifles over the past 3 years, truth be known they don't shoot a bit better than any/all of the various T/C Hawken calibers with T/C and GM barrels I used all those previous 17 years.
If everything else is equal, I'd prefer a pretty stock just because of their eye appeal, but bottom line, a pretty stock means nothing to me in terms of performance. Furthermore, once I shoulder it I don't see anything but the sights behind the elbow of a deer, or on the head of a turkey, a squirrel, etc.
Reality is the only times I actually "see" the stocks are the brief times out hunting or during a range session...but month in and month out, year in and year out, the other 98% of their lives are spent out of sight in their gun cases.
There's a TV advertisement which shows a couple sitting down with a home designer/builder...they place a nice looking kitchen sink faucet assembly on the desk, and say: "Build us a house around this"
Essentially took that same approach over the past 3 years with some Early Virgina and Late Lancaster builds...settled on choosing quality components from Rice/Chambers/Davis and had Matt Avance build beautiful SP++ stocks around them with my dimensions.
So while they're beautiful pieces of wood, I already assumed / expected they would shoot well based on the components I selected...not because the stocks would be far prettier than the houseful of T/C Hawkens I'd previously accumulated
I will say that about 20 years ago I would have assumed by seeing a beautiful long rifle that it would automatically shoot better.
But fast forward 17 years and while I've come to like my recent few long rifles over the past 3 years, truth be known they don't shoot a bit better than any/all of the various T/C Hawken calibers with T/C and GM barrels I used all those previous 17 years.
If everything else is equal, I'd prefer a pretty stock just because of their eye appeal, but bottom line, a pretty stock means nothing to me in terms of performance. Furthermore, once I shoulder it I don't see anything but the sights behind the elbow of a deer, or on the head of a turkey, a squirrel, etc.
Reality is the only times I actually "see" the stocks are the brief times out hunting or during a range session...but month in and month out, year in and year out, the other 98% of their lives are spent out of sight in their gun cases.
